“I want the Conservatives to support this bill. It helps get major, multi-billion-dollar projects built, which creates jobs and strengthens our economy.”

“Mr. Speaker, I think the Conservative Party is being very short-sighted today in terms of the larger picture and why Bill C-39 is so critically important. When we look at what has taken place since the last federal election, we see a Prime Minister, a cabinet and a caucus as a whole looking for ways to get things built. We are not talking about $5,000 projects. We are talking billions of dollars. There are always going to be small projects, but we are talking about the bigger projects. That is why we have the Major Projects Office. Over 24 files have now been passed over to that particular office. The Prime Minister hosted an investment event, with half a trillion dollars in potential investment from around the world coming to Canada. It is all about building a stronger Canada that is healthier. When the member makes reference to jobs, it is not only about protecting jobs for today, but about building jobs for tomorrow and building a stronger economy. Does the member not recognize the bigger picture as to why Bill C-39 is important to Canada?”

“I want the House to pass this bill. It will speed up decisions on major building projects and strengthen our ports and trade routes. It does this while protecting workers' rights, consulting Indigenous groups, and keeping strong environmental rules.”

“Mr. Speaker, I rise today in this chamber to speak to Bill C-39, the building Canada strong act. Over the past year, our government has been hard at work for Canadians at one of the most pivotal moments in our history. We continue to respond to the threats against our economy and to the social vulnerabilities that Canadians face every day. The trade war with the United States and recent tariffs have worsened many of these challenges, and as the world continues to rapidly change, Canadians expect us to act. Our government was elected with a mandate to build a stronger, more resilient economy. For the past year and a half, we have been working hard to deliver on this mandate. We have strengthened the economy by cutting taxes for the middle class. We have eliminated the GST on new homes valued up to $1 million, helping first-time homebuyers save up to $50,000. We have partnered with the Government of Ontario to eliminate the full 13% of the HST on new homes valued up to $1 million, saving up to $130,000 for all buyers in Ontario. We are seeing early and fast results. Our economy continues to show resilience, growing by 3.3% in Q2, the fastest in the G7. This summer, our government posted a record high of non-U.S. trade at $25.6 billion, with productivity rising by 4% in the second quarter, the largest increase since 2020. We have also introduced measures to address affordability for Canadians. Canadians expect us to continue this work. The building Canada strong act is nation-building legislation. It is about how we invest today in Canadian infrastructure to shape our strength and resilience for generations to come. The building Canada strong act would bring greater speed, certainty and predictability to strengthen our economy, attract investment, create good union jobs and position Canada for long-term success in the 21st century. As the Prime Minister has stated, Canada is a country of high standards, but high standards should not mean slow decisions. This legislation is one of the most ambitious reforms in recent history and is built knowing that in one year, with one consultation, we can come to one decision on some of the most critical projects in Canada’s history. Our government knows that we cannot build a resilient economy without protecting the rights of workers and all Canadians who work hard every day to keep this country together. We will do this while upholding Canada’s environmental standards and respecting indigenous rights. Canada’s long-term economic success depends on reliable and efficient transportation networks that connect businesses to domestic and international markets. My riding knows this very well. Spadina—Harbourfront lives at the intersection of trade, transportation and economic growth. From the port of Toronto to major rail corridors and regional transportation infrastructure, residents see how much of Canada’s prosperity depends on our ability to move people and goods effectively. Bill C-39 would strengthen Canada’s trade corridors and ports, helping Canadian goods move more quickly, unlock new markets and build more resilient supply chains. For those who call our waterfront home, these waters are an integral part of our community and our economy. Our government has also made record investments to decarbonize our trade. The green shipping corridor program, with a total funding budget of nearly $150 million, is removing barriers to the adoption of emissions-reducing equipment and infrastructure. We are introducing measures to embed indigenous representation in Canadian ports, amending the Canada Marine Act to establish indigenous advisory committees to enhance dialogue with indigenous communities. Indigenous consultation is essential to building the projects that Canada needs. Beyond ports, we cannot now or ever build without respecting indigenous rights and ensuring that indigenous communities are engaged as true, meaningful partners throughout this process. This legislation builds on the important study undertaken by the transport, infrastructure and communities committee earlier this year through its study on Canada’s ports. We heard from witnesses across the sector about the urgent need to improve supply chains, reduce bottlenecks, modernize port infrastructure and improve Canada’s competitiveness as a trading nation. Bill C-39 responds directly to these challenges. It would create the conditions for a more reliable, resilient transportation system. Our government knows that we cannot build a resilient economy without protecting the rights of workers and all Canadians who work hard every day to build this country. I am proud to come from a family of union workers. My riding also includes a strong union presence, including IATSE Locals 58 and 822, CUPE Local 79, USW Local 1998, SEIU, the Public Service Alliance of Canada, ACTRA, and the Canadian Media Guild, among many. Workers are critical to a strong Canadian economy. The building Canada strong act would modernize the federal labour framework and strengthen protections for workers in federally regulated sectors, helping to support good jobs for a growing economy. The legislation would introduce greater transparency and accountability around the use of section 107 by requiring the minister to consider an independent special mediator’s report and assess the national interest impacts of a dispute before exercising these authorities. The special mediator is to ensure that disputes are approached through dialogue and negotiated solutions that reflect both the interests and needs of workers and the broader public interest. These changes would reinforce the central role of collective bargaining, encourage parties to resolve disputes at the bargaining table and fully protect the right to strike. Strong labour relations contribute to a stronger Canada. Our government knows that we cannot build fast without ensuring we maintain high environmental standards. These projects, including transmission lines, hydro, renewables projects and critical minerals are necessary for our future and will also deliver good jobs and investment. As a waterfront community, Spadina—Harbourfront understands that economic growth and environmental stewardship are not competing priorities. We all rely on clean water and healthy ecosystems. We all benefit from strong economic growth. Canadians want to see major projects move forward, but they also expect strong environmental safeguards. Our goal is to build faster where we can while continuing to preserve our environment for future generations. Protecting these resources is a shared responsibility, which is why I welcome the work of my colleagues, the hon. Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, who just announced our new oceans protection plan, and the hon. Minister of Environment and Climate Change, who recently launched public consultations to inform Canada’s first national water security strategy, soliciting input from Canadians from coast to coast to coast. This builds on the work we have already committed to, such as the Pacific salmon strategy initiative and the freshwater action plan. Our government understands that in order to strengthen our ports, we need to also protect our waterways. These efforts go hand in hand. Our government understands that how we respond to climate change will shape our economy, our communities and our global standing for generations to come. Canada is rising to this challenge. One bill does not capture the full scope of the work our government is doing. Bill C-39 is part of a broader strategy being taken to accelerate the development of nation-building projects. We must take a whole-of-government approach and consider how these measures, along with the actions we have taken over the past year, connect together. We are creating jobs, strengthening trade and growing our economy while continuing to uphold Canada’s high environmental standards. This legislation would also establish clearer, simpler and more predictable processes for project proponents and indigenous groups participating in project consultations, giving investors the clarity they need to put capital to work and build in Canada. No efforts we make happen in isolation, and if we are to work together towards the shared ambition of building Canada strong for all, we must start with understanding how we can rebalance our systems. Before I was an elected member of this House, I worked on building system solutions to our most intractable challenges, such as affordable housing, gender-based violence and social financing. These experiences reinforced for me the importance of ambitious public policy. Governments have a responsibility not only to respond to challenges, but also to help shape the conditions for long-term prosperity. Bill C-39 recognizes that government has a role to play in helping Canada build, compete and grow while ensuring that the benefits of that growth are shared across the country. As Professor Mariana Mazzucato at University College of London describes, we must believe in our power to shape markets, direct innovation and lead social transformation. An element she defines as critical for achieving the common good is this idea of access for all and reward sharing. This is a moment that calls for ambition. Bill C-39 would help Canada build faster and compete in a changing world. I will support it, and I encourage all members of this House to do the same.”

“I support this bill. It lets us build big projects faster while still making sure we check their environmental impacts carefully.”

“Mr. Speaker, as a mom of two kids, I am often thinking about the future that we are building for this country. I strongly believe that we are finding an approach and a process that allows us to move more quickly while still putting the work in place to do the assessments and make sure that the rigour is in place for us to move forward on these major projects.”

“Protecting water is important to my riding. This bill gives a one-year limit to decide on a project, not a guarantee to approve it. It still lets us reject bad projects. I want the member to say if that timeline is why she supports the bill.”

“Mr. Speaker, like the member, I represent an urban riding, but also a waterfront riding. It is one of the defining features of our communities and really underscores the tremendous importance to our constituents of ensuring the protection and preservation of our incredible freshwater resources in this country. That is why one of the pieces of this bill that I personally have found encouraging is the fact that it is not a one-year timeline to get to “yes”. It is a one-year timeline to get a determination on whether or not a project will go forward, and a timely period for proponents to know whether or not their projects will go ahead. I wonder if my hon. colleague could speak to whether or not that timeline, and the possibility of projects that are not in the public interest and would not serve my constituents nor hers, is a sound part of her support for this bill.”

“I support this bill. It keeps all the proper checks in place, but makes decisions faster so we can build what we need.”

“Mr. Speaker, I think this approach of making sure that we put the steps in place to get to the right decision, but knowing that the work, the assessments, all of those pieces are still there as part of the process, allows us to move with the speed and the efficiency that we are looking for in order to make the investments that we need for our future.”

“I want this bill to move forward. It improves how we manage our ports and makes sure project reviews are done properly.”

“Mr. Speaker, I think it is really important to recognize that the bill would address changes in governance as well to the ports and other parts of the ecosystem. In terms of making sure that those assessments are done appropriately and well, we are getting to a decision point about whether to move forward. This does not mean that all of the work is completed, but all of those efforts are going to be in place.”

“I want the member to explain why government departments need to work together to achieve big goals.”

“Mr. Speaker, at the end of my colleague’s speech, she made a reference to Mariana Mazzucato’s work around a state that has the capacity to do things. I wonder if she could add a reflection about why it is important to have a state, the officers of government and the departments of government, with the ability to move in a coordinated fashion to achieve big things, as Mazzucato writes.”

“I agree with Professor Mazzucato's ideas. Government should be open, work with others, and take action that helps everyone.”

“Mr. Speaker, I might have a slight obsession with Professor Mazzucato’s work. I think the emphasis on real principles around how we operate toward the common good is really critical: transparency, co-design and collaboration. She has a new book that has just been released. It sends some signals to me about the ways we can use government to catalyze the best interests of us all.”

“I want the House to send this bill to committee. Ongoing trade wars mean we must build infrastructure faster and process our own resources in Canada. This bill speeds up reviews to one year without lowering environmental standards or ignoring Indigenous rights. It will cut red tape, protect the right to strike, and help places like Trois-Rivières move goods more easily.”

“Mr. Speaker, I am proud to rise this evening and speak on behalf of the constituents in my riding, Trois‑Rivières. Trois‑Rivières has been a port city since 1634 and will soon be celebrating its 400th anniversary. It is a city of trade, industry and workers. Canada’s first iron ore plant opened in Trois‑Rivières nearly 300 years ago. Trois‑Rivières was long the 20th century’s paper-making capital of the world. It holds a central place in Canada’s industrial development, even thought it has had to reinvent itself now and then, successfully, as technology and geopolitics evolved. The resilience and adaptability shown by Trois‑Rivières over the years are really the focus of what I want to talk about today. The global situation facing us now demands that we exercise that resilience and adaptability. Ten years ago, a trade war like the one we are experiencing today would have been unimaginable. We did not ask for this war, but we will continue to stand our ground, come what may. Families, workers and businesses are feeling the effects of this trade conflict every day. That is why we cannot just keep doing things the way we always have. We need to rethink how we invest in, develop and build the infrastructure underpinning all of this. That raises a simple question: How do we re-envision the future and how do we ensure we have the means to achieve our ambitions? This is the reality and the drive to survive that gave rise to Bill C‑39. Canada has what the world wants: energy, critical minerals, steel, aluminum, forest resources and world-renowned industrial expertise. The Prime Minister has been clear about our ambition to make Canada an energy superpower in both renewable and conventional energy. However, possessing these resources is not enough. We need to be able to develop them, process them and generate greater value from them here in Canada. Canadians must be able to reap the benefits of these investments and these assets. This means we need to rethink our supply chains. What do we import and export? What can we produce and, in particular, what can we process here at home to add more value to our economy and more value for Canadians? We need to build more, and we need to build more of what we need. That is especially important in terms of critical minerals, steel and aluminum. It is also essential for the forestry sector, which is currently going through a difficult period and remains top of mind for us. Since the spring, our government has signed more than 20 new economic and security agreements, and we have launched more than 27 nationwide initiatives. These efforts have helped support 337,000 jobs and nearly $200 billion in new investments. We need to make sure that we have the infrastructure we need to meet the expectations and respond to the opportunities we created with these trade agreements, both with our international partners and with our SMEs. The potential is even greater. The message is clear. We must create the conditions that lead to investments. Bill C-39 proposes to overhaul the way we carry out our major projects. What we are proposing is one project, one assessment, and a decision all within one year. The goal is not to conduct fewer assessments or to be less rigorous, but rather to coordinate things more effectively, to clarify the decision-making process, and to run the processes in parallel to speed things up. Seven provinces have already signed co-operation agreements to reduce duplication among governments, because they know that this hinders the smooth functioning and economic development of our country. Environmental standards remain rigorous, and the rights of indigenous peoples, as well as our commitment to consultation and participation, remain unchanged. This is not just about consultation, but also about the participation of indigenous peoples in these major projects. For businesses that want to invest here, whether they are from Quebec, Canada, or abroad, predictability is essential. Every month of delay can drive up costs and delay the investments that our communities, families and workers need. That is why we are picking up the pace. For Trois‑Rivières, this is a practical issue. The Port of Trois-Rivières is one of 17 Canadian port authorities. In 2025, the port of Trois-Rivières handled 2.6 million tonnes of cargo, 65,000 trucks, 11,000 rail cars and more than 240 ships. It is connected to 100-plus ports in over 40 countries. It is a hub for Canada’s steel and aluminum trade. Fifty per cent of the goods handled at the port of Trois-Rivières are critical minerals. The trade diversification corridors fund could help improve the efficiency of these activities with new, state-of-the-art equipment. Bill C-39 modernizes port governance, clarifies certain rules, facilitates the digitalization of trade and reduces red tape. However, a port cannot operate alone. The St. Lawrence River remains one of our most important trade corridors, and we have to think of our network as a whole, including ports, railways, roads and airports. Their proper operation is vital to both Canada and our international partners. We must therefore identify bottlenecks and invest where it can make the biggest difference. The Churchill Falls and Contrecoeur projects illustrate the importance of this approach. We must ensure that we can move our products as efficiently as possible. It is also a matter of productivity. A more efficient transportation system makes our businesses more competitive. Unfortunately, for too long now, Canada’s transportation system has been one of the least competitive and least productive in the world. We need to make the necessary investments to improve our transportation system’s productivity. We owe it to our businesses, to our families and to workers. This potential is already clear in Trois‑Rivières. The new airport terminal, which opened last year, includes a 9,000-foot runway and increases opportunities for freight transport and aircraft maintenance. I attended the opening ceremony, and I can say that the project does a good job of demonstrating our region’s potential. Trois‑Rivières brings together the maritime, rail, road and air networks; they are just a few minutes apart. That is exactly why a bill like Bill C‑39 can help the regions position themselves well and play the role of economic lever that our country needs. It allows for the right investments to make it possible to link all the points together, facilitate trade and transport goods. We might think of our development intentions in the north, the commitments we have made to develop the north and secure the Arctic, as well as the diversification of our trade. We have also spent a great deal of time in the House discussing Alto. My colleague may speak to that shortly. Trois‑Rivières is one of the seven stations planned for Alto’s future rail link between Toronto and Quebec City. We are very eager to see this project move forward. For projects of this scale to proceed, federal processes must be coordinated and predictable. Of course, our infrastructure is only as effective as the workers who keep it running. Longshore workers, truck drivers, railway workers, industrial workers and unions are the lifeblood of our economy. I would note that 95% of collective agreements in the federally regulated sector are concluded without a work stoppage. Bill C‑39 seeks, among other things, to encourage earlier negotiations and greater use of mediation. Section 107 remains subject to clear safeguards. In fact, additional guardrails are being put in place. The minister must take into account the report of an independent special mediator as well as the impact on the national interest. The right to strike remains protected. Further centralization is not the aim. The aim is to make processes more predictable and reduce duplication. Greater predictability also means fewer disruptions for our businesses and our workers. If we want to strengthen our ties with Europe, as our colleagues in the Bloc Québécois are so keen to see, we must have the infrastructure required to get our products to those markets. To my Conservative colleagues, I would say that there is no need to choose between the environment and the economy. We have said this many times. Speeding up a project does not mean abandoning our environmental protections. Trois-Rivières has been helping to build Canada for nearly four centuries—just take look at our paper, aluminum, grain, transportation and industry. Today, we have the opportunity to help build the Canada of tomorrow. The world has changed, and our ways of doing things must evolve with it. I call on my colleagues to support Bill C-39 so that it can be referred to committee.”

“Our new government did not wait to act. Since being elected in 2025, we have put forward 167 projects and attracted about 500 billion dollars in investment. This bill puts our plans into action.”

“Mr. Speaker, we introduced the bill after our new government took office. I am a new member, elected in 2025. We have been taking action and launching strategies since we first took office, and now we are implementing those measures. We have already submitted 167 projects at the Canada investment summit that took place in Toronto three weeks ago and that helped attract roughly 500 billion dollars’ worth of investment to Canada.”

• 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 does not lower our standards or make project reviews less strict. It runs the review steps at the same time so decisions get made faster. Investors need to know timelines so they can plan.”

“Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, but I am a little disappointed that he oversimplified some things in his question. I think it is clear that the fact that a project takes more than a year to be assessed does not make it a bad project. The assessment standards remain the same. The process remains as rigorous. The processes will take place simultaneously. The decision-making process will be coordinated to expedite the project. The degree of rigour is not changing. The standards are not changing. The same standards apply. The timelines are there so people know whether or not a project can move forward. Investors need that predictability.”

• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 100 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

“How can the Port of Trois-Rivières help attract more investment, create jobs, and support small businesses?”

“Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague. I have actually been to her riding, and I would like to congratulate the people of Trois‑Rivières because they are so fortunate to have her as their member of Parliament. My question is very simple. What role can the Port of Trois-Rivières play in attracting more investment and supporting job creation and our SMEs?”

• Little substance
  ?

  Question or comment in debate

  Signal 31 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 →

“Half of the cargo moving through the Port of Trois-Rivières is critical minerals. Our plan to build mines faster and use our rail network will help the region ship these minerals across Canada and to Europe.”

“Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his excellent question. I have been to his riding as well. We had some great visits. In fact, 50% of transshipments at the port of Trois-Rivières consist of critical minerals. There are investments that will speed up the process. Canada’s commitments to accelerate the development of critical minerals and mines in Quebec and elsewhere in Canada, and the use of a rail network connecting to the port of Trois-Rivières, will really allow the region to play its role to the full, whether in terms of shipping critical minerals to European markets or, once again, shipping domestically in Canada to meet processing needs.”

“Our announcements are real, and the work has already started. Projects like the one at the Contrecoeur port are underway, and work will start at Churchill Falls too. I do not understand what my colleague is complaining about.”

“Mr. Speaker, all the announcements we have made are very concrete. For example, at the Contrecoeur port, the work has already started. The work will start at Churchill Falls. With all the announcements we have made, those projects have already started, so I am not really sure what my colleague is referring to.”

• 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 →

“I want to know if the member will vote for this bill. It will speed up construction projects, and his speech shows he supports that goal.”

“Mr. Speaker, I found my colleague’s speech very interesting and encouraging when it comes to Bill C‑39. I think he agrees with the spirit of Bill C‑39, which is to fast-track projects. He also wondered about the time limits. The bill is long—over 250 pages—but the information on time limits and analyses is there. From his speech, I understand that he wants to fast-track things and make them work. He wants us to work together with the unions to make projects move forward and avoid additional delays. I would like to know one thing: Will he vote in favour of the bill so that we can move forward and fast-track construction?”

“I want the House to pass this bill. Opponents are spreading false claims about it. The bill does not eliminate environmental reviews, consult less with Indigenous people, or stop workers from striking. It only speeds up the review process, cuts duplicate work, and adds limits to when the government can step into a strike. Our environmental and labour standards stay strong.”

“Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-39, the building Canada strong act. There is much to discuss. This bill has been subject to a wild disinformation campaign, some of which has been perpetrated by members of this House. Therefore, I want to begin today by saying something that should not be controversial in this place. Members of Parliament are allowed to disagree. We can oppose and even criticize legislation. We can believe that government has gotten something wrong. That is democracy and that is our job. However, there is a difference between opposing legislation and telling Canadians that legislation says something it does not say. Unfortunately, we have heard quite a bit of the latter when it comes to Bill C-39. We have heard claims that this bill would eliminate environmental assessments. It would not. We have heard that it would eliminate indigenous consultation. It would not. We have heard that it would eliminate workers’ right to strike. It would not do that either. With the rise of social media and short-form content, Canadians are less likely to get the full story. Complex legislation cannot be reduced to a viral slogan or a social media post, yet in an era when many Canadians get their news online, we have a responsibility to ensure that what we share is rooted in facts and not in fear. Therefore, let us separate the facts from the fiction when it comes to Bill C-39, and let us start with the environment. I have spent my entire career fighting for the environment, and I would never support something that would weaken environmental protections. The building Canada strong act would make no changes to the federal environmental standards. This would be a change in process. Regardless of what kind of project is reviewed, all factors would need to be taken into consideration, including climate impacts, species at risk, ecological and nature implications, navigation, navigable waters and much more. Bill C-39 does not say to forget the environment and build whatever someone wants. Nothing in the 244 pages of this piece of legislation says that we would bulldoze nature, yet those are the things that are being said outside of this House and in this House. When multiple government agencies are asking the same questions, running the same assessments and coming to the same conclusion, there is a serious opportunity to streamline processes. We can do that by changing who is leading these assessments and how departments coordinate their decisions. The projects moving through these new processes would still undergo rigorous assessment. This would not suddenly allow more environmentally sensitive projects to come to fruition. What it would do is make approvals happen faster, reduce the strain on the federal bureaucracy and speed up the economic benefits of major projects. If members opposite believe the bill would not provide adequate environmental protection, then they can make that argument and tell Canadians which standard they think would be inadequate and which safeguards they want strengthened. They can put forward an amendment and present a true alternative. That is what Parliament is for. However, standing in the House and telling Canadians that Bill C-39 would simply abolish environmental assessments is not a policy argument and it is not rooted in fact. Long regulatory processes have a cost. It costs the government when federal employees are tasked with duplicate efforts. It costs communities that are waiting to see investment come to fruition. It costs workers who are awaiting new opportunities. It comes at a cost to Canada’s economic prosperity, which is something we have to be very focused on at this time. My question to those who oppose this bill is as follows: Why should a federal regulatory process take longer than necessary once all of the information is on the table? I am open to hearing feedback on this topic from my colleagues across the aisle, from my constituents and from Canadians at large, but when this feedback is rooted in disinformation rather than fact, it is the duty of all members of this House to correct the record. Another section of this bill that has seen significant controversy relates to workers’ rights. I took time to study these provisions carefully and meet with my constituents and stakeholders who raised concerns, because it is my responsibility to understand the legislation before us and to provide clear information to Canadians. As I stand here and debate this bill, I want to make it clear that I am not dismissing concerns about the legislation in front of us. My job is to seek clarity on these concerns and bring this information back to my constituents. What I have been seeing online is that Bill C-39 would eliminate a worker’s right to strike, but this could not be further from the truth. For years, there have been concerns about the use of section 107. Right now, the minister can use it where the minister deems it expedient. Bill C-39 would put clear limits on that power. A prescribed process must occur, and intervention must be tied to a strike or lockout that could have a significant adverse national impact. While we are seeing social media posts saying that this government would be eliminating workers’ rights, the reality is that Bill C-39 would put clear guardrails around ministerial intervention. That is why, when I hear the member for Edmonton Strathcona say that this legislation would give the minister extraordinary new powers to intervene in a legal strike, I take issue with that characterization, because this bill would do the opposite. As we continue to discuss the implications of this new legislation, I invite all members of the House to ensure that we are telling the whole story. Bill C-39 is a transformative piece of legislation that would keep Canada moving. It would unlock economic growth by reducing red tape and providing regulatory certainty, accelerating significant national infrastructure development while improving the labour relations framework and strengthening supply chain efficiency. We are facing an uncertain world, and Canada needs to build greater economic resilience at home while diversifying our trade relationships abroad. U.S. tariffs have only heightened the urgency of addressing the structural barriers to investment, productivity and trade that are limiting our country’s prosperity. This work can be done, and it can be done safely. Through Bill C-39, we can get back into the business of building big things while maintaining strong environmental, social and labour protections, because this bill would not remove protections, but it would remove duplication.”

“The Pacific pipeline project does not serve the United States. It helps us sell clean fuel to other countries so we rely less on the US. This bill still protects the environment while that happens.”

“Mr. Speaker, I disagree with my hon. colleague’s framing. The pipeline, the Pacific link, is a major project. It is designated as a major project, but its purpose is not to serve the United States. It is to diversify our trade relationships internationally and to reduce our reliance on the United States of America. That has been made very clear, and it is something that we absolutely must do to build our economic resilience and provide what we can offer to the world, which is low-carbon fuel, at this time of transition to a clean economy. Bill C-39 has pieces in place that would ensure environmental assessment is rigorous in that process.”

• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 100 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

“We are starting work on major building projects across the country, and more are coming. This work takes time, but we are keeping our promises. We are working fast to fix our economy and deal with the crisis with the United States.”

“Mr. Speaker, that was an interesting history lesson. I appreciate that. We are laying the foundation for transformation in this country. We have shovels in the ground across this country, which has been said in question period all of this week, on major projects, and more are to come. It does take a bit of time to get it all in place, but I think we are proving that we are acting on our commitments in good faith in trying to urgently transform our economy to address the crisis with the United States.”

• Little substance
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Signal 41 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 →
• Vague
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Clarity 41 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

“We are making progress with clean energy, like electric buses in Halifax. I want to know how our government can help small businesses invest in clean technology, create jobs, and protect the environment.”

“Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her extraordinary work on the Liberal environment caucus. I urge her not to give up. Interestingly, when I was in Halifax, I saw that bus systems are now being electrified. How can our government help our SMEs invest in cleaner technologies while boosting competitiveness, creating jobs and strengthening environmental protection?”

• Off topic
  ?

  Question or comment in debate

  Relevance 28 of 100

  None of this question addressed the preceding speech or the topic under debate.

  See full analysis →

“I support our plan for clean electricity. It will double our power supply while cutting pollution and meeting climate goals. Different industries and levels of government are already working together to make this happen, and we will keep going.”

“Mr. Speaker, this is the work I did for a very long time in my past life. I am very excited about our new national electricity strategy. This is going to unlock our ability to double our electricity capacity while cleaning our grid and adhering to our climate targets. Electric buses are one piece. Electrifying our building energy systems is another and fuelling our economy at large. I think that a lot of good work has already been done across this country by local governments, provinces and territories, and this federal government. We are going to keep on working towards that objective. We just had Energy Efficiency Day nationally. Colleagues may not know that. Today, we had experts from across every sector here on the Hill, from the steel industry to the wind industry, buildings, efficiency and clean fuels. Everyone is pulling in the same direction to drive this clean economy of the future. I am really excited about it.”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 34 of 100

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

  See full analysis →