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)

64 statements

Marie-France Lalonde, Orléans

Liberal
“Our government promised to keep investing in major projects and in people. Canada and Ontario just agreed to keep helping families with child care costs, following Quebec's example.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member very much for his important question. The government has promised to keep investing not only in major projects, but also in communities and people. I just want to make a comment. I know we have been talking about Quebec, but I want to talk about something else. Quite recently, Canada and Ontario agreed to continue supporting our families when it comes to child care fees. Quebec had set an extraordinary example, which we followed. I am proud to see that our government is going to keep investing to help families.

Gord Johns, Courtenay—Alberni

NDP
“Mental illness costs our economy about $200 billion a year. The government calls a pipeline nation-building because it might bring in $20 billion a year. Mental illness hurts our economy ten times more than that pipeline helps it. The government should treat mental health care as nation-building.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, build Canada strong and nation building should also be about plugging economic leakages. The Mental Health Commission of Canada estimates that mental health costs our economy nearly $200 billion a year. That is roughly 6% of Canada’s GDP. The government is promoting its new pipeline as nation building because it could add more than $20 billion a year to GDP. That is about 0.6% of our GDP. To be clear, mental illness is imposing an economic burden roughly 10 times larger than the annual GDP benefit the government projects from this pipeline. If a potential 0.6% increase in GDP warrants nation-building action, why is the Liberal government not dealing with the economic burden approaching 6% of the GDP, namely unaddressed mental illness, that is impacting our economy?

Marie-France Lalonde, Orléans

Liberal
“Mental health is a serious challenge in Canada. Our government is addressing it by helping the provinces, improving housing, and lowering the cost of living for families. I will keep pushing for better mental health care.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 0 of 100

    None of this statement addressed the specific topic under debate.

    See full analysis
  • Reply to a debate question

    Clarity 34 of 100

    Much of this statement used imprecise wording, lacked details on timing or responsibility, or made broad claims without support.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, that could be complicated, because this is a very important challenge. As an economy and a society, we are facing mental health issues, which my colleague has been advocating to help. Mental health is something we are addressing. We are helping provinces with their own responsibility for mental health in our local communities by improving housing, returning dollars and helping families with the cost of living. We are going to continue to advocate, and I am certainly advocating, for better mental health in this country.

Connie Cody, Cambridge

Conservative
“I do not trust this bill to get projects built faster. The government says reviews will take one year, but it can pause the clock while costs keep rising for businesses. I want a committee to carefully study the labour changes in this bill and hear from workers and employers.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, for years, Canadians have been telling the government that projects need to get moving. Canadians desperately need homes, reliable infrastructure, good jobs and a stronger economy. We have enormous potential to attract investment and develop the resources and industries needed to achieve these goals. What we need to know is whether our federal processes are allowing us to take advantage of those opportunities. For over a year, Canadians have heard the Liberal government talk about building Canada, major projects, infrastructure and economic growth. They heard the same promises 18 months ago, when Bill C-5 was presented as the solution that would speed up approvals and get projects moving. Today, Canadians are still waiting for results, yet the government is once again asking them to trust that this new bill will be different. Canadians are asking a very simple question: What happened? Canadians are tired of the announcements. They want to see projects built, with shovels in the ground, workers on job sites and investment staying in Canada. In Cambridge and North Dumfries, people want good jobs, growing businesses and opportunities that allow their children and grandchildren to build their futures here at home. When Ottawa adds uncertainty and delay, it is not just a file sitting on a desk; it affects families, businesses and communities that are counting on those opportunities. It can mean a business deciding not to invest, an expansion being delayed or a job that never gets created. Instead of making it easier to build, the government seems to have gotten very good at building something else: more bureaucracy, more processes and more layers of red tape. Canada does not need more bureaucracy standing between a good idea and a project that gets built. If Canada is serious about competing for investment, creating jobs and building the infrastructure we need, then projects need to be approved in a reasonable amount of time. The question before us today is whether this bill, Bill C-39, the building Canada strong act, would actually help us build, or whether Canadians are once again being asked to trust another Liberal promise to fix the problem the Liberals created over the past 10 years. That is why Conservatives are looking very closely at Bill C-39. The Conservatives have been clear about what needs to change. We need less red tape, more clear timelines, a true one project, one review system and the repeal of Liberal laws that have made it harder to build. A project cannot create jobs, grow the economy or make Canada more independent if it is stuck waiting for approval. The Liberals keep saying this bill would establish a one-year timeline for federal reviews and decisions on major projects. On paper, that sounds straightforward, but what does that one-year clock actually mean when it is being managed by the government? In the Liberals’ world, that clock can be stopped for several reasons, but time keeps ticking on in the real world. The construction season does not stop, interest payments do not stop and payroll does not stop. Businesses and investors do not have unlimited time to wait for the government to make a decision. Many businesses are already reaching the point where waiting is no longer an option. That is the problem with measuring time by the government’s standards. The government can pause the clock on a piece of paper, but Canadian business owners cannot pause their financing costs, workers cannot pause their mortgage payments and investors cannot infinitely pause their plans while Ottawa works through review after review. A one-year timeline provides little certainty if Canadians cannot determine when it starts, what circumstances can stop it and when the government is obligated to make a decision, because every time that clock stops in Ottawa, time keeps ticking somewhere else. The clock keeps ticking for the business ready to invest, the worker desperately looking for a job and the community counting on growth, and all the while, other countries are competing for that same investment. Our Canadian businesses should not have to wonder whether the clock has started, stopped or been reset. They need to be able to plan, invest and create opportunities where Canadian workers can find good jobs. That is why the labour provisions in this bill are so important. Getting projects approved faster is one thing, but protecting the workers who build and operate those projects is equally essential. After all, projects are not built on timelines alone. They are built on stable labour relations, predictable rules and confidence that the process will work as intended. When that confidence begins to erode, the foundation for long-term success erodes with it. Unfortunately, that is exactly what we have seen in recent years, as the federal government has repeatedly intervened in labour disputes through section 107 of the Canada Labour Code. People can have different views about individual disputes. Every time the government intervenes, the question is whether it is helping the parties reach an agreement or gradually becoming part of the bargaining process. Collective bargaining works best when workers and employers sit down at the table and do the challenging work of reaching a mutual agreement. The bargaining clock has to be allowed to run, giving both sides the time and incentive to negotiate, compromise and find solutions. When intervention becomes expected, rather than exceptional, faith in that process starts to slip away. At the very moment those questions are being debated across the country, the government is proposing significant changes to the Canada Labour Code. These are not technical amendments or housekeeping measures. They could affect workers, unions, employers and federally regulated industries. The government is asking Canadians to accept that these changes will improve the system, but that case has to be made through transparency, accountability and scrutiny, not through assurances alone. That is why these provisions deserve thorough study at committee. Workers, unions and employers deserve to be heard, and Canadians deserve to know how these changes will affect labour relations in this country. If the government believes these amendments will strengthen labour relations, it should welcome that discussion and be prepared to make its case publicly. Good legislation is strengthened by scrutiny, and if these changes are going to shape labour relations for years to come, Parliament has a responsibility to get them right. However, building is only one part of the equation. This bill also looks at transportation infrastructure and trade corridors. We need to be able to move what we build. Our farmers need to get grain to market, manufacturers need to move their products and exporters need reliable access to ports. Communities like mine depend on transportation networks that function reliably and efficiently. When those networks fall short, the consequences are felt by businesses, workers and families that are already dealing with rising costs. These delays come with a price. Every hour a shipment sits waiting is time a business cannot get back, and every delay at a port or along a trade corridor adds costs that do not simply disappear. Those costs are ultimately borne by businesses, workers and consumers. The government says this bill will strengthen Canada’s trade corridors, improve transportation infrastructure and better coordinate federal approvals. The question is whether Canadians will actually see projects move faster or this will become another government office responsible for reporting on progress, rather than delivering results. Canadians do not need another progress report. They need the project. They need things built. Time keeps ticking. Canada cannot afford to spend another decade debating whether we should build the infrastructure we already know we need. We have the raw materials, the resources, the skilled workers, the entrepreneurs and the businesses ready to invest. What we need now are decisions. Opportunities do not wait for government processes and neither do our competitors. That is why the Conservatives will continue to advocate for less red tape, faster approvals and greater certainty. We will support a one project, one review approach so that there is one clear decision. We will continue to push for the repeal of laws that have made it harder to build and we will continue to fight for policies that save Canadians money and protect Canadian jobs. At its core, this is about affordability. It is about whether Canadians can afford to live, work, raise a family and build a future in this country. The people in my community of Cambridge and North Dumfries are not asking for the impossible. They want good jobs, new opportunities and the assurance that when a project makes sense, it will not spend years tied up in process and delay. While the government is stopping and starting clocks, Canadians cannot put their lives on hold waiting for Ottawa. It is time to make decisions. It is time to get projects moving. It is time to build.

Steeve Lavoie, Beauport—Limoilou

Liberal
“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.”
Official Hansard

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.

Connie Cody, Cambridge

Conservative
“I want projects to get built, but this bill just creates more red tape. The government promised a past law would speed up approvals, and it failed. If they believe in this new bill, they should send it to committee so we can look at it closely.”
  • 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, Conservatives do support getting projects built. The question is whether Canadians would actually see better results and more results instead of more bureaucracy. Eighteen months ago, Canadians were told that Bill C-5 would speed up approvals to get projects moving. Instead of these things’ moving forward, we are in the House debating Bill C-39. The promises of Bill C-5 still have not materialized. If the Liberals are so confident of Bill C-39, they should be open to having it discussed in committee to provide full transparency and accountability to Canadians. At some point the conversation must shift from promises to results.

Dan Albas, Okanagan Lake West—South Kelowna

Conservative
“I do not support this bill. It lets one minister decide which projects can start early without defining what is in the public interest. Businesses need clear rules, not more red tape and decisions left to one person.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-39 would allow the minister to allow preliminary works on a site to begin, within what the bill calls the public interest. Rather than give industry firm rules so they can clearly present their project and what they want to do for site works, the bill would give complete discretion to the minister. There is no definition of what is in the public interest, other than what the minister would decide. Does this seem fair to all those hard-working businesses: that one person gets to decide what is in the public interest and that it would just be more red tape?

Connie Cody, Cambridge

Conservative
“I agree with the previous speaker. One minister should not have all the power to make these huge decisions. Canadian businesses are exhausted from high costs and too much uncertainty. We need rules that bring investment and jobs to Canada, not rules that push them away.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is absolutely correct. How could one person make a decision like this that would affect so many people? The strongest message I am hearing right now is that people need a reason to be optimistic again. They want businesses to grow instead of laying people off. They want investment coming into Canada instead of leaving. They want to know that opportunities for their children and grandchildren will still exist here in the years ahead. The concern I am now hearing is not frustration. It is exhaustion. Business owners have spent years adapting to rising costs, supply chain challenges, labour shortages and uncertainty. That is what the debate comes down to. Canadians want a path forward, and they want decisions that support jobs, investment and opportunity in Canada, by Canadians and for Canadians.

Christine Normandin, Saint-Jean

Bloc Québécois
“This bill lets the Canada Energy Regulator review pipeline projects instead of the environmental assessment agency. Five of the regulator's seven leaders worked in the oil industry, and its job is to promote oil transport. It is not impartial. I want the member to explain why an unbiased group should not be the one reviewing these major projects.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I think I know what kind of answer I am going to get, but I would still like the member to share her thoughts on the impartiality of the people who will be assessing certain projects, particularly pipeline projects. We know that it will now be the Canada Energy Regulator and not the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada that will be responsible for conducting those assessments. However, five of the regulator’s seven commissioners used to work in the oil industry. The CER’s mission is to promote the transmission of electricity and the transportation of oil. It is safe to say that this body is not impartial. I would like the member to tell us about how important it is to have impartial agencies assess all projects, particularly major projects that are in the so-called national interest.

Connie Cody, Cambridge

Conservative
“Canada has high environmental standards and strong experts. We can carefully review projects while still making decisions quickly. We need to pass this bill so jobs and investments do not leave Canada.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 32 of 100

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

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, there is a lot to discuss about who would be involved with the decision-making. We have to think about who cares about whether local businesses stay open and whether children and grandchildren can find opportunities close to home. Those objectives should not be in conflict. Canada has some of the most skilled workers, highest environmental standards and strongest regulatory expertise in the world. Surely we should be capable of conducting a rigorous review process while still providing businesses and workers with certainty. That is why Parliament’s responsibility would be not simply to review projects or have specific people assigned to review these projects. It would be to ensure that decisions are made before jobs, investment and opportunities disappear from Canada.

Elizabeth May, Saanich—Gulf Islands

Green
“I want the member to admit that private investors are not really funding this project. A 10% share from a private company is small, and taxpayers are paying for most of it.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I am always surprised when Conservatives agree so readily with Liberal talking points. The member mentioned that we wanted to have a project that attracted private investors. Does she not agree that a possible 10% from Pembina Pipeline is not a large stake in the project and that the taxpayers are paying for most of it?

Connie Cody, Cambridge

Conservative
“The member is right. We should still send this bill to a committee so we can talk about it more.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is absolutely correct. I think what we need to do is have the bill brought to committee so we can have further discussions.

Doly Begum, Scarborough Southwest

Liberal
“I support this bill. It speeds up government approvals for trade and building projects. Fixing our supply chains and building faster will help Canadian businesses compete and lower costs for families.”
  • A repeated line

    “A lack of rail capacity can mean grain sitting in elevators rather than moving to markets.”

    Said 4 times by 4 members since October 5.

    Every time it was said
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, it is always an honour to rise on behalf of the good people of Scarborough Southwest, especially when it is to address challenges we are facing not only across my riding but across Canada. Over the past several years, Canadians have witnessed how quickly events beyond our control and beyond our borders can affect our economy at home. A conflict, a war or atrocities on the other side of the world can disrupt energy markets on this side. A shortage of shipping capacity can increase costs for Canadian businesses. A disruption to rail lines, highways or ports can affect producers and consumers on both ends of the supply chain. We have heard in the House, even this morning, about the bureaucracy and time constraints related to putting shovels in the ground. We need to ensure that we are addressing those challenges, and doing that fast and efficiently by streamlining the system. Across this country, Canadians are feeling the pressure of what is happening right now, and I am really excited to speak to Bill C-39, because we are addressing those challenges. With higher prices at grocery stores, small businesses having to make very difficult decisions or families having to sacrifice one thing for another just to make ends meet, we must try to ensure that Canadians’ paycheques can cover all their costs and that they are able to pay their bills. In the face of these global realities, our government was elected on a firm commitment to reinforce Canada’s economic sovereignty and empower our country to build bigger, stronger and faster. Our supply chain is built from ports, railways, roads and, most important, the great workers who work so hard every single day to keep goods moving. They are the backbone of our economy. Over the past year and a half, our Prime Minister and our Liberal government have been moving at record speed to ensure Canadian economic resilience as the world becomes increasingly volatile. Stronger supply chains are imperative to our government’s ambitious plan to double non-U.S. exports, build major projects and attract record investments. This is why Bill C-39 is so important. The building Canada stronger act aims to do exactly that: further strengthen our existing supply chains while supporting good-paying jobs, helping Canadian businesses compete and keeping costs down for the hard-working people of our country. Bill C-39 recognizes that our transportation network does not operate in isolation. Our ports, railways and roads are part of a connected system, and we need to start planning and investing in them that way. That means looking at the movement of goods across an entire corridor, identifying where the delays are and the capacity constraints occur, and measuring how the system is performing. The bill would also create a national trade corridors council to monitor trade disruptions, continuously identify bottlenecks and recommend improvements to the Minister of Transport. As we invest in our trade infrastructure, these measures would ensure that those investments are directed toward the places where they would have the greatest impact. A congested port can mean additional storage costs. A lack of rail capacity can mean grain sitting in elevators rather than moving to markets. For small businesses, a shipment arriving late can result in loss of revenue, higher costs and a difficult decision-making process. Whether to pass on that cost to the consumers or to maybe lay off employees, it could mean the end of a business. It could be the end for a lot of local small businesses that had been running for 10, 20 or 30 years. This summer I had an opportunity to visit a local business, Accuenergy, an electrical parts manufacturer in my riding of Scarborough Southwest. It has been run by a father and his son since 1998. Accuenergy supplies its products to over 170 countries around the world, and it employs more than 300 people. I had the opportunity, with the Minister of AI, to talk to some of the employees from my riding and from across Scarborough and the GTA. There are so many businesses like Accuenergy across Canada that are building right here at home, creating good-paying jobs and seeking to compete in markets around the world. As we ask businesses to diversify into new markets beyond the United States, our government has the responsibility of making sure our infrastructure can keep up with that ambition. There are other major pieces in the bill that I would have loved to have highlighted, but I wanted to make sure to point out that what we hear in the House, such as the complaints from the other side about putting shovels in the ground and moving things faster, would be addressed by the bill. Bill C-39 would modernize our process to make sure we are able to get shovels in the ground, make decisions faster and get faster approvals so we can address the challenges people across this country are facing.

Kelly McCauley, Edmonton West

Conservative
“The government says this bill will help build things faster. Instead of this bill, they should cancel the other laws that block pipelines and hurt Alberta.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals talk about building things faster with Bill C-39. Why not get rid of the “no new pipelines” bill that was deemed mostly unconstitutional, Bill C-69, and get rid of the anti-Alberta bill, Bill C-48?

Doly Begum, Scarborough Southwest

Liberal
“I support this bill. It helps unite the whole country, solves problems in all provinces, and makes trade between provinces easier.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 21 of 100

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

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I wish I had more time to speak to some of the things Bill C-39 would do about exactly some of the complaints we hear from the other side, such as to make sure that, first of all, we are uniting the entire country. Our Prime Minister is going coast to coast to coast to make sure that we are not only addressing challenges in Ontario, Manitoba, Quebec or Alberta but are also addressing challenges across different provinces and uniting the provinces. Another part of our goal has been to make sure we make trade easier between provinces as well.

Christine Normandin, Saint-Jean

Bloc Québécois

Linked statement

“One year is not enough time to study how a project will affect nature. It does not even cover all four seasons. I want to know if the member sees the danger of rushing this work.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, my colleague mentioned that she did not have enough time to discuss the bill in its entirety. One might also wonder whether a year is enough time for scientists to properly assess the impact of any projects that might be launched, especially given that this one year allows for 300 days for assessment and reporting, and then 65 days for the minister to make a decision. That does not even allow for the four full seasons that would be needed to determine whether certain projects actually have an impact on the natural environment. Does my colleague not see the risks involved in moving too quickly?

Doly Begum, Scarborough Southwest

Liberal
“We need this bill to set clear deadlines for approving projects. Delays make building things cost more. The minister can still handle special cases, but we need to move faster and start building.”
  • 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, this is why it is so important that we have a timeline. In the past, a lot of infrastructure costs have risen because of delays in our projects due to delays in the decision-making process. There are exceptional circumstances, and this is why the Minister of Transport would have the authority to be able to make those exceptional decisions. It is really important that at this time, a time of crisis, we are focusing on making sure we have a review process that has a timeline and that we get shovels in the ground, and this is exactly why the bill is really important.

Steeve Lavoie, Beauport—Limoilou

Liberal
“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.”
Official Hansard

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.

Doly Begum, Scarborough Southwest

Liberal
“I want this bill to pass. It removes delays for businesses and helps our supply chains move faster. Making quicker decisions will strengthen our economy and bring in new investors from around the world.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is exactly right. The bill would address those challenges, those bottlenecks, that businesses face. Over the past year, previous legislation has also addressed these kinds of issues that we have faced. An efficient supply chain is one of the key parts of making sure that we are focusing on our economy and strengthening our economy. Canada’s long-term economic strength depends on reliable and efficient trade quarters, for example, and making sure that we are making decisions faster and being more effective. That is not just for domestic trades but also for international trade, to be able to attract new investors from across the world.

Elizabeth May, Saanich—Gulf Islands

Green
“This bill hides a big change. Its summary leaves out that it cancels the five-year end date on an earlier bill. This makes the government's harsh new powers permanent instead of temporary. I want the member to explain how that will affect us.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my hon. colleague from Scarborough Southwest again on her recent election. Knowing she has not read as many bills as I have in this place, I will say that I have never seen a bill drafted to be as deceitful as this one. I want to put it to her that it is odd that in the summary of what we can expect in the bill, page ii notes that division 2 of part 1 would amend the Building Canada Act, Bill C-5, to say, among other things, in section 99, that the sunset clause on bill C-5, the part that says that this bill would not have an effect five years from this date, would be repealed. It lists four things of less consequence than this one it does not mention. Does my colleague have any comments on the impact of making the draconian power grabs of Bill C-5 permanent?

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