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.

The Application of Standing Order 69.1 to Bill C‑5—Speaker's Ruling

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

The Chair is now prepared to rule on the point of order raised earlier today by the member for Vancouver East regarding the application of Standing Order 69.1 to Bill C-5, an act to enact the free trade and labour mobility in Canada act and the building Canada act.

In the member's view, Bill C-5 is an omnibus bill with two distinct parts, and on that basis, she asked the Chair to apply Standing Order 69.1(1), which provides as follows:

In the case where a government bill seeks to repeal, amend or enact more than one act, and where there is not a common element connecting the various provisions or where unrelated matters are linked, the Speaker shall have the power to divide the questions, for the purposes of voting, on the motion for second reading and reference to a committee and the motion for third reading and passage of the bill. The Speaker shall have the power to combine clauses of the bill thematically and to put the aforementioned questions on each of these groups of clauses separately, provided that there will be a single debate at each stage.

At the outset, the Chair wishes to note that the member for Vancouver East has waited until quite late in the legislative process to raise this point of order. Speaker Regan, in a ruling delivered on November 7, 2017, noted that the analysis and division of the bill can be complex, so he encouraged members to raise their arguments as early as possible. He said, at page 15095 of the Debates:

Where members believe that the Standing Order should apply, I would encourage them to raise their arguments as early as possible in the process, especially given that the length of debate at a particular stage can be unpredictable. If an objection is raised too late in the process, the Chair may have no choice but to allow the matter to go to a single vote at second reading or third reading, as the case may be.

In this case, the member for Vancouver East has waited until the day on which the House will vote on the bill at third reading, mere hours before the Chair is required to put the question to the House. It seems clear to the Chair that she would have had an opportunity to do so earlier. The Chair wishes to reiterate the caution issued by Speaker Regan that members risk having points of order on the application of Standing Order 69.1 rejected by the Chair if they do not raise their arguments at an early opportunity. Legislation is often complex, and decisions on potentially splitting the votes may require careful analysis that is difficult to accomplish within a few hours.

In the case before us, the Chair is prepared to examine the substance of the argument presented by the member for Vancouver East only because this bill is relatively straightforward to analyze. Faced with a more complicated bill, the Chair would have been inclined to conclude that there was insufficient time to reach a considered decision.

The Chair has carefully reviewed the provisions of Bill C-5 and taken into account members' statements on the issue of dividing it for voting purposes.

Bill C‑5 has two parts. The first part enacts the free trade and labour mobility in Canada act. Part 2 enacts the building Canada act.

The first part of Bill C‑5, as its purpose clause describes, would implement mechanisms to:

...promote free trade and labour mobility by removing federal barriers to the interprovincial movement of goods and provision of services and to the movement of labour within Canada while continuing to protect the health, safety and security of Canadians, their social and economic well-being and the environment.

The second part of Bill C-5 is intended to, and I quote:

…enhance Canada’s prosperity, national security, economic security, national defence and national autonomy by ensuring that projects that are in the national interest are advanced through an accelerated process that enhances regulatory certainty and investor confidence, while protecting the environment and respecting the rights of Indigenous peoples.

A close reading of these two parts does not provide a clear common element. While part 1 deals with free trade and labour mobility, and part 2 concerns the accelerated advancement of projects that are in the national interest, the purpose of each of these parts could quite easily be achieved separately. While they are ultimately designed to strengthen the Canadian economy, they deal with different issues and could very well stand independently from one another. Moreover, there is no direct relationship or cross-reference between the two parts of the bill.

The Chair is therefore willing to divide the question for voting. Accordingly, two votes will take place at the third reading stage for Bill C-5. The first vote will deal with part 1 and the short title. The second vote will be for part 2, including the schedule, which belongs to part 2. The Chair will remind members of this division of the bill once debate has concluded, when it is time to put these questions.

I thank all members for their attention.

Voting Pattern for Report Stage of Bill C-5—Speaker's Ruling

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

The Chair is now prepared to rule on the points of order raised by the members for Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères and Northumberland—Clarke.

The hon. member for Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères rose on a point of order concerning the Chair's decision not to select some of his of motions in amendment at report stage of Bill C-5, as they could have been presented in committee. In his remarks, the member pointed out that he would not have been able to present his amendments in committee because the deadline set by the House in the order made on Monday, June 16, 2025, had passed. For this reason, these motions should have been selected.

Pursuant to an order adopted by the House on Monday, June 16, 2025, members had the opportunity to submit amendments to Bill C-5 for consideration by the committee. Despite the time limit imposed by the order adopted by the House on the submission of amendments, members were able to exercise their rights, as evidenced by the more than 100 amendments considered by the committee. Therefore, although no amendments could be debated after midnight, all amendments submitted before the deadline indicated in the House's order were deemed moved and put to a vote, as the member for Northumberland—Clarke pointed out in his remarks on the same point of order.

The Chair understands the hon. member's concerns about the impact that expediting the consideration of bills could have on members' ability to study bills and present amendments. However, the Chair must also respect the decisions of the House with respect to the organization of its business.

The hon. member's motions that were not selected sought to amend parts of the bill that had not been amended in committee. Accordingly, these motions should have been presented in committee and the Chair maintains its decision not to select them for debate at report stage.

Furthermore, earlier this morning, the member for Northumberland—Clarke rose on a point of order requesting clarification concerning the voting pattern for Motions Nos. 18 and 19 at the report stage of Bill C-5. The member requested that each motion be subject to its own vote. The member for Côte-Nord—Kawawachikamach—Nitassinan also intervened to voice her support for this request.

The voting table provided this morning to the House indicated that the vote on Motion No. 18 would apply to Motion No. 19, as they both sought to further amend the same amendment that was adopted in committee.

I have reviewed the motions and considered the members' interventions, and, exceptionally, I am prepared to accept this request. For this reason, there will be one vote on Motion No. 18 and one vote on Motion No. 19. A revised voting pattern will be available at the table.

I thank all members for their attention and their contributions to the arrangement of the report stage of this bill.

Democratic Institutions

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, New Democrats want to build our economy and create family-sustaining jobs, but it must be done right. Today, the Liberals and the Conservatives are ramming Bill C-5 through Parliament with shockingly little debate or public input. This bill creates Henry VIII powers, letting the Prime Minister override laws by decree. It guts environmental protections, undermines workers and threatens indigenous rights. This bill will end up in court.

Why is the government violating democratic values and risking critical economic projects with tactics from Donald Trump's playbook?

Government Priorities

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

Mr. Speaker, in four short weeks, the Liberals have shown us their true face. It is Pierre Poilievre's face in a red tie. Many Quebeckers voted Liberal to be protected from the Conservatives, and yet we are faced with a government that wants to govern by decree and impose pipelines with Bill C‑5. This government stole $814 million from Quebeckers to buy votes from Canadians. All of that was done in four weeks.

That is the Liberals' true face. Do they realize that to many Quebeckers, they are two-faced?

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

Mr. Speaker, Bill C‑5 perfectly sums up the new Liberal Prime Minister's approach. He wants to force pipelines on Quebec, he wants to impose projects by order in council without going through Parliament and he wants to be able to bypass pretty much all laws, also by order in council, to help developers. He wants to do all this by imposing closure, without debate or witnesses, with the support of the Conservatives.

Meanwhile, the 44 Liberal members from Quebec have been trying to fade into the woodwork. Do they realize that they did not vote the right way?

The Environment

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first it was the CSN, then first nations and then even a few Liberals, and now environmental groups are also speaking out against Bill C‑5.

Equiterre, Climate Action Network and Ecojustice: the list goes on. According to Greenpeace:

Bill C‑5 would...sidestep long-standing environmental protections, silence communities, and violate Indigenous rights in order to ram projects through to the benefit of multi-billion dollar corporations.

Everyone is telling the Liberals the same thing. We need to study Bill C‑5 as we normally would, not force it through on a time allocation. Will they listen?

Government Priorities

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Côte-Nord—Kawawachikamach—Nitassinan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the CSN is adding its voice to the Assembly of First Nations. It even joins a few Liberal MPs and, no doubt, a few ministers who prefer to remain silent. They are the ones we are addressing as the vote approaches.

Bill C‑5 makes it possible to circumvent all environmental measures and suspend nearly all legislation by order in council. It is the most authoritarian bill since the Emergencies Act.

Will the ministers who disagree have the courage to oppose it before it is too late?

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Côte-Nord—Kawawachikamach—Nitassinan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the CSN is also speaking out against Bill C‑5 and how it will impose energy projects on Quebeckers. The CSN said, and I quote:

The use of closure to pass Bill C‑5 is an undemocratic tactic supported by the Conservative Party of Canada that will open the door to irreversible mistakes...

I will repeat word for word the question that is troubling the CSN: If Bill C‑5 is so good for workers, why not take the time to study it properly?

National Indigenous Peoples Day

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

Mr. Speaker, tomorrow, June 21, is National Indigenous Peoples Day. Let us draw inspiration from the summer solstice and celebrate the cultures, languages, and contributions of first nations, Inuit and Métis peoples from time immemorial to the present day, and especially to tomorrow and for the next seven generations.

This is also an opportunity to build relationships and talk about mutual respect, a conversation that was ignored with Bill C-5. This bill was designed so that Ottawa can impose energy projects on indigenous peoples and then inform them of already irreversible decisions through bogus consultations. In Bill C-5, the Liberals have replicated the condescending and colonialist attitude that the federal government had toward the first peoples in the last century.

Today, we will find out whether the Bloc Québécois's amendment will make it possible to correct the situation at the last minute because we want to remove the Indian Act from schedule 2 of the bill. Bill C-5 shows how indigenous peoples, but also all Quebeckers and Canadians who care about—

Voting Pattern for Report Stage of Bill C-5

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Clarke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a point of order with respect to the upcoming votes at report stage on Bill C-5. Page 788 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, states:

When the Speaker selects and groups motions in amendment, he or she also decides on how they will be grouped for voting, that is, the Speaker determines the order in which the motions in amendment will be called and the effect of one vote on the others. The purpose of the voting scheme is to obviate any requirement for two or more votes on the same issue.

The Speaker delivers his or her decision regarding the grouping of motions in amendment after the order for the consideration of report stage of the bill has been read. The Speaker informs the House of the motions in amendment that he or she has selected and grouped for debate, the voting arrangements, and, where applicable, the motions in amendment that have not been selected, stating the reasons for this. Speakers have sometimes intervened at a later stage of the debate to revise the selection and grouping for debate of the motions in amendment.

It is with respect to this latter point I am now rising. Specifically, Mr. Speaker, you have grouped Motions Nos. 18 and 19. Motion No. 18, sponsored by my Bloc Québécois colleague, seeks to add the Canada Labour Code to the list of laws that are carved out from the scope of clauses 21 and 22 of the proposed building Canada act, the so-called Henry VIII clauses in the bill. Motion No. 19, sponsored by the Green member, would seek to add the Species at Risk Act to that same list. One concerns workers' rights, and the other is environmental in nature. These are, I would suspect, very distinct policy fields and merit separate votes.

Moreover, on procedural grounds, I would note that the Species at Risk Act is already listed in the building Canada act's proposed schedule 2. The member for Saanich—Gulf Islands had proposed a companion amendment in Motion No. 26, which would have removed it from the list, but this motion was not selected for debate today.

This means that the substantive effect of the motion concerning the Canada Labour Code, if adopted, would be that this law may never be added to schedule 2. On the other hand, the combined effect of the rulings on Motions Nos. 19 and 26, if Motion No. 19, respecting the Species at Risk Act, is adopted, would be that this law may not be added back to schedule 2, should it ever be removed by the Governor in Council at some point in the future.

In summary, Motions Nos. 18 and 19 are two separate motions proposed by members from two separate parties concerning very different subject matter and with two different procedural implications. In other words, separate votes on Motions Nos. 18 and 19 would not amount to two votes on the same issue.

Accordingly, I would respectfully submit that this is a textbook instance for the Chair to exercise the authority described in Bosc and Gagnon to revisit and revise the voting pattern established for the report stage of Bill C-5.

Voting Table for Report Stage of Bill C-5

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

Mr. Speaker, the Speaker's ruling on the Bloc Québécois's motions in amendment at report stage of Bill C-5 states that Motions No. 2, 3, 6, 10, 12, 13, 14, 17 and 20, which I moved, seconded by the member for Côte-Nord—Kawawachikamach—Nitassinan, would not be selected by the Chair because they could have been presented in committee.

In actual fact, they could not have been presented in committee because it was after midnight when we proceeded to clause-by-clause consideration. Since it was after midnight, we could no longer vote separately on the various clauses, so I could not force a vote on the clauses in question.

The purpose of these motions is to identify certain clauses on which the House must hold a separate vote.

I hope that you will reconsider your decision in light of this information.

The Application of Standing Order 69.1 to Bill C-5

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today on a point of order regarding the government's Bill C-5, an act to enact the free trade and labour mobility in Canada act and the building Canada act.

Standing Order 69.1(1) states:

In the case where a government bill seeks to repeal, amend or enact more than one act, and where there is not a common element connecting the various provisions or where unrelated matters are linked, the Speaker shall have the power to divide the questions, for the purposes of voting, on the motion for second reading and reference to a committee and the motion for third reading and passage of the bill. The Speaker shall have the power to combine clauses of the bill thematically and to put the aforementioned questions on each of these groups of clauses separately, provided that there will be a single debate at each stage.

In the case of Bill C-5, the bill would enact two separate laws. Part 1 would establish the free trade and labour mobility in Canada act and part 2 would create the building Canada act. As stated in Bill C-5, part 1, “establishes a statutory framework to remove federal barriers to the interprovincial trade of goods and services and to improve labour mobility within Canada.”

I want to pause here for a minute. A member just crossed in front of me twice as I was speaking, which is against the rules of the House. Mr. Speaker, I take it that you will note that for later on. I will continue on with my point of order.

Part 1 states, “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.”

The purpose of part 1 is to remove domestic trade barriers. In other words, it is an act to promote free trade and labour mobility within Canada. This was reinforced in the Minister of Transport's speech in reference to part 1 of the bill, when she succinctly said, “This is why it is so essential for us to press ahead with a project that costs nothing and can be accomplished at the stroke of a pen, delivering...free trade in Canada.” She also stated, “Free trade in our own country is a great idea whose time has come.”

Part 2, on the other hand, would be established so that projects deemed to be of “national interest are advanced through an accelerated process”. It is about the development of large-scale projects and the following is stated in the bill:

The purpose of this Act is to enhance Canada’s prosperity, national security, economic security, national defence and national autonomy by ensuring that projects that are in the national interest are advanced through an accelerated process that enhances regulatory certainty and investor confidence, while protecting the environment and respecting the rights of Indigenous peoples.

The government House leader, in his speech, stated, “Through the building Canada act, this bill will simplify federal review and approval processes for major infrastructure projects.” Part 2 of Bill C-5 has nothing to do with internal trade. These two parts of the bill should be treated as two separate bills.

In a ruling by Speaker Regan on March 1, 2018, he quoted the following: “The principle or principles contained in a bill must not be confused with the field it concerns. To frame the concept of principle in that way would prevent the division of most bills, because they apply to a specific field.”

The former House leader of the Bloc Québécois and former member for La Prairie—Atateken knew of this since it is from page 400 of Parliamentary Procedure in Québec.

Speaker Regan continued as follows:

While their procedure for dividing bills is quite different from ours, the idea of distinguishing the principles of a bill from its field has stayed with me. While each bill is different and so too each case, I believe that Standing Order 69.1 can indeed be applied to a bill where all of the initiatives relate to a specific policy area, if those initiatives are sufficiently distinct to warrant a separate decision of the House.

We find ourselves in a similar situation here. While the measures in Bill C-5 are broadly related to Canada's economy, part 1 is distinct from part 2. Therefore, it would certainly be appropriate to divide part 1 and part 2 of this bill for the vote.

The Speaker has that authority, and that would make it possible for members to better represent their constituents by voting separately on these bills, which are quite different from one another.

Mr. Speaker, I look forward to your ruling.

Natural Resources

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, just two months ago, Canadians were fully tuned into an election campaign set against the backdrop of a tariff war and uncertainty about Canada's relationship with our largest trading partner. Looking for a solution, they saw a Liberal leader who claimed to be a fresh face, declaring that he would be different from the last decade of inaction on the nation-building projects that we desperately need. He said he would be a change in direction from the Liberal policies that made it impossible to get anything built in this country, the very policies that he championed as Trudeau's economic adviser.

Last night on Power Play, his House leader basically admitted that the previous system was too onerous and Canadians have voted them in to now do big projects, another admission of 10 years of intentional sabotage of our energy resources, which the world needs and asks for.

It is important to note that the roles of the provinces, territories and indigenous leaders need to be respected, and Canadian workers and investors need to be prioritized. I want to give a shout-out to the excellent work of the transport committee into the wee hours of this morning to agree to 13 significant amendments to Bill C-5 that provide oversight, access to information, conflict of interest compliance, timelines, consultations and protections that will increase the confidence of Canadians moving forward.

However, there is still a glaring failure that will continue to inhibit the restoration of our economy and growth to become the energy superpower that we must become. The “no new pipelines” law or Bill C-69, the shipping ban that applies only to vessels carrying oil and gas, the job-killing oil and gas production cap and the industrial carbon tax, which will raise the cost of everything on all projects, remain in place.

Giving a free pass to a few federally controlled projects obviously fails to generate the private sector growth that we need to restore powerful paycheques that should stimulate individual prosperity in every corner of this country long into the future. Sixteen major energy projects have been delayed or denied under the Liberal government, projects that could have brought in over $176 billion. These are not merely devastating numbers; these are lost paycheques, lost opportunities and lost hope for thousands of Canadian families.

Canadians overwhelmingly rejected political parties at election time that, time and again, refused to recognize the vital importance of our resources and the prosperity they create. However, the Liberal Bill C-5 would marginally improve our ability to move projects forward, and yes, Conservatives will support any measure, no matter how small, if it would help one single project break ground.

So far, Bill C-5 is largely a symbolic move to make minor improvements to interprovincial trade and regulatory clarity. It would provide clearer or more streamlined regulatory guidance for designated resources and infrastructure projects, but the Prime Minister will need to do more to free his dream projects from the existing laws he helped create to choke development. With Bill C-5, the overall environment for free market private sector development remains restrictive.

Meanwhile, it was Conservatives who put forward the only credible plan to reignite energy investment in Canada. Canadians need to know that we are still committed to our plan: to repeal Liberal anti-development laws and regulations that have cost them half a trillion dollars in lost investment over the last lost decade; to build a national energy corridor to rapidly approve and build critical infrastructure and end our dependence on the Americans; to create one-and-done approvals to accelerate priority resource projects through one application and environmental review; to scrap the industrial carbon tax; and to lower costs for Canadians while boosting our economy and allowing our companies to become competitive again with the U.S. We would repeal Bill C-69 and the west coast tanker ban to build the infrastructure needed to export our clean, responsible energy overseas.

The Prime Minister is known to have a fondness for Conservative ideas, although he has watered each one down, with a minuscule tax cut, a very confined GST break and a sleight-of-hand huge increase in carbon tax measures. For the sake of our country, those who go to work every day to power Canada and the world and those who desperately want to do so, I implore the Liberal government to continue to follow our lead. If not, we are on the doorstep.

Business of the House

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

Mr. Speaker, that is a backhanded compliment if I ever heard one. I can think of one internal combustion engine that my hon. colleague could maybe come help me with, and I could go help him with his, and that is the lawnmower. We will be ripping the cord on that after a long session. We will be ripping the cord on the internal combustion lawnmower and getting caught up on some household duties.

I want to echo everything that my hon. colleague said and thank all the parliamentary staff, the Speaker, the clerks, all the personnel who support the table, the cafeteria, the food service staff and, of course, the PPS. I congratulate them on their 10th anniversary and echo everything said about the pages. I thank them for their service and thank them for their time here. We have been delighted to have them and wish them well as their studies progress.

I also want to thank the members of the official opposition, the official opposition chief whip and the opposition House leader.

I also want to thank the House leader of the Bloc Québécois and the whip of the Bloc Québécois. There is also the former whip whom I still see in the House, and I know that she is giving very good advice to her successor. I also thank the NDP and the Green Party and all their teams. There are a lot of people who support us in our respective roles, and that is very important.

I want to single one person out. I am sure the opposition House leader will indulge me.

I want to thank Sarah Leclair. Thank God she was there. I thank her for supporting the Liberal caucus, the Liberal government for these years. We wish her well as she relocates to another part of our great nation.

Returning to the matter at hand, this afternoon we will resume debate at second reading of Bill C‑3, an act to amend the Citizenship Act. As per our solemn promise to the people of Canada, tomorrow we will begin the debate at report stage and at third reading of Bill C‑5, an act to enact the free trade and labour mobility in Canada act and the building Canada act, which hopefully will be delivered to Canadians in time for Canada Day, along with the income tax cut, which will benefit 22 million Canadians as of July 1.

I wish a happy Canada Day to our great country and all the people who call it home.

Indigenous Affairs

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, indigenous rights holders and civil society groups have been clear: Bill C-5 would violate constitutional rights, escalate the climate crisis and endanger workers' health and safety , but the Liberals and Conservatives are teaming up to pass the bill without proper consultations. The AFN, the ITK and NAN have indicated that it is an ungracious invitation to the Supreme Court. This will stall our economy and the creation of good jobs.

Will the Liberal government uphold its constitutional obligations and keep the bill out of the courts?