“This bill will go to a committee to be studied and improved. Conservatives like the plan to review projects within one year. Will they work with us to make the bill better?”

“Madam Speaker, I would simply like to emphasize once again that, just like other bills, this one will be referred to committee. We know that many of her colleagues across the way are very supportive of the idea that it will take a year to review projects and decide whether they can go ahead. Will we be able to count on their work to improve the bill when it is studied in committee?”

“I support this bill. Canada needs to approve big projects like clean energy, mines, and ports faster. Our approval process takes too long, and investors will go to other countries if we do not speed it up.”

“Madam Speaker, I would like to begin by saying that I will be sharing my time with the member for Eglinton—Lawrence. Sometimes a country has to choose between watching history unfold or making history itself. Canada is at a point right now where we have to choose to be the master of our own destiny. All around us, the world is changing and shifting gears. Technology is completely transforming industries. Supply chains are being redrawn and geopolitical uncertainty weighs on every investment decision. Meanwhile, capital waits for no one. It goes where people know how to build. It goes where the rules are clear and decisions are actually made. Bill C-39 asks a simple question: Will Canada be that country? We have everything we need to succeed. We have an abundance of natural resources, one of the most skilled workforces in the world, enterprising companies and strong institutions that inspire confidence well beyond our borders. However, nothing is built on potential alone. It is like a mighty river without a power plant. Its immense power does not produce light until we learn how to harness it. A resource creates value only if we can develop it responsibly. Technology will transform the economy only if we can build the necessary infrastructure to properly support that technology. A product creates wealth only once it reaches the customer. This country was not built by waiting. It was built by people who laid rail across impossible distances, who opened ports or rugged coastal lines, who believed that connecting a nation was worth the effort. They did not have certainty. They had conviction. Today, our nation-building projects look different because we have critical minerals, clean energy, advanced manufacturing, modern port transmission lines and digital networks. The question is this: Do we still have the resolve to build? The question we must ask ourselves is the one our ancestors also asked. Do we still have the determination to build? Across the country, we are hearing the same message from workers, communities, indigenous partners and investors. Our federal approval processes are too long and too complex. The requirements—”

“I want the House to pass this bill. It speeds up federal reviews so big projects get a decision within one year. It also protects the environment, works with Indigenous peoples, fixes our transport systems, and protects workers' pay.”

“Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for that comment. I certainly do not want to jeopardize the health of our interpreters, who do an excellent job. As I said earlier, our federal approval processes are too long and too complex. Requirements pile up, reviews overlap and the process drags on for years. Imagine a family wanting to renovate their home and being instructed to submit the same file to five different offices without ever being told when they can expect a decision. Eventually, they will give up. That is exactly what is happening with investments. When investors have to wait forever, capital goes elsewhere, taking jobs with it. That is why the government must modernize federal project review processes. Our goal is clear: to make federal decisions on major projects within one year while maintaining rigorous environmental standards and respecting the rights of indigenous peoples. To be clear, this is not about lowering the bar. It is about making sure projects do not get lost in a maze. Efficiency need not come at the expense of rigour. A predictable timeline does not determine the decision. It simply guarantees that there will be one, be it positive or negative. Collaboration with indigenous peoples lies at the heart of this approach. Indigenous communities must be part and parcel of the decisions affecting their lands, their rights and their social and economic future. A clearer process does not diminish their participation; it makes it more meaningful, more consistent and, above all, more frequent. We reject the idea that we must choose between economic development, environmental protection and reconciliation. A mature country knows how to make progress on all three fronts while also remaining aligned with all three at the same time. Canada is a trading nation. Our prosperity travels by rail, road, sea and air. Our ports, highways and railways are the arteries of our economy, and every bottleneck acts as an invisible tax—a tax that stifles investment before it even begins, before it is even triggered. It is paid by the farmer waiting for their grain to be shipped, by the manufacturer whose parts are not arriving and, at the end of the chain, by the family seeing prices rise at the supermarket. The bill modernizes the governance of the transportation sectors, strengthens our commercial infrastructure and consolidates our supply chains. It also takes account of a new reality. In a more unstable world, the security and resilience of our networks are no longer a luxury. They are a prerequisite for our growth. Behind every port, every rail line and every construction site, there are people. More than a million Canadians work in federally regulated sectors, keeping goods moving and communities connected. In most cases, employers and unions reach agreements at their negotiating table, and that speaks to the strength of our system. This bill builds on that strength. The bill tackles wage theft and the misclassification of workers. It improves workplace safety and supports stable and respectful labour relations. That is because an economy that forgets its workers is neither modern nor fair. I meet people every day in my riding of Bourassa, in Montreal, who are not asking for any special privileges. They are not asking for anything special because all they want is a chance: a stable job, a fair wage and a safe workplace. When we talk about major projects, trade corridors and competitiveness, these are the folks we are talking about. Growth only makes sense if it improves their lives. This bill is the result of extensive consultations with indigenous peoples, the provinces and territories, businesses, unions and members of the public. While their points of view sometimes differed, there was one common message, namely that Canadians want a more efficient government, environmentally responsible growth, robust infrastructure and good jobs. They want an ambitious Canada that remains true to its values. In closing, investment decisions are being made now. Major projects are being planned now. Tomorrow’s trade partnerships are being developed today. From northern communities to the Atlantic provinces, from the Prairies to British Columbia, from Ontario to Quebec, Canadians are ready to build. It is up to us to give them a country that is ready too. Let us move forward with confidence, build responsibly and leave future generations with a stronger, fairer Canada that is more ready than ever.”

“I want this bill to go to a committee. Members of Parliament should study it there, share their ideas, and suggest changes to it.”

“Madam Speaker, today, as things stand, I think that this matter needs to be discussed by parliamentarians in committee. I urge all my colleagues, all MPs, to share their opinions and comments and put forward amendments. Some consultations have been held, and there will be more, but we can talk about that in committee.”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 48 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

“This bill does not automatically approve projects. It just makes sure we give a yes or no answer within a year, and we will still negotiate. If the Conservatives want to speed things up, they need to work with us in committee.”

“Madam Speaker, first of all, members need to listen carefully to the speeches given by each of my colleagues on our side of the House. What we are saying is that we want to deliver an answer within a year, whether positive or negative. That is very important. This is no blanket approval process. We are not interested in giving out carte blanche. On the contrary, there will be some negotiation. That is very important. Now, to speed things up, we simply need to make decisions in committee faster. If people here really want to move faster, the Conservatives will have to co-operate with us so we can make decisions in committee. Once again, Bill C-5, Bill C-39’s predecessor, laid a strong foundation. Now, we are setting the stage for all future projects.”

“This bill makes the rules around ending strikes clearer and better monitored. Some unions are starting to support this change.”

“Madam Speaker, as I understand it, the question was about strikes and unions. I would say that what we are now bringing back in this bill is the complete opposite. Section 107 of the Canada Labour Code has been used to end strikes in recent years. Its use will be clarified. I would say it will be much better monitored by the department. Today, things are vague. Tomorrow, things will be much less vague. In fact, a number of unions are starting to warm up to this amendment to section 107.”

• 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 →

“I want the member to explain how important the government's relationship with Indigenous peoples is, and why it matters in this bill.”

“Uqaqtittiji, the member’s speech was excellent. I really appreciate that he incorporated the relationship with indigenous peoples and what the act would do. I wonder if the member, as part of the government, can explain just how important that relationship is with indigenous peoples and why it is important in this legislation.”

“I support this bill. It helps us take advantage of new opportunities. We must make sure no one is left behind by talking with Indigenous peoples and Canadians who are struggling.”

“Madam Speaker, that is a great question. Building Canada strong means seizing opportunities. For that reason, the changes in this bill are very important. That said, no one should be left behind. That is why it is very important to consult all stakeholders as well as Canadians who are having a tough time every day. Naturally, the stakeholders include indigenous peoples.”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 47 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

“I want the House to pass this bill. Global problems are driving up costs and hurting our economy. This bill will help us build major projects faster by setting a one-year limit on federal decisions and helping workers and bosses solve disputes before strikes happen. It will protect nature and Indigenous rights while making our economy stronger.”

“Madam Speaker, it is always an honour to rise in the House on behalf of the residents of Eglinton—Lawrence. Canada is going through a period of significant change. We are in a tariff war with our largest trading partner, the Russian invasion of Ukraine continues to put pressure on global food markets and commodity markets, a conflict in the Middle East has disrupted global energy markets and pushed up the cost of oil and gas, and rising global bond yields have raised costs for everyday Canadians through debt instruments such as mortgages and auto loans. For some Canadians, these events may feel distant, but they have real consequences here at home. I hear it from families that are dealing with higher grocery bills and higher costs at the pump. I hear it from manufacturers dealing with American tariffs and global uncertainty that impacts whether they can afford to invest, hire and expand here in Canada. These are the issues that matter to people in Eglinton—Lawrence and to all Canadians, and they point to a broader question: What can Canada control? We cannot control decisions made in Washington, and we cannot control conflicts overseas, but we can control how we respond. We can decide whether Canada is a country that waits for the world to change, or whether we build the capacity to succeed in a changing world. Our government has a plan to do that in the short term, the medium term and the long term. In the short term, we are acting decisively. We are standing up to unjustified American tariffs and are diversifying our trade relationships, 20 in total with more to come. We are putting money directly into Canadians’ pockets through the Canada groceries and essentials benefit, which provides up to $1,890 for a family of four, and we are cutting the federal excise tax on gas and diesel by 10¢ per litre. These measures are important because, in the face of global instability, Canadians need help today. However, short-term support is exactly that: short-term. We have to address the underlying problem. We need to be more competitive. We need greater private investment, specifically foreign direct investment working in our economy, and we need businesses that can expand, adopt new technology, hire more workers and compete in global markets. That is why our medium-term agenda matters. We have eliminated the consumer carbon tax and cut taxes for the middle class, and we are introducing productivity-enhancing tax measures that make it more attractive for businesses to invest in Canada. Under these measures, businesses can immediately expense up to 15% of eligible capital investments. The principle is straightforward: When a Canadian business wants to invest in a new machine, modernize a facility, expand production or adopt new technology, we should make that investment easier, because investment drives productivity, productivity drives wages and economic growth, and economic growth gives Canadians more opportunity. This plan is working. Just last week, the Canadian investment summit unleashed nearly $500 billion of new capital. Our fiscal policy is only part of the answer, We also need to build and execute. In the long term, we are building the foundation for a more productive, resilient and competitive Canadian economy. That is why I am supporting Bill C-39, the building Canada strong act. For years, one of the challenges facing major projects in Canada has been uncertainty. I saw this first-hand as a banker who financed infrastructure. A business develops a proposal and works to raise capital. If it cannot predict when decisions will be made or if labour will even be available to it, it becomes much harder to make an investment in the first place. As costs rise, the project economics become more uncertain. The building Canada strong act is intended to change that fundamental dynamic. First, we would provide greater certainty by bringing federal mediation into the labour process earlier. Instead of waiting for a strike to occur, Bill C-39 would expand mediation and dispute resolution tools by establishing a time-limited special mediator to encourage good-faith bargaining before a dispute escalates. This would give workers and employers an additional opportunity to reach a negotiated agreement and avoid a strike or lockout. Second, the building Canada strong act would enhance the One Canadian Economy Act passed last year by the current government, by creating one coordinated federal process, one lead authority and a one-year timeline for federal decisions once a complete application has been submitted. Let me be clear. The bill would protect the environment and respect indigenous rights. What it would change is that it would improve the timeline for decisions to be made. The building Canada strong act would create a system that is more predictable, coordinated and efficient, because businesses need certainly, and our workers deserve certainty. The objective is simple: Move from an idea to financing, to construction and ultimately to a completed project. The fact is that process is not an outcome; results and execution are. Our country has done this before. In the 1950s, we built the St. Lawrence Seaway in less than five years, the TransCanada pipeline in two years and the Trans-Canada Highway. These were enormous undertakings that all helped Canada move east-west rather than north-south. The St. Lawrence Seaway gets raw materials from the interior out to market, the TransCanada pipeline connected the oil sands to refineries in eastern Canada, and the Trans-Canada Highway connected Canadians together. To continue to build a strong, independent country, we need to be more resilient east-west rather than north-south, which is exactly what the building Canada strong act would do. It would allow us to formally designate strategic trade corridors and advance priority projects within one year. The point is simple: Canada cannot control what happens in Washington or what happens in conflicts around the world, but we can create a more productive and resilient economy, one that provides greater certainty to investors, certainty to workers and certainty for businesses to grow, succeed and invest here in Canada. That is what Bill C-39, the building Canada strong act, would help achieve. We need to build faster, we need to build with certainty and we need to build for the long term. That is how we create good-paying, long-term jobs, attract private investment, strengthen our economy and make Canada more resilient. That is how we build Canada strong.”

• Echo ×20

  A repeated line

  “That is how we build Canada strong.”

  Said 20 times by 14 members since April 23.

  Every time it was said →

“Our government has always focused on the economy. We approve projects like Churchill Falls that create jobs and make clean power. We will keep doing this even if the opposition does not support us.”

“Madam Speaker, the current government has been focused on the economy since day one, and we see that with our legislative agenda, with the pieces of legislation that have been passed and with the projects that we have approved. Churchill Falls, for example, in eastern Canada, is going to produce enough clean power to power Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver combined. That is the type of action the government is taking. That is the type of employment we are looking to create in this great country. We are going to continue to make these decisions, whether the opposition wants to support us or not.”

“We are funding the Churchill Falls clean energy project. It will create jobs and power every home in Toronto, Montreal, and Vancouver. The Bloc Québécois should support it.”

“Madam Speaker, in my previous answer I spoke about Churchill Falls, the largest clean energy development in North American history, which is being financed by the government. I can tell members that renewable energy, along with the jobs it creates, is incredibly important to the government. It will produce enough power to heat, cool and electrify all of the homes in Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver. That is something the member and his party should get behind.”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 47 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

“This bill takes Indigenous rights seriously. We worked with Indigenous groups on it. We are in a crisis, so we must take strong action together.”

“Madam Speaker, I think this is probably one of the first times I have been accused of being a Harper Conservative. Indigenous rights and making sure we engage with our partners at the AFN and other organizations are things we have taken incredibly seriously. They really are at the heart of this legislation. What I will say is this: The crisis we are in, and I said this in my remarks, requires us to act decisively, and we are going to do that with our partners.”

“The world wants to invest in Canada. The recent Toronto summit brought in half a trillion dollars in commitments, and this bill will help bring in more. Can the member share his thoughts on how this bill connects to that summit?”

“Madam Speaker, I wonder if my colleague can go back to the part of his comments when he talked about the Toronto summit, an investment summit that attracted half a trillion dollars in commitments to invest in Canada, the lead-up that went into that, and how we can put that into the legislation that we are debating today. The world is looking at Canada, and it wants to invest in Canada. This legislation would help. Could the member provide his thoughts?”

“A news report today says money is leaving the United States and coming to Canada. This shows investors trust the Prime Minister and our government.”

“Madam Speaker, there was an article today in Bloomberg saying that capital is leaving the United States and coming to Canada, which is an indication of the confidence investors have in the Prime Minister and our new government.”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 48 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

“The previous Conservative government ran huge trade deficits and hurt manufacturing in Ontario. The Conservatives should stop talking about the past. Canada has a new government now, and businesses are investing in major projects here.”

“Madam Speaker, I think it is important that the member recognize, if she wants to reflect on history and talk about Stephen Harper, that we had the largest trade deficit under Stephen Harper. If she wants to talk about the hardest hit in the manufacturing industry in the province of Ontario, again, let us talk about Stephen Harper. Imagine if Stephen Harper, along with her leader, who sat around his cabinet table, did his job. What a difference that would have been. It is time that the Conservatives stopped thinking about Trudeau all the time and start reflecting on the new government that Canadians elected, with a new Prime Minister and 70 new Liberal MPs, and recognize that things have changed. People are looking at Canada and investing in Canada. Major projects are well under way.”

• Little substance
  ?

  Question or comment in debate

  Signal 32 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 →

“I want the House to pass this bill. It will update our ports and shipping routes so we can sell more goods to countries other than the United States. It helps ports raise money for new projects, improves security, and lets the government review smaller foreign investments to protect our supply chains.”

“Madam Speaker, Bill C-39, the building Canada strong act, is a crosscutting piece of legislation that would unlock Canada’s maritime potential, reduce supply chain restraints at our major international trade gateways and position the Canadian maritime sector to enable our ambitious trade diversification agenda to double Canada’s non-U.S. exports within a decade. Our government’s trade diversification strategy is working. In 2025 alone, Canada’s exports to non-U.S. markets increased by 11.1%, reaching 32.8% of total Canadian exports, the highest share in over four decades. Canada’s ports are the gateways that make things happen, bringing Canadian products to markets around the world and building Canada’s economic sovereignty. In order to meet our objectives and double our non-U.S. trade, it is essential that we have reliable, efficient and secure marine transportation systems to connect Canada to the foreign markets that want Canadian grain, Canadian energy or the thousands of other products that we proudly produce in this country. Let me start by discussing Canada’s port authorities. Canada’s port authorities are at the heart of global trade for Canada and transport networks serving as critical nodes that connect Canadian businesses, Canadian farmers and Canadian producers to key international markets. Collectively, the 17 Canada port authorities facilitate the movement of containerized bulk and energy products that underpin our economic growth. To ensure that Canada port authorities are positioned to enable trade diversification and have the flexibility to react to changing international trade patterns, the building Canada strong act would give port authorities the tools and financial flexibility to operate within an increasingly complex marine environment, while ensuring greater transparency and accountability for marine terminals, shippers and other port users. The proposed amendments in this bill would enable Canada port authorities to become commercially oriented and empower them to attract the investment capital necessary to build the next generation of Canadian marine terminals such as Roberts Bank Terminal 2 at the port of Vancouver and Contrecœur at the port of Montreal. To support these types of generational infrastructure projects, the proposed bill would facilitate corridor-level planning to better situate commodities and ensure that Canada port authorities are working together rather than competing with each other for similar business lines. The proposed legislation would also enhance the ability of Canada port authorities to act on commercial opportunities and generate revenue by allowing joint ventures with private and public entities as well as enabling increased collaboration between port authorities. Other amendments would support improvements to the borrowing processes for Canada port authorities and reduce regulatory burden to allow for one project, one review, while others would close data and information gaps. With these proposed tools and financial opportunities, it is more important now than ever to ensure that those in leadership positions at Canada port authorities have the right technical and business-oriented skill sets to set strategic direction and strengthen existing operations. This is why the bill would modernize the governance of our ports through new skill matrices for appointments. Taken together, these proposals would enhance the fiscal and governance tools available to Canada port authorities while ensuring that port authority boards are properly equipped to invest in critical port infrastructure to meet and exceed Canada’s export trade goals. Ensuring that Canada port authorities have the right governance and operational tools is only part of the equation. To remain competitive and meet the growing trade demands, ports must also be able to attract and leverage investments to modernize infrastructure, expand capacity and strengthen supply chain resilience. Given the critical nature of our port facilities, these investments need to bring tangible benefits to the country and serve the best interests of Canada and Canadians. Currently, under the Canada Transportation Act, the Minister of Transport can review investments, acquisitions and mergers involving transportation undertakings that are at or above $93 million. Although the threshold captures major investment, it would not capture situations such as when a series of smaller investments cumulatively results in a large foreign investment in specific terminals or marine assets. As such, the government is proposing to broaden the scope of transactions eligible for review by reducing the notification threshold to $10 million to ensure these investments involve transportation undertakings and are in the interest and at the heart of Canadians. We must also ensure that the government is well positioned to respond to emerging threats and risk to marine transportation systems. This very important. Security events can have a significant impact on port and marine operations, which impact the efficiency and reliability of Canada’s supply chains. Concerns over security issues, including a dated regime, can lead to the perception that Canada is a weak link. Such perception could adversely affect Canada’s relations with other trading partners and have a significant impact on future opportunities for economic growth and development. Canada’s marine system needs a modern security framework to adapt and respond to increasingly complex challenges. The proposals in this bill would provide the government with a modern suite of authorities and tools to effectively administer Canada’s marine security framework and respond to emergency security threats. Information sharing would be enhanced across marine security partners and allow the Minister of Transport to enter into agreements with third parties and other departments to increase enforcement capacity and ensure critical provisions, such as cybersecurity protections, are being effectively met by the operators. Together, this would promote a more effective response to marine security threats and risks. Through this bill, we would also be seeking to equip the Government of Canada with new tools to support stable and continued operations at the St. Lawrence Seaway. These new tools would give the government needed authorities to safeguard seaway operations in exceptional circumstances to protect operational continuity for this important sector. This includes authorities aimed at reducing disruptions to navigation, such as the authority to appoint an administrator in place of the St. Lawrence Seaway Management Corporation board in certain circumstances, and requirements to terminate the operator agreements, supported by the structure and dispute resolution when needed. As we modernize and backstop the St. Lawrence Seaway, it is equally important that the Government of Canada have the tools necessary to respond quickly and effectively to emerging challenges across the marine transportation system. The building Canada strong act, therefore, complements the measures for the seaway and Canada port authorities by giving the Minister of Transport the power to respond to situations where there is an immediate, imminent and serious threat to ports, the seaway or supply chains. The ministerial order power would allow the minister to safeguard supply chains during a crisis. This could include, for example, pandemics, trade disputes, global conflicts or natural disasters. An order made under these provisions might require a port or the seaway operator to take any measure, including corrective measures, that the minister considers necessary to prevent or mitigate a threat, but would not be used in the event of a labour action or strike. These measures directly respond to the needs of Canada port authorities. Ports across the country support this plan. The Association of Canadian Port Authorities has applauded the government for focusing on the transportation system and creating the conditions for investment in the infrastructure Canada needs. This bill is a practical and forward-looking piece of legislation that recognizes the critical role Canada’s marine transportation system plays in supporting economic growth, trade diversification and national supply chain resilience. By modernizing the governance and financial frameworks of Canada port authorities, strengthening oversight of transportation investments and equipping the Minister of Transport with targeted tools to respond to emerging threats, this legislation would help ensure Canada’s marine gateway to remain competent, competitive, secure and efficient.”

“The justice minister will answer that question. I support this bill because its trade routes will help our supply chains, grow the economy, and create jobs for Canadians.”

“Madam Speaker, it is great to see the member, whom we spend a lot of time with in committee, here today to ask that question. I will leave it to the justice minister to talk about that, but when it comes to this particular piece of legislation, the very fact that we are looking at regional trade corridors is really important for developing growth and a systemic and integrated plan for supply chains with Canadian jobs and workers for Canadian businesses and all Canadians.”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 48 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

“We need this bill to help our economy grow. To do that, we must work with provinces, businesses, and union workers, who built this country.”

“Madam Speaker, one thing that seems to be missing over the last four days is the “why”. Why are we doing this? The Prime Minister spoke to it at Davos when he talked about a rupture in the economy and how the only thing we can control is what we can control as a country. That means working with the provinces, with Canadian businesses and indeed with Canadian workers to ensure that we are evolving our economy and putting the steps in place to make sure that happens. That does not happen without Canadian workers, unionized workers. I come from Cape Breton Island. Cape Breton Island was built on unionized workers; so was Canada and so will Canada.”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 39 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

“This bill is about national unity. Former Conservative prime minister Stephen Harper recently spoke about Canadians coming together to support our country. I want to ask the parliamentary secretary what those comments mean to him and the people in his riding.”

“Madam Speaker, for me, the underlying sentiment of this bill is about unity. It is about Canadians coming together regardless of political affiliation or background and understanding that it is a pivotal time for our country to have national unity. Just a few moments ago, the opposition member for Thornhill mentioned the lasting legacy of former prime minister Stephen Harper. Former prime minister Harper delivered closing remarks at the Canada investment summit recently. I would like to ask my colleague, the parliamentary secretary, what he thinks it means to Canadians and what it means to him and the people in his riding that a former Conservative prime minister delivered remarks with such an undercurrent of unity, of coming together for Canada and of support for the investment summit that was held by our Prime Minister?”

• 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 →

“Our country is at a turning point. We need all parties to work together to solve our problems, because negativity does not build anything.”

“Madam Speaker, I will go back to Cape Breton for a second to tie this together. My father was in charge of mine rescue for about 35 years. He trained the individuals who went underground to save or recover folks, and he often talked about the idea that crisis reveals character. I see with leadership here in the House and leadership outside of the House, and I will give former prime minister Harper his due, that crisis reveals character. We are at an inflection point in this country that requires all of us to come together and work together. That does not mean we cannot be questioned, but cynicism never created a business, cynicism never built a house, cynicism never fed a hungry child and cynicism is not what is going to build this country.”