That's a great question.
Obviously, Bill C-5 was passed last year. It was a welcome shift in tone, I think, and an indication that the Carney government was seeking to build things and have a government that is known for building things. However, it was criticized, including by me, as being a band-aid solution, keeping what was very much a flawed regulatory system but allowing some projects to bypass it. This was a tacit acknowledgement that the regulatory system itself had many problems. I've been very pleased to see Bill C-39 come out as a way to fix some of the underlying problems that Bill C-5 was really just trying to get around.
I also think it was strategic and wise, and it makes sense, to tackle transportation, labour and major projects all within the same bill. It has been criticized for being omnibus, but those are obviously three links in the same chain that would be difficult to address.... If someone is trying to build a mine, they need a way to transport to market and need to make sure that the ports and rail are reliable when they transport. Clearly, it's a holistic approach to our trade challenges.
I've been closely watching responses. I haven't heard one yet from the Mining Association of Canada, and I look forward to that. In general, I can say from the western Canadian business side that all four of the western provinces have supported it and several oil and gas companies have supported it. It seems to me to be doing some very positive work in making us more competitive on trade.