Building Canada Strong Act

Bill C-39, Building Canada Strong Act · Second reading · now at committee in the House Where it stands

What Bill C-39 would do

The bill would set one-year deadlines for impact assessments of major energy projects, including pipelines, power lines, and offshore renewables, once required information is submitted. It would also allow the federal government to designate trade corridors, adjust port governance and rail switching rules, and let electronic documents replace paper records for trade. In addition, the bill would introduce new collective bargaining rules and timelines under the Canada Labour Code, along with changes to environmental reviews and fisheries offsetting fees.

Official text (opens in a new tab)

86 statements

Dan Muys, Flamborough—Glanbrook—Brant North

Conservative
“Conservatives support Alberta and we supported this bill. But out of 500 projects sent to the government office, none have started construction. I want the minister to give an exact date when any of these projects will actually begin.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, let me just say at the outset that, having lived and worked in Alberta for 10 years in my private sector career prior to this place and my wife being born and raised in southern Alberta, all Conservatives certainly support a strong Alberta within a united Canada, and I thank the member for her comments. We on this side of the House stood and supported Bill C-5. I am on the transport and infrastructure committee. We supported the passage of that bill in an expeditious fashion. However, there have been 500 projects brought forward to the Major Projects Office, and very few have inched along. In fact, there are none where we see any shovels in the ground. I would ask the minister to give an exact date when we will we see a project from the Major Projects Office with a shovel in the ground.

Eleanor Olszewski, Minister of Emergency Management and Community Resilience and Minister responsible for Prairies Economic Development Canada

Liberal
“Our Major Projects Office is working quickly with the provinces. We signed several agreements with Alberta for the Pacific link project in a very short time. We also have other major projects already under construction.”
  • 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
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, we have seen with the MOU with Alberta how quickly we can collaborate and work with other provinces to make sure that, through the Major Projects Office, projects can go through to fruition. Just as an example, the Pacific link project is a very complicated megaproject. In a very short period of time, relatively speaking, that project has moved through five or six different agreements with the Province of Alberta, culminating in the announcement on October 1 with the conditions that will be attached to that project to be put in place a year from now, which is actually an incredible timeline. You asked the question with respect to which projects have shovels in the ground already, and certainly Contrecoeur and the Mackenzie Valley pipeline—

Sébastien Lemire, Abitibi—Témiscamingue

Bloc Québécois
“I oppose this bill. There is no real emergency to rush it through. It lets the government ignore local communities, the environment, Indigenous rights, and workers whenever it labels a project as a national interest.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the speech by the member for Edmonton Centre, and I have serious doubts about the notion of people power, particularly when looking at her title. She is the Minister responsible for Prairies Economic Development Canada, fair enough, but she is also the Minister of Emergency Management and Community Resilience. We can all agree there is no real emergency here though, because Donald Trump’s presidency is likely to have been long over before a single drop flows from the new pipeline. As for the “community resilience” part, that really fascinates me. It is like an honoris causa for someone honourable. I do not understand the point of it, especially if the aim of the bill is to steamroll these communities, whether in terms of environmental rights, indigenous peoples’ rights, workers’ rights or the people’s right to be consulted. If a region is declared to be of national interest, the authorities can steamroll anything they want. What, then, is the point of a Minister of Emergency Management and Community Resilience?

Eleanor Olszewski, Minister of Emergency Management and Community Resilience and Minister responsible for Prairies Economic Development Canada

Liberal
“I want this bill to pass. It speeds up project approvals without weakening environmental rules or our duty to consult Indigenous peoples. Right now, decisions take 10 to 15 years, which scares away investors.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 100 of 100

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

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I apologize. Sorry, my French is quite poor. Therefore, I will answer in English. This bill would in no way detract from our obligation to consult with indigenous peoples, nor would it change anything about environmental laws and protections. What it would do is remove duplication and a series of permitting, regulations and processes that do not proceed concurrently but sequentially. Projects in this country cannot take 10 to 15 years for there to be a decision because no one will ever want to invest in this country or in any project at all.

Kevin Lamoureux, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Liberal
“We opened the Major Projects Office in Alberta a year ago, and it is already handling about two dozen projects. I want the minister to explain why this office and these projects are important.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, about a year ago, the government established and opened the Major Projects Office, which is located in the minister’s home province. I think a couple of dozen projects that have already been forwarded to the Major Projects Office. I would ask the minister to provide her thoughts on the importance of having it in Alberta and on the projects themselves.

Eleanor Olszewski, Minister of Emergency Management and Community Resilience and Minister responsible for Prairies Economic Development Canada

Liberal
“We have 27 major projects moving forward across the country, not just in Alberta. Our goal is to grow the economy in every region while protecting the environment and respecting Indigenous rights.”
  • 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
  • Reply to a debate question

    Signal 37 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
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, with respect to projects moving forward through the Major Projects Office, I believe the number at the present time is 27, and that includes projects from not just Alberta but all across the country. As a government, and we have heard the Prime Minister say this from day one when he was elected, we are committed to building Canada strong and making sure that all regions across the country can have economic prosperity, but to do so while respecting indigenous rights and environmental rules.

Judy A. Sgro, Humber River—Black Creek

Liberal
“I want the House to pass this bill. It speeds up the approval process for major building projects and trade routes while still protecting workers, the environment, and Indigenous rights.”
  • A repeated line

    “Changes to the Canada Labour Code will strengthen collective bargaining by helping parties address issues earlier, reach negotiated agreements and resolve disputes, while fully protecting the right to strike.”

    Said 3 times by 3 members since September 24.

    Every time it was said
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to add my comments on this very important piece of legislation today. As we reach a point where we would be moving forward on it, I am glad to have a chance to participate. As I indicated, I am pleased to rise today in support of Bill C-39, the one Canadian economy act. At a time when Canadians are facing profound economic uncertainty, this legislation represents a critical step towards building a stronger, more resilient and more prosperous Canada. The world is changing rapidly. Long-standing assumptions about global trade, supply chains and economic partnerships can no longer be taken for granted. Around the world, countries are reassessing their economic security, looking for reliable partners and working to strengthen their ability to weather external shocks that we hear about every day. In this new environment, Canada has a unique opportunity and it is imperative that we do not allow it to slip away. We are one of the very few countries in the world that possess all the ingredients necessary to succeed in this emerging economic reality. We have abundant natural resources. We have a highly skilled workforce. We have world-class innovators, researchers and entrepreneurs. We have strong democratic institutions, the rule of law and a culture of co-operation that is respected around the world everywhere, including in this House. Most important, we have the capacity not only to build a stronger future for ourselves, but to serve as a trusted partner to other nations that are seeking stable and reliable economic relationships, given the current situation with our partner to the south. As countries look to diversify supply chains and reduce vulnerabilities, Canada can help lead that way. We can strengthen our economic independence while deepening partnerships with like-minded nations. We can help build an international economy rooted in stability, integrity, prosperity and mutual respect. To seize that opportunity, we must be prepared to build. We must be able to develop our resources responsibly. We must be able to construct major infrastructure. We must be able to connect our producers to new markets and we also have to be able to do so at a pace that reflects the urgency of the moment. This is where Bill C-39 comes in. A critical component of this legislation would address one of Canada’s long-standing challenges: our ability to move important projects from proposals to construction in a timely and predictable manner. Canadians rightly expect strong oversight of major projects. They expect rigorous environmental assessments, which we intend to see continue. They expect meaningful consultation and partnership with indigenous communities, something that is very important to all of us here in the House. They expect transparency, accountability and responsible governance. These are not obstacles to progress. They are reflections of the values that define us all as Canadians. The challenge is not that Canada reviews projects. The challenge is that our review processes have too often become fragmented, duplicative and unpredictable. Projects that would create jobs, strengthen supply chains and improve Canada’s competitiveness have too frequently encountered delays that discourage investment and cause opportunities to be lost. Bill C-39 would address that challenge. Our government is creating a faster, more predictable and more coordinated system for project reviews, while fully maintaining the high standards that Canadians expect. The legislation would establish clearer, simpler and more predictable processes for project proponents and indigenous groups participating in consultations. It would provide investors with the certainty they need to put capital to work and have confidence to build in Canada. Through a more coordinated approach to federal approvals and a commitment to timely decisions, we would improve the efficiency of our diligence without compromising the values and protections that Canadians have entrusted us to uphold. That balance is essential. Investors need certainty, workers are looking for opportunity, and communities are looking for growth. Indigenous partners deserve meaningful engagement. Canadians need confidence that important projects are can be built responsibly and efficiently. Bill C-39 attempts to strike that balance. At the heart of every major project, every transportation corridor and every new economic opportunity are Canadian workers. Building a stronger Canada is not simply a matter of policy. It depends on the people who design, construct, operate and maintain the infrastructure that powers our economy. That is why our government would also be modernizing Canada’s labour framework and strengthening protections for workers in federally regulated industries. Changes to the Canada Labour Code would strengthen collective bargaining by helping parties address issues earlier, reach negotiated agreements and resolve disputes, while fully protecting the right to strike that we all respect and acknowledge. Additional measures would modernize labour protections to keep pace with the changing economy. The government would also add 100 new health and safety officers to increase inspection capacity, additional staff to help address complaints before the Canada Industrial Relations Board, and enhanced enforcement measures to crack down on worker misclassification. Together, these improvements would help build a modern, resilient and fair labour relations system that supports good jobs, stable workplaces and a stronger economy. Just as workers are essential to Canada’s future, so too are the transportation networks that connect our products, businesses and communities. Canada’s long-term economic strength depends on efficient trade corridors that link our producers to domestic and and international markets. Bill C-39 would help strengthen Canada’s trade corridors and their ports, move Canadian goods more efficiently, unlock new opportunities and build more resilient supply chains. The legislation would support the designation of strategic trade corridors, reduce bottlenecks, improve coordination of federal permitting and advance priority transportation projects, something that is way overdue. It would also modernize port governance, promote the digitization of trade processes, reduce unnecessary administrative burdens and create clearer and more predictable conditions for investment. These measures would help Canadian businesses grow, reach new markets and compete successfully in the global economy while maintaining high standards of safety, security and sustainability. Bill C-39 is about more than reducing red tape. It is about ensuring that Canada is ready for the realities of a changing world. It is about building infrastructure, supply chains, workforce, and regulatory systems that are needed to support the next generation of Canadian prosperity. At a time when nations around the world are searching for stability and reliable partners, Canada has an opportunity to lead. We have the resources. We have the talent. We have the expertise. We have the institutions. What is required now is the determination to act. That is what Bill C-39 is about.

Ellis Ross, Skeena—Bulkley Valley

Conservative
“The Trans Mountain pipeline went ahead without full agreement from every First Nation. Will the government demand 100% agreement from all First Nations for the Pacific Link pipeline?”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, my focus over the last 15 years has always been about indigenous consultation and the accommodation of aboriginal rights and title. The original Trans Mountain pipeline did not get 100% consent from all participating first nations, but the project still went ahead. For the Pacific link pipeline, will the government be pursuing 100% consent from all participating first nations?

Judy A. Sgro, Humber River—Black Creek

Liberal
“I agree with the member. Indigenous communities must always be included in these discussions, and we should make these decisions together as Canadians.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 47 of 100

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

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I share the member’s concerns. I believe that every member of the House shares the member’s concerns about ensuring that indigenous communities are at the table 100% of the time. Those discussions are heartfelt. The decisions that will be made should ultimately be made with all of them as a group, and as Canadians together.

Mario Beaulieu, La Pointe-de-l'Île

Bloc Québécois
“This bill permanently lets the government bypass environmental laws and regulations. We are in a climate emergency. Does my colleague agree that this bill will cause more climate disasters and cost the public more money?”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, Bill C‑5 allowed the government to circumvent at least 12 laws and seven environmental regulations. It had discretionary power to do so, which was limited to five years. Bill C‑39 removes that limit and makes permanent the ability to circumvent environmental laws. Does my colleague not agree that, at this stage, given that we are experiencing a climate emergency, this would lead to even more climate disasters, which would bring with it an enormous cost for public services?

Judy A. Sgro, Humber River—Black Creek

Liberal
“I support this bill. Even though it speeds up reviews, environmental protections stay in place. I trust the environment minister to protect our environment.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I believe that all of us have mutual concerns about protecting the environment regarding Bill C-5, Bill C-39 or any other legislation that goes forward that is expedited. However, at the same time, there are different ways of doing things, and I think a lot of the protections we have around the environment remain there and move forward. I am very confident, in hearing the Minister of the Environment, who is very keen on protecting the environment, that the things that would protect the environment as we move forward are in the bill.

Terry Beech, Burnaby North—Seymour

Liberal
“I want the member to explain why this bill must pass quickly to help our economy and create good, high-paying jobs.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member and I we were seatmates for almost a year and a half, and because of that, I know how experienced she is. In fact, she is one of the most experienced members of the House. We are in unprecedented times. I would like to hear the member’s reflections on something, given the vastness of her experience. If we talk about the speed at which the government is moving, the focus that we have in creating prosperity and creating good, high-paying jobs, what is the importance of that as it relates to this legislation?

Judy A. Sgro, Humber River—Black Creek

Liberal
“I support this bill. It takes too long to get projects approved in Canada, which scares away investment. We can protect the environment and still get things built much faster.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, let me say very clearly that I am so happy that Bill C-39 is moving forward. It will be 26 years next month that I have been here as a member of Parliament, and it takes forever to get anything done. There can be many great intentions, but it takes 10 years to get anything done here, and that is not the way we build a country. If I were to invest somewhere, I would want to invest somewhere where I know things are going to move along quickly. In past practice, over 26 years, everything that I thought would happen quickly, in one year, two years or three years, has taken years. It is overdiscussed and overprocessed. I am very glad that Bill C-39 is moving forward. We have to make sure we do things right, protect our interests and protect the environment, but I believe we can do it all at the same time.

Ellis Ross, Skeena—Bulkley Valley

Conservative
“A report said consultations with Indigenous people for the Pacific Link pipeline will last only two months. That is not enough time to properly respect their rights.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, in talking about indigenous consultation, there was a story that came out that said that the consultation for the Pacific link pipeline to Vancouver was going to be two months long. Does that reflect meaningful consultation of aboriginal rights and title?

Judy A. Sgro, Humber River—Black Creek

Liberal
“Two months is not enough time for consultation. I also do not trust most news or social media reports, because there is so much false information out there.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I just have to say to the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley that I was used to seeing someone else when the riding of Skeena—Bulkley Valley was mentioned, so it is nice to see the new member there. Two months is not sufficient. I also do not believe three-quarters to 90% of what I read in newspapers or on social media, because there is so much disinformation and wrong information that unless I know something 100%, I just dismiss it.

Glen Motz, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner

Conservative
“This bill promises to speed up major projects, but it adds too much red tape. Its promise to approve projects within one year is misleading because the government can pause or extend the clock. It also does not scrap the carbon tax or laws that block new pipelines. We need to approve projects faster, not create new government councils.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise and speak on behalf of the good people of Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner on an issue that greatly affects them as proud Canadians, as Albertans and certainly as concerned citizens. Bill C-39 is the latest attempt by the Liberal government to deliver on its promises to build the nation-building projects Canada desperately needs. We face an unpredictable trade situation abroad and an even less hospitable environment for our resources here at home. My constituents deserve certainty that the projects the Prime Minister promised, along with the jobs and economic opportunities they represent, will be given the green light without further delay or red tape. Conservatives have been taking the time to carefully examine this extensive bill. However, like most of the government’s legislation, its sweeping powers and lofty promises are overshadowed by a critical lack of results. Actions really do speak louder than words, as the government has yet to demonstrate that it can deliver on the commitments it has already made. Canadians are left, therefore, to wonder if Bill C-39 would actually create the change we have been patiently waiting for. The bill claims to address long-standing structural barriers that are impeding investment and productivity. It also purports to increase our capacity to meet the demands of new and expanding trade opportunities. In preparation for this bill, the government said, it conducted a series of consultations from April to August of this year. It met with indigenous Canadians, the provinces and territories, and other key stakeholders. The Liberals claim that it drafted Bill C-39 in line with the priorities their consultations identified. Those consultations revealed several priorities that Conservatives have actually long championed. Canadians support stronger trade corridors while keeping safeguards in place. This would include a stronger hand for indigenous communities in governing trade corridors, protecting the environment, reducing barriers for indigenous employment and speeding up approvals. They also want one-year approval time limits through coordinated project reviews, one Crown consultation process, the designation of regions of national interest, and one final ministerial decision, all while maintaining environmental standards and indigenous rights. This has largely been the Conservative plan since before the escalation of the current trade war. While we are thankful that the government has so frequently stolen our ideas, all is not what it seems. As with much of the government’s legislation, what may appear to be common sense comes with strings attached. In the case of Bill C-39, the pattern is no different. The Liberals have chosen to inject an unhealthy dose of red tape and bureaucracy into a process that should be industry-led and results-driven. Like Bill C-5 before it, Bill C-39 would do absolutely nothing to repeal the “no more pipelines” bill, Bill C-69; the west coast tanker ban, Bill C-48; the industrial carbon tax; and other federal obstacles that block or penalize development. Let us examine the proposed creation of the so-called national trade corridor council, for instance. While the government presents it as a mechanism for improving coordination between ports, railways, trucking, airports and other transportation providers, the Railway Association of Canada has raised concerns that the council could introduce unnecessary bureaucracy and government interference in supply chain operations. Let us think about that. At a time when the government says it wants to reduce red tape, attract investment and get goods moving faster, it is proposing a new layer of government oversight through yet another federal council. The question is not whether Canada needs more efficient trade corridors. Of course it does. The question is whether creating another advisory body is the answer, when it would have no direct authority to resolve the problems it has identified. Canadians have heard those promises before. They deserve results, not another announcement of a committee that would study the problems everybody already knows exist. The Leader of the Opposition likened the bill to a case of déjà vu, and for good reason. Just over a year ago, we debated Bill C-5, the One Canadian Economy Act. The Prime Minister told Canadians that this legislation would cut through red tape, accelerate approvals and allow us to build major projects at speeds not seen in generations, yet here we are, debating another sweeping piece of legislation promising to deliver what the last one failed to achieve. Canadians are asking a simple question: If the government already had the tools to build the projects through Bill C-5, why has it accomplished so little, and why is it back in Parliament asking for further powers through Bill C-39? As with its predecessor, we have every reason to believe this bill will do little to move the needle. Its promise of one project, one decision in one year is not as advertised. The clock only starts once the proponent has completed the work necessary to satisfy the government’s requirements. The time spent preparing that application, navigating preliminary requirements and addressing outstanding information requests is not captured in the one-year promise. Even when the clock starts, the legislation provides mechanisms for timelines to be paused or extended, including when additional information or consultation is required. In effect, the one-year timeline does not necessarily represent the total time a project will spend navigating the federal approval process. Canadians should not assume that the one-year promise means that a project will receive a decision within one year of entering the federal system, and the government should not advertise it as such either. It may even result in serious ramifications. When a company cannot obtain timely decisions in Canada, it does not necessarily wait indefinitely. It may invest elsewhere. The jobs, tax revenue, supply chain opportunities and economic activity that would have accompanied that investment can go, along with that company, and once those opportunities are lost, no amount of legislation can guarantee that they will return. We have seen the real-world effects of a persistent antidevelopment posture in Ottawa. The government turned away $70 billion in investment from the UAE because Canada supposedly has a lack of projects available for investment. Even with the powers at its disposal to approve national projects, a decade of Liberal antidevelopment laws, delays and uncertainty has severely damaged our ability to get shovels in the ground so that Canadians can benefit from investment in our country. Canada can get nation building right. Conservatives have done it before and know what it takes. Through a one-and-done plan involving one project, a one-page application form and one approval, the previous Conservative government saw 23,500 projects through from concept to completion in under two years, with no environmental mishaps and no public safety issues. That is what decisive leadership and a results-driven approach can accomplish. Canadians know the Conservative position has been consistent. Through our economic action plan, we would green-light the 500 projects awaiting federal permits, end the industrial carbon tax and repeal the job-killing antidevelopment laws that have hampered our country for years. Our approach is simple. We are considering Bill C-39 and every other piece of legislation in the context of whether it builds a country that is affordable, delivers stronger paycheques and supports an economy that protects jobs and rewards hard work. Bill C-39 may contain measures worthy of consideration. Conservatives will examine those measures carefully, because our objective has not changed. We want to see projects approved, shovels in the ground and Canadians at work. Our economy cannot rely on a continuous cycle of announcements, empty promises and disappointments. Canada has an abundance of the resources the world needs. We have the expertise to develop them responsibly, the workforce to build the infrastructure and the geographic advantages to serve markets around the globe. What we need is a federal government that can translate those advantages into results. The government has already had the opportunity to deliver on the promise of Bill C-5. Until Canadians see those results, they are entitled to question whether Bill C-39 represents a genuine change in direction or simply another chapter in the same story.

Marcus Powlowski, Thunder Bay—Rainy River

Liberal
“The port of Thunder Bay and the Great Lakes shipping routes are not being used nearly enough. Would improving these trade routes help both Alberta and Ontario?”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, a few weeks ago, I was at the port of Thunder Bay and saw these giant windmill blades that were on their way to Alberta through the port of Thunder Bay. However, the port of Thunder Bay is underutilized and the Great Lakes St. Lawrence Seaway is functioning at only 50% capacity. Alberta grain has long gone through Thunder Bay, but there is basically no container traffic on the Great Lakes. Does the member think some attention to the national trade corridors would be to the benefit of Alberta and the people of Thunder Bay in Ontario?

Glen Motz, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner

Conservative
“Our rail lines and ports are backed up, especially in Vancouver. We need better shipping routes for our farmers and manufacturers, but I doubt this government will actually fix the problem.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 100 of 100

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

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, absolutely. We have been saying for years that the trade corridors are critical. The rail lines are backed up. The ports are backed up. Vancouver’s is, especially. Improving access to markets for our producers, farmers and manufacturers is critical. The issue is whether it will happen.

Mario Beaulieu, La Pointe-de-l'Île

Bloc Québécois
“I want to know if the member sees any value in studying a project's impact on the environment, or if he thinks it only delays projects.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I listened to my colleague’s remarks. I wonder, does he see any value in environmental assessments or does he think it is just a way of delaying projects?

Glen Motz, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner

Conservative

Linked statement

“Environmental reviews are necessary to protect nature now and in the future. But we can do them faster without hurting the environment. The government takes too long to finish them.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, that is an interesting question. The whole idea behind an environmental assessment is to ensure that the proponent in a project takes into equal consideration not only the impact that project will have on the environment immediately, but the long-term impacts it might have on the environment. My assumption is that those assessments are absolutely necessary. They should not be shortchanged. However, they can be done with more speed to them and without causing a significant impact on the environment, if any. I cannot speak for the government. I will not speak for the government. I do not know how it assesses its environmental impacts, but I am left to wonder whether they actually get done in a timely manner as well as they could or should.

Discussion

No comments yet

See the full discussion

Comment rules

More from sitting 145

  1. PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS Criminal Code 11 statements
  2. Government Orders Building Canada Strong Act 64 statements
  3. Oral Questions The Economy 6 statements
  4. Oral Questions The Environment 2 statements
  5. Oral Questions Housing 4 statements
  6. Oral Questions The Economy 8 statements
  7. Oral Questions Taxation 2 statements
  8. Oral Questions Justice 10 statements
  9. Oral Questions The Economy 2 statements
  10. Oral Questions Steel and Aluminum Industry 8 statements
  11. Oral Questions Agriculture and Agri-Food 4 statements
  12. Oral Questions The Economy 2 statements
  13. Oral Questions Public Services and Procurement 4 statements
  14. Oral Questions Steel and Aluminum Industry 2 statements
  15. Oral Questions Foreign Affairs 2 statements
  16. Oral Questions Veterans Affairs 2 statements
  17. Oral Questions The Environment 2 statements
  18. Government Orders Building Canada Strong Act 86 statements
  19. Oral Questions Seniors 4 statements
  20. Oral Questions Steel and Aluminum Industry 6 statements
  21. Oral Questions Steel and Aluminum Industry 4 statements
  22. Oral Questions The Economy 2 statements
  23. Adjournment Proceedings Adjournment Proceedings 4 statements
  24. Adjournment Proceedings Adjournment Proceedings 4 statements
  25. Adjournment Proceedings Adjournment Proceedings 4 statements
  26. Oral Questions Natural Resources 2 statements
  27. Oral Questions The Economy 2 statements