Guillaume Deschênes-Thériault

In response to a question from Elizabeth May

“I want the House to pass this bill. It will attract investment by setting a one-year deadline for decisions on major projects while still keeping our environmental rules strong. It also improves our ports and trade routes to move goods faster, and it helps employers and unions settle disputes earlier to avoid strikes.”

“Mr. Speaker, in April 2025, we were elected with a clear mandate to strengthen, diversify and unite the Canadian economy. Over the past 18 months, our Prime Minister and our government have shown real leadership in advancing these objectives. Last year, we began by establishing a framework to support major nation-building projects. In budget 2025, we put forward various tax incentives to stimulate investment in Canada. We have invested heavily in our infrastructure and in projects of critical importance to our country. We have signed economic and defence agreements with some 20 countries on five continents. We are in talks to strengthen our ties to the European Union. These are just a few examples of measures that speak to our government’s ambition to strengthen the Canadian economy. The bill before us today, Bill C‑39, the building Canada strong act, is the latest in a series of measures. Bill C‑39 is important because it provides predictability for those who want to invest in Canada. This is extremely important under the current circumstances, because the eyes of the world are on our country and the investment opportunities presented by projects here. I have a good example. The first-ever Canada investment summit was held in September. The results speak for themselves. The summit produced nearly $500 billion in new investment commitments to Canada. This capital will support Canadian workers, businesses, infrastructure, and our country’s strategic sectors. On the sidelines of the summit, I had the opportunity to attend a reception hosted by the Government of New Brunswick in Toronto, where I was able to speak with four different people who were leading projects for northern New Brunswick. When we talk about projects that will boost the Canadian economy, that also includes the region I come to Ottawa to represent. The feedback I received was very interesting. It helped connect project proponents from northern New Brunswick with various international investors. The feedback I received from the people I spoke with is that the world recognizes Canada’s investment potential. They see the wealth of natural resources in our country. They see our government’s ambitions and the efforts we are making to build at scale. As a government, we want to seize this opportunity and send a clear message that now is the time to invest in Canada. This will enable us to foster sustainable growth, create opportunities and ensure prosperity for all Canadians. If we want to attract these investments, and if we want them to translate into tangible projects on the ground, we must ensure that a regulatory framework is in place. With Bill C-39, we are trying to attract more investment to Canada and move forward on projects that are important for our economy and communities by implementing a clearer, more efficient and more modern regulatory framework. A key aspect of Bill C-39 is a commitment to make decisions within a one-year period for projects requiring a federal permit. That will give investors and project proponents the clarity and predictability they need to invest and build in Canada. Right now, this process is taking far too long in many cases. I want to emphasize the fact that acting more quickly does not mean being ineffective or abandoning our high environmental standards. Not all projects will be approved. We can still reject projects that do not meet Canada’s environmental standards or Canadians’ expectations. However, rather than taking years to say no, we want to be able to say no more quickly. If the project does not meet the government’s expectations, people will not have to wait for years before getting a definitive answer. When the answer is positive, we obviously want to let those involved know as soon as possible, while respecting the process in place, particularly when it comes to environmental standards. It is important to avoid delays because when a project is ready to go in the first year but it has to wait for years and years because of administrative delays, that results in millions of dollars of additional costs, and investors may decide to invest in other countries instead. That is not the message we want to send. We want to provide predictability for those who are interested in investing in Canada. I want to repeat that we do not need to choose between ensuring rigorous environmental protection and streamlining project reviews. We can do both at the same time. That is what we want to do with Bill C‑39. We can do those things right now, in fact: maintain strict environmental standards while moving forward at an appropriate pace. I think that the key word for those who want to invest in Canada is “predictability”. This is consistent with what we heard at the 2026 Canada investment summit from people who want to invest in projects of national interest in Canada. The transportation section is another important part of Bill C‑39. We want to diversify our economy and develop new markets. We are already seeing that now. We have signed trade and defence agreements with about 20 countries, and we are in talks with several more. These agreements give Canadian businesses access to new markets. We also want to strengthen Canada’s economy by breaking down barriers to interprovincial trade in order to build one Canadian economy. However, if we want goods to get from point A to point B efficiently and if we want to speed up the transportation of Canadian goods, whether to new international merchants or from one province to another, we need to build more efficient and resilient supply chains. Through Bill C‑39, we are proposing a suite of measures to achieve that goal. For instance, we are going to set up a transportation project office that will be responsible for coordinating the granting of federal permits and advancing priority transportation projects. We are going to invest in strengthening our existing trade corridors, but we are also going to try to develop new ones. We are going to modernize the governance of our ports. Indeed, when we look at some of the ports in other advanced economies, it is clear that we could learn a thing or two. Could our ports be more productive and more efficient? I think so. We have made the most of what we could learn by looking at certain ports around the world that are more efficient than ours. We are trying to implement some of those measures here in Canada. We also want to move forward with new strategies for digitalizing trade. It is 2026, and we have access to technological tools that can help us be more efficient. Some systems are still paper-based, and containers have to be offloaded from ships so that paper documents can be signed. The same results could be achieved more efficiently by other means. For example, for ships at sea, documents could be signed digitally. The goal is to reduce the administrative burden and come up with a clearer, more predictable regulatory framework. Our goal in implementing this suite of legislative, administrative and technological changes is really to make our ports and trade corridors more competitive. This would strengthen our position as a reliable trading partner on the world stage. It would also strengthen the one Canadian economy, supporting our long-term growth. This will have a ripple effect across the country, including in Madawaska—Restigouche, the riding I represent here in Ottawa. I see this as a very positive thing. If potatoes from the Grand Falls region can reach the Mexican market more quickly, or if the wood chips or maple syrup we produce can reach Europe more quickly, so much the better. I recently visited a business in Restigouche that exports bumpers to Australia. When we talk about moving goods, this also includes goods from Madawaska—Restigouche reaching various markets in Canada and internationally. In this bill, we are also taking steps to support our workforce. To build a strong Canada, we must start with the workers. To do this, to achieve our goals, we need our workers. Bill C‑39 enables us to take meaningful steps to strengthen labour relations by requiring early negotiations in complex cases, giving trade unions and employers more time to identify the issues, access mediation services and reach negotiated settlements before a strike or lockout occurs. Let me be clear: We will always protect the constitutional right to strike. All we are trying to do is establish a modern framework that prevents labour disputes from happening in the first place. The goal is to create a favourable environment where employers and workers can start negotiating together earlier and can access mediation together earlier to reach a negotiated settlement. A negotiated settlement is always better than a protracted labour dispute. Really, our focus is on helping the parties resolve issues earlier, supporting negotiated outcomes and providing timely assistance when challenges arise. This will benefit our workers, our employers and, I would even say, the country as a whole. I will end there. I look forward to taking questions from my colleagues.”

“We are working together tonight to pass this bill to cut fuel taxes. It is rare to see Conservatives cooperate with us. I want to know if the Conservatives will keep working with us this fall to help Canadians with the cost of living.”

“Mr. Speaker, this evening, I want to recognize that we are working together to pass this bill. This is a good example of what we can accomplish when we work together, something that we are not used to seeing from the Conservative opposition. I would therefore like to know whether this is a sign of things to come in this fall parliamentary session. Will the Conservatives finally understand that Canadians expect us to work together to help them deal with the cost of living? Will the Conservatives now support the various measures that we are putting in place? Is what we are seeing today a shift in the Conservatives’ stance?”

“The member talks about people struggling with the cost of living. How does he explain voting against middle-class tax cuts, school food programs, cheap child care, and employment insurance help?”

“Mr. Speaker, in his speech, my colleague shared stories of constituents in his riding having to do with the cost of living. What does he tell people when they ask him, “Why did you vote against a tax cut that could help me if I am in the middle class? Why did you vote against the national school food program for my school-aged children? Why did you vote against affordable child care services for my children? Why did you vote against suspending the one-week waiting period for employment insurance?” When he tells us these stories, I wish I had the full picture. How does my colleague justify these votes to the constituents who come to see him to talk about the cost of living?”

“Our plan makes the economy stronger so we can pause the fuel tax. Canadians showed they trust our plan in the last election and in recent by-elections. Does the member agree that these election results show people support our plan?”

“Mr. Speaker, my colleague began his remarks by talking about the kind of society we want and what we want for our country’s future. On this side of the House, we have a plan that translates into concrete measures aimed at strengthening the Canadian economy and making it more resilient, to ensure we have a stronger Canadian economy that gives us the fiscal capacity to support measures like the one we are debating tonight, that is, extending the suspension of the excise tax. I think it is safe to say that Canadians have repeatedly demonstrated their confidence in our plan for Canada, whether during the last general election or in the six by-elections, including the most recent ones that took place over the summer. I would like to ask my colleague whether the results of the recent by-elections are a sign of the public’s confidence in our plan, particularly as it relates to building a stronger economy that meets everyone’s needs.”

• Little substance
  ?

  Question or comment in debate

  Signal 43 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 show real leadership by helping people with the cost of living. We brought in this bill to pause the fuel tax, along with tax cuts and school food programs. The Conservatives talk about high costs, but they vote against our help. I want to know if the member agrees this bill shows our leadership.”

“Mr. Speaker, my colleague spoke of leadership in his speech. Real leadership is taking an interest in the cost of living and introducing a bill to extend the excise tax holiday in the the first week of Parliament’s return. Leadership is implementing a range of measures, as we have done since the first day we were elected, to lower taxes for the middle class, make the school food program permanent or implement various employment insurance-related measures, such as temporarily suspending the one-week waiting period. That is the kind of leadership that helps Canadians cope with the cost of living. What is not leadership is talking about affordability in the House and then voting against every single measure when the opportunity arises. I would like to know whether my colleague sees this bill as an example of our government’s ongoing leadership in helping Canadians cope with the cost of living.”

“This debate is about affordability. The member says he cares about lower costs, but he spent the last year and a half voting against our tax cuts and our school food program. Why is he only supporting affordability now?”

“Mr. Speaker, I would like to finish this discussion with my colleague. Tonight, we are talking about affordability; we are not discussing all the other points he could have raised in his speech. If affordability is important to him, why has he consistently voted against our measures, whether it be tax cuts for the middle class, Canada’s national school food program or all the other measures we have introduced over the last year and a half? Why has he finally decided to support affordability measures this evening when he has been voting against them for the past year and a half?”

“This bill helps Canadians save money by extending the fuel tax break. Even one of the member's own colleagues called this an amazing idea. I want to know if he will support this bill and our other plans to help with the cost of living.”

“Mr. Speaker, this evening, the bill we are considering is a straightforward measure. It is about affordability. It is about extending the fuel tax break. It is a measure that will put more money in Canadians’ pockets. My colleague did not say much about it in his speech, but earlier, my colleague from Peace River—Westlock said that it was a good bill. He even described extending the fuel tax break as an amazing idea. How does my colleague feel about finally supporting a measure that actually helps with affordability? During this session, can we expect to see him supporting the measures we are putting in place to help Canadians with affordability? Can we expect to see him support what his colleague described as the amazing work our government is doing to help with affordability and to make the economy stronger and more resilient?”

“Canadians want us to make the economy stronger. We need to trade with Europe as well as the United States, and we need to make life more affordable with bills like this one. The Conservatives usually vote against helping people with costs. Does the member agree we should focus on building the economy instead of just talking?”

“Mr. Speaker, the content of my Conservative colleagues’ speeches will never cease to surprise me, I think, because there seems to be a real disconnect between what they say and reality. The reality is that Canadians expect us to work to make the economy stronger and more resilient. That means diversifying our economic partnerships abroad. We need to maintain a relationship with the United States, but we also need to look at how we can diversify markets elsewhere, including in Europe. That also means implementing affordability measures, like the one we are discussing this evening. It must be a bit strange for my colleague to vote in favour of an affordability measure, since the Conservatives always vote against such measures. This time, they are going to make an exception. I think Canadians can see through the official opposition. The results of the last six by-elections speak for themselves. Canadians see that our plan to make the economy stronger and more resilient is working. Does my colleague agree that Canadians want us to truly work on making the Canadian economy stronger and that we need to stop this type of rhetoric that has no basis in reality?”

“We took action by funding food in schools and cutting taxes for 21 million people. The member voted against these measures. I want her to explain why she says she wants to help people when she voted against helping them.”

“Mr. Speaker, in her response to my question, my colleague talked about the need for more doing and less talking. However, over the past year and a half, we have implemented meaningful measures. We have made Canada’s national school food program permanent. We have lowered taxes for more than 21 million Canadians. That is in addition to all the other measures we implemented in budget 2025 and the economic update. Still, when we rolled out these meaningful measures—not just empty words—to help put more money in Canadians’ pockets, my colleague voted against them. I am just trying to square that with what we heard tonight. I completely agree with her that we need to be there for ordinary folks, but how does she reconcile what she said tonight with her voting record?”

• Echo ×14

  A repeated line

  “We have also made the national school food program permanent.”

  Said 14 times by 11 members since May 7.

  Every time it was said →

“I am glad the Conservatives are supporting this bill to save people money. But the member who just spoke voted against tax cuts, school food, and cheaper child care. How can she say she cares about the cost of living when she voted against all those things?”

“Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to hear my colleague mention that, for once, the Conservatives will support a measure that will put money back in Canadians’ pockets. However, I cannot help but note some hypocrisy in my colleague’s speech. She mentioned that affordability should not be simply a slogan. However, when we look at her voting record, we see that she voted against almost all of the measures that we put in place to help Canadians deal with the cost of living, including the tax cut for over 21 million Canadians, the school food program, which has become permanent, and affordable child care spaces, to name just a few. Does my colleague not see a major discrepancy between her voting record and what she is saying this evening about the importance of affordability? How does she reconcile what she said in her speech with her past actions, with the way she voted in the House?”

“People in my rural area are worried about gas prices and the cost of living. This bill pauses the tax on fuel to help them. I want my colleague to share her thoughts on why it is important to listen to people and take action to help.”

“Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my esteemed colleague for her wonderful speech. Like her, I represent a large rural riding. When I was talking to my constituents over the summer, the cost of living came up a lot, as did the cost of gas. The people in my riding understood that the recent spike in gas prices was due to various international factors and global instability. As a federal government, we need to focus on what we can control. We also need to listen to people. This bill extends the suspension of the excise tax. I see it as a measure that meets the needs expressed by the people in my riding. I would like to ask my colleague why it is important to listen to people and take action. We heard about certain issues during the summer, we returned to Parliament, and now, in the first week, we are taking concrete steps to help with the cost of living. I would like to ask my colleague what she thinks of the situation.”

• Echo ×3

  A repeated line

  “We need to focus on what we can control.”

  Said 3 times by 3 members since May 26.

  Every time it was said →

“Unions support our plan to recruit up to 100,000 skilled workers and help apprentices get certified. I want to know if the NDP will support our efforts to help Canadian workers.”

“Mr. Speaker, after the economic update was released, several unions praised our initiative to develop the team Canada strong initiative to recruit up to 100,000 new skilled workers. We implemented a series of measures to help these people, particularly apprentices, on their journey to certification. I want to ask my NDP colleague whether she will support our efforts to help Canadian workers.”

In response to a question from Rosemarie Falk

“I want to know if the member agrees with her Conservative colleague. Yesterday, he downplayed the harm of the noose in Canada and questioned calling it a hate symbol. I want other Conservatives to say where they stand on his comments.”

“Mr. Speaker, I would rather hear my colleague tell me whether she supports the remarks made by her colleague from York—Durham. Yesterday, he made comments that downplayed the impact of the noose in Canada. He said it was odd to include it as a hate symbol. I would like to hear my colleague’s thoughts on that. I would be very interested in hearing from more Conservative members and finding out what their positions are with respect to what their colleague said last night.”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 46 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

In response to a question from Natilien Joseph

“We must all care when symbols are used to spread hate, even if it does not target us personally. A Conservative member wrongly downplayed the harm of the noose as a hate symbol. That is why this bill is important.”

“Mr. Speaker, as I said in my speech, I think that, as Canadian citizens, we all need to take notice when symbols are used to promote hate. We do not need to be personally affected. As members of Canadian society, we are all affected when our colleagues, friends or community members are the target of hateful behaviour. Last night, we heard a Conservative member downplay the symbolic impact of the noose in Canada. He even said that it was odd to include it as a hate symbol in the bill. I think those remarks are completely out of place. That is why I rose in the House this morning to speak out against these remarks and to remind members about the importance of Bill C‑9.”