EventStatement
Poilievre, opening debate on Bill C-39 for the Conservatives, says its one-year review limit 'could be paused at any time' and pitches 'one project, one approval, one year, and better yet, one page'
Speaking on 23 September 2026 in the House of Commons at the start of second-reading debate on Bill C-39, the Building Canada Strong Act, Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre called the bill "all talk and no action." He said that "under this bill, the one-year time limit could be paused at any time," and that "Not a single Trudeau-era, antidevelopment law or tax has been removed." He said the bill "would not repeal Bill C-69" and would not eliminate the industrial carbon tax. He contrasted it with the Conservatives' "one and done" plan: "one project, one approval, one year, and better yet, one page." He added: "We will look very carefully at this 250-page Liberal bill, but we are not going to believe all the rhetoric, the hype and the talking points." The Globe and Mail also reported the speech ("Poilievre dismisses Bill C-39 as all talk, no action at outset of Commons debate", 23 September 2026).
- Date
- Kind
- Statement
- Where
- Canada
- Evidence
- Statement: Something was said. Weighted lowest: words cost less than actions. How evidence is weighed
- Who
- Pierre Poilievre (spoke); Conservative Party of Canada (acted)
Sources
- openparliament.ca, “Bill C-39 (45-1): debates” (external site), . source record
- The Globe and Mail, “Poilievre dismisses Bill C-39 as all talk, no action at outset of Commons debate” (external site), . paywalled source record
Quotes
“one project, one approval, one year, and better yet, one page.”
From openparliament.ca: Bill C-39 (45-1): debates, House of Commons, 23 September 2026, 4 p.m., Pierre Poilievre (second reading)
Laws and agreements
Claims that rest on this event
- Nothing yet tests whether C-39 (the bill making the federal fast track permanent) and the Productivity Mega Deduction (a tax write-off for new investment) would survive a change of government: the Conservatives have not voted on either and have not said how they will vote on C-39, so claims that they are durable rest on statements.
Criticizes C-39 as too soft, not as too much.
How it bears on the outcome
| Explanation | Fit | Why |
|---|---|---|
| O0 No meaningful speed-up | Neutral weak | Opposition debate rhetoric on Bill C-39; the bill's effect on pace is not yet observed and the speech fits all outcome readings equally. |
| O1 Faster, but the extra output goes mostly elsewhere | Neutral weak | Opposition debate rhetoric on Bill C-39; the bill's effect on pace is not yet observed and the speech fits all outcome readings equally. |
| O2 Faster, and more volume reaches the US (this level or higher) | Neutral weak | Opposition debate rhetoric on Bill C-39; the bill's effect on pace is not yet observed and the speech fits all outcome readings equally. |
| O3 Locked-in preferential terms for the US | Neutral weak | Opposition debate rhetoric on Bill C-39; the bill's effect on pace is not yet observed and the speech fits all outcome readings equally. |