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.

Resumption of Debate on Government Business No. 1

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot—Acton, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by thanking the Liberals and the Conservatives, who have so eloquently demonstrated, through Bill C-5, why Quebec needs to become its own country, even though even though we already had plenty of arguments to support that.

We are witnessing another blatant multi-party attempt at nation-building and using crises to further centralize power, which is second nature to Ottawa, as we have always seen throughout the course of history. In the past, it was railways that were used as a sign of national unity, and today it is pipelines.

Do the Conservatives plan to sue the Liberals for plagiarism?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I always find it interesting that the member opposite, probably more so than any Conservative member, and maybe she could even be the new leader of the Conservative Party at some point, tries to portray a false impression that in the Harper horror years, the Conservatives were able to develop an inch of pipeline to tidewater. They did not. Not even an inch of pipeline went to tidewater.

When we take a look at Bill C-5 and the April 28 election, it is important for us to realize that a very clear mandate was given to all political entities in this House to build one Canadian economy. Does the member not agree that the essence of—

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it probably would surprise people that the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands and I have had a good working relationship from time to time, even though we, too, disagree on many different issues or the approach to them, based on our different perspectives and also on the differences between the people we represent. That is the wonderful democracy and diversity of Canada, is it not?

I absolutely, 100% agree with the member on this issue, just as we agreed about Bill C-69. It is specifically why I am saying that the Liberals must amend Bill C-5 to include transparency on the project list and to ensure that all the things they say the bill will do are actually in the law. As the member has pointed out, all that matters is what is actually in the law. Hopefully, we all can work together as opposition parties to get these guys to fix their workaround.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciated my hon. colleague's respect in appreciating working with our friend from the Bloc Québécois. The Greens love working with the hon. member for Lakeland too. People will be surprised, perhaps, though not the member for Lakeland, to find that I voted against Bill C-69 because I think it is really terrible legislation.

One of the things that I think the member for Lakeland and I both believe, and we may find we agree, is that legislation around environmental review should be based on factual criteria that are established in law, not press releases, and that we should keep political discretion to an absolute minimum.

That said, I am wondering, since the member has read the legislation, Bill C-5, how on earth she can vote for it on this abbreviated bulldozer time frame.

[Corey Hogan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciated the hon. member's comments. I particularly appreciated the list of suggested improvements. It certainly deserved more than 30 seconds in a 22-hour speech.

The member made the comment that facts do not always fit the narrative and that that was very concerning for her, so I just want to put a few facts on the table that she omitted in her speech.

From 2015 to 2023, global oil and gas production grew 5%. Over the same time, Canadian production grew 29%. That does not really sound like Canada falling behind the world; it sounds like Canada being a leader in the world.

From 2006 to 2015, the time of the last government, not a single pipeline was built. That is another fact that I think needs to be on the record.

Let us not talk about the past, because Bill C-5 is about building the future. It is about building the strongest economy in the G7. Even in a world that uses less oil, demand for Canadian oil will continue to grow, because we and our partners work in an environmentally and socially responsible way. My home province of Alberta understands this. That is why we were the first to introduce an industrial carbon tax in 2008—

Government Business No. 1—Proceedings on Bill C-5

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Yeah, I am still going. Mr. Speaker, of course we Conservatives hope the government can show Canadians that big, audacious, nation-building projects can get approved and built in competitive timelines by the private sector, not by taxpayers. We take seriously our constitutionally bound duty and role to oppose, but we also take seriously our job to propose solutions in the best interests of all Canadians, so I will now. The Liberals will need to fix Bill C-5 and make it transparent, clear and certain.

Here is what Liberal amendments must address and clarify: the definition of national interest; transparency of the project list; fulfillment of the duty to consult, not an advisory board; concrete two-year timelines and a timeline on the final decision by cabinet after a recommendation; application of the Conflict of Interest Act and screens for politically connected insider proponents; and clarity about the mandate for regulatory reviews to monitor and ensure actual deliverables are achieved on time and on budget, hopefully not on taxpayers' backs.

The real, fundamental, permanent solution for confidence and certainty in Canada is to repeal, or amend significantly, all of the acts and policies that the Liberals admit, through Bill C-5, are barriers to build, and not on a short-term, ad hoc, case-by-case basis, almost all of the details of which would be determined after the bill is law, through policy and regulations. That means politicians and bureaucrats would do all of this secretly and differently with each project. I guess that approach fits, since neither the Prime Minister nor the minister seem to be fond of answering questions from Canadians, or maybe just from women. They both constantly repeat that they will not negotiate in public about their interactions with the U.S., which, by the way, Canadians deserve to know about. Their MO already seems to be just like the old guys. It is backroom deals, and that is what Bill C-5 is.

The government should cut Canada's industrial carbon tax that punishes hard work, which none of our main competitors have. It smothers Canadian steel, aluminum, natural gas, food production and cement. It chokes competitiveness and forces companies to lay off workers, move operations abroad and leave towns behind. That is not “think globally, act locally” environmental stewardship; it's economic self-sabotage. A Canadian government should put Canadian workers, Canadian industries and Canadian producers first.

The government should set a clear six-month target, with a one-year maximum, to approve major projects, just as Conservatives proposed. Investors cannot wait 10 years for answers or keep giving the same information repeatedly to regulators to be denied or sent back to the beginning at any time. Delay means defeat. Projects need certainty. Workers need timelines. Resources need action. The government must stop talking and start approving. Canada needs a Canada-first, multi-use, national energy corridor and shovel-ready economic zones to unlock our potential, east to west, north to south, pipelines, power lines, highways and rail built to connect, not divide, built to move resources from the source to the world, built for Canadian prosperity, sovereignty and unity.

Conservatives believe in common-sense solutions. Without a doubt, Canadians deserve better. They deserve strong paycheques, real jobs, energy independence, self-sufficiency, security and national unity. Only Conservatives have fought to achieve Canadians' ambitions and to restore Canada's promise through responsible resource development, every single day, in every single way. Only Conservatives will stand with the workers who power this country, the families who depend on them and the businesses that need them. Conservatives will fight for a real plan that unleashes Canadian potential, restores Canada's promise, strengthens our economy and builds a proud, united, powerful and self-reliant Canada.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, as I said before question period, Bill C-5 is the opposite of inherent clarity and certainty. The Prime Minister and the minister both claim the projects that provincial and territorial premiers submit to federal politicians, who will then themselves determine whether they are in the national interest, will be approved within two years, except that there is not a single concrete timeline in this bill.

This is familiar because it is the same claim the Liberals made about Bill C-69, but they included much political interference and many tools for the commissioner or politicians to start, stop, extend and restart the reviews ad infinitum. There were no concrete timelines in Bill C-69 either, but in Bill C-5, the words “two years” literally do not exist.

Since the Liberals claim the bill is a reaction to U.S. energy dominance and economic threats so that they can start, just now, trying to make Canada stronger, they should also look at the U.S. timelines to make sure Canada can compete and beat the U.S. to approvals and to market. I am sorry to say that two years was definitely competitive with the IRA three years ago, when Conservatives first called for the Liberals to match it, and it still is overall, but the U.S. now has emergency permitting procedures that approve nuclear, oil and gas, mining and uranium projects on federal lands of between 16 and 28 days. Its overall regulatory process is also set to be expedited. If the Prime Minister says this is a crisis, he should match his action to this crisis.

Bill C-5 does not impose two-year timelines by law in Canada, but if policy decisions afterward do execute the two-year timetable Liberals promise, that may end up keeping Canada lagging behind anyway. I think it is safe to say that Liberals always and often do too little, too late. The process is entirely secretive; that means there is no clarity, timeline, certainty or trust in Bill C-5.

Indigenous leaders from all different perspectives are already raising concerns. I have to say that it was quite astounding to watch a colleague, one I admire very much, the former Enoch chief, Treaty 6 grand chief and current Conservative MP for Edmonton Northwest, question the minister about whether he understands and has consulted with indigenous rights holders. By the way, I come from Treaty 6 territory. The minister named important advocacy groups for indigenous people but quite obviously either did not know or could not affirm that he has consulted with actual rights holders and titleholders. Even though one of the factors is to advance the interests of indigenous peoples, he has not talked to them yet. He is a decision-maker, by his own law, and courts have been clear about the duty for decision-makers to be at the table with indigenous leaders and to make a dynamic effort to address and mitigate adverse impacts. I am not sure that the set-up of an indigenous advisory council will stand up to challenge. All Canadians should be concerned about this.

Meanwhile, Canadians wait, projects stay stalled in the queue, billions in investments sit idle and families lose out on good jobs because of Liberal delays, red tape and uncertainty. Bill C-5 does not fix the real problems; rather, it gives a way for a select, politically hand-picked list to circumvent all the laws and policies the Liberals previously, and elsewhere, argued are just critical and are the most crucial for the environment, economies, communities and indigenous people. These are laws that the Liberals howl about any time Conservatives dare to criticize, question or try to improve them. The list includes the Fisheries Act; the Indian Act; the International River Improvements Act; the National Capital Act; the Canadian Navigable Waters Act; the Migratory Birds Convention Act, 1994; section 98 of the Canada Transportation Act; the Canada Marine Act; division 3 of part 7 of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999; the Species at Risk Act; the Canadian Energy Regulator Act; the migratory bird sanctuary regulations; the Dominion water power regulations; wildlife area regulations; the metal and diamond mining effluent regulations; and the Liberals' own migratory bird regulations, 2022.

Let us be honest. If the Liberals now want to ignore these laws for their preferred projects, that confirms two things. First, these policies have stopped development for years. Second, even if the Liberals claim they will approve projects in two years, that claim matters only if the projects survive legal challenges after approval, so the proponents can build them on their own timeline and on their own dime.

What happens afterwards is also crucial. What happens when activists challenge the approvals and exemptions in court? From the list I just read, I dare say that there will be more than a few Canadian advocacy groups of all different kinds concerned about this plan. What happens when those approvals and exemptions are challenged? What happens when litigation and the weaponization of bylaws and laws from other provinces and other municipalities halt progress again? What will the Liberals do then? Will they attack their own laws or retreat and refuse to enforce federal jurisdiction, as they have done before, deliberately, to kill pipelines and other projects?

Bill C-5 raises more questions than answers, and Canadians deserve the truth. This bill sets up a process that will help a few and leave most behind.

On Wednesday, the natural resources minister said, “I think what we said is that we do not pick the projects.” However, he also said, “projects bubble up from consultations between the federal government, provincial government, indigenous peoples”. When I asked the same question again, about the ministers and cabinet as decision-makers, the minister said, “the politicians do not pick the projects.” However, it is clear from public communications after meetings with premiers that they are, and Bill C-5 clearly says:

If the Governor in Council is of the opinion that a project is in the national interest, the Governor in Council—

It is otherwise known as cabinet.

—may, on the recommendation of the Minister, by order, amend Schedule 1 to add the name of the project and a brief description of it, including the location where it is to be carried out.

Well, that language confirms that the minister plays a direct role and is the decision-maker. The minister can also remove projects from the list:

If the Governor in Council is of the opinion that a project named in Schedule 1 is no longer in the national interest, the Governor in Council may, on the recommendation of the Minister, by order, amend that Schedule to delete the name and the description of the project.

That is some certainty. Despite the minister's claims, Bill C-5 shows that political discretion, his discretion, decides which projects stay or go, which project people win and which lose. Already one wonders whether the responsible minister, after my engagement with him on Wednesday night, actually even knows what is being proposed in his own bill.

Again, there is a public list of major resource and infrastructure projects ready to go, real projects with real proponents that could be deemed in the national interest and fast-tracked immediately. The 28 mining and energy proposals sitting in front of the regulators could be fast-tracked right now.

It is also curious that one of the acts the Liberal government could decide to sidestep through Bill C-5 is the Conflict of Interest Act. Of course, the Prime Minister refused to disclose his own conflicts or where he paid his taxes, and his businesses preferred to invest in pipelines and energy in the U.S. and overseas, not in Canada. Already, this sure looks like the same scandal-plagued, backroom-dealing Liberals, does it not?

It should also concern all Canadians that the plan in Bill C-5 is for most of the specifics to be dealt with through policy and regulations afterwards, not transparently and clearly in the law: more inherent uncertainty. This bill also mixes public and private infrastructure, while the ministers will not give details about the projects. Canadians would be wise to consider the lack of distinction and whether the Liberals will continue their state corporate financing schemes that always put taxpayers at risk while insiders benefit.

Canadians do not want backroom deals. They want a system that works. They want government to clear the path for Canadian responsible resource development by Canadian workers with Canadian materials.

The Liberals also keep talking about the need for consensus on projects, and they mean especially for pipelines. However, neither they nor Bill C-5 defines what that involves. Is it consensus from the anti-pipeline environment and culture ministers? Is it consensus from half the anti-energy Liberals who are still in the Liberal cabinet while they try to sound like Conservatives and are actually diametrically opposed to what they have said and done for a decade? I mean, it is amazing they can stand here and look at us with straight faces and do that.

The Liberals claim they want consensus, but Canadians know they do not even have it in their own cabinet, and Bill C-5 sets out cabinet as the decision-makers. Is it consensus from all provinces, even though some have already said no before and are saying no again, even though interprovincial pipelines for export are indisputably federal jurisdiction?

The Liberal government previously failed to enforce federal jurisdiction and the rule of law, and let activists and other levels of government weaponize laws and bylaws against proponents that already had approval. That failure is exactly what forced the private sector proponent for TMX to abandon its attempts to build, because the federal government did not use its tools to give legal, political and jurisdictional certainty for the private sector proponent to go ahead, even after the government approved it after risking it, ended up buying it and then created a costly, delayed, nationalized project. It was a dangerous signal to all investors that Canada is a place where the private sector cannot build and government will always rely on taxpayers.

Are the Liberals aware that there is already a very strong consensus among everyday Canadians everywhere across the country that Canada needs more pipelines? It has been that way for a long time, but it is growing. It is higher than ever before. The latest data shows 79% of Canadians overall, and guess what. Of Quebeckers, 86% want more pipelines for national energy security and resilience. A supermajority of Canadians are in consensus, so it is time for the Liberals to stop delaying, dithering and dodging if they really mean all their suddenly new and plagiarized words about wanting Canada to be an energy superpower.

Canadians can be forgiven for skepticism about the broad categories for national interest projects that the premiers pushed the Prime Minister and ministers to agree on. On the western Arctic energy corridor, Conservatives have always fought for northerners to make decisions, to get more revenue from resource development and to increase Canada's defence and security capabilities in the north, but the Liberals banned unleashing Arctic energy unilaterally from a different country and indefinitely. They also imposed massive antidevelopment areas that keep northerners from benefiting from their own natural wealth in a place where there is a humanitarian, housing and food crisis and few opportunities for self-sufficiency that are not related to responsible resource development, if only the government would let them develop resources.

As for the eastern energy partnership, these exact Liberals used political interference, changing goalposts and conditions never seen before or since, to force the proponent, which had spent $1 billion, to abandon the nation-building pipeline that would have linked Canada economically and physically for self-sufficiency, self-reliance and national unity. They killed that east-to-west pipeline even though private investors offered to fund it entirely. The pipeline would have connected Canadian energy from coast to coast for self-sufficiency, and they interfered to kill it because of political pressure, even though it too was a proposal strictly in federal jurisdiction.

Why should anyone believe them now? Maybe what they actually mean is connecting power among the Atlantic provinces, to which Conservatives say that the natural resources committee told the government to build interties in 2017. It did not, and then it tried to study that all over again just a few months ago before Christmas. Do members know what my advice is? Why do the Liberals not just try to get the really simple things done first?

As for a critical minerals pathway, in 2022, these same Liberals announced a critical minerals strategy. How many new mines were approved from it? There were zero. For example, Canada still does not export a single teaspoon of lithium, none, while global demand rises and China dominates the global production value and supply chains. In 2024, lithium demand rose 30%, but Canada could not provide it because mines in Canada take up to 25 years from concept to being shovel-ready under the Liberals. Why should Canadians think that 2025's critical minerals pathway will be different?

Is the next stage nuclear? Premiers from all across the country have called nuclear critical to Canada's energy future. Conservatives agree, but the Liberals have still not given a straight answer. Do all nuclear projects qualify for investment tax credits to compete with the U.S., or will they only be accessible to a few, like SMRs and large-scale plants, which are also important?

If the Liberals are serious about one project, one review, why do they not fix the fundamental problem instead of the short-term Bill C-5 queue-jumping workaround? For nuclear, for which Canada has long been world-renowned and viewed as an expert by other countries, proposals already face two reviews: an impact assessment and a full review by the expert Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission. Why?

Why can there not be a one project, one review process like Conservatives have always promoted to get things built? Why could the minister not say definitively that the existing nuclear proposals stalled in review right now are in the national interest? Canada cannot attract investment when the rules shift and are vague and politicized. Businesses and workers need clarity, not confusion and more questions.

With respect to infrastructure for trade diversification, the government cannot even get roads built, and the culture minister said he does not think Canada needs anymore anyway. The Webequie supply road project, the Marten Falls community access road and the northern road link project, all backed and co-owned by indigenous communities, which would unlock the Ring of Fire, remain locked in the regulator right now.

Therefore, forgive Conservatives for suggesting that government cannot unleash critical minerals if it cannot even get the roads built to develop and transport them, and those roads are the place to start. It is time to stop talking and start approving. Canadians deserve leadership that actually sets attractive, competitive investment conditions so the private sector can build. The track record of the Liberals is the opposite.

There are projects that promise not only billions for our economy but also jobs for our communities, paycheques for Canadians and revenue for governments for infrastructure programs. Let us talk about some of those numbers.

Here are some of the projects that have been killed by the Liberals. The Grassy Point LNG project had a loss of $10 billion. The West Coast Canada LNG project had a loss of $25 billion. The Aurora LNG project had a loss of $28 billion. The Prince Rupert LNG project had a loss of $11 billion. The Pacific NorthWest LNG project had a loss of $11 billion. The Kwispaa LNG project had a loss of $18 billion. The Énergie Saguenay LNG project lost $4 billion.

The Frontier oil sands mine project had a loss of $20.6 billion. The Aspen oil sands project lost $2.6 billion. The Dunkirk oil sands SAGD project had a loss of $2.4 billion. The Muskwa SAGD oil sands project had a loss of $800 million; the Carmon Creek oil sands project had a loss of $3 billion. The Frederick Brook shale project had a loss of $700 million. The Mackenzie Valley gas pipeline project had a loss of $16 billion. The energy east pipeline had a loss of $15.7 billion. The northern gateway pipeline had a loss of $7.9 billion.

These are just a few examples of the lost $670 billion in cancelled or suspended projects on the same Liberals' watch. How can the Liberals really pretend to play team Canada when they have done everything possible to hold Canada back, especially when half the cabinet ministers are exactly the same as the old ones?

The Liberals have claimed falsely there was no business case for these projects, except there obviously was to the private sector proponents ready to make major long-term investment and to all the countries who want more Canada. The Liberals have let Canada's competitors win, and they have made Canadians lose. It is not only allies that have surpassed Canada and profited from it because of the Liberals; it is also our adversaries and hostile imperialist regimes that have out-gamed and outpaced the west, while politicians here dithered, virtue signalled and imposed policies and laws that kill Canadian jobs, Canadian businesses, Canadian supply chains and have made Canada more expensive, more vulnerable and weak.

In March 2022, Latvia said it “would wholeheartedly support” Canadian LNG to cut reliance on Russia. In June 2022, Ukraine said it was seeking Canadian LNG. Years into Russia's invasion, Canada still has no east coast LNG exports because their opponents abandoned the three proposals just in the last couple of years in Atlantic Canada, probably in part because the Liberals kept saying there was no business case. Some confidence the Liberals had in Canada. Ten years of elbows down and resources in the ground made Canada a target, and Conservatives warned them all along.

In August 2022, Germany begged for Canadian LNG, but the Liberals rejected that ally. Then they made a deal with Qatar, which hides Hamas and gets to rake in billions of dollars and drive in the desert with fancy sports cars and Rolex watches, while Canadians' food prices become the highest in the G7, unemployment rates skyrocket and the Liberals' plan to ban internal combustion engines. In December 2022, Poland looked to Canada for LNG to diversify energy sources, obviously for its national security, but it got nothing. In January 2023, Japan formally requested Canadian LNG. The Liberals refused. In February 2023, one month later, Japan's ambassador said, “The world is waiting for Canada”. The Liberals keep it waiting.

In May 2023, South Korea wanted Canadian LNG. The Liberals did nothing. In March 2024, Greece's prime minister said it absolutely wanted Canada's LNG, but Liberals refused to grant export licences. In April 2024, Poland's president said it would, of course, buy Canadian LNG, if Liberals made it available. In May 2024, the Philippines expressed interest in Canadian LNG trade and investment. There was nothing from the Liberals. In November 2024, Taiwan wanted to buy and invest in Canadian LNG, for obvious security reasons and self-reliance in its region, which all Canadians should care about. The Liberals blocked it.

In February 2025, Canada refused Japan's LNG request, also with another obvious security implication. After Canada had refused Japan's LNG request in 2023, this is what happened in February 2025: the U.S. delivered a multi-trillion dollar LNG deal to Japan instead. Mexico has now flown past Canada for LNG exports, while the U.S. is the top in the world.

The Liberals started with 15 LNG proposals in 2015. Only three were approved, and only one is operational now. By the way, the one that is operational now was approved by the former Conservative government and then delayed, put through another review and put at risk by the Liberals. We all are lucky that the proponent hung in. The Liberals should not delay on approving its second phase.

During that time, during the loss of 15 LNG proposals in Canada, the U.S. approved 28, with 12 approved, 8 under construction and 8 operational right now. The U.S. is now the top exporter in the world of LNG. Canada should have been ahead of it and a key partner for North American energy and national security, but the Liberals held Canada back with a distinctly elbows-down approach, except against Canadians. They sure gave us one or two or ten.

The Prime Minister says it is elbows up against the United States, but year after year, the same Liberals handed the Americans trillions of dollars from Canada on a silver platter. The U.S. must remain Canada's top ally, with safe borders and integrated security, and it is our top ally, but there is no doubt that because of the Liberals, the U.S. is also our top competitor, as a result of damaging Canadian domestic policy.

Conservatives have always been the consistent advocates for certainty, clarity and competitive, fast approvals to make Canada strong, self-reliant and united, so of course we hope—

Indigenous Affairs

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C‑5, which the government is trying to push through using closure, is an insult to indigenous peoples. The Liberals want to give themselves the power to make all energy project decisions by fiat. They are first going to approve projects in Ottawa and then, when the decision is made and cannot be undone, they are going to pretend to consult indigenous peoples. It is a charade and a direct violation of indigenous people's right to self-determination, to their territorial sovereignty and to reconciliation.

Will the Liberals step back, respect first nations, Inuit and Métis and engage in meaningful dialogue?

Government Priorities

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

Mr. Speaker, Quebeckers did not give the Liberals a blank cheque. They elected a minority government.

However, by invoking closure on Bill C-5, the Liberals are essentially asking for a blank cheque. They want a blank cheque to govern by decree, to decide everything related to energy projects and to impose pipelines on Quebeckers without Quebec's consent and without a serious environmental assessment. They also want free rein to pass the bill without debate or study.

Will the Liberals respect Quebeckers and let Parliament do its work?

[Alexis Deschênes, Bloc, Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Listuguj, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is imposing a gag order on Bill C‑5, which would give him the power to make decisions about energy projects by order in council, with no regard for Quebec or social licence. He is also rushing the passage of Bill C‑4. He is appointing ministers without a mandate letter stating his intentions, and he has ended Justin Trudeau's tradition of answering all questions in question period on Wednesdays. In short, there is no debate, no transparency and as little accountability as possible.

Do the Liberals really think this is what Quebeckers expect from a minority government?

[Yves-François Blanchet, Bloc, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Fisheries Act, the Indian Act, the International River Improvements Act, the Canadian Navigable Waters Act, biodiversity acts and regulations, the Official Languages Act, the Income Tax Act and the Canada Labour Code are all acts and regulations that the minister would be allowed to suspend arbitrarily thanks to Bill C‑5.

At the very least, does not the entire framework for regulating economic activity in Quebec and Canada deserve thorough study in committee?

Government Business No. 1—Proceedings on Bill C-5

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, where is Canada after this last, lost, anti-development Liberal decade? Only 11 years ago, Canada became internationally recognized as home to the richest and biggest middle class in the world, with more children lifted out of poverty than ever before. Heading into 2015, the budget was under control, with a billion-dollar surplus, and Canada's economy was the strongest in the G7, the last in and the first out of the great global recession.

Today, Canada's economy has fallen behind those of our allies. Productivity lags. Workers cannot make ends meet and wonder whose job will be gone next. Canada's natural wealth sits idle in the ground and offshore. Investment heads south and to other countries. Families, and people with no one else to count on but themself, fall further behind. Young people lose hope for their future and wonder whether they will ever be able to afford a home, build up a nest egg or actually capture their big dreams.

Communities lose opportunities and dwindle. Businesses close due to excessive red tape, taxes, costs and constant uncertainty, and they have to reduce their charitable and community contributions. Violence, crime, mental distress and suicide, especially among rural men, are on a steady rise.

Killing energy projects does not just cost jobs; it also costs communities. It takes away critical revenue to build roads and bridges. It takes away revenue for critical supports for social programs; to build arenas; to support health care, like the long-term partnerships with the Lloydminster and Bonnyville regional health foundations and energy companies; and to build schools and universities.

Today, Canada works for the super-rich, the well established, the elites, the well-connected, the big companies of all kinds, mostly foreign-founded and multinationals. It does not work for the Canadian people who do the work, take big risks and build big projects: individual entrepreneurs, small business owners, innovators, and workers and contractors who fuel, feed and power this country for our Canadian people. That is the Liberal legacy; the cost to Canadians is real, and it is staggering.

Today, we as MPs find ourselves in an odd position. The very same government that inflicted the last decade of anti-energy, anti-private-sector death by delay and uncertainty on natural resource workers and businesses in every corner of Canada, that harmed all the secondary and tertiary sectors that depend on it everywhere, that sent allies away in dire need of Canadian resources, and that divided our country, pitting Canadians, provinces, businesses and sectors against each other, suddenly claims to want big natural resources and infrastructure projects to get built in Canada, so it brought in Bill C-5, with all kinds of big promises.

However, at its heart, Bill C-5 is really a glaring admission that everything the Liberals have done for the last 10 years has made Canada a place where the red tape and constantly changing goalposts get to “no”, and nothing can get built efficiently or affordably.

The real question is this: Would the Liberals' Bill C-5 really clean up the colossal mess the Liberals themselves have made? Where are the projects held back by the lost Liberal decade? Where are the investments that would have created prosperity for every single Canadian? Where are the thousands of well-paid jobs for Canadians everywhere, and especially in rural, remote, northern, Atlantic and indigenous communities that need them most? Where are the revenues for all three levels of government to fund public services and programs, build public infrastructure and support communities?

Where has all that gone, and how much are we talking about here anyway? Well, Canada has lost $670 billion in cancelled oil, gas, LNG and pipeline projects alone since 2015, due completely to the Liberals' anti-energy, anti-development messages, policies and laws.

On Wednesday night, in committee of the whole, the minister and I discussed Bill C-5 a bit. I suggested an obvious, immediate first step, if the Liberals really want to get Canadians working and building to strengthen Canada's economy and sovereignty, that would not require weeks and months of delay, meeting after meeting, and press conference promises with very few details.

The minister said I brought up “hypothetical projects”, and he refused to say whether they met his factors for projects in the national interest, which the Liberals themselves will decide. That was alarming in itself, since the projects I mentioned are real projects, with real proponents, that would offer real jobs with powerful paycheques for Canadians and long-term tax revenue for all three levels of government. Real businesses are paying real money and losing real time trying to get to build their big projects. The problem is that they are stuck in one form of federal regulation or red tape right now.

The immediate solution is blindingly obvious, without all the extra rigamarole, uncertainty and time delays. What was extra weird about the minister's evasion is that of the five vague factors the Liberals have outlined for Bill C-5, which they will use themselves to decide what is in the national interest, two of these factors are that projects must bring economic or other benefits to Canada and that they must have a high likelihood of successful execution. Clearly the top priority action, then, to fast-track efficiently should be all the projects and proponents stuck in red tape right now by the Liberals' own conditions.

Where is the Crawford nickel-cobalt mine project near Timmins, Ontario? It was proposed in 2020 but is stuck in the regulatory mess the Liberals created. Where is the Troilus gold and copper mining project in Quebec? It has been stuck in the regulator since 2023. Where are the Rook I uranium mine and Denison uranium mine projects in northern Saskatchewan? They were proposed in 2019 and are both still stuck. Where is the Bruce C nuclear project planned for Ontario? It is stuck in double layers of regulatory review.

It is no wonder Canada ranks dead last in the G7 for development. The projects are not only lost in red tape; they also seem to be lost completely from consideration by the minister, since he was so adamant on Tuesday night that they did not exist. They are five projects, five chances to grow Canada's economy, five chances to lead the world in energy, innovation, responsible resource development and indigenous opportunities.

Of course, it is not only those five projects. In fact, there are dozens of major energy, nuclear, critical mineral and indigenous-backed resource road proposals that are stuck in limbo right now at the federal level. These projects are not theoretical; they have names, investors and local support. They have involved years of engineering, technical, environmental and consultation work, risk and investment.

The missing piece is a federal government with a will to fast-track the assessments through the regulatory maze it created itself, to approve them efficiently and to back proponents once they approve them so proponents can actually build on their time and on their dime. In Bill C-69, as would also be the case in Bill C-5, cabinet is the final decision-maker, with all the power.

Currently, both officials and ministers already have significant sweeping powers to start, stop, restart, extend, delay and suspend, and to change the rules and start all over again as many times as they want. It is no wonder things cannot get built. The government also has the power to fast-track the projects right now. Instead, it ignores all the real and ready projects, proponents and people, and has brought in a short-term workaround of its own bad policies and laws, Bill C-5.

The Liberals talk about emissions reduction and imposed electric vehicle mandates, and they want so-called green growth, but they stalled the very projects needed to make all that happen. We cannot build electric vehicles without nickel, lithium and cobalt, currently dominated by China. We cannot power a reliable, affordable modern grid without uranium and natural gas. We cannot reduce emissions and build new technology without the innovation, jobs and revenues that come from responsible Canadian resource development, mostly from traditional oil and gas, and from pipeline companies.

Alberta is an example. By 2023, Alberta oil sands reduced emissions intensity while growing production by 96%. Alberta leads the country in alternative energy development too, as in fact it always has.

According to the federal government's national inventory report from 2025, Alberta had the largest absolute reduction in emissions of any Canadian province between 2022 and 2023. That is the truth the Liberals will not tell Canadians. Albertans cut emissions not by shutting down, but by showing up and building through free enterprise, innovation and technology, getting better emissions reduction results, real emissions reduction results, without killing jobs or driving away investment. However, the Liberal government still treats as problems not solutions Alberta and every province that develops resources, those of us in the so-called ROC, the rest of Canada, that politicians in Ottawa usually ignore. The Liberals punish the most responsible energy producers in the world and give a free pass to foreign polluters. They celebrate emissions reductions in Canada when they come from lockdowns, lost jobs and bankrupt businesses.

Canadians cannot afford essentials because the government drives up costs and imposes unrealistic targets on power and fuel. It is worse when the facts do not fit the Liberals' narrative. When it turns out that Alberta reduces emissions the most, the Liberals stay silent. When LNG could displace coal from growing energy demand in Asia, India and Africa from B.C., or help secure European energy needs and cut dependence on Russia, the Liberals turn allies away. When western provinces want to build major projects or northerners want to mine and drill offshore, the Liberals deny, ban and delay. When Atlantic Canadians want to drill offshore, ship LNG to Europe or have a pipeline to bring western oil to eastern refineries so future generations of Atlantic Canadians can stay home with jobs and abundant opportunities, the Liberals interfere and then look away.

Let me pause here to tell members how important that issue is to me, because the fact is that Atlantic Canadians and Albertans are inextricably linked. We have helped build each other's provinces in the best interests of all Canadians. I say that as a first-generation born-and-raised Albertan and the daughter of a Nova Scotian and a Newfoundlander.

The Liberals spend years talking about reconciliation, yet delay, risk or kill pipelines, roads, mining projects and LNG opportunities that so many indigenous leaders, elders, youth, entrepreneurs and workers spent years negotiating with businesses to get jobs, to get their own-source revenue and to do environmental oversight in a good way. The Liberals claim to support first nations but deny them the opportunity to own, to build, to partner and to profit. It is not reconciliation when Ottawa decides who can build and who must wait. It is not partnership when one side always says no. It is not respect when indigenous voices are ignored because they want to make their own development decisions and exercise their rights and title.

The bill that we are debating today proves what Conservatives have said all along: The Liberals' antidevelopment agenda kills Canadian jobs, kills Canadian investment, weakens Canada's security, unity and sovereignty, and has made our country a risky place where nothing can get built and where uncompetitive, pancaked and incoherent taxes, laws and policies; uncertainty; and constantly changing goalposts deter big projects from our own country.

Canadians deserve a plan based on facts and results, not vague statements and delay from the same government that caused the problems it suddenly now claims to want to fix. The consequences of the Liberals' antidevelopment decade are growing poverty, not prosperity, and fractured national unity. The Liberals pit Canadians against each other and attack Albertan businesses in particular with constant misinformation and myths.

The reality is that when Alberta builds and grows, so does Canada, and when Alberta is strong, so is Canada. Albertans have been there all along with our friends from Saskatchewan and from Atlantic Canada. We have just been asking the Liberals to help get the country's top export from the industry that is still the biggest investor in Canada's declining economy by far, whether the anti-energy zealots like it or not, to more markets globally so Canada is not dependent on the United States.

Ten years later, ten years of this lost last antidevelopment Liberal decade, Canada faces economic, security and sovereignty threats from our closest ally, the world's biggest economy, our biggest customer and now, because the Liberals held Canada back every step of the way, our biggest competitor. Canadians cannot afford essentials, because the government drove up the costs of power and fuel for everyone.

Make no mistake; it did not have to be this way. With all due respect, by which I mean almost none, the time to “build Canada” and make our country self-reliant, secure, united and strong was the last decade. The answer has always been to unleash Canada's natural resources and increase production and export customers, as Conservatives and only Conservatives have consistently and unequivocally advocated the entire time. This was never actually an even-sided theoretical or philosophical debate. It has always been simply the fiscal and economic reality of our country.

Canadians deserve a government that backs them, not a government that blocks them and not a government that pees down our leg and tells us it is raining. Bill C-5 is breadcrumbs and baby steps, not a real breakthrough of Liberal-inflicted barriers on Canada. Our country needs real change and long-term, concrete certainty for the private sector and for Canadian workers to make us autonomous, resilient and secure, as the Liberals say they want to do now, even though they have been in charge around here for the last 10 years.

What would that actually look like? It would mean fixing the fundamentals and repealing the failed “no new pipelines, never build anything” bill, Bill C-69, which is rife with uncertainty; which has no concrete timelines despite Liberal claims, arbitrary and unrelated conditions, political interference and jurisdictional overreach; and which the provinces, territories, businesses and indigenous groups all oppose or want to overhaul. The Supreme Court declared Bill C-69 unconstitutional for every single reason that Conservatives, and it happened to be me, warned about during the debates. However, Liberals ignored this entire Conservative team, all the premiers, all the territorial leaders, the private sector and the Senate and rammed it through anyway.

The government should repeal the shipping ban bill, Bill C-48, which blocks dedicated export routes for Canada's much-needed energy to countries with actual emerging markets that need Canadian energy and technology in Asia, like Japan, South Korea, Taiwan and the Philippines, and to European allies like Germany, Latvia, Ukraine, Greece and Poland.

The geopolitical security aspects of this issue, obviously, cannot be overstated. That ban signals that shipping may be blocked by the government off any coast, just like its offshore unilateral drilling bans and antidevelopment zones on land and in water, but it stays. Clearly, the Liberals are A-okay with Canada's allies and other countries getting energy they will continue to want long into the future from the U.S. or from foreign regimes like Venezuela, Libya, Iran and Saudi Arabia over Canada, with much lower environmental, labour and safety standards and where the benefits usually only go to a wealthy few.

The government should repeal the Canadian oil and gas cap that will cut Canadian energy production by 5%, kill over 50,000 jobs and remove over $20 billion from Canada's GDP. That is self-inflicted sabotage that no other country in the world is doing to itself and totally nonsensical for what is actually a radical anti-energy government suddenly plagiarizing, like someone's thesis, the former Conservative government's vision for Canada as an energy superpower.

While the minister and his Liberal buddies laughed when I asked questions about job losses, Canadians stress, wondering where their next paycheque will come from. In 2021, TD Economics projected that of Canadian oil and gas jobs, up to 75% could disappear by 2050. The Liberals call it a transition for Canada. It is devastation.

The Liberals should repeal the globalist, top-down economic restructuring, just transition plan in Bill C-50 that they already know will threaten the livelihoods of 2.7 million Canadians and cause labour disruptions, which is bureaucratese for job losses, for 642,000 workers in the transportation sector, almost 300,000 agriculture workers, 202,000 energy workers and, get this, 193,000 in Canada's important manufacturing sector, which is maybe more important than ever before, given this world becoming more dangerous and the global threats that Canada faces because this Liberal government has failed us.

The truth is, the future does not look brighter with the same government pretending to be a new one. TD reports the unemployment rate in Canada has risen to its highest rate since 2016, outside of COVID, to 7%, and 100,000 jobs are to be lost by the third quarter of this year. The job outlook for students is even worse, with a 20% unemployment rate; that is the highest since the 2008 recession. In fact, Canadian manufacturing has lost 55,000 jobs in a period of only four months. This is not getting Canada on track; it is the continued track record of the same Liberal government, and we know what they say about lipstick on a pig.

It was not always this way. Under the former Conservative government, Canada ranked fourth for ease of doing business of all countries in the world. However, by 2020, with the Liberals, Canada had fallen to 24th, behind Georgia and Thailand. Today, Canada ranks near the bottom globally for construction permits, property registration, securing electricity and cross-border trade. In fact, Canada is ranked second worst in the OECD for construction permit timelines because of the Liberals.

The Liberals' blocked projects, hiked taxes and doubled debt have made Canada 30% less productive than the U.S. today. Since 2015, $5.6 trillion has left Canada for the U.S. That is not a coincidence; that is a Liberal consequence. The trend of Canadian investment up in the U.S. and U.S. investment down in Canada is a historic anomaly caused squarely, and for the first time ever, by the Liberals' damaging economic and energy policies.

Just last week, StatsCan reported a more than 5% decline in forestry, fishing, mining, quarrying, and oil and gas since last spring. Declines in primary and resource-producing sectors impact everything else. Ontarians now face the worst unemployment, outside COVID, since 2013. In April alone, Ontario lost 33,000 manufacturing jobs. Tens of thousands of real people lost their jobs while the Liberals patronized and laughed at opposition MPs fighting for those workers. It is a travesty that it has taken global instability, external threats, growing conflicts and a cost-of-living crisis that the Liberals created for them to even appear to take notice.

Canadians now know, without a doubt, that energy security means food, job and national security for Canada. Last year, the energy sector contributed 7.7% of GDP, or $208.8 billion, to Canada; 446,600 Canadian workers, including 10,800 indigenous people, relied on natural resources. My point here is that none of this is accidental or externally inflicted on Canada. It is the direct result of domestic antidevelopment laws and policies. Canada's top global energy and resource competitors have ramped up their production of all kinds in the same time period, with much lower standards than Canada.

We now arrive at Bill C-5. The current Prime Minister, who advised the last one for half a decade and is well known for his global advocacy to keep resources in the ground, has not actually explained whether he has had some kind of major philosophical metamorphosis, transformation and awakening from all his previous values and views but nevertheless has met with premiers and businesses and suddenly claims to want to do what Conservatives have been urging the gatekeeping, road-blocking, radical Liberals to do the entire time, which is to build, build, build.

However, there are a lot of questions. Let us start at the beginning. As of right now, the Liberals say five factors will be considered to determine whether projects are in the national interest. Bill C-5 says a project must “strengthen Canada’s autonomy, resilience and security”; “provide economic or other”, whatever that means, “benefits to Canada”; “have a high likelihood of successful execution”; “advance the interests of Indigenous peoples”; and “contribute to clean growth and to meeting Canada’s objectives with respect to climate change.”

Now, it is worth a a pause here to point out that most Canadians would likely be shocked that these factors are not already part of regulatory and cabinet decision-making and may rightly wonder what the heck the government has been thinking about for the past decade.

Also, it is worth noting that these concepts are broad enough that any interpretation or any argument could be made about each factor either way for any project, which is, of course, automatically and inherently uncertain, and wide open to manipulation and ideological or politically connected decision-making. So much for objective, technology- and sector-agnostic, predictable, clear, certain and evidence-based decision-making in Canada.

As of right now, there is no public list of projects. Now, the Prime Minister says he is getting lists from provinces, and some premiers have said what their asks are, yet the minister claims there is no list and that that will happen after Bill C-5 is law. The minister specifically said on Wednesday, and I meant Wednesday earlier when I said Tuesday, that “when the projects are designated, they will be made public.”

Do the projects drive the legislation, or does the legislation drive the projects? Do they have a list from premiers or do they not? Nobody knows, because of mixed messages and misleading answers. What is clear is that the whole thing is a politically driven and determined process, which is, actually, already exactly what the Liberals have been doing for the last decade. That is the opposite of clarity and certainty--

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

moved:

That, notwithstanding any standing order, special order or usual practice of the House, Bill C-5, An Act to enact the Free Trade and Labour Mobility in Canada Act and the Building Canada Act, be disposed of as follows:

(a) the bill be ordered for consideration at the second reading stage immediately after the adoption of this order, provided that,

(i) two members from each recognized party, one member from the New Democratic Party and the member from the Green Party may each speak at the said stage for not more than 10 minutes, followed by five minutes for questions and comments,

(ii) during consideration of the bill at second reading, the House shall not adjourn, except pursuant to a motion moved by a minister of the Crown,

(iii) at the conclusion of the time provided for the debate or when no member wishes to speak, whichever is earlier, all questions necessary to dispose of the second reading stage of the bill shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment and, if a recorded division is requested, the vote shall not be deferred;

(b) if the bill is adopted at the second reading stage and referred to the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities,

(i) if the report on the striking of membership of Standing and Standing Joint Committees of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs has not yet been concurred in by the House, the whip of each recognized party shall deposit with the Clerk of the House a list of their party's members of the committee no later than the adjournment of the House on the day of the adoption of this order,

(ii) the committee shall meet on Tuesday, June 17, 2025, and on Wednesday, June 18, 2025, at 3:30 p.m., provided that,

(A) the committee shall have the first priority for the use of House resources for committee meetings,

(B) the committee shall meet until 5:30 p.m. on Tuesday, June 17, 2025, for the election of the chair and vice-chairs, the consideration of routine motions governing its proceedings, and to gather evidence from witnesses,

(C) the committee meet until 11:59 p.m. on Wednesday, June 18, 2025, to gather evidence from witnesses and undertake clause-by-clause consideration of the bill,

(D) all amendments be submitted to the clerk of the committee by noon on Wednesday, June 18, 2025,

(E) amendments filed by independent members shall be deemed to have been proposed during the clause-by-clause consideration of the bill,

(F) if the committee has not completed the clause-by-clause consideration of the bill by 11:59 p.m. on Wednesday, June 18, 2025, all remaining amendments submitted to the committee shall be deemed moved, the Chair shall put the question, forthwith and successively, without further debate, on all remaining clauses and amendments submitted to the committee, as well as each and every question necessary to dispose of the clause-by-clause consideration of the bill, and the committee shall not adjourn the meeting until it has disposed of the bill,

(G) a member of the committee may report the bill to the House by depositing it with the Clerk of the House, who shall notify the House leaders of the recognized parties and independent members, provided that if the report is presented on Thursday, June 19, 2025, the bill shall be taken up at report stage on the next sitting day;

(c) the bill be ordered for consideration at report stage on Friday, June 20, 2025, provided that,

(i) two members from each recognized party, one member from the New Democratic Party and the member from the Green Party may each speak on report stage motions for not more than 10 minutes, followed by five minutes for questions and comments,

(ii) at the conclusion of the time provided for the debate or when no member wishes to speak, whichever is earlier, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, and in turn every question necessary for the disposal of the said stage of the bill shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment, and, if a recorded division is requested, the vote shall not be deferred, except pursuant to Standing Order 76.1(8),

(iii) the bill be ordered for consideration at the third reading stage immediately after concurrence of the bill at report stage;

(d) when the bill is taken up at the third reading stage, pursuant to subparagraph (c)(iii) of this order,

(i) two members from each recognized party, one member from the New Democratic Party and the member from the Green Party may each speak at the said stage for not more than 10 minutes, followed by five minutes for questions and comments,

(ii) at the conclusion of the time provided for the debate or when no member wishes to speak, whichever is earlier, all questions necessary to dispose of the third reading stage of the bill shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment, and, if a recorded division is requested, the vote shall not be deferred;

(e) on Friday, June 20, 2025, the House shall not adjourn until the proceedings on the bill have been completed, except pursuant to a motion moved by a minister of the Crown, provided that once proceedings have been completed, the House may then proceed to consider other business or, if it has already passed the ordinary hour of daily adjournment, the House shall adjourn to the next sitting day; and

(f) no motion to adjourn the debate at any stage of the said bill may be moved except by a minister of the Crown.

Mr. Speaker, this is the first chance I have had to speak in the House since you became a chair occupant. Let me congratulate you on this important honour.

I rise today to speak to Bill C-5, the one Canadian economy act, which I had the honour of tabling in this House last week. This House is a place where, for generations, Canadians have placed their hopes, confronted adversity together and shaped the future of our country. Today, we do so again, facing challenges both new and familiar. The time for resolute action is now.

At the first ministers' meeting last week in Saskatoon, premiers unanimously expressed their spirited support for decisive movement on nation-building projects. There was a clear recognition that this hinge moment is an opportunity to reunite with the can-do spirit that envisioned and built, for example, the Confederation Bridge or the St. Lawrence Seaway. In that spirit, I hope colleagues will join us and recognize that this is an important moment to accelerate the adoption of this legislation.

Canada stands at a crossroads. Global shifts and internal obstacles demand a clear and rapid response. The United States, our closest trade and security partner, has become unpredictable and undependable. It has imposed unjustified and illegal tariffs, reminding us that our prosperity cannot rely disproportionately on the status quo. However, in challenge lies opportunity. Canada's unity, resolve and resourcefulness are obviously our greatest assets.

In the same spirit, I am honoured to speak to Bill C‑5, the one Canadian economy act, a plan designed to remove barriers, redefine our vision and open a new chapter in our national history. The time for action is now.

From fishers in the Northumberland Strait to mine workers in Whitehorse and innovators in Montreal, let this be the moment where we come together and choose to build and achieve great things. In the face of these new uncertainties, it is up to us to forge our economic destiny.

One of the central pillars of this legislation is a new framework for what we call projects of national interest, initiatives that will move our country forward, reinforce our economic sovereignty and drive prosperity in every region of the country.

For far too long, major projects, whether energy transmission lines, critical mineral developments, pipelines or clean technology projects, have been stalled by assessments, challenges, and overlapping and duplicative regulations. Investors, provinces and territories, and the business community have said that it is too difficult and takes too long to build important economically feasible projects in Canada. This has led to potential missed investment opportunities, lost jobs and a lack of competitiveness vis-à-vis our international counterparts. Our shared prosperity requires quick action.

This bill would introduce a new tool, a process for identifying, prioritizing and advancing transformative infrastructure and development projects. To support this new process, the government plans to create a new federal major projects office to coordinate, problem-solve and fast-track projects of national interest, transitioning from a fragmented approach to approval to unified, decisive action. For projects of national interest like these, we are committed to making decisions within a maximum time frame of two years, not five years or more.

The Prime Minister has been very clear. Moving forward, we will commit to a “one project, one review” approach. The days of duplication and cost overruns are over. Federal, provincial and territorial authorities will all work on a single assessment to move quickly, while remaining just as thorough and maintaining public trust. Standards will be high. Only projects that strengthen Canada's resilience, provide measurable economic benefits and are in line with our environmental, social and indigenous reconciliation values will receive this designation. Our goal is to put “Canada” and “achievement”, not “Canada” and “delay”, in the same sentence.

Just as vital is the continued commitment by this government that indigenous governments, partners and indeed indigenous peoples and communities must be engaged from the outset. Respect for constitutionally protected indigenous rights, knowledge and priorities is obviously non-negotiable and is clearly enunciated in the bill currently before the House. When we say partnership is the foundation, we mean exactly that. Whether in Inuvik, the Métis heartland of Manitoba or the Mi'kmaq territory in Atlantic Canada, nation building is only real if it is shared. That is why equity partnerships for indigenous peoples will be supported and prioritized.

Environmental stewardship will also remain paramount. This bill would not weaken any of Canada's core environmental statutes. Instead, it is about considering whether major projects drive clean growth and forge a sustainable legacy for the next generations.

The work of building a modern one Canadian economy does not stop with flagship projects. Our prosperity also depends on removing barriers that hobble Canadians' ability to trade, connect and work wherever opportunity calls across our country.

Let us talk about the reality facing thousands of small business owners everyday. Let us say someone makes kitchen appliances right here in Ontario. They might be investing in new refrigeration or dishwasher technology that saves Canadians money on their electricity bills, but even though they meet Ontario's stringent energy efficiency requirements, they cannot say their product meets federal standards for energy efficiency unless they have met all the federal testing, labelling and compliance procedures. As a result, they would not be able to sell their appliances across the border into Quebec or Manitoba. It might take months or more to navigate the federal process to prove their product is really as energy efficient as they say or as the Ontario standards have confirmed. That can slow things down and obviously adds cost.

The results of that are clear: unnecessary costs, regulatory confusion and a missed economic opportunity. Bill C‑5 is designed to ensure that a product that meets provincial or territorial energy efficiency standards would meet comparable federal standards.

Under this bill, if a good is produced, used or sold in accordance with a province's rules, it can move across the country without having to meet federal standards as long as it serves the same purpose.

Think about a Manitoba truck driver who has to deal not only with provincial requirements, but also with additional federal rules when crossing the border into Saskatchewan or Ontario. Paperwork, fees and compliance reviews are all barriers that slow down our most ambitious workers and businesses.

This bill will remove those federal barriers. A good or service produced in line with provincial or territorial regulations will be recognized as meeting comparable federal standards for interprovincial trade.

Labour mobility is also part of this bill. People in too many professions, like nurses, engineers, land surveyors and skilled trades people, find their skills underutilized due to conflicting or duplicate certification requirements. Where federal and provincial regulations overlap, this legislation guarantees swift mutual recognition of provincial and territorial credentials for federally regulated workers. This is about leveraging Canada's full talent pool, ensuring that skilled workers can answer opportunity's call everywhere in the country without bureaucratic delay. It is also about Canadians trusting each other. Every barrier we lift is a door opened to higher wages, broader horizons and greater economic momentum.

With this legislation, Canada positions itself firmly to become a clean and conventional energy superpower. Fort McMurray oil sands will lead on both production and emissions reductions. Edmonton and Sarnia are primed for leadership in hydrogen. New transmission infrastructure will ferry Labrador's clean hydro to Montreal and beyond.

We will mine, refine and finish uranium from Saskatchewan, lithium in northern Quebec and cobalt from Nunavut, delivering resources the world needs from a reliable, sustainable partner. Pipelines and port expansions will be built faster and smarter with climate and community in mind, showing that economic and environmental progress are not at odds but intertwined. Canada will not simply participate in the global resource economy; we will help define it.

I would like to assure the House that this commitment to acceleration does not mean exclusion or diminution of environmental standards or, obviously, our constitutionally enshrined obligations to indigenous peoples. Every major project advanced through the changes proposed in Bill C-5 will require real partnerships with indigenous peoples. We have already announced that we are setting up an indigenous advisory council. We will ensure that self-determination, inclusion and respect are at the heart of this process.

Environmental protection measures are essential too. Projects of national interest must facilitate clean, responsible growth, meeting today's needs while leaving a healthy legacy for future generations. This bill is driven by and focused on Canadians. It is for young apprentices in Lethbridge considering a career in biofuels, for power line technicians in Thunder Bay and for health care professionals in Moncton.

We are delivering what Canadians have always asked for: an economy that rewards people who work hard and innovate, no matter where they live. There has never been a better time for the world to choose to do business with Canada. We offer a stable and predictable political environment and a skilled and diverse workforce, making us the best place in the world for investment and collaboration.

Where our allies seek certainty, reliable timelines or climate leadership, Canada is ready to answer that call with our brightest and our best. Let us capture this moment, one where trade flourishes, dreams of workers and business owners can grow, and hope will abound in every part of our country as we look to greater economic prosperity together.

We have a real opportunity now, across political parties and regions, to unite behind the idea of delivering, not delaying. Let us remove the barriers that keep us locked in 13 separate economies instead of one growing, sustainable Canadian economy. Let us turn the page and move forward with purpose, to get big things built in this country once again.

Business of the House

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to reassure my hon. colleague that there will be a government budget in the fall, which is something that all Canadians except the Conservatives seem to know. It will be an excellent budget that will invest in the Canadian economy and create opportunities from coast to coast to coast.

This afternoon, we will continue the debate on the Conservative Party's opposition day motion. In accordance with the order adopted by the House yesterday, we will have a fifth and final committee of the whole debate on the estimates later this evening for two hours. Tomorrow morning, we will start the debate on Government Business No. 1, which establishes a process to adopt Bill C-5, An Act to enact the Free Trade and Labour Mobility in Canada Act and the Building Canada Act. We will continue with this debate on Monday.

I would also like to inform the House that Tuesday will be the last designated day of this financial cycle. On Wednesday, we will resume second reading of Bill C‑2 respecting the security of the border between Canada and the United States. On Thursday, we will begin second reading debate on Bill C‑3, which amends the Citizenship Act.

Government Priorities

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-5 violates constitutional obligations, eradicates environmental protections, compromises workers' health and safety, and fails to hold corporations accountable in cases where violence is inflicted on indigenous women and girls, which is one of the calls for justice from the national inquiry.

We thought Pierre Poilievre lost his seat, but it seems like he is leading the Liberal Party. Is that why the government is trying to fast-track Bill C-5 ?