“I do not support this bill because it does not fix our slow project approval system. Canada is losing business investment to other countries. This bill says reviews will take one year, but that clock starts late and the government can pause it anytime. We need to scrap the Impact Assessment Act, cut red tape, and make project approvals fast and predictable.”

“Mr. Speaker, it is always an honour to rise in this House and speak on behalf of the residents of Calgary Signal Hill. It is an unfortunate fact that Canada’s economy is stagnating. There has been 0% growth reported for July 2026, with manufacturing, retail and wholesale trade pulling back in our country. Unemployment is above 6%, with youth unemployment more than double that. Projections for Canada’s national economic performance are the worst in the OECD. We know that Canada needs investment. We know inherently, and through data, statistics and analysis, that our economy requires investment as the foundation for growing gross domestic product, GDP. Unfortunately, in the last decade of the Liberal government, for every dollar of inward foreign direct investment, two dollars has exited. That is not the basis on which we grow our country. The reality is it is a significant contributor to Canada’s productivity crisis. In such dire circumstances, Canada remains a land of great promise. It is a country of strong people and communities. It is a country that possesses great resilience, which has never been more important than now. What we need most is a government that does not seek to determine what is best, does not seek to pick winners and losers in matters of business and industry, but rather facilitates the abilities and capacities of our great nation. There is much more that the government can do to unleash Canada’s potential. All of this starts with recognizing that the first job of government is to facilitate, and to do that it must stay out of the way to the greatest extent possible. Industry and business have been clear to the government that doing business in Canada has become too difficult and too hard to undertake. In particular, the first step in major economic projects is permits and approvals, which are too uncertain to justify the work required to obtain them. It may be a fact some would like to ignore, but investment capital is mobile, and it will go where the opportunity is the best. Over the last 11 years, that has not been Canada. The first effort of the Liberal government to change directions from its prior 10 years of governance has been the Major Projects Office created under Bill C-5. Projects are not, however, getting approved. To date, there have been zero projects approved by the Major Projects Office, despite more than a year since the creation of this new bureaucracy. Everyone does remember the words, “speeds not seen in generations.” Those words were spoken by the Prime Minister, and they remain hollow today. The path forward is a clear and unambiguous framework for project permitting and approvals that is transparent to all Canadians and allows businesses to plan and to build. Let me say here that I am not suggesting that our country cut corners. We need not sacrifice health and safety or environmental standards and practices in order to grow and develop our economy. As all members of the House know well, Canadian industry leads the world in many areas, including environmental practices, and we must continue to do so. What we need are reasonable processes that are not in and of themselves the reason projects do not go forward. I think of the northern gateway pipeline project, a project that was very important to my home province of Alberta and indeed to our country as a whole. It was an $8-billion pipeline project that died 10 years ago due to a lack of support from the government. The proponent of that pipeline, Enbridge, spent in excess of $500 million on that project and lost that money. While the press conferences and announcements of today on this subject from the government have been much improved, the anti-business Liberal legacy is large and still overshadows our country. We need to take politics out of the project approval process when our industry and its expert regulators are doing what they know how to do and what they are expert in. Political approvals are uncertain and a barrier to economic development. We need projects to benefit from a clear, transparent and predictable approval process, not just those projects the government likes. There needs to be a simple harmonization of existing regulations. The one-year time frame or target that has been put in place is not a complete answer to the uncertainty that is holding back our businesses. With the ability of the government to extend that statutory time frame, we end up in the same place, which is political process, political approval and political favouritism. This is not a basis on which we can go forward. We need more than a process that is a workaround designed to avoid the impacts of bad legislation. We need to remove the bad legislation. We need to fix the foundation on which our economy is built, and that means repealing Bill C-69. We all remember the Impact Assessment Act, known in my part of Canada as the “no more pipelines” act. There is a need as well for a massive overhaul of the regulations that are stifling investment all across the approval framework. These small steps forward, as in this legislation, do not get us to the point we need to get to. A problem with this legislation is that the year-long time frame only begins once a comprehensive application has been completed. It remains uncertain at what point that approval or that step in the process will be secured. Industry and business have been clear with the government that red tape, the regulatory burden of undertaking business in Canada, is a major barrier to doing business in our country. No reductions in the regulations, pre-approvals and studies required will improve the situation. There is no guarantee these changes are going to have success with business. The pause on the timeline that the government could put in place is also a recurring problem, as there is no limit on this aspect of the approval process. Business needs to be assured that projects will move forward. We need certainty around timelines so that business has the ability to invest. The creation of zones of national interest is very similar to identifying projects as being in the national interest. Again, it is an uncertainty and a political process, and it is not going to be helpful in moving things forward. Fundamentally, we need greater transportation infrastructure to support trade. Over the last year, I have served on the international trade committee and we have heard from businesses across all economic sectors that the need for improved transportation infrastructure is critical in Canada. It is going to be one of those things that we will not move forward without. While there are some indications that changes may be made, the bill does not go far enough in that respect. We have much more that we need to do with respect to this process. An example of transportation missteps is the effort of the government to sell off interests in our airports. That alone, a simple transfer of ownership, like foreign direct investment that comes into Canada to purchase existing assets, does nothing in and of itself to increase business capital available for growth, expansion and development. That is yet another thought that makes me think more of a portfolio manager and less of a Prime Minister, in terms of the disposition of our leadership and the Liberal government. Going forward, Canada needs an improved foundation for doing business. Conservatives would make those foundational changes and bring in legislation that makes an approval and permitting process clear and certain. I emphasize again that we need cut no corners. We simply need a clear process.”

• Personal attack
  ?

  Speech on a bill

  Respect 96 of 100

  This statement targeted a person rather than their actions or views: “makes me think more of a portfolio manager and less of a Prime Minister”.

  See full analysis →

“The government should not control the economy or fund projects that businesses can pay for themselves. Businesses will build our economy and create wealth if the government gets out of the way.”

“Mr. Speaker, the question, or, really, the statement with a wee little question tucked on the end of it, really belies a fundamental philosophical difference between that side of the aisle and this side, that the government should be directing our economy and that no project should go forward without government approval, political approval and government investment. I do not believe that projects that can be financed and undertaken by the private sector require government money. The private sector will build economic projects in our country. It will build prosperity in our country. What it needs, what we need and what Canada needs is for the government to get out of the way.”

• Little substance
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Signal 30 of 100

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

  See full analysis →
• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 100 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

“Everyone in Canada should have a home, but this government is bad at building them. This is the fourth time they have tried and failed. The Prime Minister promised 500,000 homes, but the budget officer says his plan will only build about 5,000 a year.”

“Mr. Speaker, certainly, no person in Canada who wishes to be housed should be unhoused. However, what is clear in Canada is that the federal government has among the worst ways to try to deliver housing effectively in Canada. We are now on our fourth major Liberal effort to bring in housing improvements in Canada, without success. The Parliamentary Budget Officer has projected that roughly 5,000 homes at a maximum will be built under the current Liberal government program. That is 5,000 per year for five years. This is a far cry from the 500,000 homes that our Prime Minister stated he would deliver.”

• Off topic
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 0 of 100

  None of this statement addressed the specific topic under debate.

  See full analysis →

“Expert panels should make decisions about major projects, not a single minister. These panels work well because they include all the groups involved.”

“Mr. Speaker, we employ in Canada, in various aspects, expert panels that regulate different aspects of our industrial base. That expertise does, in my understanding, and should include representation across all stakeholders within economic development projects and status. We have a system in that respect that works. As I indicated previously, that is where our decision-making should be. It should not be located with a single political minister.”

“I do not support this bill. The government's rules have created red tape, cost taxpayers money, and failed to get major projects built. Instead, we should approve projects in six months, end the carbon tax and clean fuel rules, and cancel laws that block pipelines and oil tankers. We also need to cut taxes on diesel so food and shipping cost less.”

“Mr. Speaker, it is always an honour to stand up in this House and speak on behalf of the residents of Saskatoon West. Today, we are speaking about Bill C-39, the building Canada strong act. I think everybody in our country, including those in the Liberal government, agrees that 11 years of the current government has left Canada lacking when it comes to investment, lacking when it comes to jobs and the economy and lacking when it comes to GDP per person. We need to do everything we can to get more business activity and more investment in this country. The building Canada strong act sounds very familiar to me. If we go back about a year and a half to the last election, what happened right after? We heard these words: We need to build at speeds never seen before. It is much like we are hearing today. There is a lot of déjà vu. Members will recall that at that time, the government came forward with Bill C-5. The government’s website, even today, says this about Bill C-5: Canada must build critical new infrastructure at speeds not seen in generations. This includes the infrastructure to diversify our trading relationships and to become an energy superpower in both clean and conventional energies. That is great. The government needed, at that time, to get this bill through the House and pass it immediately so we could create the Major Projects Office and create projects of national interest, because this was urgent for “speeds not seen in generations”. This House did that. This House debated the bill relatively quickly and passed it. We rushed it through. What was accomplished? We have bureaucrats in place. They are all getting paid and probably getting bonuses too. Five hundred projects have been submitted, so people in the industries stepped up with lots of ideas. However, while the member across the aisle said there were 24 projects, I saw 18 on the website that have been considered by the office. Just last week, the very first one squeaked its way through the office, but it has not started yet. The actual results of this office are that zero projects have been built. I find it kind of amusing that the solution is another bill. Last year, we had the Building Canada Act. This is the building Canada strong act, and I can only assume that next year we are going to have the building Canada even stronger act to fix all the problems that have not been fixed here. The government is about talk, not results, and Canadians need actual construction jobs, need actual work and need money so they can pay their bills. As I said, with respect to Bill C-5, there were 500 project applications, and only one cleared. I want to talk about the difference between a Conservative approach and a Liberal approach. The Liberal approach is all about control. The Liberals will not let the private sector do its thing. The Liberals want the private sector to come to them. They want people in the private sector to come begging to their offices, saying, “Please, sir, we would like to build this project.” They like the view of control. They like the ability to say yes and no. They like it when people come to them essentially begging to do things, and they like to be able to say no, yes, no, yes, to basically pick the projects. The Conservative approach is very different. Our approach is to get government out of the way and level the playing field. We need to let the private sector do what it does best. People in the private sector analyze projects. They look at the benefits, look at the costs and look at the implications on the environment and other things, and they make their decisions. Those decisions actually benefit all Canadians, because they create jobs, they create work and they create paycheques. We need to put guardrails in place, obviously, so there have to be environmental protections and there has to be a taxation system that works, but it needs to be predictable, fair and timely. If people meet the standards as laid out by the guardrails, then their project should be approved. They do not need to come begging to the government to get it approved; they can just go ahead and do it. The result of that is that more projects get built. The Liberals like to pick winners and losers. Conservatives want everyone to win. As a result, the Liberals have one project now slowly moving its way through the system. Conservatives would have hundreds of projects by now that would be moving forward. How would we do that? We have said it many times. We would repeal Bill C-69, the no more pipelines act. We would repeal Bill C-48, the tanker ban. We would repeal the industrial carbon tax and the clean fuel standard. We would establish predictable, time-limited assessment reviews with a one-and-done approach. The one-and-done approach is really important to this because it is one project, one review. It is a simple application, a firm decision timeline and predictable milestones, with a six-month approval or, in some cases, when there is an extremely complicated case, a one-year approval. We would maintain our safety and environmental standards, but we would put a predictable process in place for businesses so that they know what they are up against. What we need is private investor confidence. That is what is lacking in our country right now. We need permanent fixes to the bureaucracy and red tape that have been created by this 11-year-old government. We need to create stability and predictability so that investors can make their decisions knowing what the future will hold. There are potentially billions of dollars in projects waiting to be done in Canada. We need them, and our workers need them. We need our national income to grow so that as the cost of everything goes up, our paycheques rise with it. They have not. We see that. All of us were in our ridings last week. I am sure members talked to many people who struggle from day to day, more people than ever before and people we would not expect. This is part of the answer, to have construction and have investment, but that is not happening under the government, and it will not happen under Bill C-39. We have capital on the sidelines because of uncertainty. Businesses have money to spend, but they are not spending it in Canada. We also need private proponents for commercially viable projects, and I will talk more about that in a second. We do not need taxpayer subsidies. We need investor confidence. Let us talk about the Pacific link pipeline announcement. This is the very first project of national interest out of the Major Projects Office. Guess what it does not have. It does not have a private proponent. Who is paying for it? It is the taxpayer. Who is taking the risk on the project? It is the taxpayer. How can it be that the Prime Minister himself has encouraged it to get built and has supposedly cleared the pathway, yet there is no private proponent? That tells us that something is definitely not right in the system, and that the bureaucracy and red tape have not been eliminated. It is government money that is going to be spent on this much-needed project. Do not get me wrong; we need this project for the sake of our country to grow our country, but it is the taxpayers taking all the risks, and that should not be. We need to get government out of the way and let builders do the building. In Saskatchewan, these impacts are very real. Our economy in Saskatchewan is based on resources. I just want to single out food production. We produce grain and potash in Saskatchewan, and this directly impacts people at the grocery store. It impacts Canadians and people all around the world. What is critical in those two industries, grain and potash, is railways, roads and ports. Any bottlenecks become a problem for our customers. What is needed in order to make farms, railways, roads and ports work? It is diesel fuel. Diesel fuel is consumed in farming, trucking and railways, in everything. Higher fuel costs result directly in higher costs to the consumer. That is why we have put forward the emergency fuel relief plan. We want to eliminate all federal taxes on diesel sales until at least Canada Day next year. We want to scrap diesel production taxes by permanently eliminating the federal industrial carbon tax and the clean fuel standard. We want to eliminate the diesel price gap between the United States and Canada within five years. We also need to create emergency permits for diesel refineries, storage and transportation. We need to get the industry going. We need to allow businesses to deduct that and build a strategic refined petroleum reserve to protect Canadians during supply reductions. The strategic fuel reserve is important because as the price of oil skyrockets, we need stability for Canadians. Canada is the only country in the G7 that does not have an oil stockpile to release from. The Prime Minister has explicitly rejected our calls for this. It is funny, because earlier this year, the Liberals promised 23 million additional barrels of oil, but we do not have them to give. We do not have a stockpile. There is no way that we can give that. In fact, Canada’s energy production actually dropped by five million barrels after the Prime Minister made that announcement. Now the G7 is going to release another 100 million barrels over the next four months, including diesel, and Canada cannot play. We cannot play in that game, because we do not have the fuel to be able to do that. We should be the solution. We have the third- or fourth-largest oil reserves in the world. We should be the solution to energy instability, not be held victim to it. I just want to highlight a couple of things. The Liberal plan is bureaucracy and red tape. That is the plan we are seeing here today. There are no tangible results. There is lots of talk about this, that and the other thing, but no actual jobs. Canadians need jobs and paycheques, and they are not getting that from this plan. The Conservative plan is to have one project, one review and six-month approvals and to eliminate Bill C-69, repeal Bill C-48, end the industrial carbon tax and get rid of the clean fuel standard. These are real, practical solutions that could be made to get government out of the way, eliminate bureaucracy and bring stability back to the private sector. It is investing in war zones right now. It is investing its money elsewhere. It is not coming to Canada. We need that money to come into Canada so that it can take the risks, invest in these projects and create the jobs. Hopefully, in a year we will not be talking about a building Canada even stronger act.”

• Echo ×10

  A repeated line

  “Including the industrial carbon tax and the clean fuel standard.”

  Said 10 times by 9 members since April 28.

  Every time it was said →

“The government's plan is not working. We have lost a trillion dollars in business investment, and companies still refuse to build new projects here. There is too much red tape.”

“Mr. Speaker, it is one thing to say half a trillion dollars was talked about, but we have lost a trillion dollars. If we lost a trillion and we get a half a trillion back, I do not know if that is a very good deal. I do not think I would want that deal. I think the proof is in the pudding. The Prime Minister talked about this new pipeline project. The Liberals removed all the barriers. They went to industry and said, “Please come and build this. Put your money on the table. Let’s build this project”, but it did not happen, because there are still too many barriers. Sure, there is lots of talk. Of course, people want to do things. I would say to the member that hope is not a strategy. We all want all kinds of things, but we only get the things we deserve. With our bureaucracy, with our red tape right now, we are getting what we deserve, and that is a lack of investment.”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 43 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

“I oppose this bill. It gives too much power to the government in Ottawa instead of helping businesses. Life has gotten harder and more expensive for Canadians under this government.”

“Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt, as I have said many times, that this government is all about talk. When we speak with constituents, with regular Canadians, we will, time and again, find that their life is actually worse. If we ask, “Has you life gotten better in the last year?”, their is answer is, “No.” Things are more expensive, their paycheque does not go as far and that is a direct indictment on this 11-year-old government’s record. Also, so much of what is talked about here in Bill C-39 is centralizing power again in Ottawa, centralizing power in the government, rather than creating a level playing field, which would be the way we would want to do this: create the environment so that businesses can do what they want, rather than concentrating all of that power in Ottawa.”

• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 100 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

“Under the last Conservative government, companies built mines and energy projects that employed thousands of Canadians. Today, the current government is not building things like that.”

“Mr. Speaker, I would ask the member to compare the situation we saw in Canada 12, 15, 18 years ago under the Conservative government when energy companies were building infrastructure, mining companies were building mines and we were employing thousands of Canadians, to now, which is building at speeds, of course, not seen in generations, but apparently not the case.”

“The Liberals build homes too slowly. When the Conservatives were in power, home building was booming and creating good jobs. That boom ended when the Liberals took over.”

“Mr. Speaker, the Liberals thought that building at speeds never seen before was a good thing, but what we have seen is that it is actually a very bad thing. They are correct that these are speeds we have never seen before, but it is a turtle pace. The best way to answer the member’s question about what it was like under the Conservatives, is that, at the time, I was building homes in Saskatchewan. The home building business was booming. There were projects going, people were working hard, paycheques were flowing, jobs were created, and everybody was building and buying houses. The Liberal government got elected, and guess what? The market started to go down and that was the end of the boom times, and we have been in that for the last 11 years.”

• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 100 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

“The government is forcing labour law changes on workers without their input. Does the member support these changes? Does she support having the Justice Minister release a statement on how they affect workers' rights?”

“Mr. Speaker, my colleague opposite talked about the railway and about treating workers fairly, but some workers feel that the government is railroading them, particularly with unilateral changes to section 107 of the Labour Code. I would like to ask the member two questions. Does she support the government’s changes? Does she support the Minister of Justice tabling a Charter of Rights and Freedoms statement outlining the justice department’s views on these changes and workers’ rights?”

“I do not trust this bill to get projects built faster. The government says reviews will take one year, but it can pause the clock while costs keep rising for businesses. I want a committee to carefully study the labour changes in this bill and hear from workers and employers.”

“Mr. Speaker, for years, Canadians have been telling the government that projects need to get moving. Canadians desperately need homes, reliable infrastructure, good jobs and a stronger economy. We have enormous potential to attract investment and develop the resources and industries needed to achieve these goals. What we need to know is whether our federal processes are allowing us to take advantage of those opportunities. For over a year, Canadians have heard the Liberal government talk about building Canada, major projects, infrastructure and economic growth. They heard the same promises 18 months ago, when Bill C-5 was presented as the solution that would speed up approvals and get projects moving. Today, Canadians are still waiting for results, yet the government is once again asking them to trust that this new bill will be different. Canadians are asking a very simple question: What happened? Canadians are tired of the announcements. They want to see projects built, with shovels in the ground, workers on job sites and investment staying in Canada. In Cambridge and North Dumfries, people want good jobs, growing businesses and opportunities that allow their children and grandchildren to build their futures here at home. When Ottawa adds uncertainty and delay, it is not just a file sitting on a desk; it affects families, businesses and communities that are counting on those opportunities. It can mean a business deciding not to invest, an expansion being delayed or a job that never gets created. Instead of making it easier to build, the government seems to have gotten very good at building something else: more bureaucracy, more processes and more layers of red tape. Canada does not need more bureaucracy standing between a good idea and a project that gets built. If Canada is serious about competing for investment, creating jobs and building the infrastructure we need, then projects need to be approved in a reasonable amount of time. The question before us today is whether this bill, Bill C-39, the building Canada strong act, would actually help us build, or whether Canadians are once again being asked to trust another Liberal promise to fix the problem the Liberals created over the past 10 years. That is why Conservatives are looking very closely at Bill C-39. The Conservatives have been clear about what needs to change. We need less red tape, more clear timelines, a true one project, one review system and the repeal of Liberal laws that have made it harder to build. A project cannot create jobs, grow the economy or make Canada more independent if it is stuck waiting for approval. The Liberals keep saying this bill would establish a one-year timeline for federal reviews and decisions on major projects. On paper, that sounds straightforward, but what does that one-year clock actually mean when it is being managed by the government? In the Liberals’ world, that clock can be stopped for several reasons, but time keeps ticking on in the real world. The construction season does not stop, interest payments do not stop and payroll does not stop. Businesses and investors do not have unlimited time to wait for the government to make a decision. Many businesses are already reaching the point where waiting is no longer an option. That is the problem with measuring time by the government’s standards. The government can pause the clock on a piece of paper, but Canadian business owners cannot pause their financing costs, workers cannot pause their mortgage payments and investors cannot infinitely pause their plans while Ottawa works through review after review. A one-year timeline provides little certainty if Canadians cannot determine when it starts, what circumstances can stop it and when the government is obligated to make a decision, because every time that clock stops in Ottawa, time keeps ticking somewhere else. The clock keeps ticking for the business ready to invest, the worker desperately looking for a job and the community counting on growth, and all the while, other countries are competing for that same investment. Our Canadian businesses should not have to wonder whether the clock has started, stopped or been reset. They need to be able to plan, invest and create opportunities where Canadian workers can find good jobs. That is why the labour provisions in this bill are so important. Getting projects approved faster is one thing, but protecting the workers who build and operate those projects is equally essential. After all, projects are not built on timelines alone. They are built on stable labour relations, predictable rules and confidence that the process will work as intended. When that confidence begins to erode, the foundation for long-term success erodes with it. Unfortunately, that is exactly what we have seen in recent years, as the federal government has repeatedly intervened in labour disputes through section 107 of the Canada Labour Code. People can have different views about individual disputes. Every time the government intervenes, the question is whether it is helping the parties reach an agreement or gradually becoming part of the bargaining process. Collective bargaining works best when workers and employers sit down at the table and do the challenging work of reaching a mutual agreement. The bargaining clock has to be allowed to run, giving both sides the time and incentive to negotiate, compromise and find solutions. When intervention becomes expected, rather than exceptional, faith in that process starts to slip away. At the very moment those questions are being debated across the country, the government is proposing significant changes to the Canada Labour Code. These are not technical amendments or housekeeping measures. They could affect workers, unions, employers and federally regulated industries. The government is asking Canadians to accept that these changes will improve the system, but that case has to be made through transparency, accountability and scrutiny, not through assurances alone. That is why these provisions deserve thorough study at committee. Workers, unions and employers deserve to be heard, and Canadians deserve to know how these changes will affect labour relations in this country. If the government believes these amendments will strengthen labour relations, it should welcome that discussion and be prepared to make its case publicly. Good legislation is strengthened by scrutiny, and if these changes are going to shape labour relations for years to come, Parliament has a responsibility to get them right. However, building is only one part of the equation. This bill also looks at transportation infrastructure and trade corridors. We need to be able to move what we build. Our farmers need to get grain to market, manufacturers need to move their products and exporters need reliable access to ports. Communities like mine depend on transportation networks that function reliably and efficiently. When those networks fall short, the consequences are felt by businesses, workers and families that are already dealing with rising costs. These delays come with a price. Every hour a shipment sits waiting is time a business cannot get back, and every delay at a port or along a trade corridor adds costs that do not simply disappear. Those costs are ultimately borne by businesses, workers and consumers. The government says this bill will strengthen Canada’s trade corridors, improve transportation infrastructure and better coordinate federal approvals. The question is whether Canadians will actually see projects move faster or this will become another government office responsible for reporting on progress, rather than delivering results. Canadians do not need another progress report. They need the project. They need things built. Time keeps ticking. Canada cannot afford to spend another decade debating whether we should build the infrastructure we already know we need. We have the raw materials, the resources, the skilled workers, the entrepreneurs and the businesses ready to invest. What we need now are decisions. Opportunities do not wait for government processes and neither do our competitors. That is why the Conservatives will continue to advocate for less red tape, faster approvals and greater certainty. We will support a one project, one review approach so that there is one clear decision. We will continue to push for the repeal of laws that have made it harder to build and we will continue to fight for policies that save Canadians money and protect Canadian jobs. At its core, this is about affordability. It is about whether Canadians can afford to live, work, raise a family and build a future in this country. The people in my community of Cambridge and North Dumfries are not asking for the impossible. They want good jobs, new opportunities and the assurance that when a project makes sense, it will not spend years tied up in process and delay. While the government is stopping and starting clocks, Canadians cannot put their lives on hold waiting for Ottawa. It is time to make decisions. It is time to get projects moving. It is time to build.”

“I want projects to get built, but this bill just creates more red tape. The government promised a past law would speed up approvals, and it failed. If they believe in this new bill, they should send it to committee so we can look at it closely.”

“Mr. Speaker, Conservatives do support getting projects built. The question is whether Canadians would actually see better results and more results instead of more bureaucracy. Eighteen months ago, Canadians were told that Bill C-5 would speed up approvals to get projects moving. Instead of these things’ moving forward, we are in the House debating Bill C-39. The promises of Bill C-5 still have not materialized. If the Liberals are so confident of Bill C-39, they should be open to having it discussed in committee to provide full transparency and accountability to Canadians. At some point the conversation must shift from promises to results.”

• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 100 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

“I do not support this bill. It lets one minister decide which projects can start early without defining what is in the public interest. Businesses need clear rules, not more red tape and decisions left to one person.”

“Mr. Speaker, Bill C-39 would allow the minister to allow preliminary works on a site to begin, within what the bill calls the public interest. Rather than give industry firm rules so they can clearly present their project and what they want to do for site works, the bill would give complete discretion to the minister. There is no definition of what is in the public interest, other than what the minister would decide. Does this seem fair to all those hard-working businesses: that one person gets to decide what is in the public interest and that it would just be more red tape?”

“I agree with the previous speaker. One minister should not have all the power to make these huge decisions. Canadian businesses are exhausted from high costs and too much uncertainty. We need rules that bring investment and jobs to Canada, not rules that push them away.”

“Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is absolutely correct. How could one person make a decision like this that would affect so many people? The strongest message I am hearing right now is that people need a reason to be optimistic again. They want businesses to grow instead of laying people off. They want investment coming into Canada instead of leaving. They want to know that opportunities for their children and grandchildren will still exist here in the years ahead. The concern I am now hearing is not frustration. It is exhaustion. Business owners have spent years adapting to rising costs, supply chain challenges, labour shortages and uncertainty. That is what the debate comes down to. Canadians want a path forward, and they want decisions that support jobs, investment and opportunity in Canada, by Canadians and for Canadians.”

“Canada has high environmental standards and strong experts. We can carefully review projects while still making decisions quickly. We need to pass this bill so jobs and investments do not leave Canada.”

“Mr. Speaker, there is a lot to discuss about who would be involved with the decision-making. We have to think about who cares about whether local businesses stay open and whether children and grandchildren can find opportunities close to home. Those objectives should not be in conflict. Canada has some of the most skilled workers, highest environmental standards and strongest regulatory expertise in the world. Surely we should be capable of conducting a rigorous review process while still providing businesses and workers with certainty. That is why Parliament’s responsibility would be not simply to review projects or have specific people assigned to review these projects. It would be to ensure that decisions are made before jobs, investment and opportunities disappear from Canada.”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 32 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

“The member is right. We should still send this bill to a committee so we can talk about it more.”

“Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is absolutely correct. I think what we need to do is have the bill brought to committee so we can have further discussions.”

“The government says this bill will help build things faster. Instead of this bill, they should cancel the other laws that block pipelines and hurt Alberta.”

“Mr. Speaker, the Liberals talk about building things faster with Bill C-39. Why not get rid of the “no new pipelines” bill that was deemed mostly unconstitutional, Bill C-69, and get rid of the anti-Alberta bill, Bill C-48?”

“This bill gives ministers and officials too much power to make their own choices. They can decide what is in the national interest and delay project approvals whenever they want. We need clear rules instead of letting officials make things up as they go.”

“Mr. Speaker, my colleague brought up a lot of very valid points. One of them, of course, is that there is not a lot of structure. Despite the bill being 250 pages, there are a lot of areas where it would allow the bureaucracy or the ministers to make additional decisions. What is going to be in the national interest? Someone is going to be allowed to extend this magical one-year permit timeline at any time. I wonder if my colleague could spend a bit of time explaining the need to have clear direction in the rules and not allow so much leeway for ministers, the government or bureaucrats to mess around with the legislation.”

“The government says this bill will help our economy. Why did they wait 11 years to do something useful for Canada?”

“Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague on his first speech in the House. I have a rather special question to ask him. Through its bill, the government wants to improve the Canadian economy, but why did it wait 11 years before doing something useful for our country? We have been waiting 11 years for a bill to help grow the Canadian economy. What took so long?”

“I do not support this bill. The government claims it creates a fast one-year approval process for building projects, but that is not true. Companies will still wait years doing studies before that clock even starts. The bill also gives too much power to cabinet instead of cutting red tape. I want the government to get rid of its old assessment laws and actually make it faster and easier to build things in Canada.”

“Mr. Speaker, it is always an honour to rise in the House to represent the good people of Abbotsford—South Langley. Before I begin to speak on this topic, I want to take the time to acknowledge the B.C. truck drivers’ protest on rising diesel prices. The cost of these high prices is affecting their day-to-day lives, and for many, it is basically taking away their power to work. My colleagues and I are calling on the government to scrap the full federal fuel excise tax until Canada Day to bring down fuel costs. I want to take the time to go back to the 44th Parliament, when the Liberals marched into the House and introduced Bill C-69, which was intended to make projects more efficient and timely, but in hindsight, we know that has not been the case. We have not seen a record number of development projects, but we have seen a record number of approvals in waiting. Instead of repealing the antidevelopment law, the government decided to introduce Bill C-5 to solve timeline issues. Bill C-5 was supposed to bring quick and effective legislative change and to build at speeds not seen in generations. It has now been 18 months, and we have no new permits that have been passed, no new projects that have been built and no new jobs, other than government jobs, that have been created. Now the government has introduced a 246-page omnibus bill that, in its own explanation, was introduced to tackle the lengthy approval times that create investor uncertainty. The explanation around the necessity seems quite familiar, because it is the same argument that the government used for Bill C-69 and Bill C-5. The Liberals create the problems, then pass bills trying to fix the problems that they created, which leads to more delays and more bureaucracy, and the cycle continues. That is why I ask today, on behalf of all Canadians, why they should expect anything different this time around. We do not need speeches and summits. We need to build this economy, and there is rhetoric more than facts right now. The reality shows something completely different. We have the slowest-growing economy and the highest food inflation in the entirety of the G7. The members across the aisle have been championing this bill, which would cut bureaucracy and fast-track investment projects. The details of the bill show a different reality. I imagine a group of local dairy farmers or blueberry farmers in my neck of the woods, Abbotsford—South Langley, who want to build a state-of-the-art agricultural processing facility. Right now, they would have to pitch this idea to municipal, provincial and federal agencies, all working separately and not coordinating on timelines. It would take the farmers three to five years just to get the permits they need to build. In Bill C-39, the government promises these farmers a one-year federal review of their projects. While this sounds straightforward, it is far from that. The one-year clock would not start when the farmers bring projects forward. It could take up to six months for planning and then another year to provide studies and information the government requires. The bill even states that the timeline could be extended. Once the minister was satisfied with all the preliminary studies, the actual one-year clock would begin for the farmers, and then the process for the facility would start. As such, it is not that straightforward. The reality is that the tag line of “one-year approval” is misleading. Potential investors want thorough and straightforward legislation. Instead, misleading tag lines would only lead to more confusion and drag investors away. I imagine the government missing its own deadline. Common sense would say that the project would be moving forward regardless, but in true Liberal fashion, a missed deadline would lead to more bureaucracy. The minister would have to provide an explanation for the delay and propose another timeline. If the goal is to increase investor certainty and to attract big projects, how is this accomplishing any of those goals, unless the real goal here is to make these big announcements and more empty speeches? I ask the members across how long it would take an independent agribusiness from my community to even start the process of the application. Would they have to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to navigate through government overlap and to even get to the stage to get permission to apply? Would Bill C-39 simplify those front-end hurdles, or would it hide the bureaucratic delays inside the misleading narrative of a one-year approval? Worst of all, instead of building a rules-based predictable system that is easy to navigate for every business in Canada, part 1 of Bill C-39 would concentrate permanent power directly within the Prime Minister’s cabinet. Businesses in Abbotsford—South Langley do not want to hire a high-priced Ottawa lobbyist just to get their projects noticed by cabinet. My constituents, the community members of Abbotsford—South Langley, and businesses across Canada do not need another Ottawa top-down approach. They need a streamlined system that works for every single project and cuts unnecessary red tape. This bill proposes making changes to the Canada Energy Regulator as well. Bill C-39 would make the CER the sole assessor for pipelines, designated power lines and offshore renewable energy projects. For new pipelines that are less than 300 kilometres of new right-of-way, the CER would make its final decision itself. Where did this 300-kilometre number even come from? What is the fundamental difference between a pipeline that is 295 kilometres of new right-of-way, which is approved by the CER, and a pipeline at 305 kilometres, which would still require cabinet approval? Are these thresholds based on environmental risk or project complexity, or is it simply another decision made by the government for where it would draw the line? The bill proposes to create regions of natural interest for fast-tracking projects. Cabinet could designate an entire region and identify categories of projects that may qualify within it. Something like this could matter greatly in areas full of natural resources and critical minerals where there are currently bureaucracy clogs delaying projects. One of the areas that has potential to be on the national interest region list is the Abbotsford and Sumas Prairie region. This is a critical energy- and agriculture-rich area, and the B.C. NDP government and the federal government signed an MOU this summer, which clearly created a path for the new southern route pipeline. If they were able to bring in this route alongside the existing energy corridor through the Sumas Prairie region, there would also need to be a government project to develop infrastructure for flood protection mitigation as well. The Sumas Prairie region is extremely vulnerable to flooding, and for years farmers in that region have been advocating for adequate infrastructure development to protect their lands in that area. The reason I bring this up is to draw attention to the fact that while we fast-track national interest projects, it is important we keep the development of local infrastructure up to par so families in the area and in the region are not burdened. Implementation would determine whether the creation of natural interest regions would truly make a difference. Given the Liberals’ track record, it does not seem that this would be likely. Our position on this side of the House is simple. Any legislation must save Canadians money and cut red tape to unleash production. This is exactly why we have consistently called to repeal the antidevelopment law, Bill C-69, and truly release energy in our country. The government has promised Canadians infrastructure development at speeds we have not seen in generations. So far, we have no projects or development to show for it. Bill C-39 should be judged on one simple standard. Can Canadian companies develop a project and get answers when they want to get to work in any reasonable amount of time? If the goal of this bill is to increase investor security, then the answer to this question is required. We cannot afford to get things wrong. Our country, our future and the prosperity of our nation must come first.”