Bill C-39

Building Canada Strong Act

An Act respecting certain measures to strengthen the economy

Part 1 implements certain measures in relation to project evaluations.
Division 1 of Part 1 amends the Impact Assessment Act to, among other things,
(a) provide that the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission is to conduct the impact assessment of a designated project that includes activities that are regulated under the Nuclear Safety and Control Act ;
(b) authorize the Minister of the Environment to grant certain federal authorizations that are required in respect of a designated project at the same time that the Minister issues a decision statement in respect of the project;
(c) ensure that a decision statement in respect of a designated project for which the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada conducts the impact assessment is issued within one year after the proponent provides the required information or studies;
(d) provide for the coordination of the impact assessment of designated projects and the review processes for certain federal authorizations that are required in respect of those projects; and
(e) provide for the coordination of consultations with Indigenous groups.
Division 2 of Part 1 amends the Building Canada Act to, among other things,
(a) establish, for certain types of projects located within a region of national interest, a similar framework to the one applicable to national interest projects;
(b) allow the minister designated under that Act to add, remove or amend any condition in respect of an authorization that was granted for a national interest project before the name of that project was added to Schedule 1 to that Act;
(c) ensure that obligations to make information public associated with decisions made under that Act are administratively feasible; and
(d) authorize the Governor in Council to add the name of a region to a new schedule to that Act if the Governor in Council is of the opinion, having regard to certain factors, that the designation of that region is in the national interest.
Division 3 of Part 1 amends the Canadian Energy Regulator Act to, among other things,
(a) ensure decisions in respect of pipelines, designated power lines and offshore renewable energy projects are issued within one year of receiving the required information and studies;
(b) provide for the coordination of consultations with Indigenous peoples of Canada in respect of pipelines, designated power lines and offshore renewable energy projects;
(c) provide for the coordination of federal authorizations in respect of pipelines, designated power lines and offshore renewable energy projects with federal authorities;
(d) provide that the Commission is the sole assessor of applications in respect of pipelines, designated power lines and offshore renewable energy projects;
(e) provide authority for the Commission to
(i) make decisions in respect of applications relating to pipelines, designated power lines and offshore renewable energy projects, unless otherwise specified in the Act,
(ii) exempt certain pipelines or branches of or extensions to pipelines from the application of certain provisions, and
(iii) integrate a detailed route hearing into an ongoing hearing; and
(f) provide that the Governor in Council is to determine whether certain pipelines and designated power lines are in the public interest.
It also makes consequential amendments to the Federal Courts Act and the Northern Pipeline Act .
Division 4 of Part 1 amends the Canadian Navigable Waters Act to require the Minister of Transport to, among other things, take into account the feasibility of the terms and conditions in respect of an approval relating to certain works. It also transfers to that Minister the power to exempt bodies of water from the application of certain provisions of the Act if that Minister is satisfied that it would be in the public interest. Finally, it allows the Governor in Council to make regulations to exclude structures, devices or other things from the definition “work” to avoid duplication with other Acts and regulations.
Division 5 of Part 1 amends the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 to, among other things,
(a) ensure that environmental protection compliance orders may be issued with respect to any thing to which that Act applies and to non-continuing offences, including with respect to contravening imports;
(b) broaden the scope of such orders by permitting an enforcement officer to direct a person to take additional measures, such as managing contravening imports in the manner specified in the order, returning them to their place of origin or removing them from Canada; and
(c) provide that certain permits issued under that Act may, in certain circumstances, be valid for more than one year.
Division 6 of Part 1 amends the Species at Risk Act to, among other things, require the competent minister to take into account the feasibility of the terms and conditions in respect of certain agreements and permits.
Division 7 of Part 1 amends the Fisheries Act to, among other things,
(a) modify the fish habitat bank regime to allow for the use of habitat credits by third parties;
(b) authorize the making of regulations respecting the circumstances in which a person who is authorized to carry on a work, undertaking or activity may pay a fee to offset adverse effects on fish and fish habitat and provide for these fees to be credited to the Environmental Damages Fund; and
(c) transfer certain regulation-making powers from the Governor in Council to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.
Part 2 implements certain measures in relation to supply chains.
Division 1 of Part 2 amends the Department of Transport Act to provide the Minister of Transport with the power to establish a transportation project office that coordinates review processes for federal authorizations and consultations with respect to transportation projects.
Division 2 of Part 2 amends the Canada Transportation Act to, among other things,
(a) provide that the Minister of Transport may designate geographic areas as trade corridors and establish the National Trade Corridors Council, whose mandate is to monitor the movement of goods in trade corridors, analyze disruptions that may affect trade corridors and make recommendations and provide advice to that Minister;
(b) provide that Minister with the authority to make regulations to give effect to international standards or ensure compliance with Canada’s international obligations;
(c) expand the purposes for which that Minister may request that federal departments and agencies provide information that has already been provided by regulated entities to those federal departments and agencies;
(d) clarify the application of the requirement to notify that Minister of proposed transactions involving transportation undertakings;
(e) reduce the threshold for the requirement to notify that Minister and the Commissioner of Competition of proposed transactions involving transportation undertakings situated in a “port”, as defined in section 5 of the Canada Marine Act ;
(f) provide that that Minister may, for any purpose related to transportation security or safety, to the integrity of the national transportation system or to public safety or for any purpose specified by order, grant, suspend or cancel security clearances;
(g) authorize, for the purposes of administering and enforcing the security clearances regime, certain individuals or entities to collect information from and disclose information to each other;
(h) authorize the Governor in Council to make regulations respecting security clearances;
(i) expand the exceptions to the requirement to obtain the Canadian Transportation Agency’s approval for the construction of railway lines; and
(j) establish, for a period of four years, a zone in Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta in which any interswitching that occurs is subject to the rate determined by the Canadian Transportation Agency.
Division 3 of Part 2 amends the Canada Marine Act to, among other things,
(a) authorize the Governor in Council to allow a port authority to enter into joint-liability arrangements and to create entities other than wholly-owned subsidiaries to undertake activities within or outside the limits of the port;
(b) authorize the Minister of Transport to appoint certain directors of a port authority;
(c) add principles that a port authority must observe when fixing port fees and expand the grounds on which a fee-related complaint may be filed with the Canadian Transportation Agency;
(d) authorize the Governor in Council to appoint, in certain circumstances, an administrator for a not-for-profit corporation that has entered into an agreement in respect of the St. Lawrence Seaway;
(e) authorize that Minister to terminate such an agreement or any part of one and provide for a dispute resolution process to deal with any disputes arising from the termination; and
(f) authorize that Minister to require that any of the following persons take measures to prevent or mitigate certain threats or stop any activity that would contribute to such threats:
(i) a port authority,
(ii) a person in charge of a port facility,
(iii) a person responsible for the management and operation of all or part of the St. Lawrence Seaway or for any works, undertakings or property used in the operation of the Seaway,
(iv) an occupier or person in charge of any federal real property, or any federal immovable, that is subject to being administered under Part 3 of that Act.
It also makes consequential amendments to the Port Authorities Operations Regulations .
Division 4 of Part 2 amends the Marine Liability Act to, among other things,
(a) modify the definition “receiver” to refer to the person who physically receives bulk hazardous and noxious substances carried by sea as cargo and discharged at a port or terminal in Canada; and
(b) harmonize the inspection and enforcement provisions relating to that person.
It also makes related amendments to the Safeguarding Canada’s Seas and Skies Act .
Division 5 of Part 2 amends the Coasting Trade Act to allow foreign ships or non-duty paid ships to engage, without a licence, in activities in response to a declared emergency.
Division 6 of Part 2 repeals the Shipping Conferences Exemption Act, 1987 and makes a consequential amendment to the Access to Information Act .
Division 7 of Part 2 amends the International Bridges and Tunnels Act to allow the Minister of Transport to make certain decisions that were previously made exclusively by the Governor in Council.
Division 8 of Part 2 enacts the Enabling Digital Trade Act which, among other things,
(a) sets out the rules for the use of electronic trade documents as the functional equivalents to paper trade documents that are related to trade in goods;
(b) eliminates the requirement to provide information to the Government of Canada in physical form in relation to the importation or exportation of goods; and
(c) permits a federal minister, or an officer or employee of a department or agency of the Government of Canada, to disclose information that is related to the importation or exportation of goods if the receiving minister, department or agency of the government is permitted by law to collect that information.
Part 3 implements certain measures related to the work force.
Division 1 of Part 3 amends the Canada Labour Code to, among other things,
(a) establish new requirements and timelines related to collective bargaining;
(b) provide for the transfer of certain rights in the context of certain contractors being replaced by new contractors;
(c) establish new requirements and authorities in relation to entering into first collective agreements;
(d) provide that the Canada Industrial Relations Board may certify a trade union as the bargaining agent for existing bargaining units in certain industries in certain geographic areas on application of two or more employers, on referral of the Minister of Labour or on that Board’s initiative;
(e) confer on the Minister of Labour the power to appoint a special mediator to assist parties in settling a dispute that arises in connection with the entering into, renewal or revision of a collective agreement; and
(f) establish new requirements for that Minister to direct the Canada Industrial Relations Board to take measures under section 107 of that Act.
It also makes consequential amendments to certain regulations.
Division 2 of Part 3 amends the Canada Labour Code to, among other things,
(a) authorize the Head of Compliance and Enforcement to issue a settlement enforcement order requiring an employer or director of a corporation to pay any outstanding amounts that are to be paid under a settlement with an employee; and
(b) permit an order to debtor to be issued, in certain circumstances, before a settlement enforcement order or payment order has been issued.
Division 3 of Part 3 provides that Division XIII of Part III of the Canada Labour Code does not apply to an employer and employees who are parties to a collective agreement that confers rights and benefits at least as favourable as those conferred by that Division XIII with respect to medical leave of absence with pay.
Division 4 of Part 3 amends the Wage Earner Protection Program Act to, among other things, define the term “former employer” for the purposes of that Act and to specify that the Minister may confirm, vary or rescind a determination of eligibility even without a request for review.

Building Canada Strong Act

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Madam Speaker, the Liberals keep talking about their mandate, but nowhere in their election platform did they talk about privatizing Canada's airports, selling off Canada's ports, building a publicly funded pipeline, outsourcing the Commissionaires' contract that supports veterans or turning a blind eye when the public health care system is being attacked by Alberta and being privatized.

Where in their election platform is any of this? They are outsourcing the—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

The hon. parliamentary secretary has time for a brief answer.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, the member is wrong. At the end of the day, we had a very solid commitment to look at ways in which we can build a stronger and healthier Canada. That has been the objective of this government. We have made many steps toward it, and we will continue to do that. That includes financial and health programs.

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

Madam Speaker, I will start with one of the parliamentary secretary's favourite lines. At the end of the day, it boggles the mind to hear him tell us that his government believes in the right to strike, but that sometimes decisions have to be made and the right to strike will therefore be taken away. That is what he is saying.

Worse than that, with Bill C-39, the Liberals not only want to undermine the right to strike, but they do not even want to take responsibility for it. The infamous provision that we have denounced repeatedly over the past few months will now be used by the Canada Industrial Relations Board. The next time we rise in the House to ask this government questions, the parliamentary secretary will tell us—since there is about a 98% chance he will be the one who answers us because he is always here—that the Canada Industrial Relations Board is independent and that it is not the government.

That is what the Liberals are doing with Bill C-39. It is not off to a good start. That said, I still think the parliamentary secretary is a nice guy. I even briefly thought I was glad to see him when we shook hands this week. However, what he is telling me brings me back to the harsh reality that we do not often see eye to eye. It is appalling. They claim that Bill C-39 is intended to strengthen the economy, but the measures included in Bill C-39 are not designed to strengthen the economy. They are designed to destroy, weaken or circumvent the laws that protect the public, workers and the environment.

The reason that environmental assessment standards were established over the decades and that laws were implemented to create a framework for labour negotiations is because they were necessary. The government cannot sweep that away in five minutes. However, that is what Bill C‑39 does, on the grounds that we are in a crisis, that we need to stand up to President Trump, that we need to be strong and get busy building. The government wants to get things done at lightning speed and flout every law.

Since we returned to the House in 2025, the same things have been said about every bill. With every bill, some minister wins the lottery and gets the right to suspend a bunch of laws. We should come up with some kind of tally system to figure out which minister won the right to get rid of the most laws this Parliament. It is pretty mind-boggling, and “mind-boggling” is an extremely polite word choice in the circumstances, because I could come up with few others.

This bill is not about the national interest. It is about the personal preferences of the Prime Minister and his friends. That is what it is about. The government is going to pick out projects that were included in Bill C‑5, so-called projects of national interest, and it is going to say that those projects do not need laws. The government is claiming to have a monopoly on the truth and deciding that such and such a project is essential and important. Too bad for workers, too bad for the environment and too bad for everything else. Worse yet, the government is even going to create energy corridors. That is completely ridiculous. The federal government will decide that it can do whatever it wants on certain land.

When the Liberals rise to ask us questions later, they will say that we separatists are always looking for trouble. Why do they think we are here? We are here to defend Quebeckers and fight back against terrible bills like these. Laws are not made to be suspended, abolished or circumvented. They are made to regulate community life and protect the common good.

The purpose of an environmental assessment is to determine whether a project is safe and whether the resulting drawbacks will be offset by the benefits it brings. Are the drawbacks too significant? Sometimes, of course, when the analysis is conducted by independent scientists, we may not like the answer. That is for sure. However, that is what they are there for. We are not all scientists here. We cannot make decisions like these lightly.

This reminds me of how, just before the summer break, the government gave the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food the power to authorize the use of pesticides and herbicides that the agencies responsible had previously declined to approve. What did the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food study in school? How do I find out? Is he qualified to make these decisions? I hope he gets some some good advice, because that is extremely frightening. I do not want to be told 10 years, eight years, five years or even six months down the road that this product really should not have been used, that scientists warned against its use but that the minister decided that it was no big deal and said that it could be used anyway.

That is the Canada we are living in. It does not make any sense. That is just one of the many reasons why Quebeckers need to leave Canada. It is because of things like this.

I am really looking forward to his response. I hope he will ask me questions because this is not a matter of national interest. What is more, these projects will be exempt from the laws because they are oil and gas projects, energy projects. The next pipeline will sail through the approval process. It will be done within a year at most. We know how these bills work. The government throws hundreds of pages at us and we have just a few hours to analyze them before speaking to them. My understanding of this bill—and this is the icing on the cake—is that the minister even has the power to approve a project before it has been assessed. Not only do they want to fast-track impact assessments and complete them within a year, but they can also turn around and allow construction to begin in the meantime.

Imagine a scenario where a project is launched. It is really exciting. A brand-new pipeline is being built to transport oil. The environmental assessment begins while the project is performing well, but after six months, the conclusion is that there are simply too many impacts on this or that ecosystem and that the project either has to change tack or be redesigned. By then it will be too late. The trench will already be dug. This is backwards logic.

I might seem less calm than usual. I swear I am trying to stay calm, but when I read things like this, I cannot believe they are actually doing this. Is this really flying under the radar?

As for Mr. Trump, everyone says that the Prime Minister is going to save us. It is all well and good to use the tariff crisis as an excuse, but we know what is going on.

I want to reassure all parliamentarians here today and everyone watching us at home that we are not against efficiency, effectiveness or economic development. We simply believe that precautions need to be taken. We think that the Prime Minister is currently giving himself powers that make no sense and granting powers to the executive branch that far exceed the mandates given by the people. This is especially true since, yes, the Liberals did win some by-elections this summer, but their majority was essentially created by floor crossers and backroom deals. I feel a need to remind my colleagues of that from time to time. Some folks will tell me to stop saying that, because everyone knows it. Yes, I will continue because that is more or less what real life is all about.

I heard the Prime Minister say this week that he has a mandate to do what he is doing. I disagree. My NDP colleague asked earlier where it was written in the Liberal platform. He was right to ask. I would like the parliamentary secretary to respond to that, if he would like to chat with me. Where in their platform did it say that they were going to do this? We did not see that anywhere.

I briefly mentioned workers' rights at the start, but what this bill does is crazy. It basically says that workers have the right to strike, but that the strike must not last long or cause any disruptions, that they must not make too much noise—that is specified in the bill—and that the government has the right to decide when it gets to be too much. That means that workers have no rights. If workers go on strike, it is too bad, but that is what the reality of bargaining looks like. First of all, when a strike occurs, it is usually because the employer has acted in bad faith. In any case, typically, though I do not want to generalize, there is no agreement. The parties are at a standstill. Strikes are meant to hurt the employer a little. That is called bargaining power. If there is no power, there will be no gains.

The bill says that people have the right to strike, but that they no longer have any power and that they can be stopped at any time. Actually, it gets worse, because the members of the government will not even take the blame for stopping strikers; the Canada Industrial Relations Board will do it for them while they sit with their feet up by the fire and tell themselves that it is not their fault. That is the kind of government we are dealing with.

Obviously, members will have guessed that the Bloc Québécois will vote against Bill C‑39.

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

Madam Speaker, first of all, I want to commend my esteemed colleague from Berthier—Maskinongé. He is a person I respect so much. Before he became a politician, he was a member of a very noble profession. He taught history, if I recall our conversations correctly.

I have a question for him as a man who is very familiar with history. Would it be possible, in this day and age, to build something like the national railroad in a short period of time, in this country, with all the regulations and timelines we have today? Are we not capable of taking action to do things that are really important for Quebec and for Canada?

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

Madam Speaker, I respect my MP too. Whenever I am here for work, I stay in an apartment located in his riding. That makes him my MP. I receive his householders too. They have far too much writing for my taste, since they are in both languages, but that is his choice. I digress.

He brought up the topic of railroads. No one wants to revert to using the labour involved in building that railroad or the conditions of the time. That is what we are discussing today. I was saying that we are not against progress or construction but, over the years, we have adopted standards. We have adopted social standards that must be respected. That is important.

Personally, I think that the Liberal government is triggering a major rollback, but I am counting on the member who represents me when I am on the Hill to protect my interests and make my voice heard in this caucus.

I know that he cannot do that here, but I ask him to do that in his caucus.

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

Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Bloc member.

Instead of cutting red tape, the first part adds regions of national interest and additional layers of administration.

Why does every Liberal solution involve expanding Ottawa's bureaucracy rather than getting out of the way?

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to start by thanking my colleague and congratulating him on his remarkable efforts in French. It is heartwarming. I would really like to see more people doing that. It works both ways.

He mentioned red tape. There is, however, a subtle difference between cutting red tape and scrapping laws and social protections. What the government is doing is scrapping laws and social protections.

We generally agree that red tape is an issue when regulations overlap with other regulations again and again.

I do not understand why the Conservatives are unhappy with what the Liberals are doing. I thought they would be happy: The Liberals are scrapping all the laws to allow for oil infrastructure projects. I thought they would be happy.

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Madam Speaker, I listen to the debates in the House, and I know that the Bloc Québécois likes to say that there is always one Liberal member who asks questions. There will be several of us today, because I really appreciated that speech.

I think that here in the House, we have the opportunity to work together. It is easy to say that we have support or that we do not, but I think that what makes a difference is providing constructive feedback.

I would like the member to tell me how we can work better together and how we can ensure that we represent our constituents better in the House, because that is what my constituents in Waterloo want. I want to find ways to work together, and I think that is also the Prime Minister's approach.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Waterloo. Several members in a row have been practising their French. I am delighted. We can work together.

I was saying to the previous speaker that I know that the Liberals are constrained in what they can say in Parliament. However, I hope that these people, who are smart, who are listening and who seem to understand the arguments we are putting forward, will convey to their caucus that we believe the bill should be amended. I hope that the committee study will give us sufficient latitude to amend certain provisions.

The bill is so significant and harmful that I struggle to envision us supporting it. I am normally very accommodating, but this bill goes pretty far.

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

Madam Speaker, this is the first time I have risen in the House to give a speech since returning from the summer break. I have put questions to several of my colleagues, but this is the first time I have had the opportunity to rise in the House to present a speech.

I am very pleased to rise during this debate on Bill C-39, an act respecting certain measures to strengthen the economy.

Admittedly, the bill is rather long. I managed to read it last night and this morning. I have to keep referring back to other existing laws to understand the situation better. However, as I was reading the bill, an image came to mind. It was a train. I love trains. If I have to choose between flying or taking a train, I always take the train, to go to Montreal, Toronto, Windsor or Quebec City, for example. That has been my preference since I was a young child. It is the best way to travel and get around our great country.

However, there is something that I never did as a child or a young adult. I never travelled across the country by train. I had the opportunity to do so when I was 49 years old. It was very exciting. My adult children and I took the train from Toronto to Vancouver. It took four days and it was extraordinary. I recommend that all my colleagues take advantage of the opportunity to see the country by train. There is the Canadian train that goes from Toronto to Vancouver, the Ocean train from Halifax to Montreal and between the two, there is the Via Rail fleet that serves the Quebec City-Windsor corridor.

Throughout my journey across the country, I thought about one thing. Could we build this railroad today? Historians and history teachers know that the Canadian Pacific Railway was basically built in four years, from 1881 to 1885. Yes, construction started a little earlier, but there were issues. The bulk of the construction was done during those four years. Could we do that today?

I readily agree with the member for Berthier—Maskinongé that it is important to have modern standards. We are not about to use slaves or workers who are treated like slaves to build the train, as we did with the Chinese-Canadian population at the time. We have labour standards, thank goodness. In a modern country, we can build in a responsible manner and in a way that ensures worker safety as much as possible. That is very important. However, given these factors, would we be able to do that today? I am not so sure. That is one of the reasons I like the specific provisions in this bill. When a project is proposed and all the information is available, we promise that there will be an assessment and that it will be completed within a year.

To me, that is key. Things need to change. Everything has become too complex. We are complicating things. Is that really necessary?

We do not want to get rid of the standards we have established, including environmental standards or standards related to working conditions. We need to keep those.

That being said, can we get organized and accomplish great things together, within a reasonable time frame? I hope that, through this bill, we are saying that we can.

I am hoping that with the building Canada strong act, we are able to organize ourselves in a way that allows us to respect all the different elements that we have thought are important as a country, that we have put in our laws, but that we can do so in a reasonable time frame because, and I have to say it and I know we have heard it, we really are living in exceptional times. Never before have I felt that this country has been threatened in the way that we have been. Now it is time for us to put all the elements on our side, to take advantage of all the wealth in people and in natural resources and in our industrial capacity, to build big things.

When I say “to build big things”, I want to make it very clear that I do not expect us to derogate from a lot of the important standards we have put in place. Still, can we do that evaluation quickly? Can we do so in respect of the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which we have an obligation and a duty to consult and to work with? I think we can. I think we can get ourselves to that place because, again, from another example in history, another time when Canada felt as serious a challenge was during the Second World War. When we got into the war in 1939, Canada was far from being an industrial powerhouse as a country, but in a very short period of time, Canadians, recognizing the challenges that we had, came together and organized ourselves properly so that we transformed our entire economy to become a wartime economy. We did so quickly, without taking shortcuts or compromising on quality, but just saying to ourselves, “The challenge is great.”

We have to meet this challenge, and we have planned accordingly to be able to do so. This is something I expect from Canada and from all members of the House. I know we will not agree on everything, but I can only control what I can control.

I want to tell all my colleagues that I will listen to their concerns and support suggestions to improve the bill as much as possible. However, I do not want that to be used as an excuse to paralyze everything and not do the work. Personally, I think we are all up to the challenge before us.

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.

[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.