“The government keeps announcing new offices and powers, but it gets no results. There are 500 projects waiting for approval. I want the government to stop making announcements and actually approve them.”

“Mr. Speaker, the government announced a supply chain office in 2023, with no results. Then last year we passed Bill C-5, which gave the Liberals extraordinary powers, with no results. Then they started a special projects office, but so far, there are no results. Now they want to build on more bureaucracy. When will the government finally get something done? There are 500 projects in the wings waiting to be approved, and so far, the government has done nothing. We have had enough of announcements. When will the Liberals actually get to work for Canadians?”

“The government promised an office that would approve big projects within a year. Parliament created that office 15 months ago, but it has not approved a single project yet.”

“Mr. Speaker, my colleague across the way mentioned in his speech that the Liberals have a major projects office that was going to approve projects within a year. That is 12 months. This place passed Bill C-5 15 months ago, and yet not a single project has been approved by that office. How long does it take to figure out which companies benefit Brookfield, so that they can approve a few projects?”

“This bill will not build anything, just like the last bill did not. Its one-year limit is fake because the government can pause or extend the clock forever. We will study the bill, but the government should use our plan instead. Cut the red tape, repeal the current assessment law and the carbon tax, and approve projects in under a year.”

“Mr. Speaker, it is déjà vu all over again. A year and a half ago, the Prime Minister came storming into the House of Commons with a cape on his back, saying that he had a new bill, Bill C-5, which was going to bring in sweeping legislative changes to build at speeds not seen in generations. The media declared that we would build the unimaginable with this bill. Here we are, 18 months later, and how many projects has it built? An hon. member: Zero. Hon. Pierre Poilievre: Mr. Speaker, did I hear “zero”? Is there any dispute on the other side? They are dead quiet on the other side. The answer is “zero”. How many permits have been issued by the new office? Zero. How many employees are working on those projects? It is zero, zip, nada, nothing, after 18 months, but do not worry. Today the Liberals have come in and announced another sweeping bill, which the media has regurgitated unfiltered, as though it were gospel truth, and this time the Liberals are repeating exactly the same promises. It is not just that the Liberals have approved and built nothing. There are 500 projects, at least, waiting on the Prime Minister’s desk. I say 500, because the Impact Assessment Agency has that number of significant projects, but there are also countless other projects at other departments, which are too dispersed among too many agencies for anyone to tell us how many projects the federal government is waiting to approve. Still, 18 months later, none of them are approved. Not a single Trudeau-era, antidevelopment law or tax has been removed. Not a single inch of oil pipeline has been built. Remember, the Prime Minister said that we are in an existential crisis. That is to say that if we do not get it right, we will not even exist in his terms, that we are in a “war”. Is this the speed of war? Imagine this: If we had travelled at this speed back in the Second World War, we would not have gotten the Lancaster built in two years. In fact, the plane would not be off the ground even today. There have been dozens of announcements, summits, speeches, signing ceremonies and other illusions. We have heard lots about this project or that, which will be designated, declared or listed. Pipelines do not go on lists; they go in the ground. Shovels do not go on designations; they go in the ground. Energy does not go in an MOU; it goes in a tanker to another market. Unfortunately, none of those things are happening. It is all talk, no results; all show, no go; and all theatre, no reality. Here is the reality and the result: Gushing media headlines aside, there has been nothing in 18 months. The previous bill was called the Building Canada Act. It built nothing. Today we have a bill called the building Canada strong act, so in 18 months, the Liberals have managed to add one word. One word on a piece of paper is 18 months’ worth of achievement. The only thing the Prime Minister has built is 14 new government agencies. Now, here we go again. We have another bill, and it would not repeal Bill C-69, Justin Trudeau’s antidevelopment law. It would not eliminate the industrial carbon tax, and it would not ultimately change the obstacles that are in the existing legal framework. For example, let us take the administrative burden created by Liberal Bill C-69, Trudeau’s antidevelopment law. Even if the bill before the House were to pass today, we would still have on the books requirements that anybody who applies for a project include analysis on “the intersection of sex and gender with other identity factors”, as if that has anything to do with mines, pipelines or marine ports. My favourite is that projects, even if the bill before the House today were to pass, would still have to take into account “any other matter relevant to the impact assessment that the Agency requires to be taken into account.” That means there is no limit on the number of things that the bureaucracy would consider before a project were approved. How can the Liberals even talk about regulatory certainty with that kind of ambiguity? The Liberals are claiming that it will help get things built, but they promised this the last time, so we should not hold our breath. Does it reduce the number of vexatious or irrelevant obstructions from hard-core foreign-funded interest groups that have been killing projects for over 10 years? Well, the bill maintains a wide-open approach to consultation about projects that would allow literally anyone to have their comments and testimony included in hearings before a project can actually occur, so we could have American interests that want to keep Canada down, the ones that helped Justin Trudeau get elected with massive foreign funding in the 2015 election, fund antidevelopment groups against the interests of Canada to block things from happening. It is elbows up, indeed. That would not change under this law. Mr. Speaker, I am just wondering if I can ask for a favour. Could you pause the clock so that I can speak for longer than 10 minutes but still come in under the 10-minute limit? Hon. Kevin Lamoureux: Well, technically we can. Hon. Pierre Poilievre: No, it turns out we cannot. However, Mr. Speaker, under this bill, the one-year time limit could be paused at any time. The regulator could stop the clock so that it would not count within the one-year time limit. We could waste seven or eight years and still claim that it all happened under one. Under this bill, the bureaucrats could use three or four different excuses to hit the pause button on the clock, meaning that the famous one-year turnaround time on the decision that the minister advertised to the media is nothing in reality except an illusion. On top of that, the minister sitting before me could actually add 90-day extensions to the time it takes to get a permit for a project. If that is still not enough for government bureaucrats, they could go to cabinet and get a permanent extension on the consideration of a bill. Who in their right mind, as a company, would put aside billions of dollars for a major project knowing that a Liberal cabinet, which has spent the last decade blocking projects, would have the legal power to delay the approval of or even a decision on a project forever? Under the current system, the legislative timeline does not start until the proponent has done lengthy mandatory preplanning and consultations. That does not even come into the existing legislative time frames. Under Bill C-39, the proponent would have to gather and produce even more information, all the detailed engineering and scientific data necessary not only for the impact assessment, but also for whatever permitting processes apply to the project. That would all happen before the clock starts running on the one-year limit. Mr. Speaker, if you would like me to stand up and speak for an hour before the clock starts on my 10-minute speech, I am sure the Liberals would love for that to happen. However, in reality, there is no one-year timeline for a project. In sum, this is once again all talk and no action. The one-year timeline is smoke and mirrors, another illusion. The reality is that there would still be many years before concept can lead to construction. There is ultimately no limit whatsoever. This bill appears once again to be all talk and no results, headlines without deadlines. Meanwhile, there are real consequences for the Prime Minister to continue along with the same policies of the Liberal government of the prior decade. Despite him claiming in the House of Commons that affordability is the best it has been in more than a decade, all he proved by saying that is that he is out of touch while Canadians are out of money. The Prime Minister promised the fastest-growing economy in the G7. It was all talk and no results. Instead, today we got information from the OECD that we will be fourth out of seven, and our economic growth for the present year was downgraded by a quarter, down to a pathetic 0.9%. Inflation is outgrowing wages, meaning Canadians are getting poorer in real time. Liberals are costing us more. Canadian households are now the most indebted in the G7, as interest rates rise on their mortgages, and rising prices at the grocery store ultimately leave our people behind. We have a better way, and that is for the government to get out of the way and pass our economic action plan, which would scrap Bill C-69, the antidevelopment law. It would repeal the ban on shipping oil off the west coast of British Columbia. It would eliminate the industrial carbon tax. Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have? It is unlimited. It is kind of like the timing on the Liberal approval for projects: It is unlimited. They can take as much time as they want. We can see why the Emiratis, who wanted to invest $90 billion in Canadians, came back six months later and said they could not find a project that was approved for them to invest in under the government. The Conservatives have a way to fix that. It is called the “one and done” plan. It is very simple: one project, one approval, one year, and better yet, one page. Members may say that it is impossible, but it has been done. Under Prime Minister Harper’s government, in the 2008-09 world financial crisis, then minister John Baird told his bureaucrats that he wanted to get the application form for a project down to one page. They said they could never do it, that it was impossible. They came back saying that he would be very happy because they got it down to 100 pages. He said that he wanted one page, and he told them to get out of his office. They came back, saying that the minister was going to be thrilled because they got it down to 50 pages, which had never been done. He told them to get out of his office and said that he wanted one page. They came back, saying that the minister was going to be thrilled because they got it down to 10 pages. He told them to get out of his office and said that he wanted one page. Finally they came back and told him it was one page. Then he told them he wanted one approval for each project. They came back and delivered one approval. Guess what happened. We finished 23,500 projects, from concept to completion, in under two years. Despite grave warnings from the Liberal opposition at the time that this would destroy safety and the environment, the environment commissioner did a full audit of 23,500 projects, and not one came back with a safety or environmental problem, so “one and done” can be done. What was funny was that the NDP got up and waved around a document saying that the environment commissioner had found a problem with a project that the feds had approved in Kanata, so we looked into it. It turned out that this project had not been part of the “one and done” plan but had taken seven years to approve and had the worst environmental outcome. That proves that all the paper, process and delays have nothing to do with the environment, and everything to do with feeding an insatiable bureaucracy that creates work and money for itself by getting in the way, a bureaucracy that the government has allowed to metastasize over the last decade. We need a real bill that will truly cap the consideration time for a project at under a year and set a target of six months. A year should be the worst-case scenario. In fact, why not bring all the first ministers and all the mayors into a room to sign a document that we in Canada should be the fastest place on earth to get a building permit? No matter what someone wants to build, it should be faster to build it in Canada than anywhere else on earth. The Prime Minister could set the example today by granting permits for the 500 projects we have identified that are waiting in the impact assessment office. He could also get rid of the capital gains tax for reinvestments in Canada so we could bring back the trillion dollars of investment the Liberals have driven out of our country. That would be an avalanche of investment that would come pouring back into construction. It would be possibly one of the most patriotic tax cuts ever. We will look very carefully at this 250-page Liberal bill, but we are not going to believe all the rhetoric, the hype and the talking points, because we have heard it all before. The Liberals have been repeating the same promises since the Prime Minister took office. We are going to study the bill, but we have reservations about the outcome. The Liberals have made similar promises before. So far, they have not gotten rid of Liberal anti-development laws, Liberal anti-development taxes or Liberal anti-development bureaucracy. We want to remove these barriers so that we can build in earnest and make our country affordable, safe and independent here at home. We will study the bill, and we will do so based on the criteria of whether it meets our mission of a country that is affordable, safe and independent here at home. Our mission is to save Canadians money, save jobs and put Canada first. We have a real plan to do it. We ask the government to steal our plan. Perhaps what it should do is just take our plan and amend it over this bill. That way we would actually get some results. At the end of the day, the Prime Minister does not need to do, he needs to stop doing. He needs to stop blocking, stop taxing, stop obstructing and stop signing meaningless MOUs. He needs to get out of the way, get off the backs of our people and let our builders build, our workers work and our investors invest. We should be the richest, most affordable country on earth. We have been blessed with an abundance that is unmatched in the history of humanity in geography, oceans and resources and, of course, the best people on planet earth. Let us unleash their potential and let us fulfill the promise of this country that anybody who works hard gets a great life, an affordable home, a fridge full of groceries and a bank account that is overflowing at the same time. That is the promise this country made to every single person. That is our country’s promise. That is what we are fighting for. That is the fight we are having on behalf of all Canadians, so let us get the job done. There has been enough talk. It is time for some action.”

• Echo ×10

  A repeated line

  “The Prime Minister promised the fastest-growing economy in the G7.”

  Said 10 times by 7 members since April 27.

  Every time it was said →

“I oppose this bill. The government is not actually building the projects it promised, and its announcements do not help people who cannot afford food and rent. This bill also lets the government break its promise to approve projects within one year by causing delays.”

“Mr. Speaker, I think the minister missed the speech. Maybe I should give it all over again, but before I do, let me just point out that he says they have “started” on five projects. They have started looking at five projects, not actually building anything, and that is the reality. The Liberals think that if they imagine something, that if they say something or that if the Prime Minister gives a speech or the media gives him gushing praise, it is the equivalent of that thing actually happening, when in fact single moms cannot eat the Prime Minister’s speeches if they are low on money for groceries. People cannot pay their rent with the Prime Minister’s fake MOUs. They cannot fill their tanks with Liberal rhetoric and promises. We need reality. Yes, I do have comments on the bill, and I will repeat them. The bill would actually allow the government to violate its own promised one-year time limitation by delays at the front, delays in the middle and delays at the end. That is just one of the many criticisms that this bill deserves.”

• Little substance
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Signal 27 of 100

  Much of this statement went to praise, blame, greetings, routine procedure or general stories rather than reasons, requests or specific points.

  See full analysis →

“This bill does not go far enough. The government delays projects with too many rules and taxes. Businesses and workers build things, but the government keeps blocking them. The government needs to get out of the way.”

“Mr. Speaker, even if the bill before us passes, the Liberal government will continue to block and tax the projects Canada needs, with endless delays, excessive red tape and taxes that discourage investment. That is why we are saying that it does not go far enough. The government needs to get out of the way. That is what it comes down to. This federal government does not build projects. It blocks them. It is investors, businesses and workers who build projects. The problem is that the government is blocking them, and that has to stop. I know it is hard for the Bloc Québécois not to block everything, but we want the government to stop blocking projects in Canada.”

“The government keeps creating new government offices to solve problems, but nothing gets done. They made offices for supply chains, major projects, and trade, but food costs are still high and no projects have been built. I am asking the leader of the official opposition if he agrees that all this extra bureaucracy is hurting Canada.”

“Mr. Speaker, I appreciated the leader of the official opposition’s speech today. I would like him to comment on the following examples. I have noticed a pattern with the Liberal government and with its predecessor. In 2023, the Liberals established a national supply chain office, because they were all concerned about supply chains. They created the office, and yet we see food inflation being quite high in Canada. It continues to be a concern, especially in my riding. We saw, in 2025, in Bill C-5, that they created a Major Projects Office that is supposed to get big projects built. As we have seen, and as the member has said, zero projects have been built or have been approved by that office. We now have the Minister of Transport creating a national trade corridor office to do the same thing. Does he see a pattern and is this bureaucracy actually helping or hurting?”

“The government causes high prices for food and housing with high taxes, big deficits, and too many rules. Creating more government programs will only make things worse. The government needs to get out of the way.”

“Mr. Speaker, the pattern is that the government confuses the problem with the solution. The problem is the government. It is not the solution. The government inflates food prices with high taxes, inflationary deficits and red tape on farm production. It then says that the solution to that must be even more government spending and bureaucracy, which drive up the cost of food and everything else. The reason we have high housing costs is that government bureaucracy and taxes drive up housing. The Liberals say that the solution must be even more government programs to fix the problem that they caused. It is like the doctor who administers a poison so that he can administer the antidote and then claim to have saved one’s life. Why did he not just do neither in the first place? The patient would be fine without the government doing the damage in the first place. We have had 11 years of this. People cannot eat, heat or house themselves. Why do we not try something different? Why do we not get the government out of the way and off one’s back?”

• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 100 of 100

  Of this reply, 100% addressed the question or point raised.

  See full analysis →

“The member just said his own voters are struggling with the cost of living. They cannot afford food and their bank accounts are empty. This proves the government's programs are not working.”

“Mr. Speaker, I think the answer is in the member’s question. He says that his constituents are coming into his office to say how much they are struggling with the cost of living. This is after all of these wonderful programs that they have brought in. Maybe he should listen to his constituents, who are telling him that their empty stomachs, empty fridges and empty bank accounts prove that Liberal programs are not working.”

• Off topic
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 0 of 100

  None of this statement addressed the specific topic under debate.

  See full analysis →

“We want corridors to build projects, but the Liberals have not made any. A law passed 18 months ago gave the Prime Minister the power to approve pipelines and power lines. He has not approved a single one. He copies our words, but he does not act.”

“Mr. Speaker, of course we want corridors for projects, but the Liberals have not created any. They have had 18 months since the passage of Bill C‑5, which would have allowed the Prime Minister to set up corridors and provide building permits to build pipelines, power lines and other projects. The Prime Minister did not use those powers to issue a single permit. The difference between us and the Liberals is that, yes, the Prime Minister repeats our words, but without acting on them. He is all talk and no action.”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 46 of 100

  None of this reply addressed the specific point raised or the topic under debate.

  See full analysis →

“The government helps powerful corporations with special handouts while small businesses face high taxes and red tape. Politicians should not pick winners and losers based on who has the best lobbyists. We need a free market where businesses win by making the best products for Canadians.”

“Mr. Speaker, this is the top-down crony capitalism that the Prime Minister has brought to our economy. It is an economy of carve-outs, bailouts and handouts to special corporate power brokers, and taxes, red tape and inflation for small business. As such, yes, I am very concerned about the idea that politicians will hand-pick winners and losers and that profit will be determined by who has the best lobbyists, not who has the best product; and by who has the most political influence, not the best product for Canadians. We need free market, bottom-up capitalism, not top-down—”

• Little substance
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Signal 8 of 100

  Much of this statement went to praise, blame, greetings, routine procedure or general stories rather than reasons, requests or specific points.

  See full analysis →
• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 100 of 100

  Of this reply, 100% addressed the question or point raised.

  See full analysis →

“I congratulate the new member on winning his seat. I want him to tell us what voters in his riding told him and what his main goals are.”

“Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Conservative members from British Columbia, I would like to congratulate the member for North Vancouver—Capilano on his victory and welcome him to this chamber. I remember that when I came to Ottawa, my predecessor was also a minister. I know how difficult it is when people say that we have big shoes to fill. I took it as a challenge. I hope the member does too. In the member’s speech, he talked about a lot. I would like to hear how his election was, what he heard on the streets of his riding and what his priorities as a member of Parliament in this parliamentary session are.”

• Off topic
  ?

  Question or comment in debate

  Relevance 0 of 100

  None of this question addressed the preceding speech or the topic under debate.

  See full analysis →
• Little substance
  ?

  Question or comment in debate

  Signal 26 of 100

  Much of this statement went to praise, blame, greetings, routine procedure or general stories rather than reasons, requests or specific points.

  See full analysis →

“This bill creates more red tape. It lets companies start early work on projects only if the minister personally approves it. The government should set clear, predictable rules instead of giving the minister that power.”

“Mr. Speaker, the member opposite mentioned the administrative burden. Under Bill C-39, proponents would be allowed to do preliminary, early site work, but only if the minister deemed it in the public interest. Why is the government creating such subjective ministerial discretion instead of just simple, clear, predictable rules? Why add to the red tape?”

“I want the member to answer my question. He claims he opposes red tape, but this bill adds more rules and government bureaucracy. Why does every Liberal solution grow the government instead of getting out of the way?”

“Madam Speaker, the member across the way says that he repeats things over and over about the administrative burden. He did not answer the question before about ministerial discretion and what the public interest is. Maybe he will answer this instead. Part one adds regions of national interest and more administrative layers. Why does every Liberal solution involve expanding Ottawa’s bureaucracy rather than getting out of the way? Why more bureaucracy? Why more discretion? Why more rules? I thought the member said he was against red tape.”

“I do not support this bill. The Liberals put too many unrelated changes into one big bill, which should be broken up. They say they want to build projects quickly, but no new projects started in the past year, and their own rules have blocked projects since 2019. The bill also lets a minister stop strikes by deciding what is in the national interest, which helps their friends instead of everyday Canadians. Rushing environmental reviews in this bill will also worry Indigenous groups and environmentalists.”

“Madam Speaker, it is always a great honour to rise in this place on behalf of the great people of Okanagan Lake West—South Kelowna. It is my honour. I would also like to take a brief moment to welcome our newest members in this place. I am certain I am not alone when I say that a member’s first time sitting in the chamber is one they will never forget. Mind you, things work a bit differently these days from when I first came as a new member of Parliament. Much like our new members of Parliament, I too first joined this place as a rookie MP on the government side of the House with a majority, only in those days, if a majority government introduced an omnibus bill the same way the Liberal government has with Bill C-39, the crowds went wild, and I do not mean in a happy way either. Whether “anti-democratic”, “dictator” or “bully”, the accusations and media headlines were rampant. Heck, omnibus bills were considered so bad that in one election, the Liberals even promised that, if elected, they would never, ever use them, and yet here we are. To be fair, I always looked at omnibus bills a little differently. I went on the record at the time to suggest that when facing challenging times, it is better to be accused of trying to do too much instead of too little, and indeed, this bill proposes to do some interesting, but also some very different, things. Many have suggested the bill could have and should have been split up. We are still early in this debate, and I am sure that topic will be coming up. The Liberals will argue, and I quote them on this, “Canada’s new government has a mandate to build big, build bold, and build now.” Wait a moment. I got it wrong. That is what the Liberals said about the last mega bill that would build Canada strong. Members might remember it as Bill C-5. For Bill C-39, the Liberals’ new talking point is, “This legislation will give our country the tools we need to build more, better and more efficiently.” Members will, please, forgive me for getting those two quotes just a little mixed up. They sound so similar that it is easy to understand how the Liberals even get mixed up. Now, I credit the PMO’s communication shop for creatively saying basically the same thing over and over again, only slightly differently so that, hopefully, people focus more on the words and less on the results. Of course, as an opposition member of Parliament, I would be remiss if I did not point out that over this past year, not a single shovel went into the ground for a brand new project that did not exist more than a year ago. There were literally no new projects. It has gotten so desperate that Liberals now try to claim pre-existing projects as proof of progress. “Building at speeds not seen in a generation” was the promise, but in reality, it is about talking about building at speeds not seen in generations, but the actual building part, not so much, and the building part, let us all agree, is really the most important part. Here we are today, once again, with a new bill that would “give our country the tools we need to build more, better and more efficiently.” Apparently, the reason nothing has been done over the past year is that we lacked the tools we need. This is the country that built the Canadian Pacific Railway, the St. Lawrence Seaway, the Trans-Canada Highway and so much more. It is amazing how over the past 159 years, we have built the greatest country on earth, with all kinds of amazing achievements, but suddenly we no longer have the tools we need to build any more. This begs the question, what happened to the tools? Well, in 2015, the Liberals happened. It is interesting that there is a segment in the backgrounder for Bill C-39 that reads: the [Canadian Energy Regulator] will conduct the assessment under the Canada Energy Regulator Act, rather than through an integrated review panel with the Impact Assessment Agency. Since the introduction of the integrated review panel process in 2019, no project has met the threshold to be assessed by a panel. Let me just read that last part one more time: “Since the introduction of the integrated review panel process in 2019, no project has met the threshold to be assessed by a panel.” I hope everyone here heard that. Let us go over that again. Since the Liberals brought in the Impact Assessment Agency review process in 2019, “no project has met the threshold to be assessed by a panel.” How many projects? None, zero, zip, nada. That is an incredible feat when we think about it. It has been seven long years and not a single project has ever met the threshold imposed by the Liberals. Here is the best part: along come the Liberals proposing to remove the very same red tape they themselves created. Think of all the lost opportunities over those seven years. It was so damaging. I know that on the government side, there is a particular minister fond of saying, “We will take no lessons from the Conservatives”, unless, of course, it is axing the carbon tax, repealing the electric vehicle sales mandate, rolling back the planned capital gains tax increases or temporarily removing part of the federal fuel excise tax. These are all things that Conservatives called for. However, let us be fair. We did not ask for some of the changes to the Canada Labour Code that are proposed in this bill. In fact, we are having a hard time even understanding where the Liberals came up with some of these proposals. They said they spent the summer consulting different groups, but which groups and where? It all seems a bit suspicious to us. We all know that the bill also includes a new power that would allow the Minister of Labour to intervene to end a work stoppage, but only if the work stoppage is deemed to be contrary to the national interest. That is where this bill becomes extremely concerning for Canadians. The modern Liberal government has gotten into a very bad habit of doing things that serve the interests of Liberal Party friends and insiders, rather than the interests of Canadians. If my colleagues doubt that, I will give them an example. Not so many years ago, the Liberals gave the green light to and approved the Rogers takeover of Shaw. Critics warned the Liberals not to do that and warned what would happen if they did, but the Liberals of course know better. The Liberals promised that more jobs would be created and that rates would go down, and just in case there was any doubt about this, the minister promised that he would watch Rogers like a hawk after the takeover. What happened? Let us go through it. Shaw was popular in my riding. Citizens started bringing in their new Rogers bills with rate increases. Even though they had contracts with Shaw, those contracts were raised by Rogers because the fine print allowed Rogers to charge more for the old Shaw equipment they had been renting. This happened to seniors and single mothers. As for the jobs that were promised by the minister, there is a new Rogers call centre in Morocco, and I am certain that the good people of Morocco probably appreciate those jobs. This was a complete and total massive failure by the Liberals that benefited their friends on Bay Street and sold out Canadians on main street, like my constituents, and across the whole spectrum. As for the minister who promised to watch this deal like a hawk, he will say he does not take any lessons from Conservatives, or, it would appear, from anyone else for that matter, because there were lots of people who warned him. Getting back to the bill we have at hand, it is easy to understand why many Canadians are a tad uneasy when the Liberals say that a Liberal minister gets to decide what is and what is not in the Canadian interest. People who have those concerns, of course, are even more skeptical because the Liberals packaged all of those changes up in a nice omnibus bill. I mention this last point for the benefit of the new Liberal members of Parliament who may be unaware of some of the greatest hits from previous Liberal governments that were authored by members of the current Liberal government. Before I close, I also have to reference that this bill also proposes some changes from an environmental perspective. One of those changes is a timeline to complete certain reviews in one year. At the same time, the Liberals are also promising indigenous communities and environmental groups that everything is going to work out like it previously did, and telling them to relax and not worry. Believe it or not, when you propose to do things differently but promise that nothing will change, that causes people to worry, and even more so when it is buried in an omnibus bill, where some people think the Liberals intentionally did this shocker to avoid proper scrutiny. Now, let us keep in mind that I am simply passing on concerns. Madam Speaker, excuse me. I would like to take a moment to catch my breath.”

“I oppose this bill. The Liberals promised not to use giant bills like this. Their last big bill failed to deliver on its promises, and now they are using another one.”

“Madam Speaker, bear in mind that I am merely passing on concerns that others have expressed to me, because, at the end of the day, choosing to introduce an omnibus bill is a choice, and that choice has consequences. We must not forget that there is a reason why a previous Liberal government promised never to resort to omnibus bills. Of course, that promise was sincere, was it not? Surely the Liberals would never make a promise they had no intention of keeping just to get elected, would they? Did they say they were going to spend less? I am getting off topic. For a recap of where we are today, I feel it is a bit like a sci-fi franchise movie. In episode one, the government needed a big bill to make Canada strong, which is Bill C-5. About a year later, when everything promised in year one did not happen, it of course needed a sequel, another new omnibus bill, to make Canada strong, which is Bill C-39. I suspect next year or later in this Parliament we may live to see another so we can finish the trilogy.”

“If the government wanted businesses to invest in Canada, it would fix our permit system. Instead, it just keeps passing more bills that do not work.”

“Madam Speaker, one would assume that if someone wanted to invite capital to come to Canada we would make sure our permitting system worked well. Maybe the government thought Bill C-5 was enough. Maybe the feedback it got back was not, so now it needs to do a sequel. We will see this member for the trilogy.”