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.

Jenny Kwan

$629,698.00