Debates of Sept. 25th, 2026

Building Canada Strong Act

[Leslie Church, Liberal, Toronto—St. Paul's, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague hit the nail on the head. This legislation is designed to ensure that we can meet the moment. Under the strain and threat we are facing from abroad, it is important that we be able to demonstrate to Canadians that we can move projects forward, be competitive—

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

Resuming debate, the hon. Secretary of State for Nature.

[Nathalie Provost, Liberal, Secretary of State (Nature)]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise in the House today. I will be speaking in the context of this debate on Bill C‑39. I am going to focus on the part that deals with environmental protection.

Between the fall of 2015 and the spring of 2025, I had the honour of serving as director general of Quebec's ministry of environment and climate change. During those 10 years, I learned about, discovered and explored all sorts of areas of environmental protection, including industry, transportation and infrastructure. I also worked with committed and dedicated professionals who understand very well the importance of enforcing environmental laws and regulations. That is the lens through which I would like us to discuss the bill before us today.

In Quebec, there was a proposal in 2015 to review the Environment Quality Act. One of the major challenges was the issue of predictability and transparency in issuing authorizations. Quebec committed to fast-tracking and reviewing its processes in that respect.

Interestingly enough, that is the very topic that the Government of Canada is focusing on in this bill, because it is absolutely essential if we are to be able to carry out projects quickly.

Since our colleagues in the House are constantly raising the issue of the speed of our decision-making, it is absolutely essential that we give ourselves the means to make decisions efficiently and quickly, so that developers can build our country and public institutions can swiftly carry out the projects that are essential to the establishment and development of our economic autonomy.

I just want to remind my colleagues of Quebec's objectives, which are public.

The Declaration of services to citizens and businesses states that a permit should be issued within 75 days for any project with moderate environmental impact. In Quebec, the target for the revised Impact Assessment Act is nine months. We are hoping that decisions will be reached within a one-year timeline. That is essentially the process being considered here, not the rigour with which regulations are enforced, and certainly not an encroachment on provincial decisions.

We want to be able to move quickly and provide all developers with accurate information so they can help build Quebec.

Since the beginning of their history, Canadians have built Canada. Previous generations have undertaken projects that have transformed the country. The national railway, which connected communities, helped establish Canada as a continental country. The Trans-Canada Highway is a great example of a project that connected our regions and strengthened economic ties from coast to coast to coast. Then there is the St. Lawrence Seaway. We have some great examples of projects that have been completed and have helped build our country.

That is what we need to do today. We need to do this if we want to become an energy powerhouse. We are going to do this with projects that use fossil fuels, but we are going to transform them with projects that reduce their carbon footprint. We are going to reduce methane emissions.

On top of that, we will be able to implement clean electricity projects. The Churchill Falls project is not isolated only to Quebec. This project will enable us to produce energy that can be delivered to Canadians in the Maritimes and Ontario and that we could even sell to our economic partners. This is important if we want to be able to meet our net-zero targets.

To be able to carry out projects effectively and efficiently, we need to have the means to respond quickly so that we can meet these commitments. That is why we are making these decisions. We are streamlining processes and consolidating permit applications that stem from various initiatives.

In addition, we are finding a way to incorporate them in the same decision. This will have no impact on provincial regulatory frameworks. The regulatory frameworks of the provinces involved in a project must and will apply.

I have some examples. In 2024, Bombardier wanted to relocate its warehouse and found a very interesting piece of land in Saint-Philippe. That project needed to be built quickly given Bombardier's various challenges and deadlines. Rosefellow, which was Bombardier's developer, succeeded and we managed to incorporate the entire analysis under the Species at Risk Act within 75 days. We got involved early in the project and found solutions. Without the ability to incorporate feedback from colleagues and make decisions quickly, Bombardier would not have set up operations in the Montérégie region, and the project, which was announced this summer and is now up and running, not long after it was conceived, would not have come to fruition.

When we read the impact assessment for the port of Contrecoeur, we see everything that was done to ensure alignment and connection with Quebec's laws and regulations. The agreement to protect the copper redhorse was made in agreement with Quebec. We are not substituting or erasing Quebec's constitutional rights. We are proactively working with Quebec so that authorizations are efficient and so that proponents can move forward.

Another example involves the Quebec Central Railway, which connects Lévis and Thetford Mines. It was a project to rehabilitate a rail line, but it ran into some problems. Some of the land on which the rail line was built contained asbestos tailings, which fall under Quebec's legislation. Although this was a federal project, Quebec's laws were applied, and Quebec authorizations were used. There is therefore a way to work in a fast, predictable and clear context. This will allow us to proceed much more efficiently. People have been calling for this.

We are introducing this today because there is a tariff crisis, but there are also other crises. We need to take back control of our economy and boost our productivity. The whole issue of environmental approvals means that we need to be able to do this properly.

I would be remiss if I did not emphasize how central our partnership with indigenous peoples remains to these efforts. Indigenous communities must play a key role in shaping projects that affect their lands, their rights and their future. We can coordinate projects based on clear processes, and we will be able to secure a strong commitment that provides a great deal of certainty to all parties involved.

Let me conclude with this final point. These proposals have been shaped by a deep commitment. Over the past few months, our government has listened to indigenous peoples, provincial and territorial governments, workers, businesses, industry representatives and Canadians across the country. Canadians emphasized the importance of improving the efficiency of federal processes while maintaining environmental safeguards and respecting indigenous rights. Stakeholders highlighted the need for greater certainty, clear timelines, strong supply chains and modern frameworks that can support future growth.

That made sense to us, which is why the bill before Parliament reflects what we learned from those conversations and seeks to seize the opportunities before us and address the challenges facing our country. Urgent action is required, and that is why we are introducing this bill. We are confident that Canada can make decisions in a timely manner and provide reliable infrastructure. This is not just about improving processes. It is about preparing our country for the future. Let us build a competitive economy, create more opportunities for workers and communities, strengthen our ties at home and abroad and ensure that Canada remains a country where we can achieve great things together.

[Eric Melillo, Conservative, Kenora—Kiiwetinoong, ON]

Mr. Speaker, when we are talking about this piece of legislation, it is important to note that a lot of work has been done in this Parliament already, and very quickly. We passed a lot of measures to enable the government to move quickly on major projects. There was a lot of discussion last year, and it continues, about how existential it is for our country to secure our economic sovereignty and to ensure that we can stand on our own two feet. Of course, that still remains today, but the government is dragging its feet and bringing forward more and more legislation to duplicate a lot of work that has already been done by Parliament.

Why is the government bringing forward more legislation instead of taking action to ensure we can get projects built in Canada?

[Nathalie Provost, Liberal, Châteauguay—Les Jardins-de-Napierville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am surprised to hear my colleague say that our government is dragging its feet. I have not been a member of Parliament for very long, but in the few months since we took office, there has already been some acknowledgement of our government's ability to introduce laws and regulations for Canadians.

It is important to create the right conditions. That is Parliament's role. My role is not to pick up a shovel and start digging to build a railway track or a power transmission corridor. My role is to create the proper conditions so that developers who want help build Canada can do so. That is what we are doing here today.

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Mr. Speaker, during question period, I had an opportunity to ask my colleague opposite about a provision in Bill C-5 that the government wants to remove using Bill C-39.

This provision states that, after five years, the exceptional powers conferred by Bill C‑5 cease to apply. In answer to my question, she said that her government was not using Bill C‑39 to backtrack on environmental progress.

I have a question for the government. If that is not backtracking, what is? A power that was supposed to be temporary and limited to five years is being made permanent and unlimited, and we know full well that this power is used precisely to get around environmental rules.

[Nathalie Provost, Liberal, Châteauguay—Les Jardins-de-Napierville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, if we read the content of Bills C-5 and C-39 carefully, we can see that they work on the assumption that projects can be developed in keeping with legal requirements while allowing sufficient time for determining the conditions surrounding their implementation.

This approach, which resembles what in Quebec is known as the pre-tabling of authorizations, is quite common in countries that take a strict and streamlined approach to environmental approvals.

We are familiar with the projects, and we do not want to expose them to legal challenges; we simply want to create the conditions necessary to meet environmental requirements.

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

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if my colleague could provide her thoughts in regard to how the legislation is part of a bigger agenda the government has for building Canada stronger and healthier. A good example of that, as I have cited on numerous occasions, is the investment summit that the Prime Minister hosted, which generated close to half a trillion dollars of potential commitments coming to Canada. What impact is that going to have on our nation, and how is this legislation there to help support it?

[Nathalie Provost, Liberal, Châteauguay—Les Jardins-de-Napierville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we have not said much about it, but almost half if not more of the projects discussed at the 2026 Canada Investment Summit that elicited considerable interest are projects focused on renewable energy.

However, to get these renewable energy projects built quickly and efficiently, and for Canadians to reap the full benefits, it is essential that proponents be given the tools they need to take effective action. As a reminder, these timelines and this integrated work approach are already part of the philosophy espoused by Quebec's environment ministry.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance and National Revenue and to the Secretary of State (Canada Revenue Agency and Financial Institutions)]

Mr. Speaker, Canada is entering a decisive period in its history, as we can all appreciate. Around the world, economies are adapting to new realities, supply chains are being rapidly reshaped and countries are competing to attract investment, talent and innovation. In this environment, Canada has a clear choice to make. We can move with confidence and seize new opportunities or we can allow lengthy approval processes to slow our progress. Our government has chosen to move forward with urgency.

Today I rise to speak about legislation that would help Canada build major projects and many other projects more efficiently, modernize key elements of our transportation and trade systems, and strengthen the foundations of productive and fair workplaces. Together, these measures would help create jobs, attract investment, improve economic resilience and position Canada for long-term success.

Canada begins from a position of strength. We are a country rich in natural resources, home to a highly skilled workforce and supported by strong public institutions. We have the rule of law, we have a great social safety net and we have a strong and stable democracy. We are recognized around the world as a reliable trading partner and a stable place to invest, but strengths alone are not enough. Canada is unfortunately known for quite lengthy regulatory reviews. To achieve the growth and prosperity we all aspire to, we must be able to turn our potential into results.

Throughout our history, Canadians have demonstrated what is possible when ambition is matched by action. Generations before us built projects that transformed our country, things that captured the imagination of the nation. The national railway connected communities and established Canada as a truly continental nation, the Trans-Canada Highway linked regions and strengthened economic ties from coast to coast, and the St. Lawrence Seaway expanded trade opportunities and connected Canadian businesses to global markets.

These are great accomplishments, but they did not happen by accident. They required vision, co-operation, investment and a lot of determination. Above all, they required people who understood that building for the future often means overcoming challenges in the present. That same spirit is needed today, and that is the spirit of this legislation.

The projects that will define the next generation may look different from those of the past. They may include critical mineral development or supporting emerging technologies. They will include energy projects that enhance economic and energy security. They will involve ports and transportation corridors, electricity transmission, advanced manufacturing facilities, telecommunications infrastructure or other strategic investments that strengthen Canada's economic future. Whatever form they take, these projects will help create opportunity, increase productivity, help us diversify trade and support good-paying jobs across Canada.

The question before us is whether our systems are equipped to deliver those outcomes in a world that is quick-moving. For too many years, in fact, project approvals in Canada often involved lengthy and complex federal processes. Delays can create uncertainty for workers, communities, indigenous partners, businesses and especially investors. In some cases, projects have waited years before receiving the decisions needed to proceed.

In a competitive global economy, time matters. At the investment summit the Prime Minister hosted recently, which I participated in, I heard from investors who talked about how they wanted to deploy money in Canada and wanted to invest in Canada, as they saw Canada as a great place, but they all expressed the fact that we had this reputation for slower approval processes, which we needed to address.

This bill really would address those issues. When decisions take too long, investment opportunities can be lost. Jobs that could have been created here may be created—

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I just wanted to tell my hon. colleague that the interpreter has indicated that a cell phone is vibrating near the microphone.

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

There seems to be a device near the desk, which is receiving a phone call or notification, and it is causing interference for interpretation. If the hon. member could just move it away and continue his comments, it would be appreciated.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I apologize for that. I was timing myself to make sure I stay on time. I have removed the device from the desk. I apologize to the interpreters.

As I was saying, when decisions take too long, investment opportunities can be lost. Jobs that could have been created here may be created elsewhere. Communities that are counting on major economic development projects may be forced to wait, and I believe strongly that right now Canada simply cannot afford to fall behind or wait.

That is why our government is proposing significant reforms designed to improve the efficiency and predictability of federal decision-making. Our objective is straightforward: to provide federal decisions on all projects within one year while maintaining high standards of environmental protection and respecting the rights of indigenous people. This approach is not making Canada a jurisdiction of low standards. It in fact says that we can do both: have high standards and speed up the process. It is not about reducing scrutiny. It is about improving coordination and eliminating unnecessary duplication. Moving from consecutive to concurrent review processes is the key.

Canadians should not have to choose between economic growth and responsible development. We can achieve both together. Strong environmental stewardship and efficient government are not mutually exclusive. A process can be both rigorous and timely.

We need to get to a yes or a no faster, and that is exactly what we intend to do with this legislation. Over decades of experience, Canada has developed significant expertise in environmental assessment and project review. We have learned valuable lessons about how reviews can be conducted more effectively, how technology can support better outcomes and how governments can work together more efficiently, like between provinces and the federal government, for example.

Our goal is to ensure that projects are reviewed carefully, decisions are based on evidence, consultations are meaningful and outcomes are achieved within a predictable time frame. Predictability is key if we want to see the global capital we are competing for get deployed in Canada and really get to work in our communities. It needs certainty in order to flow, and that is exactly what we are trying to provide.

Indigenous partnership remains central to this effort. We recognize that indigenous communities must play an important role in shaping projects that affect their lands, rights and futures. Better coordination and clearer processes can support more meaningful engagement while providing greater certainty to all participants. In fact, a modern project review system should advance economic opportunity, support reconciliation and protect the environment at the same time. We believe Canada can accomplish all three.

Building a stronger economy also depends on our ability to move people and goods efficiently. Transportation networks are the arteries of our economy. Railways, highways, ports, airports and marine corridors connect producers to customers, and communities to markets. They help businesses grow, support jobs and enable trade throughout Canada and around the world. When goods move efficiently, costs are reduced, competitiveness improves and consumers benefit.

That is why this legislation includes measures to strengthen transportation systems and improve Canada's trade infrastructure. Our objective is to support modern, reliable and efficient supply chains that can meet the demands of a changing economy. By reducing administrative barriers, simplifying processes and encouraging investment in key infrastructure, we can help Canadian businesses reach new markets and expand existing opportunities.

These efforts are also important to Canada's broader economic security. As the global environment becomes more complex, transportation systems face new risks and challenges. Supply chains must be resilient and capable of adapting to evolving threats. Secure transportation networks are essential for protecting trade, attracting investment and maintaining public confidence.

The measures before Parliament in this bill, Bill C-39, would help ensure that federal authorities have modern tools to address emerging risks while maintaining transparency, accountability and predictability for workers, communities, indigenous partners and industries. A stronger transportation system means a stronger Canadian economy.

Economic growth also depends on people. Behind every construction project, every shipment and every investment are workers whose efforts make Canada's success possible. Ensuring that workers have safe, fair and productive workplaces is therefore a fundamental part of building a prosperous country.

Canada's federal labour relations system covers more than one million workers and thousands of employers across key sectors of the economy. In most cases, collective bargaining functions effectively and agreements are reached through constructive negotiations. That success should be recognized and celebrated. However, there are instances where disputes can become prolonged and where disruptions in federally regulated sectors can have consequences that extend far beyond the immediate parties involved. Our government's objective is to strengthen the conditions for successful bargaining while maintaining a balanced and effective labour relations framework. The legislation before Parliament includes measures to modernize federal labour protections, improve workplace health and safety, support fair treatment of workers, and address issues such as worker misclassification, wage theft and much more.

Before I wrap up, I move:

That this question be now put.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have asked this question of other Liberal members and I am hoping that the parliamentary secretary, being so well briefed on the subject, will be able to shine some light on it.

In part 3 of Bill C-39, there is a significant change to the geographic certification process. I would ask the good parliamentary secretary to please speak to it, to explain exactly what the government is trying to do and how significant this change would be. It used to be that only a union could ask for certification of this site, but what the government is planning is quite different than that. Also, is the government going to be putting any kind of charter statement on those provisions in the bill?

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Mr. Speaker, what I can say about this bill is that it is going to speed up approval processes in this country, from an average of about five years to one year. I think we can all agree that ambition is something that we share, that this country needs to build much faster, that regulatory review processes have lagged, and that the international best practices and standards in this country have weighed down on the possibility of Canada really putting capital to work and competing for global capital. That is really what we are focused on.

I know that the bill also contains measures in terms of improving labour relations and ensuring that the 5% of cases that do not make it through a collective bargaining process have additional responsibilities and layers built in to ensure that the process can be successful for all parties involved.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette—Manawan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, why remove environmental assessment processes carried out by scientists and hand them over to the Canada Energy Regulator, which is essentially an oil lobby?

The CER's lead commissioner is the former senior legal counsel at TC Energy. The deputy lead commissioner is a former employee of Royal Dutch Shell. Another commissioner is a former legal adviser to Pembina Pipeline Corporation and Shell Canada. Another one comes from Imperial Oil and Canadian Oil Sands Limited. Then there is one from Pembina Pipeline Corporation and Shell Canada. Then, a fifth comes from Cenovus Energy.

If that is not an oil lobby, what is it? Why take this away from scientists, impartial people who are carrying out a proper assessment, and hand it over to people who appear to have a conflict of interest?

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. colleague and I served together on the finance committee for some time previously and I always enjoyed the debates we had.

In this bill, we are not seeking to water down environmental protections. In fact, we are just trying to ensure that we uphold a high standard while moving a lot faster. A timely process really matters when it comes to building big projects in this country, projects like the member opposite would know well, with the agreement between Quebec and Newfoundland and Labrador. For example, the largest clean energy investment in North American history is sizable, and I am sure the member opposite will agree with me that those clean energy projects are sizable, whether they are transmission lines that cross interprovincial boundaries or new electricity generation through hydroelectric or other renewable sources. In my province, it is nuclear, but these are sizable projects. They need regulatory reviews that are timely so that we can get those big things built in this country.

[Harb Gill, Conservative, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Supreme Court has recognized the right to strike as constitutionally protected. Can the parliamentary secretary tell us why his government is giving its own minister the power to interfere or replace that fundamental right with binding arbitration?

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we will always protect the constitutional right of workers to strike.

We are putting in place measures that have been consulted on. There have been over 26,000 submissions and 78 different engagements that have taken place over many months to ensure that we get this right, which is to really look at those 5% of cases where collective bargaining does not reach an agreement at the table and where there is then risk of the federal government having to step in when there is a strike and use section 107.

The key here is to get parties working together and to find ways to get agreements at the table—

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

We will resume debate.

The hon. member for Mégantic—L'Érable—Lotbinière.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L’Érable—Lotbinière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, before I begin, allow me to acknowledge the work of the firefighters from Lac-Mégantic, Nantes, Lac-Drolet and Audet, who yesterday fought a fire that devastated an apartment block near Lac-Mégantic town centre. Several residents were impacted and lost their homes, and the Red Cross is there to support them. Fortunately, no one was injured thanks to the support and assistance of everyone living in the surrounding area. Once again, I would like to thank the firefighters.

Canadians do not judge a government by the number of announcements or programs it creates. They judge it by what is left in their pockets, by their ability to put food on the table and to look to the future with a little more confidence. Today, too many families are telling us that life is becoming increasingly difficult. It is time to save Canadian families money. It is time to protect Canadians' jobs. It is time to ensure their safety. It is time to fix our immigration system. It is time to put Canada first again. This is exactly the Conservative plan we are proposing to Canadians and that we are asking the government to support.

In the House this week, I talked about Jessy, who lives in Notre-Dame-de-Lourdes. Not very long ago, she was spending about $120 a week on groceries. Now they cost her about $170 a week. That amounts to $50 more a week, every week. Jessy does not measure the Canadian economy based on numbers, statistics or how many programs the government announces, and certainly not based on the number of press conferences, symposia or speeches that the Prime Minister delivers in foreign countries. She measures it by how much she has when she gets to the grocery store checkout, and how much is left to pay for everything else.

Obviously, she is not alone. We also spoke in the House this week about Olesya, who has to use her credit card to pay rent and feed her family. We talked about Chantal, a single mother in Saint‑Georges who works full-time but still needs to use a food bank. That reality, their reality, is what should guide us here, in the House, with every decision we make. That is why Bill C-39, before us today, deserves our serious consideration.

I hear the government members asking what the connection is between Bill C-39 and Jessy's grocery bill, since Bill C-39 deals with environmental assessments, major projects, permits and federal regulations. However, there is a very simple and very real connection. An economy that can attract investment, carry out major projects and create good jobs provides more opportunities for families and workers. On the other hand, when a project remains stalled for years in a process where no one knows when a decision will be made, the uncertainty ends up costing everyone: the businesses that are waiting for the decision, the workers who are waiting for jobs and the regions who are waiting for the economic benefits of those projects.

We have heard this song from the government before, when it told us that it wanted to fast-track major projects. Eighteen months ago, we were asked to pass Bill C-5 in a rush. What was the bill's purpose? It was meant to decide exactly which major projects could be fast-tracked, because the Prime Minister had said when he was elected that the government was going to move faster than ever before.

Acting in good faith, the Conservatives supported the Liberals' Bill C‑5. Acting in good faith, we figured that, considering the circumstances and the tariff war with the United States, we should do our part, set partisanship aside, collaborate and put Canada first. We believed that the Liberals really wanted to move fast, do better and, above all, get major projects going again.

We are a little disappointed, very disappointed even, with the outcome. Eighteen months on, there are no new major projects and no new shovels in the ground to get them built. We have not seen any new projects to ensure our independence from the U.S. We are therefore a little skeptical.

Today, the government is focusing on Bill C‑39. What does this bill add? It adds a new word to the title. It also adds a few hundred pages to show how badly the government dropped the ball when it introduced Bill C‑5. That is the reality.

Bill C‑5 did not do what it was supposed to do, so here we are, 18 months later, with Bill C‑39. The purpose of the bill is to speed up projects and make everything faster. For example, the government wants each project to have a single assessment and it wants projects to be carried out within one year. The bill also amends certain laws, including the Canada Labour Code.

Over the past 18 months, we have seen announcement after announcement. Some projects have been announced. There have been lists of projects, but none of them have been fully completed. Most of the announcements have been about new government structures.

Announcing a project or a bill and actually setting it in motion or implementing it are two different things. A company planning to invest millions or billions of dollars in Canada needs to know what rules it will be subject to, who will make the decision and, above all, how long it will have to wait. According to Bill C-39, it will take a year. A year from when? Does a year mean 12 consecutive months without a single day's break, or is it a year with breaks to allow the government to catch up? The private sector moves quickly. The Liberal government is slow.

Through Bill C-39, the government has given itself the option to pause the clock during the one year in which everything is supposed to take place. According to Bill C-39, the clock starts ticking once the company has completed all the studies required for the submission of its project. Carrying out the studies required for the project's submission means carrying out the studies that the government will ask it to carry out. If the government asks questions and demands study after study to avoid having to start the clock for a year, it is the company that will end up taking all that time to carry out the project.

It is important that we get more explanations and more information about Bill C-39. The devil is in the details when it comes to figuring out whether the government is serious or whether it is merely posturing or grandstanding, claiming that it is taking care of business when nothing is actually getting done.

We want to get everything in place as quickly as possible. We want projects. We want to make Canada more independent and more self-reliant. We want to get projects built. There are over 500 projects in the queue that could be built right now.

Unfortunately, the government has wasted 18 months since Bill C-5 passed, and these projects are still just ideas in the minds of business leaders. We will be lucky if they are still around, because the crisis is getting worse and investors may be less keen to invest. A company in my riding had to adopt job sharing as of yesterday. Because of the tariff war and the countertariffs, this company has to pay between $500,000 and $1 million a week in cash just to stay afloat. I do not think this is the time to be asking it to use its cash reserves to invest in Canada. That is the result of 18 months of inaction by the Liberal government.

We are going to closely monitor the committee's study of Bill C-39. We will see if jobs are being created and if businesses are investing. Above all, we will see if Jessy will have more money in her pocket to pay for groceries at the end of the month. What matters most is that women like Jessy, from Notre-Dame-de-Lourdes, or Chantal, from Beauce, have more money and are able to make ends meet. They want hope, hope that they will be able to keep living the life Canada once promised, that is, a life where they can live on a safe street with enough money to pay their bills at the end of the month.

Canadians do not want more announcements. Canadians want real results.

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

We have time for a very short question.

Questions and comments, the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance and National Revenue and to the Secretary of State (Canada Revenue Agency and Financial Institutions)]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member's comments, and I share the ambition that I think permeated through his remarks today, but some things he got factually wrong.

As to the Major Projects Office and the projects that have been referred, quite a number of them have shovels in the ground, like the north coast transmission line and Contrecoeur, Quebec. For Darlington's SMR project, I can verify that for a fact. I have seen first-hand with my own eyes the construction there. I have actually seen people working on the site. It is incredible. If someone looks, they will see that these projects are moving forward and shovels are in the ground.

We have also seen record business investment and more foreign direct investment than in 20 years. Does the member understand that the—

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

I have to cut off the parliamentary secretary. I did say a short question. I know the chamber will wait with bated breath until the next time we take up this particular piece of legislation for the member's commentary and response.

(Bill S‑212. On the Order: Private Members' Business:)

March 12, 2026—Baedon Clark (Sackville—Bedford— Preston)—Second reading and reference to the Standing Committee on Health of Bill S-212, An Act respecting a national strategy for children and youth in Canada.