Analysis · Debate question · beta
Kevin Lamoureux
Liberal / on Building Canada Strong Act /
48 words · 3 sentences · 3 clauses
Following a speech by Jacques Gourde (Conservative)
“Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to speak to Bill C‑39, which addresses an issue that is fundamental to the future of our country, namely Canada’s ability to build the infrastructure we need, develop our resources, attract investment and make decisions within a time frame that corresponds to the economic reality we are living in. I believe it is necessary to take action to ensure prosperity and to support all initiatives that are good for Canada and that strengthen our resilience. It is hard to be against virtue. It is crucial to make Canada stronger at a time when it may never have been so weak. That is the task we set for ourselves during the mandate of Conservative prime minister Stephen Harper. Our mission was to build a strong Canada, proud and free. We were able to do that. I truly believe that Canada would have reached new heights if we had been able to stay in the driver’s seat. Unfortunately, things turned out differently, and the Liberal era has been one of decline in almost every aspect of society. However, in Bill C‑39, the Liberals finally acknowledge that they have gone too far with regulation and red tape and that it has hurt investment. Where Bill C‑39 is commendable is in its adoption of Conservative positions that we have been hammering home for 10 years in the House of Commons. We need to simplify overly complex federal processes, reduce excessively long approval times and eliminate regulatory overlaps between the different levels of government. Among other things, the bill proposes to better coordinate the process and target federal decisions within one year of a complete application. That is exactly what our Conservative leader has been hammering home in every forum available to him over the past few years. Let us be honest: For too long in Canada, we have talked about building so much more than we have actually built. I will say it simply: If the government is serious, we will consider the legislation that will truly speed up construction in Canada. When a measure can get a project built faster, get a worker a job faster or allow a company to invest in Canada instead of investing elsewhere, we have a duty to take a serious look at it. However, there is one condition: It has to work. That is where we are going to be very vigilant. Canadians have heard a lot of promises in recent years. They heard governments announce new ways of doing things, but it was often just new red tape, new bureaucracy. Since the new Prime Minister took office, the government has increasingly embraced Conservative themes. It speaks in terms of productivity, competitiveness, major projects, economic security and resource development. It now recognizes that Canada needs to build and cannot afford to stand still in a world where our partners and competitors are engaged in an investment race. Again, I will give the government the benefit of the doubt when it puts forward measures that can actually make a difference. However, it is important to understand one thing: Changing one’s language is not the same as changing reality. Let us look at the energy sector. Canada sits on extraordinary energy resources. We have oil, natural gas, hydroelectricity, uranium and energy expertise that is recognized worldwide. We also have critical minerals that our international partners rely on to keep their economies going. However, at times we have appeared unable to reach consensus on a basic principle: that Canada’s natural resources should be developed responsibly to generate prosperity, create jobs and strengthen economic security for all Canadians. What we cannot do is have all these resources, the workers, the entrepreneurs, the capital and the potential markets, yet be unable to make a decision when a project is put forward. When that happens, investment goes elsewhere, and once investment goes elsewhere, it does not always come back. Meanwhile, the United States is investing heavily in its infrastructure and industrial capacity, European countries are seeking to strengthen their energy security, and Asian economies are seeking to secure their supply chains. Governments around the world understand that the ability to produce, transport and export goods has become a matter of economic security. While Canada has all the resources it needs to play a major role on the international stage, and even possesses numerous competitive advantages over the United States, it is lagging behind. According to the Montreal Economic Institute, business investment per worker has fallen from $20,900 in 2014 to $17,600 in 2024. That is a 16% drop over 10 years. Over the same period, the United States increased its investment per worker by 26%. The question, then, is whether we will finally seize the opportunity to set ourselves apart. This is where I want to come back to what should be the guiding principle of our approach to Bill C-39. The Liberals’ intentions are not what matter here; results are. The government can tell us it wants to reduce delays. We will look at the delays. It can tell us it wants to attract investment. We will look at investments. It can tell us it wants to develop natural resources. We will look at the projects that are actually being built. It can tell us it wants to diversify Canada’s markets. We will look at new infrastructure and new exports. At some point, we have to move from talk to action, from words to deeds. I think that is precisely what Canadians expect from their representatives. We are going to ask tough questions, demand assurances, demand accountability, demand timelines, and demand results because the Liberals have gotten us used to plenty of announcements, but results that are slow in coming. If the Liberal government truly wants to turn the page on this way of doing things, then today is its chance to prove it. I believe that is the real challenge of Bill C-39. This bill could mark a change in direction, and we must ensure that this new direction leads to a Canada that builds more, produces more, exports more, and provides more opportunities for its workers and businesses. If next year we are still here talking about the same delays, the same obstacles, and the same projects that are still awaiting approval, we will have to be honest and admit that the change will have been nothing more than a change in rhetoric, and that will be a failure. We have the natural resources, the workers, the entrepreneurs, the expertise, and the business partnerships around the world. What we need to regain is the confidence to invest, the predictability to plan, and the political courage to make decisions and that is what we will be looking for in Bill C-39. Will it truly help speed up projects? Will it truly reduce duplication? Will it truly give investors clarity on what to expect? If the answer is yes, then the government may earn our trust to support it. If the answer is no, then we will have to ask the government to go much further, because Canada cannot afford to wait. We will not judge this government by its intentions. We will judge it by what it builds. We will judge it by the investments it succeeds in attracting. We will judge it by the jobs it helps create. We will judge it by the infrastructure that is being built, because Canada has everything it needs to succeed. If the government truly wants to turn the page on the legacy of the Trudeau era, if it truly wants to demonstrate that Canada is back in the business of major investments, it should not do so merely through speeches, press releases, or bills, but on the ground, in our regions, our ports, our railways, our industries and our businesses. That is where the success of Bill C-39 will be measured.”
Statement grade
–
Not graded
A score under 50 is red. Choose a measurement to see where it lost points and why; choose it again to clear.
The ask 38%The question 62%
This view breaks the statement into its steps and names what each one does.
Mr. Speaker, The ask · 18 wordsI would like to get a clear indication of the position of the Conservatives on the legislation itself. The question · 30 wordsIs it their intent to vote in favour of the legislation so it can go to committee? Does the member know how the Conservative members will vote on the legislation?
Analysed on