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

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to say hello to all my colleagues here today.

This is a substantial bill. It is certainly quite a challenge to try to understand it and to try to understand the—

[An hon. member]

Oh, oh!

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to start again. I understand that the minister is excited, but I cannot hear myself speak.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

There is an adequate noise level now.

The member for Mirabel.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will start over. With all due respect to the minister, it is important to stay focused, particularly as this bill is so significant. It is a very substantial bill.

Last night, we sat until midnight. I listened to the debate. I did my best to listen to as much of it as possible. What my colleagues who spoke said, and what I have also said, is essentially that Bill C-39 represents a drastic step backwards for the environment, workers' rights and democracy. It pre-approves projects by reducing environmental assessments to a mere formality, weakens workers' rights, further concentrates power in the executive branch and opens the door to the privatization of ports, airports and other public infrastructure. This is very strong language; it stems from an analysis we carried out, which I believe was thorough.

Yesterday, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources spoke to the bill.

He sat through a significant portion of the debates and listened. We really appreciate that. We debated, and he looked at us. My colleague from Abitibi—Témiscamingue was an energetic participant during the debate. The parliamentary secretary laughed at us. He made fun of us. He looked at us as if we were aliens, and when he rose to speak, he told us that we had our facts wrong. He tried to teach us a lesson, to correct us, saying we had misunderstood the bill. He seems like such a credible person. After all, he comes from the company that sold us Phoenix and Cúram. Surely there is no way he could be mistaken.

I decided that I should read the bill again, so I did, together with my colleague from Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Listuguj, a lawyer and former bar association president. We spent a lot of time rereading it yesterday evening and today. What we ultimately discovered was that we had been right all along. It really does weaken environmental regulations—and workers' rights too, but I am focusing on the environment today—in such a pernicious way that it gives the impression that the government is still conducting environmental assessments after all.

That is the problem. The bill gives a lot of discretion for circumventing legislation, and it is hard to understand for ordinary people who are not used to reading laws and who are not part of a provincial bar.

Here is how it works. Right now, it is true that when all sorts of environmental assessments have to be conducted, files get passed from agency to agency. There are a lot of processes involved. It is true that it follows a specific sequence, that it can take a long time, cause hassles and harm certain types of investment. We agree that that is true.

We can understand the principle of taking the laws related to impact assessments and creating a one-stop shop to maintain the same due diligence while eliminating some of the hassle. We can see things from the investors' perspective.

However, that is not what this bill does. Here is what the bill says, and my colleague mentioned this several times: Before creating a region of national interest for a project, the minister will have to conduct regional assessments. Let us look at the case law and the way in which the laws are written. Under sections 92 to 96 of the Impact Assessment Act, the assessment examines the “effects of existing or future physical activities carried out in a region”.

It does not specify that all of the activities must be assessed. The minister has a lot of leeway to define what is included in the assessment.

We took another look at the Impact Assessment Act. We realized that the minister had the power to determine what would be assessed, what the criteria would be, how much time the committee would have and who would sit on the committee. That means he can fast-track the process and ask for things to be done quickly. He can appoint a few friends to the committee or appoint people with a vested interest. He might not do that, but from the public's perspective, there is always justice and the appearance of justice, the independence of the process and the appearance of the process. We are losing that here.

The minister conducts his assessment. Under the legislation before us today, the minister must take into account the rules and laws in effect. He cannot ignore them. He will tell the assessment committee to take such and such applicable laws and include them in its report. However, after that, the minister is free to ignore the conclusions of that regional assessment. That is what the Impact Assessment Act says. What is more, the minister can justify putting species at risk or infringing on a certain number of rights on the grounds of economic benefit or any other reason that the minister deems relevant.

The minister can also list a region of national interest in schedule 2 to the act, list a project and list the acts covered by the bill, parts of which will be suspended. The project proponents will then be exempt from complying with those acts. He has the power to allow them to circumvent the law. That is how Bill C-39 is written.

Of course the party in government would say that assessments will still take place, that it is just creating a one-stop shop. When a member of the public reads a 250-page bill like this one, they are bound to get the impression that this is what is happening. The minister has the power to allow project proponents to circumvent a number of federal acts, including the Fisheries Act, the Canadian Navigable Waters Act, the Convention for the Protection of Migratory Birds in the United States and Canada, the Canada Transportation Act, the Canada Marine Act, certain sections of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, the Species at Risk Act and the Impact Assessment Act, as well as seven regulations, including the migratory bird sanctuary regulations, the wildlife area regulations, the marine mammal regulations, the metal and diamond mining effluent regulations, and the migratory birds regulations. The consequences are real.

Now we have a minister who has the power to create a different regulatory regime for projects approved by, let us be honest, the Prime Minister's Office. Anyone can see what these ministers are doing. We saw how they operated before, under Justin Trudeau. Now they are unrecognizable. They do not even look like the same people.

Everyone knows that the PMO makes all the decisions and that the PMO is full of yes-men. We know that the Prime Minister selects the projects, the decision is passed down and then it moves forward. A two-tier regulatory regime seems to be taking hold. There are the projects selected by the Prime Minister, where everything will be processed quickly. Then there are the projects proposed by ordinary Canadians, who have to obey all the laws simply because they are not best buddies with the Prime Minister or a minister. That is the reality.

There is also the whole issue of time limits, because the bill now enshrines them in law. We are being told that, for a pipeline, everything will have to be done within a year. I agree that there should be a one-stop shop. I agree that the process should be more efficient and our laws should be implemented more quickly and efficiently. However, when we look at what is being done elsewhere in the world, for pipelines that cross hundreds or even thousands of kilometres, a one-year deadline is below the legal minimum. What this tells us is that the government has already decided that it wants the pipeline and then it will work out the laws to get there. That is what the Prime Minister is telling us.

The bill would provide for mandatory fast-tracking of assessment timelines. There are problems with this legislation. We are not making this up. We spent half the night reading the bill. It allows projects to be approved before they have been assessed. The government says to start the project and the assessment will come later.

Even if the assessment ultimately concludes that the project is too harmful, that its benefits do not outweigh the cost, and that it should not move forward, the project will already have begun. The regional assessment will be conducted, then the minister will exercise his discretion, and the project will go ahead anyway. The government says assessments will still be done. If they end up being thrown out anyway, what difference does it make? What is even the point of doing assessments? Why do them at all? Why spend public funds on them?

The government wants to take responsibility for conducting impact assessments away from the agency. It should just create a one-stop shop and get someone to run it. Why not ask the Canadian Impact Assessment Agency, since it has independent scientists? Why not establish the one-stop shop within a department that already has the necessary expertise, skills and resources? Why make the Canada Energy Regulator act as the one-stop shop, when its objective and mission are to deliver oil? Why get the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission to serve as the one-stop shop for nuclear projects? The government is simply telling Canadians that assessments are nothing more than window dressing, a mere formality dressed up in a Halloween costume to look like an assessment. In reality, the assessment is toothless and pointless.

That is the problem. The government looks at the opposition, and sometimes government members walk out of the room while we are talking. They look at us as though all we want to do is complain and stir up trouble. However, we are doing our job as legislators with very limited resources. We are telling them that we are concerned about democracy, the concentration of power, the loss of expertise and the environment. We might have been able to come to an agreement on the principle of this bill, but the government is telling us that it has a majority. It is just going to continue to push this through however it can.

That is a bad way of crafting legislation. I know that this bill will pass because the government has a majority, but, given the facts, it is clear that all of the concerns raised by the opposition yesterday evening are valid and people have good reason to be concerned.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, whom I respect and with whom I work in committee.

I have two things to say. First, what I have been hearing from him and his colleagues since the beginning of the debate on Bill C‑39 can be summed up by the words “status quo”. They want to maintain the status quo in many areas. They want to know why we would do this or that and why we would make changes. As we know, the status quo means not making a decision.

Something occurred to me. I know my colleague worked very late last night and again this morning. I did my homework, too, and I looked into it. Bill C‑39 speeds up projects, but it also speeds up situations like the one in Lac‑Mégantic. People have been waiting for 13 years, and things are stuck in administrative projects. We are talking over $100 million. The project is going to cost more. Bill C‑39 makes it possible to fast-track projects like the one in Lac‑Mégantic.

Did my colleague's research yield any concrete suggestions for speeding up decision-making, so that situations like this never happen again and so that we can actually resolve things more quickly?

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague knows that I respect him, but clearly, spending 20 years in banking does not nurture logical thinking. My colleague is new here; he has not been here long. He needs to understand that the Liberals have a majority and that when they introduce bills, those are government orders. My colleague is talking about the status quo. This bill will be passed. We are engaging in constructive discussion to ensure that initiatives that have value for society—a net positive value—move forward. We are studying the bill, but they are the ones drafting the bills. Government orders are written by them. We spend our days studying what they give us.

My colleague is talking about Lac‑Mégantic, and he is starting to scare people. This process will result in expropriations. Speaking of trains, they are also in the process of expropriating land in Mirabel without an assessment, without a project, and without any financial details. They are walking around private property in my riding and announcing that they want to expropriate precisely for this reason, precisely because of this way of doing things. They have a bulldozer approach. They are running roughshod over people without being prepared.

My colleague speaks of maintaining the status quo. They should introduce better legislation, legislation that is open to amendment. I have been here for more than five years, and we have tabled amendments before. The process worked well.

My colleague should know that government orders are written by the ministers. They should write better ones.

[Alexis Deschênes, Bloc, Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Listuguj, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his insightful remarks.

Listening to him contributes to our collective understanding of Bill C‑39. One issue that we have homed in on is the possibility of pre-approving projects. If we think about the regions of national interest, and I would like to hear my colleague's views on this, it is apparent that the regional assessment would be conducted in advance, and the minister would make the decision afterwards. The minister will read the reports, but then he is free to do whatever he wants. As long as a regional assessment has been completed, the minister can proceed as he sees fit. The minister would then be able to designate and describe a region and approve specific categories of projects and criteria.

Would my colleague not agree that this is a way of pre-approving projects en masse based on very general criteria, rather than on assessments of the individual projects?

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is right in his analysis.

The government tells us that investors are reaching out, that it wants investment, and that we need a stable regulatory environment, or so the Liberals say. However, what is being proposed here is not a stable regulatory environment. There is no regulatory environment. An investor is told that their project will be pre-approved and that, when the report comes out, at worst, it will be scrapped or parts of it will be removed, and then three or four laws will be violated just to move it forward. That is not a stable regulatory environment. There is nothing more unstable than that.

It is a lack of regulation, but it is also an injustice.

What happens to investors who do not have access to the Prime Minister's Office or are not a priority to the current government? Those investors have to comply with the other laws. This is an asymmetrical and unpredictable regulatory regime, and I do not think it necessarily serves the government's objectives.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have listened to Bloc members comment on this for the last couple of days, and ultimately I would argue that the extreme attitude that the government does not care about the environment or labour could not be further from the truth. Quite frankly, working on major projects, working with environmental issues, working with indigenous leadership and working with the provinces collaboratively is the way to go.

Does the member have anything positive to say about any aspect of the legislation?

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I do not have a good read on my colleague. I do not know whether he cares about the environment or not, but I do know that, to anyone who reads Bill C-39, it is clear that the Liberals do not care about it. If that is not the case, then it needs to be fixed.

For example, would my colleague agree that the government should set up a one-stop shop for businesses, but that it should be up to the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada to assess projects, rather than having oil companies assess oil projects? It would speed up the process and make it more efficient while ensuring compliance with the law, so why not?

If the Liberals are open to that, we can talk. They have a majority. They will steamroll over us, which is what they have been doing since they got their majority. However, what I suggested would be in the interests of the environment, the economy and society. As Chief Justice Wagner of the Supreme Court of Canada said recently, the rule of law must be protected.

The House resumed 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, and of the motion that this question be now put.

[Chris Lewis, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as I almost always do, I want to thank my Lord and Saviour for the opportunity to stand in this amazing place and to serve.

Before I get into Bill C-39, I want to say happy birthday to my eldest son, Jagger. His birthday was yesterday and I was not home to celebrate it, but I am awful proud of him. Happy birthday to him.

I am pleased to rise today on behalf of the wonderful, hard-working people of Essex to talk about Liberal omnibus bill, Bill C-39. This bill is almost 250 pages long, addressing everything from supply chain and transport corridor management to changing how collective bargaining would work. This massive bill proposes changes to 21 different pieces of legislation.

My Conservative colleagues and I continue to examine every line of this bill, judging it on a simple, foundational standard. Would it protect Canadian jobs and save working families money?

I will recognize that there are very serious changes being proposed to the Labour Code in part 3 that will require extensive study at committee. They would affect federally regulated sectors like railways, ports and banking.

Why did the government choose to hide these major labour provisions inside a 250-page omnibus bill instead of presenting them in dedicated legislation for proper committee scrutiny? It is tough for me to wrap my head around why the government is trying to rush these significant changes in an omnibus bill instead of allowing them to be properly and thoroughly studied at committee.

Major concerns have been raised about these proposed changes to the Labour Code, yet there were no consultations with key sector representatives or affected workers before this bill was tabled.

The Liberals used section 107 of the Canada Labour Code to order flight attendants back to work, effectively sending them back to work unpaid. Having previously used section 107 to order flight attendants back to work unpaid, the government should not be making further unscrutinized changes to section 107 behind closed doors.

What is most staggering about this massive, 250-page bill is not what it contains, but what it leaves out. While the government addresses unionized workers in federal ports and airports, there is absolutely nothing in this bill for the Windsor auto workers at Stellantis. As we sit in the House, Stellantis is facing an upcoming three-week production layoff at the Windsor assembly plant this month. This means that approximately 6,400 auto workers in or near my riding are facing layoffs right before Christmas, and there is nothing here for them. The government has offered them zero support.

These auto workers need certainty. It seems that Stellantis is perhaps getting ready to leave Canada when it comes to auto production because of U.S. tariffs, among many other things, but the Liberal government has already left it behind. Why is the Prime Minister refusing to negotiate for these workers? The Prime Minister promised that he would have a deal with the U.S. by July 2025. The Windsor auto sector is getting hollowed out because of the Prime Minister's incompetence and his failure to lower his elbows and shake hands.

The Conservatives will continue to fight for policies that defend our auto workers and protect these vital Canadian jobs.

Finally, I must highlight the government's proposed changes to the International Bridges and Tunnels Act in Bill C-39. Previously, structural or operational alterations to an international bridge required full federal cabinet approval, but this bill would strip that authority from the federal cabinet and give it directly to the Minister of Transport. That would give a whole lot of power to the Minister of Transport to make some pretty significant changes without proper checks and balances.

If my memory serves me correctly, the Gordie Howe bridge, near my riding, which borders one of the biggest international border crossings in Canada, was clouded with secret backdoor conversations about its opening. My colleague from Windsor West publicly raised concerns about the urgency of finding answers and getting clarity on when the bridge would be opened, and specifically asked the Minister of Transport for answers on multiple occasions without a response. If I also recall correctly, the Prime Minister claimed that the debts Canadians incurred to build the Gordie Howe bridge would be fully repaid before we began sharing tolls with the United States, and we know now that that was also false.

Do Canadians really want to give more authority or decision-making power to the Minister of Transport given the track record with the Gordie Howe bridge? Under Bill C-39, the Minister of Transport would not be subject to the same parliamentary oversight that would apply to Governor in Council orders and regulations. With decision-making power resting in one minister, that would make the minister more accessible to private bridge operators or regional interests.

If my memory serves me correctly, the Liberal government held private meetings with Ambassador Bridge lobbyists ahead of the Gordie Howe bridge opening, yet the Liberal government is now proposing to remove parliamentary accountability for international bridges through this bill. Why should we give the Minister of Transport more authority to make decisions when his government's track record already shows that it does not have the best interests of Canadians in mind?

I could speak for a long time on Bill C-39. There is much in Bill C-39 that requires rigorous study and much that remains deeply concerning. What I can promise the automakers and families of Essex and Windsor is that Conservatives will never stop fighting for their jobs, for their economic certainty and for a fair deal with the United States, because at the end of the day, Essex residents have made enough sacrifices at the hands of the government.

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

Mr. Speaker, I think the Conservative Party is being very short-sighted today in terms of the larger picture and why Bill C-39 is so critically important.

When we look at what has taken place since the last federal election, we see a Prime Minister, a cabinet and a caucus as a whole looking for ways to get things built. We are not talking about $5,000 projects. We are talking billions of dollars. There are always going to be small projects, but we are talking about the bigger projects. That is why we have the Major Projects Office. Over 24 files have now been passed over to that particular office.

The Prime Minister hosted an investment event, with half a trillion dollars in potential investment from around the world coming to Canada. It is all about building a stronger Canada that is healthier. When the member makes reference to jobs, it is not only about protecting jobs for today, but about building jobs for tomorrow and building a stronger economy.

Does the member not recognize the bigger picture as to why Bill C-39 is important to Canada?

[Chris Lewis, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, do I not recognize it? There is a funny thing called the battery plant in Windsor that was designed for electric vehicles because of the government. Not one electric vehicle battery has been sent out of that plant. If we are going to invest in something, we should at least follow through with the investment.

I find it a bit shallow for the member across the aisle to talk about getting things done when the government has had nearly 12 years to get things done, and nothing has gotten done after money is put forth.