“Results matter more than process. Does the member not agree that approving major projects within one year is a good thing for businesses and workers, while still protecting Indigenous rights and the environment?”

“Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows that I have a great deal of respect for him. I listened intently to his comments. He spent a great deal of time talking about process. I have to be clear. Canada’s government views this very clearly. Process is not the objective. Results and getting things done are the objective. Does the hon. member not agree that having a one-year time frame to approve major projects through a clear and predictable system that benefits the private sector and benefits labour, while respecting indigenous rights and the environment, is a good thing?”

“This bill sets a one-year deadline to review projects so money reaches communities and businesses faster. It is easy to say we need less government, but what is the member's actual plan to move these projects forward?”

“Mr. Speaker, I heard my hon. colleague talk about this. I think it is easy to say government needs to get out of the way, or we need less government, without really putting into words what that actually means to real people. The bill is a proposal to put in a one-year review timeline. What would the member propose to make things move forward so these investments can actually make it to the communities and the businesses who need them, other than just slogans or getting government out of the way?”

“I want the House to pass this bill. It strengthens Canada's supply chains by tracking trade routes, improving our ports, cutting paperwork, and speeding up project approvals.”

“Mr. Speaker, over the past few years, Canadians have seen how events that are happening far from home can have a very real effect on our economy. A conflict on the other side of the world can disrupt the energy market. A lack of shipping capacity can drive up costs for our businesses. A disruption on a railway, on a highway or at a port can affect producers and consumers at both ends of the supply chain. In light of these circumstances, our government was elected on a clear commitment to strengthen Canada’s economic sovereignty. Our country must have the means to build bigger, stronger and faster. Our supply chains are the backbone of our economy. They rely not only on our ports, our railways and our roads, but also on the workers who keep them running every day. Strong supply chains are therefore critical to our government’s plan, a plan that seeks to double our exports to markets other than the United States, to build major projects and to attract more investors to Canada. Basically, Bill C-39 seeks to do one thing and that is strengthen our supply chains. It proposes a more holistic view of our transportation system. Today, we sometimes tend to look at the various components separately, whether it be a port, a railway, a highway or a border crossing. Bill C-39 would instead enable us to look at these infrastructure as different parts of a single trade network. The government could thus officially designate national trade corridors and establish performance measures for those corridors. In practical terms, that means tracking the movement of goods, identifying where delays are occurring, identifying capacity issues and measuring the performance of the entire network. Bill C-39 would also create a national trade corridors council. Its role would be to monitor the movement of goods, analyze disruptions, identify areas where the system can be improved and make recommendations to the Minister of Transport. Why does this matter? This matters because when we invest in our infrastructure, we want to invest in the right place. We want every investment to have the greatest possible impact. The reliability of our trade corridors has a very real impact. A congested port can mean additional costs for businesses. A lack of rail capacity can mean grain sitting in elevators rather than moving to markets. That is why the second major element of Bill C‑39 has to do with our ports. Canadian port authorities are critical to our supply chains. The bill would modernize their governance. It would also give them more trade and financial flexibility. This flexibility would allow them to invest, generate revenue and develop the infrastructure needed for trade. Bill C-39 also creates new indigenous advisory councils, since indigenous communities are essential partners in the development and operation of our transportation infrastructure. Bill C‑39 maintains the role of ports as non-profit organizations. It simply provides them with more opportunities for partnerships and capital projects. However, infrastructure is only part of the challenge. The other part is the regulatory system around it. Today, a business may have to provide similar information to several departments or agencies. That means a lot more forms, a lot more duplication and much higher administrative costs. Bill C‑39 would allow for better information sharing between authorized public government institutions. Our goal is simple: to reduce the administrative burden and make our processes more efficient. The bill would also promote paperless trade. It would recognize electronic transferable documents that meet international standards. This means simpler information sharing, less duplication and less paperwork. We need to build faster. Bill C‑39 also addresses project approval timelines. Bill C‑39 would create a transportation project office within Transport Canada. Its role would be to better coordinate federal authorizations and consultations for transportation projects. The goal is to provide a clearer federal pathway for priority infrastructure and to get projects from the application phase to the decision phase more efficiently. However, I want to be clear on this point. It is not about eliminating standards. It is about reducing duplication. It is not about removing consultation. Rather, it is about making the process more consistent and predictable, while upholding the standards that we are proud of as Canadians. Canada needs to be able to build faster while continuing to build responsibly. Lastly, Bill C-39 recognizes an incontrovertible reality: The resilience of our supply chains also depends on security. This bill would modernize Canada’s transportation security clearance framework. It would expand the roles to which these clearances can apply, improve risk assessment, strengthen information sharing and provide better tools for granting, denying, suspending or cancelling a clearance. The goal is simple: We need to respond more effectively to complex and ever-changing threats because security is essential to the resilience of our supply chains. Taken together, these measures offer a practical, coordinated approach to strengthening the economy and making it work better. We need to be able to move goods from farms to silos, from mines to ports, from factories to markets and from our communities to customers around the world. We need a transportation system that can keep pace with our investments and with the opportunities available to us. That means building our capacity, but also making better use of the capacity we already have. It means having the information we need to understand how our corridors work. It also means ensuring that our ports have the necessary tools and flexibility to grow. This means making sure that when we approve and build major transportation projects, we do so with the coordination and predictability that Canadians expect. That is why strengthening our supply chains is fundamentally about strengthening Canada’s economy. It is about building transportation capacity, improving coordination, strengthening our resilience and preparing Canada for the economy of today and the economy of tomorrow. That is how we are building Canada strong.”

• Echo ×4

  A repeated line

  “A lack of rail capacity can mean grain sitting in elevators rather than moving to markets.”

  Said 4 times by 4 members since October 5.

  Every time it was said →

“I want to ask the member why he will not vote for this bill to move Canada forward.”

“Mr. Speaker, I would ask him why he would not vote for this bill now to move Canada forward.”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 49 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

“This bill does not lower our standards. It cuts down on repeat work and makes the rules more predictable so Canada is stronger.”

“Mr. Speaker, I would like to offer this response to my colleague. As I said in my speech, this is not about eliminating standards, but about reducing duplication. It is also about making processes more consistent and predictable. Our approach is to make Canada stronger and better equipped.”

• Echo ×3

  A repeated line

  “It is about making federal processes more consistent and predictable.”

  Said 3 times by 2 members since October 5.

  Every time it was said →

“The member says this bill will get projects built faster. I want him to explain how this bill will actually help workers and people in his community and across Canada.”

“Mr. Speaker, in his speech, my colleague spoke at length about the fact that the aim of the bill was to move projects along more quickly. I note that he, too, shares this desire; no doubt the people he represents are asking for this as well. Can my colleague tell us in concrete terms how his community, the workers in his community and those across Canada will be impacted by the bill?”

“I support this bill. It cuts red tape and speeds up approvals for major building projects, like the new port on Montreal's south shore, which will create jobs.”

“Mr. Speaker, Bill C-39 will truly modernize, strengthen and speed up processes. Earlier, I spoke about standardizing e-document transfers, which would reduce red tape. There is the Contrecoeur port project on Montreal’s south shore. This is a major project that will bring significant innovation and generate many new jobs in the region. Thanks to Bill C-39, projects like this will move forward more quickly, as we bring our regulations into line with international standards.”

“Canadians voted for our government and gave us a majority. I believe they still support us.”

“Mr. Speaker, Canadians elected a new government, and they have a majority government. I think we are in good stead with Canadians.”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 0 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

“I support this bill. It does not lower our standards, but it stops repeated work. Canada needs it to grow on the world stage.”

“Mr. Speaker, as I said, Bill C‑39 does not eliminate standards. Instead, it reduces duplication. This bill addresses a need. Canada needs it now to diversify on the global stage.”

• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 100 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

“I want the House to pass this bill. It speeds up project approvals and shows that Canada is ready to build. We are working with the provinces and bringing in massive investments to make Canada stronger.”

“Mr. Speaker, the government is moving forward. Bill C-39 is all about speeding up a process and providing assurances that Canada wants to build. Let us look at what took place in Toronto last month, when the Prime Minister hosted world investors with literally historic amounts of money brought to the table, half a trillion dollars. Whether it is that particular special event or the amount of collaboration between Ottawa and the provinces in developing major projects, it is all part of a bigger picture to build a stronger and healthier Canada for all. Would the member not agree that a holistic approach is the best way of moving forward and doing what I just said?”

“I want to know where the Conservatives stand on this bill. Will they vote to send it to committee?”

“Mr. Speaker, I would like to get a clear indication of the position of the Conservatives on the legislation itself. Is it their intent to vote in favour of the legislation so it can go to committee? Does the member know how the Conservative members will vote on the legislation?”

“I want the House to pass this bill. Canada depends too much on trade with the United States, especially now during an unpredictable trade war. This bill speeds up reviews for major projects to just one year, improves our ports and trade routes, and protects workers' rights.”

“Mr. Speaker, today I rise to speak to Bill C-39, the building Canada strong act. Last year, we asked Canadians for a mandate to build a stronger, more resilient and more prosperous Canada. This legislation is the latest step in our work to turn that promise into action. It is important to consider the legislation in the context of the time in which we live right now and where Canada finds itself as a country. These are challenging times for Canada. For generations, our economy has been built on a north-south axis. Canada and the United States are long-time friends, neighbours and allies. We have the world’s longest undefended border. We fought side by side in two wars. We share language and culture, comedians and hockey players. We vacation in each other’s countries. We pop across the border for groceries or to fill up the gas tank. We have built highly interconnected joint shared economies. More trade flows north-south than east-west. In Detroit and Windsor, car components will go back and forth several times before rolling off the assembly line. Lumber will leave British Columbia, harvested from our vast forests, and come back to Vancouver as furniture. This relationship has worked because of shared values, principles and interests; because of stability; and because of the shared belief that we need each other and that disputes between friends, when they arise, can be resolved amicably. However, those days are over. We see an administration in the United States that no longer shares our values and principles and no longer sees Canada as in its national interest. It values chaos over stability and is unpredictable. Even if we accept that the current relationship is an aberration and not the new status quo, the fact is that this administration and the trade war it has foolishly launched have made one stark truth painfully clear: An economy built on one trading partner, one critical relationship, with all our eggs in one basket, is an economy built on a foundation of sand. Even if we see a return in the United States to a predictable and principled relationship built on shared principles and shared values, we still cannot, and must not, go back to the way things were. The United States will always be our most important trading partner and an important ally. We share too much geography and too much culture. As President Kennedy famously said when addressing this House of Commons in 1961: Geography has made us neighbors. History has made us friends. Economics has made us partners. And necessity has made us allies. However, this does not mean we cannot build a more resilient economy, one that does not just sell to one partner. As the Prime Minister has said, Canada has what the world needs. Building Canada strong means building a more confident Canada, a more robust Canada and a Canada that looks to global markets with confidence in who we are and what we bring to the table. A stronger Canada is a more resilient Canada that does not rely on just one trading partner. As former prime minister Pierre Trudeau said at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C., in 1969, about America: Living next to you is in some ways like sleeping with an elephant. No matter how friendly and even-tempered the beast, one is affected by every twitch and grunt. It will not be easy. America is right there. Building new supply chains, entering new markets and learning new regulatory environments is not easy. It takes time and investment. That is how we build Canada strong, and that is what this bill is all about: how we can accelerate project approvals while upholding indigenous rights and the highest environmental standards, how we can build and strengthen economic resilience through stronger supply chains, and how we can modernize and protect labour rights for the workforce that will build Canada strong. Let us start with project approvals. We have spoken about setting the goal of one year, one decision. Bill C-39 would establish the framework necessary to ensure that the federal government can get to a yes, or a no, on major project evaluations within one year of a complete project submission. How does that happen? It happens by running the necessary project evaluations and assessments concurrently rather than consecutively. That just makes sense. It does not mean lowering standards at all, which is important to note. It means doing the same rigorous evaluations and holding projects to the same high standards, just making the process more efficient. The bill would also ensure that indigenous consultation is embedded in the process, because indigenous free and informed consent is not just another box to tick. It is our obligation. Let us turn to reinforcing economic resilience. How can we keep Canada moving? With this bill, Canada would create strategic trade corridors and establish a dedicated transportation project office to keep the trade flowing. It seeks to modernize our ports with new digital trade strategies and updated port governance so that our ports would be better positioned to compete with the world. It seeks to provide clear and predictable rules to attract long-term capital investment. We want partners to invest in Canada not just for today but for future generations. Businesses have choices about where they invest their capital. They want jurisdictions that offer predictable processes, transparent regulation and a level of certainty. That is what these changes seek to support. Finally, let us turn to labour rights. I believe firmly in the collective bargaining process. Unions have fought for many of the rights that today’s workers take for granted, like the 40-hour workweek and paid sick leave. I believe the best deals between management and labour are made at the table. Bill C-39 seeks to strengthen protections for unionized and federally regulated workers. This bill seeks to empower collective bargaining by making Labour Code amendments that would help parties address workplace issues earlier and reach negotiated agreements faster, while protecting the fundamental right to withhold labour through job action. We are boosting federal enforcement capacity by funding 100 new health and safety officers, which will increase inspection capacity by 70%. The legislation also aims to clear backlogs at the Canada Industrial Relations Board through the hiring of 26 new staff. This legislation would establish transparency and guardrails around the government’s use of section 107 to end a labour disruption, by making it a requirement for the minister to consider independent mediator reports and national interest impacts before any decision to intervene. Intervention in a labour dispute should be the rare exception, the last resort. As I have said, the best, most durable and longest-lasting agreements are made at the table with management and labour negotiating fairly and in good faith. However, if intervention is deemed necessary, the process and the reasons must be transparent so that Canadians can decide whether the action was truly necessary. Building Canada strong is not easy, and it is not glamorous. It will not be done by the government. It is Canadians who will build Canada strong. It is the Canadian household that chooses to eat saskatoon berries with their breakfast, grill Alberta beef for dinner and have Ontario peaches for dessert. It is the Canadian business that decides to sell into a new market or procure raw materials from a supplier in a new country. The role of the government is to create the environment that makes it easier, predictable and more profitable to choose Canada. That is what this bill seeks to do, and by supporting it, we are helping Canadians to 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 need to build major national projects faster. We have approved projects that are ready to start. We must also remove trade barriers between provinces so there is only one approval process.”

“Mr. Speaker, our mandate is to build Canada strong and to build right now. We have approved projects of national interest, and those projects are shovel-ready. It is really more than important, in the era we are living in, to make sure of these projects, and also that interprovincial trade barriers are eliminated, so that we can have one approval process. Nation-building projects have to be built faster.”

“I want the House to pass this bill. It makes project reviews faster and more predictable so we can build things quickly and strengthen our economy.”

“Mr. Speaker, this bill, the building Canada strong act, has been introduced to transform how Canada builds. It would bring greater speed, certainty and predictability to project reviews so that Canada can build projects faster. The world is changing rapidly, and Canada is focused on what we can control: building within Canada a stronger economy and a stronger one Canada.”

• 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 →

“Businesses in Nova Scotia tell me they need projects built faster. What are businesses in your riding saying about why this bill is important?”

“Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague talked about the importance of building quickly. She mentioned, of course, lots of products. I would encourage her to buy Nova Scotia lobster too. We will add that to her list of great Canadian products from across the country. When I am at home in Nova Scotia, my business community talks about the need to move quicker. The hon. member is from Scarborough Centre—Don Valley East. Maybe she could give the House a bit of a reflection on the conversations she is having with her business community about why this bill is so important.”

“We need this bill to help us build major projects faster. We are in a trade dispute with our biggest partner, so we must find new trade partners instead of relying on just one.”

“Mr. Speaker, of course, we have to add lobster to our menus also. It is important to remember the context in which the government is bringing this bill forward. We are in a trade war with our largest trade partner, which we did not see, but we cannot back away from it. We need to diversify our economy with new investments and trading partners. I heard from the businesses in my riding in the summer that we need to diversify our trade, and having all our eggs in one basket is not how we build a stronger Canada for future generations. That is why it is really important that we build faster and make sure that projects of national interest get built quicker.”

“We will review these projects. We need to build things faster and use Canadian materials to make Canada stronger. We will make sure these projects use Canadian products.”

“Mr. Speaker, projects will be analyzed, and it is important that we use Canadian materials to build, because that is what is going to help build a stronger Canada. We must build faster and build with Canadian products. That is of the utmost importance, and we will make sure that these projects involve Canadian products.”

“I support this bill because it helps workers and gives them more time to negotiate fair contracts. The member opposes the bill. I want her to tell Canadians if there is even one part of it that she thinks is a good idea.”

“Madam Speaker, obviously, there would be areas where my hon. colleague and I would disagree, and that is part of a democracy. The member talked about the importance, which the NDP recognized, that we have to move faster, yet she really did not identify any elements of the bill that she thought might actually be helpful in doing that in this really important moment for the country. The member talked a lot about labour. I see elements that I think are important: allowing collective bargaining, and really requiring it under the Labour Code, to start after six months, as opposed to four months, where parties could not have an agreement, and additional federal resources. I understand that broadly she does not seem to be supportive on this bill. Is there something she can identify objectively, to tell Canadians and her own constituents, that she does agree with in this bill? Is there anything that she can actually point to and say she thinks is a good idea?”

“My colleague is exaggerating the risks of this bill. It will not let the government name huge areas without rules. Before an area is chosen, we must study it, consult Indigenous communities, and check the environmental impacts. Any new project that could harm the environment still has to be reviewed. We can grow the economy and protect the environment at the same time.”

“Madam Chair, my colleague is painting a rather alarmist picture. Looking at the bill, we see that the designation of regions of national interest will not be as broad as he says. When a new region of national interest is to be established, a study has to be conducted under the Impact Assessment Act. This study will be used to clearly delineate the geographic area and determine what types of projects can be pre-approved. There is a duty to consult with indigenous communities. There are environmental impact assessments. Once the region is identified, pre-approved projects can be rolled out. If new projects that could have an impact on the environment are proposed, they will have to go through an assessment process. I think the existing process shows that we can do two things at once: develop the economy and conitnue to conduct thorough assessments. I would like to ask my colleague whether he read the clause that clearly states that additional projects not addressed in the initial assessment must undergo environmental impact assessments.”

“The minister already has the power to act under the current law, and this bill adds more accountability. Why does the member feel more threatened by these changes? What has actually changed?”

“Madam Speaker, I have a couple of points, followed by a question. If we take a look at my home province of Manitoba, the Government of Manitoba, through the Manitoba Labour Board, has instructed health care workers to go back to work. That is happening because Manitoba deemed those workers as essential services. If we take a look at section 107, which the member made reference to, what I do not fully understand is what in section 107 has changed that would prevent the minister from doing something now. When I look at it, it seems to me that there is more accountability with the changes in the legislation, because the minister can do the things through section 107 today that the member is making reference to. Can the member provide some clarification on why he feels more threatened now under section 107? What has changed?”