“This bill pretends to speed up projects, but it will not. The government takes credit for projects moving forward when it did not actually approve them. The new transportation office in this bill has no real power and no deadlines.”

“Mr. Speaker, the room did not all jump up at once, but what a great speech that was. The member has really brought some things to mind. I know that the Prime Minister tweeted the other day, “In September last year, we referred LNG Canada Phase 2 in Kitimat, B.C., to the Major Projects Office. Now, it’s moving forward”. This points out what the member has said. This was a final investment decision by the proponent. The Major Projects Office the Prime Minister talks about did not approve or advance the project. It is a form of regulatory Kabuki theatre. In the bill, the Liberals like to talk about creating a transportation project office, saying that this thing would help get projects done. The funny thing is that it would have no authority. It would be completely discretionary and optional for the minister. He could choose not to go ahead with it. Worse than that, unlike part 1 of the bill, which actually says that we would have a timeline, for which, of course, there are exemptions, it does not have any timelines for transportation projects. Does the member feel, as I do, that there is so much regulatory Kabuki theatre going on?”

“The government says this bill will fix confusing and duplicate rules. I want to know why they let these problems happen after 11 years in power. MPs talk about this without understanding the real struggle of everyday Canadians to pay their bills.”

“Mr. Speaker, I was taken by the last speaker’s claim that this would get rid of duplication and would make for more coherence. I am wondering why, after 11 years, there is so much duplication and why our process is incoherent. How can that be? We talk about these things, and I guess it feels almost as if we were talking about it in the abstract. No member of the House is sitting around the kitchen table wondering if they can make their mortgage. No member of the House is worried about their next paycheque. These are things that matter to people outside the House.”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 29 of 100

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

  See full analysis →
• Little substance
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Signal 19 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 →

“We talk about cutting rules, but ordinary people worry about their paycheques and mortgages. I want this bill to help them, but I doubt it will.”

“Mr. Speaker, as I was saying before, I think we treat this as an abstract problem. We use big words, and we talk about how we are going to cut regulation and do all these things. Very few of us live in the real world as we work in the House. We do not have to worry about a paycheque. We do not have to worry about a mortgage. We do not sit around the kitchen table worrying about the future as people outside the House do. What we talk about in the abstract are real bread-and-butter problems out there. I would like the bill to actually make a difference. I just do not have very high hopes for it.”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 45 of 100

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

  See full analysis →
• Little substance
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Signal 0 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 →

“The member made a statement instead of asking a question, so I have nothing to answer.”

“Mr. Speaker, I really did not get a question out of that. It was a statement. I have no answer to a non-question.”

“I want to know what happened to the government's last building law. The government promised it would build things faster, but I have not seen any projects come from it. Why did it fail, and why do we need this new bill?”

“Mr. Speaker, my question is pretty simple to my colleague across the floor. I appreciated his presentation. I am fairly new at this. I have only been an MP for a little over a year, close to a year and a half. I just want to know what happened to Bill C-5. Why did it not work? The government was supposed to build at speeds unheard of. I cannot name a project that has come through; maybe the member can. What happened to Bill C-5 and why do we need this new bill?”

“I do not support this bill. It will not make building major projects faster. It just creates more delays and paperwork to work around old Liberal rules that should be repealed instead. My riding urgently needs better roads, cell service, and airport upgrades, but this bill will not get them built. If it goes to committee, workers must have a chance to speak on it.”

“Mr. Speaker, it is always an honour to speak in this House on behalf of my constituents of Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay, especially on legislation of such national importance as Bill C-39. I cannot help but feel some déjà vu. One of the first votes I took in this chamber after election last year was on Bill C-5. At that time, the Liberal government presented it because faster approvals for the Canadian economy were getting trapped in the Liberals’ own rules and red tape. In my experience at the local government level, when we heard from builders that a piece of red tape was restricting their ability to get critical infrastructure built, we would do what we could do, and I would do what I could to remove it. However, the Liberal government passed new laws that allow them to ignore the old Liberal laws. Those burdensome regulations, like antidevelopment laws Bills C-69 and C-48, still exist and are still applying to projects that are struggling to get built. If the government would like to introduce legislation to repeal those bills, I would be pleased to help it pass quickly. The Liberals chose to build complicated workarounds that sacrifice clear rules in favour of ministerial influence. In other words, there is a lot of red tape. Nonetheless, I supported Bill C-5 as the only available option to get around that red tape, because I support building the critical infrastructure that is needed to strengthen our economic sovereignty. However, here we are a year and a half later debating another law, Bill C-39, which again seeks to adopt a workaround to bad Liberal laws. What happened to C-5? Is this because 18 months after we passed Bill C-5, zero major projects proposed under it have been built? With Bill C-5, the Liberals promised Canada would soon be building at unimaginable speeds. It has taken a year and a half and I am not seeing those projects. No one is. Instead, we are still stuck in the same delays and bureaucracy they created in their 11 years in office. For these 18 months under the Prime Minister, we have only seen projects stack up on desks around the city of Ottawa. Hundreds of proposed projects are stuck in bureaucratic processes across the many agencies and impact assessment offices we find across government. The government now proposes Bill C-39 as a solution, another Liberal solution to a problem a Liberal bill caused. Too much of what the government claims as success exists only on paper and not in reality. There is no concrete steel rebar we can touch, just signatures on paper and MOUs. Certainly, in my region, as a major centre of the Canadian economy when it comes to lumber, mining and agriculture, infrastructure upgrades are certainly needed but have seen no urgency. One example is that cellular reception remains critically poor in 90% of the communities in my very large riding, something I have raised with the Liberal government several times with no results or announcements. Another example is that infrastructure links are vital in the south Okanagan, a growing region that is seeking to supply Canadian meat, fruit and agriculture products alongside critical minerals and lumber products from the Similkameen and Boundary to our country and the world. Our region is entirely dependent on transporting goods north or south on a two-lane highway, Highway 97, in a region heavily affected by both wildfires, as we heard about in Summerland and Penticton this past summer, and flooding, where there are regular landslides, accidents and the like, and the road is blocked or closed on the one artery we have between the north and south Okanagan. The Minister of Transport has heard and seen the proposals made by myself and my colleague, the member for Okanagan Lake West—South Kelowna, for a partnership of investment between the province and federal government into constructing a permanent secondary route between Kelowna and the south Okanagan to expedite transportation times through the Okanagan in times of crisis. Similarly, the minister is aware of my advocacy for the upgrades needed to the Castlegar airport that services the Selkirk College Ion-source Research Centre, which drives particle acceleration and ion-source technology innovation for global medical, semiconductor, clean energy and research markets. Yet, no concrete action on the upgrades that the Castlegar airport requires have been followed up on. Will these projects be better served under Bill C-39? These are just examples. The bill promises to accelerate the Liberals’ complicated project approvals, but will it? On first reading, it seems it would only create more delays instead of completions. The Liberals opposite have been saying that Bill C-39 would create a one-year approval process, but when does the clock start on that process? It would not be until the subsection 19(4) completeness determination is issued by the responsible authority. What is the timeline or deadline for that assurance? There is none. The bill sets no deadline for making that determination. It is no good saying that we will deliver a pizza in 30 minutes if the pizza shop cannot decide when that 30 minutes starts. A one-year timeline for project approvals is not a finish line if we cannot tell the applicant where and when they start. Those looking to apply need certainty and predictability, especially when we are talking about projects that may cost hundreds of billions of dollars. The government is also promoting that Bill C-39 would create the transportation projects office, another office perhaps for my local regional districts or airport authorities to apply to, which is more red tape. However, nothing in this legislation would provide this office any authority. It seems to be yet another concrete filing cabinet where applications go, but never come back out. This is no different from the current process and the hundreds of proposals stranded in office towers all around this city. Real legislation to open major construction, private investment and industrial development would require eliminating the industrial carbon tax, which increases the cost to build with Canadian-made steel and aluminum. It would also require repealing the Liberals’ antidevelopment law, Bill C-69, which gums up our major infrastructure projects in constant reapprovals to satisfy vague rules. How vague? The legislation states that project applications would still have to consider, “any other matter relevant to the impact assessment that the Agency...requires to be taken into account.” That is about as vague and unhelpful to a private developer or a municipal planner as we are bound to find. Lastly, I want to touch quickly upon the issue of labour and the changes proposed to the Labour Code, which are extensive and merit scrutiny. I have heard from many residents opposed to the bill because of these changes, and I appreciate them sharing their feedback with me and my office. Any time Parliament touches upon workers’ rights in their workplace or in their union, we owe workers an extensive right of response. It is my hope that when the government passes its bill on to the committee stage, workers can have a seat at that committee table to have their voices heard. I will certainly look forward to following the debate as it continues.”

“I voted for this infrastructure bill, but the government rushed it through and built nothing. They announced a new project last week only because of public criticism. I doubt it will actually happen.”

“Mr. Speaker, I remember Bill C-5 because it was one of the first bills I voted on. I was happy to support anything that would bring infrastructure to our country and infrastructure to create a more sovereign country. I think because of the criticism that the government has had for not creating any projects with Bill C-5, even though it was rushed through so fast, the Liberals made an announcement last week. Is it actually going to happen? Is that project going to come through? I doubt it.”

• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 100 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

“The government promised to build things quickly, but it has built nothing. This bill just adds more red tape instead of actually getting projects built.”

“Mr. Speaker, I think my colleague needs to remember that there were promises that Canada would soon be building at unimaginable speeds. Instead, what we are hearing now is that the Liberals need another layer of bureaucracy in order to start building at those unimaginable speeds. The member promises there will be thousands and thousands of projects coming forward. I would like to see one thing built. I am looking forward to it.”

• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 100 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

“Broken promises hurt our democracy. The government has laws that are blocking new infrastructure projects. If the Liberals bring in a bill to get rid of those laws, I will gladly help pass it quickly.”

“Mr. Speaker, the message being sent is that there can be promises made and not kept, and that is not a good thing for democracy. If the Liberals would like to introduce legislation to repeal Bill C-69 and Bill C-48, I would be pleased to help them pass that legislation really quickly. I would trust that they have Canadians in mind and are here to help us, but since they are not, those bills are plugging up infrastructure being built, and I do not see how it can be done.”

“The government originally said its emergency power to exempt projects from laws would only last five years. Now this bill makes that power permanent, letting them bypass almost any law forever. I oppose this.”

“Mr. Speaker, I want to follow up on my colleague from Saanich—Gulf Islands’ comment when it comes to Bill C-5. In Bill C-39, proposed section 102 would effectively make the powers that were given to the executive, to exempt under Bill C-5’s framework, absolutely permanent. The Liberals said, when they came under fire for seizing such tremendous powers that have been well written about, that they could originally exempt any project from almost any law that we have on the books, but now, it would essentially take that away. The Liberals originally said, “Trust us. Give us a five-year sunset because of the emergency.” Now they would be taking that power and making it permanent. What—”

“I oppose part of this bill because it gives the government too much power forever. An older bill let the government ignore almost any law during an emergency, but that power was supposed to end after five years. This bill removes that end date. I want to know if the member agrees that this hurts Parliament.”

“Mr. Speaker, I certainly appreciate my fellow British Columbian, the member of Parliament for Saanich—Gulf Islands, and her intervention today. I know she is very passionate. She is a parliamentarian because she cares about this place. Part of the tradition of this place is making sure that there are reasonable expectations on the executive and she talked about the massive powers the Liberals justified in Bill C-5 that gave them essentially the ability to exempt almost any law. At the time, they justified it under an emergency, so Parliament set a five-year sunset clause on it. Clause 102 in Bill C-39 removes that stop, giving future governments complete access to all of those powers from there on in. What does she have to say about those expanded powers for the executive at the expense of Parliament?”

“The law requires the government to explain how every bill respects the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Unions are worried this bill hurts workers' rights. I want to know if the committee studying this bill should get that Charter explanation before they start their work.”

“Mr. Speaker, it feels like quality time with other British Columbians tonight because I get to ask the hon. member for Courtenay—Alberni a question. I know that the NDP members, as well as many labour unions, have raised issues with Bill C-39 when it comes to workers’ rights. The government likes to claim that it is the party of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Liberals constantly talk about how they respect the charter. They could start by respecting the charter and by respecting this place, because under subsection 4.2(1) of the Department of Justice Act, the Minister of Justice is legally required to table a charter statement for every single government bill. That means that the Department of Justice would give its legal opinion on the constitutionality vis à vis the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, section 2(d). Does he believe that the committee that will be studying this should have that document before its study begins?”

“Past laws gave Alto the power to take private land. This bill gives the government power to help the Alto project. I want the Bloc Québécois to tell us if they support or oppose these powers.”

“Mr. Speaker, in Bill C‑15, the government granted Alto new powers to expropriate privately owned land. In Bill C‑39, the government is granting itself new powers to allow preliminary work to benefit the Alto project. What does the Bloc Québécois member think about that? Did the Bloc Québécois support these proposed new powers for Alto, or did it oppose them?”

“I am tired. I want the Bloc Québécois member to attack the government for me.”

“Mr. Speaker, I am very tired. Could the Bloc Québécois member attack the government for me, please?”

“The government promised to speed up big projects 18 months ago, but it has not built anything. Now it wants to pass another rushed bill making the same promises. The bill has some good ideas about digital trade, but it has big flaws and does not protect private company information. We should not rush this through without fixing it.”

“Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be closing out the evening on Bill C-39. Let me start with some great literature: We have all some experience of a feeling, that comes over us occasionally, of what we are saying and doing having been said and done before, in a remote time—of our having been surrounded, dim ages ago, by the same faces, objects, and circumstances—of our knowing perfectly what will be said next, as if we suddenly remembered it! That is from the great author Charles Dickens’s work David Copperfield. Members will understand that he is describing that sense we have when the present moment feels like it has already happened. That is what it feels like tonight. More commonly, people might refer to this as déjà vu. Déjà vu is what I have tonight because I remember being here in June 2025, when the Minister responsible for One Canadian Economy said, “The time for resolute action is now.” He said, “For far too long, major projects...have been stalled by assessments, challenges, and overlapping and duplicative regulations.” He said, “[Bill C-5] would introduce a new tool, a process for identifying, prioritizing and advancing transformative infrastructure and development projects.” The government House leader came out and declared, “It is time to build.” The Prime Minister himself said: The process to build in this country has become too arduous, it takes too long, and it is holding us back. With every year that a proposal to build a port, wind energy farm, or highway sits on an official’s desk, we are leaving investment, prosperity, jobs—people’s careers—on the table. Well, I hate to inform members, but it has been 18 months since the Prime Minister spoke those words, and we have not seen a port, a wind energy farm or a highway approved, let alone built. It remains on desks or not even proposed. Bill C-5 was supposed to give the government the powers that it said it needed, including some very significant King Henry VIII powers to allow ministers to go around existing laws in Canada. At the time, following the election, which the Liberals won, they said this was what their mandate was. We saw some merit in that proposal, and we supported it. We supported it in haste because that is what the government asked. Then we waited, and we waited some more. What did we get for waiting? What did Canadians get for waiting? We got nothing. We have seen nothing. We have seen no projects, no ports and no wind energy farms, nothing. In fact, almost as if the Liberals knew they were going to get challenged on this, they had to approve at least one project through their new Major Projects Office and just two weeks ago had to say something about that with respect to a pipeline. Now we are hearing the very same things. All this week, I have heard the exact same refrains from the government. It is teaching me that execution is just as important as the legal structures we change. Bill C-39 does have some new parts, and some good parts too, and I will get to one of them that I want to talk about. In fact, there are some parts of Bill C-39 that would make a member of the Conservative benches blush. I have been pondering something for some time. I have been pondering whether the Liberals will actually show up. Will the real Liberals please stand up? In fact, I got my answer yesterday afternoon when the member for West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country got up and, while he tiptoed around the issue, quite effectively I will say, broke ranks with his party respecting Bill C-39. He described some of the serious concerns he had about a lack of guardrails on environmental concerns, indigenous consultation and a host of other issues. I bring that up not to drive a wedge within their party. They can do that themselves. I actually do not want to criticize the member for West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country for that. He should be applauded for engaging in independent thought on the other side of the aisle. I am a big believer that members of Parliament should get up and say what they believe, even if it is different from what their party thinks sometimes. I applaud him for that. I am glad that a real Liberal showed up on this bill. I will remind my colleague from West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country that I share his perspective on that. He may recall that I was one of four members of the Conservative caucus to vote for his private member’s bill. I read it and I thought it was a good idea, so I voted for it. I do want to talk about one part of the bill that I think is a good idea, but in true Liberal fashion, it only goes halfway and it has some serious problems. It points out that this bill, and this specific part, really need some study but it will not get it, unfortunately. I am talking about division 8 of the bill, the enabling digital trade act. We can go through Hansard but I think only three or four people have mentioned this division because we are talking about a bill that is 300 pages long and being rammed through Parliament. Therefore, not all the sections of this bill have received their just due. The digital trade act seeks to enact the UNCITRAL Model Law on Electronic Transferable Records. UNCITRAL is the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law, and this model law was actually prepared in 2017. For everyone at home paying attention, electronic transferable records are commercial documents in electronic form that govern things like the payment of goods, the ownership of goods or terms of delivery. We might know them more commonly, or through their historic names, as things like a bill of lading, a promissory note or a bill of exchange. This proposal seeks to allow, business to business or business to government, use for import and export purposes or commercial arrangements, electronic documents. That is a good thing, one that I support. In true fashion, we actually agreed to this in 2021 in the G7 digital and technology ministerial declaration. I guess it is better late than never. The bill follows a familiar pattern of the Liberal government: talk a big game, make wild claims, but when we peek under the hood, there is much less than meets the eye. It is very Trumpian, I would say. When we look at this proposal, there are some serious pieces missing and a few problems. These are problems that could probably be solved in committee and with study, but that will not happen with this. Let me describe two of the problems. First, let us look at what is missing. The proposal for the digital trade act only goes halfway because it only applies in federal areas of jurisdiction. I understand Parliament cannot change provincial laws, of course, but without a plan from the government to address commercial documentation at the provincial level, like a sale of goods is a provincial responsibility, the proposal is incomplete. It is very much like the internal trade issues with a big promise: free trade by Canada Day 2025, yet I still cannot buy great wine from the Okanagan in Ontario. A big promise, but a failure to achieve. The second problem with the digital trade act is an important one. It is the disclosure of company information. If we read the act, it abrogates pretty much every information protection that exists in Canadian law for customs and other proprietary information that is exchanged to government during the course of importing or exporting. For example, with the Customs Act, when we import or export something, we provide proprietary information to the government and the government says, “I will keep that secret.” If we look at this proposal, it actually says that the Customs Act will not apply and the government can give that information out as it sees fit. That is not much comfort for those who are dealing with the government. We have a decent proposal, one with two glaring errors, and no time to fix them because of the government’s haste. We tried this 18 months ago and we got nothing for it. I feel a bit of déjà vu, being here and having to receive a request to do the same thing again. I think we know the old phrase of doing the same thing twice and expecting a different result is the definition of insanity. What I have learned is that all this change, all this talk, does not mean anything if we cannot execute it. We have had 18 months and no execution.”

“The government is creating too much uncertainty. The biggest problem is that we do not have a trade deal with the United States. The Liberals need to get back to the table and make a deal.”

“Mr. Speaker, I always enjoy having a discussion with my colleague from the international trade committee. I think he was one of the only other members of Parliament who touched on division 8 of this bill. I applaud him for taking his portfolio seriously. The government has created so much uncertainty. The biggest portion of uncertainty right now is that we have no deal with the United States, so maybe the Liberals should put their elbows down, get back to the table and figure out that problem to give us some certainty.”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 19 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

“Canadians should be able to buy Canadian wine in every province. What changes does the member want to make to the bill to better protect people's privacy when governments and businesses share data?”

“Mr. Speaker, let me start by thanking the member for sharing his desire to see the free trade of Canadian wine across this great nation. Okanagan wine should be available to every province and every consumer who wants it. Canadians should be able to support and buy Canadian. Are there any amendments the member would like to see when it comes to division 8, specifically on limiting privacy, particularly on data exchanges, whether it be between businesses or governments, that he thinks are missing in this piece of legislation?”

“Canadians should be able to buy Canadian wine anywhere in the country. The government broke its promise to make this happen by 2025. This bill needs better protections for business secrets. The government also needs to use its powers to make provinces drop their trade barriers.”

“Mr. Speaker, I enjoy a glass of Okanagan wine, and it should be flowing freely across this country. We were promised that it would flow freely across this country. In fact, we were promised it by Canada Day 2025. It is another broken promise. To answer the member’s question, there are two things I would like to see. I would like to see greater protections for companies’ proprietary information, and second, I would like to see a real, ambitious proposal from the other side to deal with the half of the equation that is missing, which is the provinces. The Liberals say that this is about the provinces and it is not our problem. No. They are the federal government, and they should exercise leadership, use their constitutional powers and get the job done.”

“The digital trade rules should not be in this bill. This bill is about building big projects and pipelines, not moving goods across borders. Digital trade is a good idea, but it should be its own bill. We should study it in committee to make it better before we pass it.”

“Mr. Speaker, that is a very perceptive question. There is no reason I can see that this should have been in Bill C-39. This has been talked about since 2021. In fact, the Liberals agreed to do this back in 2021. My math is not too good, but we are five years later, and they are ramming it through in an omnibus bill. Why? There is no reason. It does not have anything to do with building major projects or pipelines. It has to do with moving goods across borders. Maybe the government can explain why it chose to ram that through in here. It is actually not a bad idea. It could be made better. It should be a stand-alone piece that is presented to the House. It should go through the normal process, including to the trade committee and perhaps other committees, to be studied, made better and then passed. Why did the Liberals not do that? Only the government can answer.”

“I agree that businesses need certainty with our biggest trading partner. The government has delayed for 18 months, and that uncertainty is making companies invest in other countries instead of Canada.”

“Mr. Speaker, I actually completely agree with my colleague from Quebec. We need certainty with our largest trading partner. In fact, the government’s rag-the-puck strategy has created 18 months of uncertainty, and that is why we are seeing companies choose to invest outside Canada rather than inside Canada. They need certainty that this issue will be put to bed, and the government is failing to do that.”

• Off topic
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 6 of 100

  None of this statement addressed the specific topic under debate.

  See full analysis →