Debates of Oct. 5th, 2026

Building Canada Strong Act

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, of course, there are things that my colleague and I may not agree on, but there are certainly things that we do. He talked about how the bill does not go far enough in terms of infrastructure. I think about the Prime Minister's words about nation building, about building Canada strong. Right now, there are 65,000 Canadians who are homeless. They cite that this costs us about $3 billion a year and that it would save us $2 billion if they were to be housed. Right now, in Canada, 3.3% of our housing is non-market housing, compared to France and Britain, which are at about 16% to 17%, Denmark, 21%, the Netherlands, 34%. We do not have to look far to see what 3.3% looks like.

Does my colleague agree that nation building, in a country as wealthy as Canada, should mean making sure that we do not have any homeless people in the country?

[David McKenzie, Conservative, Calgary Signal Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, certainly, no person in Canada who wishes to be housed should be unhoused. However, what is clear in Canada is that the federal government has among the worst ways to try to deliver housing effectively in Canada.

We are now on our fourth major Liberal effort to bring in housing improvements in Canada, without success. The Parliamentary Budget Officer has projected that roughly 5,000 homes at a maximum will be built under the current Liberal government program. That is 5,000 per year for five years. This is a far cry from the 500,000 homes that our Prime Minister stated he would deliver.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, one of the changes in Bill C-39 is that decision-making power is being centralized in the hands of far fewer people than it was previously.

For example, in some cases, a single minister may be responsible for approving a project. In other cases, it is the Governor in Council that decides. However, in the majority of cases, the expertise of several agencies is being completely sidelined.

I would like to know whether my colleague sees this as a form of erosion of democracy. Take, for example, the issue of workers' rights and the fact that parliamentarians will be excluded from the process of applying section 107 of the Canada Labour Code.

Furthermore, on environmental matters, scientists and reason are sidelined in order to centralize power in the hands of a few decision makers, who could, in some cases, be tempted to use it for personal gain.

[David McKenzie, Conservative, Calgary Signal Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, we employ in Canada, in various aspects, expert panels that regulate different aspects of our industrial base. That expertise does, in my understanding, and should include representation across all stakeholders within economic development projects and status. We have a system in that respect that works. As I indicated previously, that is where our decision-making should be. It should not be located with a single political minister.

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it is always an honour to stand up in this House and speak on behalf of the residents of Saskatoon West. Today, we are speaking about Bill C-39, the building Canada strong act. I think everybody in our country, including those in the Liberal government, agrees that 11 years of the current government has left Canada lacking when it comes to investment, lacking when it comes to jobs and the economy and lacking when it comes to GDP per person. We need to do everything we can to get more business activity and more investment in this country.

The building Canada strong act sounds very familiar to me. If we go back about a year and a half to the last election, what happened right after? We heard these words: We need to build at speeds never seen before. It is much like we are hearing today. There is a lot of déjà vu. Members will recall that at that time, the government came forward with Bill C-5. The government's website, even today, says this about Bill C-5:

Canada must build critical new infrastructure at speeds not seen in generations. This includes the infrastructure to diversify our trading relationships and to become an energy superpower in both clean and conventional energies.

That is great. The government needed, at that time, to get this bill through the House and pass it immediately so we could create the Major Projects Office and create projects of national interest, because this was urgent for “speeds not seen in generations”. This House did that. This House debated the bill relatively quickly and passed it. We rushed it through.

What was accomplished? We have bureaucrats in place. They are all getting paid and probably getting bonuses too. Five hundred projects have been submitted, so people in the industries stepped up with lots of ideas. However, while the member across the aisle said there were 24 projects, I saw 18 on the website that have been considered by the office. Just last week, the very first one squeaked its way through the office, but it has not started yet. The actual results of this office are that zero projects have been built.

I find it kind of amusing that the solution is another bill. Last year, we had the Building Canada Act. This is the building Canada strong act, and I can only assume that next year we are going to have the building Canada even stronger act to fix all the problems that have not been fixed here. The government is about talk, not results, and Canadians need actual construction jobs, need actual work and need money so they can pay their bills.

As I said, with respect to Bill C-5, there were 500 project applications, and only one cleared. I want to talk about the difference between a Conservative approach and a Liberal approach. The Liberal approach is all about control. The Liberals will not let the private sector do its thing. The Liberals want the private sector to come to them. They want people in the private sector to come begging to their offices, saying, “Please, sir, we would like to build this project.” They like the view of control. They like the ability to say yes and no. They like it when people come to them essentially begging to do things, and they like to be able to say no, yes, no, yes, to basically pick the projects.

The Conservative approach is very different. Our approach is to get government out of the way and level the playing field. We need to let the private sector do what it does best. People in the private sector analyze projects. They look at the benefits, look at the costs and look at the implications on the environment and other things, and they make their decisions. Those decisions actually benefit all Canadians, because they create jobs, they create work and they create paycheques.

We need to put guardrails in place, obviously, so there have to be environmental protections and there has to be a taxation system that works, but it needs to be predictable, fair and timely. If people meet the standards as laid out by the guardrails, then their project should be approved. They do not need to come begging to the government to get it approved; they can just go ahead and do it. The result of that is that more projects get built.

The Liberals like to pick winners and losers. Conservatives want everyone to win. As a result, the Liberals have one project now slowly moving its way through the system. Conservatives would have hundreds of projects by now that would be moving forward. How would we do that? We have said it many times. We would repeal Bill C-69, the no more pipelines act. We would repeal Bill C-48, the tanker ban. We would repeal the industrial carbon tax and the clean fuel standard. We would establish predictable, time-limited assessment reviews with a one-and-done approach.

The one-and-done approach is really important to this because it is one project, one review. It is a simple application, a firm decision timeline and predictable milestones, with a six-month approval or, in some cases, when there is an extremely complicated case, a one-year approval. We would maintain our safety and environmental standards, but we would put a predictable process in place for businesses so that they know what they are up against.

What we need is private investor confidence. That is what is lacking in our country right now. We need permanent fixes to the bureaucracy and red tape that have been created by this 11-year-old government. We need to create stability and predictability so that investors can make their decisions knowing what the future will hold.

There are potentially billions of dollars in projects waiting to be done in Canada. We need them, and our workers need them. We need our national income to grow so that as the cost of everything goes up, our paycheques rise with it. They have not. We see that. All of us were in our ridings last week. I am sure members talked to many people who struggle from day to day, more people than ever before and people we would not expect.

This is part of the answer, to have construction and have investment, but that is not happening under the government, and it will not happen under Bill C-39. We have capital on the sidelines because of uncertainty. Businesses have money to spend, but they are not spending it in Canada. We also need private proponents for commercially viable projects, and I will talk more about that in a second. We do not need taxpayer subsidies. We need investor confidence.

Let us talk about the Pacific link pipeline announcement. This is the very first project of national interest out of the Major Projects Office. Guess what it does not have. It does not have a private proponent. Who is paying for it? It is the taxpayer. Who is taking the risk on the project? It is the taxpayer. How can it be that the Prime Minister himself has encouraged it to get built and has supposedly cleared the pathway, yet there is no private proponent? That tells us that something is definitely not right in the system, and that the bureaucracy and red tape have not been eliminated. It is government money that is going to be spent on this much-needed project. Do not get me wrong; we need this project for the sake of our country to grow our country, but it is the taxpayers taking all the risks, and that should not be. We need to get government out of the way and let builders do the building.

In Saskatchewan, these impacts are very real. Our economy in Saskatchewan is based on resources. I just want to single out food production. We produce grain and potash in Saskatchewan, and this directly impacts people at the grocery store. It impacts Canadians and people all around the world. What is critical in those two industries, grain and potash, is railways, roads and ports. Any bottlenecks become a problem for our customers.

What is needed in order to make farms, railways, roads and ports work? It is diesel fuel. Diesel fuel is consumed in farming, trucking and railways, in everything. Higher fuel costs result directly in higher costs to the consumer. That is why we have put forward the emergency fuel relief plan. We want to eliminate all federal taxes on diesel sales until at least Canada Day next year. We want to scrap diesel production taxes by permanently eliminating the federal industrial carbon tax and the clean fuel standard. We want to eliminate the diesel price gap between the United States and Canada within five years. We also need to create emergency permits for diesel refineries, storage and transportation. We need to get the industry going. We need to allow businesses to deduct that and build a strategic refined petroleum reserve to protect Canadians during supply reductions.

The strategic fuel reserve is important because as the price of oil skyrockets, we need stability for Canadians. Canada is the only country in the G7 that does not have an oil stockpile to release from. The Prime Minister has explicitly rejected our calls for this. It is funny, because earlier this year, the Liberals promised 23 million additional barrels of oil, but we do not have them to give. We do not have a stockpile. There is no way that we can give that. In fact, Canada's energy production actually dropped by five million barrels after the Prime Minister made that announcement. Now the G7 is going to release another 100 million barrels over the next four months, including diesel, and Canada cannot play. We cannot play in that game, because we do not have the fuel to be able to do that. We should be the solution. We have the third- or fourth-largest oil reserves in the world. We should be the solution to energy instability, not be held victim to it.

I just want to highlight a couple of things. The Liberal plan is bureaucracy and red tape. That is the plan we are seeing here today. There are no tangible results. There is lots of talk about this, that and the other thing, but no actual jobs. Canadians need jobs and paycheques, and they are not getting that from this plan.

The Conservative plan is to have one project, one review and six-month approvals and to eliminate Bill C-69, repeal Bill C-48, end the industrial carbon tax and get rid of the clean fuel standard. These are real, practical solutions that could be made to get government out of the way, eliminate bureaucracy and bring stability back to the private sector. It is investing in war zones right now. It is investing its money elsewhere. It is not coming to Canada. We need that money to come into Canada so that it can take the risks, invest in these projects and create the jobs. Hopefully, in a year we will not be talking about a building Canada even stronger act.

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

Mr. Speaker, we need to look at the larger picture here. We have seen a great example. Through the relationships of the Prime Minister, along with a very proactive cabinet and caucus colleagues, we are going out there saying that Canada wants to see investment. We want to see major projects developed, to the degree where we got half a trillion dollars on the table in the Toronto conference. That is a historic amount of money. When we take a look at Bill C-39, it is all part of it. Building a stronger and healthier economy is what this Prime Minister and every Liberal member of Parliament is all about.

Does the Conservative Party support Bill C-39?

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it is one thing to say half a trillion dollars was talked about, but we have lost a trillion dollars. If we lost a trillion and we get a half a trillion back, I do not know if that is a very good deal. I do not think I would want that deal.

I think the proof is in the pudding. The Prime Minister talked about this new pipeline project. The Liberals removed all the barriers. They went to industry and said, “Please come and build this. Put your money on the table. Let's build this project”, but it did not happen, because there are still too many barriers.

Sure, there is lots of talk. Of course, people want to do things. I would say to the member that hope is not a strategy. We all want all kinds of things, but we only get the things we deserve. With our bureaucracy, with our red tape right now, we are getting what we deserve, and that is a lack of investment.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Quebec has been in the midst of an election campaign these past few weeks. I spent a lot of time on the campaign trail with candidates for the Parti Québécois, the party I support, and people talked to me about federal politics and about the current Prime Minister. I asked everyone who spoke to me about what the Prime Minister has actually done since taking office to make their lives easier and improve their purchasing power. No one was able to give me an answer. No one was able to tell me how their lives have improved since this Prime Minister took office.

What is more, here in Parliament, the Liberals are passing bills that undermine the work of Parliament and its relevance. Bill C-39 is a good example of that. It makes it even easier for the government to implement its major projects, and it erodes workers' rights.

I will cut my question short because I am short on time. Does my colleague not think that this government is going way too far and that it should go back to showing some respect for parliamentary procedure?

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt, as I have said many times, that this government is all about talk. When we speak with constituents, with regular Canadians, we will, time and again, find that their life is actually worse. If we ask, “Has you life gotten better in the last year?”, their is answer is, “No.” Things are more expensive, their paycheque does not go as far and that is a direct indictment on this 11-year-old government's record.

Also, so much of what is talked about here in Bill C-39 is centralizing power again in Ottawa, centralizing power in the government, rather than creating a level playing field, which would be the way we would want to do this: create the environment so that businesses can do what they want, rather than concentrating all of that power in Ottawa.

[Dan Muys, Conservative, Flamborough—Glanbrook—Brant North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would ask the member to compare the situation we saw in Canada 12, 15, 18 years ago under the Conservative government when energy companies were building infrastructure, mining companies were building mines and we were employing thousands of Canadians, to now, which is building at speeds, of course, not seen in generations, but apparently not the case.

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals thought that building at speeds never seen before was a good thing, but what we have seen is that it is actually a very bad thing. They are correct that these are speeds we have never seen before, but it is a turtle pace.

The best way to answer the member's question about what it was like under the Conservatives, is that, at the time, I was building homes in Saskatchewan. The home building business was booming. There were projects going, people were working hard, paycheques were flowing, jobs were created, and everybody was building and buying houses. The Liberal government got elected, and guess what? The market started to go down and that was the end of the boom times, and we have been in that for the last 11 years.

[Marie-France Lalonde, Liberal, Orléans, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is always an honour to rise in the House of Commons. I am proud to rise today to speak to Bill C‑39, the building Canada strong act.

When we talk about building Canada, it is helpful to take a step back. Before we talk about laws, infrastructure, investments or major projects, let us remember one simple truth: Canada was built by people who dared to think big. Through hard work, determination and vision, generations of Canadians built communities, created opportunities and contributed to creating what is now the best country in the world.

Our history is, in many ways, a story of bringing people together. When Canadians built the railway, they were doing far more than laying tracks across the country; they were connecting communities, creating opportunities and opening new possibilities for future generations. They understood that a strong and united Canada depends on connections between people, regions and ideas. That vision helped transform a vast country into the Canada we proudly call home today. Canadians had a bold vision for their future. They wanted an ambitious country and, through determination and hard work, they built one.

Canada has never been a country that has stood still. Over the years, we have kept on building: ports, roads, transportation networks, and infrastructure like hospitals and community centres. All of this has allowed our communities to grow and prosper. We have invested in developing our natural resources, like hydroelectricity, and built nuclear power plants using CANDU technology. We founded universities, like McGill University, the University of Toronto, Queen's University and the University of Ottawa. We have also become an important ecosystem in the auto sector, particularly here in the beautiful province of Ontario.

As Canadians, we understand that building is not just a matter of concrete and steel. First and foremost, building is about people: the entrepreneurs who create jobs, the workers who contribute to our economy's growth every day, the researchers who push the boundaries of knowledge, and the young people who imagine the Canada of the future, a stable and prosperous Canada that is free to act as it sees fit.

When I hear the words “building Canada strong”, I think of a Canada that believes in ambition, rewards hard work and creates the conditions for every Canadian to succeed. I think of a Canada that gives its people the opportunity not only to dream big, but to turn those dreams into reality. As I reflect on the many conversations I had this summer with constituents in Orléans, I am reminded that my community is somewhat anxious about the world and about the economy, but my community in Orléans is also optimistic about the new opportunities. They want good jobs. They want growing businesses. They want their children and their grandchildren to be able to successfully live right here in Canada, and they understand that in a rapidly changing world, the status quo is not an option.

Over the decades, the global economy has changed. Technology has advanced and new industries have emerged. Every step of the way, Canada has managed to adapt and make the most of the opportunities that came its way. We know that a strong economy is built not by looking backward, to the past, but by preparing for the future. Canada cannot rely on its past success alone to meet the challenges of the future. Now, our turn has come to build on this legacy by creating the conditions that will allow Canadians to succeed in an ever-changing global economy.

That is why diversification matters.

Diversification is not about turning away from our long-standing partners. It is about ensuring that Canada is well positioned to compete and succeed in a changing world. It means creating new opportunities for Canadian businesses, opening new markets for Canadian products and strengthening our economic resilience. It means giving our workers, entrepreneurs and innovators more places to sell, invest and grow.

This is also why our government has set an ambitious objective to help Canadian businesses expand into new markets and increase Canada's exports beyond the United States. A resilient economy is one that can adapt, seize opportunities wherever they arise, and continue to create good jobs and prosperity here at home.

Today's global economy is changing fast. Supply chains are being reshaped, and trade structures are transforming. Countries want to secure access to the strategic resources and goods they need for sustained growth. In this context, Canada cannot afford to sit on the sidelines.

We have everything it takes to succeed. We have talented and highly skilled workers, innovative entrepreneurs creating jobs, and coveted natural resources. We also have communities across Canada that are ready to help grow our economy. The question is not whether Canada has the potential to succeed. The question is whether we are ready to seize the opportunities that are ours for the taking. I believe we are.

The building Canada strong act is about making it easier to get projects moving. It is about giving businesses and investors greater certainty. Our government has created and will continue to create the conditions that allow businesses to invest and grow, and give investors the confidence to invest here in Canada. It is about strengthening the transportation and trade corridors that connect our communities to the rest of the country and to the world. It is about making sure Canadian workers continue to benefit from a growing economy. These are important changes and important changes deserve careful study.

Over the last year, the bill has been shaped by consulting with businesses, investors, unions, employers, other stakeholders and our indigenous partners. The government participated in 30 meetings with indigenous groups. The intent of all these consultations with all these stakeholders was to create a project approval process that is more efficient, more predictable and better coordinated, while maintaining rigorous environmental studies and standards, upholding indigenous rights and ensuring fair treatment for workers.

If we are to build for the future, we must do so in a way that earns public confidence, creates opportunities for Canadians and delivers lasting benefits to communities across the country. That is the balance we must strive to achieve as we consider Bill C-39, the building Canada strong act.

One aspect of our history that is worth mentioning is our openness to the world. Canada has never built its future alone. We have developed partnerships and welcomed people from all walks of life, whose history and culture enrich our society. By inspiring trust, Canada has built economic and diplomatic relationships that contribute to our prosperity. These relationships are still essential today.

When I think about the railway, I do not think only about the infrastructure. I also think about a generation of Canadians who chose to invest in the future of this country. When I think about Canada's successes, I do not only think about economic indicators or statistics. I think about the men and the women who had the courage to build, to innovate and to believe in what our country could achieve. When I think about diversifying our economy, I think about our ability to adapt, change and seize new opportunities. I think about the next generation of Canadians. I think about the jobs they will hold, the businesses they will create and the opportunities that will be available to them.

At the end, our greatest strength has never been a single project, a single industry or a single resource. Our greatest strength has always been our people. Let us be ambitious for our country, let us move forward responsibly and let us make the most of the opportunities before us. If we do so, future generations will be able to look back on this period and say that Canadians saw the challenges before them, rose to meet them and chose to build for the future.

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague opposite talked about the railway and about treating workers fairly, but some workers feel that the government is railroading them, particularly with unilateral changes to section 107 of the Labour Code. I would like to ask the member two questions.

Does she support the government's changes?

Does she support the Minister of Justice tabling a Charter of Rights and Freedoms statement outlining the justice department's views on these changes and workers' rights?

[Marie-France Lalonde, Liberal, Orléans, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I support Bill C-39. I support our workers. I am a former business owner myself. I completely agree that the rights of workers are very important in this country.

This bill is about giving certainty, allowing projects to go forward and seeking the future of our economy. This is very important, and it is why I stand in very strong support of this bill.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Orléans, whom I hold in high regard. She and I have had the opportunity to work together on various files, including the French language file, and I appreciate her co-operation.

She talked about major projects that built the country, particularly the railway. She mentioned various major projects and spoke about the vision that we must have when we want to build a great country. I completely agree with her. However, I would like to add a bit of history. Going back to the construction of the trans-Canada railway, it is important to remember that the workers were forced to endure absolutely appalling conditions. That would never fly today. It is also important to remember the development of airports like the one in Mirabel, which is making the news again because of the high-speed rail project. I will tie that in as well, because the community of Mirabel is still deeply scarred and extremely traumatized by the brutal expropriations in 1969-70.

Now, the government is about to do the same thing with a high-speed rail project. We learned from news reports that Alto has signed confidentiality agreements that prevent farmers from hiring appraisal companies because they are now all tied to that project.

Is that what my colleague thinks it means to go—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

The hon. member for Orléans.

[Marie-France Lalonde, Liberal, Orléans, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I also appreciate working collaboratively with my colleague on the francophonie, at the Assemblée parlementaire de la Francophonie and on other such issues.

I would also like to remind the House and my colleague that we can engage in fearmongering or we can talk about the facts, including the investments made in Quebec in recent years, in all sorts of excellent projects that will improve working conditions and boost Canada's economic situation, including in Quebec. I want to talk about that briefly. In recent years, there have been six icebreakers ordered from Davie Canada. There is the big port project in Contrecoeur. There was the designation of Quebec City as a container port.

We need to stop looking backward and start moving forward. It is no longer 1900. It is 2026. I would like to remind my colleague of that.

[Steeve Lavoie, Liberal, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her very inspiring speech. I truly enjoyed it. It reminds me of the speech I gave two weeks ago. I particularly liked the part of her speech when she said that the status quo is not an option anymore. I often hear the other parties say that we favour the status quo on all decisions. However, since our new government has been in power, there have been a lot of decisions and a lot of projects.

Can my colleague expand on that? She talked about the Davie icebreakers, which are built in my region. She talked about QSL, which is a container terminal project in Quebec City, and there are many others. Those decisions are more trade related, but some decisions have also been made that affect families.

With that in mind, I would like her to talk to me about what the government has been doing since it was elected in May 2025.

[Marie-France Lalonde, Liberal, Orléans, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member very much for his important question.

The government has promised to keep investing not only in major projects, but also in communities and people.

I just want to make a comment. I know we have been talking about Quebec, but I want to talk about something else. Quite recently, Canada and Ontario agreed to continue supporting our families when it comes to child care fees. Quebec had set an extraordinary example, which we followed. I am proud to see that our government is going to keep investing to help families.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, build Canada strong and nation building should also be about plugging economic leakages.

The Mental Health Commission of Canada estimates that mental health costs our economy nearly $200 billion a year. That is roughly 6% of Canada's GDP. The government is promoting its new pipeline as nation building because it could add more than $20 billion a year to GDP. That is about 0.6% of our GDP.

To be clear, mental illness is imposing an economic burden roughly 10 times larger than the annual GDP benefit the government projects from this pipeline.

If a potential 0.6% increase in GDP warrants nation-building action, why is the Liberal government not dealing with the economic burden approaching 6% of the GDP, namely unaddressed mental illness, that is impacting our economy?

[Marie-France Lalonde, Liberal, Orléans, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that could be complicated, because this is a very important challenge. As an economy and a society, we are facing mental health issues, which my colleague has been advocating to help.

Mental health is something we are addressing. We are helping provinces with their own responsibility for mental health in our local communities by improving housing, returning dollars and helping families with the cost of living.

We are going to continue to advocate, and I am certainly advocating, for better mental health in this country.

[Connie Cody, Conservative, Cambridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, for years, Canadians have been telling the government that projects need to get moving. Canadians desperately need homes, reliable infrastructure, good jobs and a stronger economy. We have enormous potential to attract investment and develop the resources and industries needed to achieve these goals. What we need to know is whether our federal processes are allowing us to take advantage of those opportunities.

For over a year, Canadians have heard the Liberal government talk about building Canada, major projects, infrastructure and economic growth. They heard the same promises 18 months ago, when Bill C-5 was presented as the solution that would speed up approvals and get projects moving. Today, Canadians are still waiting for results, yet the government is once again asking them to trust that this new bill will be different.

Canadians are asking a very simple question: What happened? Canadians are tired of the announcements. They want to see projects built, with shovels in the ground, workers on job sites and investment staying in Canada.

In Cambridge and North Dumfries, people want good jobs, growing businesses and opportunities that allow their children and grandchildren to build their futures here at home. When Ottawa adds uncertainty and delay, it is not just a file sitting on a desk; it affects families, businesses and communities that are counting on those opportunities. It can mean a business deciding not to invest, an expansion being delayed or a job that never gets created.

Instead of making it easier to build, the government seems to have gotten very good at building something else: more bureaucracy, more processes and more layers of red tape. Canada does not need more bureaucracy standing between a good idea and a project that gets built. If Canada is serious about competing for investment, creating jobs and building the infrastructure we need, then projects need to be approved in a reasonable amount of time. The question before us today is whether this bill, Bill C-39, the building Canada strong act, would actually help us build, or whether Canadians are once again being asked to trust another Liberal promise to fix the problem the Liberals created over the past 10 years.

That is why Conservatives are looking very closely at Bill C-39. The Conservatives have been clear about what needs to change. We need less red tape, more clear timelines, a true one project, one review system and the repeal of Liberal laws that have made it harder to build.

A project cannot create jobs, grow the economy or make Canada more independent if it is stuck waiting for approval. The Liberals keep saying this bill would establish a one-year timeline for federal reviews and decisions on major projects. On paper, that sounds straightforward, but what does that one-year clock actually mean when it is being managed by the government? In the Liberals' world, that clock can be stopped for several reasons, but time keeps ticking on in the real world. The construction season does not stop, interest payments do not stop and payroll does not stop.

Businesses and investors do not have unlimited time to wait for the government to make a decision. Many businesses are already reaching the point where waiting is no longer an option. That is the problem with measuring time by the government's standards. The government can pause the clock on a piece of paper, but Canadian business owners cannot pause their financing costs, workers cannot pause their mortgage payments and investors cannot infinitely pause their plans while Ottawa works through review after review.

A one-year timeline provides little certainty if Canadians cannot determine when it starts, what circumstances can stop it and when the government is obligated to make a decision, because every time that clock stops in Ottawa, time keeps ticking somewhere else. The clock keeps ticking for the business ready to invest, the worker desperately looking for a job and the community counting on growth, and all the while, other countries are competing for that same investment.

Our Canadian businesses should not have to wonder whether the clock has started, stopped or been reset. They need to be able to plan, invest and create opportunities where Canadian workers can find good jobs. That is why the labour provisions in this bill are so important. Getting projects approved faster is one thing, but protecting the workers who build and operate those projects is equally essential. After all, projects are not built on timelines alone. They are built on stable labour relations, predictable rules and confidence that the process will work as intended. When that confidence begins to erode, the foundation for long-term success erodes with it.

Unfortunately, that is exactly what we have seen in recent years, as the federal government has repeatedly intervened in labour disputes through section 107 of the Canada Labour Code. People can have different views about individual disputes. Every time the government intervenes, the question is whether it is helping the parties reach an agreement or gradually becoming part of the bargaining process. Collective bargaining works best when workers and employers sit down at the table and do the challenging work of reaching a mutual agreement. The bargaining clock has to be allowed to run, giving both sides the time and incentive to negotiate, compromise and find solutions. When intervention becomes expected, rather than exceptional, faith in that process starts to slip away.

At the very moment those questions are being debated across the country, the government is proposing significant changes to the Canada Labour Code. These are not technical amendments or housekeeping measures. They could affect workers, unions, employers and federally regulated industries. The government is asking Canadians to accept that these changes will improve the system, but that case has to be made through transparency, accountability and scrutiny, not through assurances alone.

That is why these provisions deserve thorough study at committee. Workers, unions and employers deserve to be heard, and Canadians deserve to know how these changes will affect labour relations in this country. If the government believes these amendments will strengthen labour relations, it should welcome that discussion and be prepared to make its case publicly. Good legislation is strengthened by scrutiny, and if these changes are going to shape labour relations for years to come, Parliament has a responsibility to get them right.

However, building is only one part of the equation. This bill also looks at transportation infrastructure and trade corridors. We need to be able to move what we build. Our farmers need to get grain to market, manufacturers need to move their products and exporters need reliable access to ports. Communities like mine depend on transportation networks that function reliably and efficiently. When those networks fall short, the consequences are felt by businesses, workers and families that are already dealing with rising costs.

These delays come with a price. Every hour a shipment sits waiting is time a business cannot get back, and every delay at a port or along a trade corridor adds costs that do not simply disappear. Those costs are ultimately borne by businesses, workers and consumers.

The government says this bill will strengthen Canada's trade corridors, improve transportation infrastructure and better coordinate federal approvals. The question is whether Canadians will actually see projects move faster or this will become another government office responsible for reporting on progress, rather than delivering results. Canadians do not need another progress report. They need the project. They need things built.

Time keeps ticking. Canada cannot afford to spend another decade debating whether we should build the infrastructure we already know we need. We have the raw materials, the resources, the skilled workers, the entrepreneurs and the businesses ready to invest. What we need now are decisions. Opportunities do not wait for government processes and neither do our competitors. That is why the Conservatives will continue to advocate for less red tape, faster approvals and greater certainty. We will support a one project, one review approach so that there is one clear decision. We will continue to push for the repeal of laws that have made it harder to build and we will continue to fight for policies that save Canadians money and protect Canadian jobs.

At its core, this is about affordability. It is about whether Canadians can afford to live, work, raise a family and build a future in this country. The people in my community of Cambridge and North Dumfries are not asking for the impossible. They want good jobs, new opportunities and the assurance that when a project makes sense, it will not spend years tied up in process and delay.

While the government is stopping and starting clocks, Canadians cannot put their lives on hold waiting for Ottawa. It is time to make decisions. It is time to get projects moving. It is time to build.

[Steeve Lavoie, Liberal, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech. I know that it can take a long time to prepare a speech for the House.

I thought her speech was extremely interesting, because it really reflected the spirit of Bill C-39. This bill will make it possible to build Canada strong quickly. I think it responds to the wants and needs of her constituents.

In light of what I heard in my colleague's speech, I would like to know if, when the time comes, she plans to vote in favour of the bill so we can act faster for the people in her riding.

[Connie Cody, Conservative, Cambridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Conservatives do support getting projects built. The question is whether Canadians would actually see better results and more results instead of more bureaucracy.

Eighteen months ago, Canadians were told that Bill C-5 would speed up approvals to get projects moving. Instead of these things' moving forward, we are in the House debating Bill C-39. The promises of Bill C-5 still have not materialized. If the Liberals are so confident of Bill C-39, they should be open to having it discussed in committee to provide full transparency and accountability to Canadians. At some point the conversation must shift from promises to results.

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

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-39 would allow the minister to allow preliminary works on a site to begin, within what the bill calls the public interest. Rather than give industry firm rules so they can clearly present their project and what they want to do for site works, the bill would give complete discretion to the minister. There is no definition of what is in the public interest, other than what the minister would decide.

Does this seem fair to all those hard-working businesses: that one person gets to decide what is in the public interest and that it would just be more red tape?