“I do not want this bill. It combines major environmental and labour changes into one big bill, which means we cannot debate it properly.”

“Madam Speaker, it is very concerning that this is all being brought forward, major environmental changes and labour changes, in the form of an omnibus bill that cannot be debated properly and considered properly.”

“The law requires the Minister of Justice to provide a charter statement for this bill. The government has not done that yet. I want the member to join me in asking the minister to provide it, so the committee can study the bill properly.”

“Madam Speaker, I certainly appreciate the member’s comments regarding the CTA. It does excellent work, and I agree that we should be supporting our workers. One of the things we can do is support workers by showing that the government has the balance right. Under section 4.2 of the Department of Justice Act, the Minister of Justice is legally required to table a charter statement for every single government bill. The Liberals like to say that they are the party of the charter. Does the member support everyone pulling together and asking the Minister of Justice to table a simple charter statement, so that the committee that is charged with studying Bill C-39 can do its work properly?”

“I support faster project approvals, but the government is rushing this bill without real debate. The promise to finish reviews in one year is misleading because the government can easily delay that deadline. The government has not shown that the bill protects our rights, and people have serious questions about the environment, First Nations, and workers. We need to slow down and study this bill properly.”

“Madam Speaker, like many Canadians, I keep going back to the Prime Minister’s Davos speech. The mark of a good debater is the ability to argue both sides of an issue, and so I wondered, if the Prime Minister was on this side of the House, what would he say about Bill C-39, given those remarks? The Prime Minister’s Davos speech channelled a metaphor made famous by Václav Havel, a Czech statesman, author, poet, playwright and dissident. Havel served as the last president of Czechoslovakia and the first president of the Czech Republic during a time of global upheaval. Havel first rose to prominence as a playwright, using his plays to criticize the Communist system. Havel’s metaphorical greengrocer is an ordinary shopkeeper who places a political sign in his window every morning, not because he believes it, but because he is participating in a ritual, conforming as required by his government, without question and despite his doubts. The Prime Minister told the world that we should not be the greengrocer, that we should take those signs down. I agree with him, and I think he would do well to heed his own advice. I take the Prime Minister at his word that Bill C-39 is a response to real Canadian problems. Conservatives have been saying for a decade that it takes far too long to approve infrastructure: overlapping reviews, paperwork, different departments that ask proponents for the same information in different forms abound. Accelerated timelines, better federal coordination, electronic trade documents and serious attention to ports and trade corridors are all welcome initiatives, and yet the government claims to have held briefings on Bill C-39, but when it holds briefings before providing the text of the bill to parliamentarians or the media, it is not asking for feedback, but asking us all to put a sign in the window. However, Canadians have doubts. My constituents want answers to their environmental concerns. First nations want to know how the government’s plans impact them. I met with union leaders in my community this weekend who are outraged that the government is undermining what they describe as their ability to avoid labour unrest. As a representative, these are not my questions to answer. They are mine to ask, in this place that we created precisely for that purpose. One of my colleagues pointed out earlier that no charter statement has been provided for this bill, as required by section 4.2 of the Department of Justice Act. Maybe the Prime Minister does not want to know if this bill is constitutional, but Canadians want to know, and investors will want to know too. The government claims it wants to create one economy out of 13. It claims it wants to build Canada strong. It preaches unity. By using a narrow majority to ram bill after bill through the House with time limits, dilatory motions that cut off debate and allegations that anyone who asks questions is disloyal to Canada, it is demanding that we all put a sign in the window. When I rose in this chamber in June to speak to Bill C-30, I noted that the government was asking us to legislate first and understand later. Four months later, I am still getting a dozen emails a week or more from community members deeply concerned and troubled by the amendments Bill C-30 made to the Pest Control Products Act, requesting me to figure out how to repeal it. What do I tell them? Should I tell them to just put a sign in their window? I was in committee when the first vote happened after the government received its majority. It is all on tape. I sat there and said, “We’re going to go upstairs, and when we come back down here, the government is going to use its majority to end the conversation in this committee.” That is exactly what it did. This is not a government that is starting conversations. It is a government that is ending conversations. When the government does not reserve real time to hear from experts, parliamentarians and Canadians and really listen to them, when it does not give us the resources, like charter statements, to allay the concerns of our communities on issue after issue, when the Prime Minister rules by fiat from 40,000 feet and when he forgets that the magic of Canada is in our diversity of opinion, when he asks us yet again to vote first and understand later, then he is demanding that we put a sign in the window. The Prime Minister has a choice. He could choose to take the sign down and consider the possibility that everyday Canadians might just have something to contribute to this conversation. This happens through debate in this chamber. It happens through town halls, meaningful consultations, showing up at community events and responding in a genuine way to Canadians who express concerns about the environment, labour implications and the impact this legislation would have on their communities, regardless of our personal views. It happens when we respect the fact that Canadians have different values and a rich variety of opinions. It happens when the government is honest about what it is really doing. It does not happen with special committees and quickie, 250-page bills. Havel’s warning was about the gap between institutional language and institutional reality. The one project, one decision, one year promise of Bill C-39 is a good example of that gap, because the one-year clock does not start when a project first enters the federal process. Once it is running, the clock can be paused for prescribed activities, extended to coordinate with other jurisdictions and suspended further by the cabinet. If the government does not make a decision within the promised year, all the minister has to do is publish the reasons for the delay and provide a new timeline. That one-year clock is remarkably flexible. If the opposition exposes that, asks about it in question period or even remarks on it, we are immediately hit with a predictable ritual of accusations. In this case, it is for not putting the one-year sign up in our window. We need to have honest conversations in this country. We need to close the distance between Canadians’ beliefs in what the government can do, what it says it will do and what it actually does. A regulatory process has integrity only when the people designing it are honest about how it is going to work. Ministers are supposed to be accountable to Parliament. Governments are supposed to be accountable to voters. Bill C-39 is 243 pages long. The Prime Minister says it is the most significant piece of legislation in a generation. If so, it deserves meaningful debate in the House and genuine study at committee so that we in Nanaimo—Ladysmith and across Canada can truly understand what it will do to benefit our communities. We know the difference between getting something done and pretending a process occurred. The Prime Minister told the world that democracy is not performative. I agree. I only wish he had done so here in the House of Commons, in the seat of our democracy, and not at the European Union and with international media. Canada does not need more procedural theatre. We need debate where we can come together, confident that the best ideas have in fact risen to the top in a way everyone can understand. I say to our Prime Minister he should take down the signs, ask Canadians what they think and listen to them. He should give them time to catch up with him and let them be part of the process. Canadians need speed, investment, infrastructure, trade corridors and energy security. They also need leaders who actually mean what they say. In the spring, I cautioned the government. Just because it can do something, it does not mean it should. I find myself reaching for those words again with this bill. The government still has a choice. It can explain itself to Canadians in advance in the House, in committee, in non-performative, non-rushed ways, and in our communities. Having read the words of the people who have written to me, and hearing the concerns of the other parties in this House, I predict that if the government does not do that, it will run the real risk of having to explain itself to the courts or to people on the picket lines.”

“We should slow down and not rush this bill through. It gives too much power to cabinet. We need time to hear what Canadians think about it first.”

“Madam Speaker, I think there are a lot of provisions in this bill that are quite flabbergasting and that do exactly the kinds of things the member is talking about in terms of transferring an immense amount of power to cabinet. Again, it may be that that is what Canadians want at this time. I would like to see us get the opportunity to really hear from Canadians and give them the chance to reflect on this bill, understanding what it actually says, so that we can represent them appropriately instead of trying to respond to something that is being rammed through the House, again.”

“This bill claims it will help us build things quickly. To do that, it needs to cancel two major environmental laws. I cannot find where it does that. I want to know where in this bill those laws are cancelled.”

“Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for her excellent speech. I know she reviews legislation very carefully. Bill C-39 purports that it would build things at speeds that generations have not seen. Obviously, that would require the repeal of Bill C-69 and Bill C-48. Is that in part 1, part 2 or part 3? I could not find it. In what part of this massive bill is the repeal of that legislation? Where is it contained?”

“The parts the member asked about are not in this bill. Instead, this bill gives cabinet too much power to define vague words and do whatever it wants.”

“Madam Speaker, I cannot find the provisions that the member is looking for. What I can find are immense transfers of discretion to cabinet, which would allow it to define a number of vaguely defined words and do, really, whatever it deems appropriate.”

“I need more time to study this bill before I decide what I think of it. I will talk to the member about it once I have reviewed it.”

“Madam Speaker, the member opposite is right that this is part of a series of bills. I believe there were nine or 10 of them, or something like that, in June. I am hoping to get the chance to spend enough time with this legislation to be able to judge exactly what it would do. Once I have that opportunity, I would be pleased to have a conversation with the member about what he thinks it would do.”

“This bill gives the federal government more power over local ports. I want to know if the transport minister talked to local port authorities and town leaders before making this change. If he did not, I want to know why.”

“Madam Speaker, I have appreciated serving with the member at times on FOPO, the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans. I usually come from a freshwater perspective, and he is often a little saltier, I think from his surrounding water. He mentioned in his speech the port overhauls and the St. Lawrence authority overhauls. Did the transport minister consult with the local port authorities and municipal leaders before giving Ottawa expanded intervention powers over their operations? If he did not consult, why not?”

“This bill is 250 pages long and covers too many different topics at once. The government promised faster project approvals before, but almost nothing was built. I want the government to show us the economic facts, listen to farmers, and let Parliament carefully study each part of this bill before we vote on it.”

“Madam Speaker, it is always an honour to bring the voices of Chatham-Kent—Leamington to this chamber. Tonight, I am speaking to Bill C-39. It is certainly not a small piece of legislation before us. Bill C-39, the building Canada strong act, is a substantial omnibus bill covering major project approvals, transportation, trade and labour. At roughly 250 pages, it is legislation that deserves a great deal of careful review. Madam Speaker, I know I can speak with a piece of paper in my hand, but if I hold the bill, is it considered a prop? The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Alexandra Mendès): No. Dave Epp: It is not. It is fairly weighty and substantive, so I wanted to clarify that before I carry on. Some 15 months ago, the government brought forward Bill C-5, the Building Canada Act. It was an omnibus bill that established a framework intended to accelerate major projects and reduce duplication in federal reviews. The government said Canada needed to build “at speeds not seen in generations”. Does that sound familiar? Now, just over a year later, the government is back before the House with another major omnibus bill, once again promising greater speed, certainty and investment. The government says Bill C-39 would establish a one-year federal decision timeline, and this is important, once proponents have submitted a comprehensive application. It is not one year from entering into the system to a decision, but supposedly one year once all of the requirements have been submitted. That timeline does not include the additional pauses included at ministerial discretion, which are peppered throughout the legislation. The question Parliament should be asking is a very simple one. What has actually changed since Bill C-5 and what evidence do we have that Bill C-39 would deliver the results that Canadians can see? There has been progress from Bill C-5 to Bill C-39. I would not have said that last week. Only one project now has been approved of the 500 that sat on the Prime Minister’s desk. That is 0.2%, or one-fifth of 1% of the projects, and that is in two years. However, the Liberals have succeeded in increasing one thing by 33%, and that is the title. They have added the word “strong”. The bill now reads, “the Building Canada Strong Act.” It is 33% longer than “building Canada strong”. The government describes this legislation as a major effort to accelerate projects, strengthen transportation corridors, modernize labour relations and create greater certainty for investment. The government says Bill C-39 would create a one project, one decision approach. Those are important objectives, and Canadians want Canada to build. We need infrastructure, investment and reliable transportation networks, and we need to develop our natural resources and get Canadian products to Canadian and international markets, but Canadians have heard these promises about faster approvals before. That is why the appropriate question is not simply whether Canada says this bill would accelerate projects. The question is whether the legislation would remove the barriers that have prevented projects from moving forward in the first place. Nowhere, as I referenced in the previous question, do I see where Bill C-69 and Bill C-48 are being repealed. If the government believes its approach will make Canada more competitive, Parliament should be able to examine the evidence behind that claim. Canadians should know which delays are being eliminated, how they are being proposed and what the expected economic benefits are. If a policy makes life cheaper, Canadians deserve to know how. If it makes life more expensive, Canadians deserve to know why. Therefore, I would ask the government if it has conducted an independent assessment of the economic impact of Bill C-39 on Canadian families, workers, farmers and businesses. What would this legislation mean for the cost of getting goods to market? What would it mean for investment? What would it mean for jobs? What would it mean for the cost of energy and transportation? These are reasonable questions for a government that is asking Canadians to trust another major omnibus bill. Agriculture provides an excellent example of why these questions matter. Bill C-39 proposes to continue extended rail interswitching for four years in Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba. Extended interswitching allows a shipper to access a competing railway over longer regulated distances than the ordinary 30 kilometres. For western agriculture, rail transportation is part of the economic infrastructure that determines whether Canadian grain and other commodities reach domestic and international markets efficiently. Farmers need certainty. They make decisions months and years in advance. They purchase land and equipment, choose what to plant, enter contracts and make investments based on the expectation that they will have reliable access to transportation and markets. Why should we have another pilot? If extended interswitching is intended to improve competition and help Canadian goods move to market, Parliament should understand the government’s evidence for limiting it geographically, first of all, and also for making it another four-year measure, rather than making it permanent. Why is the measure temporary, and why is it limited to the three prairie provinces? Agriculture needs certainty with longevity, and four years may or may not provide the certainty that the agri-food industry requires. That is precisely the kind of question that should be answered before Parliament passes this legislation. This issue brings us to a larger concern about how the government approaches consultation. We have seen significant concern from farmers and rural communities regarding the Alto high-speed rail project. On September 19, farmers and others from numerous political stripes gathered in Rigaud to protest the project and raise concerns about its impact on agricultural land and rural communities. On Friday, I attended the Transport Futures summit in Toronto, where speaker after speaker raised concerns about the lack of a business case for the Alto high-speed project. We talked about that again at the ag committee today. The government claims that it has consulted the public for this project, yet these farmers and municipalities in rural Canada in the proposed path are out there fighting to stop Alto. This does not sound like a government that is listening. The point is that consultation has to mean more than government officials meeting with people and proceeding exactly how they originally planned. I have another example. We have already seen what happens when Canadians and the agricultural industry come forward, provide evidence and ask the government to reconsider its decisions. The ag committee studied the planned closures of seven federal research stations and experimental farms. It heard from 27 witnesses and received 15 written briefs. The committee ultimately unanimously, all of us, recommended that the government reconsider the closures and conduct proper site-specific cost-benefit analyses before proceeding. The economic case for agricultural research is significant. Witnesses told the committee that agricultural research drives productivity, innovation and long-term economic growth. It is the foundation of a sector worth $150 billion in 2024 that supports 2.3 million jobs and is exporting more than $100 billion in products. Here is the question: If the government is serious about building a stronger Canadian economy, why would it close research capacity in a sector that contributes so significantly to our economy and our food security? This brings us back to consultation. The National Farmers Union and the Agricultural Union have now publicly criticized the government’s response, saying that the committee’s unanimous recommendations to reconsider the closures have not been acted upon. To industry leaders, it is as though the concerns of Canadian agriculture fell on deaf ears to a government that never intended to listen. That raises a very serious, reasonable question about Bill C-39 as well: When the government says it has consulted Canadians and stakeholders, what happens when the consultation provides recommendations that the government does not want to hear? That matters for Bill C-39 because the government is asking Parliament to consider major changes in several areas at the same time. This brings me to part 3 of the legislation. Part 3 proposes to change the Canada Labour Code involving collective bargaining, geographic certification, first collective agreements and the government’s role in certain labour disputes. The substantial labour changes proposed in this bill deserve detailed examination. Canadians should not have to choose among infrastructure, public policy, transportation policy and labour policy as though they were a single question. They are three different issues that would affect Canadians in different ways. They require different witnesses, different expertise and different evidence. If the government is confident that every part of the bill is good public policy, then there should be no reason to fear giving each part the time and scrutiny it deserves. Canadians do not need another headline promising that everything is about to get better. They need evidence that government policy is actually improving their economic circumstances. Canadians need a government that listens when farmers speak and takes parliamentary considerations seriously. They need a government that can explain the costs and benefits of its legislation. They need Parliament to have enough time to examine legislation before it becomes law. Canadians deserve evidence and a Parliament of accountability. Canadians deserve a government whose actions match its promises. If not, we will be back here in another year debating another new act: the building Canada very strong act.”

“Half a trillion dollars in investment has left Canada in the last ten years. The government makes promises and photo ops, but they only approved one project in two years. We need to study this bill properly and actually start building projects.”

“Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Winnipeg North for his always thoughtful, probing comments and questions. Half a trillion dollars is the net amount of capital that has fled this country in the last 10 years. A promise and a summit is what we have had. No one has ever criticized the government’s ability to hold summits, make promises or have photo ops, and I am sure glossy brochures come with those promises. However, what is needed is execution. The Prime Minister promised execution at speeds unseen in a generation. Is the member saying that approving one project in two years is at a speed that has not been seen in generations? I think not. I would challenge that. We want to build things. Canada wants it. Canadians need these infrastructure projects. Where is the action behind all of the glossy brochures, all of the photo ops and all of the fancy announcements? That is what Canadians are looking for. That is what we are looking for. We need to scrutinize the legislation properly and then get going, and not just with announcements.”

• Little substance
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Signal 38 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 →

“The Prime Minister has been in power for almost two years, but no new projects have been approved. I want the member to explain why the Prime Minister's promises do not match reality.”

“Mr. Speaker, the member spoke quite eloquently about the rhetoric versus the reality of the Prime Minister. I am just wondering if he wants to expand on that. The Liberals have had almost two years with the Prime Minister. He is nearly halfway through his mandate and still no new projects have been approved. Could the member speak to that difference, from the rhetoric of the Prime Minister to the reality that Canadians are facing?”

“The government changed its mind and now promises to approve building projects quickly. It only used half of our ideas, and it has only approved one project in two years. I will not support this bill until we see real evidence that it works.”

“Mr. Speaker, witnessing the government, the old one and the new one, has actually made me appreciate our health care system and its ability to treat whiplash. This government, on the rhetoric side, has gone from supporting carbon taxes, environmental considerations above all others and cancelling seven LNG projects that are on the books, to stating that it is going to move at speeds unheard of. The rhetoric has caused whiplash. The Liberals have actually taken some of our policies and implemented them in half measures. What has not come forward yet is the evidence. We have one project in two years that has been announced, with Chinese steel by the way. Missouri is the show-me state, and as it would say, “Show me the evidence”, after we have properly scrutinized this legislation.”

• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 100 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

“We supported the government's first building bill a year ago to get things moving. It has not worked, and now they are back with another bill.”

“Mr. Speaker, I am going to remind the member opposite that Bill C-5, the omnibus Building Canada Act, was passed in this chamber with our support. We are the ones that said, “Let us get going.” We are the ones that said, “We really need to get Canada moving.” The evidence has not been there. Now here we are, one year later, with the building Canada strong act.”

• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 100 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

“This bill says project reviews must finish in one year, but it has a big loophole. Review agencies can keep asking for more studies with no time limit before that one-year clock even starts. Why did the government leave this loophole open to be abused?”

“Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member’s weighing in on this important topic. I just would point out to the member from Thunder Bay, though, that the greatest thing about the bill is actually the nice packaging. It has a nice cardboard outside, and it does not fall apart when I open it. Usually the bills we get are just photocopies. Proposed section 19 would essentially allow an authority, whether it be the Impact Assessment Agency, the Canadian Energy Regulator or the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, to actually tell a proponent to get another study, to the point where there could be no decision made on starting the one-year clock that the government purports to support. Why would the government give an unlimited amount of time, in proposed section 19, for that completeness to happen? Is the member concerned that could be abused?”

• Echo ×3

  A repeated line

  “The Canada Energy Regulator or the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission.”

  Said 3 times by 2 members since October 6.

  Every time it was said →

“I want the member to answer my question instead of avoiding it. The bill says the one-year review only starts when the regulator decides an application is complete. Will regulators abuse this power to cause delays?”

“Mr. Speaker, in his previous answer to me, the member bypassed the question and pulled out his bill. I hope he would agree that the cover makes it quite nice to hold, but I would like him to actually answer the question. He talks about an accelerated one-year review, but it literally says that an agency, or in this case the regulatory authority, must view it as complete for the process to begin. Does he not believe this would be abused?”

“Liberal taxes, spending, and rules are driving business out of Canada. The Prime Minister promised to approve major projects quickly, but no new projects have been approved, and 500 are still waiting. I want the government to work with Conservatives to cut taxes, repeal anti-development laws, and approve these projects so we can create jobs and grow the economy.”

“Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise and join the debate this evening. I will start by simply saying that we must be able to build in Canada. It should go without saying, but after 11 years of Liberal policies, I feel it necessary to say so, because Liberal taxes, regulations and inflationary spending, which drive up the cost of living, have chased investment away from Canada for too long. It is why, for years, Conservatives have urged the Liberals to get out of the way by approving projects within six months, repealing antidevelopment Bill C-69 and Bill C-48, removing the industrial carbon tax and adopting one project, one review. The debate we have been having here for some time is a bit like déjà vu. We all know that a year ago we essentially had the same debate. We, as Parliament, passed Bill C-5 to allow the government the unprecedented ability to move projects ahead. The Prime Minister at that time effectively said that we were facing an existential threat from the United States and that we must move quickly to approve major projects, which would support our economy, create good jobs for Canadians and, of course, protect our sovereignty in a more roundabout sense. He said that he was the guy to get it done, and that Bill C-5 would be the tool in his tool box to allow that to happen with the Major Projects Office. That is what was said about a year and a half ago, that Bill C-5 would allow the government to move at speeds not seen in generations, and now here we are, all this time later, and the result is absolutely nothing. No new projects have been approved. There have only been more speeches and more announcements from the Prime Minister. This lack of action has left 500 projects on the table for approval, such as projects that could grow our economy, create jobs and, as I mentioned, protect our sovereignty. When I think of these projects, I think of my home in northwestern Ontario. Of course, we have the Ring of Fire, which we see some progress on with the federal government, with the Liberals agreeing to one project, one review for that particular project with the Province of Ontario. However, they are nowhere to be seen on the road to construction and still it is not designated in the national interest. There is also the Great Bear Gold project near Red Lake and Ear Falls, which would help the region grow and strengthen our economy. As an aside, folks in the chamber might not know that Red Lake really punches above its weight. There are some 4,000 residents in the community. All of the gold exploration nearby has contributed $4.2 billion to our economy over nine years, resulting from mining operations. Great Bear would also be an incredible opportunity, and Ear Falls as well, to help grow, especially in the face of the sawmill closure that has recently happened. I look as well to the Nuclear Waste Management Organization, which has the deep geological repository project. I will add, it is mandated by the government through the Nuclear Fuel Waste Act. The project is supported by 77% of voters in Ignace and supported by residents of Wabigoon Lake Ojibway Nation. This was referred to the Major Projects Office, but still no action and no clear designation that this project, mandated by the federal government, is in the national interest. As I go further down the list of projects, I would be remiss if I did not mention the Trans-Canada Highway going through northwestern Ontario. I have spoken about it a lot in this place. I cannot think of anything that is a better nation-building project than the only east-west corridor connecting our country. Improving the highway through northwestern Ontario, which is just a single lane in each direction, is critical for the safety of travellers and for our economic efficiency. It is why I brought forward a petition in the last session of Parliament, which was signed by thousands of Canadians from every single province, recognizing the need for improving the highways, specifically through northwestern Ontario. The petitioners called on the government to support the twinning project that has begun with support of the Province of Ontario, but the federal government, the Liberals, are nowhere to be seen. There are projects out there. There is lots of opportunity for nation building, and there is lots of opportunity for growth and for supporting Canadian jobs. The examples I just listed certainly do not form an exhaustive list, but they show the stark contrast between the Prime Minister’s rhetoric and the reality facing Canadians. The Prime Minister said he would build “at speeds not seen in generations”, and he has built nothing nearly two years in. Nearly halfway through his mandate, no new projects have been approved. He said that Canada would have the fastest-growing economy in the G7, and we are now fourth. He said he would secure a new trade deal with the United States by July of last year, and he has failed to do so. He said he would be judged by prices at the grocery store, and they continue to rise. In fact, inflation is outpacing wage growth, meaning Canadians are getting poorer. Canadian households are the most indebted in the G7 as well. Very simply put, with the Prime Minister, it has been all talk with no results. That is why Conservatives have been advocating for our plan and encouraging the government to work with us to implement it. Our Conservative plan to save Canadian jobs and money is to repeal the antidevelopment laws Bill C-69 and Bill C-48, approve the 500 projects currently stuck waiting for approval on the Prime Minister’s desk, scrap the industrial carbon tax, remove the capital gains tax on reinvestments in Canada and cut taxes on food, fuel and work. We will continue fighting for Canadian jobs and Canadian livelihoods while making life affordable by cutting taxes and stopping the inflationary spending that is driving up costs on Canadians.”

• Echo ×3

  A repeated line

  “Canadian households are the most indebted in the G7.”

  Said 3 times by 2 members since June 1.

  Every time it was said →

“The government needs to help pay for upgrades to Highway 17 between Thunder Bay and Manitoba. Right now, only Ontario and local communities are paying for it. This road is dangerous, and crashes shut it down and stop goods from moving across the country.”

“Mr. Speaker, as to the first part of the question about highways, it is noteworthy that the federal government, the Liberal government, has allocated support to certain sections of the Trans-Canada Highway across the country, but none to Highway 17 through northwestern Ontario between Thunder Bay and the Manitoba border. The construction that has started for the first few kilometres is solely funded and supported by the Province of Ontario, working in partnership with local first nations and municipalities as well. That is a critical area of the country for travel. I am sure the member would agree that it is of critical importance not just for the safety of travellers, as there are frequent accidents, but for our economic efficiency as well. Every time there are closures and accidents, it stops goods from flowing east to west. I hope the Liberals get on board and recognize how important the Trans-Canada Highway through northwest Ontario is.”

“This bill is very long and has many parts. We need to debate it thoroughly and study it in committee so all parties can suggest changes.”

“Mr. Speaker, the member raised a very noteworthy point. That is why it is so important that this bill, which is quite lengthy and has many components to it, is debated thoroughly, not just in this chamber, but also through the committee process, where it can be examined and understood and where amendments can be brought forward from various political parties. This is certainly a large piece of legislation with many moving factors to it. I appreciate the question from the member.”

• 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 government promises this bill will build things faster, but they made the same promise a year and a half ago. Since then, they have approved no new projects and built nothing. I do not believe them.”

“Simply, Mr. Speaker, it is because we have been here before. A year and a half ago we passed Bill C-5, which the Prime Minister said would allow the government to move at speeds not seen in generations. Since its passage, nothing has been approved. No new projects have been approved. There are no shovels in the ground. I listed a number of critically important projects that are by no means new. How long have we been talking about the Ring of Fire in this country? It is not a new project. With respect to the highway through northwestern Ontario, former prime minister Harper had initially put supports toward that in 2009. There are a number of projects that, I would argue, are low-hanging fruit for the Liberal government to move forward on, not just in northwestern Ontario but right across the country, but it is just standing idle and not moving forward on them, so we will believe it when we see it.”

• 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 already created an office in 2023 to work on supply chains and data. This bill creates another council that does the exact same thing. I want the member to explain what this new council will actually add.”

“Mr. Speaker, the member opposite talked a lot about the national trade corridor council that would be charged with digital tools and advising the minister, yet the national supply chain office that was created in 2023 by the government essentially has the same mandate to deal with data. I would just like to ask her what new value added the council would have that the national supply chain office does not already have. Are we not just in Groundhog Day, where the government just keeps bringing back the same tired ideas, rolling them out and expecting us to have a different result?”