“I want Canada to build major projects like pipelines, ports, and power lines, but this bill will not do that. For 11 years, the government has used bad rules to block projects. Now they are adding more red tape instead of getting rid of it. This bill lets ministers delay project decisions forever. We do not need a new law. We need to cancel the old laws that stopped building in the first place.”

“Mr. Speaker, it is good to be back in the House of Commons debating legislation. That is what we are elected to do. That is what we are in the House for. It is good to be here and talking about Bill C-39. The Liberals call it the building Canada strong act, which rings similar to a similar bill we dealt with about a year ago. I will maybe have time to come back to that, but I will start by saying that of course we agree, or that I agree, with the stated premise of the bill, which is to enable Canada to build things, to build Canada stronger. That is certainly something that I not only very deeply believe needs to be done but also that is pretty consistent with what I have spent the last 11 years talking about. At the moment, to be sure, we are confronted with an unprovoked, unjustified, deeply damaging and unnecessary trade war with the United States. We did not choose it. It is not something that Canada chose, but it is the moment we find ourselves in. However, the issues around this, around the necessity of building major projects and building our country back up again, have very deep roots. We have been talking about this for 11 years. We have spent the last 11 years being unprepared for this moment. Before I go too much further, I will say that I am going to share my time with the member for Edmonton Southeast. As I said, we did not choose to be in a trade war with the United States. We did not choose to have our country economically attacked, but for the last 11 years, the government has left us unprepared for the moment. I was elected in 2015, and that year, the very first thing the government did was cancel the northern gateway pipeline. The Liberals are saying today, “If only we had a west coast pipeline.” There was a west coast pipeline approved and already on their desk the minute they took office. The first thing they did, by ministerial order, was cancel it: 525,000 barrels a day. At today’s price, that is $50 million a day in economic activity, $20 billion a year. An hon. member: Oh, oh! Pat Kelly: Mr. Speaker, I am being heckled by the member for Winnipeg North, who says that there was something misleading in that statement. There is nothing misleading. That is exactly what happened. There was a conditional approval that the Liberals rescinded by ministerial order, so here we are today without that pipeline. It would have been built years ago. In 2016, the Liberals introduced the carbon tax. They also spent 2016 failing to champion the Keystone XL pipeline, another one that has not been built. It was cancelled by Biden later on. The government did not champion it and did not see it through to get it built when it had the chance. In 2016, the Liberals chased off TransCanada PipeLines, which wanted to build the energy east pipeline. Not only did it abandon that pipeline because of changing regulatory goalposts, but it also changed its name to TC Energy because “TransCanada PipeLines” did not fit what it was doing. It had to move its business to build pipelines in Mexico and the United States, where the opportunities were. That is the legacy of the government. I am up only to 2016. In 2017, the Liberals brought in the clean fuel regulations, which is a misnomer. It is really just a tax on fuel. In 2018, they brought in Bill C-48, which banned shipping traffic on the northwest B.C. coast. Again, we are talking about wishing we could export our products to the Asian market at full global price. The Liberals passed a law banning the shipping traffic to be able to do that. In 2019, Bill C-69 became law. We all know what Bill C-69 is. It is the “no more pipelines” bill. That was what they passed. There have been no major pipeline applications under that law. They even made changes to the Fisheries Act that made it impossible to get a hydro project approved. We heard about that at the natural resources committee yesterday. The head of WaterPower Canada told the committee that under the 2019 changes to the Fisheries Act, it is impossible to get a hydro project approved in Canada. The Liberals will not even allow hydro projects to go forward under the current government. In 2022, Prime Minister Trudeau told the world that there was no business case for Canadian LNG to Europe. In a way, he was right, but the reason there was no business case was because of all the red tape and regulation, which the government imposed, that killed the business case. So, yes, we need to build Canada. If only we had spent the last 11 years building Canada, we would not be in such a precarious position today. We agree with the government that we need to build things. Major projects need to be built, and it is not just oil and gas. I have spent a lot of time talking about pipelines, which is a really important one, but there are terrible deficiencies in our ports. We have among the worst ports in the world for efficiency. We have everything from ports to rail, airports, electrical transmission lines, etc. We have a need for major projects, and so we do support this stated purpose to build Canada. It is funny that the fanfare with which the bill before us was tabled rings familiar, which is because the Liberals said many of the same things they said about 18 months ago when Parliament first sat following the last election. It was last spring, in June, that they passed Bill C-5. It was a bill that Conservatives supported a little reluctantly, because it granted extraordinary powers to ministers to interfere politically and cherry-pick and decide politically which projects they wanted to exempt from their own laws that they had passed. It was not quite the approach for us. We would rather they stripped away all these bad laws, but we said, “Look, we have to build something. If this is a way to get something done, we will support it”, and we did. Here we are, a year later, no major projects approved and no shovels in the ground. It did not seem to make any difference. Now, we have this latest bill that is more about bureaucratic structures than getting shovels in the ground. This is a 250-page bill the Liberals dumped on Tuesday afternoon, a little less than 72 hours ago, and so I have not gone through all 250 pages with a fine-tooth comb. We are going to take the time to make sure that we understand the bill fully, but part of what I understand about it is the movement from the Impact Assessment Act to the Canadian Energy Regulator on certain projects, which is probably not a bad idea. The structure of Bill C-69 was there to kill projects. The idea that the bill before us would give certainty to industry is quite misleading. The bill would give ministers the power, but would not compel them to make a decision within a year. It would give them the latitude to hit the pause button on how long that year takes. It would give them the power to extend the year. It would give the power to say, “No, I’m going to take extra time.” This is not going to give the certainty that industry needs. We heard yesterday at the natural resources committee about how important it is to have regulatory certainty. Regulatory uncertainty makes the country uninvestable, and we have seen investment flee this country under this government. We do not need new laws. We do not need summits. We do not need announcements. We do not need speeches. We do not need vague MOUs. We do not need photo op signings. We do not need slush funds under political control. We do not need corporate welfare. We simply need to undo the approach that, for 11 years, has prevented major projects from going ahead in Canada. We need major projects. We need pipelines. We needed pipelines 10 years ago, 11 years ago, and we need them now. We need better roads. We need better ports. We need better infrastructure. We need all these things, and we are still waiting.”

“More investment money has left Canada than entered under the Liberals. Their bad rules scared away the private company that wanted to build the Trans Mountain pipeline. The government bought it instead and spent five times more than planned to finish it. The Conservatives left a balanced budget, a strong middle class, and two approved pipelines, and the Liberals ruined it.”

“Mr. Speaker, there is a lot to unpack there. The Liberals never talk about the investment outflows when they talk about inflows. The net has been an outflow of this country under this government. I am really glad that the member brought up Trans Mountain, because I had meant to and did not quite have enough time. The Trans Mountain pipeline was a pipeline that a private builder would have built. They started under this government, and the regulatory uncertainty chased Kinder Morgan out of Canada. That is what happened. The government nationalized the project and built it at a 500% overrun of what was projected. That is the Liberals’ approach on building pipelines. The Harper government bequeathed the government a balanced budget. The New York Times described Canada as having the most wealthy middle class in the world and two approved pipelines, and the Liberal government blew it.”

“Public money should not have to support private projects. The government's unclear rules have scared private investment away from the energy sector for 11 years.”

“Mr. Speaker, I agree with much of what the member said. I do not think it is a good thing that the public money has to prop up any private project that would otherwise, in a proper regulatory environment that had clear criteria, make it investable. I do not agree with the government’s approach. I do not agree that it has had the right approach on infrastructure at all. I could go on. I could talk about the failure of the Infrastructure Bank. The Liberal government has chased private capital out of energy during its 11 years in office.”

“The government promised to build things quickly, but all they did was add the word strong to this bill's name. I want to ask my colleague if that word is the only thing the Liberals have built in the last 18 months.”

“Mr. Speaker, my colleague just delivered an informative, excellent speech. Some hon. members: Oh, oh! Burton Bailey: Mr. Speaker, members can laugh all they want. The Liberal government’s Bill C-5 would create the Building Canada Act, and it was to build at speeds like nothing we have seen before. Bill C-39 adds the word “strong”. I would like to ask my hon. colleague if that word is the only thing that the Liberal government has built in the last 18 months.”

“The government talks a lot about building things, but it does not actually build them.”

“Mr. Speaker, that is about right. Sooner or later, the government is going to be confronted with the fact that there is a difference between saying something and doing something. What we have seen from the government is a lot of speeches, announcements, photo ops and words, but not so many shovels in the ground.”

• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 100 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

“I do not trust this bill to get major projects built faster. The government made the same promise in an earlier bill, but it achieved nothing. Making new offices and more paperwork does not cut red tape or end bans on shipping oil. Delays in approving projects cost jobs and push young Canadians to leave the country. We want six-month approvals, fewer rules, and an end to the oil tanker ban.”

“Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of the people of Edmonton Southeast to debate Bill C-39, legislation that the government says would get Canada building. Conservatives will judge this bill by whether it saves Canadians money, protects their jobs and delivers the projects our country needs. In my previous career as a lawyer, I understood that my clients depended on outcomes. Whether I was advocating for a favourable judgment or negotiating a successful settlement, my responsibility was to advance their interests and deliver a meaningful result. My clients needed more than assurances that I was working on their files. They needed to know what the progress was and what that meant for them. Canadians should expect the same accountability from the government. The government works for its people and they are entitled to judge it by the results. More than a year ago, the Liberals introduced Bill C-5, promising to accelerate major projects, yet, more than a year later, the Building Canada Act still contains no designated national interest projects. Now, the Liberal government is asking Canadians to place their confidence in a nearly 250-page omnibus bill. Canadians deserve an explanation of why the previous legislation has not delivered the promised designations and why this legislation would produce a different outcome. In my legal practice, another stack of paperwork would not, on its own, demonstrate progress for a client. It should not be the measure of success in government either. That is why we must look beyond the title of this bill and examine how it would actually change the approval system. Bill C-39 would create a transportation project office, a national trade corridors council and a new framework for regions of national interest. Coordination can be useful, but creating new offices and frameworks would not necessarily eliminate regulatory issues. A faster approval system should clearly identify who is responsible for a decision, coordinate overlapping federal reviews and provide stakeholders with a predictable path through the process. The real test would be whether these changes actually reduce red tape and shorten the time it takes to reach a final decision. These delays have consequences beyond the walls of this chamber. A project awaiting a decision represents potential contracts for suppliers, apprenticeship for young workers and income for families. When those opportunities remain uncertain, people must make decisions about their futures. This is especially important for younger Canadians. Statistics Canada routinely reports that thousands of Canadians move abroad each year. In 2021, the majority of Canadians leaving the country were between 20 and 44 years old, many of whom moved down to the United States. People leave for many reasons, and we should respect their freedom to pursue opportunities elsewhere, but as MPs, we should be deeply concerned when Canada cannot offer a competitive future to the people we have educated and trained. An engineering graduate needs a company willing to hire. An apprentice needs a project that will provide steady work. When investment is delayed, the opportunities attached to it are delayed too. For families in Edmonton Southeast, the stakes are personal. Parents want their children to build successful lives without having to move away to find the opportunities they need. Canada should be a country where ambition has room to grow. That requires a government that understands the connection between investment, employment and the ability to build a free life here. Conservatives have proposed a clear approach: approve projects within six months, repeal antidevelopment laws brought in through Bill C-69 and Bill C-48, adopt “one project, one review”, set clear requirements, coordinate the process and deliver a predictable decision. Bill C-39 promotes a one-year decision timeline for certain assessments, but that would depend upon the preassessments and determinations, both of which have no clear timelines. For the stakeholders involved in those projects, the preparation and review needed before that point still take time and money, something that this bill would not entirely address. We must examine whether these provisions produce greater certainty across the entire process. Businesses cannot plan their investments around a deadline that tells only part of the story. The same need for certainty applies to getting Canadian energy to market. This is where the government must address the tanker ban created through Bill C-48. The Oil Tanker Moratorium Act restricts large crude oil shipments through ports along British Columbia’s northern coast. For an oil export project that would rely on those ports, faster approval of pipelines would not itself resolve the separate restriction put by the tanker ban on the loading of its product onto ships. The government must explain how it promises faster development when it continues to leave export barriers in place. Investors need confidence that a complete project can operate from production to delivery to the customer. Bill C-39 would not repeal the tanker ban. Bill C-264, which was put forward by my hon. colleague from Calgary Signal Hill, directly addresses this issue. If the government wants to demonstrate it is serious about opening opportunities for Canadian energy, that is a concrete measure already before Parliament. For Alberta, access to markets means opportunities for people who build and maintain energy infrastructure and for the businesses that support them. Those opportunities matter in Edmonton Southeast. In closing, my experience as a lawyer taught me to keep the interests of people I represent at the centre of my work. I bring that same responsibility to the House. Canadians deserve opportunities they can build their lives around and a government that can demonstrate what it has accomplished on their behalf. Conservatives will review this legislation carefully and press for changes that deliver those results. The government has made its promises. Canadians are waiting for it to deliver.”

“The government needs to follow our economic plan. Major projects still take too long to get approved. Will this bill actually get projects built faster, or will it just add more red tape?”

“Mr. Speaker, Conservatives have said for years that the government needs to change its direction to help Canadians. We strongly suggest that it accepts the Conservative economic action plan. After more than a decade of Liberal promises, major projects still face lengthy approvals. Would Bill C-39 actually get projects built faster, or would it create another layer of federal bureaucracy?”

• Echo ×13

  A repeated line

  “After more than a decade of Liberal government.”

  Said 13 times by 11 members since May 7.

  Every time it was said →

“I do not support this bill. It just adds more government offices instead of getting things built. To build big projects, we need to get rid of existing Liberal laws like the tanker ban and the project assessment rules.”

“Mr. Speaker, this bill definitely leaves us with a number of questions. There is increasing bureaucracy, as I said in my speech. This bill would create three new offices that I have read about so far, and there may be more, but increasing offices itself is not going to deliver results. To deliver results, we need to get rid of Liberal laws that are standing in front of the intention of this bill, like the tanker ban and Bill C-69, so that we can build and deliver results.”

“The environment matters, but right now we must invest in the energy sector. We need to create jobs and grow the economy so Canadians can afford to live.”

“Mr. Speaker, with regard to my Bloc colleague’s comments, the environment is important for sure, but the need at this time is to invest in the energy sector, get jobs for Canadians and get money back into the economy so that people can afford to live again.”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 48 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

“I do not want this bill to pass. The government promised that its last building bill would get projects built fast, but zero new projects have been approved since then. This bill just creates more rules, agencies, and paper instead of building real energy and transit projects. Canada has huge amounts of oil and gas, but we still import oil from other countries. We need to stop adding bureaucracy and actually start building.”

“Mr. Speaker, this is for the viewers at home. The Liberal government introduced a 250-page bill. It said that Bill C-39 is just what we need now so Canada can finally start building energy and transportation projects. I thank them for not scrolling for a few minutes. This speech will feature Justin Trudeau, Katy Perry and a special appearance by Doug Ford. Time flies when we are having fun. It is hard to believe, but it has been 18 months since the election. I remember my first couple of days in Ottawa. We had the election of the Speaker, I took a shuttle with my commoner friends for the ceremonial tradition of being rejected by the Senate and saw His Majesty’s carriage arriving at the Senate. I also clearly remember the Prime Minister telling Canadians that all we needed to do was pass Bill C-5, the Building Canada Act, in order to start building at unimaginable speeds. He said that Bill C-5 was just what we needed to get Canada building. Conservatives worked with what was then a Liberal minority, and we passed Bill C-5 in five days. I was told Bill C-5 was going to fix all of our problems and eliminate the complex regulatory regime that got in the way of building projects. Here is a pop quiz. Since the passage of Bill C-5 at the commencement of this 45th Parliament, how many new projects have been built? It is zero. How many new projects, and I emphasize the word “new”, were approved? It is zero. It is because the Liberal government is all talk, no results, and all talk, no action. The Prime Minister talks a fancy game, but when it comes to building projects, he is just like Justin. What is Justin Trudeau’s new company called? It is called Hope & Hard Work. In this case, in Justin’s case, it is all hope. My Liberal friends accuse me all the time of having Justin live rent-free in my head. He is living rent-free on Katy’s yacht. Now, 18 months later, the Prime Minister is back from overseas and has tabled a 250-page bill and said that if we pass Bill C-39, we are going to start building. What changed? It was one word. Bill C-5 was the Building Canada Act; Bill C-39 is the building Canada strong act. To the fancy Liberal marketing consultants, how about some fresh material? Slogans do not build projects. Slogans do not build pipelines, energy corridors or transportation corridors. We should be the wealthiest country in the world because we are blessed with the greatest natural resources in the world. We have $30 trillion of proven reserves in natural resources. We have some of the world’s highest proven oil reserves. We have natural gas that could satisfy the crazy demand for electricity. We have rare earth minerals that everyone is chasing. We should all be living like a Saudi prince. Instead, Canada imports oil from Saudi Arabia. We import oil from Nigeria. Why are we shooting ourselves in the foot? Why do we not get out of our own way and start building? Other petroleum producers will not stop, and they pollute the environment. Canada has some of the best environmental practices in the world. Those who are passionate about the environment should support Canadian oil because it is much cleaner and better than Middle Eastern oil. We need to free our natural resources. We do not need this bill. We need the will to build. We need to free Canada’s oil and gas; that would mean more money in our pockets. This bill would not do it because the Liberals will not do it. They do not want to do it. They build nothing but bureaucracy. Since taking office, they built the Build Canada Homes agency and the Major Projects Office, the financial crimes agency is in the works, and there is the defence procurement agency. All they have built is offices inside office towers and then hired their friends. The Prime Minister is all talk, no results. What else do the Liberals claim they will build in this bill but will not build? It is transportation. For the life of me, I do not understand why we cannot build transportation in this country. Actually, I do understand. We need three levels of government and three levels of approvals, and there is always someone on vacation. I ran for provincial parliament almost a decade ago because one of my lifetime goals is to connect the Sheppard-Yonge subway station with the Sheppard West subway station. That is four kilometres of rail that would leverage line 1 and line 3, connect the north part of the city from east to west, open up York University to Scarborough students and aid in the construction of housing at Downsview Park. Instead, we have a Rogers Stadium concert venue that disturbs the neighbours. What happened? I thought we were going to build housing at Downsview Park. Now here come the Liberals saying they want to build a high-speed rail line from Toronto to Quebec City, the Alto, and it is going to cost $90 billion. Doug Ford’s Ontario line is 15 stops and 15 kilometres, granted it is underground. Alto is promised to be 1,000 kilometres. A month ago we found out not only that the 15-kilometre Ontario line is half a decade behind but that the cost of construction is up to $34 billion. In the best case scenario for Doug, by the time he is done with the Ontario line, it will come in at $40 billion. It is not even like a traditional subway; it is a hybrid of hard rail and light rail. I do not think anyone told Doug. If the Ontario line from Don Mills and Eglinton to Lakeshore and Bathurst is $40 billion, is the Alto high-speed rail really going to be $90 billion? Alto will never be built, never. By the time construction stops, it is going to have cost $1 trillion. I am being reminded by my friends that I will be splitting my time with the Bloc member for Repentigny. It is so upsetting that we do not have the stomach to build serious transportation projects in this country anymore. The regulatory process, the approvals, the funding arrangements, the environmental issues and the agendas, all of those, are getting in the way of actual building. By the time we have some sort of consensus, there is a new government at one of the levels of government, and it will go in a different direction. I have watched that happen in my beloved city of Toronto time and time again. The Eglinton LRT was a debacle. Metrolinx was stuck at Yonge and Eglinton forever. Now the government has the audacity to tell us that the Alto will cost $90 billion and all we have to do is pass this 250-page bill. If there is someone who believes that, then please let me sell them the Gordie Howe bridge, or its total income after expenses. The government should scrap this Alto monstrosity and build energy projects like Canadians depend on it. For goodness’ sake, can we stop buying oil from Nigeria? Why can we not supply natural gas all around the world? All day long, I hear about AI. None of this AI data centre revolution happens without electricity, not in the U.S., not in Europe and not in China. This is Canada’s opportunity to supply the globe with Canadian natural gas, to supply the electricity to all of these data centres. This is how we can be part of this industrial revolution. That is how we protect our jobs. We have an option to become a commodity-based economy to power the future. The Liberals passed Bill C-5, and they will pass this bill too. What are we going to build? Nothing. It is all talk and no results, no action. We are not going to build until Conservatives come back to the federal government. What we are asking, and what all Canadians are asking, is for a little less conversation and a little more action, please.”

“The U.A.E. wanted to invest $90 billion in Canada, but the government could not find a single project ready for that money. After 11 years of Liberal rule, we have no real projects ready for investment.”

“Mr. Speaker, the U.A.E. met with the Prime Minister a couple of months ago, and it said it was going to invest $90 billion in our economy, and the Liberal government was not able to identify one single shovel-ready project for the U.A.E. to invest in. I heard about that summit in Toronto. It was a fun place. I heard there was a max plate fundraiser the night before for the Liberals. What we do not have is a single investable project ready to go. That is the fault of 11 years of Liberal governments, and the current Liberal Prime Minister is going to have the same legacy.”

“The government keeps announcing billions of dollars instead of actually building things. I want to know if Canada would be better off if the Prime Minister approved the 500 projects waiting on his desk.”

“Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his incredible speech today on the importance of getting projects delivered in Canada. There is $1 billion here, $1 billion there, $1 billion for this person and $1 billion for that person. I would like the member’s thoughts, please. If we could stop announcing $500 billion across Canada and just approve 500 projects sitting on the Prime Minister’s desk, where would Canada be as we move forward?”

“We do not need this bill. The Prime Minister can already approve 500 projects right now. Also, my friend and campaign financial agent, Glen McFarland, died last night. I want to honour him and share my condolences with his family.”

“Mr. Speaker, 500 projects are available for approval right now that the Prime Minister can get going on. He does not need a 250-page bill. That is two projects that are ready to go for every page in the bill. At this time, Speaker, I would like to request a brief indulgence. Surrounded by his loved ones, Glen McFarland passed away last night. Glen McFarland was the financial agent for the York Centre EDA during the 2025 general election and was previously the financial agent for my nomination. Glen was a remarkable man. He is survived by his wife, Lisa, and their three children. He was an extraordinary accountant and a fellow with CPA Ontario. He was a managing partner of the McGovern Hurley accounting firm, which is proud of its more than 100 employees. He was such a gentleman. He passed away last night after a long fight with cancer. His family should know how much he was loved by his friends and his loved ones. He was a remarkable man. May he rest in peace.”

• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 100 of 100

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

  See full analysis →