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

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, what a great evening we are having.

I have a question in mind that we may not have addressed in our debates. We have indicated that we will be voting against the bill, but I think there is an important question to consider regarding Bill C‑39. Who benefits from this legislation? According to the bill's title, it aims to strengthen the economy. Does the bill achieve its objective? Who does it benefit?

I ask that because, this evening, I have heard some of my government colleagues talk to us about national interest and tell us that it is important to diversify our economy in the context of a tariff crisis. I would like to come back to this concept of national interest. I do not know whether my colleagues understand it very well, because it is a term that is generally used in international relations. I am drawing from my past life as a political science teacher. It is a term that is used in international relations and that is mostly based on the public interest.

Domestic policy involves the public interest. Foreign policy involves the national interest. Public interest usually refers to all specific interests in a nation. That is the public interest. An effective policy, such as a health or education policy, meets the needs of the entire population. It is not meant for a tiny segment of privileged people in a society. As a rule, when we talk about public interest, we always think in terms of a rational state that works in accordance with its interests.

The same goes for the national interest. When we talk about that, we are thinking of a state that wants to ensure its security, its economic development and its collective wealth. Ultimately, when we talk about the national interest, we are talking about a government that is trying to act in the best interest of its people. That is what makes me laugh, because I wonder whether the government's nation-building projects are really in the interest the people of Canada and Quebec. I am not so sure.

Let us ask ourselves a few questions. Take the Pacific link pipeline project, for instance. Is this a project of national interest aimed at the well-being or economic development of the people of Quebec? I am not so sure. Let us ask ourselves two or three fairly simple questions. If Pacific link is built, it will cost $43 billion in public funds. That is a huge amount. We also have to factor in that $36 billion has already been put into another pipeline. Let us think about that. It is a massive use of public money to feed the greedy oil and gas industry. If I were one of my Liberal colleagues, the first question I would ask myself is where these energy exports are going.

If we look at this more closely, in 2024, we exported $197 billion in energy. Of that $197 billion, $147 billion came from oil alone. Roughly speaking, Canada exports between 75% and 80% of its energy to the United States each year in all forms: gas, oil and electricity. However, when we look at oil exports alone, 91% of all oil exports in 2025 went directly to the U.S.

I do not understand the magical thinking that somehow by just building pipeline infrastructure, we are going to export more oil to Europe. There was even talk of Asia earlier. Certain members said that this evening. I heard the member for Halifax and the member for Guelph answering questions and saying that we are going to export more oil. I do not know how they are in a position to say that, but the president of the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers appeared before the Standing Committee on Natural Resources this week and said that, no, our main market will always be the U.S.

The Minister of Artificial Intelligence and Digital Innovation said the same thing earlier. He said that if we export more oil, we will be able to sell it at a higher price because, right now, we are selling it at a discount to the Americans. No one supports that. Even the deputy minister of international trade, whom I saw this week, cannot say whether the government has a target.

Does the government have a target? Does it want to reduce oil exports from 91% to 40% or 50% by diversifying our markets? No one in the government can tell us whether there is a target.

Therefore, when I ask myself where our energy exports go, the answer is without question the United States. Furthermore, when it comes to oil, 91% of our exports go to the U.S.

Why build a pipeline? Why undermine certain environmental regulations, as we see in section 3, to ensure the Americans' energy security? How is it in Canada's national interest to ensure the Americans' energy security? I find this completely outrageous.

Next, we can ask ourselves another question: Who owns the oil companies?

When we look at the ownership structure of all the major players in the Canadian oil and gas industry, we see that, while 80% of these major companies are owned by foreign interests, 60% of them belong to American interests, so the major oil and gas companies are mostly American-owned. I would remind members that oil is one of the only consumer goods that we export that is not subject to tariffs. There are no tariffs on oil. Ninety per cent of Canada's oil exports are sent to the United States tariff-free, and the owners of the major oil and gas companies are American.

From 2021 to 2024, these people made $131 billion in profits. That means that they sent $80 billion in dividends outside Canada. That is a capital flight of $12.5 billion a year that leaves Canada and mainly goes to the United States.

We asked ourselves two very simple questions. Where are our oil exports going? Who owns the oil companies?

In both cases, I have yet to find anyone here who was able to show me that it is in Canada's national interest to put $44 billion into a pipeline. We are certainly not the ones who will benefit from it. We are helping to keep the Americans energy secure and helping them make more profits, and it is Quebeckers and Canadians who are paying for that.

I was saying that dividend profits totalled $80 billion from 2021 to 2024. The latest figures are even worse. This past summer, in July, Cenovus said it was going to post record profits in the second quarter. We are in the second quarter now. It made $2.8 billion. That is four times more than it managed to earn in 2025.

When I look at this, I really do not see how anyone can argue that this legislation will strengthen the Canadian economy, when it is actually about undermining environmental laws to give Americans greater energy security and provide American companies with more revenue, even though those greedy companies have made record profits in recent years.

Worse still, what is even more shocking is that the major unions that came to see us at the Standing Committee on Natural Resources told us that the increase in oil production does not come with an increase in jobs. The government often says that the oil sector is important because it supports so many jobs. The unions tell us that this does not translate into more jobs, because companies are investing in automation. They do not want to invest in their infrastructure. It is sheer idiocy. The government is destroying the environment so that, during a tariff crisis, American companies can rake in more profits on oil while ensuring American energy security.

Can any Liberal member explain the logic to me? I would appreciate that. Otherwise, I would ask them to forever hold their peace. There we go.

[Bienvenu-Olivier Ntumba, Liberal, Mont-Saint-Bruno—L’Acadie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague gave a fine speech about the opinion of his political party.

Can he explain to me how he would do a better job defending the benefits of this bill? This bill does not remove standards. Instead, it sets out guidelines to fast-track the implementation of projects so that Canada can be the master in its own house.

My colleague argued at length about his opposition to the pipeline, while Canada is diversifying its markets so that it is no longer dependent on a single market, the American market. Why would he not want to support this bill?

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would encourage my colleague to do a bit of research and take a look at the information that is out there. Where do our energy exports go? Who owns the gas and oil companies?

I always find it amusing when Liberal colleagues talk about being masters in our own house. This has nothing to do with that. When Quebec decided to buy hydroelectric power to secure its future, that is when we became masters in our own house.

The government is not buying our oil resources; it is leaving them in American hands and paying for the infrastructure. To me, that is being subservient in our own house, not being masters.

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

Mr. Speaker, my Bloc Québécois colleague made an excellent point in closing. We are not masters in our own house because, as he said, U.S. companies own the oil sector. The market is in the U.S. The latest spring economic statement indicated that 90% of our fossil fuel exports go to the United States. We have no market diversification.

Why does he suppose the Liberals are unaware of this reality, of our role? We are not owners; we are serving U.S. companies.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I cannot fathom why. I cannot understand why the Prime Minister, who is supposedly a genius when it comes to international trade, fails to grasp the fact that we do not collectively own oil resources; we exploit them primarily for the benefit and profit of Americans.

I do not understand why the government is putting all our eggs in the oil sector basket at a time when our relationship with the Americans is in crisis. As I said off the top, the national interest demands that we be aware of our own interests. Liberal Party members are clearly unaware of their interests. In that sense, they have the mindset of a colonized people.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I think my colleague did a thorough job of showing that this proposed pipeline will not benefit us and is not in the national interest.

Is it also in the national interest to fight with unions and violate their rights when businesses depend on workers? How is it in the national interest to alienate workers?

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is absolutely right. At the beginning of my speech, I asked who will benefit from this legislation. It is certainly not the workers.

Worse still, as I have said, we experienced first-hand what happens when an oil and gas project is turned down. That is what happened in Quebec with GNL Québec. When the Bureau d'audiences publiques sur l'environnement said no to GNL Québec, the company turned around and sued the Canadian government. It is not hard to imagine how much trouble a piece of legislation like this could lead to.

Imagine how many lawsuits will be filed against the federal government if the Pacific link project is rejected on environmental grounds. This is all completely irrational.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise tonight to speak to Bill C-39, the building Canada strong act.

This debate is about what kind of Canada we want to build and about government priorities. We all agree that Canada needs to build. We need housing. We need clean energy. We need transmission lines. We need public infrastructure. We need good union jobs, and we need to plug economic leakages. We need to diversify our economy and stand up to the economic threats coming from Donald Trump, but we do not want to stand up to Donald Trump by using Donald Trump's policies. A bill like Bill C-5 would not even have come forward from Stephen Harper.

Someone from the Conservative bench said earlier that this is like using a bulldozer and a sledgehammer. Bill C-39 is asking Canadians to accept an enormous transfer of power in the name of speed: more power over workers, more discretion over environmental protections and accelerated timelines for decisions affecting indigenous rights. My colleague from Vancouver East said that beneath this bill “are serious questions about who gets power, who gets certainty and who bears the risk.” We are going to talk about that.

Let us start with the workers. The Canadian Labour Congress commissioned a comparative legal analysis that found Bill C-39 would give the federal government “broader unilateral power to end a legal strike than exists in any other G7 country.” Think about that. Even in the United States, the president cannot simply end a national emergency strike and oppose a permanent binding settlement, as the Liberals are proposing here today. There are legal thresholds, court involvement and limits on intervention that would stop this from happening, yet the government wants to give a Canadian minister, any minister, extraordinary power when a strike is deemed to adversely affect what they deem is in the national interest.

A strike is supposed to create economic pressure. That is the point. Workers do not have the power of a multinational corporation. Their power comes from standing together when necessary and, if needed, withholding their own labour. If the government can intervene whenever that pressure becomes too effective, employers have less incentive to bargain fairly.

We have heard from the CLC, CUPE, Unifor, the United Steelworkers and other labour organizations that have raised serious concerns about these changes. Instead of dismissing those concerns, the government needs to listen to the people who actually represent those workers. It needs to listen to those labour unions. The Liberals keep saying that they are friends of labour. Why are they not listening to them?

The same principle needs to apply to our environment. Environmental assessment is not red tape. Asking what happens to our water, our climate, endangered species and human health before approving a project is basic due diligence. A one-year deadline does not make nature move faster. It is not acceptable to first nations. We cannot undo extinction. We cannot simply restore contaminated water or destroyed habitat after the fact. Environmental organizations have specifically warned that the provisions in Bill C-39 could weaken protections for species at risk, including the critically endangered southern resident killer whale, which my friend from Saanich—Gulf Islands has raised repeatedly.

Indigenous rights cannot simply be squeezed into a government project management schedule. Meaningful consultation requires time, resources and genuine participation before decisions are made. Is it the government that is going to decide when a consultation is complete? Is that how it is going to work moving forward?

We want to build Canada, but let us build Canada where workers have the power at the bargaining table, where indigenous rights are respected, where environmental protection is part of the national interest and where communities do not carry the risk while corporations collect the rewards. Building Canada strong cannot simply mean building Canada faster. It must mean building Canada better, building Canada fairer and building Canada together.

My riding, Courtenay—Alberni, is about a 10-hour trip door to door. My riding is 7,900 square kilometres and represents 34 communities. There are 184 elected officials in my riding, and we are tired. We feel like we are not being heard. It is crazy that I am going to refer to Brian Lilley, but he highlighted that Alberta has 5.1 million people, and it has six senators. We know that they need to be heard. That is clear.

I come from Vancouver Island. We know that we are better off and stronger together. Absolutely, separation is not something we talk about, but on the other side of the Rockies, we know it is harder to be heard, and on Vancouver Island, I can tell this House what it is like. We have not had a Senate appointment since 1970. Brian Lilley highlighted that Alberta has six senators and Atlantic Canada has 30. We have not had a single Senate appointment since 1970. What does that mean? It means we do not have a Senate seat on the fisheries committee at the Senate. Why is that important? I am going to talk a bit about that.

I am talking about building Canada strong. Building Canada strong includes rural communities. Wealth starts in rural communities, but it leaves rural communities. That is what we are used to. When Liberals talk about regions of national interest, why are they not talking to regions and making us part of the national interest?

They promised to fix our fisheries. On the east coast, they fish it or they lose their quota. They do not have foreign ownership of their quota. They do not allow it. We also know who owns their quota. On the west coast, there is no public registry, we allow foreign ownership, and we allow concentration of licences.

A lot of my friends in rural Canada, a lot of people in my riding in coastal British Columbia, go out fishing. They lease from people we call “slipper skippers” who represent the corporate interest that owns the quota. We do not even know who they are. A lot of them could be from Russia or China, could be our adversaries or organized crime. It is unbelievable that this is allowed. In 2018, a study at the fisheries and oceans committee unanimously supported changing it so we could come up with an independent fishery model that reflected the east coast. Nothing has changed. For decades, we have seen this happen.

I am going to quote Dan Edwards, who wrote this week in his Substack, “The value of that asset can rise while the security of the person doing the fishing declines.” That is exactly what is happening. Another thing he said was, “Government policy helped produce those losses. Government has a responsibility to help repair them.” What happened to fast-tracking in dealing with that issue?

When they want to talk about building Canada stronger, what about us on Vancouver Island? Here is what I hear from first nations when they hear about fast-tracking projects: What about fast-tracking their treaties? What about fast-tracking their agreements? How come the government is not prioritizing that? Is that not nation building?

We have 65,000 homeless people in this country, including in my riding. It would cost $14 billion to house them. The Liberals can find $45 billion for a pipeline that increases our GDP by 0.6%, but when we look at the impact on people who are homeless, it is much greater than that. The Mental Health Commission did a study and said unaddressed mental health is costing us 5% to 6% of our GDP, $200 billion a year.

The PBO also did a study and said it would cost $4.9 billion to ensure we had parity with mental and physical health, that we could make mental health an insured benefit, based on my bill, under the mental health parity act, but the government chose not to do that. These are economic leakages and economic opportunities, but they impact every home, every community, including in my riding.

We can talk about ferries. Colleagues have heard me talk about this repeatedly. Right now, the east coast gets $182.5 million for operating its ferries. We get $38 million in B.C., despite the fact that we move 22 million passengers and the east coast moves 365,000. Let us go back to Confederation. When we joined Confederation, Vancouver Island had 15,000 people, while P.E.I. had 97,000 people. Today, Vancouver Island has more people than Newfoundland and P.E.I. We get six dollars per capita for ferry operating costs; they get $125. If the government wants to build back stronger, it needs to include the rest of Canada and make sure we have fairness and equity. That is all we are asking for.

When it comes to shipbuilding, ship recycling and ship repair, we can build back better. We can look to Norway, where they take small communities, places like Port Alberni, underused deep-sea ports, and make them shipbuilding, ship repair and ship recycling facilities. We could lead the world since we have the longest coastline in the world.

We are tired of being ignored. If we want to build back stronger, we need to make sure that places like Vancouver Island are included in building back stronger, that the government actually takes the time to listen to us, that we have proper representation from Vancouver Island that reflects that, and that we get acknowledged and not dismissed when we bring forward ideas of unfairness and inequities or when we feel that the government is not acting on the things it has promised to do for too long.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his passionate speech.

I have a question for him, but I also want to add to what he said at the end of his speech. He mentioned Norway, which I had the opportunity to visit this year. As we know, Norway is one of six countries in the world that has no debt and that is developing its resources in order to shift toward electrification, for example. In fact, 100% of the cars sold last year were electric. Norway is a good example in many ways. It develops its resources and sells them abroad.

I sit on the Standing Committee on International Trade, where the word that comes up the most often is “predictability”. That is what Bill C‑39 provides. If my colleague is not in favour of Bill C‑39, what other ideas does he have for speeding up projects, providing predictability for businesses, encouraging investment and ensuring that projects in Canada move forward, as is the case in Norway?

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

Mr. Speaker, I really appreciate my colleague talking about Norway, because Norway, as my colleague knows, also has a sovereign wealth fund. They have taken a portion of finite resources from their oil and gas industry, and they have created a fund that is $1.7 trillion right now. In terms of royalties alone, they earn over $200 billion a year off those royalties. They have taken leadership on EVs. What did the Liberals do? They rolled back their commitment on the EV mandate.

They created a sovereign wealth fund, but they did not fund it with an excess profit tax or by taking royalties from oil and gas. They are letting them have a free ride. I keep bringing it up in the House. We have this generational opportunity right now. Oil and gas are posting record profits. Carve off some of those profits, invest in future generations and invest in projects for the future, like clean energy and like a transmission line. Instead, they are just letting it flow to CEOs and their investors. That is exactly what this bill is like.

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

Mr. Speaker, it feels like quality time with other British Columbians tonight because I get to ask the hon. member for Courtenay—Alberni a question. I know that the NDP members, as well as many labour unions, have raised issues with Bill C-39 when it comes to workers' rights. The government likes to claim that it is the party of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Liberals constantly talk about how they respect the charter. They could start by respecting the charter and by respecting this place, because under subsection 4.2(1) of the Department of Justice Act, the Minister of Justice is legally required to table a charter statement for every single government bill. That means that the Department of Justice would give its legal opinion on the constitutionality vis à vis the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, section 2(d).

Does he believe that the committee that will be studying this should have that document before its study begins?

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

Mr. Speaker, I do appreciate working with my colleague as a fellow British Columbian. He is absolutely right. Not only are they fast-tracking the bill, they are trying to fast-track everything: fast-tracking rights, fast-tracking the duties and responsibilities of this place, and fast-tracking over environmental organizations, over local communities and over first nations. Again, Stephen Harper would not even think of bringing forward legislation like this and moving at this speed. The streets would be full.

This is unacceptable. It is time for the government to take a step back, listen to labour, listen to environmental organizations, listen to first nations, and make sure it is listening to government lawyers and doing what is responsible and what we have done traditionally in this place.

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

Mr. Speaker, I commend my colleague from Courtenay—Alberni for his speech.

It is clear that the government wants to move quickly, but it is also doing things that run counter to workers' rights. For example, the proposed amendments to section 107 of the Canada Labour Code could potentially prevent the use of strikes and job action.

Quebec was an innovator. It successfully enacted anti-scab legislation. We have been waiting for years for this to happen at the federal level.

I would like my colleague to explain why he is concerned about the proposed amendments to section 107 and the right of workers to use job action in a dispute with the employer.

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague asks excellent questions in here. I will highlight this, that when we talk about section 107, we were actually pushing the government to get rid of it so that it stopped overriding the rights of workers. Instead, what are the Liberals doing? They are making it even worse. I completely agree with my colleague. The government needs to sit down with labour. It is ignoring their requests, completely ignoring them. It is ignoring so many other stakeholders when it comes to the legislation. It is fast-tracking and ramming this through. It is like Bill C-5 repeating itself.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise again this evening to speak to Bill C‑39, which, I would remind the House, represents a crushing setback for workers' rights, the environment and democracy. In short, it weakens workers' rights, limits the right to strike and represents a major step backwards, as I said, for workers' rights. It pre-approves projects by turning the environmental assessment process for pipelines and nuclear power into a mere afterthought. It centralizes more powers in the hands of the executive branch, that is, ministers, while diminishing the role of Parliament. In addition, regardless of what some people might say, this is a mammoth bill, a nearly 250-page omnibus bill that further weakens democracy.

It feels like the Liberals are using the tariff crisis to pursue an agenda that sets society back significantly. When it comes to the environment, it is clear that these are setbacks that we will never be able to undo. However, the Bloc Québécois is resilient, and we will continue to fight for workers' rights and ensure we can leave behind a healthy environment for future generations.

I will speak more specifically about the setbacks to workers' rights, then the environmental setbacks and, lastly, the democratic setbacks.

First, I want to talk about the issue of workers' rights, as a number of trade unions have expressed concerns. Last week, I received a letter of objection by email from the Seafarers' International Union of Canada. Just yesterday, I met with representatives from the Progressive Contractors Association of Canada, the United Steelworkers and the Canadian Labour Congress, who are deeply concerned about workers' rights. Today, I received confirmation that members of the Centrale des syndicats du Québec are concerned and are therefore keen to participate in the work on Bill C-39.

The Liberals deny it, but a red line has been crossed regarding workers' rights to strike and to collective bargaining. There is, in fact, a consensus among the country's trade unions that this is an affront to workers' rights. If the amendments set out in part 3 of Bill C-39 are implemented, the proposed section 107 of the Canada Labour Code would allow the minister to consider potential economic or even social impacts when deciding whether to intervene under a vague and unrestricted criterion known as the “national interest”. This is an entirely subjective criterion. It is worth noting that, under this bill, we would be the only G7 country in which the executive branch could bring an end to the entirely legal right to strike.

For example, according to the proposed section 107 set out in Bill C-39, the same general power to encourage understanding and conflict resolution is there, but it is framed by the new subsection 107(2) for ending a work stoppage.

It gives the minister the express power to make an order providing for the resumption or continuation of operations, extending the term of the collective agreement, or imposing a binding method of resolving the issues in dispute. As a trigger, yes, a legal strike or lockout in progress requires a special mediator's report to be considered, but only the minister's opinion of the national interest counts. The problem is that the concept of the national interest has not been defined, and certain factors are not exhaustive. There is still no prior vote, but the administrative route is now explicitly codified. Concerning any potential disputes, the text would provide an express statutory basis that could undermine challenges that are based on the current interpretation. In short, this weakens the right to settlement, and the mediator is not independent, because they are appointed by the minister.

The unions have a few questions. They want to know where the balance of power is in Bill C-39 because, no, it does not contribute to social peace and economic security. Unlike in other countries, there is no longer any accountability to the House of Commons or to elected officials. The United States was even cited as an example, where Congress has a say in a strike. Basically, the bill does not abolish section 107, but it does sharpen the government's weapon.

The Minister of Jobs, the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and all the Liberal members keep saying that the bill does not weaken the right to strike, but that is not true. Nothing could be further from the truth. The unions are confirming that the opposite is true and maintain that, no, there are no safeguards.

I would also like to return to one provision regarding section 107, which is the worst attack on the right to strike and to bargain collectively. It is one of the most serious attempts to roll back decades of labour struggles in this country's history. The right to strike is a fundamental right that is recognized by the courts and protected by freedom of association. The Bloc Québécois believes that this right must never depend on the political goodwill of a federal government. In May, I spoke about Bill C‑247, which would repeal section 107 of the Canada Labour Code. We thought that bill was interesting. I would like to quote a few of the things we said about it. We said that section 107 “gives the Minister of Labour extremely broad powers to intervene in labour disputes in the federal jurisdiction. The minister can go so far as to ask the Canada Industrial Relations Board to intervene or impose any measures the minister considers necessary”.

We also said that “the existence of section 107 directly alters the balance of power between employers and workers. It encourages employers to stick to their guns rather than bargaining in good faith. The Bloc Québécois believes that disputes should be resolved at the bargaining table first, not in ministerial offices”. That is what we said about the bill in May. We did not want premature political intervention.

We also said that, since 2024 alone, “Ottawa has used section 107 to intervene in at least seven major labour disputes.” I will give some recent examples: WestJet, Canadian National, Canadian Pacific Kansas City, Air Canada, the Port of Montreal, the Port of Québec, the Port of Vancouver and Canada Post. What was supposed to be an exceptional power has effectively become a standard tool for managing labour disputes. More than 55,000 workers were affected by the dispute at Canada Post.

Lastly, we said that “when a government limits a fundamental right, it should always do so openly, in front of Parliament. For a long time, when a government wanted to end a strike, it had to introduce special back-to-work legislation. This entailed a public debate, a vote by elected officials and political accountability. Section 107 circumvents this debate, this democratic process, by employing a much more low-key administrative mechanism.” A right that cannot be exercised is not a right.

Let us get back to Bill C‑39. We said, “If the bill remains unchanged, it will harm non-unionized workers. Compromises between employers and unions establish acceptable norms and standards across many economic sectors. Stifling the unions' right to strike is tantamount to stifling negotiated agreements and reasonable compromises”. In short, it is more of the same. All the government is doing is releasing the minister from his responsibilities.

My time is running out, but I could go on for a while. I want to touch on the fact that this bill is a brutal setback for the environment. Greenpeace is even accusing the Liberal government of bulldozing nature.

Last week, I attended the general meeting of Appalachian Corridor, an organization with many environmental concerns. This group needs renewed funding for land protection organizations, not a law that could lead to long-term ecological damage, higher rehabilitation costs or literally impossible repairs, and irreparable damage to our land. The government needs to stop greenwashing. If the mandatory deadline for environmental assessments is shortened to one year, it will not be possible to guarantee the quality and scientific integrity of the assessments. This is a disaster for the environment.

This bill is a setback for democracy. In a liberal democracy under the rule of law, laws passed by Parliament and elected officials are essential, particularly for determining what the national interest is. In Canada, laws will now be made to be suspended and circumvented. As my colleague asked earlier, what is the national interest? We get the impression that this has become more of a personal interest for the Prime Minister. With Bill C-39, as with Bill C-5, the laws passed by Parliament over the past decades will no longer apply equally to everyone. While some development projects may continue to be subject to formal environmental assessments conducted by the Impact Assessment Agency in accordance with the Impact Assessment Act, others, such as oil, gas, or nuclear projects, will be exempt from these assessments.

In conclusion, I would like those affected by the bill to have a say. Several environmental groups feel that the government has not taken their comments into account. For example, the Centre québécois du droit de l'environnement is calling for Bill C-39 to be scrapped entirely.

Here are a few questions that organizations are asking. Will the one-year environmental assessments examine the impact these projects will have on greenhouse gas emissions? Will they really address climate change? I doubt it.

The west coast oil pipeline could affect over 100 indigenous communities. Fourteen indigenous communities, the Centre québécois du droit de l'environnement and several unions are challenging the legislation in court because they believe that the government is infringing on the right to strike.

I would like to say one last thing about democracy. The Canadian Civil Liberties Association has criticized the Liberals for stripping my colleague from Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères' amendment out of Bill C-39 to get rid of the five-year sunset clause on the minister's powers.

This is starting to be a bit much. The alternative facts, disinformation and misinformation have got to stop.