Debates of Sept. 24th, 2026

Building Canada Strong Act

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, an environmental organization has warned that Bill C-39 would create sacrifice zones, where communities are expected to bear the pollution and environmental risks of projects deemed to be in the national interest. Will the government actually guarantee that no communities will be subject to making those sacrifices of health and environment as a result of fast-tracking projects under Bill C-39?

[Linda Lapointe, Liberal, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will say the same thing I said to my other colleague earlier: Any suggestions, changes or amendments will have to be proposed in committee.

[John-Paul Danko, Liberal, Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Madawaska—Restigouche.

First, I would like to wish the Westmount Wildcats senior football team a successful season opener. I thank Coach Tom Pain, all the teachers and the coaches for everything they do to provide the young men this wonderful opportunity to compete in the fall football season.

It is an honour to rise on behalf of the residents of Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas in support of the building Canada strong act. Since the 2025 federal election, our government's top priority has been to strengthen the Canadian economy, diversify global trade, invest in Canada, reduce our reliance on the United States, defend our national sovereignty and stand up for Canadians. The building Canada strong act is a critical part of our government's plan to take action with urgency.

President Trump has chosen to attack Canadian workers and businesses with illegal and unjustified tariffs, tariffs intended to destroy the livelihood of Canadians and, as stated, ultimately make Canada the 51st state. This is a real threat, and everything we do as a government has to be considered within this context. The Trump administration has targeted Canadian steel, aluminum, auto and other industries that support hundreds of thousands of Canadian jobs and Canadian families.

Nowhere is that more real than in my home of Hamilton, Ancaster and Dundas, because Hamilton is Canada's industrial centre and steel city. For generations, Hamilton's industrial economy has been deeply integrated with our friends and allies in the United States, a mutually beneficial agreement that has helped workers and businesses on both sides of the border. Those workers did not cause this trade war, but in large part it is the workers on both sides of the border who are suffering the consequences.

Canada continues to work toward a fair deal with the United States, because we want a strong trading relationship and our two economies are deeply connected, but a fair deal has to be a good deal for Canada. We will not sacrifice Canadian workers, Canadian businesses or Canadian sovereignty just to sign a deal. We cannot pretend that things will go back to normal. As the Prime Minister has stated, “Nostalgia is not a strategy.” We have to be prepared to build our own future, and that means building a stronger Canadian economy, finding new customers for Canadian projects and attracting new investment. Most importantly, it means creating good jobs and greater security for Canadian workers and their families.

Ultimately this is about people, families, workers, and opportunity for the next generation. Fortunately, Canada stands in a position of strength. As the Prime Minister has stated, Canada has what the world needs. We have energy, critical minerals, agriculture, steel, aluminum, lumber, technology, research, education, training, expertise and innovation, and we have some of the best workers and most skilled tradespeople anywhere in the world.

We certainly have something increasingly valuable today in an increasingly divided and dangerous world: certainty. Canada is stable, and Canada is reliable. We have strong regulations and strong labour and environmental standards, and when Canada makes a commitment, our partners know we will honour it. That makes Canada a reliable place to do business.

It is why we are building closer ties with Europe. We are expanding trade across Asia, including with China, India, Indonesia and other Indo-Pacific countries. We are working to get more Canadian energy to global markets, including the potential for a new pipeline to the Pacific and selling Canadian oil directly to Asian customers, including China. Our partnership with the Ukraine is also creating opportunities for Canadian workers and companies in defence and manufacturing, including with drones and advanced technologies. That is the purpose of the building Canada strong act.

The bill is about three core pillars: building more important projects faster, moving Canadian products to markets and supporting the workers who are at the core of everything we do. The most important thing is getting more projects built faster, because Canada has no shortage of opportunity but does need better ways to turn that opportunity into actual projects, shovels in the ground, jobs and paycheques.

Right now, major projects face overlapping reviews, different levels of governments and years of uncertainty. That uncertainty has consequences. It is certainly something I have observed in my career working as an engineer in the construction industry, because a delayed project means delayed construction, delayed investment and Canadian workers waiting longer for jobs.

The building Canada strong act would create a clearer, more predictable review process with one decision within one year, working with provinces and municipalities to get shovels in the ground at speed. We will maintain environmental protections and respect indigenous rights, but we can do those things while we make decisions in a reasonable amount of time.

Hamilton is a good example of what is possible. Right now, there are 800 acres of shovel-ready industrial land that is ready for development in advanced manufacturing, with the potential for billions of dollars in economic growth and tens of thousands of new local jobs. These are former industrial lands that the council worked proactively to zone. The infrastructure is there. The province has recently recognized this site as a provincial priority for economic investment. That is what “shovel-ready” should mean: do the planning early, get governments working together and resolve the issues before they become roadblocks. Then when there is the opportunity for investment, we need to start from a position of “yes” through the approvals process. The government should be working to get to “yes” instead of starting from “no”.

At the recent Canada investment summit, investors from nearly 30 countries came to Canada with nearly $500 billion in investment commitments announced because the world wants to invest here. Our job is to turn that investment into projects, jobs and opportunities for Canadians.

The second part is about moving Canadian products to market. If we want to sell more Canadian goods around the world, we need the infrastructure to get them there. That means ports, railways, highways and air corridors. The building Canada strong act would identify important national trade corridors and help move transportation projects through federal approvals faster.

Again, Hamilton is a perfect example of how this can work. We have the busiest freshwater port on the Great Lakes. We have major rail connections, and the busiest overnight cargo airport in Canada. We sit at the centre of Canada's largest manufacturing region. Our new rail container terminal is already helping to get traffic off the highway by putting trade onto rail instead of trucks on the 401.

There is huge potential on the Great Lakes. The St. Lawrence Seaway has significant underutilized capacity, and there is so much opportunity for Canadian steel, grain, minerals and manufactured goods to travel directly to markets throughout Canada and the United States and to global markets from the Great Lakes through the seaway and out to the Atlantic. This means less congestion on local highways for families in the Golden Horseshoe, more reliable supply chains for businesses and better access for new customers and Canadian companies.

The third part of this bill is about the people who actually build this country: Canadian workers. Hamilton has a very proud tradition of organized labour. Our city was built by generations of steelworkers, tradespeople, skilled tradespeople and unionized workers. That is why this legislation is important for strengthening Canada's federal labour framework. It would help unions and employers deal with issues earlier and reach negotiated settlements and agreements before they get to a strike vote. It would add new health and safety officers, increasing capabilities, and would add staff to deal with the backlog of worker complaints. The main purpose of this legislation is to ensure safe workplaces, fair treatment, strong collective bargaining and more stability for workers and their families.

To close, Canada is at an important turning point. The United States has started a trade war that we did not ask for. The global trading system is changing. We do not know what the Trump administration is going to do, but we know what Canada can do. We can build, because Canada has what the world needs. We need to get things built. We need to get our products to market. We need to make sure that the benefits come home to Canadian workers and Canadian families, because together we will build Canada strong.

[Marc Dalton, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am listening to the Liberal member, and the words are great. I can say amen to a lot of what he is saying, but the problem is that the Liberals have been in power for 11 years. He said that Canada has no shortage of opportunities and huge potential. Well, why are things not happening? We have had 500 projects, actually way more than that, bogged down.

The Liberals claim that part 1 of the bill sets a one-year decision timeline, but the fine print reveals that the clock only starts after proponents submit every single study requested. Is this not just a shell game that leaves years of regulatory delays untouched?

[John-Paul Danko, Liberal, Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas, ON]

Mr. Speaker, maybe this is a bit of a misalignment of ideologies. On this side of the floor, we believe in Canada, we believe in Canadians and we are proud of Canadian businesses. I am amazingly proud of and optimistic about the opportunities we have, especially in Hamilton, being that it is an industrial hub, and the opportunity to realign our economy the way we have to based on the threat we are facing. I know Canadian workers, Canadian businesses and Canadian industry are going to rise to that challenge and be much more economically stable in the future.

[Caroline Desrochers, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Housing and Infrastructure]

Mr. Speaker, I know that the city of Hamilton, which my colleague represents, is home to a port that is really pivotal to the commerce of the steel industry, just like the port of Trois-Rivières in my own riding, and is supporting thousands of jobs in his riding. I am wondering if my colleague could tell the House how this bill is going to accelerate the development and expansion of trade corridors in his region, including through the port of Hamilton.

[John-Paul Danko, Liberal, Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I had the opportunity to visit the port in Trois-Rivières last winter. There is so much opportunity within Canada to expand and also gain efficiencies in the port system. As I said, one of the things I am the most excited about is getting trade traffic, which right now is putting goods onto transport trucks and clogging up the 400 series highways between Windsor and Montreal, onto rail and onto shipping so that when we are out with our family, we are not hitting that congestion in traffic. It is also much more efficient, getting goods to market with consistency and reliability.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, “getting products to market” is a repeated phrase, and one thing that shakes my confidence in the government was in the Canada Gazette. On August 1, when it posted about the west coast oil pipeline, it did not accurately describe, in a very short description, the product that will go in the pipeline. Similarly, as the Liberals talk about the product going to China in the pipeline, I will note that the diluted bitumen, which is actually the product used mostly in China, is the tar in the bitumen to pave roads.

I wonder if the member would comment on the level of familiarity of the government benches with the products that are being shipped.

[John-Paul Danko, Liberal, Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is obviously a champion for the environment. We very much respect that.

My understanding is that a lot of the Canadian oil and gas being shipped to Asia is being used to make the physical products we use. It is not being burned for energy. Carbon is not being released into the atmosphere.

I do agree that we have so much opportunity beyond just the oil and gas industry. That is why we are focusing on renewables, on the transition to the electric economy and on doubling the transmission and generation of electricity, because those things are where the real opportunities are in the electric future. There is so much opportunity for those industries in Ontario and in Hamilton.

[Guillaume Deschênes-Thériault, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Mr. Speaker, in April 2025, we were elected with a clear mandate to strengthen, diversify and unite the Canadian economy. Over the past 18 months, our Prime Minister and our government have shown real leadership in advancing these objectives.

Last year, we began by establishing a framework to support major nation-building projects. In budget 2025, we put forward various tax incentives to stimulate investment in Canada. We have invested heavily in our infrastructure and in projects of critical importance to our country. We have signed economic and defence agreements with some 20 countries on five continents. We are in talks to strengthen our ties to the European Union. These are just a few examples of measures that speak to our government's ambition to strengthen the Canadian economy.

The bill before us today, Bill C‑39, the building Canada strong act, is the latest in a series of measures. Bill C‑39 is important because it provides predictability for those who want to invest in Canada. This is extremely important under the current circumstances, because the eyes of the world are on our country and the investment opportunities presented by projects here.

I have a good example. The first-ever Canada investment summit was held in September. The results speak for themselves. The summit produced nearly $500 billion in new investment commitments to Canada. This capital will support Canadian workers, businesses, infrastructure, and our country's strategic sectors.

On the sidelines of the summit, I had the opportunity to attend a reception hosted by the Government of New Brunswick in Toronto, where I was able to speak with four different people who were leading projects for northern New Brunswick. When we talk about projects that will boost the Canadian economy, that also includes the region I come to Ottawa to represent. The feedback I received was very interesting. It helped connect project proponents from northern New Brunswick with various international investors. The feedback I received from the people I spoke with is that the world recognizes Canada's investment potential. They see the wealth of natural resources in our country. They see our government's ambitions and the efforts we are making to build at scale. As a government, we want to seize this opportunity and send a clear message that now is the time to invest in Canada. This will enable us to foster sustainable growth, create opportunities and ensure prosperity for all Canadians. If we want to attract these investments, and if we want them to translate into tangible projects on the ground, we must ensure that a regulatory framework is in place.

With Bill C-39, we are trying to attract more investment to Canada and move forward on projects that are important for our economy and communities by implementing a clearer, more efficient and more modern regulatory framework. A key aspect of Bill C-39 is a commitment to make decisions within a one-year period for projects requiring a federal permit. That will give investors and project proponents the clarity and predictability they need to invest and build in Canada. Right now, this process is taking far too long in many cases. I want to emphasize the fact that acting more quickly does not mean being ineffective or abandoning our high environmental standards. Not all projects will be approved. We can still reject projects that do not meet Canada's environmental standards or Canadians' expectations. However, rather than taking years to say no, we want to be able to say no more quickly. If the project does not meet the government's expectations, people will not have to wait for years before getting a definitive answer. When the answer is positive, we obviously want to let those involved know as soon as possible, while respecting the process in place, particularly when it comes to environmental standards. It is important to avoid delays because when a project is ready to go in the first year but it has to wait for years and years because of administrative delays, that results in millions of dollars of additional costs, and investors may decide to invest in other countries instead. That is not the message we want to send. We want to provide predictability for those who are interested in investing in Canada.

I want to repeat that we do not need to choose between ensuring rigorous environmental protection and streamlining project reviews. We can do both at the same time. That is what we want to do with Bill C‑39. We can do those things right now, in fact: maintain strict environmental standards while moving forward at an appropriate pace. I think that the key word for those who want to invest in Canada is “predictability”. This is consistent with what we heard at the 2026 Canada investment summit from people who want to invest in projects of national interest in Canada.

The transportation section is another important part of Bill C‑39. We want to diversify our economy and develop new markets. We are already seeing that now. We have signed trade and defence agreements with about 20 countries, and we are in talks with several more. These agreements give Canadian businesses access to new markets. We also want to strengthen Canada's economy by breaking down barriers to interprovincial trade in order to build one Canadian economy. However, if we want goods to get from point A to point B efficiently and if we want to speed up the transportation of Canadian goods, whether to new international merchants or from one province to another, we need to build more efficient and resilient supply chains.

Through Bill C‑39, we are proposing a suite of measures to achieve that goal. For instance, we are going to set up a transportation project office that will be responsible for coordinating the granting of federal permits and advancing priority transportation projects. We are going to invest in strengthening our existing trade corridors, but we are also going to try to develop new ones. We are going to modernize the governance of our ports. Indeed, when we look at some of the ports in other advanced economies, it is clear that we could learn a thing or two. Could our ports be more productive and more efficient? I think so. We have made the most of what we could learn by looking at certain ports around the world that are more efficient than ours. We are trying to implement some of those measures here in Canada.

We also want to move forward with new strategies for digitalizing trade. It is 2026, and we have access to technological tools that can help us be more efficient. Some systems are still paper-based, and containers have to be offloaded from ships so that paper documents can be signed. The same results could be achieved more efficiently by other means. For example, for ships at sea, documents could be signed digitally. The goal is to reduce the administrative burden and come up with a clearer, more predictable regulatory framework. Our goal in implementing this suite of legislative, administrative and technological changes is really to make our ports and trade corridors more competitive. This would strengthen our position as a reliable trading partner on the world stage. It would also strengthen the one Canadian economy, supporting our long-term growth.

This will have a ripple effect across the country, including in Madawaska—Restigouche, the riding I represent here in Ottawa. I see this as a very positive thing. If potatoes from the Grand Falls region can reach the Mexican market more quickly, or if the wood chips or maple syrup we produce can reach Europe more quickly, so much the better. I recently visited a business in Restigouche that exports bumpers to Australia. When we talk about moving goods, this also includes goods from Madawaska—Restigouche reaching various markets in Canada and internationally.

In this bill, we are also taking steps to support our workforce. To build a strong Canada, we must start with the workers. To do this, to achieve our goals, we need our workers. Bill C‑39 enables us to take meaningful steps to strengthen labour relations by requiring early negotiations in complex cases, giving trade unions and employers more time to identify the issues, access mediation services and reach negotiated settlements before a strike or lockout occurs.

Let me be clear: We will always protect the constitutional right to strike. All we are trying to do is establish a modern framework that prevents labour disputes from happening in the first place. The goal is to create a favourable environment where employers and workers can start negotiating together earlier and can access mediation together earlier to reach a negotiated settlement. A negotiated settlement is always better than a protracted labour dispute. Really, our focus is on helping the parties resolve issues earlier, supporting negotiated outcomes and providing timely assistance when challenges arise. This will benefit our workers, our employers and, I would even say, the country as a whole.

I will end there. I look forward to taking questions from my colleagues.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent—Akiawenhrahk, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from New Brunswick. I commend him for his passion for his region, as we all have for our own. There is a reason we were elected by the people.

I know that my colleague was elected 18 months ago, and I congratulate him, but two years ago, before his time, his peers on that side of the House voted against Bill C‑375, which called for “one project, one environmental assessment”. It was my bill, in fact. We, the Conservatives, had introduced it. Today, however, the government is boasting about wanting to move forward. Even the King said as much in the throne speech.

What does my colleague have to say to his Liberal colleagues who voted against the “one project, one environmental assessment” bill but support that concept today?

[Guillaume Deschênes-Thériault, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Quebec. I always enjoy debating with him in the House.

When people in my riding ask me what we are doing to strengthen the Canadian economy, I am proud to tell them about our Prime Minister's and our government's leadership and about all of the work that we have done over the past 18 months to make Canada's economy stronger, more unified and more robust. I also tell them about the measures that we have put in place to promote projects of national interest and about the tax incentives that we have implemented to boost investment.

Bill C-39, the bill before us today, provides a clearer regulatory framework and more predictability. These measures are working. Just look at the summit that was held in Toronto, which resulted in $500 billion in investments for projects across the country, including New Brunswick and Quebec.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-5 contained a discretionary provision that gave the minister absolute power to determine which projects are of national interest. Bill C-39 gives even more power to the executive branch by diminishing Parliament's role. That is a subversion of parliamentary democracy.

The Liberals are exploiting the tariff crisis to impose permanent rollbacks that will have no effect during what is left of Donald Trump's term in office. The member is very enthusiastic about this dangerous precedent, but will he be just as enthusiastic and happy about this bill when he winds up on this side of the House facing a new government and that government starts trampling on democracy and our legislative power?

[Guillaume Deschênes-Thériault, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased that we, as members of the House of Commons, have several days to discuss Bill C‑39. I am pleased that we can exchange ideas here, at the heart of our Canadian democracy. I am also looking forward to following the committee's work on this. Many witnesses will share their points of view. All members, including opposition members, will have an opportunity to comment.

In his question, my colleague talked about enthusiasm. What I am hearing is enthusiasm on the part of people who want to invest in Canada and on the part of workers who are seeing the positive impact of these investments across the country, including in northern New Brunswick, the region I represent. While in Toronto for the summit, I spoke with four proponents championing projects in my region. They were eagerly awaiting measures like this one, measures that encourage investment for the benefit of all Canadians.

[Eric St-Pierre, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Madawaska—Restigouche, who is very involved in his community.

How will the people of Madawaska—Restigouche benefit in concrete ways from Bill C-39, the building Canada strong act?

[Guillaume Deschênes-Thériault, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Mr. Speaker, my riding is home to a number of projects and a great deal of momentum. The bill will provide a clear regulatory framework for people who want to invest in projects in northern New Brunswick. For example, responses about federal permits will be delivered within a year, providing predictability.

When it comes to transport, we want to make our ports more efficient. New Brunswick has the port of Belledune and the port of Saint John. Goods from my riding, Madawaska—Restigouche, sail from those ports to reach various markets around the world.

Modernizing port processes and procedures to make them more efficient will benefit our local businesses, which are already very active in international trade.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is good to be back in the House of Commons debating legislation. That is what we are elected to do. That is what we are in the House for. It is good to be here and talking about Bill C-39. The Liberals call it the building Canada strong act, which rings similar to a similar bill we dealt with about a year ago. I will maybe have time to come back to that, but I will start by saying that of course we agree, or that I agree, with the stated premise of the bill, which is to enable Canada to build things, to build Canada stronger.

That is certainly something that I not only very deeply believe needs to be done but also that is pretty consistent with what I have spent the last 11 years talking about. At the moment, to be sure, we are confronted with an unprovoked, unjustified, deeply damaging and unnecessary trade war with the United States. We did not choose it. It is not something that Canada chose, but it is the moment we find ourselves in.

However, the issues around this, around the necessity of building major projects and building our country back up again, have very deep roots. We have been talking about this for 11 years. We have spent the last 11 years being unprepared for this moment.

Before I go too much further, I will say that I am going to share my time with the member for Edmonton Southeast.

As I said, we did not choose to be in a trade war with the United States. We did not choose to have our country economically attacked, but for the last 11 years, the government has left us unprepared for the moment.

I was elected in 2015, and that year, the very first thing the government did was cancel the northern gateway pipeline. The Liberals are saying today, “If only we had a west coast pipeline.” There was a west coast pipeline approved and already on their desk the minute they took office. The first thing they did, by ministerial order, was cancel it: 525,000 barrels a day. At today's price, that is $50 million a day in economic activity, $20 billion a year.

[An hon. member]

Oh, oh!

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am being heckled by the member for Winnipeg North, who says that there was something misleading in that statement. There is nothing misleading. That is exactly what happened. There was a conditional approval that the Liberals rescinded by ministerial order, so here we are today without that pipeline. It would have been built years ago.

In 2016, the Liberals introduced the carbon tax. They also spent 2016 failing to champion the Keystone XL pipeline, another one that has not been built. It was cancelled by Biden later on. The government did not champion it and did not see it through to get it built when it had the chance. In 2016, the Liberals chased off TransCanada PipeLines, which wanted to build the energy east pipeline. Not only did it abandon that pipeline because of changing regulatory goalposts, but it also changed its name to TC Energy because “TransCanada PipeLines” did not fit what it was doing. It had to move its business to build pipelines in Mexico and the United States, where the opportunities were. That is the legacy of the government.

I am up only to 2016. In 2017, the Liberals brought in the clean fuel regulations, which is a misnomer. It is really just a tax on fuel. In 2018, they brought in Bill C-48, which banned shipping traffic on the northwest B.C. coast. Again, we are talking about wishing we could export our products to the Asian market at full global price. The Liberals passed a law banning the shipping traffic to be able to do that.

In 2019, Bill C-69 became law. We all know what Bill C-69 is. It is the “no more pipelines” bill. That was what they passed. There have been no major pipeline applications under that law. They even made changes to the Fisheries Act that made it impossible to get a hydro project approved. We heard about that at the natural resources committee yesterday. The head of WaterPower Canada told the committee that under the 2019 changes to the Fisheries Act, it is impossible to get a hydro project approved in Canada. The Liberals will not even allow hydro projects to go forward under the current government.

In 2022, Prime Minister Trudeau told the world that there was no business case for Canadian LNG to Europe. In a way, he was right, but the reason there was no business case was because of all the red tape and regulation, which the government imposed, that killed the business case. So, yes, we need to build Canada. If only we had spent the last 11 years building Canada, we would not be in such a precarious position today.

We agree with the government that we need to build things. Major projects need to be built, and it is not just oil and gas. I have spent a lot of time talking about pipelines, which is a really important one, but there are terrible deficiencies in our ports. We have among the worst ports in the world for efficiency. We have everything from ports to rail, airports, electrical transmission lines, etc. We have a need for major projects, and so we do support this stated purpose to build Canada.

It is funny that the fanfare with which the bill before us was tabled rings familiar, which is because the Liberals said many of the same things they said about 18 months ago when Parliament first sat following the last election. It was last spring, in June, that they passed Bill C-5. It was a bill that Conservatives supported a little reluctantly, because it granted extraordinary powers to ministers to interfere politically and cherry-pick and decide politically which projects they wanted to exempt from their own laws that they had passed. It was not quite the approach for us. We would rather they stripped away all these bad laws, but we said, “Look, we have to build something. If this is a way to get something done, we will support it”, and we did. Here we are, a year later, no major projects approved and no shovels in the ground. It did not seem to make any difference. Now, we have this latest bill that is more about bureaucratic structures than getting shovels in the ground.

This is a 250-page bill the Liberals dumped on Tuesday afternoon, a little less than 72 hours ago, and so I have not gone through all 250 pages with a fine-tooth comb. We are going to take the time to make sure that we understand the bill fully, but part of what I understand about it is the movement from the Impact Assessment Act to the Canadian Energy Regulator on certain projects, which is probably not a bad idea. The structure of Bill C-69 was there to kill projects.

The idea that the bill before us would give certainty to industry is quite misleading. The bill would give ministers the power, but would not compel them to make a decision within a year. It would give them the latitude to hit the pause button on how long that year takes. It would give them the power to extend the year. It would give the power to say, “No, I'm going to take extra time.” This is not going to give the certainty that industry needs.

We heard yesterday at the natural resources committee about how important it is to have regulatory certainty. Regulatory uncertainty makes the country uninvestable, and we have seen investment flee this country under this government. We do not need new laws. We do not need summits. We do not need announcements. We do not need speeches. We do not need vague MOUs. We do not need photo op signings. We do not need slush funds under political control. We do not need corporate welfare. We simply need to undo the approach that, for 11 years, has prevented major projects from going ahead in Canada.

We need major projects. We need pipelines. We needed pipelines 10 years ago, 11 years ago, and we need them now. We need better roads. We need better ports. We need better infrastructure. We need all these things, and we are still waiting.

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

Mr. Speaker, first of all, let us make it very clear. Under the 10 years of Stephen Harper, we actually saw zero inches of pipeline built going to the west coast through B.C. In the Trudeau era, the TMX was delivered.

Now having said that, we have a new government and a new Prime Minister elected just last year. Over that year, they have attracted a great deal of investment. One needs to look at Toronto, where half a trillion dollars of investment is coming to Canada. This bill is an important aspect of that.

While the member has not agreed, he should get on board, support the legislation and—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

The hon. member for Calgary Crowfoot.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, there is a lot to unpack there. The Liberals never talk about the investment outflows when they talk about inflows. The net has been an outflow of this country under this government.

I am really glad that the member brought up Trans Mountain, because I had meant to and did not quite have enough time. The Trans Mountain pipeline was a pipeline that a private builder would have built. They started under this government, and the regulatory uncertainty chased Kinder Morgan out of Canada. That is what happened.

The government nationalized the project and built it at a 500% overrun of what was projected. That is the Liberals' approach on building pipelines. The Harper government bequeathed the government a balanced budget. The New York Times described Canada as having the most wealthy middle class in the world and two approved pipelines, and the Liberal government blew it.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the reality is not what my colleague claims. The only oil and gas infrastructure projects that have been carried out were only possible because the government agreed to invest public funds in them.

Back home in Saguenay—Lac‑Saint‑Jean, as soon as developers started asking for public money for the liquefied natural gas project, the LNG project, the Government of Quebec lost interest. People know full well that over the long term, with the energy transition under way, these very expensive infrastructure projects are not profitable. That is the problem. We are going to end up in a scenario where environmental assessments have been scrapped and people can pretty much do whatever they want with infrastructure projects that are not profitable.

Does my colleague agree?

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with much of what the member said. I do not think it is a good thing that the public money has to prop up any private project that would otherwise, in a proper regulatory environment that had clear criteria, make it investable.

I do not agree with the government's approach. I do not agree that it has had the right approach on infrastructure at all. I could go on. I could talk about the failure of the Infrastructure Bank. The Liberal government has chased private capital out of energy during its 11 years in office.

[Burton Bailey, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague just delivered an informative, excellent speech.