Debates of Sept. 24th, 2026

Building Canada Strong Act

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, we have a new government under a new Prime Minister, and it is a government that is deeply focused on economic growth across the country. I would remind the hon. member that the oil and gas sector did grow under the last 10 years of the Liberal government, at the same time as we also reduced emissions in the country. The last government certainly sought the balance between economic growth and environmental protection. The current government will endeavour to do the same.

The last government built a pipeline to the Pacific coast. The current government, through the work of the Prime Minister and certainly by engaging Premier Smith, is open to another west coast pipeline, because it knows that being able to move the product to Asian markets is extremely important. Our ability to move liquefied natural gas off the B.C. coast to ensure that countries in the Pacific do not have to burn more coal in their energy grid is actually part of a global emissions reduction strategy. We are proud of the work we are doing here, and I know that members of the member's home province are proud of the current government as well.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, democracy is a daily challenge involving a delicate balance between the executive and legislative branches. However, Bill C-5 and especially Bill C-39 represent a step backwards not only for the environment and workers' rights, but also for democracy. The tariff war is being exploited to quietly push through permanent rollbacks that will have no effect for the remainder of Donald Trump's term of office. The cornerstone of democracy is the legislative branch, namely, the people's representatives, and we are part of that branch.

Is the member aware that, despite his good intentions, there are sometimes changes in government and that we are setting a historical precedent by granting extraordinary powers to the executive branch?

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, certainly in our system, there is cabinet, which is made up of members of Parliament who sit in the House. The member, in his remarks, his intervention, talked about tariffs. I do not know if there was a substantive piece where he disagrees with the policy that the government has introduced of countervailing duties to protect Canadian industry, to protect Quebec businesses, to protect Quebec workers, I should say. The member has the privilege and honour, as a member of Parliament representing his constituents, to stand in this place and to be able to take a position if he disagrees with the elected government and its utilization of our policy to protect Canadian workers.

Let us be very clear that we do this reluctantly. We believe in free and open trade. We recognize the importance of the commercial relationship we have had with the United States, but the executive stands behind the decisions it has made to protect Canadian workers at a time when, if we do not respond, we will be hurting Quebec businesses as well.

[Braedon Clark, Liberal, Sackville—Bedford—Preston, NS]

Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary and I have adjoining ridings, so of course we have a lot of overlapping interests. At the end of his speech, the parliamentary secretary touched on ports a little bit. The port of Halifax is one of the major ports in our country, with direct access to the U.S. northeast, Europe and the rest of the world.

I wonder if the member could elaborate a bit more on how the bill would aid our ports, not just in Halifax but across the country, to make sure we get our goods to market all around the world.

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague and I have the opportunity to work together, and I know we share an interest in the port of Halifax. If Parliament is to bring this forward, the bill itself would allow for additional governance for the port of Halifax or other ports across the country, which would centre around regulatory decisions, trade corridors and the ability to work together on how best we get to the outcomes around both importation and exportation of products across the country. This is what the ports were calling for. This would give additional flexibility for governance in that area.

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as always, it is a true honour for me to rise in the House on behalf of the residents of my constituency of Davenport to speak to Bill C-39, the building Canada strong act.

Let me start by talking a little about the moment we are living in. I think it is really important for us to understand the context in which the bill is introduced. As we often say these days, the world has changed. The Prime Minister has called it a “rupture”. Our relationship with the United States, our largest trading partner, is not what it was. We face unjustified tariffs on Canadian workers and industries, and we face talk about our sovereignty that no Canadian ever expected to hear from an American president.

Last week, before the European Parliament, the Prime Minister described what we were up against: trade being weaponized, tariffs used as pressure, and supply chains turned into vulnerabilities. His answer was not to retreat; it was to build our strength at home and to work with trusted, like-minded partners who share our belief in democracy and the rule of law.

We are seeking alliances that are strong enough so that no one can dictate our choices here in Canada. That is exactly what Canadians have asked of us. They have given the government a clear mandate to protect our economy, our prosperity and our sovereignty. We are doing that by diversifying our trade with reliable partners and by building right here at home. The world is responding. Just over a week ago, at Canada's first-ever investment summit, investors from nearly 30 countries, managing more than $100 trillion in assets, came to Toronto to look at more than 160 Canadian projects.

The summit closed with nearly half a trillion dollars in new investment commitments. However, interest is not the same as shovels in the ground. Investors told us what communities have told us for years: Our approvals have taken too long. Projects have often waited more than five years for federal decisions, with separate reviews and separate consultations for each permit.

That is why our government has introduced Bill C-39, which is before the House today. It would create the conditions for investment in projects that support good jobs and growth and for the safe and efficient movement of goods across our country, while protecting the environment and upholding the rights of indigenous peoples.

I know we have heard this multiple times, but it is important for me to state as well that the bill has three key parts.

The first part, “Build Canada Now”, would modernize our regulatory and permitting system to eliminate duplication with lengthy timelines. Our standard is simple: one project, one review and one year. Canada will always be a country of high standards, but high standards do not mean that the decisions have to be slow. The second part is “Keep Canada Moving”. We would be modernizing our transportation systems. This would reduce bottlenecks and better connect our trade corridors and ports so goods move faster and costs come down. The third part, “Canada Strong For All”, would modernize the Canada Labour Code and strengthen protections for workers.

I have heard some questions from my constituents. They have been asking me why the bill is so large. The answer is that getting a project built never depends on just one thing. It depends on assessments, on energy regulation and on fisheries, waterways, ports, rails and the workers who build them. It depends on many things. If we fix only one of those aspects, the project is still stuck. To actually get things built, we have to fix a number of laws together, ideally all at once.

Why do we have to move quickly? It is because investment decisions being made now will shape our economy for decades. The capital that does not come here will go elsewhere. However, urgency cannot mean skipping scrutiny. The bill deserves the debate we are having now in the House. It deserves careful study at committee. I know that we are open to making it even better.

I want to spend a little bit more time on the labour aspects of the bill, which are in part 3, because there is a lot of misinformation out there and because I know that my constituents care about labour deeply. My riding of Davenport was built by working people, many of them newcomers to Canada. Let me be very clear: There is no provision in the bill that would take away the right to strike. That right is protected by the charter, and the current government will always protect it. What the bill would do is give workers and employers more tools, more time and more assets to reach a deal at the table, where the best agreements are made.

About 95% of federally regulated disputes are already resolved without a work stoppage. This bill focuses on the few relationships that break down again and again.

Let me highlight just a few of those measures. First, where the last round ended in a strike, a lockout or imposed arbitration, bargaining must start six months early with federal mediators at the table. Second, the bill would extend the conciliation period from 60 days to 90 days, giving both parties time to reach a deal before any strike or a lockout. Third, a new special mediator would work intensively with both sides, and if there were no deal, the mediator's report would become public. That report would set out where each side stands and why talks broke down so members, employers and Canadians could see it all. Fourth, newly unionized workers, new unions, would get support from our government to reach a first contract. Fifth, the bill would enable penalties for bargaining in bad faith. Those measures are only part of it. Alongside these changes come stronger protections for workers on the job, from safer workplaces to a real crackdown on wage theft.

Let me turn to section 107 because I know there has been a lot of discussion about it in the media and in this House. This is not a new provision. It has been in the Canada Labour Code since 1984. Unions have told us that it has been used without enough transparency, so we listened and have proposed some changes. Bill C-39 would put guardrails around it. Before a minister can even consider using it, a special mediator would need to have completed their work and a public report would need to have been considered. Then the minister would need to conclude that a work stoppage would have a significant adverse national impact in an assessment that must weigh the right to strike. There must be a balance of items that are weighed in that decision.

As the Minister of Jobs and Families has said, the minister would have to show their work, clearly laying out the reasons why intervention was necessary in the national interest. I know that many labour leaders see this differently. I very much respect that and we will be listening very closely to them at the committee. However, it is important to remember that, at its heart, this bill would help parties address issues earlier, reach negotiated agreements and resolve disputes, while fully protecting the right to strike. Extraordinary intervention should always be a last resort. When negotiations go well, everyone wins.

Davenport constituents have also written to me, worried that we are dismantling environmental protections. This bill would not remove impact assessments that examine environmental, health and social effects, nor would it remove permitting or consultation. It would change who leads the review and how departments work together, not the standards that apply. One year does not mean cutting corners. The clock only starts once a complete application and all studies are in.

There have been extensive consultations on this bill because consultations matter. Over the summer, Canadians sent in more than 26,000 submissions. The government had proposed letting cabinet exempt some projects from the jeopardy test in the Species at Risk Act. We heard directly from Canadians that they did not like this. They pushed back very strongly and the proposal is not in this bill.

Finally, I want to spend a minute on the impact on indigenous communities. This bill would not change the duty to consult, our modern treaty obligations or commitments under the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act. It would change the burden. Instead of a separate consultation for every department and every permit, there would be one coordinated process per community, per project, through a new Crown consultation hub that would identify concerns early with the aim of securing free, prior and informed consent. Timelines, though, could be extended or suspended to complete consultation.

The Prime Minister often says we can give ourselves far more than anyone can take away. This bill is how we are doing that. We are building faster. We are protecting workers. We are protecting nature and building in partnership with indigenous peoples. I urge all members to support Bill C-39 and work with us to make it even stronger at committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member spoke a lot about the labour portion of this bill, which is part 3. We have seen, over the last couple of years, a lot of strikes at the port of Vancouver, as well as the rail companies.

In the member's opinion, how would this bill have handled or interacted with those strikes and those labour situations at the port of Vancouver and the rail strikes?

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is directly because of those experiences over the last 10 years that I think we learned a lot as a government.

I also want to say that both our Minister of Labour and our Minister of Employment and Jobs spent the summer talking to labour leaders right across our country about section 107, building Canada strong, and how is it we can actually support them better with respect to reaching a deal at the table, because we know that the best deals are when both sides agree. They are the ones that are sustained and strong. A lot of the things we heard were put into our bill so we can strengthen it and make sure we do not have those strikes ongoing.

[Patrick Bonin, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C‑39 represents another another major step backward on environmental issues as well as on workers' rights.

The government would have people believe that the bill will not result in environmental rollbacks. It says environmental assessments will not be weakened.

Leading environmental organizations and environmental law groups are unanimous. Ecojustice, West Coast Environmental Law, the Centre québécois du droit de l'environnement and Equiterre have all stated explicitly and unequivocally that the bill will result in major rollbacks.

The government is not only introducing major rollbacks, it is also using the tariff crisis to implement permanent measures that would allow it to circumvent legislation.

These discretionary powers were unacceptable to begin with, but they were subject to a five-year limit. Can someone explain to me why the government wants to remove that provision so it can make those powers permanent and permanently circumvent the law?

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there are two key questions there. On the first one, with respect to any type of weakening or dismantling of environmental protections, that is completely not the case. We are not removing in any way any of the impact assessments that examine the environmental effects. What it does do is change who leads the review and how the departments work together, not the standards that apply. Therefore, we are expediting it, but not in any way eliminating any of those standards. If there are suggestions about how we can make that clear or improve that, I am happy to hear about them at committee.

With respect to why we have removed the five-year clause around building Canada strong, a lot of these projects take more than five years to build. Our investors need certainty, which is the reason that clause was taken away.

[Karim Bardeesy, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, I am very engaged in this debate and my colleague's speech. We share adjoining ridings. Therefore, some of the concerns and questions that my colleague is hearing are also being asked in Taiaiako'n—Parkdale—High Park. I want to ask her, given her experience in this Parliament, to speak about the continuity pieces around the environmental regulations here.

Also, would she not agree that it is important for people on the many sides of the environmental and resources extraction debate to agree that a quick decision is better than a slow decision, no matter which side of the debate they are on?

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think for us five years was too long for a decision to be made by our government. The world has so completely changed that we needed to put a completely new process into place. We needed to create a process that would eliminate any type of overlap or duplication. We wanted to create certainty and an easy way for businesses and projects to be able to go ahead. Therefore, while I would say we wanted to have one decision, one project, and one year, I believe we will be able to do the proper amount of assessment and study within that year to be able to make good decisions that are long-standing and good for this country.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is with great joy and pleasure that I rise to take part in today's debate on Bill C-39, introduced by the government. I am also very pleased to inform you that I will be sharing my time with the Conservative member for Tobique—Mactaquac.

As Conservatives, we have one primary objective here in the House, and that is to save Canadians money. There are ways the government can do just that. For example, it could cut taxes or even eliminate them. What we have been proposing for months is to eliminate taxes on natural resources, such as oil, to speed up the process of getting projects built. That would leave Canadians with more money in their pockets. That is the quickest way of getting this done. Unfortunately, the Liberals are only partially implementing this idea.

Another thing the government could do is get out of the way and let entrepreneurs and Canadians develop our natural resources to their full potential and create wealth in the process. Canada is the envy of the world because our country has every natural resource and every kind of energy. For the past 10 years, however, we have seen successive Liberal governments stop at nothing to keep Canada's incredible natural resource and energy potential from being fully realized.

No discussion of natural resources and energy can be considered complete unless it encompasses both sides. We cannot rely purely on traditional energy sources like fossil fuels or purely on green energy. We need a combination of both. Achieving that will take willingness, openness and most of all, an end to the contempt that Canadians have witnessed and experienced over the past 10 years. Successive Liberal governments have treated certain so-called “traditional” natural resources, such as gasoline and so on, with contempt.

Let us not forget that a new government was elected in 2015. Prime Minister Trudeau said loud and proud that “Canada is back”. Some will recall that he was very proud to say that in Davos, and everyone applauded him. He was the new global star. That reminds me of certain things that are happening right now. The people in Davos were delighted to hear Prime Minister Trudeau say that the Canadian economy, and I am paraphrasing here, would no longer rely solely on what is beneath our feet, but also on what is between our ears. That was so disrespectful to Canadians, as if there had been nothing between people's ears since Confederation, or even long before that. That was the essence of Mr. Trudeau's Liberal policy: contempt for what lies beneath our feet, namely our energy resources and all the potential they represent.

As we saw, regulations and laws were enacted that were truly intended to hinder economic development and undermine the potential of our natural resources. Examples include Bill C-48 and Bill C-69. I will come back to that a little later, because, unfortunately, nothing has changed.

Some would have us believe that a new tone has been set in the past 18 months with the arrival of the new Prime Minister. We must tread lightly here. The current government deserves a global award for all their announcements, summits, ceremonies, statements and ribbon-cutting ceremonies. That is truly impressive, but where are the concrete results? During the election campaign, the Liberals were going on about Build Canada Homes. We had a good laugh at the time. Let me just say that the French title “bâtir Maisons Canada” sounded a bit like something out of the movie E.T. The Extra-Terrestrial.

Where are these houses? Where were they built? What concrete results have Liberal policies produced over the past 18 months? There are none.

I would remind members that one of the first bills the government tabled was Bill C‑5, whose objective—yes, I said “objective”—was to speed up the process of integrating practices. We, the Conservatives, did not oppose that approach. We even voted in favour of a closure motion so we could move forward. However, 18 months later, where are the concrete results? That is the issue. The Liberals put on a big show and make nice announcements, but there are no concrete results.

The proof is that, at this very moment, the Prime Minister has a pile of documents on his desk. Some 500 projects are ready to move forward, and those projects are currently being held up. If the government truly intends to advance Canada's economic development, it should green-light those 500 projects.

While 500 projects await action on the Prime Minister's desk, his government has created 14 new government agencies. Bill C‑69 and Bill C‑48 remain in effect.

Our leader said something yesterday that is worth repeating because it goes to the heart of the matter. He quoted Bill C‑69 and said that anyone seeking to proceed with a project must still provide an analysis of “the intersection of sex and gender with other identity factors”, as if that had anything to do with mines, pipelines and seaports. We thought the Trudeau era was behind us, but it is still alive and well. These are left-wing policies. The Liberals go on and on about their lofty principles. Woke policies remain in place because of Bill C‑69 and Bill C‑48. That applies to something else, too. As mentioned yesterday, proponents must still consider “any other matter relevant to the impact assessment that the responsible authority requires to be taken into account”.

The government wants to do it, wants to move forward, or at least that is what it is saying, but everything is open to all sorts of analyses. That is fine. We understand that. However, if we are talking about taking real action to reach our full potential, that is not what the government is doing.

We have been debating the government's Bill C-39 for the past two days. If we understood the government correctly, this bill seeks to do what the government has not done for 18 months, despite Bill C-5. That is basically what this is.

I have to say that it is rather ridiculous how these people were boasting about how Bill C-5 was a new approach. Now, here we are, 18 months later, and they are introducing another bill that takes a very similar approach, when we have yet to see any results. That is proof that the Liberals did not do their job properly on this.

We are talking about an omnibus bill that is nearly 250 pages long and contains hundreds and hundreds of provisions that we need to examine. Of course, as with all parliamentary work, the devil is in the details. We understand that there is a time limit. Earlier, I heard my colleague say that projects can begin after a one-year review period, but that is not the case because the government is giving itself the power to suspend that time limit at any time.

Imagine a foreign investor who sees Canada's immense potential and decides to take the plunge, thinking everything will work out. I wonder what will happen when that investor realizes that one very important detail will change once Bill C-39 is passed: The government will get the power to suspend this one-year time limit. That is not a good thing.

Obviously, a good way to reduce delays is to require only one environmental assessment per project. Two years ago, on behalf of the official opposition party, I was extremely proud to introduce Bill C-375, which sought to do exactly that: have just one environmental assessment, not two, per project. We worked with the provinces to move the bill along. I even managed to get the Bloc Québécois members to support the principle and vote with us at second reading. Unfortunately, the Liberals and the NDP voted against the bill, so it died. It is no stretch of the imagination to assume that, if we had passed that bill two years ago, our actions would have worked proactively in Canada's favour.

In the Speech from the Throne given 18 months ago, the King himself repeated what I had said in the House, that one project requires just one assessment. The King said so himself in the Speech from the Throne, which is no small thing, yet 18 months later, things are still not moving, and the “one project, one review” principle has still not been implemented across Canada from coast to coast to coast.

Our message to the government is that it should take some inspiration from what the Harper government did during the economic crisis we had to grapple with in 2008 and 2009. The process was streamlined. Every project had to be analyzed on a single page rather than pages and pages. It worked, because 23,500 projects were put forward under the Harper government.

As Conservatives, we value efficiency. We want the government to be efficient and to take inspiration from what we did back then, not from the inaction of the past 18 months.

Unfortunately, the government is slow to deliver any real results.

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

Mr. Speaker, I welcome my friend back to the chamber. The member and the Conservative Party need to take a broader look at what is happening here. The Prime Minister just came back from a highly successful investment summit: half a trillion dollars, which is completely unheard of in Canadian history. This bill is part of building a stronger and healthier economy.

Whether it is what took place in Toronto earlier this month, in attracting billions of dollars of investment, or ensuring that we can build projects, would the member not agree that we are on the right track to providing good-quality jobs and a stronger economy for the future of Canada?

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to see my colleague here in the House. Does the member remember where he was two years ago when he voted against my private member's bill, Bill C-375, for one project, one evaluation? He voted against it, and that is on the record.

We lost two years on that issue, and we lost more than 10 years because of the Liberal administration. Government after government was opposed to any development of our natural resources. Now we want to fast-track everything, for sure, but the reason we have to do that right now is that during the last 10 years, the government failed to achieve great things.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is rare for me to agree with my Conservative colleagues, but I do agree with them on one point. There is appalling ineffectiveness within the government. Allow me give an example.

We have just come through an election campaign in Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, where it was made clear to the government that the funding, the liquidity support it wanted to provide to the forestry sector, is not working. The government was asked to lower the eligibility threshold from $2 million in annual revenue to $1 million. I have been checking for the past two weeks to see if anyone in Quebec has accessed this liquidity. No one has. This is appallingly ineffective. Meanwhile, the government is in the process of equipping itself with the tools to circumvent environmental laws. Ultimately, I have my doubts about both the Build Canada Homes strategy, as my colleague pointed out, and the strategy for providing access to liquidity for those in the forestry sector. No one is seeing any results yet.

This is a terrible failure on the part of this government.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his very relevant comments. What Canadians want is to get more for their money and to have more money in their pockets. They also want the government to be more efficient.

My colleague has just demonstrated very clearly that unfortunately, in a sector that is essential to Quebec's economy and Canada's economy, namely the forestry sector, the government is slow to use truly constructive solutions and approaches.

It is never too late to do the right thing. Let us seize this opportunity to hold the government accountable and ensure it answers to us on this issue involving forestry workers.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to get something on the record here. The member for Winnipeg North was talking about the government creating jobs. The problem in Canada right now is that it is actually not up to the government to create jobs. It is up to the private sector to create jobs. The government's job is to create a regulatory environment that would allow the private sector to do that.

This is the second bill that the government has tabled claiming to blow the doors off the Canadian economy, yet it has not done anything to substantively address the regulatory problems that are cited by industry regarding getting jobs created. Does my colleague have any thoughts on that?

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

Mr. Speaker, I deeply appreciate the question and the work done by my colleague.

The member pointed out that the best way to help the economy is for the government to get out of the way. This is what we are asking for as the Conservative opposition to the government, for it to get out of the way and let people develop the full potential we have in natural resources and energy.

[Richard Bragdon, Conservative, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

Mr. Speaker, it is an absolute honour to rise in the people's House again and speak to this important piece of legislation that the government has brought forth.

I would like to begin by reflecting on an old story that I have referenced before but that certainly applies yet again here in the House. There was a father who had two sons, and he challenged them to go to work in his vineyard. He said, “I need you to go out and work on the farm. I have some big tasks ahead.” He commissioned them to go into the field.

The first son rose enthusiastically and made a grand proclamation and a great announcement: “That's a wonderful idea. I'm going to do that right away. You can count on me. I'm going to do that. You don't have to worry one bit.” He made the grand proclamation, but he did not end up in the field.

Then there was the second son who was approached, and he said, “I can't go. I'm sorry to disappoint you. I can't go.” However, he got to thinking about it and feeling bad, and he said to himself, “I owe this to my dad. I'm going to go out and work in the field like he asked me to do.”

Basically, the conclusion to that story is to ask which son was more pleasing to the father, who had asked them to go out into the vineyard. Well, obviously, it was the second son. Even though his initial response was disappointing and did not rise to the occasion as was expected, the results were outstanding because he went and did what needed to be done and got the job done, whereas the other son made a grand announcement and a tremendous proclamation, got the hopes up of everyone around, sounded like things were going to be wonderful, but the end result was that he did nothing and was a grand disappointment.

I cannot help but see the correlation. Once again, we are having grand proclamations and excellent announcements: “Don't you worry. No matter what problem faces this country, you hang on. There will be another announcement within five minutes, and it will be okay.” People will look, and they will ask, “Where is the result?” The answer is, “Oh, don't you worry. We're going to come and make another announcement.”

There is another announcement, and yet a few months go by, and Canadians wait for the results and do not see any. “But don't you worry. There's another proclamation on its way.” They come, and their hearts are filled with anticipation. Much like cotton candy, the announcement provides an instant sugar high and makes us feel good and warm and fuzzy, but then comes the crash of no results and limited outcomes.

What Canadians are looking for is tangible results and real outcomes, and I could not help but think about that story as I was preparing my remarks today.

Look, these are challenging times, and we all admit that. We want what is best for Canadians, and we want Canada to move forward because Canada is a nation of incredible potential and overwhelmingly abundant blessings that we have both under our feet on our lands and in our people. We need to unleash and unlock that potential so Canada can live up to that potential and our people can enjoy the benefits of all those bountiful blessings that we have been given.

Therefore, I challenge the government today. With this grand announcement, I hope there is a firm commitment to deliver real results for real Canadians. They are tired of announcements and proclamations and grand theatre and great speeches on big stages. What they want to know is, will this deliver the potential for me to find real work, make a decent paycheque, be able to put groceries on my table, help us make the mortgage payment, keep the vehicle payments up, help our kids get through school and have them actually dream of maybe someday owning a home of their own? If we do not deliver that, we are not living up to our promise and to the expectation that has been made of us by Canadians.

I have been reflecting on this and looking at some of the announcements that have been made, and it was not long ago that there was yet another grand announcement: “We are forming a special projects office.” That sounds great. I love it. Over 500 announcements have been made and placed under the jurisdiction of the special projects office. However, I have to ask the House, how many have been approved? It is zero. We have had 500 announcements, many designations and grand proclamations and yet again the disappointment of no real deliverables.

The time for deliverables has come. The time for results has come. We have to get to a place where we are doing real things. The good news is that our party has put forward some real, tangible solutions for some of the challenges facing Canada's industry, workers and people. We are calling for projects to be expedited and to be approved within six months. We are calling for the repeal of job-killing laws and antidevelopment laws, like Bill C-69 and Bill C-48, that impede Canada's progress.

We are also calling for a genuine one-project, one-review approach that would give proponents certainty instead of making them go through multiple layers of endless regulation and red tape. It is time to unlock our resources and unleash our potential, move beyond the announcement phase and get to the deliverables and results phase. We do that by streamlining. We do that by making sure that this gets done and does not turn into yet another grand announcement that gets our hopes up but does not deliver what Canadians need in this time of stress.

We are fighting hard on this side of the House to save people and Canadians money, but also to have real projects and real jobs made available and done for Canadians. As we have seen, after a year and a half of announcements, we cannot point to concrete examples of things getting done. Nothing leads to more frustration than unmet expectations. When many expectations arise, when rhetoric soars in the moment and when we do not deliver on what we have promised to Canadians, they grow more suspect, more weary and more frustrated. Then they begin to look with a very jaundiced eye at anything that any parliamentarian or politician ever says. Why is that? It is because we have promised much and delivered little. We have to get to the place where we are delivering real, concrete results for Canadians, because this country has unbelievable, incredible potential.

I want to conclude with one final analogy from an ancient story that came to me as I was preparing for today. It is a story of a lady who was in a desperate situation and did not know where to turn. She sought solutions from various places. She went to doctor after doctor and could find no help. In fact, she just got further diagnosed, with more diagnoses and more prognoses, and spent more of her hard-earned money, ending up with nothing left in her pocket while living with the consequences of false hopes and many broken promises.

The good news is that this story did not end with her in a place of unmet expectation. The good news is that she pressed through the crowds and doubts, and she overcame the obstacles, as many Canadians are doing right now. She sought out a great physician and got her answer. Her answer came when she told her whole story. After she told her story and that great physician heard her story and gave her the answer, she went away whole.

Canadians become whole when those who are elected to represent them take the time to hear their stories, and not just hear their stories, but take direct action to bring real solutions to their problems. It is time to get beyond the diagnoses in this country, get beyond the announcements, proclamations and false hopes, and deliver real results for real Canadians in real time.

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should be encouraging the members in his party. I think he would make a tremendous leader of the official opposition. He mixes important oratory skills with the ability to point to where the government is moving in the right direction, while keeping his obligation to the loyal official opposition to continue to push the government to do more.

I would like to point out to my hon. colleague that this government is an action-focused government. This is not about symbolism; it is about delivering concretely. The bill before Parliament is of the nature of things that I know former prime minister Stephen Harper would support. I know Jason Kenney, who sat on the side of the House that Harper did, is supportive of the work the government is doing.

The Sisson mine, Darlington new nuclear and the Nova Scotia-New Brunswick intertie are projects that are actively under way, creating good jobs. Will the member at least recognize that these projects are happening? Is he going to support this bill?

[Richard Bragdon, Conservative, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

Mr. Speaker, it is always good to have a debate with fellow Maritimers in the House.

I will say this. Once again, the projects the member just listed are projects that have been announced but have not yet been delivered. We need real results to start kicking into place.

Let us not blame Canadians for being somewhat skeptical when they hear more proclamations from the government. Let us remember that this is the same government that for 10 years called some of our most valuable resources dirty oil and dirty gas and said we should keep it in the ground. It also said that anyone who advocated for those resources and the development of those resources was a planet burner.

I am glad the Liberals have experienced an absolute backflip and inverted suplex on themselves and are now embracing our policies, at least verbally. However, now we need proof of that change and transformation with real action, the real construction of pipelines, and real development.

[Patrick Bonin, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague seems to be in full agreement when it comes to the exceptional powers the government is giving itself to get around environmental laws.

I would like to point out that Bill C-39 even allows for the creation of economic zones where projects will be pre-approved. Projects will be approved before they are even assessed. Obviously, we can expect companies to sue the government if, after the assessment, the government decides a project is no good.

I wonder if my colleague is concerned about that. Does he not think this fits perfectly into a government strategy to deploy an oil arsenal using public funds? His party has stated that oil companies benefit from corporate welfare.

The government is gearing up to invest $40 billion in a mega-pipeline project. Is my colleague in favour of giving public funds to oil companies?

[Richard Bragdon, Conservative, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from the beautiful province of Quebec. What we need now is a government that will actually do something.

We need a government that gets real things done for Canadians. When we rank 38 out of 38 among OECD nations for GDP per capita, that is an indictment of the government's policies, which have failed to deliver real results. Even though the pronouncements are grand, the results have been very much disastrous as it relates to competitiveness for our industries, for our workers and for affordability for Canadians from coast to coast. It is time to get results for them.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for a tremendous speech. It is always a pleasure to listen to him in this House. He is very factual as well. That is what I really appreciate about what he has to say. He brings so much substance to what he says in the House. We can contrast that with the fact that we are dealing with a bill today that is thicker than most phone books we find in this country now. I really cannot believe it.

This is not the first bill the government has tabled to try to fix 10 years of disastrous governance over there. It already has Bill C-5. This is another admission that that bill does not work. Are we going to be back here again debating another bill to undo more bad Liberal laws from the government? Are Canadians expected to believe that it is going to get things right this time?