“The government claims this bill will help build major projects quickly, but their past promises have not delivered. Hundreds of energy projects are still stuck waiting for approval because the Liberals refuse to get rid of their anti-development laws. This huge bill also makes big changes to labour laws that must be studied carefully in committee first.”

“Mr. Speaker, it is no secret that I am a fan of building. My office is filled with model haul trucks, excavators and dozers, not just as a nod to my hometown and the industry that drives it but to serve as a reminder of where I came from and my roots in heavy construction and mining. I am proud to represent Canadian oil sands workers here in Parliament. Many years ago, like my dad and my grandfather, I laced up my own steel-toed boots and reported to work in health and safety in the oil sands. I understand how hard the people who work in Canada’s energy sector work, with long hours, rotating shifts and harsh weather, yet thousands of workers show up every single day to ensure that our houses stay warm in the winter and cool in the summer and that the lights are always on when we need them. Through my experience, I have had the opportunity to see many major projects move from dream to design to construction and operation. This was the reality in the oil sands region for a long time. Then, just over 10 years ago, a new government came into power here in Ottawa, led by Justin Trudeau. He then made it his mission to demonize the industry that fuelled our economy, stigmatized the workers in this industry and created overbearing regulatory systems to shut down any new major project. He recruited eco-activists like Steven Guilbeault and then promoted them into his cabinet. While the current iteration of the Liberal Party claims to support the energy industry and the energy workers, and claims that it wants to build at unimaginable speeds, it has chosen to keep all the Trudeau-era anti-energy, antidevelopment laws and legislation in place. For years, Conservatives have been telling the Liberals to get out of the way by approving projects in rapid order, in six months; repealing anti-energy and antidevelopment laws Bill C-69 and Bill C-48; and adopting a one-project, one-review system. Canada has everything we need to be an affordable, strong, self-reliant country, but we can only live up to our full potential if the Liberal government gets out of the way. Liberals claimed a year and a half ago that Bill C-5 would allow them to move at speeds not seen in generations, yet no new projects have been approved by their Major Projects Office. Conservatives took the Liberals at their word, and we fast-tracked that bill through Parliament. Now, 18 months later, the only thing that has moved at unimaginable speeds was that piece of legislation. They are once again coming back to this chamber claiming that this latest piece of legislation will be the difference maker. As always with the Liberals, it is all talk and no results. It is the lack of results, the lack of action, that has left well over 500 projects waiting on some bureaucrat’s desk for approval. For businesses considering whether to invest in Canada or not, announcements are not enough. For workers wondering whether there will be a project to work on, speeches are not enough. For communities in Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, promises of future action are not enough. It is worth noting that serious changes are being proposed to the Labour Code in part 3 that clearly require extensive committee study. We need to review the proposed legislation. We have many questions, and we must ensure that all aspects of this bill are thoroughly examined. The question I have for the government is, why are sweeping labour changes being made in a giant 250-page omnibus bill? I think that is the same question I have heard from a number of my constituents. Conservatives have a clear objective. We are fighting for policies that will save Canadians money and save Canadian jobs. It is as simple as that. For generations, Fort McMurray—Cold Lake and its oil industry offered a beacon of hope to people from right across Canada and the world. People who were willing to work hard and work long hours, and who had a dream, could make it big. My family has called Fort McMurray home for over 50 years. My dad and grandparents moved up to Fort McMurray in the 1970s in search of a better life, and they got a better life. They worked hard to provide opportunities for their family and give back to their community. Fort McMurray Wood Buffalo is home to the third-largest proven oil sands deposit in the world; 97% of Canada’s oil comes from the oil sands, with 96% of the oil sands oil coming from the Fort McMurray region. When I say I know oil, I grew up around it; I know oil. I know a thing or two about it at the very minimum. Canada’s oil sands production averages 3.1 million barrels a day. Canada’s energy sector currently employs nearly one million people, with 150,000 direct jobs, 300,000 indirect jobs and 450,000 induced jobs, providing strong paycheques and life-changing opportunities for families and communities right across the country. The oil and natural gas industries are among the largest employers of indigenous people in Canada. As I fly back and forth from Ottawa, I regularly meet oil sands workers coming from every corner of the country. In 2022, oil and gas contributed $45 billion in revenue to Canadian governments. That meant funds for our hospitals, our schools, our roads and so many other important public services. When my dad was in the prime of his working years, there was no doubt that there was a future in Fort McMurray, but after 10 years of Liberals, doubt has become all too much of a reality. The energy industry 10 years ago was still growing. Families were building their lives, businesses were investing, and skilled tradespeople could look forward to the next generation with confidence and know that opportunities were waiting for them. Today, that has been replaced by a lot of questions. After a decade of anti-energy legislation, people in communities like mine are asking very basic questions. What does the future of our industry actually look like? What does the future of our community look like? What happens if the Liberals go back to their active attacks on the energy industry? These are not some pie-in-the-sky questions. These are existential questions that people in my community have. They have a hard time taking the government at its word after the Liberals’ record of a decade of a constant barrage of attacks and the talking down of the very hard-working people of Fort McMurray—Cold Lake. This is not an abstract policy debate either. The ability to work on energy projects is not simply a line on a government spreadsheet. This is people’s jobs, their mortgages, their businesses, their families and their communities. It is an apprentice hoping to become a journeyperson. It is an electrician building a career, a heavy equipment operator working long shifts to provide for his family, the engineer designing the next big project, the small business owner whose customers depend on a healthy energy sector. I stand here today fighting for Canada’s energy industry and, more importantly, fighting for all of the spectacular workers in Canada’s energy industry, for those hundreds of thousands of hard-working Canadians from coast to coast to coast who have a job, in great part, due to my community and the resources we have developed over the years. I stand here for the future of my community. When we talk about Canada’s energy sector, we are also talking about Canada’s ability to create good-paying jobs, attract investment, build infrastructure, generate government revenues and compete in the global economy. We are talking about whether Canadian workers can have the opportunity to build Canadian projects or whether those opportunities will continue to be built elsewhere. The reality is that for the last decade, we have seen those projects go elsewhere. We have seen those jobs go elsewhere. We have seen that opportunity flee. It is no surprise that Conservatives support building. We have been on that train for many decades, and we will continue being on it, whether it is popular for the Liberals or not. The reality is that we need to make sure that what we are building is sustainable for the long-term health of our economy. Canada has the resources, the expertise, the workers and the know-how. What we need is a government that can get out of the way. What we need is a government that will repeal the anti-energy and antidevelopment legislation, which the current government has chosen to keep on the books, that has kept a foot on the throat of the industry, preventing it from being able to expand. I will continue to stand up for Fort McMurray—Cold Lake and for Canada’s energy sector and the skilled workers who make our economy stronger. Conservatives will continue to push the Liberal government to cut the red tape and regulations, to get the projects actually built and to get shovels in the ground faster in Canada. We will continue to fight for the projects that we need to build to deliver an affordable, safe, independent country and to secure our energy future, not just for Canada but for our allies across the world. This is not just a question. This is something we will do and will continue fighting for.”

• Personal attack
  ?

  Speech on a bill

  Respect 97 of 100

  This statement targeted a person rather than their actions or views: “made it his mission to demonize the industry”.

  See full analysis →
• Echo ×13

  A repeated line

  “The Liberals are all talk and no results.”

  Said 13 times by 12 members since September 21.

  Every time it was said →

“We do not trust the Liberals to keep their promises. We supported an earlier bill because they said it would get projects moving, but nothing has been built. We want to see real construction, not just more government promises.”

“Madam Speaker, we do not trust the Liberals. We are not sure they are actually going to do what they say they are going to do. We voted in favour of Bill C‑5 because they said it was absolutely essential for moving projects forward. However, we have not seen that. No projects have been started under the Major Projects Office. We want to ensure that this will have a real impact and lead to actual construction projects in our country.”

• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 100 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

“Conservatives will work in committee to improve this bill, but we have doubts about it. The government said their last bill would fix things. Now, 18 months later, nothing has been built, and they are offering another bill instead.”

“Madam Speaker, I am lucky to have studied in French, because I am now able to answer technical questions about oil sands in French. It has been a long time since I tried to use certain words in French. The Conservatives will certainly work in committee to improve this bill, just as they did during the study of Bill C‑5. However, we have concerns, because we were told that Bill C‑5 would be the solution. Now, 18 months later, nothing has been built, but the Liberals are telling us that there is another bill and that this one will be the solution. That is why we have concerns.”

• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 100 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

“I want this bill sent to committee so we can study it. We helped pass a similar bill a year and a half ago, but no projects have been built and hundreds are still waiting for approval. We need to make sure this bill will actually get things built.”

“Madam Speaker, as I stated in my speech, Conservatives are fans of getting things built. We took the Liberals at their word, a year and a half ago when they put forward Bill C-5, that it was the solution to make things move at unimaginable speeds. We helped it get sped through Parliament. We worked and created amendments so that it was the best piece of legislation possible. Here we are, 18 months later, and we see no projects being built and nothing approved by the Major Projects Office. We know there are at least 500 projects sitting on some bureaucrat’s desk somewhere that are waiting for approval from Ottawa to be able to go forward. What we are saying from the Conservative perspective is that we are going to study this bill at committee to make sure it is actually going to work to get projects built, because we desperately need to have construction in this country.”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 44 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

“This bill will not get projects built. 500 projects are already stuck waiting for permits. The government should approve those projects instead of passing another bill that adds more paperwork.”

“Madam Speaker, the Liberals claim this bill would get projects built, but there are already 500 projects stuck in the federal permitting process. Why does the government not simply approve these projects instead of continuing to add more bureaucracy, more bills, more offices and more announcements that have not built anything?”

“This bill still makes companies study gender and identity before they can build things like mines or pipelines. That is useless red tape. I want the government to drop these rules and start building.”

“Madam Speaker, according to the bill, project proponents would still have to analyze “the intersection of sex and gender with other identity factors”. I am not sure what any of that has to do with building a pipeline or a mine, but this is the type of woke, bureaucratic language we have come to expect from the Liberals. It means absolutely nothing, and it maintains layers of red tape. My question is this: If the Liberals are trying to be taken seriously at a time that demands serious action, when will they drop the woke corporate-speak, pick up shovels and get building?”

“The government promises to build things fast, but nothing has been built. Its rules, taxes, and red tape drove away investment and slowed our economy. There are 500 projects waiting right now for the Prime Minister's signature. Conservatives will not just take the government's word on this bill. We will study it, push for details, and try to fix it so things actually get built.”

“Mr. Speaker, let us talk about Bill C-39, the building Canada strong act, not to be confused with the Building Canada Act or whatever act was before that. Nearly 18 months ago, the Prime Minister promised that we would build “at speeds not seen in generations”. A year and a half later, the situation is dire, and I think most Canadians would agree. Not a single major project has gone from announcement to shovels in the ground. Antidevelopment laws like Bill C-69 and Bill C-48 are still on the books, and they are stifling investment and innovation in this country. The tanker ban and the industrial carbon tax remain, as does the stack of regulations and red tape that makes it next to impossible to build in this country. All of that remains despite Bill C-5. I know those watching at home are confused by the numbers. The Liberals brought Bill C-5 through this place almost 18 months ago. They said it was revolutionary legislation that was going to have projects built. We passed it through the House in a record five days. They called it a catalyst, one of the Prime Minister’s favourite words. They said it would let them do bigger things and do it faster with a brand new Major Projects Office to lead the way. Today, there are zero shovels in the ground, zero new major projects moving forward, and that office has spent more on bureaucracy and hiring people than it has on building a single project. Once again, the words outrun the results. We have to ask if Bill C-39, the legislation that we are discussing today, which is absolutely needed after the Liberals got the legislation passed that they initially needed, is the solution that members opposite have been claiming it is or if it is another announcement, another press release, another sort of time stamp in the road so they can restart the clock, saying this is the thing that they need to move forward. Before, they said that was the last thing we needed to move forward. I am inclined to believe it is the latter, because past behaviour is the best predictor of future behaviour, and Canadians should not forget that. Over 10 years, the government has driven investment out of Canada. It threw up roadblocks. It called anyone who wanted to build a pipeline a climate change denier. It discouraged risk-taking in this country with punitive taxes, and they picked winners and losers. The result was $1 trillion of capital leaving this country and going elsewhere. Our productivity stagnated. Our standard of living declined. If productivity had kept pace even with the United Nations since 2015, every Canadian would be roughly $11,000 richer, $11,000 better off than today. Instead, half of full-time workers are spending their income or more on their living expenses, and half are living paycheque to paycheque. This is in a country that only a few years ago had the richest middle class in the developed world. We do not need to look at the past to suspect that the sizzle of this bill, Bill C-39, is bigger than the steak. We have seen this before. The present tells the exact same story. The Prime Minister likes to say we should control what we can control, and I agree. Let us look at what he controls. Right now, there are over 500 proposals sitting on his desk, and all they need is a signature. They do not need a new slogan. They do not need a new bill. They do not need a new trade mission. They do not need a new photo op. He just has to sign them. That is his choice. Even the signature is no guarantee because we have seen investment summits, memorandums of understanding, agreements, press conferences and just yesterday, we saw the OECD downgrade Canada’s growth outlook while peer countries saw theirs upgraded. The people now promising to fix this are, in many cases, the same ministers and MPs whose high-tax, anti-growth agenda caused this problem in the first place. If we were to look outside this place, we could forgive people for being skeptical. The results keep being pushed down the road with a new piece of legislation, a new MOU or a new announcement, but the results have not arrived. Nowhere is the gap between promise and delivery wider than it is in resource development here in this country. I want to speak directly to the members of the left flank of the Liberal caucus. For a decade, they told Canadians that resource development was a moral question. To them, it was not about economics or engineering, and it was not about trade-offs. It was truly, in their eyes, a test of character. If we wanted a pipeline, we were deniers. If we wanted a mine, we did not care about our planet or our children’s future. If we wanted to sell our energy to other markets, which would buy them from somebody else anyway, we were on the wrong side of history. They enforced that standard relentlessly on everybody who disagreed with them. They enforced it against the opposition, against premiers and against members of their own party who sometimes asked whether all of that was working. Now, members can read Bill C-39. They can read what it would do to the federal review permitting. They can read about the exemption powers. They can read the section on labour. What would they have said if a Conservative government tabled a 246-page piece of omnibus legislation that would do nothing for workers and would build nothing? The bill claims to fast-track the very projects those Liberals once called a moral failure in the House, and that was not that long ago, but it even fails at that. They would have called it a betrayal. They would have used exactly that word. The question is not whether they have changed their position. We know they did. The question is what that left flank of the Liberal Party got for it. They spent their political capital. They asked their most loyal supporters, people who believed this was about the planet, to accept their reversal, and 18 months in, with a Major Projects Office and legislation on the move, not one of these projects’ delivery is under way. They burned all of that political capital passing these pieces of legislation without having a single shovel in the ground. They made the trade. They just did not get anything for it. If they now believe that the last decade was too rigid and this country needs to build, then they should get up out of their seats to say so plainly, acknowledge that the cost was measured in projects that died and that investment went elsewhere outside of the country. That would at least be honest. However, what we are going to see over and over again is the left flank of the Liberal Party hiding behind rhetoric that just is not true, and they traded it away for nothing. It is the same pattern with big announcements, with there being little to show for them. After last week’s investment summit, the Prime Minister came away promising a half a trillion dollars of investment, and we welcome that. The problem is that people are filling their gas tanks, which were already empty, half full. A trillion dollars of investment left this country. That is why the skepticism runs high. The skepticism runs high when people look at the government and see it acting one way for 11 years. It had 18 months to change everything, but it is yet another piece of legislation, one that has produced no results. I am going to end with this: I do not want members to take away that we are going to dismiss the bill before us. Conservatives are not rejecting Bill C-39, but we will study it, press for details, scrutinize it and work to improve it to make sure it actually builds something. That is our job as the official opposition, and that is how we are going to hold the government to account on what it brings before the chamber. However, we will not simply take the government’s word and accept all the promises the Liberals have made. Canada has everything it needs to succeed. We have fields of crops. We are rich in minerals. We have resources, oceans full of fish and the people with the talent to make it all happen. What we need is a government that will get out of the way, and one that will talk about repealing legislation already on the books, but everything we have seen until now tells us that is not this government.”

• Echo ×4

  A repeated line

  “Canada has everything it needs to succeed.”

  Said 4 times by 4 members since June 2.

  Every time it was said →

“The Liberals cannot hide their bad record by changing leaders or bill numbers. Under Stephen Harper, Canada had the richest middle class in the world, young people could afford homes, and other countries respected us. Even the Prime Minister invited Mr. Harper to his summit to remind people how good things used to be.”

“Madam Speaker, the Liberals can change their leader, they can change their buzzwords and they can change the legislation number from Bill C-5 to Bill C-39, but they cannot change a record. They cannot change the legacy that Stephen Harper left in this country and I am glad to talk about it. Under Stephen Harper’s government, we had the richest middle class in the world. A young person could buy a home. Canada was a well-respected country on the world stage with moral clarity. It was so much so that the Prime Minister invited Stephen Harper to his investment summit to close it out to remind Canadians of a Canada that used to be.”

“This bill will not deliver what it promises, just like past government laws. We will study it closely in committee and propose changes so that projects actually get built.”

“Madam Speaker, the member is certainly right that there are concerns with the legislation. A major concern with the legislation is it is not going to deliver what it says it is going to deliver. We saw that in the past. We see that with the Major Projects Office. We see that with Bill C-5. Now we see it potentially with Bill C-39. As I said before, we are going to take the time to scrutinize the legislation and look for pieces in the legislation that we can improve. Once it gets to that legislative committee, we are going to propose the amendments necessary to actually get shovels in the ground instead of promises into people’s pockets.”

• Vague
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Clarity 48 of 100

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

  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 →

“Workers voted for the Conservatives in the last election because we support them. I want the member to stand up for workers against the government spending and high prices that are hurting their paycheques.”

“Madam Speaker, it is not about whether we are friends with labour. It is about whether labour supports a party that supports it. In the last election, it certainly came over in droves and the member knows it. I wish the member would speak this vigorously against the inflation that is driving down the paycheques of every single worker in this country. I wish he would stand up for labour when it comes to the fact that its buying power is not nearly as much because of the government’s spending. I wish he would stand up for labour.”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 5 of 100

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

  See full analysis →
• Little substance
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Signal 15 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 do not support this bill. The government promised the last bill would speed up building, but 18 months later, it has issued zero permits and started no work. This new bill will not build anything either.”

“Madam Speaker, the Prime Minister has been known for the phrase, “We will build at speeds not seen in generations”. The last time the government promised speeds not seen in generations, it was with Bill C-5. The Major Projects Office, 18 months later, has issued zero permits and zero workers are on the ground. What good is this bill if the first one did not get anything built?”

“The Liberals have not kept their promises to build things in the past, so I do not trust them to do it now. We will keep fighting to get projects built and make life more affordable for Canadians.”

“Madam Speaker, if the Liberals’ past behaviour is any indication of their future behaviour, I am not sure we have much to look forward to. As an opposition, we are going to fight to get projects built and we are going to fight for every single Canadian to live an affordable life in this country.”

“I want the parliamentary secretary to explain the major changes to geographic certification in this bill. I also want to know if the Minister of Justice will provide a Charter statement on that part of the bill.”

“Madam Speaker, it is certainly a pleasure to hear the parliamentary secretary speak on Bill C-39 today. Specifically in part 3, there is a provision in regard to geographic certification. As I know the parliamentary is well briefed and well versed on all the things that are in this bill, could he please explain to the Canadian public exactly what the significant changes are to geographic certification and whether or not the Minister of Justice will be tabling a charter statement on Bill C-39, particularly section 3, on behalf of the government?”

“The Liberals promise to build things quickly, but they do not deliver. They are also trying to rush major changes to labour laws by hiding them inside this giant bill. I do not want this bill rushed through. We need to study these labour changes carefully in committee and listen to the workers who will be affected.”

“Madam Speaker, I feel like I have been here before, because we debated a bill that was supposed to get things built about 18 months ago, and not only get things built, but get things built at speeds we had never seen before. Unfortunately, what we saw were things getting built at the exact same speed they have been built for 11 years under the Liberal government. Not a single new project was approved by the so-called Major Projects Office and not a single new shovel was put in the ground. Here we are again. We are back. We are looking at another Liberal piece of legislation that is supposed to accelerate building in this country, but if we go back to Bill C-5, let us also not forget that it was supposed to be the One Canadian Economy Act. It was supposed to remove interprovincial trade barriers, all of that by July 1, 2025. The last time I checked, we are in September 2026, and all of the interprovincial trade barriers are still there, which brings us to where we are today. The Liberal government is all talk, no results. I will give the Liberals this. They are very good at the talk part. There are lots of photo ops, lots of announcements and lots of fancy backdrops making it look like they are building something that get taken down a few days later. They are very good at all of that, but when it comes to actually delivering for Canadians, this is where the rubber hits the road and they significantly fail. What we have seen in this country is an inflationary and cost of living crisis that this country has never seen before. Every single day, Conservative members get up in the House of Commons to ask questions based on conversations they have had with real Canadians, people who are struggling every single day to put food on the table and struggling every single day to pay their rent or mortgage. That is the legacy of the government, not the fancy photo ops and not the fancy words that ministers get up to say in the House of Commons day after day. What I want to talk about in particular today is part 3 of this gigantic omnibus piece of legislation. I want to start off by saying this. Canada has never seen more labour disruptions in 40 years than it has under the Liberal government. Do members want to know why? A huge part of it is the cost of living crisis created by the Liberal government, with the terrible management of the economy over the last 11 years that has led to workers all across this country, our friends and neighbours, fighting hard for better wages so they can put food on the table. What we saw were labour and unions fighting for better wages, better benefits and things for their members, and fighting hard. Because of the ham-fisted approach of the Liberal government, labour relations in this country have never been worse. We saw record use of section 107 by the Liberals. I lost count of that. They used it 13 times in 18 months or something like that. They often used it pre-emptively. In fact, they used it pre-emptively on flight attendants who were fighting to get rid of unpaid work. Think about that for a second. An hon. member: Untrue. Kyle Seeback: Madam Speaker, the member is saying that is untrue. Let me take a moment to educate the member. I have met with flight attendants. I have met with flight attendant unions. They have unpaid work, unlike what the minister said in this House and at committee about looking into whether or not flight attendants provide unpaid work. Do members know what the head of the airline union said to that? He asked if they will look into whether water is wet next. This is legitimately where we are on that subject. The Liberals used section 107 to order flight attendants back to work, using the Canada Industrial Relations Board and their section 107 order before the strike had even happened, therefore effectively sending them back to work unpaid. That is their record. Now they are going to make more changes to section 107. Do members know what I and just about every single union in this country have to say about that? We do not trust them. We do not trust their changes. They are making changes to section 107 at a time when the use of section 107, the constitutionality of it, is being challenged in court. They know this, and they decided to go ahead and make changes anyway. The changes to the legislation are embedded in a giant omnibus piece of legislation in which one section has nothing to do with the other sections. There are significant changes to the Canada Labour Code. For example, my colleague asked about the changes to geographic certification. The Liberal parliamentary secretary had no idea what geographic certification was and could not comment on the changes to geographic certification. I can say this. The changes to geographic certification are significant. There used to be a process through the Canada Industrial Relations Board. It was a complicated change. It took time. Two businesses could now petition the Canada Industrial Relations Board to create a geographic certification. What will be the effect of that? We have no idea. Will it cause, in fact, more labour strife as some union locals are combined? Could a union local represented by one union be combined with a union local from another union? I do not know. Perhaps it could. Do the Liberals know? Have they looked into this? When we look at the omnibus nature of this piece of legislation, we have to ask ourselves why. Why have they decided to put these significant changes to the Canada Labour Code in a gigantic omnibus piece of legislation? I hope it is not because they plan to ram this piece of legislation through committee with their majority, as they have done with other pieces of legislation, so there is no proper study of the changes they are making to the Canada Labour Code. I do not know, but I will go back to what I said when I first started talking about the changes they are making to the Canada Labour Code. I do not trust them. I forget the number of pages in this piece of legislation, 425 pages or 285 pages, but I suspect that all of that is going to go to one committee. How long will it look at the changes that are being made? Is it one day, two days, maybe a week? Give me a break. The Liberals are doing this so there can be very little scrutiny of what they are doing. They are doing this so that union members will not have the opportunity to come to committee and make their case for why the changes being made are a problem. They are doing this to make it difficult for opposition parties, and members of the Canadian public when they get in touch with their members of Parliament, to put forward amendments to this piece of legislation. I do not play the lottery and do not bet on sports, but I will tell members this. I am going to bet on the idea that this piece of legislation will not get the proper study at committee. The Liberals will rush this through committee. They will use their majority in the chamber to make sure that the bill gets out of committee as quickly as possible and that it is not studied in detail. They think they can pull one over on Canadians. Well, we on the Conservative side are going to fight. We are going to fight to make sure that this legislation gets studied. We are going to fight to make sure that the people who are going to be affected by this legislation get to come to committee and that the Liberals hear what these changes are going to do to them. We will be with those people every step of the way.”

• Echo ×3

  A repeated line

  “The Liberal government is all talk, no results.”

  Said 3 times by 3 members since September 23.

  Every time it was said →

“We want to study this bill. Will the Liberals commit today to giving us all the time we need in committee to fully study and understand it?”

“Madam Speaker, I know this segment is called questions and comments, and that was mostly a comment. I am not sure what the question is, because as I said, we want to study the legislation. I will turn it into a question for the member: Will the Liberals allow the legislation to be studied? At the member’s next opportunity, will he get up today and tell the House that the Liberals are going to allow as much study on the legislation as necessary to make sure it is fully studied and fully understood? Will the Liberals commit to that?”

• 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 →

“The Prime Minister does not respect Parliament. The Liberals rush bills through and cut off debate. I want the government to promise that our committee will have enough time to study this bill properly and hear from dozens of union witnesses.”

“Madam Speaker, I would agree with the member. The Prime Minister has shown remarkable contempt for Parliament. He shows up to answer barely any questions in the chamber. The Liberals ram pieces of legislation through. They use programming motions to make sure there is very little debate on them. We have received no commitment from the Liberals that there will be ample days to study the bill at committee. I would love to get a commitment that says that if we want 25 or 30 witnesses from the union movement to come talk about this piece of legislation, the Liberals will agree that they would all get to give their comments before they rush it through committee. We have heard none of these things, and the silence on that is deafening. I suspect we will once again see that they do not have respect for the parliamentary process. They will rush the bill through to committee and leave it the way it is without amendments.”

• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 100 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

“Conservatives were right about trading with more countries instead of just the United States. Stephen Harper signed 43 trade deals to do that, and now the Liberals finally agree with our ideas. I want to know what the member thinks we should do next.”

“Madam Speaker, Conservatives are winning the argument. When Stephen Harper took office as prime minister of this country, he argued that we needed to diversify our market away from the United States, so he went on a tear to sign 43 free trade agreements around the world. Now we see that the Liberal government has finally come to its senses and has started to adopt the Conservative narrative, at least, on these things. What would the member like to see done?”

• 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 support this bill because it helps build resource projects. The Liberals used to block these projects, like pipelines and natural gas facilities that Europe needs. I am glad they are finally agreeing with us so Canada can export more resources.”

“Madam Speaker, there is no doubt that this is not the same Liberal Party it was a few years ago, which was constantly trying to beat down resource projects. Imagine, if it had actually approved things like energy east, what position we would be in. Imagine if it had built LNG liquefaction facilities across the country. Europe is begging for that. It took it 10 years, but I guess, as we say, a broken clock is right twice a day. We are happy that the government has seen the light on some of these things, and hopefully we will build a better, stronger and more resilient Canada that exports our resources around the world.”

“Eleven years ago, Canada had the richest middle class in the G7. Today, the government has spent billions of dollars, but still cannot get projects approved. I want to know why nothing gets approved.”

“Madam Speaker, 11 years ago, we had the richest middle class in all of the G7 under the Harper government. After 11 years of failed policy and blocking our economy, we now seem to be turning course. After many announcements and billions of dollars spent, why does nothing seem to get approved so that we can get back to the amazing Canada we had before the Liberal government took office?”

“This bill does not cut red tape. It adds more government rules and layers of bureaucracy. Why do the Liberals always make the government bigger instead of getting out of the way?”

“Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Bloc member. Instead of cutting red tape, the first part adds regions of national interest and additional layers of administration. Why does every Liberal solution involve expanding Ottawa’s bureaucracy rather than getting out of the way?”