Moved second reading of Bill C-5, An Act to enact the Free Trade and Labour Mobility in Canada Act and the Building Canada Act.

He said: Honourable senators, I rise today to speak to Bill C-5, the one Canadian economy act.

When I was asked to sponsor this bill, I did not have any hesitation. Did I know it was going to be tough? Of course. Did I expect we would have to find ways to talk to one another? Of course, but nation building has never been easy. And nation building is fundamentally what this bill is about at a time when our country is under serious threat.

I believe all senators in this chamber know we find ourselves in a more uncertain and dangerous world. We realize that the relationship we had with the United States based on economic integration and military and security cooperation is over. The trade relationship we had with our closest neighbour, ally and friend — the one that has delivered prosperity for Canadians for so long — has fundamentally changed.

Colleagues, the unjustified tariffs placed on us by the United States — make no mistake — are a serious threat to our economy, our sovereignty and the Canadian way of life. While we cannot control the actions of the President of the United States, we can control how we at home respond. I believe we must take urgent action now to strengthen our negotiating hand and protect Canadian workers and our economy.

This legislation is a direct response to the moment we find ourselves in and seeks to do two things. The first part of the bill aims to eliminate the interprovincial trade barriers that have been in existence as long as we have been a country. The illegal and unjustified trade actions initiated by the United States highlight the urgent need to address these barriers that have fragmented our economy and constrained opportunities for Canadians.

The second part of the bill is about recognizing that for our economy to remain resilient to not only weather the storm with the current tariffs, but also better prepare us for the ever-increasing threats we will face in the future, we need to build things that are in the national interest and do it faster. These major nation-building initiatives are essential to unlocking our full economic potential and strengthening Canada both at home and on the global stage.

Today, I want to talk about these two parts of the bill and how it has been strengthened by amendments that were passed last week in the other place.

Senators, I want to start with Part 1 of the bill, which is seeking to help accomplish what we as a nation have been struggling to achieve since we came together almost 160 years ago to create this great Confederation — to have one economy serving the national interest. That is what is at the heart of this bill, serving the national interest.

If we are to safeguard Canada’s economic sovereignty, we must start by strengthening our own internal trade ties. We cannot afford to be a patchwork of closed provincial and territorial economies when the pressures from abroad demand unity, resilience and self-reliance at home. While we have long championed open markets abroad, we’ve quietly tolerated closed doors at home. We’ve created a country where it is often easier for a company to sell to Germany than to ship across provincial borders. That is not only absurd; it is self-defeating.

Today, Canada’s internal trade barriers are equivalent to placing a 7% tariff on our own goods in our own country. We need to eliminate these barriers and build a stronger one Canadian economy instead of 13.

The barriers this bill seeks to remove are those that exist between the federal jurisdiction and provincial and territorial jurisdictions to promote freer trade of goods and services and labour mobility. The bill would allow for federal regulatory agencies or departments to ensure that where there is provincial or territorial legislation that is comparable — comparable is the key — it would receive the same accreditation as federally. For Canadian businesses, this will make it easier to buy, sell and transport goods and services across the country.

To enhance labour mobility, the act provides a framework to recognize provincial and territorial licences and certifications for workers. This means that a worker authorized in a provincial or territorial jurisdiction can more quickly and easily work in the same occupation in federal jurisdiction. This will make it easier to do business across Canada by removing regulatory duplication and cutting federal red tape. This will also reduce costs and delays for Canadian businesses who follow comparable provincial and territorial rules.

We have heard from labour over the course of this bill’s study that these duplications and red tape are barriers for working in federally regulated fields, are not necessary and are a detriment to workers.

While this act is a good first step, the federal government will continue to encourage the provinces and territories to align their own licensing and certification requirements for skilled workers, like doctors, nurses, teachers and more, to further improve labour mobility in Canada.

The federal government wants this bill to be symbolic of the need by all of us to recognize we must act now more than ever with common purpose and shared goals. Now, there are concerns that have been raised about not wanting standards to be lowered because of this bill.

I spent a lifetime representing workers in my life’s work, and I understand the importance of fighting for higher standards, in particular those related to health and safety on the work site. Now, across this Confederation, we all know that some standards are better than others. I believe there is a recognition that we need to be incentivizing the move toward higher standards, not lower ones.

The bill recognizes the importance of this issue because it includes safeguards to protect the health and safety of workers and Canadians.

Firstly, the act applies to federal requirements on the interprovincial trade of goods and services when there are comparable provincial or territorial requirements. Secondly, the act allows the government to provide exceptions from recognizing comparable provincial and territorial standards when the risks to the health and safety of Canadians or the environment are deemed to be too high. To a large extent, the premiers have recently been working toward this goal for several years.

However, given the crisis with the United States and the fundamental change that appears now to be happening in our trading relationship, premiers and this government recognize the removal of these interprovincial trade barriers can no longer be delayed. P.E.I., Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Ontario, Saskatchewan and Manitoba have all passed legislation to remove barriers to internal trade. British Columbia has also passed its historic Economic Stabilization Act, and Quebec is advancing its own reforms. I believe there is a consensus among the premiers that is as strong as it has ever been for a true one Canadian economy. Bill C-5 will help facilitate meeting this goal.

But while the individual actions of provinces are commendable, they are not enough on their own. What’s needed now, more than ever, is strategic, coordinated federal leadership that can unify these diverse efforts into something even stronger. By stepping up, the federal government can help transform a fragmented system into a seamless, national economic space.

With Ottawa’s leadership, we can move toward a Canada where duplication is minimized, investment is simplified and businesses and workers alike are empowered to thrive across the provinces and territories.

That’s precisely the aim of Part 1 of the bill. It’s a forward-looking proposal to modernize internal trade not through control but through collaboration.

This bill doesn’t erode provincial authority; it respects it. What it offers is a new model of federal engagement, one rooted in partnership and mutual recognition, designed to streamline the system and make the country work more efficiently for everyone.

Senators, I would now like to turn to the second part of the bill, which deals with how we build large nation-building projects that are in our national interest.

There has been a growing recognition in this country that we can do better as a nation in building the required infrastructure necessary for our economic future. The current crisis, I believe, has focused our minds and raised our expectations, but to do better, we will need co-operation and collaboration.

Co-operation requires respect and trust, and collaboration means we need to put many shoulders to the wheel to achieve success for the country.

So how do we build things faster?

The Prime Minister believes we need to make a decision on projects within two years. The current timeline for major projects is five years and in many cases a lot longer. This bill creates a framework to identify and streamline projects of true national interest, projects that make us more resilient, more secure and more prosperous.

These could be projects like building transmission lines that connect our hydro power from Quebec to Ontario; resource corridors bringing critical minerals from northern Quebec or uranium from Saskatchewan and shipping them, refined, to new markets; hydrogen hubs in Alberta and in Sarnia, Ontario; and new infrastructure linking our Atlantic, Arctic and Pacific coasts.

We must be clear. This bill is not about undermining the role of provinces and territories or Indigenous constitutional rights. On the contrary, it builds on their progress and recognizes the hard work of premiers, businesses and labour, as well as Indigenous partners. What it says is this: We will build together, not at cross purposes.

What is a project of national interest?

The proposed bill sets out five criteria that the Governor-in-Council can consider to determine if a project is in the national interest. The projects could strengthen our autonomy, our resilience and our security; provide economic or other benefits for Canadians; have a high likelihood of getting built — not just in theory but in practice; advance the interests of Indigenous peoples; and contribute to clean growth and to meeting Canada’s objectives with respect to climate change.

A new federal major projects office will drive this shift toward identifying these major projects and thoroughly reviewing them before giving them a green light to operate. The office will be a single point of contact for coordination, oversight and quick issue resolution. The goal is to move to a simple, clear two-year timeline for decisions, removing long delays and putting speed and certainty at the centre of the approach. It’s a “one project, one review” approach.

However, the government’s intent is not to build at any cost. Projects that move forward must still meet strong environmental standards and involve meaningful consultation with Indigenous peoples and respect for their constitutional rights.

It is those rights that I want to talk about now.

This legislation makes a commitment that major projects in the national interest will only proceed after Indigenous voices are heard in true partnership. The rights of Indigenous peoples are not a footnote but a foundation.

Section 35 rights are enshrined in our Constitution, and the government has committed to stand firmly behind them. Minister Alty committed to that last week in this chamber when she said:

. . . let me be absolutely clear: Major projects will only proceed under this act with meaningful consultation and accommodation with Indigenous peoples whose section 35 rights may be affected.

This act requires extensive consultation with Indigenous peoples, first during the national interest designation process, then while developing the conditions these projects will have to meet.

This requirement is not optional. It is protected under the Canadian Constitution and is embedded throughout the legislation.

The legislation also confirms that the Government of Canada is committed to implementing the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, or UNDRIP, and ensuring that the rights of Indigenous peoples are respected. However, colleagues, we also know it exists in Canadian law separately, including through the passage of Bill S-13, which ensures that federal acts are interpreted in accordance with section 35 of the Constitution, so these commitments stand on their own.

I believe the government and businesses understand that without meaningful consultation and collaboration, the success of a project greatly diminishes. Two of the five criteria to consider a project of national interest speak directly to this in terms of advancing the interests of Indigenous peoples and having a high degree of success.

Minister Alty also recognized that fact when she said:

Projects that don’t have Indigenous support will not urgently advance. We’re looking for projects that can get going.

She added:

It is important to remember that we’re looking to urgently advance, and it really is about those factors: the high likelihood of successful execution and advancing the interests of Indigenous peoples being the key.

Colleagues, it is important to remember that this legislation mandates that there must be meaningful consultation and accommodation with Indigenous peoples during both the process of determining which projects are in the national interest and the development of the rigorous conditions for each project.

The Indigenous leaders who appeared before us last week spoke eloquently and sincerely about the perspectives of their own Indigenous communities and the approach they believe is needed for the economic development of their communities and the country, an approach that is founded on respecting their rights and built on meaningful consultation and collaboration.

When I agreed to sponsor this bill, I believed that it was incumbent on the Prime Minister to meet with Indigenous leaders to build the trust and respect that will be necessary if the goals of this bill have any chance of success. I was happy when the Prime Minister announced last Friday that he will be meeting with First Nations, Inuit and Métis leaders over the coming weeks.

As I said earlier, if we are to have a spirit of co-operation to meet this moment of crisis, it will need to be founded on the trust and respect that are created through consultation and dialogue.

Before I conclude, colleagues, I want to discuss the amendments that were adopted in the other place. I believe they strengthened the bill by addressing some of the issues that senators and witnesses raised with the ministers last week. Broadly speaking, the amendments can be described as fitting into three categories: accountability and transparency, parliamentary oversight, and clarity.

I want to highlight a few amendments that deal with transparency and oversight, as well as those concerning Indigenous consultations.

One amendment that I believe strengthens oversight and, more specifically, the Senate’s role in oversight was an amendment that will establish a parliamentary review committee composed of members of both houses.

With respect to Indigenous consultations, the other place adopted an amendment that requires the government to ensure that a process is established to allow for the active and meaningful participation of the affected Indigenous peoples and that a report of the consultation process and the results are made available to the public.

There were concerns raised by colleagues last week about the extent to which the minister responsible could list new acts from which major projects could be exempt, including the Indian Act and the Official Languages Act. Another amendment was adopted to specifically exclude these acts and others from being listed as exempted acts for the purposes of the national interest project regime.

In addition, there are a number of other amendments that require clear definitions and disclosures of reports on the implementation of the national projects.

In conclusion, colleagues, I believe we have been asked to do a lot in a short time on this legislation. Whether we like it or not, the circumstances in which we find ourselves as a country have been forced upon us, and we must now meet not only the moment of today but the unknown challenges that we will undoubtedly face in the near future.

The first part of the bill is designed to eliminate the outdated barriers that prevent Canadians from doing business with each other and from working where they are most needed to build a truly unified national economy. With many of these barriers that exist now, premiers have argued over the decades that they have served their interests but have they served the national interest?

The intent of the legislation is also to streamline the approvals process to advance major projects — one project, one review. The government knows that failing to uphold our legal responsibilities around consultation and accommodation will only lead to costly and time-consuming delays in the courts.

I believe, colleagues, that there is a sense, since the election, that the country wants to find a way to move forward. The government got a mandate from the people. The elected house passed this bill, with Part 1 receiving almost unanimous support. We cannot lose sight of this.

They also made a number of amendments that addressed concerns raised and that strengthen the bill. I believe this is a moment when we must start looking at how to put the national interest first. In order to do that, we must trust in one another and hold accountable the people whom we elected for the things they promised to do.

Colleagues, as I said at the start, nation building has never been easy and nor will it ever be easy. That said, that is what this bill is all about. I ask for your support in passing it without amendment. Thank you so much.

Senator Yussuff, I would have actually liked to ask Senator Gold these questions because I’m not quite done with asking him questions in this Parliament but he hasn’t made a speech on a government bill for two and a half years, so I won’t be able to ask him about this at this second reading stage anyway. I will ask you as sponsor of the bill.

Last Friday, after the House of Commons passed Bill C-5, Prime Minister Carney held a press conference. In that, one reporter asked the Prime Minister:

Do you have specific projects you’re hoping to green-light once the bill gets Royal Assent? And is that why you’ve rushed it through Parliament?

“No,” replied Prime Minister Carney.

Senator Yussuff, I know this bill is under a potential closure motion here in the Senate, with the goal, again, to get it passed it quite quickly. Given that, why are we here?

We’re not done until Friday. You may still get a chance to ask questions of Senator Gold, but I thank you very much for the question.

We are here because there is a sense of urgency in the challenges currently facing the country economically. There is recognition by all 13 of our premiers that this country needs to come together given the crisis we face economically. They are doing their part to truly build a national economy. This bill furthers that goal by having the federal government work with the provinces and territories to accomplish that same goal.

Similarly, the premiers have asked the Prime Minister to look at how we can build national projects much faster. The bill lays out some foundational ways on how we can go about that as a country.

At the end of the day, in regard to why we are here, we are here passing a very important piece of legislation to deal with the economic challenges our country is facing. In addition, the bill will set forth and unblock the important economic vitality of this country by making us one national economy going forward.

Yes. Recently, the Prime Minister and the premiers met in Saskatoon in my home province of Saskatchewan to discuss. Each premier, I understand, gave a list of projects that they want to see passed, major projects in their home provinces. I would have hoped to maybe hear a little more as to what major projects this very bill will help to pass rather than just seeming to launch a series of meetings.

Senator Yussuff, you’re also a member of the Prime Minister’s Council on Canada-U.S. Relations. You’ve been on that council for quite some time, and you continue on that council, I believe.

As part of your work with that body, what major projects do you see as being important in dealing with Canada-U.S. relations and the crisis, as your government calls it, that we’re currently in? What major projects can help Canada in that situation?

Hypothetically, I can list a lot of projects in my thinking, but I think it’s critical in the context of this crisis for our first ministers to determine what is in their interests, not what is in my interests. As you said, at the meeting held in Saskatchewan, each premier had their own priorities from their own perspectives. At the end of the day, when this is adopted by the House and the Senate, I hope those premiers can bring forth to the Prime Minister the projects they believe are important for the development of this country but also to unlock the economic vitality of this country.

I’m not going to tell you, in my biased way, what projects I believe the country should consider. I’ll let the premiers do their jobs in telling the Prime Minister about their priorities from their provincial and territorial perspectives. They have outlined those and certainly shared them with the Prime Minister when they met in Saskatchewan.

Thank you for your comments and your work on this legislation. We have heard that we need this legislation to adapt in a rapidly changing world. We’ve also heard from thousands of Canadians on some of the issues that you’ve addressed in your speech today.

I’m just going to shift my question a little bit around the sunset clause. While there’s a sunset clause after five years, do you have any concerns about a future government, especially a majority, using geopolitical shifts or other crises to introduce similar legislation? How might senators push back in the future if you, I or a majority of our colleagues don’t believe such legislation meets the moment as we’ve been told that this bill does today?

First of all, thank you for the question. Hypothetically speaking, I think this house always recognizes its independence to examine any legislation that comes before this body, to give it due consideration, but also with the recognition of doing our job. If the government should submit a piece of legislation that we believe will not meet the national interest, it is, by all means, our responsibility to reject that.

Hypothetically speaking, this bill does have a sunset clause in it. A future government may decide that national projects are still in the national interest. If that is the consensus of the premiers and the Prime Minister, we will have to consider that they chose to extend this legislation. But if a future government should want to bring in another piece of legislation to accomplish the same thing, that would be their right. If they get a mandate from the people, they are absolutely entitled to bring forth legislation for us to consider as an independent house at that particular time.

Senator Yussuff, my question has to do with the preambular amendment in Part 2 of the bill. We do not know what projects the government will classify as being in the national interests, but these projects could end up touching on agriculture as that industry is very closely tied to the interests of Canada’s economy, sovereignty and security as mentioned in the preambular clause where “ . . . good-paying, unionized jobs . . . ” has now been amended in.

As you know, unionized work in agriculture is not common, not because it is not seen as valuable but more because of the resulting increases in costs of production. Farmers sell predominantly in commoditized markets with little or no opportunity to increase what they are paid — they can’t pass along the costs. With already slim margins, there is no room for farmers to absorb added costs. To introduce unionized work, there would need to be a systemic change — something I don’t see this amendment taking into consideration.

With Bill C-5, we are essentially being asked to take part in a trust exercise. What guarantee can the government provide to those in agriculture that their ability to stay in business will not be further compromised?

Thank you for the question. I can’t speak for the entire agriculture sector, but as you know, some parts of the agriculture sector are unionized. Greenhouses in Quebec, Manitoba, parts of Ontario and parts of B.C. are unionized. But the clause is meant to ensure that good union jobs also build this great economy, and to a large extent, the bill does not impose any particular standard. As you know, those standards are established at the provincial level. Workers can choose to join or not join a union, but if those standards are established at a provincial level, when workers choose to join a union, they will benefit, and so will the sector.

At the end of the day, this bill doesn’t impose additional requirements on any sector that is provincially governed, across this country.

My second question pertains to Part 1 of the bill, which deals with interprovincial trade barriers. In essence, what the bill does is this: In cases where both federal and provincial trade regulations apply to the same thing and aim to achieve the same outcome, the provincial regulations will be understood as meeting the federal requirements. This is concerning for some commodity groups, as it was the federal regulations that gave these groups more certainty, for example, federal meat-processing facilities and organic labelling under the Safe Food for Canadians Regulations.

I understand that the hope is that provinces will come together to create a regulatory pathway that alleviates the patchwork of regulations which exist across the country right now, especially if federal regulations are removed. But at the end of the day, we are being asked to take part in a trust exercise, believing that this is how governments will move forward. We’re being asked to trust that the federal government knows when to step aside and to place our trust in the provincial governments, which believe they can figure this out.

What guarantee can we give our commodity groups right now that this will actually result in the efficient movement of products between provincial barriers?

Thank you for your question. The trust exercise we’re engaged in right now is also expressed by our first ministers across this country. They have collectively invested their best effort into figuring out how to help build and strengthen the economy of the country. The federal government is an interlocutor, and there is a process in which all sides, including provincial and territorial governments, will work together to try to achieve the greater objective.

In this exercise, the reality is that they’re all trusting each other to do what is in the best interest of our one economy. In that regard, we have to trust our premiers and interprovincial trade ministers to work together to achieve the greater good of the country.

That trust is based on everything this legislation is about: How can we better achieve those objectives? The federal government has no desire to impose its standard on somebody else unless it’s going to achieve the greater good of the country.

To a large extent, for the 13 premiers and the federal government, this is an exercise to try to improve the economy of the country. Everybody understands that this is a moment when we can all step up, but when there’s an impasse, first ministers will designate their respective minister to figure out how they can overcome that impasse. But, for industry that is relying on the regulatory regime to give them certainty, they can expect that each province will defend their self-interests across this country to ensure we can achieve the greater good, which is what this bill is intended to do: to build one national economy, reduce red tape and facilitate equal trading among ourselves so that it can be far better than what it is today, based on the current regime we’ve been following so far.

Thank you for your second-reading speech and for your work on this bill. You’ve been at it long before it arrived in our chamber, and we know how hard you have worked to advocate on our behalf with the government, including the letter we received today from Minister LeBlanc, which lists a number of consoling statements about concerns that have been raised in this chamber.

One of those concerns comes from me and has to do with the Statutory Instruments Act, or SIA. As many of you know, parts of the SIA could be considered as red tape and could perhaps be expedited or dealt with, and therefore should be excluded from this bill. But there’s a part of the SIA, which I raised with Minister LeBlanc, that kicks in after the bill has passed, after regulations have passed. It would come to the Standing Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations, and we would look at whether regulations are consistent with the statutory instruments. That has been excluded as well.

The minister’s letter suggests that he takes this issue seriously and isn’t going to let it go, but it is still excluded in the bill. I would like some advice from you on what you think the solution is to that problem, as the minister has articulated?

Thank you for your question, and thank you again for raising this issue so that we can understand its importance.

The recognition of the work that the joint committee has done on the statutory regulatory regime is fundamental to any piece of legislation. As the minister assured you and all senators in his response, that will continue, and there was no intention to exclude that from the legislation.

The government will clarify this at the earliest opportunity when other legislation comes before this body. As such, the next time we have any particular legislation that comes here, by which the government can clarify that, I think it will give you certainty. But in addition to that, we have the minister’s letters to confirm that he’s committed to this and that this is an issue which will not somehow disappear because it was not included in the legislation before us to consider.

You are saying that we don’t need an amendment now to deal with it because this government intends to include it in some sort of relevant omnibus bill close at hand. I take that to be the general gist of your response.

On a different issue, one of the amendments that came from the House has created what appears to be a discrepancy between, on the one hand, the five criteria for designating projects of national importance that you mentioned, and on the other hand, the listing of projects under register and accounting for how these projects are meeting the criteria. The discrepancy is this: Whereas the “factors” clause has five items, the “register” clause only has four. The criterion that has been left out in the “register” clause is the one that has to do with clean growth, environment, sustainability and so on and so forth.

One could have a suspicious mind about this, but I’m not going to go down that road. Can you clarify whether there is in fact a discrepancy and what might explain it?

Thank you for your question and your diligence in reviewing what has been adopted. One thing about this chamber is that nothing is ever lost on us, doing our work. So again, I think it speaks volumes about the effort we have put into this.

As you know, there are five criteria, and the government fully expects the reporting to be on all five criteria — not just four — even though it was not mentioned in the amendment. It’s not meant to exclude anything; the government intends to ensure that the reporting will be on all five factors.

Again, to give certainty, the government is prepared to tweak the language at the earliest legislative opportunity, whether with the BIA or with some other legislation to ensure that this is taken care of. The chamber can be reassured that, despite the amendment, and however it was captured, the intention was to report on all five criteria when Parliament receives a report on the five principles of the bill.

Will the good senator take another question?

By all means.

Thank you so much. I’d like to expand a little more on the capacity-building fund. Could you share a little more about that?

I had the opportunity to work with some First Nations groups in the wake of the Marshall decision. It was a tremendous opportunity, but there was so little capacity within a lot of those communities — and some of our Senate colleagues can speak first-hand on that — but there was patient investment. It wasn’t one and done. They have gone back a couple times and reinvested in training and mentoring, equipment purchase and access to certain fisheries.

Now, 20 years later, it’s a huge success story. I don’t believe it has seen its full potential yet, but it’s one that has grown with a good federal partner.

Do you see that same opportunity through these investments and the capacity-building fund?

Thank you for the question. As you’re aware, the government, much earlier, outlined that currently there is $5 billion allocated to this fund. The government is going to double that fund to $10 billion. This is to allow Indigenous communities that want to partner on projects to have the financial support to do so.

This shows a commitment to building Indigenous participation in major projects across the country, for those who choose to participate, by ensuring they have the resources to be real partners at the table. It speaks volumes to what would be a transformation of Indigenous communities that want to own projects but also be part of some major projects that can help build this country and from which they can benefit directly, especially if the developments are taking place in their territories across the country.

I think in later years, we will reflect that the government has done tremendous recognition. Doubling the fund will make much more money available. That was not possible under the previous fund. Doubling it will mean that more partners can take advantage of this.

Thank you very much for the answer. My second question is on the meeting with Indigenous leaders on July 17. Could you share with the chamber a little more information regarding the intent behind that and where you see that going?

In Nova Scotia, our premier, Tim Houston, has been a champion of offshore wind. Most of those projects have major Indigenous equity positions. You talk about patience and impatience. A number of those projects have really advanced and are ready to go.

Can you expand on and share with the chamber what you see coming forward in the July meetings with Indigenous leaders?

Thank you for the question. As you know, we had Indigenous leaders before us who spoke eloquently about some of their concerns. They were not the only ones. A lot of letters have been received, and those who have been dialoguing with friends and colleagues in Indigenous communities across the country recognize there is some worry and ambivalence about how consultation will be conducted and, in addition, how the federal government can truly respect and partner with them going forward.

This meeting is of critical importance, with the Prime Minister committing to be there. He will hear first-hand from Indigenous leaders about those concerns. I hope the government will consider those concerns as they’re considering national projects. Equally, I hope they consider how they can do a better job in communicating what that consultation should be all about.

As you know, we have a constitutional requirement to meet that. We’ve passed Bill S-13 in this chamber and committed to the UN declaration on how we’re going to treat the Indigenous community and nations in this country.

With a new Prime Minister of the country, there’s an understanding of what the expectation might be, and I hope it will give real meaning to this legislation’s implementation as the government moves forward.

Senator Yussuff, I want to hear a bit more detail about the more major amendments to Bill C-5 that were passed by the House of Commons late last week. We in the Senate, who studied this bill in a Committee of the Whole pre‑study before these amendments were part of the bill, haven’t had much of an opportunity to hear about these amendments. You mentioned them in your speech but quite briefly.

I understand that one amendment in particular was to take the Indian Act out of the list, which the federal cabinet would be allowed to ignore in their dealings with major projects. The government previously had the Indian Act in the list. Are there any other acts that have been similarly taken out with amendments? Are there any other major amendments to be considered by this chamber?

Thank you for the question. I want to acknowledge the serious way in which our colleagues in the other place looked at the bill, heard the testimony of witnesses that came before them — and equally the Senate — and reflected very strenuously in looking at the legislation and how they can improve it. Of course, all of us are quite often worried when certain pieces of legislation are excluded from the preview through a process that we’re not a part of.

The other place ensured that all relevant legislation is covered in the act, so the process of approving projects cannot simply be accomplished without respect.

Senator Yussuff, the time allowed for debate has expired. Are you asking for more time to answer the question?

Yes.

Is leave granted, honourable senators?

Senator Batters, what our colleagues did in the other place reflects one of the best efforts I’ve seen in a long time. They approved a piece of legislation that the other place wanted to support, but they also put in the oversight to ensure that we don’t get the short shrift and the government ignoring a particular piece of legislation passed for the betterment of this country. I think the Indian Act is one. Other pieces of legislation that seem to be excluded are now included and covered by those amendments in the other place, and I think we now have a better amended bill as a result of their efforts there.

Honourable colleagues, I rise today as the critic for Bill C-5, An Act to enact the Free Trade and Labour Mobility in Canada Act and the Building Canada Act.

According to the government’s press release, these two acts:

. . . will remove federal barriers to internal trade and labour mobility, and advance nation-building projects crucial for driving Canadian productivity growth, energy security, and economic competitiveness.

Senator Yussuff has already gone into great detail about both parts of this bill, so I will spare you having to listen to all those details a second time — or a third or a fourth, probably, as the day goes on.

I would also note that a record number of senators showed up at the government’s briefing on the bill. We sat through over 10 hours of committee hearings, listening to the testimony of 3 cabinet ministers and 17 witnesses — doing what the Senate does best. I think the last thing we need at this point is more information; I assume we are all fairly well informed on the content of the legislation. However, I do need a few minutes of your time to outline my observations and concerns regarding this bill.

I would like to begin by acknowledging that Bill C-5 is a step in the right direction and that Canada needs this initiative to succeed.

As noted by Jay Khosla at the Committee of the Whole, removing interprovincial trade and labour mobility barriers could increase Canada’s GDP by up to 4%.

The economic potential of the current inventory of resource projects already planned or under way represents over $600 billion in potential capital investment and up to $1.1 trillion in cumulative GDP growth. This potential needs to be vigorously pursued and harnessed.

As you know, honourable senators, Canada currently ranks second to last among all OECD countries in terms of real GDP per capita growth between 2015 and 2024 — just ahead of Luxembourg. We also rank second to last among OECD countries in terms of how long it takes to obtain a general construction permit. After the lost decade, it’s high time for Canada to get back on the path to prosperity.

However, honourable senators, will Bill C-5 really help us do that? That’s far from clear at the moment. Let me explain why, starting with the first part of the bill.

Part 1 of Bill C-5 removes federal barriers to interprovincial trade and enhances labour mobility across Canada. It establishes statutory recognition of goods, services and worker credentials that meet provincial or territorial standards as also meeting comparable federal requirements. It also authorizes the Governor-in-Council to make regulations that facilitate this process. This is an objective I am certain we can all support.

However, I would be remiss in my role as the critic of this bill if I did not point out that this effort amounts to a very little drop in a very large bucket. I was surprised by this, considering that this bill is the flagship legislation of this government and was released with so much fanfare. During the election, Prime Minister Carney led Canadians to believe that he had a plan. He told Canadians that “we can give ourselves far more than Donald Trump can ever take away.”

This is true, of course, but we do not see it in Part 1 of Bill C-5. Instead, we see an initiative that has a very narrow impact. With respect to goods and services, it impacts only those that are subject to both a provincial/territorial requirement and a federal requirement. The federal requirement must be related to interprovincial trade. When asked, officials gave the example of a washing machine. They confirmed that there is actually no list available of the goods and services that will be affected by the legislation, which makes it very hard to measure the real impact.

I am not sure if that is a feature or a bug of this legislation. I am not cynical by nature, colleagues, but I notice that, so far, this government does not like to provide any means of measuring the significance of their promises, the amount of their spending or the impacts of their legislation.

So it sounds good, but we are left to wonder and wait and see what the actual value of this legislation will be. It is the old “trust us” effect.

My concern has been that perhaps the reason we are unable to measure it is because it doesn’t actually amount to much. Regrettably, the government said nothing during our committee meetings to change my mind on this point, and I asked the question repeatedly. I continue to doubt that Bill C-5 will make any noticeable impact on the interprovincial trade of goods and services.

What about labour mobility? By establishing a framework for the federal recognition of provincial/territorial occupational standards, Bill C-5 seeks to reduce duplication in regulatory processes and enhance efficiency for businesses and workers. Once again, this is a laudable objective, but the legislation will make very little difference.

Let me quote an official at the briefing:

The majority of occupations, trades and professions are regulated by provinces and territories. Very few occupations are federally regulated; even less are subject to both federal and provincial/territorial regulation.

This means that Bill C-5 will not impact “the majority of occupations, trades and professions.” It will not even impact the “very few occupations” that are federally regulated. It will only impact the sliver of occupations, trades and professions that are subject to both federal and provincial/territorial legislation. You don’t have to take my word for it. The government admitted this itself: the impact is miniscule.

But this begs the critical question: Why were there different certifications in the first place?

The government seems to be taking the approach that there is no critical difference in certifications, so it will simply recognize provincial certifications from this point forward. The government gave the example of a land surveyor, stating the following:

. . . an Ontario-licensed land surveyor who wants to work on a federal project won’t need additional certifications to do so. They can use their existing Ontario license to get a federal one, reducing delays and paperwork.

However, colleagues, this oversimplifies a complex reality, and it is somewhat misleading. While an Ontario-licensed surveyor may apply their provincial licence as part of the process to obtain a Canada Lands Surveyor Commission, they must still complete additional training and certification through the Association of Canada Lands Surveyors, or ACLS, in order to legally survey Canada lands. This requirement reflects the significant differences in legal, regulatory and cultural frameworks between provincial and federal jurisdictions, which cannot be bridged by a simple licence transfer.

The core surveying techniques, such as using GNSS, total stations and processing geospatial data, are indeed similar across provincial and federal lands. However, the legal, regulatory and contextual frameworks diverge substantially, necessitating specialized training for federal certification.

Provincial land surveyors, licensed by bodies like the Association of Ontario Land Surveyors, are trained primarily in provincial statutes and are authorized to perform surveys only within their province’s jurisdiction. In contrast, Canada Land Surveyors, certified by the Association of Canada Land Surveyors, are the only professionals legally authorized under the Canada Lands Surveys Act to conduct surveys on Canada lands, including Aboriginal reserves, national parks, the Yukon, the Northwest Territories, Nunavut and offshore areas.

ACLS training specifically addresses federal legislation, such as the Canada Lands Surveys Act, the Indian Act and the Territorial Lands Act, along with Indigenous property rights, federal registries like the Canada Lands Survey Records and culturally sensitive land administration processes.

These areas are not covered in provincial training, despite some awareness of federal statutes in provincial curricula. These distinctions between the licensing systems ensure that surveyors are equipped to handle the distinct legal definitions of boundaries, types of title and tenure and dispute resolution processes unique to each jurisdiction, and they underscore why provincial and federal surveyor credentials are not interchangeable.

Yet, I would note, colleagues, that the bill says at clause 10:

Subject to the regulations, a federal regulatory body must

(a) recognize an authorization to practise an occupation issued by a provincial or territorial regulatory body as comparable to an authorization that the federal regulatory body may issue to practise that occupation; and

(b) on application by the holder of such a provincial or territorial authorization, issue them an authorization to practise that occupation.

Without additional training, the roles and corresponding licences are simply not interchangeable; yet, the legislation insists that they must be.

Colleagues, it is possible that these concerns could be addressed through regulation. Governments always promise to solve all the magical problems through the magic of regulation. However, it is of great concern to me that the government does not appear to realize that our varying licensing systems can be reflective of critical distinctions in training. Conservatives believe in cutting red tape and in reducing mobility barriers, but we must ensure it is done carefully, responsibly and that there is alignment.

The final point I want to raise about Part I of the bill is this. Labour mobility is important, and necessary, even, but in all honesty, it is secondary to a much more serious problem that the government is not addressing: the acute shortage of skilled workers in Canada.

This is a real crisis affecting numerous sectors, with major economic and social impacts. In the construction industry, for example, BuildForce Canada predicts a shortage of 29,000 workers by 2027. Why? It is because more than 257,000 workers will retire by 2029, and there are not enough new recruits to replace them. Consequently, the housing crisis is worsening and costs are rising.

The situation is no better in the manufacturing sector. According to Canadian Manufacturers & Exporters, 85% of companies are struggling to recruit skilled workers. In 2022, that cost the industry $7.2 billion in late deliveries and lost contracts.

The same is true in the restaurant sector. In March 2023, Statistics Canada reported a job vacancy rate of 7.6%. Kelly Higginson, president of Restaurants Canada, said:

Trained chefs have become increasingly hard to find, and paying more to attract those workers translates to higher menu prices.

Several factors are fuelling this crisis: an aging population, a decline in birth rates and an education system that is not keeping pace. We need to act quickly and adopt strong policies that go well beyond the modest labour mobility reforms set out in Bill C-5.

Ironically enough, if we don’t do something about the shortage of skilled workers, these changes will simply result in more competition between the provinces when it comes to attracting workers from other provinces. I don’t think that is the intention of this bill. However, it could very well be the consequence.

Colleagues, Part 1 of this bill is well intentioned, but it ultimately represents a modest symbolic gesture in place of the bold, comprehensive action our labour market needs and our economic challenges demand. This bill is not as advertised, and that is regrettable.

Part 2 of this legislation creates the building Canada act, which streamlines the federal approval process for nationally significant infrastructure and resource projects. It allows the Governor-in-Council to designate projects as being in the national interest, subject them to a single coordinated federal review and deem authorizations under existing laws to have been granted, subject to conditions established in a single conditions document issued by a designated minister.

This is where it gets interesting, colleagues. The conditions referenced in the document are drawn from the 12 acts of Parliament and seven sets of regulations listed in Schedule 2 of Bill C-5. Yet the first draft of the bill gave cabinet sweeping authority to unilaterally add to, amend or remove any of those acts or regulations from the schedule. It also empowered cabinet to exempt any national interest project from any part of those laws or regulations. Under clause 23, cabinet could go even further, issuing regulations to override or modify any provision of Bill C-5 itself. In other words, through Bill C-5, the government attempted to give itself sweeping powers to exempt national interest projects from the application of any law or regulation — or to vary the application of laws or regulations, including provisions of the building Canada act itself.

The initial unamended bill was just one big blank signed executive order: Cabinet could do or not do pretty much anything it wanted to get a project through. Thankfully, colleagues, the Liberal government does not have a majority of seats in the House of Commons. As Senator Yussuff explained in his speech quite well, 25 amendments were made at committee and 3 amendments were made at third reading, which clipped the government’s wings and curtailed the excessive executive power it wanted to give itself.

A parliamentary review committee is now required to report twice a year on the minister’s and cabinet’s exercise of their powers and performance of their duties under this act. The term “national interest” will now have to be defined for each project instead of being left vague and ambiguous. Before a project of national interest can be added to Schedule 1, there is a 30-day notice period, which includes publishing the name and description of the project in the Canada Gazette. Conflict of interest guidelines have also been introduced. A public registry must be established for national projects, which includes descriptions of the projects, cost estimates, estimated timelines and more. A national security review has been mandated in the event that there are state-owned or foreign investments in national interest projects. Meaningful Indigenous consultation has been mandated once again, and the process, along with its results, must be made available to the public within 60 days. There will be no more settling for non-answers from ministers at Question Period about who was or was not consulted and where the money went. The government is now forbidden from bypassing or changing the requirements set out in 17 acts of Parliament, including the Indian Act, the Official Languages Act and the Criminal Code.

When you read the entire list, it drives home how bizarre it is that the government intended to give itself the unilateral power to bypass the provisions of these and any other laws. The amendments removed the ability for cabinet to exempt a national interest project from being subject to parts of Bill C-5. They removed the ability for cabinet to change Bill C-5 after it was passed by “varying the application of any provision of this Act . . .” The final thing that I will mention — although there are many more that I could — is that the minister will now be required to publish an annual progress review on national interest projects, including timelines and budgets.

Colleagues, these were all needed changes — reasonable, measured and responsible ones — but they would never have happened if we had left it to the government itself to make them. They happened because — when all is said and done — the House of Commons did their job. The government intended to pass a law that would give them executive powers on steroids. And if you feel as if you are experiencing a little bit of déjà vu, it is not your imagination. We have seen this before with this government. They seem to think that they should have the power to govern without the nuisance of parliamentary oversight.

If you recall, they tried this same tactic in March 2020, during the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic. As part of its initial emergency aid package, the government introduced a draft version of a bill that included a clause granting the Minister of Finance sweeping powers to spend public money, increase borrowing and change taxes without parliamentary approval until December 31, 2021. They wanted us to give them carte blanche so they could bypass parliamentary oversight and the parliamentary process for a period of 21 months.

This attitude and mindset are like a cancer with this government — it goes into remission shortly before elections and then flares up again the moment they think no one is paying attention or they believe it is warranted by some national crisis or emergency. Nothing is better than a government in pursuit of a good crisis.

I fear that it betrays the Liberal Party’s deep discomfort with accountability and belief that democratic scrutiny is an obstacle to be managed, not a principle to be upheld. If you doubt me on this point, colleagues, I would draw your attention to the fact that even now we are being asked to approve this legislation, yet the government has been unable to provide us with a corresponding budget for its implementation. These are pretty serious questions, colleagues.

This perhaps would not be alarming in and of itself, but we must recall, as Senator Marshall has noted in this chamber, that we are already operating with a dearth of information about the fiscal health of the country. We still have no debt management report for 2023-24, no budget for this year and no borrowing strategy. Nonetheless, the government now expects us to approve legislation which will require even more funding. This is more than a little concerning.

Colleagues, I must point out the elephant in the room: This legislation is necessary because of one primary reason — the failures of the government over the last decade. After a decade of anti-development legislation, such as Bill C-69 and Bill C-48 — which we consistently warned would stall investment, kill projects and strangle economic growth — the government nonetheless passed it and moved on. Their policies have so thoroughly entangled Canada’s project approval process that, in their view, the only solution is to write a new law to exempt themselves from the rules they created because it would be too embarrassing just to repeal the legislation that caused the damage in the first place.

This government built the regulatory walls — we passed them in this chamber — and they’ve asked for a key to the back door to impose the conditions that led to the cancellation of more than $670 billion in energy and resource projects since 2015. Now, with Bill C-5, they are in crisis management mode, scrambling to get project proponents and investors back to the table in order to mitigate a colossal mess of their own making.

Let’s be clear, colleagues, Conservatives in the House of Commons supported Bill C-5 because Canada urgently needs to get major projects moving. I intend to support this bill as well because the stakes are high and the need is significant. The responsibility to implement this legislation wisely, effectively, expeditiously and transparently falls directly on this government, but also on Parliament. Canadians want and need to see real progress. They need tangible results with real-world impact, not platitudes and press releases. They are tired of lofty promises and political theatre. They want shovels in the ground, jobs created and barriers removed.

Colleagues, in a nutshell, we are in a crisis. Senator Yussuff is absolutely right: The country must come together and Parliament must come together. But we are, I must underline, in a crisis created by this government over the last 10 years. Creating red tape, being as environmentally enthusiastic as they were and putting in place bills like Bill C-69, Bill C-48 and other regulatory measures that discouraged the unleashing of our Canadian resources is in large part why this crisis has occurred. We have seen economic stagnation in this country over the last 10 years that has allowed individuals like Donald Trump to take advantage of us being weak and meek, and only then did it become a crisis. If we had unleashed our natural resources and been preoccupied in the last decade with wealth creation, we would not be facing Donald Trump in the manner and in the crisis we are today.

We have a government that spent the last 10 years under the leadership of Chrystia Freeland and Steven Guilbeault being environmentally enthusiastic. Now under the leadership of Prime Minister Carney, we are optimistic but skeptical because you know what? Minister Freeland and Minister Guilbeault are still there.

Same crowd.

I can’t believe that all of a sudden, they traded in their excessive environmental enthusiasm for an excessive enthusiasm for energy development. We’ll see where the chips fall. At the end of the day, when it comes to nation building, we’ll see if this new government — with the same old ministers — will embrace nation building and energy building with the same degree of enthusiasm that they embraced environmental zealotry and overenthusiasm over the last 10 years.

Senator Yussuff, it also concerns me when you say that the government will use its judgment, and when it’s all said and done, they won’t impose projects. They are going to respect our First Nations people and the environmental guidelines, but they will impose them in cases where it’s for the greater good. When I listen to that statement, that causes a bit of concern because, again, we can’t really size up which way the government is going to go. Are they going to show the good intentions which we believe and I believe have been forced upon Prime Minister Carney by a general election, where millions and millions of Canadians voted for change? They want to turn their backs on a decade of creating red tape, stalling projects, stalling foreign investment and stalling our energy development, and they want to turn the page under the guise of this crisis? I want to turn the page under the principle of nation building. Nation building should not be based on an existential crisis forced upon us by some overzealous President or another. It should be a constant drive forward to make this country stronger and wealthier and to have a foundation to build where our First Nations people are part of that, and they’re equal partners, while we respect our environmental guidelines. We need to return to some semblance of balance, which I think we have lost over the last decade.

I am the friendly critic of this bill. We will support this bill. We are going into the next little era of this new government — even though it has the same old ministers — with a great deal of hope because we need to meet that aspiration because the country is at a crossroads, and there’s no turning back.

Let me be clear here: This bill, colleagues, is not great legislation crafting. There’s nothing great or legislative about this. This is all very political. This is a government that came out of the eve of the election putting a deadline of July 1, which is nothing more than a public relations exercise, and the Prime Minister is saying, “Trust me, I will get us there. We want the country to collectively come together, and I will get us there.”

I will hold an open mind. The opposition group will hold an open mind. As you saw, by the way, they voted and were constructive in helping build this legislation in the House. They have an open mind. But the success or failure of this legislation is incumbent on the Prime Minister. Will he have the political will to do everything this legislation intends to do? If he does, I will be the first to climb to the rooftops to compliment him and yell from a megaphone, “Congratulations. Our country and our process of nation building is on the right path.” But if he fails Canadians at this juncture, there will be a political price to pay.

Colleagues, we are going to pass this legislation. This is not new. The elected House has given us a clear mandate. They expect this passed unamended by July 1 and in place, but we are once again at the mercy of a political piece of legislation in the hands of a Prime Minister who we’re counting on to do the right thing.

I will finish by saying this, colleagues: I’ve studied this legislation very carefully, and I’ve worked with many of you in this institution for many years. If it were a Conservative government tabling this legislation, let’s be clear: Many of you would be on your feet voting against it and ripping your shirts in indignation and amending it until the cows come home. The good news is that it’s a Liberal government right now that is putting this forward, and they have our support wholeheartedly, and I suspect they have the support of most of the people in this chamber as well. Thank you, colleagues.

Senator Housakos, I was just building up on the meeting in July with Indigenous leaders. I meant to ask this question to the sponsor of the bill earlier, but time ran out. Let me get a little bit creative with the time I have here.

Do you think it would be important for the opposition in the Senate to ask the sponsor of the bill what exactly is the purpose of the meeting with Indigenous organizations? I ask this because I am the former head of one of the five national organizations, which are all funded by the Government of Canada. Many of these organizations are funded to play ball with the government.

Wouldn’t it be important to have clarification on why the meeting is taking place with Indigenous organizations, given those five Indigenous organizations in Canada are not the rights holders of anything? They are political lobby organizations. Hypothetically, what happens if a future project of the Government of Canada includes the Algonquin people? Well, the Assembly of First Nations, the Métis National Council, the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples, Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami and the Native Women’s Association of Canada do not represent the Algonquin people. Do you think it’s important for the opposition in the Senate to seek clarification as to what exactly is the consultation process taking place on July 17, and is that really helping the process for the real First Nations in this country?

Thank you for the question. Obviously, the government is best suited to answer it. The only thing I can surmise is that the government is consulting far and wide. I’m very disappointed to hear that they only invited groups that are associations rather than First Nations representatives. It’s probably a political exercise, but, again, I’m only surmising that’s the case.

As you saw from the amendments that were made in the other house in regard to the Indian Act — and I suspect there might be a few more amendments coming from this chamber — First Nations people are the most important in developing our resources and showing respect for our land, and there has to be a robust consultation.

If you look at the way Bill C-5 is structured right now, it’s relying on the goodwill of government to reach out and come to arrangements with various First Nations peoples, depending on which region of the country and depending on what type of infrastructure project we’re talking about.

You and I have been here for an equal amount of time — a very long time. I always get weary, regardless of political colour, when I have to rely on the goodwill of governments without some legislative pressure and some parliamentary oversight. I don’t know if that answers your question. I hope the government does a better job at it than I do.

Honourable senators, I would like to thank everyone for their quick action, especially that of our emergency and security personnel.

We’re still debating Bill C-5.

Sure.

Thank you for the question, Senator McPhedran. Of course, I’m concerned. I highlighted that in my speech.

The analysis we’ve done indicates that right now, at least, there’s a political will to move infrastructure and energy projects forward, which hasn’t been the case over the last decade.

Like you, we find it excessive that so much concentration of authority over these decisions will go to one minister or — for that matter — even a small group of ministers. That’s because the success of these projects will be highly dependent on the ability to bring so many different groups together — from environmental groups to First Nations to capital investors.

Over the last decade, we’ve seen how rigid capital can be. We had a witness who said that capital goes or capital grows, and investors do not want any impediments whatsoever.

So we have various elements on the table with extreme positions and a government that hasn’t been able to bring them together for over a decade. On the contrary, they’ve managed to drive in so many wedges that we’ve seen very little confidence in terms of energy and infrastructure investment in Canada.

Again, I’m skeptically optimistic that this Prime Minister will be able to get this done without any parliamentary oversight or very little of it. There is some now, thanks to the amendments that have been made, but initially, there was almost zero. We share those concerns, so thank you for the question.

I also want to thank Senator Ravalia. How lucky we are in this chamber to have Dr. Ravalia in our midst. Thank you for always being there for all of us.