Steeve Lavoie

“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 because it speeds up project approvals. Doing nothing leaves important projects stuck for years and makes them cost more, like the rail bypass in Lac-Mégantic. I want to know if the member has any real ideas to speed things up instead of just keeping things as they are.”

“Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, whom I respect and with whom I work in committee. I have two things to say. First, what I have been hearing from him and his colleagues since the beginning of the debate on Bill C‑39 can be summed up by the words “status quo”. They want to maintain the status quo in many areas. They want to know why we would do this or that and why we would make changes. As we know, the status quo means not making a decision. Something occurred to me. I know my colleague worked very late last night and again this morning. I did my homework, too, and I looked into it. Bill C‑39 speeds up projects, but it also speeds up situations like the one in Lac‑Mégantic. People have been waiting for 13 years, and things are stuck in administrative projects. We are talking over $100 million. The project is going to cost more. Bill C‑39 makes it possible to fast-track projects like the one in Lac‑Mégantic. Did my colleague’s research yield any concrete suggestions for speeding up decision-making, so that situations like this never happen again and so that we can actually resolve things more quickly?”

“Our announcements lead to real work. We gave an 11-billion-dollar contract to build six icebreakers. That creates 5,000 jobs and supports over 600 local businesses. Work has already started, so I ask my colleague if he still wants us to stop supporting our businesses.”

“Mr. Speaker, I would like to set the record straight on two counts before I ask my question. My colleague said that there have been some grand announcements, but nothing concrete. I was actually in Lévis on March 29 for the steel cutting ceremony for the Polar Max icebreaker, so that is one project that is happening. Our government announced an $11‑billion contract to build six icebreakers that will provide jobs for 5,000 people in our region. It also provides predictability for more than 600 suppliers in the region who will be able to invest so they can supply the Davie shipyard. That is what our businesses want. With that, does my colleague still think that we need to stop making announcements that support our businesses?”

“I want the member to tell us what business leaders told her this summer. Did they say this bill will give them the certainty they need?”

“Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her fine speech. I know that she spent a lot of time this summer visiting businesses. I know that she heard from many people about the lack of predictability and the current uncertainty. They need more predictability from the government. Can she share with us what these businesses had to say after she met with their executives this summer, and particularly any comments regarding the predictability that Bill C‑39 will be able to provide?”

“Businesses need predictability to grow and invest, and this bill gives them that. I want my colleague to talk more about how predictable supply chains help businesses in his area.”

“Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague on his maiden speech in the House. I know that this is an important moment for him and his family and friends. In recent months, we have learned that we have several things in common. He comes from a dairy farm, and so do I. I represent the riding of Beauport—Limoilou, which is home to a port and where there are procurement projects happening, and he spoke a lot about supply chains. I am pleased because in order for businesses in a region like Chicoutimi to prosper and, more importantly, invest, they need predictability. From what I can see, Bill C-39 will give them more predictability. I would like my colleague to elaborate on the importance of the supply chain and supply chain predictability for businesses in his riding. I would like him to tell us how that relates to this bill.”

“It takes too long to build things in Canada, and projects that take eight to ten years always fail. This bill helps us build faster. I want the member to tell us what she would do instead to speed up projects.”

“Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to my colleague’s speech, which could be summed up quickly in one phrase: status quo. What is being sought here is the status quo or, as the saying goes, doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. My colleague talked about a crisis. She said it was the crisis that brought this to light. Yes, the crisis may have highlighted the inefficiencies of the construction sector in Canada. Just building has become difficult. Now we want to build faster because, when it comes to predictability in contracts, projects that take eight to 10 years to get off the ground always end up failing. I would perhaps invite my colleague to read an interesting book by Ezra Klein called Abundance, which highlights this point. The question I would like to ask my colleague is this: What would she change? What specific measures would she include in a bill to speed up projects?”

“Businesses need to know how long project approvals will take so they can invest here. This bill speeds up those approvals. I want my colleague to talk about what our government has done this year to help trade, and how this bill will help Canada.”

“Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her very important speech on Bill C-39. She talked a lot about market diversification. As we know, the government has signed more than 20 agreements over the past year. She also talked about grain, which is actually shipped through my riding. We also heard about the importance of speeding up projects, and she mentioned a company in her riding that does business around the world. I have noticed the same thing: Some businesses want to invest more and are asking for more predictability. Often, that predictability is measured in time. Bill C‑39 will actually help things move faster and will give businesses the predictability they need to invest and attract more investment here. I would like my colleague to talk about what the government has done over the past year. I would also like to hear her thoughts on what Bill C‑39 will enable the government and Canada to do.”

“This bill will help us build things across Canada more quickly, which will help people in the member's riding. I want to know if she will vote for it.”

“Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech. I know that it can take a long time to prepare a speech for the House. I thought her speech was extremely interesting, because it really reflected the spirit of Bill C-39. This bill will make it possible to build Canada strong quickly. I think it responds to the wants and needs of her constituents. In light of what I heard in my colleague’s speech, I would like to know if, when the time comes, she plans to vote in favour of the bill so we can act faster for the people in her riding.”

“Other parties say our government does not want change, but that is not true. We have supported big local projects, like building icebreakers and shipping terminals, as well as programs for families. I want my colleague to talk more about what our government has achieved since May 2025.”

“Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her very inspiring speech. I truly enjoyed it. It reminds me of the speech I gave two weeks ago. I particularly liked the part of her speech when she said that the status quo is not an option anymore. I often hear the other parties say that we favour the status quo on all decisions. However, since our new government has been in power, there have been a lot of decisions and a lot of projects. Can my colleague expand on that? She talked about the Davie icebreakers, which are built in my region. She talked about QSL, which is a container terminal project in Quebec City, and there are many others. Those decisions are more trade related, but some decisions have also been made that affect families. With that in mind, I would like her to talk to me about what the government has been doing since it was elected in May 2025.”

In response to a question from Dan Albas

“I want the House to pass this bill. It will speed up project reviews, which used to take up to eight years. We can review projects faster without lowering our standards, and this will help businesses plan better.”

“Mr. Speaker, I talked about something very important in my speech: the status quo. I have talked about it throughout my career, and I will keep talking about it. People often keep doing the same things while hoping to achieve different results. We introduced a bill. We want to do things differently. We want to speed up projects and provide predictability for investors. Doing things faster does not mean being less rigorous. We must always be rigorous. We can walk and chew gum at the same time, as they say. That is what the government is going to do. This will provide predictability for businesses and contractors, who will be able to pursue projects. The process used to take up to eight years, which is way too long, but it will go much faster now. We are doing the right thing. We are taking action, and that is what Canadians want.”

• 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 →
• Echo ×3

  A repeated line

  “We can walk and chew gum at the same time.”

  Said 3 times by 2 members since June 8.

  Every time it was said →

In response to a question from Élisabeth Brière

“Our long-term contract with the Davie shipyard supports 5,000 good jobs. It helps suppliers across Quebec invest in their businesses and gives families stability. This is the kind of support our government wants to provide.”

“Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent question. We were fortunate to be able to make that extraordinary announcement this summer after years and years of working with Davie, a real gem in our community. I worked in the Quebec City area as the president of the chamber of commerce. The Davie shipyard is located on the other side of the river, in Lévis. Most of its suppliers are from the Quebec City area. The rest of them are from the surrounding areas. I reviewed the list of all of the suppliers and they are from all over Quebec. An announcement like this has a direct impact on a community like Lévis. We are talking about 5,000 workers, 5,000 good jobs. That gives those families predictability because these are long-term contracts. It provides predictability for Davie over the very long term. It will enable business owners to invest in their companies to supply Davie. This is the kind of thing that the government wants to do and that people need.”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 43 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

“I want the House to pass this bill. Slow rules make it too hard to build big projects in Canada. This bill speeds up federal approvals to within one year, improves our ports, and protects the environment at the same time.”

“Mr. Speaker, my story is almost finished. My colleague will be able to put it to good use and I will get back to Bill C-39 very soon. What the people at that organization told me is worth remembering. The second student job position really helped get volunteers some time off, time for their first-ever vacation. Let that sink in for a second. Having one extra person made it possible for volunteers to take some vacation time. What we do here has a real impact in our communities. I wanted to highlight that at the start of my speech today. Now, I would like to get back to Bill C-39, the building Canada strong act, under discussion today. I want to begin by referring to a book published in 2025, which I am sure will call to mind Bill C-39 for my colleagues. In the book Abundance, by Ezra Klein and Derek Thompson, one of the questions the authors ask is why a country as rich and technologically advanced as our southern neighbour currently struggles to build enough housing, infrastructure, energy and other essential goods. To some degree, I think we all see some similarity to the challenges facing Canada today. The authors argue that part of the problem is the rules, procedures and institutions that, over time, have made delivering major projects much slower and much more difficult. They therefore advocate for placing greater emphasis on our ability to produce, build and deliver. In short, this means shifting from a policy focused primarily on distributing resources to one that also seeks to increase supply, ramp up our production capacity and boost our ability to build. At this point, I think it is fair to draw a parallel between that analysis and what we are proposing in Bill C‑39 to build Canada strong. I am sure all of my colleagues have heard the old saying about doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. We need to do things differently. We need to think differently. Anyone who believes we can keep doing exactly the same things and suddenly achieve different results is sticking their head in the sand. That is choosing inaction. That is choosing the status quo, and the status quo is a choice. Changing nothing is a choice. Leaving things the way they are is a choice. We must move away from this mindset and regain our ability to build. We are capable of building more, with greater ambition, and more quickly. Let us take an example from our history: the St. Lawrence Seaway. Major construction work began in 1954, and the Seaway was officially opened to navigation in 1959. It took five years to build the Montreal-Lake Ontario section, which spans approximately 300 kilometres of waterways. It was not just a matter of digging a canal. It required building locks, constructing canals, erecting dams, carrying out major dredging work, modifying bridges and relocating infrastructure. Continuing westward, Montreal is about 600 kilometres from Lake Erie by waterway via Lake Ontario and the Welland Canal. The entire waterway network connecting the St. Lawrence to the heart of the Great Lakes stretches over 2,000 kilometres. Just think about that for a moment. In the 1950s, in just a few years, we were able to carry out one of the greatest infrastructure projects of our time, and we did a significant portion of the work right here at home in Canada. We built, we thought big, and we transformed our economy. The question we need to ask ourselves today is simple. Can we still build with that same ambition? I believe that Bill C‑39 invites us to reflect on this question and, above all, to regain the ability to complete major projects for future generations of Canadians. What does that mean in concrete terms? First, it means making our approval processes for major projects more predictable. These days, when a business, community or proponent wants to build a major project, they often have to navigate multiple processes and steps that might overlap and make the work more complex. It can take longer to get results. Bill C-39 proposes to better coordinate these processes so that decisions on projects requiring a federal permit can be made within one year. Let me be clear. We do not have to choose between upholding Canada’s strong environmental protections and streamlining the project review process. We can and must do both. We can be ambitious and rigorous at the same time. I cannot help but immediately think of my region, the Quebec City region, and specifically the Port of Québec, which plays an important role in our regional economy and our trade with the rest of the world. Bill C‑39 proposes to modernize the governance of Canadian ports, reduce certain administrative burdens and facilitate the digitization of trade. The bill also designates strategic trade corridors and establishes a transportation project office to better coordinate federal permits and advance priority projects. A product manufactured in Quebec does not only create value when it leaves the factory. It must then be efficiently transported to a port, a railway or the border and on to new markets. An efficient supply chain is essential to enabling our businesses to grow and innovate. At a time when Canada is looking to diversify its trade and reduce its dependence on certain markets, this capability becomes even more important. We have signed 20 trade agreements over the past year. We must now honour our commitments. This is what building Canada strong means in practical terms. It means enabling a business to carry out a project. It means enabling a port to operate more efficiently. It means enabling our products to reach new markets. It means providing future generations with the infrastructure, jobs and opportunities they will need. Canada has the resources, the talent, the workers, the businesses and the communities capable of achieving great things. Our challenge is not knowing whether we have the capacity to build. Our challenge is equipping ourselves with the means to do just that, the means to realize our ambitions. We need to simplify where we can simplify, coordinate where we can coordinate better, protect what we need to protect. Above all, we need to rediscover our collective ability to build Canada strong.”

In response to a question from Elizabeth May

“I met with many groups in my riding this summer. Government funding for summer student jobs is helping these local groups do their work.”

“Mr. Speaker, as the parliamentary session begins, I would like to take this opportunity to wish you and all my colleagues well, along with the many parliamentary employees who make our work here in the House possible, day in and day out. I am very pleased to see everyone again after a great summer in my riding of Beauport—Limoilou. Over the past few months, I have met with over 50 organizations and businesses in my riding and participated in various activities and festivities in my community. Before I speak to Bill C-39, the building Canada strong act, I want to take a moment to tell you about an experience I had this summer in my riding. It shines a light on the importance of our work as MPs, whether here, in Ottawa, or through programs that directly affect our communities, like the Canada summer jobs program. I met with more than 30 organizations this summer that participate in this program. I can guarantee one thing: The program is making a real difference on the ground. People from one of the organizations I visited told me that they had been asking for two student job positions for a number of years but, unfortunately, they always received only one. This year, we made sure that they got two. I would like to repeat what the people at this organization told me. They told me that the second position would let them give their volunteers some time off—”

• Off topic
  ?

  Question or comment in debate

  Relevance 0 of 100

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

  See full analysis →
• Little substance
  ?

  Question or comment in debate

  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 →

In response to a question from Kevin Lamoureux

“I want federal money spent at home in Quebec City. The government is investing $2.75 billion in our tramway and $2 billion in housing. These public investments attract private money to help build Canada.”

“Mr. Speaker, when I entered into politics, I wanted to do the same thing I did in the private sector. I wanted the money to be spent here at home. I am from Quebec City. Beauport—Limoilou is in Quebec City. The important thing is that the spending happens here. Now I work at the federal level. The money needs to come back here and be spent here. I am pleased to see the government investing here, in our infrastructure, for the future of our children. We need to plan for short-, medium-, and long-term investments. That is what we are doing. There are announcements regarding the long term. There are announcements regarding the medium term. There are announcements regarding the shorter term. I am thinking of the Quebec City tramway. That is $2.75 billion invested right here at home, which will also lead to billions of dollars in housing investment. In fact, $2 billion have already been earmarked. Government investments attract private investment, and that is how we build Canada.”

In response to a question from Xavier Barsalou-Duval

“The Bloc Québécois just complains instead of offering ideas. They did not propose any changes to this bill, and they voted against it. Our party actually made proposals and suggested changes that the opposition voted for.”

“Mr. Speaker, I will start with the first part of his question. He mentioned la-la land. What I find funny is that I get the impression he was talking to himself. Here is what I took from the Bloc Québécois after watching them during the debate on Bill C-30: They spent all their time complaining, but made no proposals. The Bloc Québécois did not table any amendments during consideration of Bill C-30. It did not table any amendments, yet spent all its time voting against the measures. It voted in favour of some measures and against others, but it voted against the final outcome. It did not put forward any proposals. We, on the other hand, are in the real world. We have put forward proposals. We have even tabled amendments which the opposition voted for.”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 9 of 100

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

  See full analysis →