“I do not want this bill to pass. It is another huge bill that breaks the government's promise to stop bundling unrelated laws together. We already gave the government special powers over a year ago to speed up big projects, and nothing got built. The problem is too many government rules and too much spending. The government should cut its regulations and let private businesses invest and build.”

“Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise on Bill C-39, another cynical Liberal bill. Do members remember years back when the Liberal government campaigned to end all government practice of using omnibus bills to reduce scrutiny of legislative measures? This was part of their campaign for a “real change” plan for restoring democracy. What do we have here? We have another massive omnibus bill, one of many introduced by a Liberal government that promised to do away with omnibus bills. It is the same Liberal government that promised to increase transparency, and it has done the opposite. It is the same Liberal government that said there would be more accountability for its legislation, yet we have the opposite. We have the same Liberal government creating side departments to circumvent Parliament and accountability, such as the Defence Investment Agency, which is called the DIA. It is actually more like the DOA because it is still being debated. It was created as part of the budget implementation act, but before it has even been officially created, the Liberals are already killing it off and trying to turn it into a Crown corporation, which would allow even less scrutiny and accountability. However, I digress. As I mentioned, here we go again with another omnibus bill from the Liberals. I am sure when they were putting this bill together, the Liberal PMO and other advisers were chortling about what a great wedge bill this is, because while it has legislation in it to increase economic growth, at the same time, there is a bit of a poison pill around labour so that if the Conservatives oppose the bill, they can say the Conservatives are opposing growth. If we support the bill, they will turn around and say the Conservatives are stabbing labour in the back. It is the same thing they are doing to my NDP colleagues. If the NDP does not support it, we know full well it is going to be a Liberal talking point to say the NDP is antidevelopment. If the NDP does support it, we know full well they will be saying the NDP supported all of their back-to-work legislation. It is a cynical wedge bill that could only be put forward by the government. It is unfortunate, but here we have it. Why, I have to ask, another piece of legislation? Over a year ago in this House, the Conservatives supported the Liberals in passing Bill C-5 and gave unprecedented powers to the government to push through projects at speeds we have never seen before, of course. What happened? Nothing. Nothing has been done or approved, except that the Major Projects Office and the DIA were created, but they have not moved at the speed of anything. The finance minister, when Bill C-5 was introduced, stated it was aimed at “accelerating transformative projects of national interest”. Where have we heard that? We have heard a lot lately about needing Bill C-39 to push through items of national interest. The Minister of Energy and Natural Resources said that Bill C-5 would remove barriers, leverage resources and help Canada become an energy superpower. That was for Bill C-5, so why is it repeated for Bill C-39? In this House, we gave the Liberals unprecedented powers to get projects built, to build the economy, to perhaps get a pipeline built, to develop the energy industry and to develop the mining industry, and nothing was done. They brought in the Major Projects Office to sidestep their own regulations. The question I have is, why does the government not just fix its broken regulatory regime? Why do we have all these bills and regulations on the books? Why do the Liberals have to create legislation such as Bill C-5 to get around their own bad laws and regulations, Bill C-39 to do the same thing and the Major Projects Office to do the same thing? With defence procurement, there is the DIA, which they are now killing off to create a Crown corporation. Why do we need cabinet or bureaucrats deciding what is deemed worthy of special treatment? That is what this is. It is the government picking winners and losers. It is no different from what the Liberals did a couple of years ago with piling taxpayers’ money into EV battery projects around the country for billions and billions of dollars. We saw it with Brampton. The Liberals gave Stellantis hundreds of millions of dollars. When we tried to investigate the money given to it, the deputy minister said that it was Stellantis that was refusing to release the documents about what happened with the money for Brampton. Stellantis came forward and said that this was not true, gave the documents and said the deputy minister was lying. Again, it goes back to the question of why the government is picking winners and losers. Why not clear up the regulatory regime, the 300,000 some-odd regulations that are on the books, so that private capital can decide what is a winner and what is a loser? How is it that we have a pipeline to the Lower Mainland, for which taxpayers are going to pay the bill of probably $50 billion, and $10 billion, give or take, to dredge up Roberts Bank, with more public money probably going into bailing out carbon capture? How is that in the public interest, with all the public money going into it, when we could just change our rules and allow the private sector to get that work done, as with northern gateway, originally proposed to a deepwater port, which did not need taxpayers’ money to dredge out? We did not need taxpayers’ money to build the pipeline. I support pipelines. We certainly need them. We saw today the gap between West Texas Intermediate and WCS, which is $25 a barrel because of the constrictions of exports caused by the government killing off northern gateway and killing off energy east. How is it in the public interest to spend billions and billions to do the pipeline when private capital could be doing it? Why not create a regulatory environment that is welcoming to capital and investment? The International Energy Agency calls the current energy crisis “the largest supply disruption in history”. Canada has the fourth-largest oil reserves. We are the only one in the top four that is a democracy, the only one that follows the rule of law. We would think people would be begging to develop our oil and gas and begging to get pipelines built to get oil. Instead, because of the Liberals and the regulatory regime, we have to have public money doing it. Why is the government doing this instead of just getting out of the way? According to a recent study, Canada has fallen from ninth to 18th on economic freedom. The factors in deciding this ranking include sound money, size of government and regulations. Under “Size of Government”, a thing that reads into our drop from ninth to 18th on freedom, is “Government consumption without interest payments”, which is very high under the government. “Government consumption with interest payments” is, again, very high. As for “Top marginal income tax rate and the threshold at which it applies”, the first thing the government did upon getting elected in 2015 was jack up the top marginal tax rate, followed by Premier Eby, it seems, right now. On “State ownership of assets”, having too much state ownership of assets causes us to drop lower in the ranking. What are we seeing? The government is going to be owning Pacific link on top of TransCanada because the Liberals have created a regulatory environment where no one is investing in Canada. Under “Sound Money” is “Money growth”. We saw the government printing hundreds of billions of dollars, with inflation. Under “Regulation” is “Regulatory burden”, which adds to our low ranking. There is “Bureaucracy costs” and “Impartial public administration”. It goes on and on. The government needs to get out of the way of private capital. It needs to get out of the way of business. It needs to reduce the regulatory burden. It needs to stop coming forward with all this legislation that is supposed to do so much but does nothing. The government just needs to get out of the way.”

• Echo ×8

  A repeated line

  “Canada has the fourth-largest oil reserves in the world.”

  Said 8 times by 7 members since October 5.

  Every time it was said →

“This bill promises a one-year approval timeline, but that is fake. The one-year clock only starts after the process is already underway, and the minister can still extend it. Some government members are also fighting against the very oil and gas projects this bill is supposed to help.”

“Mr. Speaker, I quite enjoy working with my hon. colleague on the operations committee. I think we have a mutual respect for each other. The legislation clearly proposes a one-year approval period, but it would not be one year as, perhaps, the government is pretending or creating propaganda about. It would be one year after the approval process gets through, and the minister could still step in and extend that one-year period. It is kind of a fake one year that the government is pushing out. Before the member spoke, we were debating with the member for West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, who was pushing for an oil and gas cap and could not even answer the question of whether he supported the very pipeline the government wants to build at taxpayers’ expense. This is the issue. There is the paperwork, but members of his own government are opposing the oil and gas that Bill C-39 is supposed to be helping.”

“Can my colleague explain why following the proper rules and process matters? Canadians need to understand what their government is doing so they can trust it.”

“Mr. Speaker, in the previous question, the member opposite lamented the fact that process holds up these bills. I wonder if my colleague, whose speech was excellent, could speak about the importance of process in making sure Canadians are able to comprehend what their government is doing so that they can have confidence that it is working for them.”

“I do not trust this bill. It gives too much power to the minister and unelected officials instead of Parliament. The minister alone would get to decide whether to end worker strikes, with no accountability to this House.”

“Mr. Speaker, I do not have a lot of faith in this process the government is creating. There would be too much power in the hands of the minister and too much power with the bureaucrats. Part of the bill, and I wish I had more time to get to it, is changes to the Labour Code, wherein an adjudicator appointed by the government would decide or help to decide whether to end a labour issue, not the House, as has been done traditionally. We would perhaps have a conflicted facilitator advising the government, and the minister alone deciding whether to order a stoppage. There would be no accountability to the House or to Canadians.”

“This bill does what my party wanted to do in 2015, before the Prime Minister tried to undo our work. Why did the government wait 11 years to do it?”

“Mr. Speaker, I listened closely to my colleague’s speech. I found it very interesting. It seems to be a continuation of what we wanted to do in 2015 after the election when Mr. Trudeau took office and tried to undo all the work we had done. Why wait 11 years to get this done?”

“This bill speeds up environmental reviews and project approvals. For the past 10 years, some Liberals used these reviews to delay projects. I want to know if all Liberals truly agree on speeding them up now.”

“Mr. Speaker, as we know, Bill C‑39 means that environmental assessments will be conducted much more quickly. Approvals should be made much faster. We also know that, over the past 10 years, there have been a number of people in the Liberal caucus who really liked environmental studies because they delayed certain projects. Is the caucus now unanimous, including the people who really wanted to delay projects?”

“This bill adopts Conservative ideas to cut red tape and approve projects within a year. Business investment per worker in Canada has dropped 16% in the last decade, while it grew 26% in the United States. Conservatives will only support this bill if it actually gets projects built faster. We will judge it by results, not promises.”

“Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to speak to Bill C‑39, which addresses an issue that is fundamental to the future of our country, namely Canada’s ability to build the infrastructure we need, develop our resources, attract investment and make decisions within a time frame that corresponds to the economic reality we are living in. I believe it is necessary to take action to ensure prosperity and to support all initiatives that are good for Canada and that strengthen our resilience. It is hard to be against virtue. It is crucial to make Canada stronger at a time when it may never have been so weak. That is the task we set for ourselves during the mandate of Conservative prime minister Stephen Harper. Our mission was to build a strong Canada, proud and free. We were able to do that. I truly believe that Canada would have reached new heights if we had been able to stay in the driver’s seat. Unfortunately, things turned out differently, and the Liberal era has been one of decline in almost every aspect of society. However, in Bill C‑39, the Liberals finally acknowledge that they have gone too far with regulation and red tape and that it has hurt investment. Where Bill C‑39 is commendable is in its adoption of Conservative positions that we have been hammering home for 10 years in the House of Commons. We need to simplify overly complex federal processes, reduce excessively long approval times and eliminate regulatory overlaps between the different levels of government. Among other things, the bill proposes to better coordinate the process and target federal decisions within one year of a complete application. That is exactly what our Conservative leader has been hammering home in every forum available to him over the past few years. Let us be honest: For too long in Canada, we have talked about building so much more than we have actually built. I will say it simply: If the government is serious, we will consider the legislation that will truly speed up construction in Canada. When a measure can get a project built faster, get a worker a job faster or allow a company to invest in Canada instead of investing elsewhere, we have a duty to take a serious look at it. However, there is one condition: It has to work. That is where we are going to be very vigilant. Canadians have heard a lot of promises in recent years. They heard governments announce new ways of doing things, but it was often just new red tape, new bureaucracy. Since the new Prime Minister took office, the government has increasingly embraced Conservative themes. It speaks in terms of productivity, competitiveness, major projects, economic security and resource development. It now recognizes that Canada needs to build and cannot afford to stand still in a world where our partners and competitors are engaged in an investment race. Again, I will give the government the benefit of the doubt when it puts forward measures that can actually make a difference. However, it is important to understand one thing: Changing one’s language is not the same as changing reality. Let us look at the energy sector. Canada sits on extraordinary energy resources. We have oil, natural gas, hydroelectricity, uranium and energy expertise that is recognized worldwide. We also have critical minerals that our international partners rely on to keep their economies going. However, at times we have appeared unable to reach consensus on a basic principle: that Canada’s natural resources should be developed responsibly to generate prosperity, create jobs and strengthen economic security for all Canadians. What we cannot do is have all these resources, the workers, the entrepreneurs, the capital and the potential markets, yet be unable to make a decision when a project is put forward. When that happens, investment goes elsewhere, and once investment goes elsewhere, it does not always come back. Meanwhile, the United States is investing heavily in its infrastructure and industrial capacity, European countries are seeking to strengthen their energy security, and Asian economies are seeking to secure their supply chains. Governments around the world understand that the ability to produce, transport and export goods has become a matter of economic security. While Canada has all the resources it needs to play a major role on the international stage, and even possesses numerous competitive advantages over the United States, it is lagging behind. According to the Montreal Economic Institute, business investment per worker has fallen from $20,900 in 2014 to $17,600 in 2024. That is a 16% drop over 10 years. Over the same period, the United States increased its investment per worker by 26%. The question, then, is whether we will finally seize the opportunity to set ourselves apart. This is where I want to come back to what should be the guiding principle of our approach to Bill C-39. The Liberals’ intentions are not what matter here; results are. The government can tell us it wants to reduce delays. We will look at the delays. It can tell us it wants to attract investment. We will look at investments. It can tell us it wants to develop natural resources. We will look at the projects that are actually being built. It can tell us it wants to diversify Canada’s markets. We will look at new infrastructure and new exports. At some point, we have to move from talk to action, from words to deeds. I think that is precisely what Canadians expect from their representatives. We are going to ask tough questions, demand assurances, demand accountability, demand timelines, and demand results because the Liberals have gotten us used to plenty of announcements, but results that are slow in coming. If the Liberal government truly wants to turn the page on this way of doing things, then today is its chance to prove it. I believe that is the real challenge of Bill C-39. This bill could mark a change in direction, and we must ensure that this new direction leads to a Canada that builds more, produces more, exports more, and provides more opportunities for its workers and businesses. If next year we are still here talking about the same delays, the same obstacles, and the same projects that are still awaiting approval, we will have to be honest and admit that the change will have been nothing more than a change in rhetoric, and that will be a failure. We have the natural resources, the workers, the entrepreneurs, the expertise, and the business partnerships around the world. What we need to regain is the confidence to invest, the predictability to plan, and the political courage to make decisions and that is what we will be looking for in Bill C-39. Will it truly help speed up projects? Will it truly reduce duplication? Will it truly give investors clarity on what to expect? If the answer is yes, then the government may earn our trust to support it. If the answer is no, then we will have to ask the government to go much further, because Canada cannot afford to wait. We will not judge this government by its intentions. We will judge it by what it builds. We will judge it by the investments it succeeds in attracting. We will judge it by the jobs it helps create. We will judge it by the infrastructure that is being built, because Canada has everything it needs to succeed. If the government truly wants to turn the page on the legacy of the Trudeau era, if it truly wants to demonstrate that Canada is back in the business of major investments, it should not do so merely through speeches, press releases, or bills, but on the ground, in our regions, our ports, our railways, our industries and our businesses. That is where the success of Bill C-39 will be measured.”

• Echo ×4

  A repeated line

  “Canada has everything it needs to succeed.”

  Said 4 times by 4 members since June 2.

  Every time it was said →