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

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I also welcome the member for North Vancouver—Capilano to the House. I suppose I could also welcome him to North Vancouver. I also was up and down the hills of North Vancouver quite a lot through the by-election, and I may have heard different things from the voters there. I do want to help the hon. member.

This question was asked to my friend the member for Joliette—Manawan by the hon. member for Hull—Aylmer: Where in the bill do we find retrenchments and abandonment of endangered species? It is riddled throughout the bill. It is changes in the Canadian Navigable Waters Act, it is changes in the Fisheries Act and it is changes in the Species at Risk Act all around the idea that before conditions can be set, they would have to be examined for their practical feasibility and economic impact. This bill is nothing but a disgraceful abandonment of environmental regulation across Canada and decades of work.

Since the hon. member references the Tsleil-Waututh Nation, how can he ignore, and does he ignore, the Tsleil-Waututh Nation court case against the dredging of Burrard Inlet, which would destroy habitat that the federal government committed to protect?

[Braeden Caley, Liberal, North Vancouver—Capilano, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the centrality of first nations partnership and building has been a key commitment of the government and is a key commitment of the Prime Minister and all of the cabinet team. The bill would really honour that commitment in several important ways, and it is a commitment that as a member of Parliament and working with the bill that we will hopefully pass, I would certainly want to uphold in every way we can as one team of Parliament.

This is a fundamental set of partnerships across the north shore, two nations in the Tsleil-Waututh and Squamish, that have thoughtfully and ambitiously prepared visions about how we build our economy together. It builds the country stronger when they do, and I am grateful for that chance at partnership.

[Steeve Lavoie, Liberal, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as the parliamentary session begins, I would like to take this opportunity to wish you and all my colleagues well, along with the many parliamentary employees who make our work here in the House possible, day in and day out. I am very pleased to see everyone again after a great summer in my riding of Beauport—Limoilou.

Over the past few months, I have met with over 50 organizations and businesses in my riding and participated in various activities and festivities in my community. Before I speak to Bill C-39, the building Canada strong act, I want to take a moment to tell you about an experience I had this summer in my riding. It shines a light on the importance of our work as MPs, whether here, in Ottawa, or through programs that directly affect our communities, like the Canada summer jobs program.

I met with more than 30 organizations this summer that participate in this program. I can guarantee one thing: The program is making a real difference on the ground. People from one of the organizations I visited told me that they had been asking for two student job positions for a number of years but, unfortunately, they always received only one. This year, we made sure that they got two. I would like to repeat what the people at this organization told me. They told me that the second position would let them give their volunteers some time off—

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski—La Matapédia, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I understand that my colleague from Beauport—Limoilou has some good stories to share about his summer, but that is not the subject of the bill we are currently discussing. I would like you to call him to order.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

I thank the hon. member for his comment. Members have some leeway in their speeches, but I am certain that the hon. member for Beauport—Limoilou will get to the bill before us.

The hon. member may continue his speech.

[Steeve Lavoie, Liberal, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my story is almost finished. My colleague will be able to put it to good use and I will get back to Bill C-39 very soon.

What the people at that organization told me is worth remembering. The second student job position really helped get volunteers some time off, time for their first-ever vacation. Let that sink in for a second. Having one extra person made it possible for volunteers to take some vacation time. What we do here has a real impact in our communities. I wanted to highlight that at the start of my speech today.

Now, I would like to get back to Bill C-39, the building Canada strong act, under discussion today. I want to begin by referring to a book published in 2025, which I am sure will call to mind Bill C-39 for my colleagues. In the book Abundance, by Ezra Klein and Derek Thompson, one of the questions the authors ask is why a country as rich and technologically advanced as our southern neighbour currently struggles to build enough housing, infrastructure, energy and other essential goods. To some degree, I think we all see some similarity to the challenges facing Canada today.

The authors argue that part of the problem is the rules, procedures and institutions that, over time, have made delivering major projects much slower and much more difficult. They therefore advocate for placing greater emphasis on our ability to produce, build and deliver. In short, this means shifting from a policy focused primarily on distributing resources to one that also seeks to increase supply, ramp up our production capacity and boost our ability to build.

At this point, I think it is fair to draw a parallel between that analysis and what we are proposing in Bill C‑39 to build Canada strong. I am sure all of my colleagues have heard the old saying about doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. We need to do things differently. We need to think differently. Anyone who believes we can keep doing exactly the same things and suddenly achieve different results is sticking their head in the sand. That is choosing inaction. That is choosing the status quo, and the status quo is a choice. Changing nothing is a choice. Leaving things the way they are is a choice.

We must move away from this mindset and regain our ability to build. We are capable of building more, with greater ambition, and more quickly. Let us take an example from our history: the St. Lawrence Seaway. Major construction work began in 1954, and the Seaway was officially opened to navigation in 1959. It took five years to build the Montreal-Lake Ontario section, which spans approximately 300 kilometres of waterways. It was not just a matter of digging a canal. It required building locks, constructing canals, erecting dams, carrying out major dredging work, modifying bridges and relocating infrastructure.

Continuing westward, Montreal is about 600 kilometres from Lake Erie by waterway via Lake Ontario and the Welland Canal. The entire waterway network connecting the St. Lawrence to the heart of the Great Lakes stretches over 2,000 kilometres. Just think about that for a moment. In the 1950s, in just a few years, we were able to carry out one of the greatest infrastructure projects of our time, and we did a significant portion of the work right here at home in Canada. We built, we thought big, and we transformed our economy.

The question we need to ask ourselves today is simple. Can we still build with that same ambition? I believe that Bill C‑39 invites us to reflect on this question and, above all, to regain the ability to complete major projects for future generations of Canadians.

What does that mean in concrete terms? First, it means making our approval processes for major projects more predictable.

These days, when a business, community or proponent wants to build a major project, they often have to navigate multiple processes and steps that might overlap and make the work more complex. It can take longer to get results. Bill C-39 proposes to better coordinate these processes so that decisions on projects requiring a federal permit can be made within one year. Let me be clear. We do not have to choose between upholding Canada's strong environmental protections and streamlining the project review process. We can and must do both. We can be ambitious and rigorous at the same time.

I cannot help but immediately think of my region, the Quebec City region, and specifically the Port of Québec, which plays an important role in our regional economy and our trade with the rest of the world. Bill C‑39 proposes to modernize the governance of Canadian ports, reduce certain administrative burdens and facilitate the digitization of trade. The bill also designates strategic trade corridors and establishes a transportation project office to better coordinate federal permits and advance priority projects.

A product manufactured in Quebec does not only create value when it leaves the factory. It must then be efficiently transported to a port, a railway or the border and on to new markets. An efficient supply chain is essential to enabling our businesses to grow and innovate. At a time when Canada is looking to diversify its trade and reduce its dependence on certain markets, this capability becomes even more important. We have signed 20 trade agreements over the past year. We must now honour our commitments.

This is what building Canada strong means in practical terms. It means enabling a business to carry out a project. It means enabling a port to operate more efficiently. It means enabling our products to reach new markets. It means providing future generations with the infrastructure, jobs and opportunities they will need. Canada has the resources, the talent, the workers, the businesses and the communities capable of achieving great things. Our challenge is not knowing whether we have the capacity to build. Our challenge is equipping ourselves with the means to do just that, the means to realize our ambitions.

We need to simplify where we can simplify, coordinate where we can coordinate better, protect what we need to protect. Above all, we need to rediscover our collective ability to build Canada strong.

[Élisabeth Brière, Liberal, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I commend my colleague for his excellent speech. He is obviously very proud of his beautiful region of Quebec City. In August, the government awarded a contract worth over $11 billion to the Davie shipyard to build six new icebreakers.

I would like my colleague to tell us how such a contract, which is good for our workers and our suppliers, fits into Bill C-39.

[Steeve Lavoie, Liberal, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent question. We were fortunate to be able to make that extraordinary announcement this summer after years and years of working with Davie, a real gem in our community. I worked in the Quebec City area as the president of the chamber of commerce. The Davie shipyard is located on the other side of the river, in Lévis. Most of its suppliers are from the Quebec City area. The rest of them are from the surrounding areas. I reviewed the list of all of the suppliers and they are from all over Quebec.

An announcement like this has a direct impact on a community like Lévis. We are talking about 5,000 workers, 5,000 good jobs. That gives those families predictability because these are long-term contracts. It provides predictability for Davie over the very long term. It will enable business owners to invest in their companies to supply Davie. This is the kind of thing that the government wants to do and that people need.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite mentioned the administrative burden.

Under Bill C-39, proponents would be allowed to do preliminary, early site work, but only if the minister deemed it in the public interest. Why is the government creating such subjective ministerial discretion instead of just simple, clear, predictable rules? Why add to the red tape?

[Steeve Lavoie, Liberal, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I talked about something very important in my speech: the status quo. I have talked about it throughout my career, and I will keep talking about it. People often keep doing the same things while hoping to achieve different results.

We introduced a bill. We want to do things differently. We want to speed up projects and provide predictability for investors. Doing things faster does not mean being less rigorous. We must always be rigorous. We can walk and chew gum at the same time, as they say. That is what the government is going to do. This will provide predictability for businesses and contractors, who will be able to pursue projects. The process used to take up to eight years, which is way too long, but it will go much faster now.

We are doing the right thing. We are taking action, and that is what Canadians want.

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

Madam Speaker, the member across the way says that he repeats things over and over about the administrative burden. He did not answer the question before about ministerial discretion and what the public interest is. Maybe he will answer this instead. Part one adds regions of national interest and more administrative layers. Why does every Liberal solution involve expanding Ottawa's bureaucracy rather than getting out of the way? Why more bureaucracy? Why more discretion? Why more rules? I thought the member said he was against red tape.

[Steeve Lavoie, Liberal, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Madam Speaker, taking a closer look at the bill, clearly the goal is to fast-track projects. My colleague talked about bureaucracy. What we want is to make it easier to get projects done. We want to make everything more predictable over time. We want to speed things up. That is exactly what Canadians are asking us to do.

We have signed more than 20 trade agreements. Now we need to allow businesses to export their products. A delay of six or eight years is far too long. What we are saying now is that we will do this in less than a year, which will help accelerate projects. We are thinking about supply chains. I mentioned the Port of Québec earlier. Officials there want to invest, and we are giving them a chance to do so. We are providing predictability for investors.

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

Madam Speaker, it is always a great honour to rise in this place on behalf of the great people of Okanagan Lake West—South Kelowna. It is my honour.

I would also like to take a brief moment to welcome our newest members in this place. I am certain I am not alone when I say that a member's first time sitting in the chamber is one they will never forget. Mind you, things work a bit differently these days from when I first came as a new member of Parliament. Much like our new members of Parliament, I too first joined this place as a rookie MP on the government side of the House with a majority, only in those days, if a majority government introduced an omnibus bill the same way the Liberal government has with Bill C-39, the crowds went wild, and I do not mean in a happy way either.

Whether “anti-democratic”, “dictator” or “bully”, the accusations and media headlines were rampant. Heck, omnibus bills were considered so bad that in one election, the Liberals even promised that, if elected, they would never, ever use them, and yet here we are. To be fair, I always looked at omnibus bills a little differently. I went on the record at the time to suggest that when facing challenging times, it is better to be accused of trying to do too much instead of too little, and indeed, this bill proposes to do some interesting, but also some very different, things.

Many have suggested the bill could have and should have been split up. We are still early in this debate, and I am sure that topic will be coming up. The Liberals will argue, and I quote them on this, “Canada’s new government has a mandate to build big, build bold, and build now.” Wait a moment. I got it wrong. That is what the Liberals said about the last mega bill that would build Canada strong. Members might remember it as Bill C-5.

For Bill C-39, the Liberals' new talking point is, “This legislation will give our country the tools we need to build more, better and more efficiently.” Members will, please, forgive me for getting those two quotes just a little mixed up. They sound so similar that it is easy to understand how the Liberals even get mixed up. Now, I credit the PMO's communication shop for creatively saying basically the same thing over and over again, only slightly differently so that, hopefully, people focus more on the words and less on the results.

Of course, as an opposition member of Parliament, I would be remiss if I did not point out that over this past year, not a single shovel went into the ground for a brand new project that did not exist more than a year ago. There were literally no new projects. It has gotten so desperate that Liberals now try to claim pre-existing projects as proof of progress. “Building at speeds not seen in a generation” was the promise, but in reality, it is about talking about building at speeds not seen in generations, but the actual building part, not so much, and the building part, let us all agree, is really the most important part.

Here we are today, once again, with a new bill that would “give our country the tools we need to build more, better and more efficiently.” Apparently, the reason nothing has been done over the past year is that we lacked the tools we need. This is the country that built the Canadian Pacific Railway, the St. Lawrence Seaway, the Trans-Canada Highway and so much more. It is amazing how over the past 159 years, we have built the greatest country on earth, with all kinds of amazing achievements, but suddenly we no longer have the tools we need to build any more. This begs the question, what happened to the tools? Well, in 2015, the Liberals happened.

It is interesting that there is a segment in the backgrounder for Bill C-39 that reads:

the [Canadian Energy Regulator] will conduct the assessment under the Canada Energy Regulator Act, rather than through an integrated review panel with the Impact Assessment Agency. Since the introduction of the integrated review panel process in 2019, no project has met the threshold to be assessed by a panel.

Let me just read that last part one more time: “Since the introduction of the integrated review panel process in 2019, no project has met the threshold to be assessed by a panel.”

I hope everyone here heard that. Let us go over that again. Since the Liberals brought in the Impact Assessment Agency review process in 2019, “no project has met the threshold to be assessed by a panel.” How many projects? None, zero, zip, nada.

That is an incredible feat when we think about it. It has been seven long years and not a single project has ever met the threshold imposed by the Liberals. Here is the best part: along come the Liberals proposing to remove the very same red tape they themselves created. Think of all the lost opportunities over those seven years. It was so damaging.

I know that on the government side, there is a particular minister fond of saying, “We will take no lessons from the Conservatives”, unless, of course, it is axing the carbon tax, repealing the electric vehicle sales mandate, rolling back the planned capital gains tax increases or temporarily removing part of the federal fuel excise tax. These are all things that Conservatives called for.

However, let us be fair. We did not ask for some of the changes to the Canada Labour Code that are proposed in this bill. In fact, we are having a hard time even understanding where the Liberals came up with some of these proposals.

They said they spent the summer consulting different groups, but which groups and where? It all seems a bit suspicious to us. We all know that the bill also includes a new power that would allow the Minister of Labour to intervene to end a work stoppage, but only if the work stoppage is deemed to be contrary to the national interest.

That is where this bill becomes extremely concerning for Canadians. The modern Liberal government has gotten into a very bad habit of doing things that serve the interests of Liberal Party friends and insiders, rather than the interests of Canadians. If my colleagues doubt that, I will give them an example.

Not so many years ago, the Liberals gave the green light to and approved the Rogers takeover of Shaw. Critics warned the Liberals not to do that and warned what would happen if they did, but the Liberals of course know better. The Liberals promised that more jobs would be created and that rates would go down, and just in case there was any doubt about this, the minister promised that he would watch Rogers like a hawk after the takeover. What happened? Let us go through it.

Shaw was popular in my riding. Citizens started bringing in their new Rogers bills with rate increases. Even though they had contracts with Shaw, those contracts were raised by Rogers because the fine print allowed Rogers to charge more for the old Shaw equipment they had been renting. This happened to seniors and single mothers. As for the jobs that were promised by the minister, there is a new Rogers call centre in Morocco, and I am certain that the good people of Morocco probably appreciate those jobs.

This was a complete and total massive failure by the Liberals that benefited their friends on Bay Street and sold out Canadians on main street, like my constituents, and across the whole spectrum. As for the minister who promised to watch this deal like a hawk, he will say he does not take any lessons from Conservatives, or, it would appear, from anyone else for that matter, because there were lots of people who warned him.

Getting back to the bill we have at hand, it is easy to understand why many Canadians are a tad uneasy when the Liberals say that a Liberal minister gets to decide what is and what is not in the Canadian interest. People who have those concerns, of course, are even more skeptical because the Liberals packaged all of those changes up in a nice omnibus bill. I mention this last point for the benefit of the new Liberal members of Parliament who may be unaware of some of the greatest hits from previous Liberal governments that were authored by members of the current Liberal government.

Before I close, I also have to reference that this bill also proposes some changes from an environmental perspective. One of those changes is a timeline to complete certain reviews in one year. At the same time, the Liberals are also promising indigenous communities and environmental groups that everything is going to work out like it previously did, and telling them to relax and not worry. Believe it or not, when you propose to do things differently but promise that nothing will change, that causes people to worry, and even more so when it is buried in an omnibus bill, where some people think the Liberals intentionally did this shocker to avoid proper scrutiny.

Now, let us keep in mind that I am simply passing on concerns.

Madam Speaker, excuse me. I would like to take a moment to catch my breath.

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

The hon. member can take a little break.

The hon. member may continue if he is ready.

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

Madam Speaker, bear in mind that I am merely passing on concerns that others have expressed to me, because, at the end of the day, choosing to introduce an omnibus bill is a choice, and that choice has consequences.

We must not forget that there is a reason why a previous Liberal government promised never to resort to omnibus bills. Of course, that promise was sincere, was it not?

Surely the Liberals would never make a promise they had no intention of keeping just to get elected, would they? Did they say they were going to spend less? I am getting off topic.

For a recap of where we are today, I feel it is a bit like a sci-fi franchise movie. In episode one, the government needed a big bill to make Canada strong, which is Bill C-5. About a year later, when everything promised in year one did not happen, it of course needed a sequel, another new omnibus bill, to make Canada strong, which is Bill C-39. I suspect next year or later in this Parliament we may live to see another so we can finish the trilogy.