Guillaume Deschênes-Thériault

“A Conservative member said tonight that they will support all measures that help Canadians save money. I want to know if my colleague agrees with him. Will the Conservatives support this bill and all our other plans to help with the cost of living?”

“Mr. Speaker, earlier this evening, we received some excellent news from a Conservative colleague. I am going to quote him. I took notes so I would not forget. He mentioned that they would support all measures that help Canadians save money. His colleague announced a complete reversal of the Conservative approach of the past 10 years. I would like to hear from my colleague. Does he share the view of his Conservative colleague that the Conservatives will now support affordability measures? Have they finally realized that Canadians expect help to cope with the cost of living? Will they now support us, not only on this particular measure, but on all the other measures we are implementing to address affordability?”

“The member says she wants to support small businesses and farms. But she voted against the budget that helped them write off costs, handle tariffs, and innovate. I want her to explain why her votes do not match her words.”

“Mr. Speaker, my colleague’s speech felt somewhat contradictory to me. She spoke about the importance of supporting our small and medium-sized enterprises, and farms in particular. However, when the 2025 budget was tabled, she voted against it, despite the fact that it included an investment superdeduction that would allow businesses to recover the cost of their investments more quickly. She also voted against various measures to help offset the impact of tariffs and initiatives to support innovation within our small and medium-sized enterprises. How can she stand up in the House this evening and talk about the importance of supporting our small and medium-sized enterprises and helping them cope with various costs, when, time and again, she has voted against the very measures designed to help them? I find it difficult to reconcile her voting record with the position she shared with us this evening in her speech.”

“We need many programs to help Canadians with the cost of living, like child care, school meals, and lower taxes. This fuel bill is only one part of that. I want the member to explain why his party supports this bill, but opposes our other programs to lower costs.”

“Mr. Speaker, my colleague talked about the importance of concrete measures to help with the cost of living. I completely agree, and I am very pleased that the official opposition is working with us, but this is just one among many measures. To help Canadians, we need a series of affordability measures. The Canada child benefit, affordable child care spaces, the school breakfast program and the tax cut for the middle tax come to mind. It is a combination of measures that sometimes put money directly back in the pockets of Canadians, or that save the public money indirectly. Tonight’s example is just one of many concrete measures. I would therefore like to know why my colleague supports this measure this evening, but does not support all the other affordability measures that we are putting in place. I sense a contradiction there. He asks us to implement concrete measures, but always opposes them.”

“I am glad the member will support this bill to help people with living costs. But Conservatives have usually voted against help like this over the last ten years. He voted against making a school food program permanent. How can he look parents in the eye after voting to let children go hungry at school?”

“Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to hear that my colleague will be voting in favour of the bill, which is an affordability measure designed to help Canadians cope with the cost of living. However, when looking at the voting record of his colleagues in the official opposition over the last 10 years, we see that they have very rarely supported measures aimed at improving affordability. More often than not, they have voted against them. In his speech, he asked whether we are able to look parents in the eye. I would like to put the question back to him, given that we know full well that, as recently as last year, he voted against making the national school food program permanent. This program enables children to get through their school day with a full stomach. How can he look the parents in his constituency in the eye and tell them that he voted against the school food program, which ensures that no child goes hungry during the school day?”

“The Major Projects Office is reviewing more than 20 projects worth $500 billion. The premier of Alberta is hopeful about its work. I want the member to tell us if he feels hopeful about it too.”

“Mr. Speaker, the Major Projects Office, headquartered in Calgary, in my colleague’s province, is currently studying more than 20 projects representing $500 billion in investments. Even the premier of his province said that she was optimistic about the Major Projects Office. I would like to ask my colleague whether he shares his provincial premier’s optimism about the Major Projects Office.”

In response to a question from Arnold Viersen

“Our government is growing the economy by signing trade deals and bringing in foreign investment. This bill is the next step in our plan. I want the member to support the bill and send it to committee so we can start these big projects quickly.”

“Mr. Speaker, my colleague spoke of Stephen Harper’s legacy. I would like to remind him that Canada had significant trade deficits under the Harper government. We are now working to diversify the Canadian economy. We are signing trade agreements with more than 20 countries and attracting foreign investment. In fact, Mr. Harper attended the summit held in Toronto and praised our government’s economic approach. I would say that Bill C-39 is the next step in this approach, which we have been implementing for over 18 months. I would like to know whether my colleague intends to support Bill C-39. Should this bill be referred to committee so that it can be passed in a timely manner and we can begin work on these major projects?”

“Our economy is growing. In the last 18 months, we attracted 500 billion dollars in investment and signed over 20 trade deals. I want the Conservatives to admit that our bill will make our economy even stronger.”

“Mr. Speaker, to hear my colleagues, it almost seems that nothing good is happening. Over the past 18 months, however, we have made significant progress toward building a stronger and more prosperous economy. It shows in the investment summit, which attracted over $500 billion to be injected into our economy; it shows in the 24 projects being studied by the Major Projects Office; and it shows in the more than 20 trade agreements that we have signed around the world. While we make progress on this side of the House, the Conservatives keep raining on everyone’s parade. I would like to ask my colleague why he cannot acknowledge the potential of Bill C-39 to build a stronger economy, to build a stronger Canada.”

“Our government has worked to strengthen Canada's economy by signing deals with over 20 countries and bringing in billions in investments. How does this bill fit into our plan to build a stronger economy?”

“Mr. Speaker, over the past 18 months, we have been focused on strengthening the Canadian economy. Our Prime Minister and our government have shown leadership in this regard. We have signed treaties with over 20 countries. We have supported major projects of national interest and attracted hundreds of billions of dollars in investment to Canada. I would like to hear from my colleague about how he sees Bill C-39 fitting within our government’s broader approach to build Canada strong.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“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.”

In response to a question from Luc Thériault

“I support this bill. We will have time to debate it and study it in committee. Investors and workers are excited about it because it brings new projects and jobs to regions like northern New Brunswick.”

“Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased that we, as members of the House of Commons, have several days to discuss Bill C‑39. I am pleased that we can exchange ideas here, at the heart of our Canadian democracy. I am also looking forward to following the committee’s work on this. Many witnesses will share their points of view. All members, including opposition members, will have an opportunity to comment. In his question, my colleague talked about enthusiasm. What I am hearing is enthusiasm on the part of people who want to invest in Canada and on the part of workers who are seeing the positive impact of these investments across the country, including in northern New Brunswick, the region I represent. While in Toronto for the summit, I spoke with four proponents championing projects in my region. They were eagerly awaiting measures like this one, measures that encourage investment for the benefit of all Canadians.”

• Little substance
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Signal 44 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 →