Debates of Sept. 25th, 2026

The House resumed from September 24 consideration of the motion that Bill C-39, An Act respecting certain measures to strengthen the economy, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Building Canada Strong Act

[Gabriel Hardy, Conservative, Montmorency—Charlevoix, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Benjamin is 20 years old. He comes from my riding of Montmorency—Charlevoix. School was not always easy for him. Although he struggled to finish his studies, he later completed a vocational diploma in sheet metal work. Now he works six days a week. He gets up at 4 a.m. to install ventilation systems in homes in Quebec, homes that he knows very well he will never be able to afford. Benjamin wrote to me with a very simple question: When will the government keep its promises?

According to Statistics Canada, the cost of groceries has increased by 29% since 2021. Evidently, Benjamin's wages have not kept pace. There are many people like Benjamin in Montmorency—Charlevoix, people who work full time but who have to put things back on the grocery store shelves every week because they cannot afford them and because they are struggling to make ends meet.

Following the last election in 2025, the minority government had to work with the opposition parties. We all had to work together to find solutions to move the country forward. At that time, the Liberal government introduced Bill C-5, which made it possible to build at a pace not seen in generations. The government granted itself exceptional powers to deal with an exceptional situation, meaning the trade war with our neighbours to the south. Canadians were clear. They were asking us to work together in their best interests, to act for the common good and to avoid politicizing the situation.

The Conservatives said yes to Bill C-5 out of respect for Canadians. We did it not because we were naive, but because we wanted to be co-operative. For years, we have wanted to get this country building. We kept our word and respected the will of the people. We voted in favour of Bill C-5.

Today, I want to ask a question on Benjamin's behalf. What did the Liberals do with that power that was entrusted to them and with the co-operation that we extended to them out of respect for democracy? The answer is that they got a majority without voters returning to the polls, through agreements made behind closed doors. They bought themselves a majority and took control of Parliament.

The Liberals have been in power for 11 years. Since then, there has been no shortage of promises.

Allow me to recap the slogans and announcements made since 2017 about the housing crisis.

In 2017, there was the Reaching Home program, part of the national housing strategy. The Liberals announced that housing would be built for all Canadians, that more homes would be built more quickly and that housing would be made affordable. There was also Build Canada Homes, which they said would unlock more housing development. These are nothing but slogans.

In 2024, they said it was time to build, and they proposed Canada's housing plan. They said they would increase supply, reduce costs and cut red tape. They said that every Canadian deserves a place to call home. Once again, these were just slogans.

In 2025, they unveiled “Building Canada Strong”, supposedly the most ambitious plan since the Second World War.

A promise is like a cheque. For 11 years, that cheque has always bounced for the same reason: insufficient funds. Since the Liberal government took power, there have been plenty of slogans and promises, but not many shovels in the ground. In the meantime, as I said earlier, grocery costs have risen by 29% since 2021, and the price of gas has increased by 23% or so in a year. One couple from Charlevoix, both 23 years old, wrote to me last week. To save money, they have to shop at three different grocery stores. They skipped taking a vacation because gas costs too much. That is the reality ordinary people are facing. That is the result of the Liberals' decisions.

The government says that the situation is urgent and that we need to act fast and pass Bill C-39 as fast as possible. This emergency did not come out of nowhere. It comes after close to 11 years of delaying and failing to get this country building; 11 years without diversifying our markets; 11 years without building the infrastructure that would have put us in a position of strength going into the negotiations with the Americans; 11 years of growing poorer instead of growing.

Does anyone find this reminiscent of the fable of the grasshopper and the ant? Well, the government has spent the past 11 years trying to look good to the rest of the world, inviting everyone to come and enjoy our services, and constantly asking Canadians to pay more for less. I want to come back to Bill C-5. It passed 15 months ago, and yet not a single project has been designated as a project of national interest under that legislation. Meanwhile, a new Major Projects Office has been established and funded to the tune of $214 million over five years. That office cost $42 million last year alone. When I asked the director of the Major Projects Office how many major projects had been launched for that $42 million, she said none.

Worse still, more than six new federal agencies, offices or entities have been created. There is plenty of bureaucracy and administration, but nothing is actually being produced.

Today, that same government, which now holds a majority, is presenting a massive 250-page bill. It was introduced on Monday. The government is telling us once again that we need to move quickly, that we need to pick up the pace and move at a speed never seen since the last time we moved at a speed never seen before. Fifteen months later, it is back with the same promise and a catchier title that is a little more grandiose and impressive. It is just more smoke and mirrors.

I mentioned Benjamin earlier. Benjamin makes $800 a week. His pay goes toward the car he uses to get to work, groceries, rent, insurance and gas. In his letter to me, he wrote in all caps that every penny counts. When Benjamin asks for a raise, it will not be for little luxuries. It will be for groceries, rent, gas and insurance. Workers who are fighting for higher wages are not enemies of our economy. They are the ones who build it with their own hands at 4 a.m.

Members may recall that in the summer of 2025, 10,000 Air Canada flight attendants went on strike. What were they asking for? They were asking to be paid for the hours they work, that is, during boarding, during time spent waiting and during airport delays. These hours were unpaid. Less than 12 hours into this strike, the government invoked section 107 of the Canada Labour Code to send them back to work. All they wanted was to be paid for the hours they work.

Part 3 of Bill C‑39 reforms section 107. The government is talking about creating a framework to prevent abuse. Workers are saying that this will make it almost impossible for port, rail and airline workers to invoke their right to strike. Those who have experienced the effects of the law tell us that they see things completely differently from what the government says. Our role here is to understand, analyze and defend the interests of workers and Canadians. The role of the opposition is to be loyal to the people and to the nation. I am not talking about administrative structures and organizations. I am talking about real people. I am talking about people like Benjamin. I am talking about standing up for Canadians who are working but still cannot make ends meet.

To be fair, there are some good points in the bill. For example, the “one project, one review, one year” approach is a very good idea. It is so good, in fact, that it was our idea. My colleague from Louis-Saint-Laurent—Akiawenhrahk introduced it in the House as Bill C-375. In May 2024, the House rejected it by 177 votes to 150. The Liberals voted against it.

The Minister of Finance told us this week that the Conservatives do not have a monopoly on common sense, but it seems we laid claim to most of it before he came around. I do not, however, blame the government for having changed its mind in the end. It is good that the Liberals are discovering that they have their shortcomings, because the ideas we are defending here do not belong to any one party. They belong to all those who want to move the country forward, who want us to prosper as a society and who want to build a better future.

After 11 years of big announcements, Benjamin wants more than just good intentions. He wants things to work. He wants to see progress and results that make a difference for him. Another person wrote to me recently to say that Canadians are not asking for promises. They are asking for real, measurable results. This person asked us to spend less time playing politics and more time finding real solutions.

I want to suggest two very simple solutions. The first is that we do a real study in committee. I do not want to see the debates cut short or the committee voting to speed up the work because the government has a majority now. We need to listen to what workers, employers, experts and first nations have to say. We need to listen to people in regions like mine and our business owners. We need to hear from those who may be positively or negatively affected by the bill. We cannot analyze 250 pages in just a few days.

My second suggestion is that we need to actually stick to the schedule. The government is talking about taking one year to assess a project. There cannot be any hidden delays, any extensions granted behind closed doors or any claims that we need to understand that there is a backlog. That is a promise. If the government is promising that it will take one year, then the process needs to take one year from start to finish.

When the government tells us that this is urgent, that we need to trust it and grant it more power because there is a crisis, our duty is not to rush into anything. It is to slow down and read carefully, because every comma, every period and every sentence raises important concerns. It is because every comma affects a worker's wage. Every period affects a construction project in some region. Every sentence represents a promise made to Benjamin. We want to make sure that these promises do not end up as a bounced cheque this time.

Benjamin will get up at 4 a.m. tomorrow and head out to build a house he cannot afford. He does not want to hear any more slogans. He wants us to build a country where working hard is still enough. Slogans do not build anything. Construction sites do. It is high time we started building together.

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

Mr. Speaker, the type of information the member put on the record is somewhat disappointing. He is saying that the price of gasoline is the federal government's fault.

[An hon. member]

It's called tax.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the member says it is taxes. Just over a year ago, 18 months ago, Canada elected a new Prime Minister. The new Prime Minister and the government got rid of the carbon tax. That is 17¢ off a litre. The new government also put relief on the excise tax. That is 10¢ a litre. At the end of the day, the new government with a new Prime Minister in 18 months has done a great deal on the issue of affordability, and we continue to look at ways we can improve affordability.

Why will the member not get on board and recognize good legislation when—

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

The hon. member for Montmorency—Charlevoix.

[Gabriel Hardy, Conservative, Montmorency—Charlevoix, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is always quite something to hear that.

First, the opposition is playing its part. We have offered up plenty of solutions here in the House, and the Liberals, unfortunately, are stealing our ideas. However, since they did not come up with these ideas themselves, they do not know how to implement them. They have scrapped the excise tax on gasoline, but temporarily and only partially. What we are calling for is the removal of all federal taxes to give families some real breathing room.

More taxes, more red tape, more bureaucracy—that is not the solution. It is high time they realized that the government needs to step aside and let our country grow so that, ultimately, we can all prosper together.

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

Mr. Speaker, as part of Bill C-5, the building Canada act, the Bloc Québécois was able to secure the co-operation and support of the Conservatives for an amendment that I myself introduced, which sought to include a sunset clause in Bill C-5. The goal was to at least provide a framework for and limit the extraordinary and exceptional powers that the bill was creating in response to the exceptional circumstances arising from the American threat across the border.

The Conservatives agreed with us that these were indeed exceptional powers. Even constitutional experts agreed with us. Some said that Bill C-5 was similar or almost similar to the Emergency Measures Act. In Bill C-39, the Liberals are trying to undo all the measures that we put in place in Bill C-5 with the Conservatives' co-operation, including the five-year sunset clause.

I am wondering if we can count on the Conservatives' support once again to prevent this abuse of power.

[Gabriel Hardy, Conservative, Montmorency—Charlevoix, QC]

Mr. Speaker, yes, once again, the Liberal government is using fear to govern and grant itself more power.

As we said, exceptional circumstances sometimes warrant an exceptional response or exceptional legislation. We passed that legislation in Parliament 15 months ago, but the only results we have seen involve what the Liberals do best, which is creating more bureaucracy, giving more money to their cronies and leaving less money in the pockets of ordinary Canadians.

We need to continue keeping an eye on them. We need to continue rising here in the House, out of loyalty to the people and to the nation, and we need to ensure that our laws work for people and that the government is not just using this crisis to play politics. Yes, we will be there to double-check every comma and to hold the Liberals to account for their decisions.

[Jacob Mantle, Conservative, York—Durham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the deputy government House leader rattled off some measures that the government undertook. My hon. colleague can explain that we supported those tax cuts for Canadians because we will always support making life more affordable for Canadians and saving them money.

As my hon. colleague mentioned, we supported the government in giving it more powers to build things at speeds not seen before. After 18 months of the government having those powers, what is his assessment of what it has accomplished?

[Gabriel Hardy, Conservative, Montmorency—Charlevoix, QC]

Mr. Speaker, things are moving forward at speeds not seen in generations.

As I said in my speech, the current pace of things is unprecedented. Nothing is getting built, but money is being spent. The government allocated $42 million to the Major Projects Office, which has been scrutinizing paperwork for a year now without a single project getting off the ground. We, the Conservatives, are not the ones saying so. It comes from testimony given in committee by the Major Projects Office director, who said that $42 million had been spent without a single project being approved.

It would be a good thing if that kind of speed, not seen in generations, could move faster than a Ford Model T and finally move our country forward.

[Tim Louis, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the King’s Privy Council for Canada and Minister responsible for Canada-U.S. Trade]

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to speak to the building Canada strong act. We find ourselves at a critical juncture in our nation's history. Around the world, global trade patterns are shifting, geopolitical instability is rising and competition for capital is fierce. For years, Canada has relied heavily on a single trading partner, leaving our businesses, workers and communities vulnerable to external shocks and sudden tariffs.

To secure our national sovereignty and long-term prosperity, Canada must build capacity for true economic self-reliance. Our government set an ambitious goal to double our non-U.S. exports over the next decade, unlocking new trade and attracting investment.

As a nation, we are now turning that potential into progress. Federal decision-making in Canada has been slow, fragmented and plagued by duplication. Projects that could create good-paying jobs and power our clean energy transition have faced regulatory paralysis, taking up to five years or more just to get answers. The building Canada strong act would address these structural bottlenecks directly through three interconnected pillars: accelerating major project reviews, modernizing supply chains and trade corridors, and modernizing collective bargaining and strengthening worker protections.

I know that significant legislation can raise concerns, so today I want to address questions that are being raised regarding environmental protections, labour rights and indigenous reconciliation and explain how this bill would address them.

A question that has been raised is, if we accelerate federal reviews, how do we do so without cutting corners or weakening environmental standards? I want to be clear that the building Canada strong act represents a reform of process, not a reduction of standards. This is not a choice between protecting the environment and building major infrastructure. We can and we must do both.

Under our current system, federal departments review projects consecutively. A proponent might spend two years completing an assessment under the Impact Assessment Act, only to start from scratch with separate sequential permits from Fisheries and Oceans Canada or Transport Canada. That is unnecessary duplication.

This bill would transition federal reviews from consecutive to concurrent workflows. Under the new framework, the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada would coordinate federal departments simultaneously. In plain terms, instead of making projects wait in line for one department after another, all federal agencies would work at the same time, together.

The federal government would commit to completing its review and delivering one comprehensive federal decision, whether it is a yes or a no, within one year once a complete application is submitted. The scope of environmental assessments would remain intact, incorporating health, social and environmental impacts, along with indigenous traditional knowledge.

Our government listened carefully during extensive consultations, where we received over 26,000 submissions. In response to this feedback, we have explicitly removed proposed changes to the Species at Risk Act jeopardy clause, so the Species at Risk Act would remain fully untouched and uncompromisingly protected.

Strong environmental protections remain a non-negotiable foundation of our approach, ensuring that economic growth and conservation go hand in hand. By identifying environmental considerations earlier in the process, this approach maintains environmental protection while providing greater certainty for communities and for project proponents alike.

The second area of feedback comes from our union workforce and labour representatives. Workers want to know that legislation will not restrict the constitutional right to strike or expand government intervention in collective bargaining. I firmly believe that a strong economy is built by well-paid, protected workers.

The building Canada strong act would preserve and enshrine the constitutional right to strike. The best, most durable agreements are those negotiated directly by workers and employees at the bargaining table.

To address disputes in critical supply chain sectors or disagreements that can leave negotiations stalled for months due to bad-faith bargaining from employers or unions, this bill would modernize the Canada Labour Code to help parties reach an agreement before a crisis occurs. For complex negotiations, we would be starting talks earlier and extending federal conciliation time. Rather than forcing a deal, a neutral conciliator would help manage discussions and work with employers and unions toward a fair compromise before a dispute escalates to a work stoppage. We would be introducing a special mediator to help resolve deadlocks. If talks stall, their reports would be published publicly within five days to hold both sides accountable.

Beyond dispute resolution, we would be investing directly in workers' everyday protections by strengthening workplace safety, by resolving complaints faster and by cracking down on wage theft. The building Canada strong act would ensure that as we grow our economy, we protect, respect and support the workers who build it.

The third thing I would like to address is our constitutional and moral obligations to indigenous peoples. The Crown's duty to consult and accommodate is constitutionally protected. It is non-negotiable, and it would be fully mandated under this act. Economic reconciliation is embedded in this legislation through the indigenous advisory committees and through enabling indigenous equity ownership in major infrastructure. This bill would replace the confusing web of separate departmental reviews with a new Crown consultation hub, giving indigenous communities one single coordinated federal contact point for every project.

To grow our economy together, we must also modernize our trade corridors and transportation networks. Eighty per cent of Canada's non-U.S. trade moves through our marine ports. The building Canada strong act would establish a tell-us-once digital frame network. By transitioning from paper-based forms to UN-aligned electronic trade records, we eliminate duplicate filings across government departments and can unlock tremendous economic potential for Canadian exporters.

In conclusion, we will build a stronger Canada by standing with the people who build it. The building Canada strong act is an ambitious, integrated economic package. It would bring speed and certainty to project approvals while upholding world-leading environmental standards. It would respect section 35 indigenous rights while streamlining consultation. It would protect the constitutional right to strike while equipping workers and employers with modern tools to reach fair deals at the bargaining table.

Let us move forward together, support our workers, protect our environment and build an economy that is resilient, competitive and strong for all Canadians.

[Ellis Ross, Conservative, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member's speech made significant mention of aboriginal rights and title without actually talking about aboriginal rights and title. There are so many clauses in this bill that affect rights and title and affect the promises made under UNDRIP by the government. One in particular is about enabling the designation of regions of national interest in areas such as energy corridors, transportation corridors and industrial corridors for the purposes of pre-approval.

This is an interesting dilemma, because the courts have already said that we cannot have a pre-approval if we are aware of a decision that might infringe on rights and title. We must consult and accommodate. In this equation, we are asking two questions of rights and title: designation of land and the activity. How will the government proceed if it does not get consent on either of these activities?

[Tim Louis, Liberal, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I respect my colleague. These are the kinds of conversations we need to have now in the House.

By setting up an indigenous advisory council, we will get in consultation right away on projects. Also, we will start earlier. If we know that projects are going to be in certain areas and certain ports, we are going to start environmental assessments and start working even before a project is put forward. If we are working within departments to do environmental assessments and consultations with indigenous communities in advance, then when things start, when a project comes forward, we will already have baseline data that can be used. Each project will be able to draw from that baseline data and use it moving forward. By doing that in conjunction with working consecutively and having the consultation hub, we can work a lot faster and work together to get things done while protecting indigenous rights.

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

Mr. Speaker, my question concerns environmental assessments.

The government is removing the task of assessing energy projects from scientists and handing it over to the Canada Energy Regulator.

Let us look at who the commissioners are: The lead commissioner is the former senior legal counsel for TC Energy; the deputy lead commissioner is a former legal adviser with Royal Dutch Shell; another is a former legal adviser with the Pembina Pipeline Corporation and Shell Canada Limited; another was formerly with Imperial Oil and Canadian Oil Sands Limited; and another comes from the Pembina Pipeline Corporation and Shell Canada Limited.

Why should oil company lobbyists be entrusted with assessments previously conducted by scientists?

[Tim Louis, Liberal, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my French is not there yet to answer in French. I am getting there.

The Impact Assessment Act is still in place. Some of the projects that are used to going through the CER, the regulator, are still going to go through it, but it is an arm's-length process. By working together through the Impact Assessment Act and through the CER, we are going to make sure that these projects happen at arm's length and that thoroughness is done.

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

I, too, would like to thank my colleague from Ontario for his contribution to this debate.

At the beginning of his speech, he pointed out that the safeguards will still be there but that we are going to find a way to reduce delays and make a decision, whether positive or negative. I would like him to expand on that.

[Tim Louis, Liberal, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Mr. Speaker, let us imagine going for a driver's licence. We have to get our driver's licence in one place, go to another place to get our picture taken, go to another place to get eye-exam certified and then go back to the first place and start that process over again. By consolidating the processes and making the departments work together concurrently instead of consecutively, we can get things done quicker. We can get our driver's licence a lot sooner.

Saying we are going to get things done in a year means it is a yes or no in a year. It does not mean it is a yes in a year. It means yes or no in a year. We just need to be more efficient and move faster so we can grow our economy for Canadians.

[Chak Au, Conservative, Richmond Centre—Marpole, BC]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians want Canada to build. They want more housing and energy infrastructure, stronger ports, better transportation corridors, and major projects that create jobs and expand our trade. Therefore, the question before Parliament is not whether Canada should build, but whether Bill C-39 fixes the problems that are preventing Canada from building.

That brings me to this basic question: What happened to Bill C-5? Just over a year ago, Parliament passed the One Canadian Economy Act. Bill C-5 created the Building Canada Act to accelerate projects of national interest and provide a more coordinated and predictable federal approval process. The Liberals also created the Major Projects Office as a central point of contact.

At the time, the Liberals told Canadians that this framework would streamline approvals, reduce duplications and move major projects forward faster, yet only a year later they are back with Bill C-39, another major bill, another new framework and another promise that this time they will get it right. That raises a fundamental question. If Canada is not building fast enough, is the problem a lack of legislation or the Liberals' failure to implement the legislation Parliament already passed?

If the problem is bureaucratic coordination, then improve coordination. If the problem is insufficient resources, then provide the resources. If the problem is duplication, then remove it. If the existing legislation is outdated, repeal or consolidate it, rather than continually adding another layer. A new law does not magically solve an implementation problem; it simply papers over it.

This is why timing matters. Parliament created a new framework only a year ago, with clear objectives, clear authorities and a dedicated Major Projects Office, yet after 12 months, only a few projects have been listed, and none have been approved. If the existing framework has not delivered results, Parliament deserves to know why. What coordination challenges remain? What duplications persist? Why would adding another major piece of legislation suddenly resolve delays that clearly stem from execution, not from the absence of statutory authority? Before creating a new framework, Parliament should insist on a clear explanation of why the existing one has not delivered the results Canadians were promised.

That brings us to the one-year timeline, the centrepiece of the Liberals' argument for Bill C-39. At first glance, it sounds compelling. The Liberals say federal reviews and decisions would be completed within one year once all required information has been received. What happens when that year is not met? Is the project automatically approved? Does the government lose jurisdiction? Is there any consequence at all? The Liberals' own explanation make it clear that the clock begins only after the proponents submit comprehensive applications and finalize the required studies and information. Proponents may opt out of the timeline. Extensions and expansions may apply, including to complete indigenous consultations. There may be legitimate reasons for flexibility. Indigenous consultations cannot be rushed. Technical information cannot be ignored. Proponents may need additional time.

That brings us to the core issue, which is accountability. If the timeline can be extended, suspended or opted out of, what makes one year a binding commitment rather than another Liberal talking point? If the goalpost can be removed and there is no consequence for missing the targets, who is accountable? Who explains the delay: the department, the regulator, the minister or the lead assessor? Would Canadians be able to see how often timelines are extended or suspended and for how long?

A one-year target can be useful, but it must be accompanied by transparency and accountability. Otherwise, it is simply another promise without enforcement.

Ports illustrate the border problem. Canada's trade strategy depends on moving goods efficiently from producers to international markets. The Liberals say transportation infrastructure faces overlapping requirements, duplicative process and lengthy timelines. Bill C-39 proposed changes to improve trade corridors and modernize port governance. These are significant proposals.

Canada already has the Canada Marine Act, the Canada Transportation Act, Canada port authorities and the national trade corridors fund. Now Canada has the Building Canada Act and the Major Projects Office. If those tools are not producing timely results, then the problem is not legislative gaps; it is operational bottlenecks that Bill C-39 does not directly address.

Consider the Roberts Bank Terminal 2 project in B.C. It underwent more than a decade of federal assessments. Its impact assessment was completed in 2023. It has been referred to the Major Projects Office, and yet it is still sitting there. Parliament should ask precisely what Bill C-39 will change for a project like this. Will it eliminate duplication? Will it coordinate the remaining permits? Will it establish clear responsibility? Will it produce a measurable timeline? Or, is it simply creating another layer of bureaucracy?

A trade corridor is not just a port. It is the entire chain: the producer, the truck or rail connections, the terminal, the port, the vessel and, ultimately, the customer. If one part is slow, the entire corridor is slow. Parliament should support efforts to build faster, but building faster requires implementation, coordination and accountability, not simply more legislation.

Two questions should guide our examination of Bill C-39. First, if the problem is implementation, why is another law the answer? Bill C-5 already created the Building Canada Act and the Major Projects Office to accelerate and coordinate major projects. Second, if the Liberals promise one-year decisions, what makes that a genuine commitment, if the timeline can be extended or suspended, and there is no consequence for missing it?

Those are the questions Parliament should keep at the centre of the examination of Bill C-39. Canada needs major projects, efficient ports, reliable trade corridors, and a regulatory system that provides certainty to investors, communities and indigenous partners. Another law is not the solution if the problem is implementation. Canada does not need more layers of legislation; it needs results.

[Abdelhaq Sari, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Mr. Speaker, before I ask my question, I would like to explain something very important to my colleague. Bill C-5 opened the door or laid the foundation, but Bill C-39 is what puts the framework in place to help our projects move forward. That is something I wanted to clarify.

I see that the members opposite want us to move on projects more quickly, to build faster and stronger. We all agree on that. My question is very simple. Can we count on them to move things along more quickly in committee too?

[Chak Au, Conservative, Richmond Centre—Marpole, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as I have already explained, we need the right tools to address the right problems. If the problem was not moving faster enough, the problem may not be the lack of legislation; it could be a problem of implementation or inefficiency.

Before we introduce more legislation, we have to answer the question to find out where the problem is. Is it implementation or is it a lack of another layer of bureaucracy?

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

Mr. Speaker, I am a bit surprised that my colleague seems unhappy and is saying that things are not moving fast enough. The changes being made with Bill C-39 are quite extraordinary.

The Impact Assessment Agency of Canada is being stripped of its mandate to protect the environment, uphold the rights of indigenous peoples and emphasize collaboration, and the role of assessing pipeline projects is being transferred to the Canada Energy Regulator. The CER's mandate is to keep energy moving safely and efficiently through pipelines.

What does my Conservative colleague not like about that? It appears rather contradictory to me. We, on this side, do not agree with that, because we believe that it removes all environmental protections. I would like to hear his thoughts on that.

[Chak Au, Conservative, Richmond Centre—Marpole, BC]

Mr. Speaker, actually I am not in favour of doing away with all of that legislation. As I have pointed out in my speech, the legislation already exists. The Canada Marine Act, the Canada Transportation Act and the port authorities national trade corridors fund are already in place. I am not arguing that we should get rid of that legislation. I am just saying that, if that legislation is not put into good implementation, we should reveal the implementation first, instead of just rushing through another new build that promises a one-year timeline, which is not going to happen.

[Rhonda Kirkland, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there is probably nothing I enjoy more in this House than listening to my Conservative colleague from Richmond Centre—Marpole speak with such common sense. He lays it out very plainly and very clearly that legislation upon legislation is not the answer. We have heard from the Liberals repeatedly that, every time they implement new legislation, it is going to create speed and certainty. We have not seen any of that speed and certainty over the last 11 years. We have heard a lot of talk. We have seen no action and no results.

I wonder if my colleague would agree and would like to elaborate on that.

[Chak Au, Conservative, Richmond Centre—Marpole, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is just like the example of the Roberts Bank Terminal 2 project that I used in my speech. It has undergone more than a decade of federal assessment. The assessments were actually completed in 2023, and it is still sitting there. Again, the problem is not with legislation. We have the legislation to support the project. It takes the federal government more than a decade to complete the assessment, and even when it is completed, it is still there, so it is an efficiency problem. It is an implementation problem. It is not a legislative problem.