Debates of Oct. 5th, 2026

Building Canada Strong Act

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

We will have to leave the pudding there.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Brampton South.

[Sonia Sidhu, Liberal, Brampton South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a great honour to stand in the House to represent my residents of Brampton South and speak to Bill C-39, the building Canada strong act, introduced by my colleague, the member for Gatineau.

Canada has what the world wants. We are a global leader in both clean and conventional energy, with minerals and natural resources. We are among the world's most trade-connected economies, with free trade agreements providing access to approximately 1.5 billion consumers. Canada now has the lowest marginal effective tax rate on new business investment among the G7 countries.

Across the world, we are seeing changes in supply chains, trade disruptions, geopolitical tensions and tariff pressures. We must use this time to build on our strengths and ensure that we have the infrastructure, transportation network and workers to support growth.

In the past year, we have already taken action to build Canada strong. Last month, we acquired nearly $500 billion in new investment commitments to Canada to support pension funds, financing for Canadian businesses and capital to grow Canadian sectors.

In light of recent unjustified U.S. tariffs, we are taking action to support families, workers and industries. To date, we have provided nearly $32.5 billion in tariff relief support to industries across Canada, including a $7.5-billion relief package this past August.

Last week, I joined the hon. Minister of Artificial Intelligence and Digital Innovation and Minister responsible for the FedDev Ontario to announce $26 million in funding to support 31 GTA businesses in expanding production and diversifying into new markets. In Brampton, Daybar Industries received support, along with other companies, to expand production capacity, strengthen competitiveness and diversify into new markets.

Building Canada strong means investing in our communities, supporting Canadian businesses and creating the right conditions for our communities to succeed. Bill C-39 builds on this work through three important pillars: building Canada strong, keeping Canada moving and making Canada strong for all.

This bill is about strengthening our trade corridors and ports, getting infrastructure projects built faster and supporting workers and fair workplaces. It would create a more integrated process for Canada to deliver on major initiatives, including a clearer timeline for federal reviews and decisions. This greater certainty for businesses and organizations would make sure that they spend more time investing in our communities and creating good jobs, instead of worrying about regulatory burdens and unnecessary red tape. These measures would make Canada a more attractive place to invest while still maintaining our strong standard for environmental protection and sustainability.

The bill is about making sure that we can continue to build at the pace our economy and communities need us to in order to thrive. It would also reduce duplication between federal departments and agencies in reviews and approving permits.

The second pillar, keeping Canada moving, focuses on ensuring that our transportation network can remain the backbone of our country. We are a trading nation. Our roads, railways, ports, airports and other trade networks are critical infrastructure that all Canadians rely on for work and to get the goods they need every day. This bill would ensure that our transportation systems remain reliable and can move goods efficiently from coast to coast to coast while still delivering our trade.

My community of Brampton is one example of the scale of our transportation sector. Over 2,000 trucks move through Brampton every single day. We have more than 11,000 transportation employers that support approximately 24,000 jobs. In Canada as a whole, this sector contributes around $2 billion to our GDP.

The bill would ensure that Canadian farmers, manufacturers, workers, employers and industries can continue to rely on the transportation networks that connect every region of our country and build a more reliable supply chain. The bill would also heavily support our trade diversification efforts.

Around 85% of Canada's non-U.S. trade moves through our marine ports. The bill would ensure that our ports have the support and infrastructure needed to continue helping businesses and industries access new markets around the world. To support these efforts, we also need to ensure that we continue to modernize our trade system. Many businesses still rely on manual processes and legacy systems, which may very well be the cause of shipment slowdowns and added costs and which create further challenges for Canadian businesses to compete in global markets.

Bill C-39 would move forward with measures intended to modernize these systems and move them toward digitization. These changes would ensure that there is better coordination between industries and the federal government so that Canadian businesses can get their products to global markets quickly.

In the face of these global uncertainties, we must ensure that our nation is prepared to respond by strengthening our domestic economy, supporting Canadian businesses, building new trade relationships and ensuring that our transportation networks are ready as we continue to grow.

Lastly, the third pillar of the bill, “Canada Strong For All”, focuses on making sure that all Canadians have the opportunity to benefit from growth. As we build new infrastructure and strengthen our economy, we must also make sure that we support Canadian workers, protect their rights and create fair and safe workplaces. Canada's economy relies on the people who build, transport, manufacture and deliver the goods that Canadians rely on every day.

In Brampton, manufacturing is nearly one-quarter of our workforce. These are good, stable jobs that support thousands of families, individuals and livelihoods. Across Canada, over one million workers are covered by the federal labour framework, including workers in transportation, rail, air and telecommunications. That is why the bill includes new measures to strengthen Canada's labour framework and would give both employers and unions more tools to resolve disputes and agreements.

These measures would bring federal mediators into difficult bargaining relationships earlier, would extend the conciliation period from 60 to 90 days to give both sides more time to reach a fair agreement and would create a special mediator process for more complex issues at the bargaining table. Bill C-39 would also ensure that workers maintain their protected right to strike. These changes are intended to support more stable labour relations and more reliable supply chains while still protecting workers' rights.

“Canada Strong For All” also means making sure that we continue protecting the environment and indigenous self-determination as we grow our economy. With the bill, Canada would also continue to uphold our responsibility to indigenous communities, invest in sustainability efforts and maintain the high standards that Canadians expect from major federal investments. These measures would make sure that Canada is prepared to respond to opportunities and challenges in the future. We cannot wait for these challenges to arrive. We must prepare now and build for the future. It is about building the infrastructure that Canadians need, keeping our supply chains moving effectively and efficiently, supporting our workers and making sure that all communities across the nation benefit from Canada's growth.

From the financing commitments secured at the Canada investment summit to increased tariff relief support for workers and businesses, we have already taken significant action to build a more resilient economy. Bill C-39 builds on this work.

For communities like mine and for every community across Canada, this improved coordination matters. It means stronger infrastructure to support major construction projects, more resilient supply chains to support Canadian industry, greater opportunities for businesses to enter different markets, and good jobs for Canadians to grow.

[Gaétan Malette, Conservative, Kapuskasing—Timmins—Mushkegowuk, ON]

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?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

I will remind the member to address his questions through the Chair.

The hon. member for Brampton South.

[Sonia Sidhu, Liberal, Brampton South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member opposite for his passion. It is an important question.

The world is changing rapidly, as we all know. That is why this government is focused on what it can control. There are three themes to building Canada now: creating a more efficient and predictable coordination framework to attract more investment without delay, moving with speed, and expanding our trading relationship with reliable partners. We are not just paying attention to trade. We are also centred on workers and how we can move Canada forward for all collectively so we can thrive within our communities.

[Mario Beaulieu, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Mr. Speaker, with Bill C-39, the Liberal government wants to shorten the time frames for environmental assessments, particularly for oil projects. To achieve that, we either have to provide these agencies with more resources so they can conduct their assessments more quickly, or change their mandate. Rather than working with the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada, this task is being entrusted to other agencies that lack the same expertise and have different objectives.

Ultimately, will we not end up with sloppy assessments? Will we not be contributing to an increase in greenhouse gas emissions? Who will pay for the environmental disasters we are going to face?

[Sonia Sidhu, Liberal, Brampton South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the environment sector is very important in Bill C-39. It is about building faster, but the bill would not remove any environmental assessment permits or protections. Environmental health and social impacts would continue to be reviewed, and the scientific evidence would continue to guide decisions, but new processes would reduce duplication and improve coordination so that projects can move forward more efficiently. There is more transparency in that too.

[Sima Acan, Liberal, Oakville West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for highlighting the support to help Brampton businesses expand their production and reach new markets.

With my background in industrial automation and robotics, I know how investing in technology can improve productivity and help Canadian manufacturers compete on the global stage. Those gains go further when businesses can move their goods efficiently and reliably.

Could the member explain how the measures in Bill C-39 to strengthen trade corridors and modernize our ports would complement these business investments and help manufacturers like Daybar turn greater production capacity into export growth and good Canadian jobs?

[Sonia Sidhu, Liberal, Brampton South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, to my friend and colleague from Oakville West, thank you for your passion about industries. I worked in the nuclear caucus with you and I know how passionate you are.

I was at Daybar last week with the Minister of Artificial Intelligence and colleagues. When Canadian manufacturers expand production, they need to know they have a transportation-reliable sector and a reliable method of digitalization, which I mentioned in my speech, so that they know their products are getting to consumers. This is very important for any business or manufacturer. Giving access to digitalization and sustainability to manufacturers strengthens trade corridors and reduces delays, and this bill would do exactly that. It would also create good jobs in my—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

The time has expired.

This is just a friendly reminder to address questions and comments through the Chair.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Swift Current—Grasslands—Kindersley.

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Swift Current—Grasslands—Kindersley, SK]

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?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, the member says “bold and decisive”. That is exactly what we have seen since the last federal election, when Canadians elected a new Prime Minister and 70-plus new Liberal members of Parliament. All one needs to do is take a look at what has transpired.

The Conservatives like to be critical of the Major Projects Office: 24-plus projects and half a trillion dollars. What about the investment summit hosted by the Prime Minister? Again, we are talking about half a trillion dollars. We are talking about historic amounts of money to support a stronger and healthier Canadian economy.

The only division in the House of Commons is within the Conservative Party. When will the Conservative Party recognize a good thing and get behind Bill C-39?

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Swift Current—Grasslands—Kindersley, SK]

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.

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, when I listen to some of my colleagues, I get the impression that there are only a few members of Parliament, including those from the Bloc Québécois, who are concerned about the environment and who want to keep the safeguards.

Right now, it seems like no one is listening to anyone else. Obviously, that is because we are talking about the environment. No one cares, since they do not believe in climate change. We are definitely not looking at the same science.

My colleagues should be ashamed because when we go back home, our children and grandchildren ask us what tomorrow holds for them.

My colleagues think only about the next election or their region's economy. For heaven's sake, let us think about the future.

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Swift Current—Grasslands—Kindersley, SK]

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.

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend and colleague for his great speech.

The fact is, with the team Canada approach by the Liberals, there has never been a more divisive prime minister in the history of our country. There is a separation issue in Quebec. There is a separation issue in Alberta. The Prime Minister has divided our country along regional lines ever since he was elected 18 months ago.

This is exactly the same legislation as Bill C-5, which talked about building at speeds never seen before. These guys have 500 projects at the Major Projects Office, and they have approved none of them. Why?

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Swift Current—Grasslands—Kindersley, SK]

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.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

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.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, that is a lot of fast talk and no doubt a lot of words. I will pick up on some of the things the member was commenting on.

The member talked about getting oil to the Pacific Ocean. Stephen Harper was 10 years in government, and not one inch of pipeline was built directly to the Pacific or the coastline.

Now, we can talk about TMX. We can talk about LNG. Let us talk about the time since the last federal election. A newly elected Prime Minister has done more in 18 months than Stephen Harper did in 10 years, quite frankly, when it comes to economic development and the creation of literally close to a trillion dollars of potential investment. That is what has taken place in the last 18 months.

We can talk about the Pacific link. We can talk about LNG phase two. What is the member talking about—

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

I have to interrupt the member to give a chance to the member for Lakeland to respond.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal member is not telling the truth about either the last 11 years or the previous record. The fact is that private sector proponents made proposals for a dedicated Asian export pipeline off the west coast. Also, the private sector proponents made a proposal for a west-to-east pipeline to provide Canadian domestic energy security and exports to Europe. The court ruled that there had to be more indigenous consultation done on northern gateway. Prime Minister Trudeau had the option to redo that consultation, get it right, and Canada would long be shipping barrels of oil to Asia to diversify markets beyond the U.S., on the private sector's dime, on their time, and that infrastructure would have been built years and years ago. Instead, the only thing the Liberals have a record of is chasing out private sector proponents and putting Crown corporations and taxpayers on the hook, and no shock—

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, there is one thing I do not understand.

I do not understand why the Conservatives seem so angry. We can hear it. It is palpable. They are angry. Why are they angry? They seem angry that the government wants to bypass environmental assessments in order to build pipelines. However, I always thought that was the main objective of their political agenda.

I would like to hear an explanation.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the current situation is that the Liberals have just created more uncertainty and more chaos. Whatever happened in this country to what was a world-renowned, independent, impartial, objective and evidence-based regulatory body that made recommendations? Instead, what the Liberals are doing is centralizing power so that politicians are picking pet projects. They have a 100-person, $200-million Major Projects Office, which calls itself a concierge, while they have three existing regulators and more than 70 projects with private sector proponents that are stuck in front of those regulators right now with no end in sight. The Prime Minister himself said that there are 500 projects sitting on his table since they started this whole hullabaloo.

The point is: streamline the regulations, fix the laws, get rid of the anti-competitive taxes and bring private sector investment back to Canada for unity, sovereignty, security and leverage abroad.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Okanagan Lake West—South Kelowna, BC]

Mr. Speaker, these are important issues for our country and to the member's area.

In Bill C-39, we see an increase in the bureaucracy in section 2. We see that the Liberals want more discretionary powers given to ministers, and so powers going from the legislative branch to the executive and even some very wide-reaching powers that we agreed to give them on a temporary basis. If members remember, on Bill C-5, the Liberals, at the time when they were accused of grabbing too much power, said, “Oh, we'll put in a sunset clause for five years.” Well, in Bill C-39, they are removing that and saying that they will only use those large-scale powers to exempt projects from huge, important laws. The only limit now would be the dissolution of Parliament or prorogation of Parliament.

Does the member think that the Liberals are being a little too cute by saying, “On those powers, we put in a sunset clause”, and now they are basically taking all that power back again and more?