Bill C-5

One Canadian Economy Act

An Act to enact the Free Trade and Labour Mobility in Canada Act and the Building Canada Act

Part 1 enacts the Free Trade and Labour Mobility in Canada Act , which establishes a statutory framework to remove federal barriers to the interprovincial trade of goods and services and to improve labour mobility within Canada. In the case of goods and services, that Act provides that a good or service that meets provincial or territorial requirements is considered to meet comparable federal requirements that pertain to the interprovincial movement of the good or provision of the service. In the case of workers, it provides for the recognition of provincial and territorial authorizations to practise occupations and for the issuance of comparable federal authorizations to holders of such provincial and territorial authorizations. It also provides the Governor in Council with the power to make regulations respecting federal barriers to the interprovincial movement of goods and provision of services and to the movement of labour within Canada.
Part 2 enacts the Building Canada Act , which, among other things,
(a) authorizes the Governor in Council to add the name of a project and a brief description of it to a schedule to that Act if the Governor in Council is of the opinion, having regard to certain factors, that the project is in the national interest;
(b) provides that determinations and findings that have to be made and opinions that have to be formed under certain Acts of Parliament and regulations for an authorization to be granted in respect of a project that is named in Schedule 1 to that Act are deemed to have been made or formed, as the case may be, in favour of permitting the project to be carried out in whole or in part;
(c) requires the minister who is designated under that Act to issue to the proponent of a project, if certain conditions are met, a document that sets out conditions that apply in respect of the project and that is deemed to be the authorizations, required under certain Acts of Parliament and regulations, that are specified in the document; and
(d) requires that minister, each year, to cause an independent review to be conducted of the status of each national interest project.

Government Priorities

[Patrick Bonin, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-5 has given rise to a Conservative-Liberal coalition working for the oil companies.

After years of saying that the Liberals are the devil incarnate, the Conservatives are now eating out of their hands. They are willing to pass Liberal bills. They are even prepared to adopt Liberal gag orders. They are prepared to do anything as long as it is in the interest of the oil companies, but not in the interest of Quebeckers. Quebec did not vote for this. Why did the Liberals lie to Quebeckers during the election and not tell them that they were going to govern with the Conservatives?

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, when the Conservatives want to pass a Liberal bill under a gag order and Danielle Smith supports the federal Liberals in Ottawa, it is clear that the oil companies are the ones who are really behind Bill C‑5.

Quebeckers did not vote Liberal to have Conservative policies that benefit oil companies and Danielle Smith imposed on them under a gag order. If Quebeckers had wanted Pierre Poilievre, they would have voted for him. Do the Liberals realize that they are betraying Quebeckers?

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister thinks that he is Pierre Poilievre.

He wants to impose closure on Bill C‑5 so that he can make all the decisions about energy projects. He wants to be able to unilaterally decide, by executive order, which projects will go ahead in the national interest, and he wants to be able to unilaterally define what the national interest is based on his personal opinion. He wants to impose pipelines on Quebec, and he wants to do it without any debate or studies. Never in his wildest dreams did Pierre Poilievre consider doing such a thing. Will the Prime Minister stop imitating him and withdraw his closure motion?

Natural Resources

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I would remind my colleague that we just finished an election campaign.

On page one of our election platform, it says that we are going to pass a one Canadian economy bill, which will make it easier to get major projects built. This is a fact. Unions, the business community, the Premier of Quebec and all the premiers of Canada support it.

Let us move forward with Bill C‑5. Let us get the Canadian economy rolling.

Indigenous Affairs

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

[Member spoke in Inuktitut and provided the following text:]

1948ᒥᒃ ᐃᓅᑎᓪᓗᒍ, ᐊᑦᑎᖅᑕᐅᓚᐅᖅᐳᖅ ᐸᓂᖓᔭ’ᓈᖅ 12ᓂᒃ ᐅᑭᐅᖃᓕᖅᑎᓪᓗᒍ, ᐊᑦᑎᖅᑕᐅᓚᐅᖅᐳᖅ Joan Scottieᒥᒃ Joan ᑎᑎᕋᓚᐅᖅᐳᖅ ᐅᖃᓕᒫᒐᕐᒥᒃ ᑕᐃᔭᐅᔪᖅ “ᑕᒪᐃᑦᑎᓐᓄ ᐃᓅᓛᖅᐳᖓ − ᑐᑭᓯᒋᐊᕈᑎ ᓲᖑᓴᕐᓂᖅ, ᓄᖑᓱᐃᑦᑐᓂ ᐅᔭᕋᓐᓂᐊᕐᓂᖅ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᐱᑦᑕᐃᓕᓂᖏᑦ”

Joan ᓴᖏᓂᖃᖅᐳᖅ ᓴᐳᔾᔨᓂᕐᒥᒃ ᓄᓇᒥᒃ ᑐᒃᑐᓂᓪᓗ ᐱᔪᒃᓯᓕᖅᑎᑕᐅᕗᖓ ᐸᓂᖓᔭ’ᓈᕐᒧᑦ ᐊᒻᒪᓗ ᐊᑏᑐᖅ ᐃᓄᐃᑦ ᓄᓇᖃᖅᑳᖅᓯᒪᔪᑦ ᐱᑦᑕᐃᓕᑎᑦᑎᓂᐊᖅᐳᑦ ᐊᒃᓱᕈᓇᖅᑐᒃᑰᓂᐊᖅᑎᓪᓗᑕ. ᐱᔪᓐᓇᐅᑎᕗᑦ ᓱᕋᒃᑕᐅᔪᒃᓴᐅᓕᖅᑎᓪᓗᒋ

ᐊᑏ ᐱᔪᒃᓯᓂᐊᖅᐳᒍ ᐸᓂᖓᔭ’ᓈᖅᑎᑐᑦ ᐊᒃᓱᕉᑎᖃᕐᓗᑕ ᓄᓇᖅᐳᑦ ᓴᐳᔾᔨᓗᑎᒍ

[Inuktitut text interpreted as follows:]

Mr. Speaker, when she was born in 1948, her parents named her Paningaya’naaq. By the time she was 12 years old, she was given the name Joan Scottie. Joan has written a book about her life, entitled I Will Live for Both of Us: A History of Colonialism, Uranium Mining, and Inuit Resistance.

Joan has the strength to protect the land and the caribou. I am inspired by Paningaya'naaq and hope Inuit and indigenous peoples will show their resistance in what will be challenging days. Our rights are on the verge of being infringed by Bill C-5.

Let us be moved by Paningaya'naaq and do what we can to protect our lands.

[English]

Consideration of Government Business No. 1

[Nathaniel Erskine-Smith, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Mission—Matsqui—Abbotsford.

I just want to give my thanks to my neighbours in Beaches—East York. Trust is everything in our democracy. It means a lot to be given their trust, and I am going to work hard to earn it.

Against the economic threat posed by President Trump, Canadian politicians have rightly renewed calls to build up our country. I am one of them. It is a nation-building moment. A strong and resilient domestic economy is a priority. Of course, it should be. To that end, we should remove unreasonable barriers to economic growth. If a rule does not contribute to the public interest, or if its negative cost is disproportionate to any positive contribution, we should do away with it, but that does not mean we should pursue economic growth no matter the cost.

Depending on the project, there may be competing public interest considerations, including biodiversity and habitat protection, indigenous rights, climate change, long-term cost-effectiveness, democratic participation and more. However, under the guise of responding to the threat posed by Trump, we are sacrificing other important values. We are not thinking about unintended consequences, and we are actively undermining our parliamentary democracy. Consider the case of two bills, Doug Ford's Bill 5 and the federal government's Bill C-5.

Ontario's Bill 5 became law last week. It not only gutted habitat protection, just to start, but also enacted the Special Economic Zones Act to give the government, unnecessarily and disproportionately, unchecked power. Effectively, the government can now designate special economic zones and then exempt or alter any provincial or municipal law that would apply to a company or project within those zones. Ecojustice rightly called it a threat to democracy. Worse, the Ford government shut down democratic debate, curtailed committee scrutiny, and jammed the bill through the legislature. Now, that may be par for the course for Doug Ford. That is fair.

However, Ecojustice has also called the federal government's bill, Bill C-5, a threat to democracy, and no Liberal government should welcome that accusation. Worse, with Bill C-5, in a Bill 5 déjà vu, the federal government is proposing to shut down democratic debate, curtail committee scrutiny and jam the bill through the legislature. It would all actually make Harper blush. Liberals would rightly scream if a federal Conservative government attempted the same.

While they share similar goals, and yes, they suffer some similar defects, the federal Bill C-5 is not exactly the same as Ford's. Part 1 of our legislation, the free trade and labour mobility act, usefully aims to harmonize federal and provincial rules where reasonably possible. The idea is simple, to avoid duplicative regulation of goods, services and labour where federal and provincial rules are comparable. Yes, of course, the devil is in the details of assessing what comparable means, but it is a welcome move.

The problems with Bill C-5 lie in part 2, the building Canada act. Its purpose is clear, to get national interest projects built more quickly. This is so far, so good. The proposed law would streamline authorizations at the same time that it emphasizes the importance of climate action and indigenous rights. This is a huge and positive distinction from Ford's Bill 5. At no point does Ford's bill even mention climate change or the need to consult with affected indigenous rights holders. However, despite its promise, the proposed building Canada act has two major faults. First, it would give the government unfettered discretion in designating national interest projects, and second, similar to Ford's Bill 5, it would give the government unchecked power to exclude or alter any law that would otherwise apply to such a project.

The Minister of Natural Resources set the stage for Bill C-5 in a May 23 speech calling for a renewed spirit of building by reframing the national conversation. There has been no more asking about why we should build. The real question is, how do we get it done? In my view, it would be wise of the government to take its own advice when it comes to Bill C-5. Rather than defending the “why”, or the idea of the bill, we should refocus our attention on the “how”, or how we pass it. In other words, we should improve the bill and respect democratic participation as we do so.

First, we should welcome greater parliamentary and civil society scrutiny. The government's proposed guillotine motion seeks to limit parliamentary debate at every stage of the bill. More concerning, it will jam all expert and public testimony, and all committee scrutiny, into less than two days. What is this for? Members can consider that Parliament is not currently scheduled to sit between June 20 and September 15. We are rushing legislation through Parliament under the auspices of an urgent threat, but we are not willing to put Parliament to work for what, an additional week, to get things right?

The debate on amendments does not need to be rushed. We could easily extend committee hearings by an additional week, provide resources for the committee to sit every day and engage in a more thoughtful process to hear from experts, improve the bill and pass it through the House by Canada Day.

Beyond improving the process, we should also fix the substance of Bill C-5.

First, clause 5 currently would give the government unfettered discretion to designate national interest projects. There is a list of specified factors at subclause 5(6) that the government may consider, including the interests of indigenous people, as well as clean growth and meeting Canada's subjects with respect to climate change. That is all good. However, with the bill as currently drafted, the government would not need to consider any or all of these factors. We can and should change that. We could either mandate that the government consider these public interest factors, or we could require that national interest projects not be inconsistent with them. Simply, Parliament should be more prescriptive than including factors as mere examples.

Second, clause 22 would empower the government to exclude the operation of any law from a project it has deemed to be in the national interest. Combined with the unfettered power to designate such projects, it would effectively do away with Parliament. There is an easy fix: Remove this unnecessary and disproportionate power from the law. The government can always amend regulations as it sees fit, but it should return to this place, the House of Commons, if a law duly passed by this place is to be excluded or altered in any given situation. If there is a rationale for excluding the operation of a particular law, of course we can move quickly as needed.

There are no doubt other possibilities to improve the law. It may well make more sense to limit the unique process to the next three years instead of the next five. We could require that ministerial advice with respect to conditional authorizations be made public. Expert testimony would likely offer other good ideas if we care to listen.

For my part, I will support Bill C-5 here at second reading to send it to committee, because it is time to build, and good projects should be built more quickly. I will vote against the government motion that would hinder the work of the parliamentary committee tasked with public hearings and improving the legislation. I will vote for the bill at further stages only if it is amended substantively.

We do not make laws in this place for one government or for one prime minister; the laws we pass are binding on all future governments of all political stripes. Even a time-limited law like the one that is before us would establish a precedent. If passed as it is, Bill C-5 would be a dangerous precedent that would enable Conservatives to gut environmental protections when they are in power next. President Trump is a threat to our economy; of that, there is no doubt. My constituents overwhelmingly voted for a government and leader ready to act, to respond to Trump forcefully and to build up our country thoughtfully, but not at the expense of our democracy, environmental protections and indigenous rights.

[Jonathan Rowe, Conservative, Terra Nova—The Peninsulas, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I have not heard directly on Bill C-5, but throughout the campaign, when I talked to aboriginal people in our province, everyone had the same concern. They want to be consulted before things go through. They do not want the federal government to have a veto card to push anything through.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, I congratulate the member on his election.

I wonder if the member has heard from the Nunatsiavut Government in his province and whether it has shared its concerns with Bill C-5 and how the bill would infringe on its rights.

[Jonathan Rowe, Conservative, Terra Nova—The Peninsulas, NL]

Mr. Speaker, Newfoundland and Labrador relies heavily on the tourism industry. In fact, it is one of the biggest employers in rural Newfoundland, since the collapse of the fishery. Even this industry has a massive trade barrier: the Marine Atlantic ferry. This ferry acts as a bottleneck, holding back growth despite demand. Bill C-5 talks about nation-building projects, yet our current infrastructure and transportation system needs immediate attention.

During tourism season, these vessels are fully booked, with no room for tourist vehicles and RVs. Although most hotels, resorts and restaurants have more capacity, tourists are not able to get across the gulf into Newfoundland. Our tourism industry has grown tremendously in the last decade, yet Marine Atlantic services have hardly grown. Hotel rooms and historical tours go unused because there is no ferry space available to bring travellers in.

During this last campaign, when the Liberals knew they were going to lose more seats, like mine, they made a last-minute election promise to reduce the ferry rates. Now, we can all agree that passenger rates should be free, but the Liberals promised to reduce rates before Canada Day. We are only two weeks away, and the prices still have not changed. People are booking ferry rides now for July and August, but what will happen? Will they get reimbursed? People do not know what is going to happen. This uncertainty undermines planning for families and is creating uncertainty in our tourism industry.

If the Liberals want to reduce trade barriers, they need to take a good look at how the island of Newfoundland does trade. Fifty percent of our province's cargo shipments are through private cargo companies, yet only Marine Atlantic cargo is subsidized. How can private industry compete when shipping costs are so high?

If the government wants to continue its freeze on transport trucks, will this create even more demand on Marine Atlantic services, eliminating even more possible ventures for passenger opportunity and tourism opportunity? Why does the Liberal government not make up its mind and either subsidize all cargo shipping into the province or none of it? Perhaps that would shift the cargo market, resulting in fewer transport trucks on our ferries, allowing for more passengers and more tourists to boost our economy, which would reduce the interprovincial trade barriers on our tourism industry.

Speaking of ferries, I see in the national news that the Province of British Columbia has awarded its ferry construction contracts to Chinese companies, for the ferries to be built in China, a country we are currently having a trade war with. This decision undermines Canada's industrial backbone. The Prime Minister says he is elbows up for Canada, and he brags about allegedly successful meetings with premiers across the country, yet he cannot seem to convince B.C. to build these ferries here in Canada.

Talk without action means loss of jobs for our country, which may soon have a stockpile of unused steel and skyrocketing unemployment. I am curious to know how many other boatbuilding jobs will be going overseas. B.C. alone says it expects to create 18 new ferries in the next 15 years. Where will these boats be built? Will these powerful paycheques retreat overseas?

I understand that the Liberal government has all its consultants as busy as a Bay Street banker rewriting the rules of capitalism before breakfast, but perhaps the Transport Canada minister and her team could investigate this fiasco to determine what needs to be done for these boats to be built here in Canada. In my district alone, there are two shipyards and two fabrication sites sitting idle. Perhaps the Liberal government could work with private industry to make real investment here in Atlantic Canada to conduct minor upgrades to build these ferries, future ferries and other Canadian ships. These idle sites represent a ready-for-business infrastructure and workforce.

Being an island and a landmass in the most eastern part of the country holds other connection difficulties as well. Newfoundland and Labrador is one of the largest providers of hydroelectricity in the country, with potential to have massive expansion, yet we struggle to get our power to market. Will the government use Bill C-5 to remove the interprovincial trade barriers on our green energy by ensuring that its proposed energy corridor would be connected to our province? That way, we could sell our electricity at fair market value without the extortion of other provinces. Removing these barriers would both boost our Newfoundland economy and meet national energy needs.

Considering the government just hired Hydro-Québec's Michael Sabia, I and every other Newfoundlander and Labradorian have major doubts that this energy corridor would allow our Labrador electricity to market without other provinces taking the icing off the top.

We want someone from the government on that side of the House to take a stand and assure us that this energy corridor will remove all provincial barriers and gatekeepers, so Newfoundland and Labrador can get our energy to market without having to give away our lunch money. We want a commitment to clarity, timelines and fair play conditions so that all provincial governments and private energy investors can prepare for this enormous opportunity.

Let us get down to the core of Bill C-5. The biggest component of the bill would allow the Liberal government to select a few projects it deems as nation-building projects. What is interesting about this is that even the Liberals now understand that their anti-building laws, anti-mining laws and anti-energy laws are too much for private industry to navigate on their own. They created so much red tape that they now need this new bill to roll out the red carpet for their VIP-selected projects.

Perhaps my colleagues will be filled with the highest level of integrity and would never plan to violate any ethical policies or choose companies that would benefit them, but I can assure the members, absolute power corrupts absolutely. By giving themselves the power to make or break any project in Canada with a slight stroke of a pen, it is only a matter of time before we see more shameful stories such as GC Strategies, which was given nearly 100 million taxpayer dollars in contracts to do nothing, or the green slush fund, where over six years Sustainable Development Technology Canada approved approximately 900 million taxpayer dollars in funding that was inappropriately directed to projects that violated guidelines, often given to companies that Liberal MPs or their friends owned. We must learn from the past. Those warnings cannot be ignored.

Furthermore, if the Liberals realize that a handful of supposed nation-building projects would help our economy, why can they not understand that hundreds of these projects across our nation would put this country back on track, where it needs to be, and take care of our seniors, pave our roads and fix our health care? We would not even need Bill C-5 if the government were to repeal Bill C-69, which blocks pipelines projects through this country, and Bill C-48, which cripples our offshore industry. We would not need Bill C-5 if the Liberals had never implemented the production and emission caps that are choking our economy or if we had never had the last Liberal decade because we would have had one of the strongest economies in the world. We have everything in this country to succeed, except for good leadership.

I grew up in a Canada where an average kid from Clarenville could have endless possibilities. He could run for student council and one day be the MP, or he could start pumping gas and dream of one day owning that gas station and be an oil tycoon, just like “Old Man” Irving. Bill C-5 would kill this dream and many more just like it.

Bill C-5 tells young Canadians that, if they want to build something, they have to be pals with the people at the top. It is a perfect fantasy for Canadian oligarchs. That is not the Canadian dream. It is a nightmare of privilege. It replaces merit with connection, potential with politics and small-town hope with big-city gatekeeping. We need a Canada where every company and every person has equal opportunity, and we need a smaller government to make way for bigger citizens.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Okanagan Lake West—South Kelowna, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague, who sits on the transport committee with me, for his speech today. The government likes to talk about one national economy, yet we see in the second half of Bill C-5, and the Prime Minister has said publicly, that provincial premiers are going to have a veto. That means 13 different economies by its very nature.

Could the member expound upon whether he finds there is a contradiction here in what the government says and what it legislates?

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I see that my Conservative colleagues are not very satisfied with Bill C‑5. It is an understatement to say that we are not either, because we are more than dissatisfied. We are deeply concerned about what is in this bill.

Given that the Conservatives themselves are dissatisfied, why are they in favour of fast-tracking a bill that will make major changes to the way projects are approved?

More importantly, will we have the time to do things properly, since closure will not allow us to carry out a serious study?

[Dan Muys, Conservative, Flamborough—Glanbrook—Brant North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, let me say off the top that I will be splitting my time with a great new member, the hon. member for Terra Nova—The Peninsulas.

Since this is my first time speaking for a substantive length of time since the election, please allow me to thank the hard-working, industrious people of Flamborough—Glanbrook—Brant North for the honour of being their voice and their servant and for carrying their hopes and dreams to this place. While I have lived and worked in other places in North America in my career, I have always felt and known that the communities of Flamborough—Glanbrook—Brant North are my true home, and home is where the heart is. It is the honour of my lifetime to serve these great communities. I want to thank my campaign team, including Simon, Mona, Jordan, Wendy, Jim and hundreds of volunteers. Above all, I thank my wife, Tracy, without whose love and support I certainly would not be here today. I will now go to the matter at hand.

Canadians are struggling, not because we lack talent and not because we lack resources, but because we are too often being held back by red tape, gatekeeping and a government that over-promises and under-delivers. Nowhere is that clearer than when it comes to getting big projects built or trying to move goods and services and workers across provincial lines in our own country. These barriers do not cost us only time and money; they also cost us opportunities, investments and jobs.

That is why Bill C-5, an act to enact the free trade and labour mobility in Canada act and the building Canada act, is such a missed opportunity. It claims to deliver free trade and fast-tracked projects, but the reality is it would deliver bureaucratic theatre; it is a showpiece of announcements without the substance to back them up.

Let us start with part 1 of the bill, the free trade and labour mobility in Canada act. The premise is good. Canadians should be able to work and trade freely across the country without unnecessary federal barriers. However, the scope of this section is minuscule. It would affect a tiny subset of goods and services. In fact, during government briefings on the bill, one of the few examples offered was clean energy labels on washing machines, which is certainly underwhelming.

There is no comprehensive list of affected items. There is no plan to deal with the biggest trade barriers, no mechanism to assess progress and no timeline. There is no effort to create a blue seal licensing standard that would allow skilled immigrants and professionals, such as doctors, nurses and engineers, to work in the province next door, despite meeting rigorous national standards. Therefore, this was a missed chance to unlock the talent that is already here in this country.

There is also a missed opportunity to incentivize the provinces to remove their own barriers. The most effective governments are those that find ways to align incentives, not those that just issue guidance and hope for the best. That is why Conservatives have proposed a real solution to offer financial bonuses to provinces for every interprovincial trade barrier they eliminate. It would be a win-win-win. It would boost GDP and increase federal revenues. In fact, economists estimate that removing interprovincial trade barriers could add as much as $200 billion to Canada's economy; yet, instead of seizing that opportunity, Bill C-5 takes a baby step. It scratches the surface when Canadians are looking for bold, transformative reform.

Part 2 of the bill is the building Canada act. The most revealing part of this section is not what it proposes but what it omits. It is an admission by the government that its own laws are the problem and that Liberal legislation, such as Bill C-69, the shipping ban and the energy cap, are laws that have tied our economies in a knot. The Liberals know it, investors know it and workers know it. The bill is the Liberals' workaround, a way to admit failure without fixing the root of the problem. The bill tries to create selective escape hatches for a few lucky projects, but it would keep all the red tape in place. It is a patchwork solution for a broken process.

There is no clarity on which projects would qualify, no defined criteria for what would constitute the national interest and no certainty for investors or communities. It is just another layer of bureaucracy and a lot of discretion left in the hands of ministers. Even with the promise of a two-year timeline, provincial vetoes would remain, and the sunset clause would limit the use of these powers to just five years. How is anyone supposed to plan long term?

Here is the most frustrating part. The Liberals are essentially picking and choosing which projects get exemptions, without fixing the laws that block everything else. If they can fast-track one project, why not all deserving projects? Why not fix the system for everyone, not just the politically connected few? Canadians do not want political favours. They want fairness, they want clarity, and they want to build. That is why Conservatives support real reform, one-and-done approvals, a national energy corridor and shovel-ready zones with clear timelines and firm standards. We believe all worthy projects should be able to proceed, not just the ones that win favour from this week's minister. We have the people and the expertise in Canada. We have the resources. What we need is a government that believes in Canada's potential again.

Let us talk about the broader context. Canada has posted the worst growth in the G7 over the last decade, yet we have all the national resources in the world. We have everything the world wants. At the same time, we are selling our energy to the United States at a discount. Our farmers, miners and builders are being boxed in by the federal government. Global demand for energy, food and raw materials is surging. Other countries are stepping up, but Canada is standing still. The Canadian Chamber of Commerce said it well: “internal trade barriers still act like a [self-imposed] 21% tariff.” What did we get from this bill? We got a couple of washing machines.

Meanwhile, U.S. tariffs have turned a simmering problem into a full-blown crisis. Canadian workers and exporters are caught in the middle, and the government has no answer. Dan Kelly of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business summed it up when he said the spirit of this bill may be positive, but in practice, it will not move the needle.

We could be leading the world. Again, we have everything the world wants. Eighteen LNG projects, as has been mentioned, sat on Trudeau's desk awaiting approval. Germany, Japan and other countries came looking for our LNG. We could have been helping get the world off coal and replacing European dependence on Russian natural gas, yet the Liberals turned the German chancellor away and said there was no business case. Will this be more of the same?

This is not just about economics; it is about sovereignty, national unity and building a future where Canada leads in so many sectors as we are capable of doing. It is about restoring the Canadian promise to generations that feel abandoned by their government. Conservatives will not stand in the way of the minor progress of this bill, but we will not pretend the bill would deliver what it claims. We will work in committee this week to strengthen it, seek real amendments and keep pushing for solutions that go beyond optics and tackle the root cause of stagnation. Canadians do not want more red tape and more process. They want paycheques, they want purpose, they want projects to get built, and they want to be proud of this country and what it can do, once again.

[Corey Tochor, Conservative, Saskatoon—University, SK]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague is right that Bill C-5 is not a fix; it is how to get Liberal insiders on a select list of projects that will get done. This is ethically challenging, and it opens up a litany of opportunities in which insiders are going to get rich, once again, because of the Liberal government. It will pick winners and losers, versus letting the market decide.

To the example that you raised on Bill C-69 and on ways to save it, we do need regulations and we need protections, but what we do not need is what we currently have, with which nothing is getting done. We are in a crisis in Canada, and the Liberals do not have the answers, because they are the ones who actually messed up this country so badly.

[Corey Tochor, Conservative, Saskatoon—University, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure whether members caught all that, but Ottawa has messed things up in our provinces and has dictated to the provinces in their jurisdictions. The courts have ruled how unconstitutionally Ottawa has been treating our provinces, and that includes Quebec and Saskatchewan. Now with Bill C-5, if someone is a Liberal insider, they are going to be successful in this country. It is the Liberals' track record, for the last 10 years, that if someone was a Liberal insider, they made cake. For everyone else, it is too bad, and that—

[Corey Tochor, Conservative, Saskatoon—University, SK]

Mr. Speaker, this is a case study on how not to build a nation, how to destroy a country from within. To understand how bad this bill and the government are, we need to understand how we got here if we are ever going to get through this as a country.

Since day one, the Liberal Party of Canada has been trying to reshape Canada into this weird reality. Many Canadians do not recognize this country, a postnational state that does not have an identity. Over the past decade, Canada has had the worst record on economic growth in the G7. For every category, Canada is dead last because of Liberal policies that have weakened our country and made our citizens poorer.

There are countless stats to confirm how far we have fallen. Just look at the over two million people in our country relying on food banks every day just to sustain themselves. This has been caused by Liberal inflation because of terrible policies like printing money, but maybe more importantly, it has also been caused by the laws the Liberals have enacted to ban growth within Canada, such as Bill C-69, the “no more pipelines” bill, and the tanker ban. This has real-world implications; there is real Canadian suffering. I am also thinking of youth, who are facing record unemployment right now. Whole generations have given up on the dream of ever owning a home. The Liberals want a nation of renters. We are a country in decline because of the terrible policies of the government. It is almost as if in every way possible, the Liberals have made us more dependent on the state.

We do not talk enough about natural resources in Canada. We should be a stronger nation because of our foundation built on natural resources, but that will never happen while the Liberals are in power. The “keep it in the ground” gang has kidnapped our once proud country. We used to build in Canada. We used to celebrate new production in Canada, not cap it. Our citizens are hard working. We are a country, or used to be a country, of doers. After a decade of decline, the terrible Liberal antidevelopment laws have killed communities across our country.

As a country, we have spoken endlessly about the north and the importance of protecting and growing our presence in the territories, but because of new Liberal regulations, the north is hurting. This bill would not address that. I have travelled to the north. I have heard first-hand how Bill C-69 has stalled and ultimately killed every new mining project in the territories.

I have been told that in the territories there are two main types of jobs: people can work for the government on the taxpayers' dime or they can work in the mining sector. The government has stalled and changed regulations so that no mines are currently being built in the territories. Soon, there will only be government jobs, and all those mining jobs will be evaporated. Everyone is just going to get on the payroll of the government. That is the strong country the Liberals are building, a country that happily fires its own citizens and ships production and jobs to foreign countries. The Liberals have made our economy more beholden to foreign interests and have made a weaker Canada.

Because of Liberal anti-pipeline policies, we do not have ways to move our product to market. This results in America buying our oil at a discount. The citizens of this country own the resources in the ground, all the resources. No one special group has more say over them. We are the owners, not the corporations and not the government; the citizens are, for our benefit.

However, this once great country, which owns these resources, has a government that wants to keep them in the ground as long as it can. The manager of the resources, the government, has done a lousy job in managing our assets and our inheritance for the next generation. These brilliant Liberals have layered on so much regulation that pipeline companies such as Brookfield invest in pipelines around the world but not here in Canada. It is elbows up against our own people and resources.

We have closed all growth opportunities to export the product that we all own, making it easier for Americans to literally have us over a barrel. We have forced ourselves to sell to the Americans for a discount on every barrel of oil. It is upwards of $15 on every barrel that we just give away because of the crazy policies the Liberals have enacted for our country.

If we add that up with the millions and billions of barrels of oil, there is the money to reinvest in schools, hospitals, highways and true infrastructure. We would have the revenue because our economy is growing. We would have the ability to get our product to market, but not under the Liberals.

The Liberals have a record of selling out our country for what they claim is the environment. We might just stop that for a minute. The whole idea is that we have to keep it all in the ground and stop everything to save the planet, but just on the oil and gas equation, if the whole world would use oil from Canada, our emissions as a planet would go down by 25%. I am not sure whether they are hurting our country more or the environment more with their crazy Liberal policies.

It gets even worse when we talk about LNG. There is not a country in the world that would not want what we have, but we have squandered this opportunity. This is the worst missed opportunity in a generation. I am so embarrassed for our country about what has happened.

When the Liberal government formed government 10 years ago, there were 15 LNG plants lined up for Canada. There was not a single taxpayer dime in these projects; it was all private investment that would have driven our economy for a decade. These projects were billion-dollar projects located in coastal communities desperate for well-paying jobs that would allow families to buy a home, raise some kids and retire in a safe community. Those paycheques would have come from liquefied natural gas plants.

Unfortunately, the Liberals changed the policies, and only one is progressing. We still do not have it up and operational. If we remember the resource that is in the ground, the natural gas, it is owned by all of us. With what we are doing right now, if we are going to sell an ounce of natural gas outside Canada, it goes to our only customer, the United States of America.

America is our sole customer for natural gas. It takes our gas, transports it in the capacity that we do have in pipelines to the States, and it goes to liquefied natural gas plants, some of which are for the same companies that were proposing those plants in Canada. After the Liberals said no, they went to the States.

We send our gas to the States, and the Americans get the profit from liquefying it and selling it around the world. The profit and the jobs go to the Americans because of Liberal policies. This is the country the Liberals have built. All those jobs and opportunities have been lost to America because of Liberal regulation.

After a decade of crazy Liberal policies that have weakened the country, these crackerjacks are proposing to fast-track a limited number of nation-building projects. It is like Willy Wonka & the Chocolate Factory.

I hope families are not waiting. If someone is in one of the many families that have their careers tied up in a project that is waiting for approval from the government, this is the Willy Wonka magic golden ticket they are claiming. If they are waiting for that, I hope their project will go ahead. This is the kind of sweepstakes the Liberal government thinks is the best way to build a nation.

We have a country desperate for growth and all the good things that flow from economic activity. The Liberals only want a handful of those opportunities. This is limiting Canada's growth. The Liberals have weakened our country at the worst possible time. The government has had 10 years to improve interprovincial trade, but it has not.

The Liberals have benefited from a divided federation, so no one believes it when the Prime Minister says that the barriers will be coming down by Canada Day. Frustrations with Liberals have never been higher in Saskatchewan, and for good reason. Many families I know work in the uranium sector and do not trust Bill C-5 or what the government is up to.

Nuclear energy and uranium mining has been stalled in our country because of layering of multiple regulations. If we want to build a nation, I have a project for us. It is ready to go. It is the NexGen Rook 1 project. There are 1,300 high-paying jobs in northern Saskatchewan ready to go. It would result in over $10 billion in government revenue.

This is the project. This is one of thousands of projects across Canada that could actually build a nation. I plead with the Liberals to please put Canada first for a change and get this project done. This is just one of the uranium mining projects that are on the go in Canada and northern Saskatchewan.