“Past fast reviews worked well and did not hurt the environment. This bill just adds more red tape and sets up an office with no real power. The government should create a real one-stop shop for project approvals instead of more bureaucracy.”

“Mr. Speaker, I certainly appreciate the member raising the tens of thousands of projects that were done under the Harper government’s economic action plan, considering that the environment commissioner actually did a review of all of them and found that there were no issues whatsoever environmentally. I wanted to reiterate that. The member has also spoken about the red tape and the top-down bureaucracy the Liberal government seems to always be attracted to. The national trade office, which is optional in Bill C-39, has no formal authority, yet it is supposed to somehow facilitate discussions within the same department of Transport Canada. Does the member not think this is a real lost opportunity to have a single window that can actually get things done? Are the Liberals just creating more bureaucracy?”

“I do not support this bill. The new council it creates adds more government rules and delays projects instead of speeding them up.”

“Mr. Speaker, what has been troubling in the years I have been here is that the good intentions of any government get bogged down in bureaucracy, and this is a prime example. Look at the national trade corridor council. I do not see any value in this council adding to the speed of projects or getting any projects completed at all. There are mechanisms in place already. How can a council speed things up when it adds another layer to go through and has more questions, delaying projects further? How it is advantageous to our Canadian economy and to getting projects built is beyond me. I think it is a colossal failure, again.”

• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 100 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

“This bill adds another layer of bureaucracy. I do not see how it will help approve projects faster.”

“Mr. Speaker, what I am having trouble with, and what I think Canadians are going to have trouble with, is how we can improve the speed to get projects approved if we add a third layer of bureaucracy, because that is exactly what this bill would do. It troubles me that Bill C-5 did not seem to get it done, so let us add another layer in Bill C-39. This is what I believe is happening here. I am hopeful that it will work, but the results are in the pudding, and right now, the pudding is—”

• Unsupported
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Reasoning 17 of 100

  This statement drew 3 conclusions, but gave no reasons for 2 of them.

  See full analysis →

“Canada needs the Trans-Canada Highway to move goods across the country. Will the government include Highway 11 as a project of national interest?”

“Mr. Speaker, I hear a lot about freight, transportation, seaports and a strong Canada, but the spine of Canada is the Trans-Canada Highway. If we cannot move all these products, we are in trouble. How do you feel about Trans-Canada Highway 11 being part of the projects of national interest to build all this?”

“I do not support this bill. It makes only small changes instead of fixing our broken review system for major projects. Companies will still face long delays, and the government can still pick which projects win and lose. It also does nothing to fix our ports and railways so farmers can move their grain to market.”

“Mr. Speaker, it is always an honour and a privilege to rise on behalf of the great people of southwest and west-central Saskatchewan. I want to start off my speech by saying a big thanks to all the farmers across Saskatchewan and back home for all the work they have put in this year through seeding, through summer and now through harvest. Quite a few farmers are done for the season, but there are still some who have a little way to go thanks to the late rains we had. We will never say no to rain. We will always take more of it. It would have been nice if it had come earlier in the year. Nevertheless, we will take it whenever we get it. It did cause a bit of a delay, but I want to say, again, a big thanks to the farmers for all the hard work they do. That provides a bit of context to the bill we have here today. We have heard the government talk about how it would improve trade corridors. The Liberals talk about how the bill would improve labour relations. Especially in the spirit of the harvest happening and it wrapping up back home, I am hearing that people are concerned that the bill would anger the people who are responsible for making sure that our farmers get their product out to the coast and to market. If the government was truly trying to do something to help our farmers, it could have chosen to use the bill as a means to improve port infrastructure. For example, the Liberals could have had covered grain loading or expanded rail capacity to make sure we could get more railcars out to the ports in a timely manner. That way, farmers would not have to face the merge and issues with boats waiting in water, things that are completely out of their control but that they have to pay for, causing headaches for them. A lot of people are skeptical about what the bill would do for the labour side of things. The government calls this omnibus legislation the building Canada strong act, and I forgive people for wondering if they have heard this before, because the Liberals have used it in their campaign slogans. They have used it for Liberal Party fundraising. I see it on TV in the Government of Canada ads that are going on. In fact, the government also used it in last year’s budget. It also had the Building Canada Act, Bill C-5, which was one of the first government bills introduced. The budget was a year ago, and Bill C-5 was passed a year and a half ago, and here we are again with yet another bill with basically the same name trying to accomplish the same thing. Canadians are left wondering what exactly the bill would do. Canadians are starting to wonder and rightly ask the question, “What have the Liberals built and what are they going to get built?” Without seeing results, it seems more and more like the government keeps making empty promises to Canadians that they either cannot keep or do not even bother trying to keep. As I said, we have already had the Building Canada Act and now we have the building Canada strong act. As time goes on, it has started to sound like we are going back to square one. The Liberals have another slogan that they love to use, and that is, “We are just getting started.” It has been 11 years of just getting started, with nothing happening except for the destruction of industry. What do we have to show for fast-tracking Bill C-5 in the first place? This was the bill the government said it needed, with urgency, to get things going. It was introduced last year. It was supposed to be a quick fix, by creating a new bureaucracy for major projects to circumvent the laws the Liberals had put in place previously. At the time, Conservatives questioned how effective it would turn out to be, and we pointed out that instead they needed to do a lot more to repeal many of the disastrous policies from under Justin Trudeau. However, they were unwilling to go that far and admit that they needed to deal with the deeper issues they had created. Here we are, close to the end of 2026, and nothing has been built. Construction has not started. Instead, we see the government bring forward yet another bill with its favourite slogan: “build Canada strong”. No matter who is prime minister, it is the same Liberal Party running the government, and Liberals always love to play political games. They did not stop playing games after Justin Trudeau left, but they are playing a different game now. For a long time, the Liberals decided to use Canadian oil and gas as a political scapegoat. They were constantly looking for ways to treat development as a wedge issue for electoral gain. All of this caused deep division between different regions of Canada, but things have gotten so bad that the government cannot get away with doing that anymore. Now the Liberals see public opinion and tell people what they want to hear. They are saying some of the right things and pretending the last decade never happened. Meanwhile, Canadians know that we desperately need to rebuild our economy, and they strongly support building major projects. This means they expect new projects to actually get started if they have not been built already. After losing an entire decade, there is no time left to waste, but the Liberals did not understand that before, and apparently they still do not understand it now. As our debate continues on Bill C-39, it will become pretty clear that this bill is overhyped. The Liberals are caught in a bind because they have to to deal with the consequences of the regulatory mess they created, but they are only willing to make some small tweaks to their own flawed system rather than do what is necessary to deliver substantive and structural change that would benefit every Canadian business. Despite the Liberal attempts to phase it out, our Canadian oil and gas sector has always been a leading contributor to our national economy as a whole. More than anything, regulatory uncertainty has been absolutely devastating for the energy sector and for all Canadian resource industries. Uncertainty has chased away billions of investment dollars, and over time, it has significantly worsened Canada’s business reputation around the world. One of the worst examples of this has been the Impact Assessment Act. We saw death by delay with cases like Teck Frontier or the Trans Mountain pipeline, where the project’s proponent in the private sector eventually gave up and walked away because the review process was too slow and inconsistent. Proponents had to follow required processes, but the bureaucracy did not have the same pressure with meeting deadlines and it had further options for dragging out the process. There has been a broad consensus for years that we cannot move forward until the government overhauls the impact assessment process. Major reforms are long overdue. Conservatives have been demanding it forever, and I have lost count how many times my colleagues and I have stood in this place and called for change. The Liberals have refused to repair their broken system, and even now with Bill C-39, they continue to pursue mostly performative changes. All their big talk about one project, one review, one year is mainly stuck at the surface level. Of course streamlining the project approval process is helpful, but there are so many other things that need to go along with doing that. Once again, Bill C-39 would fail to do the fundamental work of creating the strongest possible regulatory environment built on consistency and certainty. The one-year timeline would apply to completed applications, but proponents for new projects would also be dealing with an open-ended preparatory phase without a hard deadline. That would cost millions and millions of dollars. I will give the example of Teck Frontier again. It had a writedown of $1.13 billion while it waited for the government to make an approval, and that is what it walked away from. That was the cost for Teck. Extensions could also be granted with Bill C-39, especially for consultation purposes. If this mechanism were applied to allow for some reasonable flexibility, it is true that there could be a benefit to industry in some cases, but right now we have no idea how it would play out and if it would be consistent. We still have uncertainty hanging over everyone’s heads, and because this is such a big and complex omnibus bill, it is tough to find clarity on some important points. If proponents missed a deadline, the application could be declined, but what would happen if the government missed the one-year deadline? Where is the accountability and the transparency for government to support industry? Could this put us right back in the same spot where projects run into death by delay all over again? The bill would allow cabinet to designate certain projects or regions in the national interest, but this might not be as promising as it sounds. Again, where is the consistency? The government would still have too much control over the process, where it could pick winners and losers. There would still plenty of room for having unhealthy favouritism between industries or for political priorities getting in the way of our economic recovery. We are still way too close to comfort to the way things were under Justin Trudeau and the same problems remain in place here. In a weird way, the Liberals are reinforcing the uncertainty and setting things up for it to become worse by proposing to centralize the process and opening it up for more politicization. While this is going on, global investors would still see that energy production remains subject to other priorities while uncompetitive policies remain in place, like the Liberals’ fuel regulations or an industrial carbon tax scheduled to increase. Canadian industry talks about a lost decade, and it is not because it is living in the past or crying over spilled milk. It is forced to make up for that lost time while facing global competitors and jurisdictions that do not punish their industries the same way that these Liberals do. It is not good enough for the government to take its sweet time and tinker with amendments to Trudeau’s policies. Bold and decisive action is the only answer. Canadians are running out of patience and they are tired of hearing excuses from the Liberals. Canada needs to build major projects to strengthen the economy, improve energy security and defend our national sovereignty. Success does not come from passing a bunch of Liberal government bills. We have to measure success by how many projects are built by the private sector and how many pipelines will move Canadian energy to market. Canadians need clear answers and strong action from the government. Like they say, it is time to get started. It has had 11 years. When will it get started?”

“This government has not taken bold action to get things done. If the member truly wants bold action, he should speak out against the prime minister's bad policies that he supported.”

“Bold action, Mr. Speaker? The member has been in the House a lot longer than I have. He has enjoyed a very long political career that stems back to his time in the provincial legislature in Manitoba. He has seen many governments come and go. He knows this government has done nothing when it comes to actually taking bold, substantive action to get things done in this country. If he wants to take bold action, he should stand up in this place and denounce all the disastrous policies of Justin Trudeau’s time that he supported. That would be a step in the right direction. That would be bold, and I would welcome him to do that.”

“I want the House to pass this bill. The government is using environmental rules to hurt rural communities and the industries that run our economy. Canada already has strong environmental rules. The government must stop attacking our way of life.”

“Mr. Speaker, I really appreciate the passion that the hon. member brings to the House. It is the next generation that really motivates me. I have three kids of my own. I know the opportunities I had growing up in small-town rural Saskatchewan. The very lifestyle I had growing up, that way of life, is under attack by the Liberal government. The Liberals have actually used the environmental lens to try to punish and destroy the rural way of life. They have zero clue. They have no understanding of what it means and what it is like to be from rural Canada and to have to suffer under the policies that they have put in place. That needs to end. The government needs to quit using the environment as a way to destroy and punish the main industries and sectors that drive and fuel the Canadian economy. Yes, we need to have proper environmental protections. We have the strongest regime in the world. If the rest of the world adopted Canadian environmental standards, all the issues the Bloc talks about would start to slowly go away.”

• Little substance
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Signal 19 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 →

“The government talks a lot but does not get results. The environment minister opposes oil and gas development. Her choices hurt Canadian industry, harm the economy, and divide the country. We need a prime minister who brings people together.”

“Mr. Speaker, with the Liberal government, it continues to be all rhetoric with no results. Again, getting back to taking bold action, the government has done nothing when it comes to bold action. In fact, the environment minister herself is an active ally for the movement to try to end any development in the oil sands. She hates the oil sands. It is even on her own website that she does not want to see any more development in the oil sands. She is very much anti-oil and anti-gas. The Liberal government still has the same anti-energy activists in the government, in cabinet, still forcing some of these decisions. That is what is leading a lot of the destruction of Canadian industry and the Canadian economy. That is why a lot of the divides continue to exist in this country. This country needs a unifying prime minister. and it is certainly not the one who is sitting over there.”

• Unsupported
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Reasoning 12 of 100

  This statement drew 4 conclusions, but gave no reasons for 3 of them.

  See full analysis →
• Personal attack
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Respect 95 of 100

  This statement targeted a person rather than their actions or views: “She hates the oil sands”.

  See full analysis →

“I do not support this bill. It will not help us build major projects. The government promises a one-year review, but the clock will not start until after years of studies, and ministers can pause it anytime. If we want private companies to build pipelines, mines, and roads in Canada, the government must repeal the environmental assessment law, end the west coast oil shipping ban, and scrap the industrial carbon tax.”

“Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join the debate today on behalf of the people of Lakeland. I hear every day from workers, farmers, families and business owners who know what is at stake when Canada cannot get major projects built. For more than a decade, Liberal laws and red tape have made it harder to build, invest and compete. That costs the people of Lakeland and Canadians everywhere jobs, businesses, higher prices and hope. After imposing layers of antidevelopment laws, taxes and delays, the Liberals seem to have finally discovered Canada must build for our own affordability, security and self-sufficiency. Conservatives, of course, agree. We have always pushed for more competitive regulatory and fiscal frameworks so Canada can have pipelines, mines, LNG, nuclear power and better ports, railways, highways, airports and trade corridors to move Canadian resources and goods across the country and to global markets that want our products. What Canadians do not need is yet another announcement or agreement pretending the last 11 years never happened. There is no doubt the federal government could have implemented real major project fast-tracking measures immediately when it took office and should have listened to economists, industry experts, provincial leaders, us and other countries years ago. Let us be clear. What has not changed? The Liberals have not repealed the unconstitutional Impact Assessment Act, the west coast oil shipping ban or the federal industrial carbon tax. Those are core parts of the Liberal antidevelopment agenda that Conservatives have always fought. They prolong uncertainty, increase dependence on one customer and undermine Canada’s competitiveness, distinctly not what other major producing countries or the U.S. inflict on their businesses or entrepreneurs. I have cautioned the damage that the Liberals would do and pushed for change at every step. In 2017, I fought Bill C-55 and antidevelopment zones that prohibit Canadian opportunities in water, often near regions where those are most important. In 2018, I warned repeatedly that Bill C-69’s so-called concrete timelines were anything but, since assessments could be stopped, extended and restarted at any time, making it totally uncertain for proponents and investors. Eight years later, proponents faced the same problems. The power to consider any other matter the agency decides is relevant obviously makes it impossible for investors to prepare, and removes efficiency and predictability from reviews. In 2018, I fought Bill C-48, the Liberal oil shipping ban, which the most impacted B.C. north coast first nation sued the Liberals over for its own rights and title to pursue its own economic opportunities, and prevented Canada from reaching vast Asian markets to reduce dependence on the U.S. in the most direct, affordable and efficient route. It is still law today. The federal industrial carbon tax remains too, the only one in the world for a major energy producer, which makes everything more expensive for Canadians and businesses. The Liberals have prolonged uncertainty despite the clarity and consistency of Canadian industry in the case for regulatory and fiscal change, and even in the face of challenges from Canada’s biggest customer and trading partner. Nine months ago, with the MP for Long Range Mountains, I moved our Canadian economic sovereignty motion to repeal the Impact Assessment Act, the shipping ban and the federal industrial carbon tax. The Liberals opposed it and every single one is in place today. Therefore, when the Liberals called Bill C-39 a dramatic break from their own past, let us look at what remains. This is the Liberal illusion, new language, new announcements, releases and rhetoric, but the same antidevelopment architecture, barriers and growing bureaucracy. Now the Liberals promise one project, one review, one year, which has been what Conservatives have proposed for years and ran on in 2025. However, the truth is the review clock would not start until proponents completed their comprehensive application, studies and permit information, work that can take years. Once it starts, the minister could add up to 90 days, cabinet could extend it further and timelines could be suspended. What good is a one-year promise if the clock starts years into the process and can stop along the way? That is still a stopwatch the government would control completely and proponents could not count on. I warned about this with Bill C-69 eight years ago. In June last year, I tried again with respect to Bill C-5. I put forward amendments for a 90-day designation decision and a one-year conditions timeline. The Liberals rejected both. More than a year later, Canadians are right to ask: Where are the results and what on earth is taking so long? Conservatives collaborated, helped improve and ultimately supported Bill C-5, because Canada must build urgently. The Liberals said that law and their Major Projects Office would get it done. Conservatives implemented greater transparency, conflict of interest, national security safeguards, indigenous participation and reporting on timelines and outcomes. We worked with the Bloc to protect provincial jurisdiction. That was in June 2025. Where are the results? Since then, at committee, the government has confirmed that roughly 100 people work at the Major Projects Office, with a budget of over $200 million. The head of the MPO said that 275 applications had already come in from all sources, sectors and jurisdictions. The Liberals seem to celebrate this, but really, the fact that there are 275 applications of all kinds and from all over shows chaos not clarity. Today, the MPO acknowledges only 18 projects and eight strategies. Many were already under way before the office existed. Others are concepts with no final investment decision and no shovels in the ground. Which projects actually moved because of the MPO, and what measurable outcomes did taxpayers get? Announcements are not outcomes. Meanwhile, at least 500 projects are waiting on the Prime Minister’s desk before projects at the Canada Energy Regulator, the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission and the Impact Assessment Agency are even counted. Although the sector remains the biggest investor in Canada’s economy, it is about even more than oil and gas. Manufacturers need reliable rail. Farmers and exporters need ports and trade corridors to work efficiently for lower costs. Communities need highways, water and waste-water infrastructure. The entire economy needs power and transmission lines. For years, Conservatives have said that infrastructure and natural resource development are not obstacles to Canada’s security and sovereignty; they are the foundations. Canada’s competitiveness and productivity problem is not new. A 2024 analysis using the federal major projects inventory found nearly $670 billion in natural resource projects suspended or cancelled since 2015. Finance Canada itself says that Canadian business investment has stagnated while U.S. investment rose and outpaced Canada’s. That matters even more amid U.S. trade uncertainty while the Liberals keep domestic antidevelopment taxes and regulatory barriers in place. Canada cannot control what the U.S. or other countries do, so Canadian governments should resolve to compete and beat them at home. CNRL says it directly. Two Canadian oil sands expansions of 240,000 barrels a day are on hold, waiting for more effective and efficient regulation, and a competitive fiscal framework. Canada could unleash that investment right now, but it is blocked, not building. Meanwhile, competitors proved that projects can move faster. TC Energy’s 700-kilometre southeast gateway pipeline in Mexico began construction eight months after permit application, and it entered service in under three years. Canada should be able to compete. Canada has done it before, under a different government. During the global financial crisis, 23,500 infrastructure projects were completed. They went from concept to completion in under two years. That is why Conservatives call for one and done: one project, one approval and one year, with a real deadline. The west coast pipeline proves the point. On October 1, the government finally listed a west coast oil pipeline as a project of national interest. Conservatives support another pipeline to the Pacific. We have argued for years for diversified export markets and pipelines built by the private sector in all directions, but Canadians should note what is happening here: The Liberal government and the Crown corporation once again have to build a pipeline because private sector proponents will not fully take it on. For years, those proponents faced an uncertain Impact Assessment Act, and Conservatives warned that it would drive away investment. Another pipeline to the Pacific was obviously in Canada’s national interest years ago. Canada needed market diversification years ago. Canadian energy has always been the key for security, sovereignty, affordability and leverage. The Liberals must create conditions for private capital to build, not make governments project owners because their own policies drive investment away. Canadians know the difference between an announcement and an outcome. A designation is not construction. An MOU is not a pipeline. A project on a list is not a project being built. Canadians want shovels in the ground. The federal government must do its own constitutional obligation of indigenous consultation to get to yes. If consultation is one reason a federal clock can stop, the government must deliver its part promptly and consistently, and it cannot use its own duty as an excuse for indefinite delay. Since the Liberals decide which projects receive special treatment, Canadians deserve transparency about conflicts of interest, ownership, foreign-state-owned investment and whether any Brookfield-related conflict screen applies. That is why Conservatives fought for those safeguards in Bill C-5. There is no doubt that Conservatives want Canada to build, not a headline deadline with years hidden before it and pause buttons built in. We want Canadian workers to build Canadian pipelines, ports, railways, highways, mines, nuclear plants, transmission lines and trade corridors with Canadian materials, but Bill C-39 would not get rid of the bad laws that are the problem in the first place. The Liberals cannot say they were not warned. Canada has lost enough time. Stop blocking, stop taxing and stop delaying. Give proponents certainty, and bring private investment back to Canada.”