Building Canada Strong Act

An Act respecting certain measures to strengthen the economy

Sponsor

Steven MacKinnon  Liberal

Status

In committee (House), as of Oct. 8, 2026

Subscribe to a feed (what's a feed?) of speeches and votes in the House related to Bill C-39.

Summary

This is from the published bill.

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.

Elsewhere

All sorts of information on this bill is available at LEGISinfo, an excellent resource from Parliament. You can also read the full text of the bill.

Bill numbers are reused for different bills each new session. Perhaps you were looking for one of these other C-39s:

C-39 (2023) Law An Act to amend An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying)
C-39 (2017) An Act to amend the Criminal Code (unconstitutional provisions) and to make consequential amendments to other Acts
C-39 (2014) Law Appropriation Act No.3 , 2014-15
C-39 (2012) Law Restoring Rail Service Act

Votes

Oct. 8, 2026 Passed 2nd reading of Bill C-39, An Act respecting certain measures to strengthen the economy

Debate Summary

line drawing of robot

This is a computer-generated summary of the speeches below. Usually it’s accurate, but every now and then it’ll contain inaccuracies or total fabrications.

Bill C-39 proposes coordinated federal reviews with targeted timelines for major projects, changes to transportation corridors, ports, trade digitization and security, and amendments to federal labour rules concerning bargaining, dispute resolution and worker protections.

Liberal

  • Supports faster project approvals: Supports a coordinated “one project, one review, one year” process to attract investment and build infrastructure faster, while maintaining environmental standards and Indigenous rights and consultation.
  • Modernizes trade corridors: Would designate national trade corridors, improve port governance and coordination, and digitize trade processes to reduce bottlenecks, strengthen supply chains and diversify exports beyond the United States.
  • Protects workers and bargaining: Supports earlier bargaining, mediation and stronger workplace protections to improve labour stability, while affirming workers’ right to strike and adding guardrails to exceptional government intervention.

Conservative

  • Supports building projects: Conservatives support faster construction, investment and jobs, but will judge Bill C-39 by measurable results rather than announcements, and say the previous Bill C-5 has delivered little.
  • Questions timeline guarantees: They argue the one-year approval promise is not binding: preparation occurs before the clock starts, and officials or cabinet can pause or extend it, leaving investors without certainty.
  • Wants deeper deregulation: Conservatives call for repealing Bills C-69 and C-48 and the industrial carbon tax, with one project, one review and firm approval deadlines instead of more bureaucratic workarounds.
  • Demands scrutiny of labour changes: Members warn that changes to section 107 could weaken collective bargaining and workers’ right to strike, and demand thorough committee study, consultation and safeguards before decisions are made.

NDP

  • Opposes bill C-39: The NDP argues the bill concentrates power in ministers, weakens workers’ rights, risks environmental safeguards and Indigenous rights, and transfers decision-making away from communities and independent experts.
  • Protects the right to strike: The party opposes codifying and expanding ministerial powers to end legal strikes, saying this undermines constitutionally protected rights, weakens workers’ bargaining leverage and discourages employers from negotiating fairly.
  • Safeguards environment and Indigenous rights: The NDP warns that fixed approval deadlines, weakened project conditions and accelerated consultation could harm ecosystems and compress Indigenous rights; it says meaningful consultation and environmental review are essential to responsible development.
  • Builds fairly and together: The party supports building housing, clean energy and infrastructure, but says nation-building must create good union jobs, respect Indigenous rights, protect the environment and include communities rather than prioritize speed and corporate rewards.

Bloc

  • Opposes Bill C-39: The Bloc will vote against Bill C-39, arguing that it uses the trade crisis to justify permanent changes that weaken environmental protections, workers’ rights and democratic accountability.
  • Environmental safeguards: The Bloc warns that rushed assessments, project pre-approval and shifting reviews to energy regulators undermine scientific independence, public consultation and the ability to prevent environmental harm.
  • Right to strike: The Bloc says the bill gives ministers broad discretion to end lawful strikes based on undefined national-interest criteria, weakening collective bargaining and shifting power toward employers.
  • Executive power and Quebec: The Bloc objects to concentrating authority in ministers and the Prime Minister, circumventing Parliament and laws, and intruding on Quebec and provincial roles in managing natural resources.

Green

  • Opposes rushed project approvals: The Green Party warns that Bill C-39 could direct billions in public money to projects without basic cost-benefit analysis, risking economic waste and serious environmental and Indigenous-rights harms.
  • Demands evidence and transparency: The party rejects the premise that speed is inherently beneficial, arguing that weak planning, political pressure and cabinet discretion without transparent evidence make major projects more likely to fail.
  • Protects environmental conditions: The Greens oppose amendments that make project approval conditions subject to tests of economic feasibility or practicality, warning proponents could challenge binding safeguards and weaken environmental laws.
  • Defends collective bargaining: The party supports the Canadian Labour Congress’s concerns about part 3’s threat to collective bargaining and the trade union movement, and calls for substantial amendments.
Was this summary helpful and accurate?

Building Canada Strong ActGovernment Orders

October 7th, 2026 / 8:20 p.m.

Conservative

Dan Albas Conservative Okanagan Lake West—South Kelowna, BC

Madam Speaker, I know that the Liberals like to say that they are against two-tier anything, but Bill C-39 would create a statutory authority for the regulator, or in this case the responsible authority, that would give the one year, one review. There would be exemptions. Obviously, there is proposed section 19(4), which would force a completeness sign-off that could be like Groundhog Day for someone.

In addition to the loopholes in the bill, there would be no statutory deadline for transportation projects. I would like to ask the member why transportation projects would have no statutory one year, one review equivalent like the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, the Impact Assessment Agency or the Canadian Energy Regulator have. Why would there be a two-tier approach to big projects?

Building Canada Strong ActGovernment Orders

October 7th, 2026 / 8:20 p.m.

Liberal

Corey Hogan Liberal Calgary Confederation, AB

Madam Speaker, I think the member opposite will also appreciate that there are different considerations, both in transportation because of the nature and the concentration that exists, and also in linear infrastructure and the challenges that are presented there as well.

I certainly welcome the member's comments, and I hope that at committee we can flesh this out. Perhaps there are opportunities to meet his concerns as we advance on this.

Building Canada Strong ActGovernment Orders

October 7th, 2026 / 8:20 p.m.

Bloc

Maxime Blanchette-Joncas Bloc Rimouski—La Matapédia, QC

Madam Speaker, there is something rather troubling about Bill C‑39. It would allow projects to receive approval in principle, meaning a project could be authorized before any assessment has been conducted to determine whether it is actually a sound project. I would ask my colleague whether he would agree to buy a car before even taking it for a test drive.

Building Canada Strong ActGovernment Orders

October 7th, 2026 / 8:20 p.m.

Liberal

Corey Hogan Liberal Calgary Confederation, AB

Madam Speaker, I want to be precise, so I will respond in my mother tongue.

It is a question of where we put a political approval. It is not saying that we have purchased the car. In fact, it is saying that we will purchase the car if it looks like it did in the advertisement. What we see with this particular approach is that we would be removing the uncertainty that comes from politics but saying that approval would be conditional upon all the other regulatory approvals' being met by the decision document at the end of the process.

Building Canada Strong ActGovernment Orders

October 7th, 2026 / 8:20 p.m.

Taiaiako'n—Parkdale—High Park Ontario

Liberal

Karim Bardeesy LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry

Madam Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's speech and his reflections, in particular, on the different capacities that organizations, large versus small, may have in participating in some of the review processes. I wonder if he could elaborate on how the bill would help level the playing field a bit.

Building Canada Strong ActGovernment Orders

October 7th, 2026 / 8:20 p.m.

Liberal

Corey Hogan Liberal Calgary Confederation, AB

Madam Speaker, I am very happy to. I think we can all appreciate, as we have grown in understanding about the complexity of projects, the impact on the environment and the impact on communities, that more federal departments have been brought into the conversation. Those conversations have become more robust. The challenge, however, has become that our organization as a government has presented additional stacking of consultations and demand on the communities that we are hoping to support through these initiatives.

What Bill C-39 would do is bring all that to one table and allow a robust conversation to occur that would take into consideration all the benefits, all the drawbacks, all the challenges and all the opportunities, and do so in a way that would be much more respectful of time. There are many horror stories of people having to be subjected to five or six consultations. Let us get it down to one and make it a better one.

Building Canada Strong ActGovernment Orders

October 7th, 2026 / 8:20 p.m.

Conservative

Dan Albas Conservative Okanagan Lake West—South Kelowna, BC

Madam Speaker, in regard to the interswitching provisions of part 2 of Bill C-39, the whole idea is to give certainty and predictability, yet farmers and shippers, particularly in the natural resource sector, who would depend on that competition created by the interswitching measures, would have it for only 48 months. Does the member believe this should be made permanent? This has been tried under the Harper government. It has been tried under the Trudeau government. Why would we not be putting that and making it a permanent program?

Second to that, many Liberals have talked about the transportation project office as if it were something that would add to this, but like the Major Projects Office, it would not have any authority. In fact, the minister of transport would be given the discretion to open said office. Does the member think that putting forward offices that may or may not happen and putting forward provisions that are simply temporary and, again, subject to good U.S. relations, would be creating certainty and predictability in the transportation sector?

Building Canada Strong ActGovernment Orders

October 7th, 2026 / 8:25 p.m.

Liberal

Corey Hogan Liberal Calgary Confederation, AB

Madam Speaker, I certainly believe it would increase certainty within all those sectors.

What I would put back to my colleague is that, just as under Harper and just as under Trudeau, these rules would be provisional. There are challenges we want to work through in the longer term, and we want to make sure we can get to a transportation sector that is stable and well working. I certainly welcome the member's additional commentary at the committee stage.

Building Canada Strong ActGovernment Orders

October 7th, 2026 / 8:25 p.m.

Conservative

Jamil Jivani Conservative Bowmanville—Oshawa North, ON

Madam Speaker, as we discuss Bill C-39 in advance of its likely going to committee, I want to raise some concerns about how I think the bill would be used to further the current government's airport privatization agenda. I believe that is an agenda that deserves some severe scrutiny, and it is one that I oppose wholeheartedly. Sometimes it is difficult to get people to pay attention in this job to what is going on in Ottawa, but I do hope that, with my comments today, I can encourage Canadians to pay attention to just how bad airport privatization would be for our country and why Bill C-39 is a problem because it would further that agenda.

When I was doing research on this topic, I learned that when I was five years old, the federal government, in the House of Commons, had a debate about airport privatization. Obviously I was too young to pay attention at the time. I was busy watching Hulk Hogan and Ultimate Warrior on television. I learned that it was a Liberal prime minister, the Right Hon. Jean Chrétien, who put an end to the airport privatization deal for Pearson airport at that time. There was a lot of back and forth, and in the record, we can see that ultimately, when he was elected prime minister of this country, Chrétien concluded that airport privatization does not serve the public's interest. I think he was completely correct.

It is interesting to see how much things have changed since then. We are now having this debate again with another Liberal government that is coming to a completely different conclusion from what Prime Minister Chrétien came to. In fact, the current Liberal Prime Minister has actually contracted help from big banks, such as CIBC and J.P. Morgan, to sell off four major Canadian airports, in Toronto, Montreal, Calgary and Vancouver.

I believe that the policy idea, the goal that the Prime Minister has set out, is bad news, not just for Canada's national interest but also for workers and for travellers. I am going to use my time to outline why I think that is such a concern and why Bill C-39 is of particular concern for how it would facilitate the selling off of our airports.

I will start with the national interest. Prime Minister Chrétien was correct to say that airport privatization does not serve the public's interest. The federal government is fundamentally altering the way that airports function in our country. Instead of treating airports as critical national infrastructure, which they are; instead of treating airports as necessary for our economy to function, which they are; and instead of treating airports as necessary for connecting people across our country, which they are, the government's current plan is to make airports a profit-seeking venture, a complete transformation from what airports are currently doing across this country today.

The International Air Transport Association has been clear in warning of the dangers of privatization, because of how it shifts the way that airports function. It has outlined in its studies of privatization across the world that it produces bad outcomes for a country's ability to preserve airports as critical national infrastructure. I would like to quote from some of its research. It states, “The primary focus of airports should be to support local and national prosperity as an economic catalyst.” However, the IATA goes on to say, “in private hands, shareholder returns take top priority.” That is the danger of the current Liberal Prime Minister's airport privatization agenda. By putting shareholder interests at the centre of how our airports operate, it is fundamentally changing the nature of how these very important economic, cultural and political institutions behave.

The IATA goes on to say, “When [airports] are privatised, the public entities...wash their hands about this infrastructure”. That means that the record in studies done around the world is that once privatization occurs, governments tend to stop caring about making investments themselves and preserving the integrity of the infrastructure. They stop taking responsibility for making sure that maintenance is good or that the public interest is being served.

In the context of what is happening in Canada right now, multiple organizations have warned of what the government's agenda is going to do to airports in this country. The Air Line Pilots Association of Canada has echoed warnings of the dangers of airport privatization, warning that the federal government's privatization agenda opens up the country's largest airports to foreign private investment that poses significant risks not only to the independence of the country but also to the operation of the facilities, including safety risks.

The reason the Air Line Pilots Association raised that point is that it shares what Prime Minister Chrétien said, which is that airports have a duty to serve the good, and they will no longer do that if shareholder interests take primacy. The association also said, “Canada's airports are important national assets, and the government must ensure they continue to prioritize the public interest, safety, and the needs of Canadians—not the interests of private investors and shareholders.”

The reason that all of this is very important to keep in mind when we take a look at Bill C-39 is that it is a violation of the direction that the government set last year. In passing the Building Canada Act, the government set out a definition of what constitutes national interest for infrastructure projects. That definition included a very important line from the government's legislation, which said that it strengthens Canada's autonomy, resilience and sovereignty. It is very clear that airports are essential to that. With that context in mind, it makes absolutely zero sense to sell off our airports in this country, because that does not serve the national interest, even taking the government's own definition of that concept at face value.

Where does Bill C-39 come in to facilitate this? To advance the airport privatization agenda, the Liberal Prime Minister is exploiting the concept of national interest to change labour laws in our country. Through this legislation, the Prime Minister seeks to make it easier for airport privatization to move forward. Bill C-39 would hurt the collective bargaining power of airport workers, and the federal government would use this bill to ensure that private interests face lower labour resistance as they seek higher profit margins in their takeover of this industry.

The reality is this. We are in a scenario where the Liberals have a majority government. There is only so much that the opposition parties that occupy seats in this House are able to do, but one of the important lines of defence in ensuring that our airports do not become something we are not proud of is ensuring that unions are able to actively negotiate and fight for their own interests. This legislation would completely put them at a disadvantage. This legislation would, in fact, give the government the ability to railroad unions in its effort to hand over our airports to private interests. That should be of concern to all Canadians.

Unifor, which represents 17,000 unionized airport workers, has taken issue with some of the changes to labour law in this legislation. Specifically, Unifor has pointed to section 107, which would give the federal government, in particular the minister of labour, new powers to end labour disputes and force binding arbitration. Under section 107, the minister could direct the CIRB to end a strike or lockout, which would put unions at a disadvantaged position for negotiating and would limit their ability to hold private interests accountable.

The Air Line Pilots Association of Canada has also pointed out how its members would be affected by this type of privatization, citing potentially negative outcomes for “runway maintenance, de-icing capacity, staffing” and other safety measures. From a national interest standpoint and a worker standpoint, Bill C-39 would facilitate an agenda that threatens to bring harm and risk to our country.

Lastly, with the remainder of my time, I want to talk about travellers, the people who are worried about how expensive it is to fly anywhere in Canada right now. Members know how hard it is to travel across this country, especially with the affordability crisis the way it is.

The International Air Transport Association, academics across the country and the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission have all found constantly, over and over again in their studies, that privatization only makes air travel more expensive, not less expensive. In fact, in Australia, they have found that since privatization occurred there, travellers and airlines have paid $1.6 billion more to travel around their country than they would have if privatization had not occurred.

For the good of our country and the good of people who are trying to see their families, we should oppose this agenda.

Building Canada Strong ActGovernment Orders

October 7th, 2026 / 8:35 p.m.

Winnipeg North Manitoba

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Madam Speaker, since the last federal election, which was about 18 months ago, Canadians have been genuinely concerned about Trump, trade and tariffs. They have been on the front burner virtually from day one, and Canada needs to be able to adjust as we build a team Canada approach that involves many different stakeholders, led by the Prime Minister.

The member opposite went down to the United States, and he had a meeting that upset a lot of Canadians. He told Canadians, as a mouthpiece, many would suggest, of President Trump, that we needed to stop having a “hissy fit”. I am wondering if the member would take this opportunity to provide clarity on that and apologize to Canadians for making that statement on behalf of President Trump.

Building Canada Strong ActGovernment Orders

October 7th, 2026 / 8:35 p.m.

Conservative

Jamil Jivani Conservative Bowmanville—Oshawa North, ON

Madam Speaker, it is shameful for the member opposite to suggest that I speak for anyone but my constituents. I have fought very hard for a better relationship between us and the United States at a time when I believe the governing party is exploiting bad relationships between the two countries for its own political benefit.

The conversation we are having today is a perfect example. I just spoke for 10 minutes about the Liberals' airport privatization agenda, and instead of responding to any of the legitimate concerns Canadians are noting, they want to draw attention to the United States. This is their political strategy in a nutshell: advance policies that under no other circumstances would have public support, but hope that if they fearmonger enough, they will get their agenda done. I am not falling for it.

Building Canada Strong ActGovernment Orders

October 7th, 2026 / 8:35 p.m.

Bloc

Maxime Blanchette-Joncas Bloc Rimouski—La Matapédia, QC

Madam Speaker, I want to say hello to the people of Rimouski-Neigette—Mitis—Matapédia—Les Basques, whom I represent with pride and dignity. There were some things I found interesting in my colleague's speech, particularly when it came to the privatization of ports and so on. Bill C‑39 seeks to do just that. The government even announced that it wants to privatize airports. That is certainly not in our national interest.

I would like my colleague to speak a bit more to the fact that the government is taking advantage of a crisis that should be temporary to implement measures that will be permanent and that will have harmful effects, particularly for the public interest.

Building Canada Strong ActGovernment Orders

October 7th, 2026 / 8:35 p.m.

Conservative

Jamil Jivani Conservative Bowmanville—Oshawa North, ON

Madam Speaker, what a fantastic question that was from my colleague. He precisely pointed out what is going on, which is that we are facing a temporary crisis and the government is using it to bring in permanent measures and changes to our country.

The airport privatization issue is a perfect example. We have had very little public discussion about this and very little conversation here in the House of Commons, yet we are seeing massive changes being done to our country under the guise of responding to the current crisis. We will deal with the consequences of these decisions for generations, and that is exactly why we have to be vocal and oppose them every chance we get, even when the Liberals point a finger at us and smear our good reputations.

Building Canada Strong ActGovernment Orders

October 7th, 2026 / 8:35 p.m.

Conservative

Dan Albas Conservative Okanagan Lake West—South Kelowna, BC

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for talking about how the government tries to distract from core issues.

The member spoke a lot about workers' rights and the fact that in Bill C-39, the government has proposed a number of changes that seem to be running roughshod over many workers' concerns. Under section 4.2 of the Department of Justice Act, the Minister of Justice is legally required to table a Charter of Rights and Freedoms statement for every single government bill. This means the Department of Justice should weigh in and tell Parliament and the Canadian people exactly what its legal opinion is of the measures that are in Bill C-39. We have not seen that published on the government's website. The special committee that is organizing very soon to study this legislation has not received it.

Does the member believe the government needs to start being transparent with Canadians as to what its plans are in regard to the Charter of Rights and fulfilling its responsibilities under the law to Parliament?

Building Canada Strong ActGovernment Orders

October 7th, 2026 / 8:40 p.m.

Conservative

Jamil Jivani Conservative Bowmanville—Oshawa North, ON

Madam Speaker, transparency is such a great word, and absolutely we need more transparency here. Unifor has raised concerns about how this bill would impact the constitutional rights of unionized workers. I would love to see the government produce an analysis of how this bill would affect the charter rights of Canadians.