“I want the Conservatives to support this bill. It will build a stronger and healthier Canada by building on our work on trade and investments. I want to hear the member's thoughts on this.”

“Madam Speaker, there is no doubt that the bill will ultimately get to committee. We look forward to what the different stakeholders might have to say on the legislation. We look forward to what degree the Conservatives will position themselves on the legislation. I would like to think they would be inclined to support the legislation, or at the very least the principle of the legislation. We will see that at second reading. At the end of the day, it is all about building a stronger and healthier Canada. What we need to do is take advantage of a lot of the work that the Prime Minister and cabinet have been doing over the last 18 months. Whether it is on trade or investments, we are talking about a significant amount of positive change that is coming to Canada. I wonder if the member could provide his thoughts on that.”

“I want the House to pass this bill. It will help Canada build big projects and grow our economy across the country. Our government is signing new trade deals around the world and bringing in global investment. This protects Canadian jobs and keeps our country strong, especially when dealing with American tariffs. I hope the Conservatives will support it.”

“Madam Speaker, the Conservatives consistently want to go back to the Trudeau era. If they want to go back and do a comparison, they should do a nine-year comparison to Stephen Harper when he was prime minister and the manufacturing sector that lost a quarter of a million jobs in that sector. They can contrast that even to the years that the Conservatives dream of all the time: the Justin Trudeau years. At least there was growth in the manufacturing industry. If we get over the facts of the past and start focusing on where we are today and what we have been able to accomplish since the last federal election, members opposite will get a better understanding of why this legislation is so critically important to pass. It is because all Canadians in all regions of the country would benefit through the legislation. It is all about the theme going right from the election through to post-election and to this very day, which is to build a stronger, healthier Canada and an economy that works for all Canadians, and to protect our social programs, as the Prime Minister has done with several programs. The Prime Minister and the cabinet have been aggressively pursuing the issue of expanding Canada’s economy beyond the Canada-U.S.A. border. Unlike the Conservatives, we do take the issue very seriously, to the degree that we have a Prime Minister who is committed to appealing to the world. The Minister of International Trade and others, such as the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Industry, continuously are in different countries, and are working within Canada, to attract opportunities for small businesses, and it is paying off in a very significant way. More than 20 trade and security agreements have been signed in the last 18 months. We have other trading opportunities. The Minister of International Trade is someone for whom I have an immense amount of respect and for whom I have done a lot of lobbying in regard to the Canada-Philippine trade agreement. I want a Canada-Philippine trade agreement. I was glad when we had the opportunity to meet with President Marcos over a lunch with the Prime Minister and those two leaders recognized that maybe 2026 can be the year for trade. The Prime Minister was also having discussions with the leadership in India, saying that we want to achieve that trade agreement, ideally even in the year 2026. Expanding those trade opportunities beyond the Canada-U.S. border is good for all of Canada. At the end of the day, that is how we are going to be able to protect our sovereignty. That is the way we are going to be able to ensure continual growth, protect important jobs that Canadians have and build upon this. These are difficult times with the relationship between Canada and the United States. The issue of Trump, tariffs and trade should be on our minds, because it is on the minds of constituents and on the minds of all Canadians, because it does have a real, tangible economic impact. We do not deny that. We recognize that, but we are not going to capitulate. We are still going to fight for the best deal we can with the United States, but we are not going to surrender sovereignty in any way in dealing with a final agreement, and we are going to continue to look at ways that we can not only enhance trade opportunities but also attract investment to Canada. There has not been a prime minister, I would argue, in the history of this country who has generated as much potential commitment to investment in Canada from outside Canada and has even retained some of the pension funds that have been flowing outside Canada. We are talking about billions of dollars, maybe half a trillion dollars, of investments, all within 18 months. It is more than just the government. I will concede that it has a lot to do with relationships. We have a Prime Minister who has an A++ relationship and background to be able to protect the interests of Canadians and to talk to other world leaders, whether in the political or financial investment areas. We had a good sense of that just a couple of weeks ago in downtown Toronto. Toronto was open to the world on behalf of Canada, and individuals, investors, premiers and indigenous leaders attended. There was a great deal of input involved in making sure our very first investment summit, which was an invitation to the world, was a success, and it was. We can think of it in terms of half a trillion dollars. Can any member of the House stand up to indicate whether, over an 18-month period of time, any prime minister in Canadian history has attracted that kind of investment commitments? An hon. member: Oh, oh! Hon. Kevin Lamoureux: Madam Speaker, it is commitments to invest. That is an important point; I recognize that. If we travel outside Canada, as I know many members do, Canada is looked at in a very positive way. People are looking to Canada, in a way they have not in many generations, as a place to invest in, and hopefully we will see that all materialize. That is what I want, that is what this government wants and that is what many of the stakeholders want. We have seen people take off their partisan hats in order to make sure that this team Canada is going to work. Stephen Harper was a guest speaker at the summit and gave closing remarks. Premiers from different political parties participated. From my home province of Manitoba, Premier Wab Kinew not only participated by trying to get people to invest in the port of Churchill but also provided a tax incentive so investors prepared to invest in the port of Churchill would not have to pay sales tax. In terms of the port of Churchill, the Arctic Gateway Group is actually leading the charge. It actually comes from OneNorth, the owners. OneNorth is made up of 41 indigenous and northern communities from Manitoba and, I think, maybe one of the territories. This is something that has brought people together, recognizing that it is going to take a team Canada approach to build Canada strong. We can think in terms of the Major Projects Office. There are over two dozen major projects. The Major Projects Office opened just last year. I think it was in September 2025. It is already talking about billions of dollars in tangible investments. There are projects that deal with everything from mining to the port of Montreal, which I know, Madam Speaker, you would be happy to hear about, and to nuclear energy. There are all forms of projects out there. We have all come together and listed them off, and we are going to continue to push for them. We hope to see the Conservative Party onside.”

“Workers have a right to strike, and a negotiated deal is always best. But sometimes governments of all parties have had to order people back to work in hard situations. I want members to keep an open mind about what this bill proposes.”

“Madam Speaker, I think it is important. When we think of union workers, they have a constitutional right to strike. I have always advocated that the best deal is a negotiated deal, and there is no doubt in my mind in regard to that. I have served in the Manitoba legislature. I can tell the member opposite that all sorts of political entities, whether New Democrats, Conservatives, Progressive Conservatives or Liberals, in provincial and federal governments have at times had a need to legislate workers back to work. Just recently, in the province of Manitoba, health care workers were told to go back to work by the provincial government. Unfortunately, in certain situations, the government is put in a very difficult position, but we believe that individuals have a right to strike, and the best agreement is a negotiated agreement. I hope that members will be open-minded about what is actually being proposed in this legislation.”

“The Conservatives are wrong to say the Canada Infrastructure Bank does nothing. The bank has backed over 100 projects and over $40 billion in investment, creating real jobs. You cannot trust what the Conservatives say about it.”

“Madam Speaker, that is unfortunate, and a good example would be the Canada Infrastructure Bank. The Canada Infrastructure Bank is constantly criticized by the Conservative Party of Canada. Conservatives have always said that it has done nothing and that we should get rid of it, but anyone can look into that. They should not believe the briefings from the Conservative backroom, because the reality is that the Canada Infrastructure Bank has had over 100 projects. We are talking about over $40 billion. That is real jobs. That is real investment. It is not all government money. However, the Conservatives will try to give the impression that the bank has not done anything and we should get rid of it. At the end of the day, we cannot trust the Conservatives to have credible information often.”

“The member is wrong. Our government promised to make Canada stronger and healthier. We have taken many steps to do that, including programs for health and the economy, and we will keep doing it.”

“Madam Speaker, the member is wrong. At the end of the day, we had a very solid commitment to look at ways in which we can build a stronger and healthier Canada. That has been the objective of this government. We have made many steps toward it, and we will continue to do that. That includes financial and health programs.”

• Vague
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Clarity 41 of 100

  Much of this statement used imprecise wording, lacked details on timing or responsibility, or made broad claims without support.

  See full analysis →

“Our current rules and timelines make it too hard to build big projects quickly. We need to be able to build important things for Quebec and Canada faster.”

“Madam Speaker, first of all, I want to commend my esteemed colleague from Berthier—Maskinongé. He is a person I respect so much. Before he became a politician, he was a member of a very noble profession. He taught history, if I recall our conversations correctly. I have a question for him as a man who is very familiar with history. Would it be possible, in this day and age, to build something like the national railroad in a short period of time, in this country, with all the regulations and timelines we have today? Are we not capable of taking action to do things that are really important for Quebec and for Canada?”

“We have a chance to work together in this House. Giving helpful feedback matters more than just saying you support or oppose something. I want the member to tell me how we can work together better and do a better job speaking up for the people who elected us.”

“Madam Speaker, I listen to the debates in the House, and I know that the Bloc Québécois likes to say that there is always one Liberal member who asks questions. There will be several of us today, because I really appreciated that speech. I think that here in the House, we have the opportunity to work together. It is easy to say that we have support or that we do not, but I think that what makes a difference is providing constructive feedback. I would like the member to tell me how we can work better together and how we can ensure that we represent our constituents better in the House, because that is what my constituents in Waterloo want. I want to find ways to work together, and I think that is also the Prime Minister’s approach.”

• 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 →

“I want the House to pass this bill. It sets a one-year limit on environmental reviews for major projects. Canada needs to build big things faster, while still protecting workers, the environment, and Indigenous rights.”

“Madam Speaker, this is the first time I have risen in the House to give a speech since returning from the summer break. I have put questions to several of my colleagues, but this is the first time I have had the opportunity to rise in the House to present a speech. I am very pleased to rise during this debate on Bill C-39, an act respecting certain measures to strengthen the economy. Admittedly, the bill is rather long. I managed to read it last night and this morning. I have to keep referring back to other existing laws to understand the situation better. However, as I was reading the bill, an image came to mind. It was a train. I love trains. If I have to choose between flying or taking a train, I always take the train, to go to Montreal, Toronto, Windsor or Quebec City, for example. That has been my preference since I was a young child. It is the best way to travel and get around our great country. However, there is something that I never did as a child or a young adult. I never travelled across the country by train. I had the opportunity to do so when I was 49 years old. It was very exciting. My adult children and I took the train from Toronto to Vancouver. It took four days and it was extraordinary. I recommend that all my colleagues take advantage of the opportunity to see the country by train. There is the Canadian train that goes from Toronto to Vancouver, the Ocean train from Halifax to Montreal and between the two, there is the Via Rail fleet that serves the Quebec City-Windsor corridor. Throughout my journey across the country, I thought about one thing. Could we build this railroad today? Historians and history teachers know that the Canadian Pacific Railway was basically built in four years, from 1881 to 1885. Yes, construction started a little earlier, but there were issues. The bulk of the construction was done during those four years. Could we do that today? I readily agree with the member for Berthier—Maskinongé that it is important to have modern standards. We are not about to use slaves or workers who are treated like slaves to build the train, as we did with the Chinese-Canadian population at the time. We have labour standards, thank goodness. In a modern country, we can build in a responsible manner and in a way that ensures worker safety as much as possible. That is very important. However, given these factors, would we be able to do that today? I am not so sure. That is one of the reasons I like the specific provisions in this bill. When a project is proposed and all the information is available, we promise that there will be an assessment and that it will be completed within a year. To me, that is key. Things need to change. Everything has become too complex. We are complicating things. Is that really necessary? We do not want to get rid of the standards we have established, including environmental standards or standards related to working conditions. We need to keep those. That being said, can we get organized and accomplish great things together, within a reasonable time frame? I hope that, through this bill, we are saying that we can. I am hoping that with the building Canada strong act, we are able to organize ourselves in a way that allows us to respect all the different elements that we have thought are important as a country, that we have put in our laws, but that we can do so in a reasonable time frame because, and I have to say it and I know we have heard it, we really are living in exceptional times. Never before have I felt that this country has been threatened in the way that we have been. Now it is time for us to put all the elements on our side, to take advantage of all the wealth in people and in natural resources and in our industrial capacity, to build big things. When I say “to build big things”, I want to make it very clear that I do not expect us to derogate from a lot of the important standards we have put in place. Still, can we do that evaluation quickly? Can we do so in respect of the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which we have an obligation and a duty to consult and to work with? I think we can. I think we can get ourselves to that place because, again, from another example in history, another time when Canada felt as serious a challenge was during the Second World War. When we got into the war in 1939, Canada was far from being an industrial powerhouse as a country, but in a very short period of time, Canadians, recognizing the challenges that we had, came together and organized ourselves properly so that we transformed our entire economy to become a wartime economy. We did so quickly, without taking shortcuts or compromising on quality, but just saying to ourselves, “The challenge is great.” We have to meet this challenge, and we have planned accordingly to be able to do so. This is something I expect from Canada and from all members of the House. I know we will not agree on everything, but I can only control what I can control. I want to tell all my colleagues that I will listen to their concerns and support suggestions to improve the bill as much as possible. However, I do not want that to be used as an excuse to paralyze everything and not do the work. Personally, I think we are all up to the challenge before us.”