“This bill helps us build clean energy projects faster while still protecting the environment. Projects like Churchill Falls and wind farms off Halifax can power our economy. I want the member to explain how he sees the value of these green projects and why we should build them quickly.”

“Madam Speaker, our colleague delivered a rousing speech. It is always interesting to hear such speeches in the House, but there was a hint of exaggeration in some of his points. I would like to point out that Bill C-39 makes it very clear that we are able to move forward more quickly with projects of interest—projects that can contribute to the Canadian economy—while complying with rigorous environmental standards. The two can go hand in hand, and those standards must always be met. He mentioned the list of projects. I am thinking specifically of Churchill Falls, which is the largest investment in renewable energy in North American history. I am thinking of the offshore wind projects off the coast of Halifax, in Atlantic Canada. I would like to hear my colleague’s views on the potential these projects have in terms of clean energy and on why it is important to move quickly to develop them.”

“This bill will speed up big projects, like water and wind power. I want the member to say if he thinks this bill helps build renewable energy, and why that matters.”

“Madam Speaker, earlier, I used the word “exaggerated”, which made some colleagues uncomfortable. Perhaps I could have used a more common expression, like “he went a bit too far” in his speech. In short, my question was about renewable energy. Bill C‑39 will help speed up the construction of major projects. I am thinking of hydroelectricity projects and wind energy projects. Does my colleague see a potential in Bill C‑39 for developing renewable energy projects, and why is it important to do so?”

“This bill is part of our work to grow the economy in Canada and Quebec. We are speeding up major projects and bringing in huge investments, like for clean energy at Churchill Falls. I want the member to admit that this bill helps build our economy.”

“Madam Speaker, I would like to remind my colleague that Bill C-39 is part of a broader context, specifically all the efforts our government has been making over the past year and a half to strengthen the Canadian economy and, of course, the Quebec economy. It builds on the projects we are trying to fast-track, such as the Contrecoeur container terminal project. It also builds on the major investments we are attracting, including with Churchill Falls, the largest investment in renewable energy in the history of North America. It also builds on the summit in Toronto, which unleashed over $500 billion in new investment commitments in Canada, including some in Québec. I would like to hear my colleague’s thoughts on something. Does he recognize that Bill C-39 is a part of these ongoing efforts to strengthen the Canadian economy and, by extension, Quebec’s economy as well?”

“I want the House to pass this bill. It protects workers in federally regulated jobs like trucking and air travel. It hires more safety inspectors, stops trucking companies from misclassifying workers, protects airport union contracts, and helps workers get unpaid wages.”

“Madam Speaker, Canada is making headway in the world as it is, not passively waiting for the world we wish it to be. We are focused on what we can control. We are building a stronger, more independent and more sustainable economy. We are leveraging our strengths and moving quickly to open new markets, strengthen supply chains and accelerate projects across the country. We are also making sure that workers have the security and opportunities they need to succeed during these times. This success requires a modern labour framework that protects and supports Canadian workers and workplaces. This is particularly important in the federally regulated sectors. These are the sectors that underpin Canada’s economic growth, trade, supply chains and major projects. Bill C-39 features a suite of new measures to support the workers who will build them and help them thrive in the future. Canadian workers are at the heart of Canada’s economic strength, but the increased demand on critical infrastructure requires stronger worker protections. Bill C-39 is heavily informed by consultations with unions, employers and indigenous partners across Canada, and they all confirmed the need for increased workplace protections that keep up with our rapidly changing economy and workplaces. Unions and employers may not always see eye to eye, but worker protection was a subject upon which they could all agree. Bill C-39 features a slew of worker supports that have been proposed through both legislative amendments and non-legislative investments. I will take a moment to outline each of these measures, starting with the ones that address health and safety. Workplace safety is and will always be a top priority for the Government of Canada because there is nothing more important than returning home safely after a day’s work. We know workplace injuries, including psychological ones, are costly for workers and their families, and also for the employer. We are also aware that our core workplace safety precautions in federally regulated workplaces are not perfect and that there are still gaps in enforcement. That is why we sought input from both employee and employer groups to strengthen these protections. Their input was invaluable and helped shape our way forward. Bill C-39 is backed by targeted investments to hire new health and safety officers. That means more inspections, more prevention and more protective enforcement to ensure that workers return home safely from work, because we know safe and modern workplaces benefit employees and businesses alike. I would like to talk now about driver misclassification in the road transport sector. Under the so-called Driver Inc. model, some carriers push drivers to incorporate. These drivers are treated as independent businesses, even though they drive the carrier’s truck on the carrier’s schedule and are, in every way that matters, an employee. The problem is that these drivers can then lose access to important protections they would be entitled to as employees. These include minimum wage, paid leave, employment insurance, the Canada pension plan and health protections. Unfortunately, it is often the most vulnerable workers who are hit the hardest, including newcomers to Canada. The code already makes it clear that this is an illegal practice and it needs to stop. It hurts drivers and it puts honest employers that follow the rules at an unfair disadvantage. The Canadian Trucking Alliance, the national voice of the trucking industry, has been calling for stronger action for years. It has welcomed Bill C-39 as an opportunity to give the government better tools to recover the wages workers are owed. The bill builds on work already well under way. Prevention has always been at the core of the labour program’s approach. A dedicated team of labour program officers meet directly with employers and drivers to explain their responsibilities and rights under the code. They also work proactively with partners, including the provinces and territories, to crack down on driver misclassification. This is done through proactive and targeted inspections, outreach and education. In the road transportation sector, this has included inspection blitzes in the greater Toronto and Hamilton area and in Montreal. Since 2023, more than 1,800 inspections and outreach and awareness activities have been conducted in the sector. Drivers deserve fair treatment, and employers who follow the rules deserve a fair chance to compete. That is why Bill C-39 builds on previous measures with additional support and more inspectors to continue this important work. I would like to switch gears, from trucking to the airline industry. Our airports connect Canadian businesses and travellers to the world, but today, when an airport service contract is retendered, workers who continue doing the same job lose their union certification and their collective agreement. Bill C-39 changes that. This legislation will extend successor rights in cases of contract retendering in the air transportation industry at airports. These protections will apply to all Canadian airports. This means airport workers will keep both their union representation and their collective agreements when their contract changes from one contractor to another. This measure was strongly supported by unions during our consultations, and it was not opposed in principle by employers. That certainly means stability for workers and for the airport that depends on them. This will go a long way in helping to strengthen protections for workers and promoting worker stability and fairness. Protecting workers’ wages has always been a cornerstone of the Government of Canada’s labour framework. Our wage earner protection program already provides financial support to Canadian workers who have lost their jobs and are owed wages by their insolvent employers. Since its creation in 2008, it has paid almost $750 million in unpaid wages to more than 210,000 Canadians. Behind every payment is a worker who lost a job but did not get paid. Bill C-39 will strengthen the integrity and stewardship of this program. This will be accomplished by addressing gaps to ensure more predictable payments while preventing the misuse of insolvency mechanisms. This will help ensure that payments happen the way they should, when they should. Eligible workers deserve no less. I would like to talk about paid medical leave and the measures in Bill C-39 to address an issue that has posed challenges of late. Since December 2022, employees in the federally regulated private sector have been entitled to earn and take up to 10 days of medical leave with pay per year. However, there have been concerns about stacking of benefits with negotiated or employer-provided leave regimes that are equivalent or greater. We have addressed this issue in Bill C-39, more clearly explaining how the paid leave provisions work. The bill clarifies that employees who are entitled to more favourable paid sick leave benefits in their collective agreement are not also eligible to the code’s medical leave provisions on top of it. In this way, Bill C-39 will maintain access to up to 10 days of paid medical leave for all employees, while providing much needed clarity on an important yet sometimes misunderstood topic in federally regulated sectors. Canadians are counting on us to work together to support them and secure Canada’s long-term prosperity, and Bill C-39 does just that. The worker support items in Bill C-39 will help Canada build more, build efficiently and build stronger, so I encourage all members of the House of Commons to support this landmark legislation and help stabilize our labour landscape, because it takes all of us pulling in the same direction to build Canada strong.”

“I understand the concern. The member can suggest this change when the committee studies the bill.”

“Madam Speaker, I certainly do understand, and I am sure that when the bill is at committee, the committee can recommend changes to the bill. This might be one of the recommendations the member may want to put forward at committee.”

“We cut federal red tape with this bill. Now the provinces need to work with us so projects only have to go through one review instead of two. Seven provinces have already agreed to this, and I want Quebec to join as well.”

“Madam Speaker, I agree that we, as the Canadian government, through Bill C-5, removed all the red tape with respect to the federal government. It is now the provincial government’s duty to work with the federal government and comply with that. As far as the one project, one review framework to reduce existing duplication between federal and provincial assessments, seven provinces have come on board with this agreement. I am not sure whether Quebec is one of the provinces. If it is not, then I am sure the government would keep working with it until it gets on board.”

• 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 helps the whole economy during labour disputes. Under the new rules, the minister must look at whether a strike hurts the economy or causes major problems before stepping in. Does the member agree this helps Canada?”

“Madam Speaker, the member talked about Bill C-39’s effect on labour negotiations, but it seems to me that section 107 of the Labour Code protects the greater economy as a whole as well. The act would create new conditions the minister must consider. Before using section 107, the minister must consider a mediator’s report but also must consider what is in the national interest. It goes on to further define the national interest as taking into account “whether the strike or lockout has...significant impact on the Canadian economy” or “may cause...serious social disruption”. I would have thought this would be of benefit to the greater Canadian economy as a whole. Am I right?”

“I agree with the member. This bill sets clear rules for these ministerial decisions. It requires an independent report, checks the impact on the national interest, and adds transparency and accountability.”

“Madam Speaker, the member is right. The strong for all act would introduce clear guardrails around the use of section 107, require the minister to consider an independent special mediator’s report, assess the national interest impact and bring greater transparency and accountability for this.”

“The member opposite is unfairly criticizing the government. When the Conservatives were in power, they limited debate on bills too. Our government is actually working with the provinces to build major projects. The member should rethink what she said.”

“Madam Speaker, I too, like the member opposite, listened to the inspirational speech that the Prime Minister gave back in January to the world. I think Canadians as a whole were very proud of that particular speech. However, to try to draw a comparison, as the member is trying to do, to ridicule the government and its actions is ridiculous, quite frankly. I think it does a disservice. At the end of the day, the member can say whatever she wants and be as critical as she wants, but I can assure her that when I sat in opposition and listened to Stephen Harper bring through legislation, the Conservatives would actually introduce legislation along with a motion for time allocation. What a gross exaggeration is taking place on the other end, when we have a Prime Minister and a government that have been working collaboratively with provinces and jurisdictions and stakeholders to build Canada strong through major projects and so much more. I think the member needs to reflect on her speech. It was far from what took place last January in Switzerland.”

• Little substance
  ?

  Question or comment in debate

  Signal 16 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

“I want the member to vote for this bill. It will help us get the full benefit of over $500 billion in new investments to grow our economy.”

“Madam Speaker, Bill C‑39 is part of a broader context, namely the leadership that our Prime Minister and our government have shown over the past 18 months to strengthen the Canadian economy. Just a few weeks ago, in Toronto, it was announced that more than $500 billion in investments will be injected into Canada, which will help strengthen our economy. Bill C‑39 will make it possible to unlock the full potential of these investments. Does my colleague intend to support Bill C‑39 to ensure that we truly see the full potential of the investments that were announced in Toronto? These investments will continue to pour into the country over the coming year to strengthen our economy.”

“I want the House to pass this bill. It will speed up approvals for major transport projects, cut duplicate paperwork, and strengthen our supply chains without lowering environmental standards.”

“Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House this evening to speak in support of Bill C-39. Over the past several years, Canadians have witnessed how quickly events beyond our borders can affect our economy at home. A conflict on the other side of the world can disrupt energy markets. A shortage of shipping capacity can increase costs for Canadian businesses. A disruption to a rail line, highway or port can affect producers and consumers on both ends of the supply chain. In the face of these global realities, our government was elected on a firm commitment to reinforcing Canada’s economic sovereignty and empowering our country to build bigger, stronger and faster. Our supply chains, built on ports, railways, roads and the great workers who keep them moving, are the backbone of our economy. By extension, strong supply chains are imperative to our government’s ambitious plan to double non-U.S. exports, build major projects and attract record investment. At its core, the building Canada strong act is all about strengthening our supply chains. This ambitious piece of legislation would create stronger supply chains by taking steps toward treating Canada’s transportation system as an integrated national trade network rather than as a collection of separate pieces. The bill would enable the federal government to formally designate national trade corridors and establish performance measures for them. That means looking at the movement of goods across an entire corridor, identifying where delays and capacity constraints occur and measuring how the system is performing. The bill would also create the national trade corridors council. Its role would be to monitor the movement of goods, analyze disruptions affecting trade corridors, identify areas around the system where the system is not performing as it should and provide recommendations to the Minister of Transport. As we invest in our trade infrastructure, these measures would ensure that those investments are directed toward the places where they would have the greatest impact. This is about moving from a fragmented approach to an integrated transportation system, and the reliability of our trade corridors has a real impact. A congested port can mean additional storage costs. A lack of rail capacity can mean grain sitting in elevators rather than moving to market. Our government’s objective is straightforward: streamlining our trade corridors to eliminate bottlenecks and ensure Canadians and Canadian products can get to their destination. The second major piece is our ports. Canadian port authorities sit at some of the most important gateways in our economy. Bill C-39 would modernize their governance and give them greater commercial and financial flexibility to invest, generate revenue and expand the infrastructure needed to support trade. It would create new indigenous advisory councils, recognizing that indigenous communities are important partners in the development and operation of Canada’s transportation infrastructure. Importantly, this bill would uphold the role of ports as non-profit organizations and would create more opportunities for partnerships and capital projects through enhanced flexibility. However, infrastructure is only part of the challenge. The other part is the regulatory system surrounding it. Today, businesses can be required to provide similar information to multiple federal departments and agencies. That means more forms, more duplication and more administrative costs. Bill C-39 would create authorities to enable greater information sharing across authorized government institutions to reduce administrative burden and streamline our process. The bill would also support paperless trade by recognizing electronic transferable records in line with international standards. That means more efficient information sharing, less duplication and a streamlined approach to documentation. Bill C-39 also targets approvals themselves. The legislation would establish a transportation project office within Transport Canada to coordinate federal authorizations and consultations for transportation projects. The objective is to provide a clearer pathway for priority transportation infrastructure and support the government’s broader goal of getting projects from application to decision more efficiently. On this point, the bill is clear. I want to go back to the objective of providing a clear federal pathway for priority transportation infrastructure. This brings me back to the time when there was a discussion around the Confederation Bridge connecting Prince Edward Island to the mainland. I was the minister responsible for that megaproject. At the time, it was one of the largest projects in the history of the country. That particular project, started in 1993, was completed ahead of schedule and under budget in 1997. I am unsure if 30 years later, that project would have gotten through the approval process in a timely fashion. It stands as an example of how we do things right and at the same time protect the environment and protect the various interests involved. Looking at Bill C-39, I view it as providing the legislative pathway for ensuring that the projects this country desperately needs, like the Confederation Bridge in 1993, get to the point where they can be approved. The point is not to eliminate reviews. It is to coordinate them. It is not to eliminate standards. It is to reduce duplication. It is not to remove consultation. It is to make federal processes more coherent and predictable while upholding the same standards we are proud to maintain. Canada needs to be able to build faster while continuing to build responsibly. Again, I think back to the Confederation Bridge project. Finally, Bill C-39 recognizes that supply chain resilience depends on security. The bill would modernize Canada’s transportation security clearance framework. It would broaden the roles and functions to which transportation security clearances can apply, enhance risk assessments, improve information sharing and strengthen authorities around granting, refusing, suspending or cancelling clearances. The purpose is to better address complex and evolving threats, because security is a crucial part of supply chain resilience. Taken together, these measures represent a practical and coordinated approach to strengthening the infrastructure and systems that allow Canada’s economy to function. On a micro-scale, allowing Canada’s economy to function is the same as allowing Prince Edward Island’s economy to grow and function, as the Confederation Bridge did in 1997, and it still delivers today. We need to move goods from farms to elevators, from mines to ports, from factories to markets and from our communities to customers around the world. We need transportation networks that can keep pace with the investments we are making and the opportunities in front of us. That means building capacity, but it also means making better use of the capacity we already have. It means having the information necessary to understand how our trade corridors are performing. It means ensuring that our ports have the tools and flexibility needed to grow, and it means ensuring that when we approve and build major transportation projects like the Confederation Bridge, we do so with the coordination and predictability that Canadians expect. That is why strengthening supply chains is fundamentally about strengthening the Canadian economy. It is about building the transportation capacity, coordination and resilience that Canada needs for the economy we are building today and ultimately for the economy we intend to build tomorrow. This is how we build Canada strong.”

• Echo ×20

  A repeated line

  “That is how we build Canada strong.”

  Said 20 times by 14 members since April 23.

  Every time it was said →

“We think carefully about our choices to make sure they help the whole country and our economy. We do that whenever we make decisions or propose new laws.”

“Madam Speaker, all situations require the government to reflect, with a thoughtful approach, to arrive at a decision that meets the needs of the country and the Canadian economy at all levels. The government takes that into consideration when making those decisions and when proposing new legislative changes as well.”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 48 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

“The government needs to keep our economy strong so we can pay for the social programs Canadians rely on. Governing means doing this work, not just complaining.”

“Madam Speaker, the government has a responsibility to ensure that the economy of the country performs at a level that Canadians expect, to support the many social programs we have in place that Canadians cherish. That is the role of governing. I prefer the government to govern. Some simply complain.”

“I want the member to explain what helped the Confederation Bridge get built on time and on budget.”

“Madam Speaker, I really enjoyed hearing the member describe the Confederation Bridge project. I am wondering if he could touch upon a few of the elements that delivered that project on time and on budget.”

“The Confederation Bridge was a huge project built during a recession with private and public money. It finished ahead of schedule and is still in great shape today. It shows what Canada can do when all levels of government work together.”

“Madam Speaker, it was interesting. The project was a megaproject advanced at the time by a Progressive Conservative government that at the time was building interest in building the country during a recessionary period. It was innovative. It was private-public partnering, one of the first major megaprojects in the country that was privately and publicly funded. The key points of the project stand the test today. The latest engineering on it shows that the bridge is still in almost 100% condition like the day it was built. It was built ahead of schedule. It was built on time. It shows what we can do in this country when all levels of government choose to work together and put the interests of the nation ahead of the requirements that it takes to deliver those particular projects.”

“I want the House to support this bill. Our government has already attracted major building projects and billions of dollars in investments to Canada. This bill helps keep that work going so we can build a stronger economy.”

“Mr. Speaker, it is important to take a look at the legislation and what has taken place since the last federal election when Canadians chose a new Prime Minister. We can take a holistic approach to what it means to build Canada strong. Let us take a look at the building of projects. There are not 500. There are over 24 going through the Major Projects Office in Calgary, one of which has been approved, with a value of billions of dollars. Let us take a look at what took place in Toronto just last month. Literally half a trillion dollars of potential investment is coming to Canada because of the Prime Minister’s relationships and the aggressive nature of our ministers in going out and seeking investments for Canada. This legislation is there to complement building a stronger and healthier economy. Is taking a holistic approach not the best way to look at this?”

• Little substance
  ?

  Question or comment in debate

  Signal 42 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 →

“Our government has brought in 500 billion dollars in investment, expanded ports, and started many major building projects. I want my Conservative colleague to admit our economy is growing and support this bill.”

“Mr. Speaker, my Conservative colleague makes it sound like nothing good ever happens. It is high time he recognized all the efforts that have been made and all the results achieved over the past year and a half to strengthen the Canadian economy. He wants concrete examples. The Toronto summit attracted a total of $500 billion in investment in Canada that will go towards projects in our communities, that will support our workers and that will boost our economy. These are concrete examples. The 24 projects that the office is currently considering, all the projects already under construction, the port expansions and the various projects where work has already begun are all concrete examples linked to our government’s leadership since we were elected last year. I would like to know whether my colleague will finally recognize the work we are doing to strengthen the Canadian economy and support us on Bill C-39.”

“I support this bill. It cuts red tape for our transportation and trade sectors so we can build major projects faster. It sets a one-year limit for project reviews and stops businesses from having to file the same paperwork with multiple government offices, while still protecting the environment and Indigenous rights.”

“Mr. Speaker, Bill C-39, the building Canada strong act, would put forward important legislative changes that build on our government’s efforts to protect Canada’s economic future by reducing the regulatory burden faced by the Canadian transportation sector. Last year, the House passed the Building Canada Act, which focused on accelerating the development of projects of national interest and removing barriers to international trade and labour mobility. Today, I am pleased to say that we have worked diligently in the past months on new projects and streamlining processes. For much of our history, Canadians were able to count on favourable trade connections and conditions, including a stable relationship with the United States. That has shifted. The decades-long economic integration is over. Tariffs are being treated as leverage and supply chains as vulnerabilities. In a rapidly changing world, Canada’s new government is focused on what it can control. We are building strength at home and diversifying our partnerships abroad. We are on track. Transportation is the vital link. We cannot diversify trade, build the strongest economy in the G7 and strengthen Canada’s competitiveness without a transportation system that works. Canada’s trade corridors connect Canadian business to markets and supply chains both at home and around the world. We heard directly from Canadians about what is needed to build stronger, more efficient and more resilient supply chains. As such, we are taking action to reduce red tape, strengthen supply chains, accelerate infrastructure development and attract investment to grow Canada’s economy and create new jobs. For too long, red tape and underinvestment hindered innovation and productivity in Canadian companies. We often heard that we are not modern, that we are too bureaucratic, that we have not invested enough in our infrastructure and that other countries were finding us to be unreliable. These issues have to be addressed. That is why we are providing regulatory certainty to modernize the rules that govern how we build and invest to compete, while protecting the health and security of Canadians and the environment and respecting indigenous rights. To support our commitment to lower costs and build a stronger economy, this government launched a red tape review in July 2025. Federal departments and agencies identified approximately 500 actions to reduce regulatory red tape. This bill would begin the implementation of some of these forward-looking actions, showing how the government will deliver on its commitment to address barriers that limit trade and restrict competition. Canada is and needs to be seen as a reliable and beneficial place to invest and do business. Inefficiencies in our trade processes and supply chains are costly and hurt our reputation as a reliable trading partner. To maximize the full value of our budget 2025 investments, we must address long-standing constraints in the system that limit investment and productivity. This will support a more modern, responsive transportation system that can handle economic pressures, improve performance and unlock new capacity across our supply chains. A critical piece of the bill addresses coordinated reviews and securing timely approvals. Delays deter investment in our nation-building projects. The bill includes measures to reduce red tape and regulatory burden through a new transportation project office. This would complement efforts being led by the Major Projects Office and the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada. We need to expedite permits. Our government’s commitment of one project, one review, within one year of receiving all necessary information from a proponent, is key. These changes would enable industry to advance large-scale projects more efficiently and with greater certainty, and would help attract investment. The transportation project office would work to reduce bottlenecks, improve coordination and offer a one-window approach for proponents. All the while, this improved approach would maintain existing safeguards to ensure the integrity of those project reviews. The objective is to unlock greater efficiency, not more risk. Equally important is our government’s commitment to having indigenous partnerships that shape how projects are developed and carried out. We also remain committed to upholding those indigenous rights, including rights stemming from section 35 of the Constitution, to work with indigenous peoples during the implementation phase. The bill would also give Canada tools to rapidly align with international standards and strengthen how we collect, use and protect our industry data to better protect critical Canadian assets. Following the “tell us once” principle, government efforts on trade digitization would make it simple for Canadian business to submit the information. I want to specifically highlight this last point. Today, industries fulfilling regulatory requirements are routinely required to submit the same or similar data to multiple departments in various formats and on different timelines. This imposes real costs and administrative burdens on businesses. Canadian businesses expect clear communication, faster turnaround times and the ability to track the status of their requests. By reducing duplication and streamlining reporting, our trade digitization initiative, once implemented, would lower costs, save time and let businesses focus on what they want: growth and innovation. For example, in the marine sector, vessels arriving at Canadian ports must file 12 distinct forms with five different federal departments and agencies, often in duplicate. Approximately 90% of Canada’s trade with non-U.S. countries is carried by marine vessels. Making it easier to file the data once and have it shared securely across departments would meaningfully cut red tape as we diversify trade. The bill would also align with trusted international standards, giving industry the certainty it needs to plan and invest with confidence, especially as Canada seeks to grow its trade. When rules and regulations move at the same pace as international partners, Canadian innovation and productivity are unleashed, and Canadian companies can compete on a level playing field with their international competitors. I am looking forward to the discussion and the debate on this consequential bill.”

• Echo ×4

  A repeated line

  “The government is focused on what it can control.”

  Said 4 times by 4 members since May 26.

  Every time it was said →

“This bill has a lot of good in it. Given the member's deep experience in government, which part of this bill does he think will help the economy the most?”

“Mr. Speaker, I would like to exhibit the member as a great representative of our party, because here he is, the former Ontario minister of finance, sitting on our backbench. I know that, over the years, he has been involved in a lot of different government programs and a lot of different projects. He has probably seen the best and worst of governments. What does the member like best from an economic perspective in Bill C-39? I know there is a lot of good out there. What does he think would have the greatest impact from an economic perspective?”

“I want the House to pass this bill. It will help grow our trade, protect our independence, and make Canada's economy stronger.”

“Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question, and I also appreciate what most Canadians are appreciating, which is the fact that we are looking for results, we are looking at outcomes, we are working closely together with other nations, we are diversifying our trade, we are broadening our reach and we are protecting our sovereignty by becoming more resilient. These economic efforts are for the benefit of our future in Canada. I am very encouraged that all of us recognize how important the bill is to achieving those results.”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 46 of 100

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

  See full analysis →
• Vague
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Clarity 44 of 100

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

  See full analysis →