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

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Minister of Transport and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

moved that Bill C-39, An Act respecting certain measures to strengthen the economy, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to rise in the House today to speak to this important bill, the most important piece of economic legislation in decades.

Canada's prosperity has always depended on our ability to transport goods over long distances. It is in our DNA, an inherent part of who we are, because of the very nature of our geography.

Today, our ability to move goods at the speed and scale necessary for prosperity is being tested. Global supply chains are shifting. Competition is intensifying. Long-standing trade relationships can, unfortunately, no longer be taken for granted. For Canada, that means something fundamental. As an open economy, we must respond. We must become more resilient, more diversified, more globally competitive and more capable of standing on our own.

We must respond by strengthening our economic sovereignty, while continuing to be a strong and reliable partner to countries around the world. In this new environment, the old ways of thinking, the old ways of doing business and the old ways of looking at the world are no longer enough. They are not fast enough, big enough, resilient enough or reliable enough. In fact, they must be reimagined sometimes in their entirety.

As Canadians, we must take control of our own destiny and build the capacity to stand on our own, while strengthening the partnerships that matter most. We succeed as a country, one and all, today and tomorrow, by building the supply chains of the future. Ports; railways; roads; airports; trade corridors; the way we work, make decisions and process our information; and the speed at which we build will all have to change.

Over the past year, I have had the opportunity to travel across our country and speak with Canadians from coast to coast to coast. I have also met with chambers of commerce, councils and businesses. I have spoken with workers at length about the challenges we are facing. We came up with some proposals together, and, most importantly, I took the time to listen carefully to what people across Canada had to say.

Earlier this year, Transport Canada released two discussion papers that outlined proposals, and we listened once again. Bill C‑39 is the result of all that work, a whole-of-government effort involving numerous discussion papers across various departments.

This bill is one of the most important economic pieces of legislation in a generation. It is the result of a number of departments coming together, and it explains exactly how we are going to turn those advantages into opportunities.

Let us get into the specifics of the bill. I would like to begin with what we call trade corridors. We are an export nation. Canada's transportation system is the backbone of our export nation, enabling the safe, secure and efficient movement of goods. It gets key products onto shelves at home and abroad and others to ports for overseas shipping, and it directly impacts affordability for Canadians.

Over the past few years, our government has worked hard to improve that infrastructure. Through the national trade corridors fund, we have invested more than $4 billion in over 200 projects across the country. Our goal in doing all of this has been simple: to scale up and improve capacity so that there is less waiting, smoother flow and faster results. This important work has continued with the trade diversification corridors fund and the Arctic infrastructure fund, as well as the new Canada strong fund, which will be used to make commercial equity investments in major nation-building Canadian projects and companies, alongside private sector investors.

With Bill C-39, we are going further, with the ability to designate specific geographic areas or important routes as national trade corridors and then set clear performance goals. The overall goal would shift from increasing capacity to improving efficiency and reliability. In other words, we would be helping different parts of the system, such as ports, railways, airports, trucking and warehouses, work together better and then track how well things are running. A national corridor council would also be created to find problem areas that cause delays and suggest ways to improve the system, improve efficiency and help different players make more coordinated decisions.

Overall, these changes would move goods faster from where they are made to ports, reduce delays at these busy points and make shipping more reliable for exporters. That reliability is about more than efficiency. It is about giving Canadian businesses options.

Last year, the Prime Minister set an ambitious goal for Canada to double its non-U.S. exports within a decade. That goal has inspired this piece of legislation. It is no small feat, but it is absolutely necessary if we are to make our economy more resilient and less vulnerable to the risks that come with relying too much on a single market or country.

Canada has what the world is looking for. While that is true, we also need to take action. We need to make our country so accessible and predictable that other countries want to expand their trade with us.

That means that trade hubs, especially ports, must operate at the speed of business. They need to be able to make decisions and raise capital more flexibly. They need to work together better, move goods faster and track them better to reduce bottlenecks and cut costs, making Canada a much more attractive economic partner.

Here is how we are going to do that. The proposed legislative amendments would strengthen the governance of port authorities by requiring regular assessments and third-party assessments that would be submitted to the minister. Other provisions would require regular updates to land use plans and business plans and would modernize the way fees are fixed for ports owned and operated by Transport Canada. Ports would benefit from greater financial flexibility and new revenue-generating opportunities.

This would, of course, be accompanied by increased oversight and the creation of a regulatory authority that could require operators to provide data so that we can more accurately gauge the performance of our supply chains.

However, it is not enough for one port or port authority to act alone. These changes must be coordinated, and port authorities must strengthen their collaboration along trade corridors to scale Canada's trade gateways up enough to compete internationally and to strengthen our domestic supply chains.

I want to be very clear. Canada is not privatizing its ports. Canada owns the land. Our port authorities are independent, self-funded bodies that have been given the responsibility for managing these lands on behalf of the Government of Canada. They basically act as landlords who then lease plots of land to private terminal operators. These operators build and operate the essential infrastructure on which our Canadian farmers, producers and manufacturers depend.

What this bill does is increase the flexibility that our port authorities have to pursue new trade opportunities and to adapt to the changing landscape of international trade. Our ports must be agile, reliable and efficient. They must have the resources they need to meet our goal of doubling our trade with partners other than the United States over the next 10 years.

We are therefore proposing to establish a national trade corridors council, which will be responsible for consulting with indigenous peoples, provinces, territories, municipalities and other stakeholders and for making recommendations to strengthen collaboration among ports within each designated trade corridor.

Roughly 80% of Canada's trade by volume with countries other than the U.S. moves by sea. This measure would help ports expand, plan for the long term and meet growing global demand.

We also want to talk about regulatory certainty and red tape reduction. A clear and simple regulatory system will bring a consistent foundation to support businesses to invest, grow and stay competitive while keeping strong safety and environmental standards.

This bill proposes legislative changes to improve efficiency, cut time-consuming administrative burdens, reduce costs to businesses and support a more competitive transportation system. The proposed changes would simplify rules and approvals while maintaining Canada's world-leading standards. For example, we would remove many duplicate reviews where other processes already apply. We call it a “one project, one review” approach, with a streamlined process, parallel assessments and clearer timelines.

We would also align more quickly with international standards, speed up approvals for lower-risk projects, reduce some unnecessary reporting requirements and provide flexibility during emergencies.

Finally, to complement efforts being led by the Major Projects Office, Transport Canada would establish a transportation project office within the department to strengthen federal permitting, coordination and Crown consultation for some transportation projects.

Taken together, these measures aim to support competitive and resilient supply chains, improve system flexibility and help move key goods more efficiently at a reduced cost to businesses and Canadians.

Next, I want to address our plan to improve the digitization of trade. This is one of the greatest opportunities available to us. Many Canadian exporters still rely on paper-based systems, which is slowing the movement of goods and increasing costs. Customs forms, bills of lading and certificates of origin are often processed sequentially by several different authorities. That is an outdated way of doing things.

In some cases, red tape can add days to the customs clearance process. Meanwhile, our competitors, including Singapore, Japan, South Korea, the Netherlands and New Zealand, have embraced the future and already have end-to-end digitized trade systems. A 2025 report by Access Partnership estimates that paperless trade in Canada could reduce trade costs for businesses by up to 4.2%. Documents are sent just once and are passed along simultaneously. Goods clear customs in a matter of hours, rather than days.

The bill would change that. Its measures would support trade digitization. In many cases, this would enable companies to provide information only once and share it securely across multiple federal departments and agencies, in accordance with the “tell us once” principle. The legislation would also clarify the legal validity of transferable electronic documents, such as bills of lading, to encourage their use in international trade processes.

These digitized trade processes would allow goods to move faster, providing businesses with greater predictability and strengthening Canada's competitiveness and reputation. The shift to digital would reduce documentation errors and administrative delays while promoting more efficient supply chain management. Crucially, this kind of efficiency could help unlock up to $100 billion in economic potential.

Perhaps nowhere is that potential more evident than in the Major Projects Office, which must accelerate and streamline the federal approval process for high-priority infrastructure projects and nation-building projects. By creating a single entry point for all these projects, we would reduce the timeline for federal review and decision-making to no more than one year. Other changes would allow us to have a single project authority and a single project decision. The associated regulatory environment would become streamlined and efficient.

I have already pointed out that transportation and our supply chains are the backbone of our country's economy, but without a stable and skilled workforce, supply chains cannot function. Dozens of work stoppages in recent years, including major rail shutdowns, have shown how quickly instability can ripple across the economy. That affects workers, that affects businesses and that affects Canada's reputation as a reliable trading partner. When these shutdowns occur, hundreds of thousands of unionized jobs in manufacturing locations, in factories, in coal mines and in energy projects are all put at risk as well. That is why we would strengthen labour stability to keep supply chains moving, with well-paid workers with solid collective agreements.

Practical solutions within this bill would offer things like better dispute resolution, improved labour mobility, skills training and workforce development. We need long-term solutions for recruitment, retention and resilience, because building and operating modern supply chains require people with world-leading skills, like Canadians have, and require those people to be deployed in the right places. We need to be building that workforce now.

I reject the criticism that this bill would not contribute to stability in our supply chains. This government is investing and putting in place measures to support workers, to support employers and to reach agreements where they are best reached, which is at the table. We will continue to invest in processes and regulations that allow getting collective agreements and getting the people we need. The best people in the world work in our national supply chains in many of Canada's leading labour unions, and we should help them stay on the job. They want to be on the job, and they are proud to do the jobs that they do.

The changes we are proposing will help establish a more modern and responsive transportation network that can withstand economic pressures, improve the performance of our trade corridors and unlock new capabilities.

As the Prime Minister said, the world will not go back to the way it was. The old order is not coming back. We need to respond, adapt and move forward.

As I was saying, we need to build the country and the systems that are behind the best country in the world, including supply chains. We need to build the supply chains and systems of the future. We need to build a Canada that is more connected to the world, more competitive, safer, less vulnerable to a single market and better able to stand on its own. We must act. We must act now as we move toward this new horizon.

In conclusion, this bill is an important piece of economic legislation. It gets at the very foundation of our economic system, which is our transportation networks, which is the way we deal with investment proposals and projects of all sizes, from one end of the country to the other. It streamlines processes but does not lower standards. It helps labour and employers reach collective agreements and does not look to labour conflict. It helps to make our transportation systems more efficient and more effective and to reduce costs for businesses, for exporters and, especially, for Canadians on the grocery shelves and everywhere.

I am so proud to recommend to this House Bill C-39, the building Canada strong act, and I look forward to the debate we will have in this chamber.

[Steven Bonk, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the government announced a supply chain office in 2023, with no results. Then last year we passed Bill C-5, which gave the Liberals extraordinary powers, with no results. Then they started a special projects office, but so far, there are no results. Now they want to build on more bureaucracy.

When will the government finally get something done? There are 500 projects in the wings waiting to be approved, and so far, the government has done nothing. We have had enough of announcements. When will the Liberals actually get to work for Canadians?

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this is a legislative body, and we intend to legislate. Let me challenge virtually everything the hon. member said. First of all, we will be reducing bureaucracy, not creating it. We will be streamlining processes, not expanding them. As for Bill C-5, a bill we are very proud of, it created the Major Projects Office, which today is actively examining 27 nation-building projects. The model and the success of the Major Projects Office need to be replicated across the Government of Canada.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette—Manawan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, does the minister agree that the Canada Energy Regulator is effectively run by the oil companies?

The lead commissioner is the former senior legal counsel at TC Energy, previously known as TransCanada Corporation, the owner of the TransCanada pipeline, which changed its name following the energy east fiasco. The deputy lead commissioner is a former executive at Royal Dutch Shell. Another commissioner is a former legal adviser to Pembina Pipeline Corporation and Shell Canada Limited. Another one comes from Imperial Oil and Canadian Oil Sands Limited. Then there is one from Cenovus Energy, an oil sands company.

Does my colleague agree that the Canada Energy Regulator is effectively run by oil companies and that Bill C-39 sidelines scientists and replaces them with lawyers from this industry?

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Canada Energy Regulator is a world leader in this area and has access to the best expertise and all the science. It operates independently.

We think that those responsible for regulating energy should regulate energy, nuclear should regulate nuclear, and so on. We want projects to be approved or rejected faster so that investors can feel confident, regardless of whether the project is happening in Quebec, in renewable energy, elsewhere in the country or in another sector.

We will take action, and we will do so quickly.

[Élisabeth Brière, Liberal, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the Minister of Transport for his speech on Bill C‑39. I would like to ask him the following question: What reassurance can the government offer to people who have concerns about the right to strike, and how can it explain to them that this bill actually aims to make it easier for unions and workers to reach agreements?

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Sherbrooke, who is also calling for a more secure future for local businesses and entrepreneurs in her riding.

Canadian workers have a constitutional right to strike. In that context, we have proposed measures, such as appointing a special mediator. This process is tailored to particularly challenging cases. We know that 95% of disputes are settled, but for the remaining 5%, we think there should be a special mediator to help both parties come to an agreement without—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

Questions and comments.

The hon. member for Edmonton Strathcona has the floor.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Labour Congress, Unifor, the United Steelworkers, Teamsters Canada and other unions representing millions of workers across this country have told the government very clearly that Bill C-39's new powers would undermine the fundamental right of workers to strike, to withhold their labour.

These organizations participated in the Liberals' sham consultations. They raised these concerns directly, and yet the government proceeded with legislation that would give the minister extraordinary new powers to intervene in a legal strike. Why did the minister ignore the warnings from Canada's labour movement, and will he commit to removing these new powers from Bill C-39?

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as my colleague well knows, we have in the Canada Labour Code today section 107, which is relatively unfettered. This bill would put in place specific guardrails that would govern its use, and only after special mediators and other processes designed to assist parties in particularly difficult labour–management relationships to actually reach a collective agreement. The government has no interest in getting involved in labour disputes. We want parties to solve disputes at the table, and this bill would put in place measures that would help them do that.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Ponoka—Didsbury, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague across the way mentioned in his speech that the Liberals have a major projects office that was going to approve projects within a year. That is 12 months. This place passed Bill C-5 15 months ago, and yet not a single project has been approved by that office.

How long does it take to figure out which companies benefit Brookfield, so that they can approve a few projects?

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the first thing I want to say to my hon. friend is, “Stay tuned.” There have been projects in the Canada Gazette. I would invite him to read the regular distribution of the Canada Gazette. There are 27 major nation-building projects under consideration by the Major Projects Office.

While I am on my feet, I want to thank Dawn Farrell and the entirety of the Major Projects Office, who have done heroic work in building our country over the past 12 months.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Transport mentioned wanting to use the available expertise to accelerate projects of national interest. Speaking of expertise, Canada's chief science adviser told the Standing Committee on Science and Research that she had never been consulted about projects of national interest.

It is funny. The minister is talking about expertise, but he is not consulting his own expert, who is paid with public money. Instead of trying to convince us that he is using available expertise, can he simply confirm that he uses it only when it suits his narrative?

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I can confirm that we are proud to have a chief science adviser, because we are always guided by science. It helps us define a science policy for the entire government. As for regulators and regulatory agencies, they obviously have access to the best expertise available in the fields of energy, nuclear power and transportation so they can carry out their respective independent roles.

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

Mr. Speaker, this bill is an abomination. I want to go back to Bill C-5 along with Bill C-39. All of the language in these statutes rests on the assumption that cabinet can pick a project of national interest or a region of national interest without any criteria and without any cost-benefit analysis or proof of a business case.

Will the minister commit that before naming any such project or any such region, we actually have some facts presented to this House?

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this bill, as Bill C-5 did, sets out a process that helps investors, project proponents, those who assess independently or otherwise each individual project, and applies the best possible scientific and other expertise, in addition, of course, to the duty to consult first nations, to the proposal that is before that regulator.

This process can go faster without having any standard lowered or any other Canadian standard or ability to evaluate diluted. We can make these projects get evaluated quicker: a yes or a no within a year.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, it is déjà vu all over again.

A year and a half ago, the Prime Minister came storming into the House of Commons with a cape on his back, saying that he had a new bill, Bill C-5, which was going to bring in sweeping legislative changes to build at speeds not seen in generations. The media declared that we would build the unimaginable with this bill. Here we are, 18 months later, and how many projects has it built?

[An hon. member]

Zero.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, did I hear “zero”? Is there any dispute on the other side? They are dead quiet on the other side. The answer is “zero”.

How many permits have been issued by the new office? Zero. How many employees are working on those projects? It is zero, zip, nada, nothing, after 18 months, but do not worry. Today the Liberals have come in and announced another sweeping bill, which the media has regurgitated unfiltered, as though it were gospel truth, and this time the Liberals are repeating exactly the same promises.

It is not just that the Liberals have approved and built nothing. There are 500 projects, at least, waiting on the Prime Minister's desk. I say 500, because the Impact Assessment Agency has that number of significant projects, but there are also countless other projects at other departments, which are too dispersed among too many agencies for anyone to tell us how many projects the federal government is waiting to approve. Still, 18 months later, none of them are approved. Not a single Trudeau-era, antidevelopment law or tax has been removed. Not a single inch of oil pipeline has been built.

Remember, the Prime Minister said that we are in an existential crisis. That is to say that if we do not get it right, we will not even exist in his terms, that we are in a “war”. Is this the speed of war? Imagine this: If we had travelled at this speed back in the Second World War, we would not have gotten the Lancaster built in two years. In fact, the plane would not be off the ground even today.

There have been dozens of announcements, summits, speeches, signing ceremonies and other illusions. We have heard lots about this project or that, which will be designated, declared or listed. Pipelines do not go on lists; they go in the ground. Shovels do not go on designations; they go in the ground. Energy does not go in an MOU; it goes in a tanker to another market. Unfortunately, none of those things are happening. It is all talk, no results; all show, no go; and all theatre, no reality.

Here is the reality and the result: Gushing media headlines aside, there has been nothing in 18 months. The previous bill was called the Building Canada Act. It built nothing. Today we have a bill called the building Canada strong act, so in 18 months, the Liberals have managed to add one word. One word on a piece of paper is 18 months' worth of achievement. The only thing the Prime Minister has built is 14 new government agencies.

Now, here we go again. We have another bill, and it would not repeal Bill C-69, Justin Trudeau's antidevelopment law. It would not eliminate the industrial carbon tax, and it would not ultimately change the obstacles that are in the existing legal framework.

For example, let us take the administrative burden created by Liberal Bill C-69, Trudeau's antidevelopment law. Even if the bill before the House were to pass today, we would still have on the books requirements that anybody who applies for a project include analysis on “the intersection of sex and gender with other identity factors”, as if that has anything to do with mines, pipelines or marine ports.

My favourite is that projects, even if the bill before the House today were to pass, would still have to take into account “any other matter relevant to the impact assessment that the Agency requires to be taken into account.” That means there is no limit on the number of things that the bureaucracy would consider before a project were approved. How can the Liberals even talk about regulatory certainty with that kind of ambiguity?

The Liberals are claiming that it will help get things built, but they promised this the last time, so we should not hold our breath. Does it reduce the number of vexatious or irrelevant obstructions from hard-core foreign-funded interest groups that have been killing projects for over 10 years? Well, the bill maintains a wide-open approach to consultation about projects that would allow literally anyone to have their comments and testimony included in hearings before a project can actually occur, so we could have American interests that want to keep Canada down, the ones that helped Justin Trudeau get elected with massive foreign funding in the 2015 election, fund antidevelopment groups against the interests of Canada to block things from happening. It is elbows up, indeed. That would not change under this law.

Mr. Speaker, I am just wondering if I can ask for a favour. Could you pause the clock so that I can speak for longer than 10 minutes but still come in under the 10-minute limit?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Well, technically we can.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

No, it turns out we cannot.

However, Mr. Speaker, under this bill, the one-year time limit could be paused at any time. The regulator could stop the clock so that it would not count within the one-year time limit. We could waste seven or eight years and still claim that it all happened under one. Under this bill, the bureaucrats could use three or four different excuses to hit the pause button on the clock, meaning that the famous one-year turnaround time on the decision that the minister advertised to the media is nothing in reality except an illusion.

On top of that, the minister sitting before me could actually add 90-day extensions to the time it takes to get a permit for a project. If that is still not enough for government bureaucrats, they could go to cabinet and get a permanent extension on the consideration of a bill. Who in their right mind, as a company, would put aside billions of dollars for a major project knowing that a Liberal cabinet, which has spent the last decade blocking projects, would have the legal power to delay the approval of or even a decision on a project forever?

Under the current system, the legislative timeline does not start until the proponent has done lengthy mandatory preplanning and consultations. That does not even come into the existing legislative time frames. Under Bill C-39, the proponent would have to gather and produce even more information, all the detailed engineering and scientific data necessary not only for the impact assessment, but also for whatever permitting processes apply to the project. That would all happen before the clock starts running on the one-year limit.

Mr. Speaker, if you would like me to stand up and speak for an hour before the clock starts on my 10-minute speech, I am sure the Liberals would love for that to happen. However, in reality, there is no one-year timeline for a project.

In sum, this is once again all talk and no action. The one-year timeline is smoke and mirrors, another illusion. The reality is that there would still be many years before concept can lead to construction. There is ultimately no limit whatsoever. This bill appears once again to be all talk and no results, headlines without deadlines.

Meanwhile, there are real consequences for the Prime Minister to continue along with the same policies of the Liberal government of the prior decade. Despite him claiming in the House of Commons that affordability is the best it has been in more than a decade, all he proved by saying that is that he is out of touch while Canadians are out of money.

The Prime Minister promised the fastest-growing economy in the G7. It was all talk and no results. Instead, today we got information from the OECD that we will be fourth out of seven, and our economic growth for the present year was downgraded by a quarter, down to a pathetic 0.9%.

Inflation is outgrowing wages, meaning Canadians are getting poorer in real time. Liberals are costing us more. Canadian households are now the most indebted in the G7, as interest rates rise on their mortgages, and rising prices at the grocery store ultimately leave our people behind.

We have a better way, and that is for the government to get out of the way and pass our economic action plan, which would scrap Bill C-69, the antidevelopment law. It would repeal the ban on shipping oil off the west coast of British Columbia. It would eliminate the industrial carbon tax.

Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have? It is unlimited. It is kind of like the timing on the Liberal approval for projects: It is unlimited. They can take as much time as they want. We can see why the Emiratis, who wanted to invest $90 billion in Canadians, came back six months later and said they could not find a project that was approved for them to invest in under the government. The Conservatives have a way to fix that. It is called the “one and done” plan. It is very simple: one project, one approval, one year, and better yet, one page. Members may say that it is impossible, but it has been done.

Under Prime Minister Harper's government, in the 2008-09 world financial crisis, then minister John Baird told his bureaucrats that he wanted to get the application form for a project down to one page. They said they could never do it, that it was impossible. They came back saying that he would be very happy because they got it down to 100 pages. He said that he wanted one page, and he told them to get out of his office. They came back, saying that the minister was going to be thrilled because they got it down to 50 pages, which had never been done. He told them to get out of his office and said that he wanted one page. They came back, saying that the minister was going to be thrilled because they got it down to 10 pages. He told them to get out of his office and said that he wanted one page. Finally they came back and told him it was one page. Then he told them he wanted one approval for each project. They came back and delivered one approval.

Guess what happened. We finished 23,500 projects, from concept to completion, in under two years. Despite grave warnings from the Liberal opposition at the time that this would destroy safety and the environment, the environment commissioner did a full audit of 23,500 projects, and not one came back with a safety or environmental problem, so “one and done” can be done.

What was funny was that the NDP got up and waved around a document saying that the environment commissioner had found a problem with a project that the feds had approved in Kanata, so we looked into it. It turned out that this project had not been part of the “one and done” plan but had taken seven years to approve and had the worst environmental outcome. That proves that all the paper, process and delays have nothing to do with the environment, and everything to do with feeding an insatiable bureaucracy that creates work and money for itself by getting in the way, a bureaucracy that the government has allowed to metastasize over the last decade.

We need a real bill that will truly cap the consideration time for a project at under a year and set a target of six months. A year should be the worst-case scenario. In fact, why not bring all the first ministers and all the mayors into a room to sign a document that we in Canada should be the fastest place on earth to get a building permit? No matter what someone wants to build, it should be faster to build it in Canada than anywhere else on earth.

The Prime Minister could set the example today by granting permits for the 500 projects we have identified that are waiting in the impact assessment office. He could also get rid of the capital gains tax for reinvestments in Canada so we could bring back the trillion dollars of investment the Liberals have driven out of our country. That would be an avalanche of investment that would come pouring back into construction. It would be possibly one of the most patriotic tax cuts ever.

We will look very carefully at this 250-page Liberal bill, but we are not going to believe all the rhetoric, the hype and the talking points, because we have heard it all before. The Liberals have been repeating the same promises since the Prime Minister took office.

We are going to study the bill, but we have reservations about the outcome. The Liberals have made similar promises before. So far, they have not gotten rid of Liberal anti-development laws, Liberal anti-development taxes or Liberal anti-development bureaucracy. We want to remove these barriers so that we can build in earnest and make our country affordable, safe and independent here at home.

We will study the bill, and we will do so based on the criteria of whether it meets our mission of a country that is affordable, safe and independent here at home. Our mission is to save Canadians money, save jobs and put Canada first. We have a real plan to do it.

We ask the government to steal our plan. Perhaps what it should do is just take our plan and amend it over this bill. That way we would actually get some results. At the end of the day, the Prime Minister does not need to do, he needs to stop doing. He needs to stop blocking, stop taxing, stop obstructing and stop signing meaningless MOUs. He needs to get out of the way, get off the backs of our people and let our builders build, our workers work and our investors invest.

We should be the richest, most affordable country on earth. We have been blessed with an abundance that is unmatched in the history of humanity in geography, oceans and resources and, of course, the best people on planet earth. Let us unleash their potential and let us fulfill the promise of this country that anybody who works hard gets a great life, an affordable home, a fridge full of groceries and a bank account that is overflowing at the same time. That is the promise this country made to every single person.

That is our country's promise. That is what we are fighting for.

That is the fight we are having on behalf of all Canadians, so let us get the job done. There has been enough talk. It is time for some action.

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Minister of Transport and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I know the Leader of the Opposition knows that we have started on five significant major national projects. I know he knows that there are five more in the queue. I know that he knows we have $500 billion in investment commitments as a result of the Prime Minister's investment summit last week.

That speech was yet another very Justin Trudeau-obsessed piece of rhetorical flourish from the Leader of the Opposition. We have heard a lot of it before. The one thing I did not hear, and I would like the Leader of the Opposition to have the chance to answer this, is whether he actually has comments, criticisms or other observations of the bill.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I think the minister missed the speech. Maybe I should give it all over again, but before I do, let me just point out that he says they have “started” on five projects. They have started looking at five projects, not actually building anything, and that is the reality. The Liberals think that if they imagine something, that if they say something or that if the Prime Minister gives a speech or the media gives him gushing praise, it is the equivalent of that thing actually happening, when in fact single moms cannot eat the Prime Minister's speeches if they are low on money for groceries. People cannot pay their rent with the Prime Minister's fake MOUs. They cannot fill their tanks with Liberal rhetoric and promises. We need reality.

Yes, I do have comments on the bill, and I will repeat them. The bill would actually allow the government to violate its own promised one-year time limitation by delays at the front, delays in the middle and delays at the end. That is just one of the many criticisms that this bill deserves.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to hear from the leader of the official opposition about a very specific aspect of Bill C-39. I am referring to the government's option to approve development projects even before an environmental assessment has been done. What purpose do environmental assessments serve? They serve to ensure that approved projects are good projects and not too environmentally harmful. Environmental assessments are supposed to come first, before the project.

In some cases, Bill C-39 will pre-approve projects that are ready to get started. What happens if the assessment is negative? Proponents will be asked to come tear down any work already done. So much for predictability. In other words, these will be sham assessments, junk assessments.

With that in mind, how can the leader of the official opposition say that this bill does not go far enough?

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, even if the bill before us passes, the Liberal government will continue to block and tax the projects Canada needs, with endless delays, excessive red tape and taxes that discourage investment. That is why we are saying that it does not go far enough.

The government needs to get out of the way. That is what it comes down to. This federal government does not build projects. It blocks them. It is investors, businesses and workers who build projects. The problem is that the government is blocking them, and that has to stop. I know it is hard for the Bloc Québécois not to block everything, but we want the government to stop blocking projects in Canada.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciated the leader of the official opposition's speech today. I would like him to comment on the following examples. I have noticed a pattern with the Liberal government and with its predecessor.

In 2023, the Liberals established a national supply chain office, because they were all concerned about supply chains. They created the office, and yet we see food inflation being quite high in Canada. It continues to be a concern, especially in my riding.

We saw, in 2025, in Bill C-5, that they created a Major Projects Office that is supposed to get big projects built.

As we have seen, and as the member has said, zero projects have been built or have been approved by that office. We now have the Minister of Transport creating a national trade corridor office to do the same thing.

Does he see a pattern and is this bureaucracy actually helping or hurting?

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the pattern is that the government confuses the problem with the solution. The problem is the government. It is not the solution. The government inflates food prices with high taxes, inflationary deficits and red tape on farm production. It then says that the solution to that must be even more government spending and bureaucracy, which drive up the cost of food and everything else.

The reason we have high housing costs is that government bureaucracy and taxes drive up housing. The Liberals say that the solution must be even more government programs to fix the problem that they caused. It is like the doctor who administers a poison so that he can administer the antidote and then claim to have saved one's life. Why did he not just do neither in the first place? The patient would be fine without the government doing the damage in the first place.

We have had 11 years of this. People cannot eat, heat or house themselves. Why do we not try something different? Why do we not get the government out of the way and off one's back?

[Michael Coteau, Liberal, Scarborough—Woburn, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-39 is designed to strengthen our economy and to look for ways to build the economy, so that, essentially, it can help everyday Canadians. In my riding of Scarborough—Woburn, I have people coming into my office all the time, talking about the challenges of life. Affordability is a real issue.

I want to ask the Leader of the Opposition why, when he was given the opportunity to support programs like the groceries and essentials benefit, which actually puts food on people's table, the child benefit, dental care, pharmacare and lunch programs for kids, which actually put food in the classroom for kids, when he was given the chance to vote to support everyday Canadians, at every single opportunity, he voted against them.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I think the answer is in the member's question. He says that his constituents are coming into his office to say how much they are struggling with the cost of living. This is after all of these wonderful programs that they have brought in. Maybe he should listen to his constituents, who are telling him that their empty stomachs, empty fridges and empty bank accounts prove that Liberal programs are not working.

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

Mr. Speaker, allow me to remind the Conservative leader of a few things that seem to be moving well. The first are the several Conservative members who crossed the floor to the Liberals. That even made it possible to deliver a majority, for the first time in history, after a minority government was elected in Parliament.

The other things that are moving quite well are all the Conservative ideas that are being taken up by the Liberals. It is quite striking. The Conservative Party also promises to build energy, electricity and rail corridors. The Liberal Party is proposing the same thing in Bill C‑39.

The Conservatives claim to support Quebec's autonomy. Will they put their foot down and ensure that Quebec's wishes as to whether or not we want this type of project on our territory are respected?

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, of course we want corridors for projects, but the Liberals have not created any. They have had 18 months since the passage of Bill C‑5, which would have allowed the Prime Minister to set up corridors and provide building permits to build pipelines, power lines and other projects. The Prime Minister did not use those powers to issue a single permit.

The difference between us and the Liberals is that, yes, the Prime Minister repeats our words, but without acting on them. He is all talk and no action.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask a question about, not just how much bureaucracy, but whether it troubles him as it troubles me that the government creates new agencies that are not transparent. Rather than creating Crown corporations or entities within departments, we are looking at special operating agencies, like the Major Projects Office, that are not as accountable as other types of bureaucracy. I wonder if the leader of the official opposition has any comment.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, this is the top-down crony capitalism that the Prime Minister has brought to our economy. It is an economy of carve-outs, bailouts and handouts to special corporate power brokers, and taxes, red tape and inflation for small business. As such, yes, I am very concerned about the idea that politicians will hand-pick winners and losers and that profit will be determined by who has the best lobbyists, not who has the best product; and by who has the most political influence, not the best product for Canadians. We need free market, bottom-up capitalism, not top-down—

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I seek the unanimous consent of the House to share my time with my excellent colleague from Joliette—Manawan.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

Does the hon. member have unanimous consent?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-39, a bill that we feel is a drastic step backwards when it comes to the environment, workers' rights and democracy.

I will set the stage. This bill pre-approves projects by turning the environmental assessment process for pipelines and nuclear power into a mere formality. It weakens workers' rights, limits the right to strike and significantly undermines workers' rights. It gives more power to the executive branch and ministers while diminishing the role of Parliament. It privatizes ports, following the privatization of airports.

In short, this bill has nothing to do with a strong Canada. It is a nearly 250-page omnibus bill designed to weaken democracy. The Liberals are using the tariff crisis as an excuse to quietly pass permanent measures that will cause us to lose ground. In five minutes, the government is eliminating gains for the environment and workers' rights that took years to achieve.

The Bloc Québécois will not accept this backsliding and will stand up for workers' rights and the right of Quebeckers to live in a healthy environment. I will talk more specifically about the backsliding when it comes to workers' rights, the environment and democracy.

Let us talk about workers rights. As the Bloc Québécois labour critic, I can confirm that there have been a lot of negative reactions. I will talk about the Canadian Labour Congress' reaction, which was swift.

According to the Canadian Labour Congress, a red line has been crossed when it comes to workers' bargaining rights and right to strike. The consensus among the country's unions is that this is an affront to workers' rights. As the bill currently stands, the balance between the parties and industrial peace will be severely disrupted. The Canadian Labour Congress wants the full repeal of the provisions on the right to strike and the overhaul of section 107.

Minister Hajdu claims that the bill does not weaken the right to strike, but that is not true. The Canadian Labour Congress believes the opposite is true. The provisions on section 107 are the worst attack on bargaining rights and the right to strike. This is one of the most serious, if not unprecedented, attempts in the country's history.

Also according to the Canadian Labour Congress, no compromises are being made, but the government is asking workers to fully submit, which in no way motivates workers to build the country. This bill is very demotivating. Employers have no incentive to negotiate, because all they have to do is allow a labour dispute to escalate and the Canada Industrial Relations Board and, ultimately, the minister will order them back to work. There are no guardrails, despite what the government claims. This gives the minister almost absolute power. No G7 country allows this type of approach in labour law. Just as he did before, the minister will be able to decide when a strike will take place, how long it will last, when it will end and which economic sectors will be able to strike and which ones will not be able to exercise that right.

The Canadian Labour Congress is deeply concerned about the introduction of the concepts of “national interest” and “serious social disruption”. The bill does not define them, so current and subsequent ministers will be able to interpret these two concepts as they see fit. The Canadian Labour Congress is currently assessing all the legal options. In its view, the section that regulates strikes and the use of section 107 is in violation of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, specifically the freedom of association.

The government wants to impose these new rules as quickly as possible, before the four cases that are currently before various courts across the country can submit their interpretations of section 107.

The Canadian Labour Congress has pointed out that, before governments began misusing section 107, a bill had to be introduced, a debate had to take place and parliamentarians had to vote on legislation aimed at resolving a labour dispute. A right that cannot be exercised is, ultimately, not actually a right at all.

If the bill remains unchanged, it will harm non-unionized workers. Compromises between employers and trade unions establish acceptable norms and standards across many economic sectors. Stifling the trade unions' right to strike is tantamount to stifling negotiated agreements and reasonable compromises. In other words, it is six of one, half a dozen of the other. The only thing that will change is the messenger.

To release the minister from her responsibility, the burden shifts to the Canada Industrial Relations Board, which is not answerable for its decisions to the House of Commons. It also allows the board to impose administrative monetary penalties against good-faith negotiations. Who ends up deciding what constitutes good faith? It also raises questions concerning disputes between Crown corporation employees and the government.

The bill allows for subjectivity by introducing national interest and serious social disruption as criteria for issuing back-to-work orders. The minister and her successors are left to interpret that as they wish and as their tolerance for dissent allows.

The Bloc Québécois remains committed to defending workers' right to organize, to strike and to seek better wages and benefits. As I said earlier, a red line has been crossed, and workers' rights are not negotiable. The provisions relating to section 107 of the Canada Labour Code are a definite step backward for bargaining rights and the right to strike. They are buried in an omnibus bill that, as I said, is nearly 250 pages long. This is one of the most serious attacks on the right to strike.

My time is running out, but there is so much more to say about this bill. I will say a few words about environmental policy rollbacks. I know that many of my colleagues will want to talk about that, including my colleague from Repentigny. I am sure he will have the opportunity to do so. Over the summer, a number of groups shared their concerns about environmental policy rollbacks with me. Members of the Eastern Townships branch of Mothers Step In met with me even before this bill was introduced. Given everything the Liberal government was doing, they were already very worried about the prospect of such rollbacks.

What we know is that, during public consultations in 2026, citizens expressed legitimate concerns about shortened timelines and fewer opportunities for public participation, as well as the risk of projects being approved without a full understanding of the environmental impacts, which could lead to long-term environmental damage and much higher rehabilitation costs.

In addition, the mandatory fast-tracking of timelines for environmental assessments does not guarantee the quality and scientific integrity of the assessments. Approving projects before assessments are complete contradicts the inherent logic and purpose of environmental assessments. What would happen if a project that has already begun with the government's approval is later found to run afoul of the law and found to carry health and environmental risks that outweigh the project's economic benefits? Well, it is going to be too late. Authorizing work prior to final approval leads to it being seen as a done deal.

In addition, there are provisions that would give the government the power to later change conditions that it originally imposed to approve a project. This means that the government could approve projects under certain environmental conditions and then simply remove those conditions.

I could also talk about the fact that the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada would no longer do impact assessments. That, too, is absurd. Having the Canada Energy Regulator assess pipeline projects could potentially constitute a conflict of interest. Environmental assessments for nuclear projects are to be handed over to the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, or CNSC, even though reports from the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development have already pointed out the CNSC's lack of independence from the Department of Natural Resources. This could even weaken the Species at Risk Act.

All of this is gradually eroding our democracy. On top of the democratic erosion and the fact that this bill violates other laws, there is also the issue of commercial zones, which could be an intrusion into Quebec's jurisdictions. The Carney government is ignoring Quebec and the provinces by subjecting transportation companies to yet another new body, the national trade corridors council.

The government therefore introduced Bill C-39, an act respecting certain measures to strengthen the economy. The Bloc Québécois read and analyzed the bill. The measures it contains seek to dismantle, weaken or circumvent laws that protect the public, workers and the environment. It seems to favour specific economic interests to the detriment of democratic interests. It is completely ridiculous.

What we also see is that the main goal of the government's Bill C-39 is to make certain laws inoperative, which is another troubling setback for democracy. Who will be responsible for deciding in advance whether these projects are in the national interest? That, too, is a troubling setback. The Bloc Québécois will not endorse such an authoritarian view of public authority. Even in the context of a trade crisis, we cannot agree to such a centralization of power and such a devaluation of the law.

Ministers in the Liberal government have said the following two things when introducing Bill C‑39: that Bill C‑39 will not weaken environmental requirements and that it will not weaken workers' rights. Well, both of those statements are false. The Bloc Québécois will prove it. I have purposely left out a number of elements, since we will come back to them later. The proof is in the pudding: All it takes is to read the provisions of Bill C‑39. We will vote against Bill C‑39, just as we voted against Bill C-5, the Building Canada Act. The trade environment should not be used as an excuse.

Quebeckers can count on the Bloc Québécois not to fuel this narrative of Canadian sovereignty, which is nothing more than a narrative that serves the private interests that the Liberal Prime Minister alone decides to serve.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

I would like to remind members that they may not use the name of a member, or even that of the Prime Minister, in the House.

We will now move on to questions and comments. The hon. Minister of Transport has the floor.

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Minister of Transport and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, it will surprise no one that the Bloc Québécois is opposing something that is meant to build Canada stronger. The Bloc systematically opposes any proposal to build a stronger country. No one will be surprised by this decision by the Bloc Québécois.

My question is on labour relations. The member, who seems to know it all, has certainly read the report of the industrial inquiry commission, which recommended the establishment of a special mediator system.

What does the member think of these findings? How could this cause labour relations in Canada to deteriorate, since she seems to think that will be the case under this bill?

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, what I have read about that report, and more notably what we are hearing, is that this bill merely shifts the responsibility and frees the minister from accountability, particularly with regard to government intervention under section 107 of the Canada Labour Code. It ensures that the minister is not held accountable by Parliament.

The members opposite may well laugh, but that is what will happen with this bill. We are placing this responsibility on the shoulders of a board that will not be accountable to us, the MPs. In terms of the rule of law, democracy and workers' rights, this is a serious matter.

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

Mr. Speaker, I fully agree with my colleague from the Bloc Québécois. She gave an excellent speech. She clearly outlined the democratic setbacks regarding the environment and workers' rights.

What does she now think of this government and the Prime Minister, who, in the past, presented himself as someone concerned about climate issues and the threat of climate change? Why is he moving so far away from those values?

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is simply because the Prime Minister has decided to continue the process of turning Canada into an oil monarchy that serves the interests of oil and gas companies.

As I said, the lack of transparency and the setbacks that will be introduced by this large—what I call “mammoth”—bill will remove a layer of independence. The government will no longer listen to science and independent people so that it can conduct environmental assessments based on facts and science. Instead, it will ensure that the process serves the interests of oil and gas companies.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette—Manawan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague on her excellent speech. I would like to discuss the erosion of workers' rights in this bill.

The government is giving itself powers to end disputes and issue an order. This change merely kicks the problem down the road. It does not make it go away. On top of that, the problems between employers and unions remain unaffected, and this has a snowball effect.

The problem, in my view, is that the Canada Labour Code has not been reviewed in a very long time. This has led to the problems we are seeing. They will not be resolved by passing special legislation, like the provisions in Bill C‑39, but rather by amending the Canada Labour Code and, as a first step, introducing anti-scab legislation and prohibiting the use of scabs, as Quebec did roughly 50 years ago. This would help resolve labour disputes. What does my hon. colleague and friend think about that?

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, bills on this subject have been introduced in the past. I previously spoke to a bill about section 107, the issue covered so extensively in Bill C‑39. The government coudl have taken a serious look at this issue, rather than inserting it in an omnibus bill that includes other measures.

Ultimately, the government is hypocritically taking away workers' rights and undermining accountability to Parliament in a backdoor way. It used to be that these issues had to be debated among parliamentarians. The only thing that delegating this to the Canada Industrial Relations Board does is give power to another body and ensure that the minister will no longer be accountable to Parliament on this matter.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette—Manawan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to start by telling a little story.

Ten years ago, almost to the day, on August 29, 2016, the National Energy Board arrived in Montreal. The board's commissioners were there to hold public hearings on the energy east pipeline project. People in Quebec wanted nothing to do with that pipeline. It would do nothing to improve our energy security. It was just a big oil pipeline going from one side of Quebec to the other. It would cross 800 waterways that provide drinking water to most of Quebec's population. Over 130 municipalities, accounting for 70% of Quebec's population, opposed the pipeline.

I have to say that the proponent, TransCanada Pipeline, did nothing to help its cause. It was full of contempt and kept telling anyone who would listen that Quebec had no say in the matter, that it did not recognize the authority of the Quebec government and that Ottawa, and Ottawa alone, would decide.

It was against this tense backdrop that the commissioners of the National Energy Board left Calgary and went to Montreal to listen to the little people. Things got off to a bad start. Half of the commissioners did not speak a word of French, and things only got worse from there. The public realized that the consultations were a sham, that most of the commissioners were from the oil industry and that the board was basically an extension of the American oil companies. Needless to say, tempers flared, and the whole thing almost turned into a riot.

It reminds me of the Félix Leclerc song L'alouette en colère, in which he talks about how he became a separatist because of Canada's contempt. He sings about how “the big neighbour from across the street came over” and how this stranger's rude behaviour filled him with rage. That sums up what happened at the government's sham consultations. In the end, the commissioners shut down the hearings. The energy east pipeline was scrapped, the commissioners got on a plane back to Calgary, and we never saw them again.

Ottawa realized that stacking the deck in the oil companies' favour only stoked more opposition. The National Energy Board was too toxic, so it was rebranded as the Canada Energy Regulator, which sounded better. Most importantly, its mandate was confined to energy-related matters. Public consultations and impact assessments would no longer be conducted by former oil company lobbyists. Now, they would be done by neutral, objective, serious-minded people, scientists working together at an impact assessment agency. That was a big step forward. Thanks to Quebeckers, Canada was making progress. That is what the government wants to destroy with the stroke of a pen.

Bill C-39 is even worse than the process that angered Quebeckers 10 years ago. This bill rolls out the red carpet for American oil companies, as if the way to resist Donald Trump is to copy him. Forget about impact assessments; the Canada Energy Regulator will be in charge of reviewing projects.

What is the Canada Energy Regulator? Simple: It is oil companies. There is no making this stuff up. There are seven commissioners. The lead commissioner is the former senior legal counsel for TransCanada Energy, formerly known as TransCanada Pipeline, which changed its name after the energy east fiasco. The deputy lead commissioner is a former executive of Royal Dutch Shell. Another commissioner served as legal counsel for the Pembina Pipeline Corporation and Shell Canada Limited. Another one is from Imperial Oil and Canadian Oil Sands Limited. Yet another is from Cenovus Energy, the oil sands company. That is the Canada Energy Regulator in a nutshell. Bill C‑39 sidelines scientists and replaces them with oil company lawyers. It basically hands the fox the keys to the henhouse.

In the energy east saga, Quebeckers helped Canada move forward. Today, Canada is setting Quebec back. We will remember that. Even if the structure of the energy regulator could be completely changed, even if oil lobbyists could be removed and replaced by genuinely neutral individuals, that would not do much. The regulator could ask that the pipeline be painted green, but that would be the extent of its authority. Regardless of what the regulator says, the projects will already have been approved. The regulator will not be able to say that the projects are bad, and if it did, it would not change anything. The projects are all pre-approved. The entire process is tainted. In fact, the process does not even really exist anymore. Now projects will be approved at the Prime Minister's whim. The emperor's word is final.

I do not know of any government that has rolled back environmental protections so much, except Donald Trump, perhaps, and we are told that he is a fool. Stephen Harper would not have dared gut environmental protections so brutally. He would not have dared tell the public that he did not want to hear their opinions because he had decided everything on his own. He knew that would not go down well.

Why is the government so distrustful of the public that it does not want to hear from them? Apparently, it has to act this way because Donald Trump is a fool. Go figure.

As children, we were told to go inside or the bogeyman would get us. It was a trick to keep us quiet. Today, the bogeyman wears orange makeup and has yellow hair, but it is the same thing. We are being told, “Hide and stay quiet or the bogeyman will get you”. By fearmongering about Donald Trump, the government is trying to make us accept things that we would never put up with otherwise. Donald Trump will not be around forever. Two months from now, he should already have less power. Two years from now, he will be gone. However, the setbacks and damage from Bill C‑39 will remain. The Liberal members who are bragging here today will likely have a hard time hiding their shame in two years.

Democratic processes are not the only thing that Bill C‑39 throws out the window. It does not just sacrifice the fight against climate change in a complete betrayal of our children and grandchildren. It also attacks workers' rights.

In 2015, the Supreme Court ruled that the right to strike is a fundamental right protected by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and that there must be a very good reason for infringing on a protected right. Protecting the life, health or safety of the public is a good reason. However, protecting the interests of large companies is not. That is essentially what the Supreme Court wrote in its ruling in the Saskatchewan Federation of Labour case. As a result, it is possible that this part of Bill C-39 may be unconstitutional. I cannot wait to hear the Liberals extol the virtues of using the notwithstanding clause to defend Bill C-39. It will be quite the sight, watching them twist themselves into knots.

The Canada Labour Code is outdated. It allows for the use of replacement workers, a practice that has been abolished in Quebec for almost 50 years. That is why disputes at the federal level drag on. When that happens, the government ends the strike through special legislation or stops negotiations and imposes working conditions by invoking section 107 of the federal labour code, which amounts to the same thing, but without the democratic debate.

We need to be aware of what this means. Since the negotiations never reach a conclusion, the disagreements are never resolved. They are swept under the rug, but the thorny issues remain. Invariably, they resurface as even bigger problems in the next round of bargaining, and the cycle begins all over again. The dispute becomes harder to resolve and eventually drags on indefinitely. The government ends the strike. The issues are put off until later, but nothing is ever actually resolved.

Bill C-39 makes the situation even worse. It will make it easier to end strikes. It will ensure that disputes and disagreements are never resolved. It will only postpone them until later, when they will be even bigger. It will undermine bargaining and the work environment, because employers will know full well that it is better for them if things come to a standstill. Thanks to the bill, they will know in advance that the government will be there, ready to end the strike and impose working conditions that benefit employers, of course.

What is great about democratic societies is that they allow for peaceful resolution of disagreements. That is what makes life in a democratic society better and easier. There are built-in conflict resolution mechanisms, places where people can go to and be heard, knowing that their voices count. Parties can negotiate in good faith in an environment where everyone's rights are respected.

However, when consultations take place after the decision has been made, when an emperor's decree replaces social licence, when the interests of the powerful replace scientific facts and serious analyses, and when negotiations are rigged in favour of companies, the social contract starts to fall apart. When the only choice for people to be heard is to take to the streets, social peace is in jeopardy.

Bill C-39 is a downward spiral and a democratic, environmental and social step backward. When the social contract starts to get ripped apart, who knows where we can end up. Gilles Vigneault put it best when he had his character Ti-Cul Lachance say these words to a corrupt politician:That's a lot of hot air you've been sowing
But it seems like you're oblivious
To the great whirlwind you'll end up reaping

We in the Bloc Québécois are not oblivious and we will firmly oppose Bill C-39.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised at the time of adjournment this evening are as follows: the hon. member for Courtenay—Alberni, Health; the hon. member for Peace River—Westlock, International Trade; the hon. member for Calgary Centre, Finance.

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

Mr. Speaker, just over a year ago, Canadians elected a new Prime Minister, along with 70 new members of Parliament. Throughout that campaign and all the way to today, we have seen a Prime Minister and a government that have been focused on building a stronger and healthier Canadian economy, an economy that works for all Canadians.

That is one of the reasons we witnessed the largest summit of investors ever commit around $500 billion. That is half a trillion dollars. That is a historic amount of investment coming to Canada because of the Prime Minister and the agenda of the government to support and build a stronger, healthier Canadian economy. This legislation is to help—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

I have to give the member some time to respond.

The hon. member for Joliette—Manawan.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette—Manawan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague the following question. What is the environment worth to his government?

The impact assessments that used to be carried out by scientists are being taken away and handed over to the Canada Energy Regulator, which is an oil lobby. It will have the power to approve everything, and even if it does not approve a project, projects are authorized before they have even been assessed. That is why I want to know what the environment is worth to this government.

What are workers' rights worth when the rules can be changed to make it easier to pass special legislation ending labour disputes and the right to use scabs stays intact? What are workers' rights worth? What is this government's goal? Is it to serve large foreign interests or to defend the public's interests?

The public cares about the environment and workers' rights. That is precisely what Bill C‑39 is trampling on, and it is unacceptable.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my esteemed colleague from Joliette a question about what he just said.

He said that the government has gutted environmental regulations. I would like him to tell us where it says that. All we have asked our public servants to do is to act more quickly to provide a faster response. We are not cutting corners; we are continuing to do the assessments.

Can my colleague tell us where in the text of the bill it says that we are gutting environmental protection regulations?

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette—Manawan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, that already happened with Bill C-5. As soon as a project is designated as being in the national interest, a whole host of environmental protection laws no longer apply.

In this case, rather than maintain the consultation process involving scientists, a gain achieved under the Liberals in 2015—I do not know where the hon. member was at the time—the government is now proposing to have the Canada Energy Regulator take care of that process. A quick look at the list of commissioners shows that they are all oil industry lobbyists. Even if the regulator were to oppose a project, it would be pre-approved anyway, so the regulator would no longer have any power.

That is what the government is doing. It is trampling on the environment and workers' rights. I could take a highlighter to the 250 pages of the bill and show him every place where this bill clearly undermines workers' rights and the environment for the benefit of big international investors. Is that what standing up for the public means to this government? Does it mean favouring big international investors?

I think the government should have tried to strike a balance.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is quite clear that we are witnessing an ecological betrayal. We know that the Prime Minister is not just anyone. He worked at Brookfield. Most importantly, he is the United Nation's former special envoy on climate. However, he is the one buying a second pipeline with public funds and disregarding all of Canada's environmental laws for the sake of projects that are in the so-called national interest. If that is not a betrayal, my colleagues will have to let me know the strongest word there is to judge, observe and analyze that situation.

I would like my colleague from Joliette to explain his point of view. Is the government turning the environment into a pipe dream by trying to take advantage of the tariff crisis to push things that could never have been done before?

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette—Manawan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, a Conservative government would never have gotten away with backtracking so much on the environment. There would have been an outcry from across society. Now people are afraid of our American neighbours, with good reason, so they are giving this Prime Minister carte blanche. For all his green promises, never has the environment suffered so many setbacks as it has under the current Prime Minister, including with Bill C-39. It is unprecedented.

As the Bloc Québécois leader said, it takes decades to put measures in place to protect the environment and only five minutes to tear them down. That is what this government is doing.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time today with the member for Beauport—Limoilou.

I rise to give my first speech in the House with gratitude to the people of North Vancouver—Capilano and a profound sense of responsibility. This seat belongs to them, and I will hold it in trust and work every day to further earn the confidence that they have placed in me.

I thank my predecessor, Jonathan Wilkinson, for his service to our community and continued service to our country; the Prime Minister; and so many friends and neighbours for their confidence throughout such an important campaign.

With the highest voter turnout in a British Columbia federal by-election in nearly half a century, I am grateful to everyone who cast a ballot, whatever their choice, for their faith and their involvement in our democracy at this important moment for our country. From Loutet Park to Ambleside, through thousands of conversations, we heard what our community expects, which is for everyday costs to be brought down, homes people can afford to be built faster, transportation that keeps pace with the growing north shore, action on climate change and protection of nature.

Above all, I heard determination about Canada being able to choose its own strong future. That is why I rise today in support of Bill C-39, the building Canada strong act. For the people I represent, a stronger, more independent Canadian economy is a practical necessity. It means a job that can withstand a tariff, a business that can reach another market and a community whose future cannot and will not be decided elsewhere. The Prime Minister has clearly set out our task, and it has always been our new government's plan A to build our strength at home and broaden our partnerships abroad.

At last week's Canada investment summit, he made the case for turning Canada's advantages into investment and investment into lasting prosperity for all. Our responsibility in the House is to make that prosperity real in people's lives. In an uncertain world, we have argued that Canada can offer something increasingly valuable, which is trust, the confidence that a commitment will be honoured, that an investment can really become a project and that a trading partner will deliver. We have to earn that confidence in what we do next, and we will with this bill.

On the north shore, we can also see what that means from the waterfront. Neptune Terminals beside Low Level Road is the world's largest potash terminal. It connects workers and communities in Saskatchewan with customers in China, Brazil and beyond. Cargill, Richardson and G3 connect prairie grain growers with markets all around the world. Lynnterm moves forest products that sustain livelihoods all across British Columbia.

Our community moves what the world needs. Every railcar and every ship carries more than cargo. It carries the work of Canadians, the incomes of families all across the country and the promise of another order from another market far or near. A ship built at Seaspan on the north shore means skilled, high-paying work; an apprenticeship for someone's kid; and Canadian capability that we can depend on to secure our sovereignty on all of our shores, not just the north shore.

Our home is where national ambition meets a working waterfront and a gateway to a world that wants more Canada, but the opportunity before us will not realize itself, as we know. New projects need reliable routes to market. Businesses need confidence that decisions will come reliably. Workers need to know that the gains from growth will reach them directly. Bill C-39 would help connect these pieces, designating national trade corridors, enabling a national trade corridors council, modernizing port governance and laying the groundwork for updated transportation security clearances. The purpose is straightforward. It is to get Canadian goods to customers with more certainty, attract investment and give Canadian businesses more choices about where they sell and can sell. More routes to market mean more room for Canada to make our own decisions.

However, that requires government itself to work better, too. A project should not stall because one department is waiting on another or because the same information has to be submitted again and again. Building on last year's Building Canada Act, these reforms would better coordinate federal reviews and permitting, with a one-year decision timeline in place once the required information and studies are submitted. Rigorous scrutiny and timely decisions must go together. Canadians deserve both, and people across the north shore have long demanded both.

Provinces are also working to accelerate infrastructure and energy development. In British Columbia, that effort includes reforms to infrastructure approvals and renewable energy permitting. Federal and provincial governments also have different responsibilities, and the people depending on us need those responsibilities to add up to results. That is what a whole-of-government approach should and can mean: a system that works together so Canadians can get to work.

How we build matters as much as what we build, as the Prime Minister often says. My mother taught school for decades, like my grandmother before her. My father was a bus driver and fuelled aircraft at Vancouver International Airport. In my family, like so many represented in the House, service meant doing a day's work with determination, taking responsibility and being there when people needed us. Those lessons belong in this House, too.

So, too, does the understanding that a paycheque supports a household and that strong unions and collective bargaining help people build and secure lives they can count on. That is why this bill's labour measures matter as well. Earlier engagement and stronger mediation can help unions and employers reach lasting agreements at the bargaining table.

Following significant consultations, the bill also proposes key important guardrails on certain interventions under section 107 of the Canada Labour Code, alongside public reporting by special mediators. These measures will and always must support genuine collective bargaining and respect Canadians' right to strike. We must always build in solidarity with Canadian workers, whose skill and effort make the kind of transformation that we are talking about possible, and we always will. Success must mean more apprentices learning a trade, more families with a secure income and more young Canadians able to see a place for themselves in the stronger economy that we are building together.

We must also build in partnership with indigenous people, including the Squamish and Tsleil-Waututh nations on the north shore, which will also be leading builders of our shared future. Their leadership and ambition are also helping shape so much of what our region and indeed our country can become. I have heard directly about how difficult overlapping federal processes can be to navigate for them and others. Better coordination needs to mean that meaningful participation is easier and that the Crown's obligations are upheld. Alongside this legislation, a Crown consultation hub within the Impact Assessment Agency would help coordinate federal consultation, working toward one comprehensive process per project, per indigenous community.

Partnership must begin early and carry through to the opportunities and prosperity that a project creates. For a community framed by mountains, forests and ocean, protecting nature is also inseparable from building our future. Following a lot of the consultation we saw this summer, the government dropped one earlier discussion point to allow exemptions from the species at risk jeopardy test, and I would say that is a very welcome response to the considerations Canadians raised. Building faster must go hand in hand with protecting the natural world that we live in, thrive off of and pass on. Listening well is part of governing, and I really applaud the ministers' leadership in that regard and the depth of the consultation that the ministers undertook.

Canada's advantages are extraordinary, but future generations will inherit the country we build with those advantages, not simply a list of the advantages we once had. They deserve a country that can make things, move them and sell them to the world, a country where the people who make our communities work can afford to live in them, a country that protects its lands and waters, honours its commitments and gives its people the confidence to plan a future across the country. That is the purpose of the work before us. It is why I support this bill.

I will say to the people of North Vancouver—Capilano that I will bring their ambitions into the House and carry the responsibility of the House back into our community too. Canada's future will be built in places like ours by people like those who sent us here. In this House, let us be worthy of their work and get on with ours. Let us build Canada strong.

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

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Conservative members from British Columbia, I would like to congratulate the member for North Vancouver—Capilano on his victory and welcome him to this chamber. I remember that when I came to Ottawa, my predecessor was also a minister. I know how difficult it is when people say that we have big shoes to fill. I took it as a challenge. I hope the member does too.

In the member's speech, he talked about a lot. I would like to hear how his election was, what he heard on the streets of his riding and what his priorities as a member of Parliament in this parliamentary session are.

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

Mr. Speaker, genuinely, I thank the hon. member across the way. It is an important opportunity to speak about a lot of what we heard in the community, over the past two months especially.

It was and is a fascinating time, with so much vulnerability in all the communities we come from given exposure to the trade war, but it is also a time to reflect on a lot of the upside. I found at every door a lot of hope for that too. There was hope in buying more Canadian, investing in more of our own community capacities to build big again, and thinking big again about how our country can build more independence into so many facets of our economy. There was a lot of hope and optimism about that, even for a place with such incredible exposure to the rest of the world's economy, and we are going to carry those priorities into this House.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to start by welcoming our new colleague on behalf of the Bloc Québécois. I would like to congratulate him on his election, and I hope that we will have fruitful debates in pursuit of the common good.

My colleague talked about development, but he also talked about environmental protection. If a project is approved before an environmental assessment has been done, and if the project is already under way, what value can that environmental assessment possibly have when it is carried out?

How can anyone seriously believe the environment will be protected if the assessment does not happen until the project is already under way?

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member's important question. I know that exactly that kind of consideration was a key theme of the consultations that have taken place over previous months. It is one that is important to me as well in ensuring that those assessments are rigorous from the beginning, that they are built in from the beginning and that they are serious at every stage. The bill would do that by ensuring that rigour is not conflated alone with the time that such a process takes, and that this rigour could be brought into the timelines that allow us to build faster while still building sustainably. That is what I believe the bill would do, and that is why I am very proud to support it.

[Wade Grant, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague from North Vancouver—Capilano, along the same sort of lines as my colleague across the way. I know that he was knocking on doors for almost a month recently, and it has been a great success for him. I also want to ask him about how this bill specifically would answer or quell any concerns that he heard when knocking on the doors of the great people of North Vancouver—Capilano.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's excellent question.

The bill would allow us to build faster in Canada once again, to build big once again, to orient our economy in the way that we need to, to reach new markets and to diversify our market partners around the world much more quickly than we otherwise might have, having this conversation years ago. That is exactly what people at their doors were expecting across North Vancouver—Capilano this summer in a very important campaign.

Urgency is what is expected, as is the ability to do that in solidarity with Canadian workers and in a way that is sustainable for our nature. These are key facets of every community across the north shore, and really of every community across B.C. and of so many communities across the country. The bill would ensure that we can meet those balances properly and quickly.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

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

The hon. member may continue his speech.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Élisabeth Brière, Liberal, Sherbrooke, QC]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The hon. member can take a little break.

The hon. member may continue if he is ready.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Madam Speaker, It is important for us to recognize, as I pointed out yesterday on legislation, that often the government has a much larger agenda, and this is one of those examples. The legislation today is all about how we can actually take advantage of things, such as a half a trillion dollars of committed investments through an economic summit that was led by the Prime Minister of Canada. We want to see foreign investment come into Canada. One of the ways we can attract that is to have legislation of this nature passed through the House.

I wonder if my colleague could provide his thoughts with respect to the larger picture.

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

Madam Speaker, one would assume that if someone wanted to invite capital to come to Canada we would make sure our permitting system worked well. Maybe the government thought Bill C-5 was enough. Maybe the feedback it got back was not, so now it needs to do a sequel. We will see this member for the trilogy.

The House resumed from September 23 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.

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, it is great to be back. I hope you had a great summer with your constituents in the Montreal area. I had the opportunity to engage with the people I have the privilege of representing, and it is great to bring their voices to Parliament. I hope all of my colleagues had an opportunity to do the same throughout the summer months.

I will be splitting my time this morning with the hon. member for Davenport.

Today, we are here to talk about the building Canada strong act, but I would be remiss if I did not take 30 seconds, given the fact that I was in my constituency this summer, to recognize some tremendous young athletes from my community. I am a former fast pitch softball player. I do not know if any members in the House have played fast pitch softball. It is a sport played mostly in smaller and rural communities across the country.

I want to put into the Hansard that Nova Scotia had four medals on the men's side in four different categories. At the under-17 level, the Brookfield Elks, with a number of athletes from my riding, won the Canadian championship. At the under-20 level, the Brookfield Elks won a bronze medal. At the under-23 level, the Nova Scotia team, again, composed of many athletes from Kings—Hants, won a silver medal, and at the top level of senior men's softball, East Hants won a bronze medal. I want to make sure that is on the record. We are proud of our athletes and certainly proud of the work they are doing at the national level.

On to more important things, we were elected as a government to focus on building a more resilient economy. We know there are headwinds and challenges globally. We are facing tariffs from the U.S. administration, which is changing its trade policy, but the focus of the Prime Minister and the government has been to focus on controlling what we can control as a country. The Prime Minister and the Minister of Transport have made very clear that the building Canada strong act is the most important piece of economic legislation the government has introduced to date to really focus on driving projects that matter in the national interest of the country, such as the modernization of key trade corridors, including ports, across this country, and to also look at our supply chains and the way our labour context works in this country.

Generally, collective bargaining has worked very well, but in some key strategic areas, we want to ensure there are additional measures and initiatives that can ensure that both the employer and the union representing workers can get to a deal that is fair for parties. We feel it is incumbent on the government to actually establish the initiatives and supports to help make that happen. Those are the three pillars of this very important piece of legislation.

I will take us through why that matters, and I am going to start on the regulatory permitting piece. Many members of the House would agree with me that Canada has what the world needs. We are an agricultural superpower in our ability to help feed the world. We have a major potash industry that is, in fact, the largest in the world. It is global in nature. We need to get that supply to the world. We have the energy the world needs. We have the ability to fuel the world. Again, whether that is in pipeline access or the ability to get energy to world markets, we have to have the supply chain to make that happen. We have to be willing, particularly at this moment when Canada is being called upon by countries around the world, to be even more of a secure energy supplier. We have to work on the major projects that help drive our economy forward.

We can talk about critical minerals, whether from the perspective of a military application or of clean energy. As one of the younger members of the House, I think about the future that I would like to leave for my future family, our constituents and people around the world. Critical minerals are going to be a really important part to our clean energy future. However, Canada has an outsized role globally to make sure those critical minerals are available to our allies and that we have alternative supply chains. That requires us, as parliamentarians, and certainly as a government, to make sure the regulatory conditions are in place so we can drive that process forward. What the government is proposing is essentially one window, one regulator and a one-year review once the proponent has submitted all the necessary information to the federal regulator.

Members of Parliament will remember that our government introduced Bill C-5 for this type of principle on major national projects. There have been 17 major projects that have been referred to the MPO. While I am on my feet, I would like to recognize the work of Dawn Farrell, someone who has great experience in the private sector and who is doing very important work to lead that agency and help ensure that we can advance projects that are in the national interest. Some members of Parliament have rightly asked if that is a good principle for major national projects. They have asked about how we take those principles and how we could ensure that perhaps mid-sized projects and projects of more local or regional interest could also have the same principles applied regarding the rigour in which we are trying to move processes forward quickly without shortcuts.

I think it is important for Canadians at home to understand the values that underpin not only how we want to ensure environmental safety and participation with indigenous groups in this country, but also the desire to make sure we can create certainty for businesses to invest in this country.

We are trying to reconcile all that and to do so on a more expedited timeline, and that is exactly what we are proposing today. What that looks like is that as opposed to having multiple line departments, such as Transport Canada, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, perhaps ECCC or, of course, indigenous engagement through Crown-Indigenous Relations, we should find a way to have it under one federal project review. While there could be a multitude of federal departments that would perhaps under current legislation have a role and responsibility, and we do not want to take away that expertise or that understanding of why those elements are important for projects, we have to be able to find the way to make it under one federal project review, not multiple ones, which is just challenging for the proponents trying to advance them.

It is also challenging for indigenous communities. I have the privilege of representing three of them. One piece of feedback I have had in the seven years I have been involved in Parliament is that if we have ongoing consultation through multiple line departments, this does create a capacity challenge to ensure that indigenous communities are actively participating and have the resources to make sure they can share their perspective, as per our constitutional requirements in this country.

Therefore, one thing this legislation proposes is a Crown consultation hub. This is the idea that in consultation, the multitude of federal departments that may have a say on a federal permitting decision could actually go through one body to engage with the nation in question to be able to provide the multitude of different perspectives we may need, as opposed to a series, a multitude, of departments playing that out over time. This is what we would, I guess, refer to as common sense. We think this is something that would reconcile the interests of ensuring that indigenous communities are engaged and we are meeting our constitutional requirements, with, at the same time, providing the proponent and a federal regulator with the ability to make that happen.

Instead of a multitude of departments, it would be the Canada Energy Regulator, the Canada Nuclear Safety Commission or the Impact Assessment Agency. One of those three agencies would have the purview to make all the federal decisions, with engagement from federal departments, with the goal of having a one-year decision once all applicable information is submitted. That is incumbent. We as parliamentarians across the House, I hope, can recognize that is important. It is something we have to be able to push forward.

On supply chain certainty, we have heard, and I have heard, commentary outside the House that the bill is trying to limit the ability to strike in this country. Let me say that this is simply not the case. What the bill is proposing is to put additional measures in terms of mediation support, such as a special mediator when there are complex cases between an employer and labour.

I go back to the point I made, which is that we have what the world needs, we have an obligation and we are in a critical moment for this country. We as a government feel it is absolutely incumbent to ensure that we are putting all the resources possible to be able to get to a resolution between the employer and the union. We understand the importance of labour in this country.

At the same time, we are putting critical provisions around the utilization of section 107, which is held by the Minister of Jobs. We feel that is an appropriate balance to make sure we are protecting the constitutional rights of workers and at the same time trying to ensure we are putting the resources to get the best deal at the table.

When we look at the legislation and the proposals from the government, we see there is actually a proposal to put 100 additional resources, this being full-time equivalents, to the Canadian Industrial Review Board. Again, this is a mechanism where, if parties get to an impasse, we could be trying to provide assistance to ensure that there is good-faith bargaining and that we could get to an outcome that matters for employers and also matters, most importantly, for the workers and the people who drive our economy across this country.

There is a lot in the bill, and I wish I had more than 10 minutes, but last is a modernization around port governance. Ports play an extremely important role in our country, and the provisions in the bill would allow for additional discretion for port boards in their capacity to make regulatory decisions, which we think is streamlined and the right way to go.

At the end of the day, the bill is about building Canada. I look forward to taking questions from my colleagues.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, this is an important debate. Members are studying a very lengthy piece of legislation.

I want to ask the member about the messages the government is sending now, relative to messages the government has sent in the past. Under the Liberal government, there was the passage of Bill C-69 and C-48, which are government bills that really obstructed the development of anything in this country, certainly the export of natural resources. Now we hear the government at least saying some good things. It is saying that we should be selling our resources to the world and that we should be developing and building things.

I wonder if the member will acknowledge there is some change. Is there some recognition that big mistakes were made in the last 10 years in this regard?

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, we have a new government under a new Prime Minister, and it is a government that is deeply focused on economic growth across the country. I would remind the hon. member that the oil and gas sector did grow under the last 10 years of the Liberal government, at the same time as we also reduced emissions in the country. The last government certainly sought the balance between economic growth and environmental protection. The current government will endeavour to do the same.

The last government built a pipeline to the Pacific coast. The current government, through the work of the Prime Minister and certainly by engaging Premier Smith, is open to another west coast pipeline, because it knows that being able to move the product to Asian markets is extremely important. Our ability to move liquefied natural gas off the B.C. coast to ensure that countries in the Pacific do not have to burn more coal in their energy grid is actually part of a global emissions reduction strategy. We are proud of the work we are doing here, and I know that members of the member's home province are proud of the current government as well.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, democracy is a daily challenge involving a delicate balance between the executive and legislative branches. However, Bill C-5 and especially Bill C-39 represent a step backwards not only for the environment and workers' rights, but also for democracy. The tariff war is being exploited to quietly push through permanent rollbacks that will have no effect for the remainder of Donald Trump's term of office. The cornerstone of democracy is the legislative branch, namely, the people's representatives, and we are part of that branch.

Is the member aware that, despite his good intentions, there are sometimes changes in government and that we are setting a historical precedent by granting extraordinary powers to the executive branch?

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, certainly in our system, there is cabinet, which is made up of members of Parliament who sit in the House. The member, in his remarks, his intervention, talked about tariffs. I do not know if there was a substantive piece where he disagrees with the policy that the government has introduced of countervailing duties to protect Canadian industry, to protect Quebec businesses, to protect Quebec workers, I should say. The member has the privilege and honour, as a member of Parliament representing his constituents, to stand in this place and to be able to take a position if he disagrees with the elected government and its utilization of our policy to protect Canadian workers.

Let us be very clear that we do this reluctantly. We believe in free and open trade. We recognize the importance of the commercial relationship we have had with the United States, but the executive stands behind the decisions it has made to protect Canadian workers at a time when, if we do not respond, we will be hurting Quebec businesses as well.

[Braedon Clark, Liberal, Sackville—Bedford—Preston, NS]

Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary and I have adjoining ridings, so of course we have a lot of overlapping interests. At the end of his speech, the parliamentary secretary touched on ports a little bit. The port of Halifax is one of the major ports in our country, with direct access to the U.S. northeast, Europe and the rest of the world.

I wonder if the member could elaborate a bit more on how the bill would aid our ports, not just in Halifax but across the country, to make sure we get our goods to market all around the world.

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague and I have the opportunity to work together, and I know we share an interest in the port of Halifax. If Parliament is to bring this forward, the bill itself would allow for additional governance for the port of Halifax or other ports across the country, which would centre around regulatory decisions, trade corridors and the ability to work together on how best we get to the outcomes around both importation and exportation of products across the country. This is what the ports were calling for. This would give additional flexibility for governance in that area.

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as always, it is a true honour for me to rise in the House on behalf of the residents of my constituency of Davenport to speak to Bill C-39, the building Canada strong act.

Let me start by talking a little about the moment we are living in. I think it is really important for us to understand the context in which the bill is introduced. As we often say these days, the world has changed. The Prime Minister has called it a “rupture”. Our relationship with the United States, our largest trading partner, is not what it was. We face unjustified tariffs on Canadian workers and industries, and we face talk about our sovereignty that no Canadian ever expected to hear from an American president.

Last week, before the European Parliament, the Prime Minister described what we were up against: trade being weaponized, tariffs used as pressure, and supply chains turned into vulnerabilities. His answer was not to retreat; it was to build our strength at home and to work with trusted, like-minded partners who share our belief in democracy and the rule of law.

We are seeking alliances that are strong enough so that no one can dictate our choices here in Canada. That is exactly what Canadians have asked of us. They have given the government a clear mandate to protect our economy, our prosperity and our sovereignty. We are doing that by diversifying our trade with reliable partners and by building right here at home. The world is responding. Just over a week ago, at Canada's first-ever investment summit, investors from nearly 30 countries, managing more than $100 trillion in assets, came to Toronto to look at more than 160 Canadian projects.

The summit closed with nearly half a trillion dollars in new investment commitments. However, interest is not the same as shovels in the ground. Investors told us what communities have told us for years: Our approvals have taken too long. Projects have often waited more than five years for federal decisions, with separate reviews and separate consultations for each permit.

That is why our government has introduced Bill C-39, which is before the House today. It would create the conditions for investment in projects that support good jobs and growth and for the safe and efficient movement of goods across our country, while protecting the environment and upholding the rights of indigenous peoples.

I know we have heard this multiple times, but it is important for me to state as well that the bill has three key parts.

The first part, “Build Canada Now”, would modernize our regulatory and permitting system to eliminate duplication with lengthy timelines. Our standard is simple: one project, one review and one year. Canada will always be a country of high standards, but high standards do not mean that the decisions have to be slow. The second part is “Keep Canada Moving”. We would be modernizing our transportation systems. This would reduce bottlenecks and better connect our trade corridors and ports so goods move faster and costs come down. The third part, “Canada Strong For All”, would modernize the Canada Labour Code and strengthen protections for workers.

I have heard some questions from my constituents. They have been asking me why the bill is so large. The answer is that getting a project built never depends on just one thing. It depends on assessments, on energy regulation and on fisheries, waterways, ports, rails and the workers who build them. It depends on many things. If we fix only one of those aspects, the project is still stuck. To actually get things built, we have to fix a number of laws together, ideally all at once.

Why do we have to move quickly? It is because investment decisions being made now will shape our economy for decades. The capital that does not come here will go elsewhere. However, urgency cannot mean skipping scrutiny. The bill deserves the debate we are having now in the House. It deserves careful study at committee. I know that we are open to making it even better.

I want to spend a little bit more time on the labour aspects of the bill, which are in part 3, because there is a lot of misinformation out there and because I know that my constituents care about labour deeply. My riding of Davenport was built by working people, many of them newcomers to Canada. Let me be very clear: There is no provision in the bill that would take away the right to strike. That right is protected by the charter, and the current government will always protect it. What the bill would do is give workers and employers more tools, more time and more assets to reach a deal at the table, where the best agreements are made.

About 95% of federally regulated disputes are already resolved without a work stoppage. This bill focuses on the few relationships that break down again and again.

Let me highlight just a few of those measures. First, where the last round ended in a strike, a lockout or imposed arbitration, bargaining must start six months early with federal mediators at the table. Second, the bill would extend the conciliation period from 60 days to 90 days, giving both parties time to reach a deal before any strike or a lockout. Third, a new special mediator would work intensively with both sides, and if there were no deal, the mediator's report would become public. That report would set out where each side stands and why talks broke down so members, employers and Canadians could see it all. Fourth, newly unionized workers, new unions, would get support from our government to reach a first contract. Fifth, the bill would enable penalties for bargaining in bad faith. Those measures are only part of it. Alongside these changes come stronger protections for workers on the job, from safer workplaces to a real crackdown on wage theft.

Let me turn to section 107 because I know there has been a lot of discussion about it in the media and in this House. This is not a new provision. It has been in the Canada Labour Code since 1984. Unions have told us that it has been used without enough transparency, so we listened and have proposed some changes. Bill C-39 would put guardrails around it. Before a minister can even consider using it, a special mediator would need to have completed their work and a public report would need to have been considered. Then the minister would need to conclude that a work stoppage would have a significant adverse national impact in an assessment that must weigh the right to strike. There must be a balance of items that are weighed in that decision.

As the Minister of Jobs and Families has said, the minister would have to show their work, clearly laying out the reasons why intervention was necessary in the national interest. I know that many labour leaders see this differently. I very much respect that and we will be listening very closely to them at the committee. However, it is important to remember that, at its heart, this bill would help parties address issues earlier, reach negotiated agreements and resolve disputes, while fully protecting the right to strike. Extraordinary intervention should always be a last resort. When negotiations go well, everyone wins.

Davenport constituents have also written to me, worried that we are dismantling environmental protections. This bill would not remove impact assessments that examine environmental, health and social effects, nor would it remove permitting or consultation. It would change who leads the review and how departments work together, not the standards that apply. One year does not mean cutting corners. The clock only starts once a complete application and all studies are in.

There have been extensive consultations on this bill because consultations matter. Over the summer, Canadians sent in more than 26,000 submissions. The government had proposed letting cabinet exempt some projects from the jeopardy test in the Species at Risk Act. We heard directly from Canadians that they did not like this. They pushed back very strongly and the proposal is not in this bill.

Finally, I want to spend a minute on the impact on indigenous communities. This bill would not change the duty to consult, our modern treaty obligations or commitments under the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act. It would change the burden. Instead of a separate consultation for every department and every permit, there would be one coordinated process per community, per project, through a new Crown consultation hub that would identify concerns early with the aim of securing free, prior and informed consent. Timelines, though, could be extended or suspended to complete consultation.

The Prime Minister often says we can give ourselves far more than anyone can take away. This bill is how we are doing that. We are building faster. We are protecting workers. We are protecting nature and building in partnership with indigenous peoples. I urge all members to support Bill C-39 and work with us to make it even stronger at committee.

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Swift Current—Grasslands—Kindersley, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the member spoke a lot about the labour portion of this bill, which is part 3. We have seen, over the last couple of years, a lot of strikes at the port of Vancouver, as well as the rail companies.

In the member's opinion, how would this bill have handled or interacted with those strikes and those labour situations at the port of Vancouver and the rail strikes?

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is directly because of those experiences over the last 10 years that I think we learned a lot as a government.

I also want to say that both our Minister of Labour and our Minister of Employment and Jobs spent the summer talking to labour leaders right across our country about section 107, building Canada strong, and how is it we can actually support them better with respect to reaching a deal at the table, because we know that the best deals are when both sides agree. They are the ones that are sustained and strong. A lot of the things we heard were put into our bill so we can strengthen it and make sure we do not have those strikes ongoing.

[Patrick Bonin, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C‑39 represents another another major step backward on environmental issues as well as on workers' rights.

The government would have people believe that the bill will not result in environmental rollbacks. It says environmental assessments will not be weakened.

Leading environmental organizations and environmental law groups are unanimous. Ecojustice, West Coast Environmental Law, the Centre québécois du droit de l'environnement and Equiterre have all stated explicitly and unequivocally that the bill will result in major rollbacks.

The government is not only introducing major rollbacks, it is also using the tariff crisis to implement permanent measures that would allow it to circumvent legislation.

These discretionary powers were unacceptable to begin with, but they were subject to a five-year limit. Can someone explain to me why the government wants to remove that provision so it can make those powers permanent and permanently circumvent the law?

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there are two key questions there. On the first one, with respect to any type of weakening or dismantling of environmental protections, that is completely not the case. We are not removing in any way any of the impact assessments that examine the environmental effects. What it does do is change who leads the review and how the departments work together, not the standards that apply. Therefore, we are expediting it, but not in any way eliminating any of those standards. If there are suggestions about how we can make that clear or improve that, I am happy to hear about them at committee.

With respect to why we have removed the five-year clause around building Canada strong, a lot of these projects take more than five years to build. Our investors need certainty, which is the reason that clause was taken away.

[Karim Bardeesy, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, I am very engaged in this debate and my colleague's speech. We share adjoining ridings. Therefore, some of the concerns and questions that my colleague is hearing are also being asked in Taiaiako'n—Parkdale—High Park. I want to ask her, given her experience in this Parliament, to speak about the continuity pieces around the environmental regulations here.

Also, would she not agree that it is important for people on the many sides of the environmental and resources extraction debate to agree that a quick decision is better than a slow decision, no matter which side of the debate they are on?

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think for us five years was too long for a decision to be made by our government. The world has so completely changed that we needed to put a completely new process into place. We needed to create a process that would eliminate any type of overlap or duplication. We wanted to create certainty and an easy way for businesses and projects to be able to go ahead. Therefore, while I would say we wanted to have one decision, one project, and one year, I believe we will be able to do the proper amount of assessment and study within that year to be able to make good decisions that are long-standing and good for this country.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent—Akiawenhrahk, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is with great joy and pleasure that I rise to take part in today's debate on Bill C-39, introduced by the government. I am also very pleased to inform you that I will be sharing my time with the Conservative member for Tobique—Mactaquac.

As Conservatives, we have one primary objective here in the House, and that is to save Canadians money. There are ways the government can do just that. For example, it could cut taxes or even eliminate them. What we have been proposing for months is to eliminate taxes on natural resources, such as oil, to speed up the process of getting projects built. That would leave Canadians with more money in their pockets. That is the quickest way of getting this done. Unfortunately, the Liberals are only partially implementing this idea.

Another thing the government could do is get out of the way and let entrepreneurs and Canadians develop our natural resources to their full potential and create wealth in the process. Canada is the envy of the world because our country has every natural resource and every kind of energy. For the past 10 years, however, we have seen successive Liberal governments stop at nothing to keep Canada's incredible natural resource and energy potential from being fully realized.

No discussion of natural resources and energy can be considered complete unless it encompasses both sides. We cannot rely purely on traditional energy sources like fossil fuels or purely on green energy. We need a combination of both. Achieving that will take willingness, openness and most of all, an end to the contempt that Canadians have witnessed and experienced over the past 10 years. Successive Liberal governments have treated certain so-called “traditional” natural resources, such as gasoline and so on, with contempt.

Let us not forget that a new government was elected in 2015. Prime Minister Trudeau said loud and proud that “Canada is back”. Some will recall that he was very proud to say that in Davos, and everyone applauded him. He was the new global star. That reminds me of certain things that are happening right now. The people in Davos were delighted to hear Prime Minister Trudeau say that the Canadian economy, and I am paraphrasing here, would no longer rely solely on what is beneath our feet, but also on what is between our ears. That was so disrespectful to Canadians, as if there had been nothing between people's ears since Confederation, or even long before that. That was the essence of Mr. Trudeau's Liberal policy: contempt for what lies beneath our feet, namely our energy resources and all the potential they represent.

As we saw, regulations and laws were enacted that were truly intended to hinder economic development and undermine the potential of our natural resources. Examples include Bill C-48 and Bill C-69. I will come back to that a little later, because, unfortunately, nothing has changed.

Some would have us believe that a new tone has been set in the past 18 months with the arrival of the new Prime Minister. We must tread lightly here. The current government deserves a global award for all their announcements, summits, ceremonies, statements and ribbon-cutting ceremonies. That is truly impressive, but where are the concrete results? During the election campaign, the Liberals were going on about Build Canada Homes. We had a good laugh at the time. Let me just say that the French title “bâtir Maisons Canada” sounded a bit like something out of the movie E.T. The Extra-Terrestrial.

Where are these houses? Where were they built? What concrete results have Liberal policies produced over the past 18 months? There are none.

I would remind members that one of the first bills the government tabled was Bill C‑5, whose objective—yes, I said “objective”—was to speed up the process of integrating practices. We, the Conservatives, did not oppose that approach. We even voted in favour of a closure motion so we could move forward. However, 18 months later, where are the concrete results? That is the issue. The Liberals put on a big show and make nice announcements, but there are no concrete results.

The proof is that, at this very moment, the Prime Minister has a pile of documents on his desk. Some 500 projects are ready to move forward, and those projects are currently being held up. If the government truly intends to advance Canada's economic development, it should green-light those 500 projects.

While 500 projects await action on the Prime Minister's desk, his government has created 14 new government agencies. Bill C‑69 and Bill C‑48 remain in effect.

Our leader said something yesterday that is worth repeating because it goes to the heart of the matter. He quoted Bill C‑69 and said that anyone seeking to proceed with a project must still provide an analysis of “the intersection of sex and gender with other identity factors”, as if that had anything to do with mines, pipelines and seaports. We thought the Trudeau era was behind us, but it is still alive and well. These are left-wing policies. The Liberals go on and on about their lofty principles. Woke policies remain in place because of Bill C‑69 and Bill C‑48. That applies to something else, too. As mentioned yesterday, proponents must still consider “any other matter relevant to the impact assessment that the responsible authority requires to be taken into account”.

The government wants to do it, wants to move forward, or at least that is what it is saying, but everything is open to all sorts of analyses. That is fine. We understand that. However, if we are talking about taking real action to reach our full potential, that is not what the government is doing.

We have been debating the government's Bill C-39 for the past two days. If we understood the government correctly, this bill seeks to do what the government has not done for 18 months, despite Bill C-5. That is basically what this is.

I have to say that it is rather ridiculous how these people were boasting about how Bill C-5 was a new approach. Now, here we are, 18 months later, and they are introducing another bill that takes a very similar approach, when we have yet to see any results. That is proof that the Liberals did not do their job properly on this.

We are talking about an omnibus bill that is nearly 250 pages long and contains hundreds and hundreds of provisions that we need to examine. Of course, as with all parliamentary work, the devil is in the details. We understand that there is a time limit. Earlier, I heard my colleague say that projects can begin after a one-year review period, but that is not the case because the government is giving itself the power to suspend that time limit at any time.

Imagine a foreign investor who sees Canada's immense potential and decides to take the plunge, thinking everything will work out. I wonder what will happen when that investor realizes that one very important detail will change once Bill C-39 is passed: The government will get the power to suspend this one-year time limit. That is not a good thing.

Obviously, a good way to reduce delays is to require only one environmental assessment per project. Two years ago, on behalf of the official opposition party, I was extremely proud to introduce Bill C-375, which sought to do exactly that: have just one environmental assessment, not two, per project. We worked with the provinces to move the bill along. I even managed to get the Bloc Québécois members to support the principle and vote with us at second reading. Unfortunately, the Liberals and the NDP voted against the bill, so it died. It is no stretch of the imagination to assume that, if we had passed that bill two years ago, our actions would have worked proactively in Canada's favour.

In the Speech from the Throne given 18 months ago, the King himself repeated what I had said in the House, that one project requires just one assessment. The King said so himself in the Speech from the Throne, which is no small thing, yet 18 months later, things are still not moving, and the “one project, one review” principle has still not been implemented across Canada from coast to coast to coast.

Our message to the government is that it should take some inspiration from what the Harper government did during the economic crisis we had to grapple with in 2008 and 2009. The process was streamlined. Every project had to be analyzed on a single page rather than pages and pages. It worked, because 23,500 projects were put forward under the Harper government.

As Conservatives, we value efficiency. We want the government to be efficient and to take inspiration from what we did back then, not from the inaction of the past 18 months.

Unfortunately, the government is slow to deliver any real results.

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

Mr. Speaker, I welcome my friend back to the chamber. The member and the Conservative Party need to take a broader look at what is happening here. The Prime Minister just came back from a highly successful investment summit: half a trillion dollars, which is completely unheard of in Canadian history. This bill is part of building a stronger and healthier economy.

Whether it is what took place in Toronto earlier this month, in attracting billions of dollars of investment, or ensuring that we can build projects, would the member not agree that we are on the right track to providing good-quality jobs and a stronger economy for the future of Canada?

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent—Akiawenhrahk, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to see my colleague here in the House. Does the member remember where he was two years ago when he voted against my private member's bill, Bill C-375, for one project, one evaluation? He voted against it, and that is on the record.

We lost two years on that issue, and we lost more than 10 years because of the Liberal administration. Government after government was opposed to any development of our natural resources. Now we want to fast-track everything, for sure, but the reason we have to do that right now is that during the last 10 years, the government failed to achieve great things.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is rare for me to agree with my Conservative colleagues, but I do agree with them on one point. There is appalling ineffectiveness within the government. Allow me give an example.

We have just come through an election campaign in Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, where it was made clear to the government that the funding, the liquidity support it wanted to provide to the forestry sector, is not working. The government was asked to lower the eligibility threshold from $2 million in annual revenue to $1 million. I have been checking for the past two weeks to see if anyone in Quebec has accessed this liquidity. No one has. This is appallingly ineffective. Meanwhile, the government is in the process of equipping itself with the tools to circumvent environmental laws. Ultimately, I have my doubts about both the Build Canada Homes strategy, as my colleague pointed out, and the strategy for providing access to liquidity for those in the forestry sector. No one is seeing any results yet.

This is a terrible failure on the part of this government.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent—Akiawenhrahk, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his very relevant comments. What Canadians want is to get more for their money and to have more money in their pockets. They also want the government to be more efficient.

My colleague has just demonstrated very clearly that unfortunately, in a sector that is essential to Quebec's economy and Canada's economy, namely the forestry sector, the government is slow to use truly constructive solutions and approaches.

It is never too late to do the right thing. Let us seize this opportunity to hold the government accountable and ensure it answers to us on this issue involving forestry workers.

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Swift Current—Grasslands—Kindersley, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I want to get something on the record here. The member for Winnipeg North was talking about the government creating jobs. The problem in Canada right now is that it is actually not up to the government to create jobs. It is up to the private sector to create jobs. The government's job is to create a regulatory environment that would allow the private sector to do that.

This is the second bill that the government has tabled claiming to blow the doors off the Canadian economy, yet it has not done anything to substantively address the regulatory problems that are cited by industry regarding getting jobs created. Does my colleague have any thoughts on that?

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent—Akiawenhrahk, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I deeply appreciate the question and the work done by my colleague.

The member pointed out that the best way to help the economy is for the government to get out of the way. This is what we are asking for as the Conservative opposition to the government, for it to get out of the way and let people develop the full potential we have in natural resources and energy.

[Richard Bragdon, Conservative, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

Mr. Speaker, it is an absolute honour to rise in the people's House again and speak to this important piece of legislation that the government has brought forth.

I would like to begin by reflecting on an old story that I have referenced before but that certainly applies yet again here in the House. There was a father who had two sons, and he challenged them to go to work in his vineyard. He said, “I need you to go out and work on the farm. I have some big tasks ahead.” He commissioned them to go into the field.

The first son rose enthusiastically and made a grand proclamation and a great announcement: “That's a wonderful idea. I'm going to do that right away. You can count on me. I'm going to do that. You don't have to worry one bit.” He made the grand proclamation, but he did not end up in the field.

Then there was the second son who was approached, and he said, “I can't go. I'm sorry to disappoint you. I can't go.” However, he got to thinking about it and feeling bad, and he said to himself, “I owe this to my dad. I'm going to go out and work in the field like he asked me to do.”

Basically, the conclusion to that story is to ask which son was more pleasing to the father, who had asked them to go out into the vineyard. Well, obviously, it was the second son. Even though his initial response was disappointing and did not rise to the occasion as was expected, the results were outstanding because he went and did what needed to be done and got the job done, whereas the other son made a grand announcement and a tremendous proclamation, got the hopes up of everyone around, sounded like things were going to be wonderful, but the end result was that he did nothing and was a grand disappointment.

I cannot help but see the correlation. Once again, we are having grand proclamations and excellent announcements: “Don't you worry. No matter what problem faces this country, you hang on. There will be another announcement within five minutes, and it will be okay.” People will look, and they will ask, “Where is the result?” The answer is, “Oh, don't you worry. We're going to come and make another announcement.”

There is another announcement, and yet a few months go by, and Canadians wait for the results and do not see any. “But don't you worry. There's another proclamation on its way.” They come, and their hearts are filled with anticipation. Much like cotton candy, the announcement provides an instant sugar high and makes us feel good and warm and fuzzy, but then comes the crash of no results and limited outcomes.

What Canadians are looking for is tangible results and real outcomes, and I could not help but think about that story as I was preparing my remarks today.

Look, these are challenging times, and we all admit that. We want what is best for Canadians, and we want Canada to move forward because Canada is a nation of incredible potential and overwhelmingly abundant blessings that we have both under our feet on our lands and in our people. We need to unleash and unlock that potential so Canada can live up to that potential and our people can enjoy the benefits of all those bountiful blessings that we have been given.

Therefore, I challenge the government today. With this grand announcement, I hope there is a firm commitment to deliver real results for real Canadians. They are tired of announcements and proclamations and grand theatre and great speeches on big stages. What they want to know is, will this deliver the potential for me to find real work, make a decent paycheque, be able to put groceries on my table, help us make the mortgage payment, keep the vehicle payments up, help our kids get through school and have them actually dream of maybe someday owning a home of their own? If we do not deliver that, we are not living up to our promise and to the expectation that has been made of us by Canadians.

I have been reflecting on this and looking at some of the announcements that have been made, and it was not long ago that there was yet another grand announcement: “We are forming a special projects office.” That sounds great. I love it. Over 500 announcements have been made and placed under the jurisdiction of the special projects office. However, I have to ask the House, how many have been approved? It is zero. We have had 500 announcements, many designations and grand proclamations and yet again the disappointment of no real deliverables.

The time for deliverables has come. The time for results has come. We have to get to a place where we are doing real things. The good news is that our party has put forward some real, tangible solutions for some of the challenges facing Canada's industry, workers and people. We are calling for projects to be expedited and to be approved within six months. We are calling for the repeal of job-killing laws and antidevelopment laws, like Bill C-69 and Bill C-48, that impede Canada's progress.

We are also calling for a genuine one-project, one-review approach that would give proponents certainty instead of making them go through multiple layers of endless regulation and red tape. It is time to unlock our resources and unleash our potential, move beyond the announcement phase and get to the deliverables and results phase. We do that by streamlining. We do that by making sure that this gets done and does not turn into yet another grand announcement that gets our hopes up but does not deliver what Canadians need in this time of stress.

We are fighting hard on this side of the House to save people and Canadians money, but also to have real projects and real jobs made available and done for Canadians. As we have seen, after a year and a half of announcements, we cannot point to concrete examples of things getting done. Nothing leads to more frustration than unmet expectations. When many expectations arise, when rhetoric soars in the moment and when we do not deliver on what we have promised to Canadians, they grow more suspect, more weary and more frustrated. Then they begin to look with a very jaundiced eye at anything that any parliamentarian or politician ever says. Why is that? It is because we have promised much and delivered little. We have to get to the place where we are delivering real, concrete results for Canadians, because this country has unbelievable, incredible potential.

I want to conclude with one final analogy from an ancient story that came to me as I was preparing for today. It is a story of a lady who was in a desperate situation and did not know where to turn. She sought solutions from various places. She went to doctor after doctor and could find no help. In fact, she just got further diagnosed, with more diagnoses and more prognoses, and spent more of her hard-earned money, ending up with nothing left in her pocket while living with the consequences of false hopes and many broken promises.

The good news is that this story did not end with her in a place of unmet expectation. The good news is that she pressed through the crowds and doubts, and she overcame the obstacles, as many Canadians are doing right now. She sought out a great physician and got her answer. Her answer came when she told her whole story. After she told her story and that great physician heard her story and gave her the answer, she went away whole.

Canadians become whole when those who are elected to represent them take the time to hear their stories, and not just hear their stories, but take direct action to bring real solutions to their problems. It is time to get beyond the diagnoses in this country, get beyond the announcements, proclamations and false hopes, and deliver real results for real Canadians in real time.

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should be encouraging the members in his party. I think he would make a tremendous leader of the official opposition. He mixes important oratory skills with the ability to point to where the government is moving in the right direction, while keeping his obligation to the loyal official opposition to continue to push the government to do more.

I would like to point out to my hon. colleague that this government is an action-focused government. This is not about symbolism; it is about delivering concretely. The bill before Parliament is of the nature of things that I know former prime minister Stephen Harper would support. I know Jason Kenney, who sat on the side of the House that Harper did, is supportive of the work the government is doing.

The Sisson mine, Darlington new nuclear and the Nova Scotia-New Brunswick intertie are projects that are actively under way, creating good jobs. Will the member at least recognize that these projects are happening? Is he going to support this bill?

[Richard Bragdon, Conservative, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

Mr. Speaker, it is always good to have a debate with fellow Maritimers in the House.

I will say this. Once again, the projects the member just listed are projects that have been announced but have not yet been delivered. We need real results to start kicking into place.

Let us not blame Canadians for being somewhat skeptical when they hear more proclamations from the government. Let us remember that this is the same government that for 10 years called some of our most valuable resources dirty oil and dirty gas and said we should keep it in the ground. It also said that anyone who advocated for those resources and the development of those resources was a planet burner.

I am glad the Liberals have experienced an absolute backflip and inverted suplex on themselves and are now embracing our policies, at least verbally. However, now we need proof of that change and transformation with real action, the real construction of pipelines, and real development.

[Patrick Bonin, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague seems to be in full agreement when it comes to the exceptional powers the government is giving itself to get around environmental laws.

I would like to point out that Bill C-39 even allows for the creation of economic zones where projects will be pre-approved. Projects will be approved before they are even assessed. Obviously, we can expect companies to sue the government if, after the assessment, the government decides a project is no good.

I wonder if my colleague is concerned about that. Does he not think this fits perfectly into a government strategy to deploy an oil arsenal using public funds? His party has stated that oil companies benefit from corporate welfare.

The government is gearing up to invest $40 billion in a mega-pipeline project. Is my colleague in favour of giving public funds to oil companies?

[Richard Bragdon, Conservative, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from the beautiful province of Quebec. What we need now is a government that will actually do something.

We need a government that gets real things done for Canadians. When we rank 38 out of 38 among OECD nations for GDP per capita, that is an indictment of the government's policies, which have failed to deliver real results. Even though the pronouncements are grand, the results have been very much disastrous as it relates to competitiveness for our industries, for our workers and for affordability for Canadians from coast to coast. It is time to get results for them.

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Swift Current—Grasslands—Kindersley, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for a tremendous speech. It is always a pleasure to listen to him in this House. He is very factual as well. That is what I really appreciate about what he has to say. He brings so much substance to what he says in the House. We can contrast that with the fact that we are dealing with a bill today that is thicker than most phone books we find in this country now. I really cannot believe it.

This is not the first bill the government has tabled to try to fix 10 years of disastrous governance over there. It already has Bill C-5. This is another admission that that bill does not work. Are we going to be back here again debating another bill to undo more bad Liberal laws from the government? Are Canadians expected to believe that it is going to get things right this time?

[Richard Bragdon, Conservative, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from Swift Current—Grasslands—Kindersley. What a great representative he is for his people in standing up for hard-working Canadians, farmers and resource workers.

One expression comes to mind. There's a song that has words that say that we need “a little less talk and a lot more action”. It is time for action now to get results for Canadians.

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. During the debate, the hon. member for Tobique—Mactaquac, which I believe is his riding's title, highlighted the importance of projects being real and proper. Therefore, I am seeking the opportunity to table a picture of the work that is actually happening between Nova Scotia and—

[An hon. member]

No.

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

I heard a no, so there is no unanimous consent to table any documents.

Resuming debate, the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Artificial Intelligence and Digital Innovation.

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Artificial Intelligence and Digital Innovation]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Pickering—Brooklin.

I rise today in support of Bill C-39, the building Canada strong act. I want to begin with a word that I think sits at the heart of the debate, or at least should sit at the heart of the debate for all of us, and that is the word “trust”. It is not trust in any one government or trust in a political party, but trust in our institutions, trust that our processes work, trust that when Canadians participate in these processes, their voices matter, and trust that government is capable of making good decisions in a timely fashion.

When I think about the conversations that I have had over the course of the last summer with businesses, workers, indigenous partners, community leaders and families, I find that most people are asking for exactly the same thing. They are asking for predictability. They are asking for stability. They are asking for clarity. Perhaps most importantly, and I think this demonstrates the popularity of our Prime Minister, they are asking for competence.

Canadians are reasonable people. They understand that governing is complicated. It is not something that one does on social media or on Twitter in a hundred and something characters. It is done through hard work. They understand that major projects have consequences. They understand that consultation can and should take the right amount of time. They expect good decisions to be made. They expect these decisions to be fair, and they expect decisions to be made in a reasonable amount of time. That is why this legislation deserves the consideration and support of the House.

At its core, this bill is trying to answer a question that is increasingly important to the future of the country in an incredibly unstable global environment: Can Canada move with the speed and certainty required to build the future we want in a way that respects the urgency of the moment and the need to preserve and protect that which we care about?

The world around us continues to change at a rapid pace. Supply chains are shifting, investment is moving and countries are searching for reliable partners. Workers are looking for security. As new markets are opening and new infrastructure is being built, Canada is being presented with a once-in-a-century opportunity, but opportunities do not become outcomes on their own. They require decisions. They require institutions to have the trust of investors, have the trust of workers and have the trust of Canadians. The reality of that trust is in people understanding how decisions will be made. Workers deserve that confidence. Communities deserve that confidence. Indigenous partners deserve that confidence. Investors deserve that confidence. Government must earn that confidence.

People may not always agree with the outcome; that is the nature of democracy, but they should know that there is a process that can be trusted and relied upon, that their voices will be heard and that they will get answers in a timely fashion. In my view, this is one of the most compelling arguments underpinning the legislation. We must give people answers, and those answers should demand high standards. High standards should not mean endless uncertainty. A thorough review should not mean permanent delay. It should be very clear that if projects do not meet the standards that Canadians expect, government should have the confidence and capacity to say no.

As the Prime Minister has said, if a project does not meet the standards that Canadians demand of it, government should have the capacity to say no. If the project does meet those standards, government should be able to say yes. To say no quickly and to say yes on time should not be hard. That does not mean we compromise on the things we care about. It does not mean that we compromise on our standards, not one bit.

We must make sure that this conversation does not meet the fate of so many others. We must not look at things as binary, as if there is one right answer and one wrong answer, as if we cannot do two things at once and as if we cannot chew gum and walk at the same time. Canadians expect of governments today the ability to do many things at once, to do them well and to do them properly. That is why this legislation matters for building the country strong. It matters for protecting our workers. It matters for protecting our environment. It matters for protecting the investments people are making in the country. It matters for protecting the things that we need to do in this moment.

We have heard from many of our colleagues that these are challenging times. We all know that the trade war has shifted how we look at things in the country and what we are called upon to do.

As we diversify trade, as we expand new markets, as we do all of the heavy lifting Canadians expect all of us from all parties to do, we have to protect our supply chains. We have to protect our projects. We have to accelerate our projects, but we have to protect safe workplaces for our workers and continue to protect our natural environment.

The thing that seems to be lost in this conversation is the fact that a tremendous amount of consultation has gone into this process, into the refinements and into what we are seeing in this legislation today. Spring and summer were spent listening to stakeholders and responding. Whether it was with unions, employers or indigenous partners, the conversation was about worker supports and the labour relations framework, and those inputs have directly framed how this bill is in front of us today.

We all know that about 95% of disputes in federally regulated workplaces are resolved without a work stoppage. Knowing this, most of the stakeholders we spoke to cautioned against broad structural changes that would undermine a process that works well in most cases. We recognize that it does not work in all cases, and we will come to that, but as Canada works to build a stronger economy to advance major projects and strengthen the infrastructure we all know we need, and that I know the opposition certainly should care about as well, we also need a labour framework that can meet this moment and that protects Canadian workers so they can thrive and prosper.

Bill C-39 proposes to put forward a balanced approach that would add tools and supports to ensure that more parties were able to reach agreements at the table, creating a more transparent process for the few disputes that remain difficult to resolve. These changes underpin Canadians' request to us: get things built, protect workers and do not backtrack on our standards. This is why dispute resolution is important.

In this bill, we are proposing mandatory dispute resolution remediation for parties that have experienced a work stoppage or had a binding method of resolution imposed on them. Doing so within six months of reaching a collective agreement would help mend relationships and reduce the risk of future labour disruptions.

The code does not currently prescribe when parties must begin direct bargaining. It allows parties to start their negotiations as early as four months prior, but the start date is really up to them. This bill now proposes that those conversations must begin six months before the collective agreement expiry, and be supported by federal mediators, increasing the odds of resolving differences before positions become entrenched. There is a provision that discusses conciliation. When there is an impasse at the table, the government may now appoint a federal conciliator to work with them for 60 days. This bill proposes to extend that to 90 days.

Perhaps what is most important is addressing where there is concern, and that is around section 107. One of the misperceptions is that this bill would somehow incentivize the use of section 107, but it is quite the opposite. Section 107, as we know, has been in effect for approximately 50 years in this country. It is used on an exceptional basis. For the first time, this bill would put guardrails on the use of section 107. It would ensure that, for the first time, there would be requirements placed upon the use of this provision, and that is particularly important to workers in this country. It is about making sure that the right to strike is never taken away from workers. It is about ensuring that their rights are protected, but it is also about making sure that we are bringing forward solutions quickly.

What it seeks to do is simply clarify section 107 by adding the two guardrails that are important. The first is the appointment of a special mediator and the subsequent report submitted to the minister. The second is a national impact assessment following the special mediator's engagement and report. Together, these would strengthen workers' rights and strengthen certainty. Ultimately, they would ensure that when we are looking to build big things in this country, how it all comes to pass, what goes into it and what people can expect on the other side would be certain and clear.

By setting down clear rules, we would be enabling ourselves to build this country strong. We would be protecting workers. We would be protecting the rules and regulations that matter to Canadians, but we would also be making sure Canadians, businesses and workers know that decisions come quickly, they come responsibly, and they come with two things top of mind: building our country and protecting workers. This is what Canadians care about.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Mr. Speaker, in his speech, my colleague talked about consultation, predictability and making hard decisions, but this is clearly the same old Liberal government. As part of this bill, for the third time, Liberals would be making extended interswitching just a pilot project. They have not been able to make the hard decisions of doing the right thing or they clearly have not consulted.

Why would they not be making extended interswitching permanent? Why would they be limiting it to just the Prairies, avoiding or excluding critical grain corridors like B.C. and northern Ontario? Why are they not listening to shippers and grain growers and including interswitching as a permanent change to the transportation corridors in Canada?

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Mr. Speaker, there are two things the member opposite must remember. First, there will now be an opportunity at committee for him to add these important questions, to put them on the table. This is an important reality of Parliament. There is an opportunity at committee for the member to raise those issues.

I would suggest the member remember that the Premier of Alberta said there has never been a better time to be a Canadian and to work with the government. These are things that the Government of Alberta and governments across this country from coast to coast are recognizing: that our government is working to ensure these problems are solved and that we work with provinces to ensure that it is not just the Prairies but the entire country that benefits from what we are trying to put forward today.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, parliamentary democracy is a daily challenge. It involves a delicate balance between the executive and legislative branches. Bill C-39 is a step backwards for democracy. It further centralizes power in favour of the executive branch by reducing the role we play here in Parliament. The Prime Minister is exploiting the tariff crisis to impose permanent rollbacks that will have no impact during Donald Trump's presidency.

Does the member not think that Bill C‑39 sets a dangerous precedent?

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the reality is that this is a difficult time for Quebec and Canada. It is a very dangerous time for our country and for Canadians and Quebeckers.

Of course, there are things we need to do right now, but Bill C-39 contains measures that protect workers, protect the environment and even protect the rights of Parliament. We believe we must work together to protect the citizens of our country.

To say that this limits or curbs Parliament's powers is inaccurate, and furthermore, it creates uncertainty.

[Ginette Petitpas Taylor, Liberal, Moncton—Dieppe, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Vancouver Granville for the overview that he gave of Bill C-39, which is extremely important legislation for our country and Canadians during this time.

During the member's summary, he talked about the consultation that took place over the summer. I am wondering if he would be able to elaborate for Canadians listening the type of consultation that has taken place to ensure that we got this bill right.

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the consultations were widespread, with unions, big and small businesses, indigenous communities and investors, folks who are helping to build this country. Those consultations, whether in small or large groups, were ones that mattered. They are reflected in this bill. That is a really important consideration because as we go through these processes, making sure those voices are heard and the feedback is reflected is a reflection of how this place works and should work.

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

Mr. Speaker, keeping it short, I am sure my hon. friend from Vancouver Granville will agree with me that the lawyers at West Coast Environmental Law based in Vancouver are hard-working and very skilled. They have named this the “bulldoze nature bill”. I agree with them.

Is the member prepared to listen to the advice of expert environmental lawyers who give this bill an F?

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I respect my hon. colleague and the organizations working hard to protect our natural environment and to ensure that our natural environment is well protected.

Part of the provisions in this bill do put the guardrails that are required to ensure that ministers would not be using provisions without due consideration. In fact, if we look at the provisions that have been made in British Columbia to protect our natural coast, the tanker ban and other provisions that are being made to protect whales and salmon are provisions that are going to ensure that our natural environment on the west coast that I know she loves, as do I, will continue to be protected.

[Juanita Nathan, Liberal, Pickering—Brooklin, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-39, the building Canada strong act, is a critical piece of legislation that would make Canada's transportation system work better for Canadians and for our economy. It is about keeping Canada moving by strengthening trade corridors and ports, providing regulatory certainty, achieving red tape reduction and modernizing transportation security clearances.

Canada's prosperity has always depended on our ability to move goods across vast distances and deepen trade relationships with countries near and far. However, the world has changed. The global trading system is being reshaped. Supply chains are being reorganized. Businesses are looking for reliable markets and reliable partners, while competition for investment is intensifying. For decades, Canadians benefited from a stable and increasingly integrated trading relationship with the United States, one built on growing market access and shared understanding of the rules governing our trade. Today, that environment has fundamentally changed and been replaced with a new reality, one where tariffs are being treated as leverage and supply chains are vulnerabilities.

The recent tensions with Canada's largest trading partner have underscored the importance of building greater economic strength and resilience here at home, started by building Canada strong and united as one Canadian economy. Since last year, the government has been working to advance nation-building projects faster and more responsibly, diversifying our industries and trade relationships, and creating high-paying jobs for generations. Bill C-39 would unlock more of Canada's economic potential by strengthening our economy at home and expanding opportunities for Canadian businesses abroad. To achieve this priority is to deliver generational investments in our trade and transportation infrastructure. The proposed measures in Bill C-39 would strengthen our transportation supply chain by modernizing our transportation policy and strengthening our trade corridors and ports to get products to market more efficiently and affordably.

Importantly, the bill also proposes measures to modernize Canada's marine governance structure. Given that 85% of Canada's non-U.S. trade moves through our marine ports, without them there is no trade diversification. The bill would also provide certainty and stability and achieve red tape reduction to get major projects built faster to help Canada's businesses save time and money, and make Canada an attractive place for investments. It would support trade digitalization. Together, the initiatives in Bill C-39 would reduce cost, improve administrative efficiency and improve the security of goods that move across our border by mitigating fraud. They would also strengthen our labour relations framework which would create more reliable supply chains and greater economic resilience.

This bill is also part of a much broader economic plan. In the Speech from the Throne, the government set an overarching goal to build the strongest economy in the G7. The government is committed to removing barriers that hold back trade and investment, getting major projects built faster and strengthening Canada's relationships with reliable trading partners all around the world.

The government has already moved quickly to launch a new $5-billion trade diversification corridor fund to put investments behind the ambition into action to build our infrastructure, strengthen our supply chains, attract private capital and grow Canada's economy. These are significant investments that would connect Canadian products to domestic and international markets and would support our government's goal of doubling Canada's non-U.S. exports over the next decade. Bill C-39 is the next piece of that work. However, infrastructure investment is only part of the solution.

Measures in Bill C-39 would also address some of the structural issues in the transportation supply chain. The bill would modernize the regulations, policy and governance structures that determine how our transportation supply chain operates and international trade is processed. By strengthening transportation networks, the government would build more reliable supply chains and give investors and trading partners greater certainty that Canada is a stable place to do business and invest.

When there is a bottleneck at a port, a shortage of rail capacity, a shipment held up by administrative or paperwork issues or a disruption anywhere along the way, the costs are ultimately borne by Canadian businesses and workers. Delays are costly for our businesses and for Canada's reputation as a reliable trading partner.

When we strengthen Canada's supply chains, we are not simply moving goods more efficiently within Canada. We are helping a business in Quebec, Vancouver or Toronto reach a customer halfway around the world. That is how Bill C-39 would strengthen trade, investment, jobs and economic growth.

This bill is about much more than modernizing Canada's supply chain. It is economic legislation. It is about strengthening our economy and creating the conditions for Canadian businesses to compete and grow. It is about improving the conditions for investment and growth across Canada and reducing costs by making government work better.

One of the most practical things a government can do to strengthen its economy is to reduce unnecessary regulatory burden. Businesses should be focused on investing, building and creating jobs, not navigating duplicative processes and unclear timelines. That is why Bill C-39 takes practical steps that would streamline federal review and permitting processes and reduce duplication across departments.

We are proposing to allow federal departments and agencies to share international trade information for imports and exports more easily and with less duplication so they can reduce information filing requirements for businesses, saving them time and money.

As I mentioned, this bill supports trade digitalization and would provide opportunities to modernize regulations. Many Canadian exporters still rely on paper-based systems, which slow movements and increase costs and the time needed to get goods to global markets.

The Commonwealth estimates that trading digitalization could boost Canada's trade volumes by approximately $100 billion. We would also create a new advisory group on national trade corridors to find problem areas that cause delays, suggest ways to improve the system, improve efficiency and help different players make more coordinated decisions.

This bill would modernize Canada's national transportation policy to give greater recognition to supply chain efficiency. More than 525 billion dollars' worth of goods and services move between our provinces and territories every year. When we look beyond our borders, we see that Canada's transportation corridors support approximately $1.55 trillion in international merchandise trade. These transactions depend on reliable railways, ports and other infrastructure.

Transportation performance and economic performance are connected, but we also need to ensure that the transportation system remains secure and resilient. Today's transportation system faces more complex and connected threats than in the past. This requires a modern, more responsive approach that can respond to evolving risks while remaining predictable for industry. Updating the Canada Transportation Act to modernize the approach to transportation security clearances would create a broader, more effective framework.

These proposed changes would help partners work together, make better use of information and help us better manage risks related to people who hold trusted roles within the transportation systems.

I want to pause and underline the commitment of the Government of Canada to uphold indigenous rights and collaborate with indigenous partners during the implementation phase of this bill. We undertook engagement. We heard from indigenous people, the transportation industry and Canadians to better understand how we can build more efficient, resilient and reliable supply chains while supporting economic growth and trade. Those conversations helped inform the measures before us today—

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Red Deer.

[Burton Bailey, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

Mr. Speaker, for over a decade, the Liberals blocked, stalled and denied all kinds of projects across Canada that would have made us richer, more sovereign and less dependent on any other country. However, today, we are expected as Canadians to believe that the same people who filled Justin Trudeau's caucus have suddenly turned a leaf and believe the opposite of what they have been saying for a decade.

Will the Liberals admit they do not actually believe in anything and that every decision one Liberal makes is to keep another Liberal in power?

[Juanita Nathan, Liberal, Pickering—Brooklin, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Canada's new government is building Canada strong. From the time we took our seats in 2025, we have been acting with greater speed, certainty and predictability to bring projects and investments into Canada. Since last spring, Canada has signed over 20 new economic and security agreements and has advanced 27 nation-building initiatives that will support more than 337,000 jobs and attract nearly $200 billion in new investments.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-5 contained a discretionary provision that gave the minister absolute authority to identify and make decisions about projects of national interest.

Bill C-39 renders that discretionary authority permanent, thereby setting a dangerous precedent modelled after the Trump administration's contempt for officials elected by the people.

Someday, when the member is sitting on this side of the House, with the opposition, will she will feel the same enthusiasm at the prospect of having the government use a procedure that gives the executive branch absolute authority over the legislative, the bedrock of parliamentary democracy?

[Juanita Nathan, Liberal, Pickering—Brooklin, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I understand the concerns the opposition member has about this. That is why this bill has built-in guardrails to safeguard against giving ministers the authority that he is talking about.

Of course, when the bill goes to committee, members will have an opportunity to weigh in and give their suggestions on how to make this bill better, as the bill is still open for suggestions. I would reiterate that there are guardrails in it to prevent that from happening.

[Linda Lapointe, Liberal, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we are hearing comments about the amendments to the Canada Labour Code, primarily with respect to section 107.

Can my colleague share her thoughts on this section? What does she think about it?

[Juanita Nathan, Liberal, Pickering—Brooklin, ON]

Mr. Speaker, union workers are at the heart of a strong economy. This bill is designed to strengthen good-faith bargaining and achieve better outcomes for everyone. It would crack down on wage theft and the misclassification of jobs. It would protect workers during business transactions and insolvencies. It would safeguard bargaining rights when contracts change hands. It would speed up grievance arbitration, in addition to always upholding the constitutionally protected right to strike. I just want to reiterate that the right to strike would always be protected under this bill.

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

We have time for a very short question.

The hon. member for Foothills.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Mr. Speaker, we had the Building Canada Act 18 months ago. Now we have the building Canada strong act. Nothing has been built or done in the interim. I cannot wait for when we have the “building Canada very strong act” 18 months from now.

The key is repeal. Can the member tell me exactly which regulations and legislation this bill would repeal—

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

I did say a very short question.

The hon. member for Pickering—Brooklin can respond.

[Juanita Nathan, Liberal, Pickering—Brooklin, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we have been building, and if you were listening to my colleague's speech earlier, they were talking about Darlington, where shovels are in the ground at the moment. It is in my region, so I have seen that myself. This is the second part of Bill C-5 that we need in order to make Canada—

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

We are resuming debate.

Before I recognize the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley, this is just a reminder to members using “you” to speak through the Speaker and not directly to other members.

That being said, the hon. member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley.

[Ellis Ross, Conservative, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Sudbury.

We are here talking about Bill C-39. It is another announcement, another 250-page bill to talk about what we already announced last year, basically rewrapped in a more complicated bill. We are trying to talk about building Canada strong when we really should be talking about how to rebuild Canada strong, because we were a country that was growing before 10 years ago, when the Liberal government decided to stall and stifle our economy with Bill C-69 and Bill C-48.

To undo the damage done by these bills and the stifling of the economy, all we are getting now is announcements, whether we are talking about the Major Projects Office or Bill C-39. I was an MLA and was a chief councillor back in the days of LNG development 20 years ago, so this is where I come from. More specifically, I come from the processes of how to get projects approved, whether we are talking about environmental assessments provincially in B.C. or federally in Canada, and the regulations that go underneath them. Parallel to that is the consultation accommodation that must happen with aboriginal peoples.

It is great to see the conversation that we need an economy being so universal. After 10 years, we need an economy, but the government is not admitting that it did not like the economy growing. It did not like LNG development. It did not like LNG exports. In fact, it was the Liberal government that said that there was no business case for LNG development. It was this government that let Germany, when it came knocking on the door of Canada to secure an LNG deal, go away with a hydrogen deal.

I travelled to Ottawa to try to fix the record based on my experience of project development, whether we are talking about forestry, mining or LNG. The government did not take my request for a meeting. A member of the opposition did, and all I was here to say was that they were talking to the wrong people. The federal government has no idea what it is talking about. There is a huge business case for LNG. There is a huge demand, and if someone wants proof, they should come talk to the first nation leaders in B.C. They are the ones who put together the LNG export plan. They are the ones who fought for it and lobbied for it.

In fact, a lot of the leaders who fought for it did so with no praise or recognition, which is a shame. These are people like Elmer Derrick and the people of Nisga'a. The leadership at the time, who were supporting my band in getting LNG off the ground, never got recognition. Now LNG is pursuing its own LNG facility, but all of that was with all the opposition from the provincial government in B.C. and the federal government. I did everything I could to understand environmental assessments, regulations and case law, and the only thing I can say now is that I wish I knew then what I know now in terms of how this place operates. We could have gotten it done quicker.

It is a shame that Canada is in the position it is in now as a weak country, just because of the ideology of saying “no” to LNG development and exports. There were 18 major LNG projects in B.C. at a time when we just got started. All of them left. One major project from my territory, the only one that survived, was LNG Canada, and there are some minor floating LNG projects.

If there had been no opposition to development back then, we would not be here having this conversation. We would not be talking about affordability, jobs or our young people leaving the country. We would not be talking about the need to cut taxes, because the economy would have been keeping up. Unfortunately, the damage that has been done in 10 years has brought us to a place where the most we can do now is try to send signals to the world about announcements: Let us repack what we announced last year into a 250-page bill and call it Bill C-39.

However, I am glad that at a high level, the opinion of the Liberal government seems to be changing. It is a Festivus miracle, but will that translate into something of substance? Right now, it is going to take some time to understand how this 250-page bill fits with the fast-track approval of a project, given that we already had an announcement of a Major Projects Office that was supposed to do the same thing. That buzz over the Major Projects Office is now a fizzle.

Now, partially, Bill C-39 is talking about the existing powers of the Canadian Impact Assessment Agency and how it is going to be amended but also how some is going to be transferred over to the energy regulator and some might be fast-tracked to the Major Projects Office. I have just one fundamental question that the government cannot answer. At the end of the day, who signs the environmental assessment certificate? Is it going to be the regulator, the Major Projects Office or the Canadian Impact Assessment Agency? Whoever does it is going to take responsibility for that signature going forward. The government cannot answer that.

How is industry supposed to have the certainty to invest in Canada if the legislation and regulations are all over the map? Corporations, and first nations for that matter, are going to have to hire lawyers and consultants to pore over these new bills to find out exactly what the process is.

By the way, I heard a number of the government members talking about indigenous consultation. There is a contradiction in terms of what they are saying about consultative duties to first nations people affected by major projects. I am talking about that pre-decision, pre-approval, to approve it in one year, but the courts have said it cannot do that. When the Crown is aware of a decision that might affect rights and title, the government has to consult and accommodate first nations before it makes the decision.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Tell that to Pierre Poilievre.

[Ellis Ross, Conservative, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Shall I say it again? Before you make the decision, you must consult and accommodate, not after the fact, when you have made the decision. Your own policy says it. Read your policy on the Justice Canada site. It—

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

I have to interrupt the member to remind him not to speak directly to the other side but to speak through the Speaker. I will let the member continue.

[Ellis Ross, Conservative, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, Canada's own policy says that. Even though I am getting heckled by the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader, I am just reciting what Canada's policy says. How is the government going to square that?

I have seen what has been done in the B.C. treaty process. The government makes the decision and then promises to continue consulting and accommodating. That is not what the court case said. Interestingly enough, though, back in the day, as first nations, we could only dream of planning our future. We had no money and no resources, and we were under the Indian Act. We could not plan a future under the Indian Act. It is a very punitive system for first nations, so it was very hard to plan a future.

There are entities out there now, though, and I think the government should seriously consider this, that could help, not with the process itself of environmental assessments, rights and title, but could help a region, town or first nation plan for the future in light of what might be major project development in Canada. Specifically, I am talking about the Canadian Institute of Planners. I know they are here lobbying the government and members of the opposition.

I can see my past, my history, in what they are talking about. It partly relates to what I wish I knew then as opposed to what I know now. It could have made life a lot easier not only for my first nations people but for the surrounding area. At the end of the day, as a judge said back in the day, “Let's face it, none of us are going anywhere. We're all in this together.”

[Marcus Powlowski, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for his intervention, although I ended up feeling a little confused. He started off talking about Liberal policies stalling and stifling major projects.

In this bill, my understanding is that both the impact assessment and the permitting would be done concurrently and over the course of a year. I would think that would address his problem with our stalling major projects. Then he went on, and it seemed that at the end he was criticizing the one year as not being enough.

Exactly where does the member stand on the one-year timeline to get projects approved?

[Ellis Ross, Conservative, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his confusion because I am confused as well. I know the existing process under the Canadian Impact Assessment Agency, but I do not understand the correlation to the Major Projects Office, and now we have a new bill that talks about a regulator being in charge. As far as I can see, it is a three-ring circus. If people do not understand the process, which should be a clear-cut process for investors, first nations and Canadians, then how are we going to build Canada strong?

I understand your confusion.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

I remind the member to address his answer to the Chair.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, over the course of the summer, the government consulted with unions and labour organizations. Federal unions have been calling for section 107 of the Canada Labour Code to be removed, after the government has used it to order workers back to work, undermining the collective bargaining process, at least 10 times. Now the government is proposing new language around section 107 and calling these changes “guardrails”, but unions are telling us that these changes could potentially weaken workers' bargaining power.

If organized labour did not ask for these changes, who does the member think did request these changes? Would it be the big corporations?

[Ellis Ross, Conservative, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, that is great question, and it is an important issue. I mean, the labour is what actually builds Canada. It provides the jobs, the contracts and the subcontracts. Those are the people who build the bridges, the buildings and the LNG plants.

Really, this issue is so important that it has to go to committee. It cannot just stay the way it is. That is what committees were built for, and that is what I will be hoping the government does: send this issue to committee.

[Dave Epp, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if my colleague from Skeena—Bulkley Valley would agree with the following statement. The presentation in this chamber of Bill C-39 is actually a proof point, in the same manner that Bill C-5 was a proof point.

What do I mean? Well, Bill C-5 is a proof point that 10 or 11 years of Liberal government has basically stifled resource development in this country, so the government needed Bill C-5. We supported it, fast-tracked it through, and now, after 18 months and 500 projects, absolutely zero has been done. Now the government has added a word, calling it “building Canada strong”, and here we are with Bill C-39.

Would the member agree that it is a proof point that neither 10 years of previous policy nor the issuance of Bill C-5 has developed this country at all?

[Ellis Ross, Conservative, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, without a doubt, we should not be here. We should be building on past successes. We should have been building 18 LNG projects out of B.C. We should not be having this discussion about Canada being Canada strong in terms of breaking down the barriers. I mean, after that big announcement of one Canada, one economy, we still cannot sell wine from one province to another province. It has just been announcement after announcement.

I agree that 10 years of damage to our economy trying to be undone by the people who actually did the damage is actually putting us far down the ladder in terms of economics.

[Linda Lapointe, Liberal, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to know what my colleague thinks about our commitment to ensuring that decisions on projects requiring a federal permit are made within one year.

This would give investors and project proponents the predictability and clarity they need. When it comes to making investments, people need to know what to expect.

[Ellis Ross, Conservative, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, without a doubt, yes, I agree with one year, as long as the process is followed and is described clearly and, by the way, as long as the case law is followed that has been laid out by the courts on how to address rights and title. We cannot put an arbitrary time limit on the rights and title of first nations people. That is what I am talking about when I talk about the contradiction in Bill C-39. There is no answer to that.

[Linda Lapointe, Liberal, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to address Bill C-39, the building Canada strong act. I would also like to take the opportunity to welcome my colleagues to this new parliamentary session. This is the first time I have spoken since we came back. I hope that we will have a good session of constructive work and that we will move quickly on all the bills that we need to move forward and pass.

When we talk about building Canada strong, we often think of major projects. We think of infrastructure. This includes ports, railways and major investments. In my view, a strong Canada starts in our communities. It starts at home.

I proudly represent the riding of Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, which is located in the Lower Laurentians of Quebec and includes the cities of Boisbriand, Rosemère, Deux-Montagnes and Saint-Eustache. I am very proud of these communities. I meet families and workers there, as well as entrepreneurs and small and medium-sized business owners. I meet people from the manufacturing sector who want to continue to produce and create good local jobs. What they want from us is simple. They want stability. They want clear rules. They want to be able to invest. They want to be able to hire as well as grow their businesses.

They want us to get things done.

This issue is even more important today. We live in a world where economic uncertainty has become a daily reality. We see it particularly clearly in our trade relationship with the United States.

Just a few months ago, entrepreneurs in my riding were telling me about plans to expand. They were talking to me about growing their businesses, buying new equipment and hiring more workers. I was told about plans in Saint-Eustache and elsewhere in the Lower Laurentians.

Today, the context has changed. With the uncertainty coming from the United States, some entrepreneurs are being more cautious. Some are re-evaluating their plans, while others prefer to wait before making a major decision. I can understand them. I was an entrepreneur before I got into politics. Expanding a plant, buying equipment and hiring workers are big decisions. A business needs to know where the markets will be. It needs to know what it will be able to get in return for its goods. It also needs to know that it will be able to deliver its products to its customers. It needs predictability.

We do not control every decision made south of the border, but we can act on what we control here in Canada. We can make our processes more efficient, strengthen our infrastructure, diversify our markets and create a climate where businesses have more confidence to invest within Canada.

A significant portion of Bill C‑39 focuses specifically on how we review major projects in Canada. Currently, a proponent may have to work with multiple departments. They may also need to go through a process to get the necessary authorizations. Bill C‑39 seeks to better coordinate these efforts. For certain designated projects, a decision should be made within a year once the required studies and information have been provided. A one-year timeline would be fantastic. The bill also calls for better coordination of assessments, federal authorizations and, of course, consultations with indigenous groups.

In my view, the idea is simple. Companies that want to invest in Canada need to know the rules. They need to know what the steps are. They also need to know how quickly a decision can be made. That does not mean that we are setting aside our environmental responsibilities, nor does it mean that we are setting aside consultations with indigenous peoples We need to do things right, but we also need to be able to do them efficiently.

We can build faster, and we can build responsibly.

Another aspect of Bill C‑39 is particularly important to me. I have been a member of the Standing Committee on International Trade for several years, and I am thinking here of supply chains and trade corridors. At committee, we talk a lot about trade agreements. In fact, we have signed about 20 of them in the past year. We are talking about new markets. We are talking about exporting more Canadian products. However, trade agreements are not enough. We need to be able to deliver the products.

I will give a very concrete example that we heard at the Standing Committee on International Trade. Earlier this year, we heard from Antoine Morin, senior vice-president at Olymel, a company with a strong presence in Quebec's pork production market. We are talking about Canadian exports to Japan, a very important market. Some of that pork is sold fresh, never frozen. It is a very valuable commodity that needs to be delivered in a very specific time frame. Mr. Morin explained that Olymel uses the port of Vancouver as its main gateway to Asia. He also explained what happens when there is a service disruption or a strike. When fresh pork piles up at the port, the company has to make a decision quickly. They may need to freeze a product that has to be sold fresh. They may also need to redirect it to another market. The product is not necessarily lost, but some of its value may be. They also have to pay for storage. There are delays and additional pressure on trading partners.

Olymel explained that roughly 250 containers pass through the port of Vancouver every week. That represents a lot of money and a lot of jobs in Quebec and Canada. When service is disrupted, up to 50 containers a day could be delayed. If a disruption lasts for as long as a week, losses can run into the millions of dollars. That is real money. Getting a container of fresh pork to market requires producers, factory workers, shippers, railways, the port and, at the end of the chain, customers in Asia waiting for their product. When just one link in that supply chain fails, the consequences can be felt everywhere.

That is why reliability matters.

Our partners need to know that when they buy a Canadian product, we can deliver it on time. We need to be able to deliver on time. It is a matter of trust. It is also a matter of Canada's reputation. That is why Bill C‑39 proposes, among other things, the designation of trade corridors. The bill would also allow for the creation of a national trade corridors council. This council would track the movement of goods, analyze significant disruptions and recommend solutions.

The bill also provides for the possibility of establishing a transportation project office. The goal is to better coordinate federal authorizations related to transportation projects. This objective is particularly important for Quebec. Quebec has the St. Lawrence River, ports, and road and rail networks. Quebec has businesses that sell products across Canada and around the world. The Lower Laurentians is part of that network. A business in Boisbriand may depend on a supplier on the other side of the country. A business in Saint‑Eustache may have customers in the United States, Europe or Asia. Everything is connected.

A trade agreement can open the door, but we still have to deliver the goods.

We also need to talk about workers because we cannot have a strong economy without the men and women who keep it running every day. Bill C-39 will not do away with labour disputes, but it does seek to encourage the parties to begin bargaining earlier. It seeks to strengthen the use of mediation and to provide more opportunities for workers and employers to come to an agreement on their own. It is important to note that workers must be able to defend their interests and rights, while employers need stability and predictability. The best solutions are often those that the parties are able to negotiate themselves.

The bill also seeks to strengthen occupational health and safety resources. It provides for additional resources for the Canada Industrial Relations Board. If we look at what happened with Olymel, we see just how closely related labour relations and supply chains are. A disruption can have consequences far beyond the place where it occurs.

I want to come back to my riding of Rivière‑des‑Mille‑Îles. When we debate an important bill here in Ottawa, we always need to be thinking of the people we are doing this work for. I am thinking of the business owners that I know in my riding. Some of them had plans to expand. Today, they are being more cautious about those plans.

[Marc Dalton, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a bit discouraging to be having this debate now in the House of Commons. Why? It is because we already passed a similar bill barely 18 months ago. The Conservatives voted in favour of it because the Prime Minister said that those projects would be fast-tracked at unimaginable speeds. The result is that 500 projects are currently stalled. We are not seeing any progress at all.

Can the member tell me whether we will see another bill like this one 18 months down the line?

[Linda Lapointe, Liberal, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is talking about hypothetical projects. Today, I am here to speak to Bill C-39.

I would like to know what my colleague thinks about the fact that after the studies and the consultations with indigenous peoples are done, it would take only one year to initiate a major project. What does he think about investors knowing that it would only take a year for it to get started?

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether my colleague read the bill carefully. I did. It gives the government the option of launching oil or gas infrastructure projects without completing environmental assessments first.

Here is a very telling example. Back home, the GNL Québec project was turned down. Its proponents had said that they would respect the environmental assessments. However, when their proposal was flatly refused, they turned around and sued the government. I am loathe to think what would happen if an oil and gas project got off the ground, with infrastructure construction under way, only to find out that the project was a no-go and had to be shut down. That would lead to devastating lawsuits for the government.

Is my colleague aware of that?

[Linda Lapointe, Liberal, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague.

Which riding do you represent? Is it Chicoutimi or Lac-Saint-Jean?

[An hon. member]

Jonquière

[Linda Lapointe, Liberal, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Welcome to the Standing Committee on International Trade. I understand you are to be our new member. I very much look forward to working with you on the Standing Committee on International Trade.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to hear that he is going to join our committee.

His question was about consultations. Before a major project is approved and implemented, there is a one-year period for the environmental assessment and consultations with indigenous peoples.

No, we will not cut corners.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

I will just remind everyone that members are to speak through the Chair.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am disappointed with Bill C-39.

Unlike the Liberal MPs, I would say that there are no environmental lawyers who believe this bill protects the environment. I would like to ask whether the government and its MPs are open to significant and serious amendments, because this bill is unacceptable.

[Linda Lapointe, Liberal, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my highly esteemed colleague.

Bill C‑39 will be studied by a special committee. If amendments are suggested and the parliamentarians on that committee accept them, there is definitely a way to move them forward.

When it comes to the environment, “one project, one year” still involves environmental studies and respect for indigenous peoples' rights and consultations.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, an environmental organization has warned that Bill C-39 would create sacrifice zones, where communities are expected to bear the pollution and environmental risks of projects deemed to be in the national interest. Will the government actually guarantee that no communities will be subject to making those sacrifices of health and environment as a result of fast-tracking projects under Bill C-39?

[Linda Lapointe, Liberal, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will say the same thing I said to my other colleague earlier: Any suggestions, changes or amendments will have to be proposed in committee.

[John-Paul Danko, Liberal, Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Madawaska—Restigouche.

First, I would like to wish the Westmount Wildcats senior football team a successful season opener. I thank Coach Tom Pain, all the teachers and the coaches for everything they do to provide the young men this wonderful opportunity to compete in the fall football season.

It is an honour to rise on behalf of the residents of Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas in support of the building Canada strong act. Since the 2025 federal election, our government's top priority has been to strengthen the Canadian economy, diversify global trade, invest in Canada, reduce our reliance on the United States, defend our national sovereignty and stand up for Canadians. The building Canada strong act is a critical part of our government's plan to take action with urgency.

President Trump has chosen to attack Canadian workers and businesses with illegal and unjustified tariffs, tariffs intended to destroy the livelihood of Canadians and, as stated, ultimately make Canada the 51st state. This is a real threat, and everything we do as a government has to be considered within this context. The Trump administration has targeted Canadian steel, aluminum, auto and other industries that support hundreds of thousands of Canadian jobs and Canadian families.

Nowhere is that more real than in my home of Hamilton, Ancaster and Dundas, because Hamilton is Canada's industrial centre and steel city. For generations, Hamilton's industrial economy has been deeply integrated with our friends and allies in the United States, a mutually beneficial agreement that has helped workers and businesses on both sides of the border. Those workers did not cause this trade war, but in large part it is the workers on both sides of the border who are suffering the consequences.

Canada continues to work toward a fair deal with the United States, because we want a strong trading relationship and our two economies are deeply connected, but a fair deal has to be a good deal for Canada. We will not sacrifice Canadian workers, Canadian businesses or Canadian sovereignty just to sign a deal. We cannot pretend that things will go back to normal. As the Prime Minister has stated, “Nostalgia is not a strategy.” We have to be prepared to build our own future, and that means building a stronger Canadian economy, finding new customers for Canadian projects and attracting new investment. Most importantly, it means creating good jobs and greater security for Canadian workers and their families.

Ultimately this is about people, families, workers, and opportunity for the next generation. Fortunately, Canada stands in a position of strength. As the Prime Minister has stated, Canada has what the world needs. We have energy, critical minerals, agriculture, steel, aluminum, lumber, technology, research, education, training, expertise and innovation, and we have some of the best workers and most skilled tradespeople anywhere in the world.

We certainly have something increasingly valuable today in an increasingly divided and dangerous world: certainty. Canada is stable, and Canada is reliable. We have strong regulations and strong labour and environmental standards, and when Canada makes a commitment, our partners know we will honour it. That makes Canada a reliable place to do business.

It is why we are building closer ties with Europe. We are expanding trade across Asia, including with China, India, Indonesia and other Indo-Pacific countries. We are working to get more Canadian energy to global markets, including the potential for a new pipeline to the Pacific and selling Canadian oil directly to Asian customers, including China. Our partnership with the Ukraine is also creating opportunities for Canadian workers and companies in defence and manufacturing, including with drones and advanced technologies. That is the purpose of the building Canada strong act.

The bill is about three core pillars: building more important projects faster, moving Canadian products to markets and supporting the workers who are at the core of everything we do. The most important thing is getting more projects built faster, because Canada has no shortage of opportunity but does need better ways to turn that opportunity into actual projects, shovels in the ground, jobs and paycheques.

Right now, major projects face overlapping reviews, different levels of governments and years of uncertainty. That uncertainty has consequences. It is certainly something I have observed in my career working as an engineer in the construction industry, because a delayed project means delayed construction, delayed investment and Canadian workers waiting longer for jobs.

The building Canada strong act would create a clearer, more predictable review process with one decision within one year, working with provinces and municipalities to get shovels in the ground at speed. We will maintain environmental protections and respect indigenous rights, but we can do those things while we make decisions in a reasonable amount of time.

Hamilton is a good example of what is possible. Right now, there are 800 acres of shovel-ready industrial land that is ready for development in advanced manufacturing, with the potential for billions of dollars in economic growth and tens of thousands of new local jobs. These are former industrial lands that the council worked proactively to zone. The infrastructure is there. The province has recently recognized this site as a provincial priority for economic investment. That is what “shovel-ready” should mean: do the planning early, get governments working together and resolve the issues before they become roadblocks. Then when there is the opportunity for investment, we need to start from a position of “yes” through the approvals process. The government should be working to get to “yes” instead of starting from “no”.

At the recent Canada investment summit, investors from nearly 30 countries came to Canada with nearly $500 billion in investment commitments announced because the world wants to invest here. Our job is to turn that investment into projects, jobs and opportunities for Canadians.

The second part is about moving Canadian products to market. If we want to sell more Canadian goods around the world, we need the infrastructure to get them there. That means ports, railways, highways and air corridors. The building Canada strong act would identify important national trade corridors and help move transportation projects through federal approvals faster.

Again, Hamilton is a perfect example of how this can work. We have the busiest freshwater port on the Great Lakes. We have major rail connections, and the busiest overnight cargo airport in Canada. We sit at the centre of Canada's largest manufacturing region. Our new rail container terminal is already helping to get traffic off the highway by putting trade onto rail instead of trucks on the 401.

There is huge potential on the Great Lakes. The St. Lawrence Seaway has significant underutilized capacity, and there is so much opportunity for Canadian steel, grain, minerals and manufactured goods to travel directly to markets throughout Canada and the United States and to global markets from the Great Lakes through the seaway and out to the Atlantic. This means less congestion on local highways for families in the Golden Horseshoe, more reliable supply chains for businesses and better access for new customers and Canadian companies.

The third part of this bill is about the people who actually build this country: Canadian workers. Hamilton has a very proud tradition of organized labour. Our city was built by generations of steelworkers, tradespeople, skilled tradespeople and unionized workers. That is why this legislation is important for strengthening Canada's federal labour framework. It would help unions and employers deal with issues earlier and reach negotiated settlements and agreements before they get to a strike vote. It would add new health and safety officers, increasing capabilities, and would add staff to deal with the backlog of worker complaints. The main purpose of this legislation is to ensure safe workplaces, fair treatment, strong collective bargaining and more stability for workers and their families.

To close, Canada is at an important turning point. The United States has started a trade war that we did not ask for. The global trading system is changing. We do not know what the Trump administration is going to do, but we know what Canada can do. We can build, because Canada has what the world needs. We need to get things built. We need to get our products to market. We need to make sure that the benefits come home to Canadian workers and Canadian families, because together we will build Canada strong.

[Marc Dalton, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am listening to the Liberal member, and the words are great. I can say amen to a lot of what he is saying, but the problem is that the Liberals have been in power for 11 years. He said that Canada has no shortage of opportunities and huge potential. Well, why are things not happening? We have had 500 projects, actually way more than that, bogged down.

The Liberals claim that part 1 of the bill sets a one-year decision timeline, but the fine print reveals that the clock only starts after proponents submit every single study requested. Is this not just a shell game that leaves years of regulatory delays untouched?

[John-Paul Danko, Liberal, Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas, ON]

Mr. Speaker, maybe this is a bit of a misalignment of ideologies. On this side of the floor, we believe in Canada, we believe in Canadians and we are proud of Canadian businesses. I am amazingly proud of and optimistic about the opportunities we have, especially in Hamilton, being that it is an industrial hub, and the opportunity to realign our economy the way we have to based on the threat we are facing. I know Canadian workers, Canadian businesses and Canadian industry are going to rise to that challenge and be much more economically stable in the future.

[Caroline Desrochers, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Housing and Infrastructure]

Mr. Speaker, I know that the city of Hamilton, which my colleague represents, is home to a port that is really pivotal to the commerce of the steel industry, just like the port of Trois-Rivières in my own riding, and is supporting thousands of jobs in his riding. I am wondering if my colleague could tell the House how this bill is going to accelerate the development and expansion of trade corridors in his region, including through the port of Hamilton.

[John-Paul Danko, Liberal, Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I had the opportunity to visit the port in Trois-Rivières last winter. There is so much opportunity within Canada to expand and also gain efficiencies in the port system. As I said, one of the things I am the most excited about is getting trade traffic, which right now is putting goods onto transport trucks and clogging up the 400 series highways between Windsor and Montreal, onto rail and onto shipping so that when we are out with our family, we are not hitting that congestion in traffic. It is also much more efficient, getting goods to market with consistency and reliability.

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

Mr. Speaker, “getting products to market” is a repeated phrase, and one thing that shakes my confidence in the government was in the Canada Gazette. On August 1, when it posted about the west coast oil pipeline, it did not accurately describe, in a very short description, the product that will go in the pipeline. Similarly, as the Liberals talk about the product going to China in the pipeline, I will note that the diluted bitumen, which is actually the product used mostly in China, is the tar in the bitumen to pave roads.

I wonder if the member would comment on the level of familiarity of the government benches with the products that are being shipped.

[John-Paul Danko, Liberal, Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is obviously a champion for the environment. We very much respect that.

My understanding is that a lot of the Canadian oil and gas being shipped to Asia is being used to make the physical products we use. It is not being burned for energy. Carbon is not being released into the atmosphere.

I do agree that we have so much opportunity beyond just the oil and gas industry. That is why we are focusing on renewables, on the transition to the electric economy and on doubling the transmission and generation of electricity, because those things are where the real opportunities are in the electric future. There is so much opportunity for those industries in Ontario and in Hamilton.

[Guillaume Deschênes-Thériault, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Mr. Speaker, in April 2025, we were elected with a clear mandate to strengthen, diversify and unite the Canadian economy. Over the past 18 months, our Prime Minister and our government have shown real leadership in advancing these objectives.

Last year, we began by establishing a framework to support major nation-building projects. In budget 2025, we put forward various tax incentives to stimulate investment in Canada. We have invested heavily in our infrastructure and in projects of critical importance to our country. We have signed economic and defence agreements with some 20 countries on five continents. We are in talks to strengthen our ties to the European Union. These are just a few examples of measures that speak to our government's ambition to strengthen the Canadian economy.

The bill before us today, Bill C‑39, the building Canada strong act, is the latest in a series of measures. Bill C‑39 is important because it provides predictability for those who want to invest in Canada. This is extremely important under the current circumstances, because the eyes of the world are on our country and the investment opportunities presented by projects here.

I have a good example. The first-ever Canada investment summit was held in September. The results speak for themselves. The summit produced nearly $500 billion in new investment commitments to Canada. This capital will support Canadian workers, businesses, infrastructure, and our country's strategic sectors.

On the sidelines of the summit, I had the opportunity to attend a reception hosted by the Government of New Brunswick in Toronto, where I was able to speak with four different people who were leading projects for northern New Brunswick. When we talk about projects that will boost the Canadian economy, that also includes the region I come to Ottawa to represent. The feedback I received was very interesting. It helped connect project proponents from northern New Brunswick with various international investors. The feedback I received from the people I spoke with is that the world recognizes Canada's investment potential. They see the wealth of natural resources in our country. They see our government's ambitions and the efforts we are making to build at scale. As a government, we want to seize this opportunity and send a clear message that now is the time to invest in Canada. This will enable us to foster sustainable growth, create opportunities and ensure prosperity for all Canadians. If we want to attract these investments, and if we want them to translate into tangible projects on the ground, we must ensure that a regulatory framework is in place.

With Bill C-39, we are trying to attract more investment to Canada and move forward on projects that are important for our economy and communities by implementing a clearer, more efficient and more modern regulatory framework. A key aspect of Bill C-39 is a commitment to make decisions within a one-year period for projects requiring a federal permit. That will give investors and project proponents the clarity and predictability they need to invest and build in Canada. Right now, this process is taking far too long in many cases. I want to emphasize the fact that acting more quickly does not mean being ineffective or abandoning our high environmental standards. Not all projects will be approved. We can still reject projects that do not meet Canada's environmental standards or Canadians' expectations. However, rather than taking years to say no, we want to be able to say no more quickly. If the project does not meet the government's expectations, people will not have to wait for years before getting a definitive answer. When the answer is positive, we obviously want to let those involved know as soon as possible, while respecting the process in place, particularly when it comes to environmental standards. It is important to avoid delays because when a project is ready to go in the first year but it has to wait for years and years because of administrative delays, that results in millions of dollars of additional costs, and investors may decide to invest in other countries instead. That is not the message we want to send. We want to provide predictability for those who are interested in investing in Canada.

I want to repeat that we do not need to choose between ensuring rigorous environmental protection and streamlining project reviews. We can do both at the same time. That is what we want to do with Bill C‑39. We can do those things right now, in fact: maintain strict environmental standards while moving forward at an appropriate pace. I think that the key word for those who want to invest in Canada is “predictability”. This is consistent with what we heard at the 2026 Canada investment summit from people who want to invest in projects of national interest in Canada.

The transportation section is another important part of Bill C‑39. We want to diversify our economy and develop new markets. We are already seeing that now. We have signed trade and defence agreements with about 20 countries, and we are in talks with several more. These agreements give Canadian businesses access to new markets. We also want to strengthen Canada's economy by breaking down barriers to interprovincial trade in order to build one Canadian economy. However, if we want goods to get from point A to point B efficiently and if we want to speed up the transportation of Canadian goods, whether to new international merchants or from one province to another, we need to build more efficient and resilient supply chains.

Through Bill C‑39, we are proposing a suite of measures to achieve that goal. For instance, we are going to set up a transportation project office that will be responsible for coordinating the granting of federal permits and advancing priority transportation projects. We are going to invest in strengthening our existing trade corridors, but we are also going to try to develop new ones. We are going to modernize the governance of our ports. Indeed, when we look at some of the ports in other advanced economies, it is clear that we could learn a thing or two. Could our ports be more productive and more efficient? I think so. We have made the most of what we could learn by looking at certain ports around the world that are more efficient than ours. We are trying to implement some of those measures here in Canada.

We also want to move forward with new strategies for digitalizing trade. It is 2026, and we have access to technological tools that can help us be more efficient. Some systems are still paper-based, and containers have to be offloaded from ships so that paper documents can be signed. The same results could be achieved more efficiently by other means. For example, for ships at sea, documents could be signed digitally. The goal is to reduce the administrative burden and come up with a clearer, more predictable regulatory framework. Our goal in implementing this suite of legislative, administrative and technological changes is really to make our ports and trade corridors more competitive. This would strengthen our position as a reliable trading partner on the world stage. It would also strengthen the one Canadian economy, supporting our long-term growth.

This will have a ripple effect across the country, including in Madawaska—Restigouche, the riding I represent here in Ottawa. I see this as a very positive thing. If potatoes from the Grand Falls region can reach the Mexican market more quickly, or if the wood chips or maple syrup we produce can reach Europe more quickly, so much the better. I recently visited a business in Restigouche that exports bumpers to Australia. When we talk about moving goods, this also includes goods from Madawaska—Restigouche reaching various markets in Canada and internationally.

In this bill, we are also taking steps to support our workforce. To build a strong Canada, we must start with the workers. To do this, to achieve our goals, we need our workers. Bill C‑39 enables us to take meaningful steps to strengthen labour relations by requiring early negotiations in complex cases, giving trade unions and employers more time to identify the issues, access mediation services and reach negotiated settlements before a strike or lockout occurs.

Let me be clear: We will always protect the constitutional right to strike. All we are trying to do is establish a modern framework that prevents labour disputes from happening in the first place. The goal is to create a favourable environment where employers and workers can start negotiating together earlier and can access mediation together earlier to reach a negotiated settlement. A negotiated settlement is always better than a protracted labour dispute. Really, our focus is on helping the parties resolve issues earlier, supporting negotiated outcomes and providing timely assistance when challenges arise. This will benefit our workers, our employers and, I would even say, the country as a whole.

I will end there. I look forward to taking questions from my colleagues.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent—Akiawenhrahk, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from New Brunswick. I commend him for his passion for his region, as we all have for our own. There is a reason we were elected by the people.

I know that my colleague was elected 18 months ago, and I congratulate him, but two years ago, before his time, his peers on that side of the House voted against Bill C‑375, which called for “one project, one environmental assessment”. It was my bill, in fact. We, the Conservatives, had introduced it. Today, however, the government is boasting about wanting to move forward. Even the King said as much in the throne speech.

What does my colleague have to say to his Liberal colleagues who voted against the “one project, one environmental assessment” bill but support that concept today?

[Guillaume Deschênes-Thériault, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Quebec. I always enjoy debating with him in the House.

When people in my riding ask me what we are doing to strengthen the Canadian economy, I am proud to tell them about our Prime Minister's and our government's leadership and about all of the work that we have done over the past 18 months to make Canada's economy stronger, more unified and more robust. I also tell them about the measures that we have put in place to promote projects of national interest and about the tax incentives that we have implemented to boost investment.

Bill C-39, the bill before us today, provides a clearer regulatory framework and more predictability. These measures are working. Just look at the summit that was held in Toronto, which resulted in $500 billion in investments for projects across the country, including New Brunswick and Quebec.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-5 contained a discretionary provision that gave the minister absolute power to determine which projects are of national interest. Bill C-39 gives even more power to the executive branch by diminishing Parliament's role. That is a subversion of parliamentary democracy.

The Liberals are exploiting the tariff crisis to impose permanent rollbacks that will have no effect during what is left of Donald Trump's term in office. The member is very enthusiastic about this dangerous precedent, but will he be just as enthusiastic and happy about this bill when he winds up on this side of the House facing a new government and that government starts trampling on democracy and our legislative power?

[Guillaume Deschênes-Thériault, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased that we, as members of the House of Commons, have several days to discuss Bill C‑39. I am pleased that we can exchange ideas here, at the heart of our Canadian democracy. I am also looking forward to following the committee's work on this. Many witnesses will share their points of view. All members, including opposition members, will have an opportunity to comment.

In his question, my colleague talked about enthusiasm. What I am hearing is enthusiasm on the part of people who want to invest in Canada and on the part of workers who are seeing the positive impact of these investments across the country, including in northern New Brunswick, the region I represent. While in Toronto for the summit, I spoke with four proponents championing projects in my region. They were eagerly awaiting measures like this one, measures that encourage investment for the benefit of all Canadians.

[Eric St-Pierre, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Madawaska—Restigouche, who is very involved in his community.

How will the people of Madawaska—Restigouche benefit in concrete ways from Bill C-39, the building Canada strong act?

[Guillaume Deschênes-Thériault, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Mr. Speaker, my riding is home to a number of projects and a great deal of momentum. The bill will provide a clear regulatory framework for people who want to invest in projects in northern New Brunswick. For example, responses about federal permits will be delivered within a year, providing predictability.

When it comes to transport, we want to make our ports more efficient. New Brunswick has the port of Belledune and the port of Saint John. Goods from my riding, Madawaska—Restigouche, sail from those ports to reach various markets around the world.

Modernizing port processes and procedures to make them more efficient will benefit our local businesses, which are already very active in international trade.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is good to be back in the House of Commons debating legislation. That is what we are elected to do. That is what we are in the House for. It is good to be here and talking about Bill C-39. The Liberals call it the building Canada strong act, which rings similar to a similar bill we dealt with about a year ago. I will maybe have time to come back to that, but I will start by saying that of course we agree, or that I agree, with the stated premise of the bill, which is to enable Canada to build things, to build Canada stronger.

That is certainly something that I not only very deeply believe needs to be done but also that is pretty consistent with what I have spent the last 11 years talking about. At the moment, to be sure, we are confronted with an unprovoked, unjustified, deeply damaging and unnecessary trade war with the United States. We did not choose it. It is not something that Canada chose, but it is the moment we find ourselves in.

However, the issues around this, around the necessity of building major projects and building our country back up again, have very deep roots. We have been talking about this for 11 years. We have spent the last 11 years being unprepared for this moment.

Before I go too much further, I will say that I am going to share my time with the member for Edmonton Southeast.

As I said, we did not choose to be in a trade war with the United States. We did not choose to have our country economically attacked, but for the last 11 years, the government has left us unprepared for the moment.

I was elected in 2015, and that year, the very first thing the government did was cancel the northern gateway pipeline. The Liberals are saying today, “If only we had a west coast pipeline.” There was a west coast pipeline approved and already on their desk the minute they took office. The first thing they did, by ministerial order, was cancel it: 525,000 barrels a day. At today's price, that is $50 million a day in economic activity, $20 billion a year.

[An hon. member]

Oh, oh!

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am being heckled by the member for Winnipeg North, who says that there was something misleading in that statement. There is nothing misleading. That is exactly what happened. There was a conditional approval that the Liberals rescinded by ministerial order, so here we are today without that pipeline. It would have been built years ago.

In 2016, the Liberals introduced the carbon tax. They also spent 2016 failing to champion the Keystone XL pipeline, another one that has not been built. It was cancelled by Biden later on. The government did not champion it and did not see it through to get it built when it had the chance. In 2016, the Liberals chased off TransCanada PipeLines, which wanted to build the energy east pipeline. Not only did it abandon that pipeline because of changing regulatory goalposts, but it also changed its name to TC Energy because “TransCanada PipeLines” did not fit what it was doing. It had to move its business to build pipelines in Mexico and the United States, where the opportunities were. That is the legacy of the government.

I am up only to 2016. In 2017, the Liberals brought in the clean fuel regulations, which is a misnomer. It is really just a tax on fuel. In 2018, they brought in Bill C-48, which banned shipping traffic on the northwest B.C. coast. Again, we are talking about wishing we could export our products to the Asian market at full global price. The Liberals passed a law banning the shipping traffic to be able to do that.

In 2019, Bill C-69 became law. We all know what Bill C-69 is. It is the “no more pipelines” bill. That was what they passed. There have been no major pipeline applications under that law. They even made changes to the Fisheries Act that made it impossible to get a hydro project approved. We heard about that at the natural resources committee yesterday. The head of WaterPower Canada told the committee that under the 2019 changes to the Fisheries Act, it is impossible to get a hydro project approved in Canada. The Liberals will not even allow hydro projects to go forward under the current government.

In 2022, Prime Minister Trudeau told the world that there was no business case for Canadian LNG to Europe. In a way, he was right, but the reason there was no business case was because of all the red tape and regulation, which the government imposed, that killed the business case. So, yes, we need to build Canada. If only we had spent the last 11 years building Canada, we would not be in such a precarious position today.

We agree with the government that we need to build things. Major projects need to be built, and it is not just oil and gas. I have spent a lot of time talking about pipelines, which is a really important one, but there are terrible deficiencies in our ports. We have among the worst ports in the world for efficiency. We have everything from ports to rail, airports, electrical transmission lines, etc. We have a need for major projects, and so we do support this stated purpose to build Canada.

It is funny that the fanfare with which the bill before us was tabled rings familiar, which is because the Liberals said many of the same things they said about 18 months ago when Parliament first sat following the last election. It was last spring, in June, that they passed Bill C-5. It was a bill that Conservatives supported a little reluctantly, because it granted extraordinary powers to ministers to interfere politically and cherry-pick and decide politically which projects they wanted to exempt from their own laws that they had passed. It was not quite the approach for us. We would rather they stripped away all these bad laws, but we said, “Look, we have to build something. If this is a way to get something done, we will support it”, and we did. Here we are, a year later, no major projects approved and no shovels in the ground. It did not seem to make any difference. Now, we have this latest bill that is more about bureaucratic structures than getting shovels in the ground.

This is a 250-page bill the Liberals dumped on Tuesday afternoon, a little less than 72 hours ago, and so I have not gone through all 250 pages with a fine-tooth comb. We are going to take the time to make sure that we understand the bill fully, but part of what I understand about it is the movement from the Impact Assessment Act to the Canadian Energy Regulator on certain projects, which is probably not a bad idea. The structure of Bill C-69 was there to kill projects.

The idea that the bill before us would give certainty to industry is quite misleading. The bill would give ministers the power, but would not compel them to make a decision within a year. It would give them the latitude to hit the pause button on how long that year takes. It would give them the power to extend the year. It would give the power to say, “No, I'm going to take extra time.” This is not going to give the certainty that industry needs.

We heard yesterday at the natural resources committee about how important it is to have regulatory certainty. Regulatory uncertainty makes the country uninvestable, and we have seen investment flee this country under this government. We do not need new laws. We do not need summits. We do not need announcements. We do not need speeches. We do not need vague MOUs. We do not need photo op signings. We do not need slush funds under political control. We do not need corporate welfare. We simply need to undo the approach that, for 11 years, has prevented major projects from going ahead in Canada.

We need major projects. We need pipelines. We needed pipelines 10 years ago, 11 years ago, and we need them now. We need better roads. We need better ports. We need better infrastructure. We need all these things, and we are still waiting.

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

Mr. Speaker, first of all, let us make it very clear. Under the 10 years of Stephen Harper, we actually saw zero inches of pipeline built going to the west coast through B.C. In the Trudeau era, the TMX was delivered.

Now having said that, we have a new government and a new Prime Minister elected just last year. Over that year, they have attracted a great deal of investment. One needs to look at Toronto, where half a trillion dollars of investment is coming to Canada. This bill is an important aspect of that.

While the member has not agreed, he should get on board, support the legislation and—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

The hon. member for Calgary Crowfoot.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, there is a lot to unpack there. The Liberals never talk about the investment outflows when they talk about inflows. The net has been an outflow of this country under this government.

I am really glad that the member brought up Trans Mountain, because I had meant to and did not quite have enough time. The Trans Mountain pipeline was a pipeline that a private builder would have built. They started under this government, and the regulatory uncertainty chased Kinder Morgan out of Canada. That is what happened.

The government nationalized the project and built it at a 500% overrun of what was projected. That is the Liberals' approach on building pipelines. The Harper government bequeathed the government a balanced budget. The New York Times described Canada as having the most wealthy middle class in the world and two approved pipelines, and the Liberal government blew it.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the reality is not what my colleague claims. The only oil and gas infrastructure projects that have been carried out were only possible because the government agreed to invest public funds in them.

Back home in Saguenay—Lac‑Saint‑Jean, as soon as developers started asking for public money for the liquefied natural gas project, the LNG project, the Government of Quebec lost interest. People know full well that over the long term, with the energy transition under way, these very expensive infrastructure projects are not profitable. That is the problem. We are going to end up in a scenario where environmental assessments have been scrapped and people can pretty much do whatever they want with infrastructure projects that are not profitable.

Does my colleague agree?

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with much of what the member said. I do not think it is a good thing that the public money has to prop up any private project that would otherwise, in a proper regulatory environment that had clear criteria, make it investable.

I do not agree with the government's approach. I do not agree that it has had the right approach on infrastructure at all. I could go on. I could talk about the failure of the Infrastructure Bank. The Liberal government has chased private capital out of energy during its 11 years in office.

[Burton Bailey, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague just delivered an informative, excellent speech.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Burton Bailey, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

Mr. Speaker, members can laugh all they want.

The Liberal government's Bill C-5 would create the Building Canada Act, and it was to build at speeds like nothing we have seen before. Bill C-39 adds the word “strong”.

I would like to ask my hon. colleague if that word is the only thing that the Liberal government has built in the last 18 months.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, that is about right.

Sooner or later, the government is going to be confronted with the fact that there is a difference between saying something and doing something. What we have seen from the government is a lot of speeches, announcements, photo ops and words, but not so many shovels in the ground.

[Jagsharan Singh Mahal, Conservative, Edmonton Southeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of the people of Edmonton Southeast to debate Bill C-39, legislation that the government says would get Canada building. Conservatives will judge this bill by whether it saves Canadians money, protects their jobs and delivers the projects our country needs.

In my previous career as a lawyer, I understood that my clients depended on outcomes. Whether I was advocating for a favourable judgment or negotiating a successful settlement, my responsibility was to advance their interests and deliver a meaningful result. My clients needed more than assurances that I was working on their files. They needed to know what the progress was and what that meant for them. Canadians should expect the same accountability from the government. The government works for its people and they are entitled to judge it by the results.

More than a year ago, the Liberals introduced Bill C-5, promising to accelerate major projects, yet, more than a year later, the Building Canada Act still contains no designated national interest projects. Now, the Liberal government is asking Canadians to place their confidence in a nearly 250-page omnibus bill. Canadians deserve an explanation of why the previous legislation has not delivered the promised designations and why this legislation would produce a different outcome.

In my legal practice, another stack of paperwork would not, on its own, demonstrate progress for a client. It should not be the measure of success in government either. That is why we must look beyond the title of this bill and examine how it would actually change the approval system. Bill C-39 would create a transportation project office, a national trade corridors council and a new framework for regions of national interest. Coordination can be useful, but creating new offices and frameworks would not necessarily eliminate regulatory issues. A faster approval system should clearly identify who is responsible for a decision, coordinate overlapping federal reviews and provide stakeholders with a predictable path through the process.

The real test would be whether these changes actually reduce red tape and shorten the time it takes to reach a final decision. These delays have consequences beyond the walls of this chamber. A project awaiting a decision represents potential contracts for suppliers, apprenticeship for young workers and income for families. When those opportunities remain uncertain, people must make decisions about their futures. This is especially important for younger Canadians. Statistics Canada routinely reports that thousands of Canadians move abroad each year. In 2021, the majority of Canadians leaving the country were between 20 and 44 years old, many of whom moved down to the United States. People leave for many reasons, and we should respect their freedom to pursue opportunities elsewhere, but as MPs, we should be deeply concerned when Canada cannot offer a competitive future to the people we have educated and trained. An engineering graduate needs a company willing to hire. An apprentice needs a project that will provide steady work. When investment is delayed, the opportunities attached to it are delayed too. For families in Edmonton Southeast, the stakes are personal. Parents want their children to build successful lives without having to move away to find the opportunities they need.

Canada should be a country where ambition has room to grow. That requires a government that understands the connection between investment, employment and the ability to build a free life here.

Conservatives have proposed a clear approach: approve projects within six months, repeal antidevelopment laws brought in through Bill C-69 and Bill C-48, adopt “one project, one review”, set clear requirements, coordinate the process and deliver a predictable decision.

Bill C-39 promotes a one-year decision timeline for certain assessments, but that would depend upon the preassessments and determinations, both of which have no clear timelines. For the stakeholders involved in those projects, the preparation and review needed before that point still take time and money, something that this bill would not entirely address. We must examine whether these provisions produce greater certainty across the entire process. Businesses cannot plan their investments around a deadline that tells only part of the story.

The same need for certainty applies to getting Canadian energy to market. This is where the government must address the tanker ban created through Bill C-48. The Oil Tanker Moratorium Act restricts large crude oil shipments through ports along British Columbia's northern coast. For an oil export project that would rely on those ports, faster approval of pipelines would not itself resolve the separate restriction put by the tanker ban on the loading of its product onto ships. The government must explain how it promises faster development when it continues to leave export barriers in place. Investors need confidence that a complete project can operate from production to delivery to the customer.

Bill C-39 would not repeal the tanker ban. Bill C-264, which was put forward by my hon. colleague from Calgary Signal Hill, directly addresses this issue. If the government wants to demonstrate it is serious about opening opportunities for Canadian energy, that is a concrete measure already before Parliament.

For Alberta, access to markets means opportunities for people who build and maintain energy infrastructure and for the businesses that support them. Those opportunities matter in Edmonton Southeast.

In closing, my experience as a lawyer taught me to keep the interests of people I represent at the centre of my work. I bring that same responsibility to the House. Canadians deserve opportunities they can build their lives around and a government that can demonstrate what it has accomplished on their behalf. Conservatives will review this legislation carefully and press for changes that deliver those results. The government has made its promises. Canadians are waiting for it to deliver.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister made a commitment to Canadians in the last election to build Canada strong and deal with issues like affordability and our health care system, not to mention the issue of crime and making our communities safer. However, building Canada strong means securing export markets. That is one of the reasons we now have 20-plus trade and security agreements since the Prime Minister was elected. It is the reason that in Toronto, just a couple of weeks back, the world came to Canada and made half a trillion dollars' worth of investments. That is a historic amount of money because of the leadership of the Prime Minister and the drive from this government.

The legislation before us today is going to help us put that into place. Will the member give a clear indication that he will support the—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

The hon. member for Edmonton Southeast.

[Jagsharan Singh Mahal, Conservative, Edmonton Southeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the contradiction in the member opposite's question lies with there being no results from Bill C-5, which the government passed last year. No project has even been started under Bill C-5. It is right for Conservatives to question parts of the bill so it delivers what it promises to deliver.

[Amarjeet Gill, Conservative, Brampton West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Conservatives have said for years that the government needs to change its direction to help Canadians. We strongly suggest that it accepts the Conservative economic action plan.

After more than a decade of Liberal promises, major projects still face lengthy approvals. Would Bill C-39 actually get projects built faster, or would it create another layer of federal bureaucracy?

[Jagsharan Singh Mahal, Conservative, Edmonton Southeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, this bill definitely leaves us with a number of questions. There is increasing bureaucracy, as I said in my speech. This bill would create three new offices that I have read about so far, and there may be more, but increasing offices itself is not going to deliver results. To deliver results, we need to get rid of Liberal laws that are standing in front of the intention of this bill, like the tanker ban and Bill C-69, so that we can build and deliver results.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I find this debate rather fascinating. All day, my Conservative colleagues have been arguing that the government is not allowing oil and gas projects to move forward quickly enough. They can hardly say that it is a good idea to get rid of environmental assessments so that oil and gas projects can move forward.

However, there is one thing that I hope we agree on, and I would like my colleague to give me a clear answer. On several occasions, the leader of the official opposition has said that big oil companies that let the public pay for their infrastructure are receiving corporate welfare.

Does my colleague agree with us that it is unacceptable that public money is being used to pay for oil and gas infrastructure?

[Jagsharan Singh Mahal, Conservative, Edmonton Southeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, with regard to my Bloc colleague's comments, the environment is important for sure, but the need at this time is to invest in the energy sector, get jobs for Canadians and get money back into the economy so that people can afford to live again.

[Roman Baber, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this is for the viewers at home. The Liberal government introduced a 250-page bill. It said that Bill C-39 is just what we need now so Canada can finally start building energy and transportation projects. I thank them for not scrolling for a few minutes. This speech will feature Justin Trudeau, Katy Perry and a special appearance by Doug Ford.

Time flies when we are having fun. It is hard to believe, but it has been 18 months since the election. I remember my first couple of days in Ottawa. We had the election of the Speaker, I took a shuttle with my commoner friends for the ceremonial tradition of being rejected by the Senate and saw His Majesty's carriage arriving at the Senate.

I also clearly remember the Prime Minister telling Canadians that all we needed to do was pass Bill C-5, the Building Canada Act, in order to start building at unimaginable speeds. He said that Bill C-5 was just what we needed to get Canada building. Conservatives worked with what was then a Liberal minority, and we passed Bill C-5 in five days. I was told Bill C-5 was going to fix all of our problems and eliminate the complex regulatory regime that got in the way of building projects.

Here is a pop quiz. Since the passage of Bill C-5 at the commencement of this 45th Parliament, how many new projects have been built? It is zero. How many new projects, and I emphasize the word “new”, were approved? It is zero. It is because the Liberal government is all talk, no results, and all talk, no action. The Prime Minister talks a fancy game, but when it comes to building projects, he is just like Justin. What is Justin Trudeau's new company called? It is called Hope & Hard Work. In this case, in Justin's case, it is all hope.

My Liberal friends accuse me all the time of having Justin live rent-free in my head. He is living rent-free on Katy's yacht. Now, 18 months later, the Prime Minister is back from overseas and has tabled a 250-page bill and said that if we pass Bill C-39, we are going to start building. What changed? It was one word. Bill C-5 was the Building Canada Act; Bill C-39 is the building Canada strong act. To the fancy Liberal marketing consultants, how about some fresh material? Slogans do not build projects. Slogans do not build pipelines, energy corridors or transportation corridors.

We should be the wealthiest country in the world because we are blessed with the greatest natural resources in the world. We have $30 trillion of proven reserves in natural resources. We have some of the world's highest proven oil reserves. We have natural gas that could satisfy the crazy demand for electricity. We have rare earth minerals that everyone is chasing. We should all be living like a Saudi prince. Instead, Canada imports oil from Saudi Arabia. We import oil from Nigeria.

Why are we shooting ourselves in the foot? Why do we not get out of our own way and start building? Other petroleum producers will not stop, and they pollute the environment. Canada has some of the best environmental practices in the world. Those who are passionate about the environment should support Canadian oil because it is much cleaner and better than Middle Eastern oil. We need to free our natural resources. We do not need this bill. We need the will to build. We need to free Canada's oil and gas; that would mean more money in our pockets.

This bill would not do it because the Liberals will not do it. They do not want to do it. They build nothing but bureaucracy. Since taking office, they built the Build Canada Homes agency and the Major Projects Office, the financial crimes agency is in the works, and there is the defence procurement agency. All they have built is offices inside office towers and then hired their friends. The Prime Minister is all talk, no results.

What else do the Liberals claim they will build in this bill but will not build? It is transportation. For the life of me, I do not understand why we cannot build transportation in this country. Actually, I do understand. We need three levels of government and three levels of approvals, and there is always someone on vacation.

I ran for provincial parliament almost a decade ago because one of my lifetime goals is to connect the Sheppard-Yonge subway station with the Sheppard West subway station. That is four kilometres of rail that would leverage line 1 and line 3, connect the north part of the city from east to west, open up York University to Scarborough students and aid in the construction of housing at Downsview Park. Instead, we have a Rogers Stadium concert venue that disturbs the neighbours. What happened? I thought we were going to build housing at Downsview Park.

Now here come the Liberals saying they want to build a high-speed rail line from Toronto to Quebec City, the Alto, and it is going to cost $90 billion. Doug Ford's Ontario line is 15 stops and 15 kilometres, granted it is underground. Alto is promised to be 1,000 kilometres. A month ago we found out not only that the 15-kilometre Ontario line is half a decade behind but that the cost of construction is up to $34 billion. In the best case scenario for Doug, by the time he is done with the Ontario line, it will come in at $40 billion. It is not even like a traditional subway; it is a hybrid of hard rail and light rail. I do not think anyone told Doug. If the Ontario line from Don Mills and Eglinton to Lakeshore and Bathurst is $40 billion, is the Alto high-speed rail really going to be $90 billion? Alto will never be built, never. By the time construction stops, it is going to have cost $1 trillion.

I am being reminded by my friends that I will be splitting my time with the Bloc member for Repentigny.

It is so upsetting that we do not have the stomach to build serious transportation projects in this country anymore. The regulatory process, the approvals, the funding arrangements, the environmental issues and the agendas, all of those, are getting in the way of actual building. By the time we have some sort of consensus, there is a new government at one of the levels of government, and it will go in a different direction. I have watched that happen in my beloved city of Toronto time and time again. The Eglinton LRT was a debacle. Metrolinx was stuck at Yonge and Eglinton forever. Now the government has the audacity to tell us that the Alto will cost $90 billion and all we have to do is pass this 250-page bill. If there is someone who believes that, then please let me sell them the Gordie Howe bridge, or its total income after expenses.

The government should scrap this Alto monstrosity and build energy projects like Canadians depend on it. For goodness' sake, can we stop buying oil from Nigeria? Why can we not supply natural gas all around the world? All day long, I hear about AI. None of this AI data centre revolution happens without electricity, not in the U.S., not in Europe and not in China. This is Canada's opportunity to supply the globe with Canadian natural gas, to supply the electricity to all of these data centres. This is how we can be part of this industrial revolution. That is how we protect our jobs.

We have an option to become a commodity-based economy to power the future. The Liberals passed Bill C-5, and they will pass this bill too. What are we going to build? Nothing. It is all talk and no results, no action. We are not going to build until Conservatives come back to the federal government. What we are asking, and what all Canadians are asking, is for a little less conversation and a little more action, please.

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

Mr. Speaker, a great deal of discussion has been taking place with the Prime Minister and our premiers. A great deal of discussion is taking place with the Prime Minister and world investors. What we saw just recently in Toronto was the world coming to Canada to meet with our premiers and our Prime Minister. A half-trillion dollars is a historic amount of money.

The member makes reference to AI. He could talk to Premier Moe about how Saskatchewan is moving forward in collaboration with Ottawa on AI development. A historic amount of money is flowing into the province of Saskatchewan to build up the AI data.

Does the member not believe that it takes some collaboration to get things done too?

[Roman Baber, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the U.A.E. met with the Prime Minister a couple of months ago, and it said it was going to invest $90 billion in our economy, and the Liberal government was not able to identify one single shovel-ready project for the U.A.E. to invest in.

I heard about that summit in Toronto. It was a fun place. I heard there was a max plate fundraiser the night before for the Liberals. What we do not have is a single investable project ready to go. That is the fault of 11 years of Liberal governments, and the current Liberal Prime Minister is going to have the same legacy.

[Kelly DeRidder, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his incredible speech today on the importance of getting projects delivered in Canada. There is $1 billion here, $1 billion there, $1 billion for this person and $1 billion for that person. I would like the member's thoughts, please. If we could stop announcing $500 billion across Canada and just approve 500 projects sitting on the Prime Minister's desk, where would Canada be as we move forward?

[Roman Baber, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, 500 projects are available for approval right now that the Prime Minister can get going on. He does not need a 250-page bill. That is two projects that are ready to go for every page in the bill.

At this time, Speaker, I would like to request a brief indulgence.

Surrounded by his loved ones, Glen McFarland passed away last night. Glen McFarland was the financial agent for the York Centre EDA during the 2025 general election and was previously the financial agent for my nomination. Glen was a remarkable man. He is survived by his wife, Lisa, and their three children. He was an extraordinary accountant and a fellow with CPA Ontario. He was a managing partner of the McGovern Hurley accounting firm, which is proud of its more than 100 employees. He was such a gentleman. He passed away last night after a long fight with cancer. His family should know how much he was loved by his friends and his loved ones. He was a remarkable man. May he rest in peace.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, Humber River—Black Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it was good to see my colleague up on his feet today, although he certainly did not talk positively about Toronto. Given the fact that this member and I both share areas of the city of Toronto, we respect and acknowledge some of the challenges that have happened, but I would suggest that Bill C-39 is exactly the kind of bill that needs to come forward to help cities like Toronto, Vancouver and so on, so that we will be able to move things along faster.

Many of the complaints and comments my colleague made were about that very issue of having to move things forward, whether energy, infrastructure or housing. All of those things are going to be happening much faster now, especially once, with the member's help, we pass Bill C-39.

I would like to have some additional comments on that.

[Roman Baber, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I believe the member whose riding is west of mine was not attentive to my presentation. I love the city of Toronto. My first love is the city of Toronto. What I do not love is what we have done to Toronto's transportation. Line 5, which goes from my riding into that member's riding, was not on time or on budget. There is a streetcar on Finch Avenue. What an absurdity. The Eglinton LRT took double the time at double the budget. The St. Clair streetcar is insanity, and the Ontario line is also a debacle.

[Patrick Bonin, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, sometimes I wonder whether the government thinks our roads have potholes because of the trade war. Hearing the Liberals talk, one might almost believe that the trade war is responsible for traffic and late buses. The government is blaming the trade war for a lot of things.

Bill C-39 clearly shows that the government has come to the conclusion that it has to trample on workers' rights and our environmental laws to deal with the trade war. It seems to think that it has to adopt a Trump-like approach to deal with President Trump. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has announced that it is launching the largest deregulation action in U.S. history, and the Canadian government seems to find that inspiring.

In a year and a half, the government scrapped carbon pricing. It introduced Bill C‑30, which is completely anti-science and puts pesticides that were banned back into circulation. It scrapped the EV mandate. It passed Bill C‑5, which has been described as the greatest rollback of environmental law in recent times. That is on top of giving tax breaks to oil and gas companies, announcing the construction and financing of pipelines and liquefied natural gas projects, and planning to triple gas production and double oil sands production. Clearly, the government will not respect the Paris Agreement, its commitments or its greenhouse gas reduction target, which it no longer talks about in the short term. Now it is talking about net zero by 2050. However, as every independent analyst has said, we know that the rollbacks are so serious that Canada cannot possibly meet its commitments.

With Bill C‑39, it seems that the government is trying to attract investors by being even more open to air pollution and the destruction of land and water than our neighbour to the south can be. The Bloc Québécois believes that there are other strategies for developing our economy while protecting the environment and without having to circumvent environmental laws.

The government's Bill C‑39 is quite literally breaking up the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada. With this new bill, the government is literally compromising the independence of scientists in assessing pipelines and nuclear energy by making the Canada Energy Regulator and the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission responsible for conducting assessments. This is like putting wolves in charge of the sheep. The Canada Energy Regulator is an institution that is known to support pipelines and has nothing to do with protecting the environment. That is not part of its mandate. None of these institutions talk about protecting the environment, even though they will now be responsible for assessing the environmental impact of projects with potentially dire consequences. These are oil and gas megaprojects, likely some of the largest oil and gas megaprojects we have ever seen in Canada. It remains to be seen whether they get off the ground, because we obviously intend to join others in opposing this type of bill.

I must point out that the House of Commons Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development has already highlighted the issue that the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission is not independent from the Department of Natural Resources. The Canada Energy Regulator, formerly known as the National Energy Board, is an institution that is completely biased toward pipelines. We have seen this in Quebec. Many of its members come from the fossil fuel sector. It is like asking cigarette manufacturers to carry out their own studies on the health consequences of smoking. It is completely biased. No one should take the public for fools, yet that is exactly what the government is doing right now.

Contrary to what the title of Bill C-39 would have us believe, this bill weakens Canada by bowing to the interests of the fossil fuel barons, among others. I would remind the House that the government has already passed the “no laws” law, namely Bill C-5, the Building Canada Act. The Liberals passed it in record time. We were unable to examine it properly. This act specifically allows laws to be circumvented.

Even so, over the past year, not a single project has been designated under this legislation, which the government rushed through as quickly as possible with the support of, among others, the Conservatives. Not a single project has been put on the list in a year. Why was it so urgent?

Now the government is introducing Bill C‑39, and it even wants environmental assessments for all projects to take no more than a year despite the fact that the government has not managed to designate a single project under its legislation in a whole year. It seems clear that environmental protection is being used as a scapegoat to mask the current government's failure to get things done. The issue is not environmental protection; it is the government's failure to move multiple files forward in a timely manner.

I can see it already: Assessments for complex projects will inevitably be rushed, if they happen at all, and consultations will be rushed because the government wants to meet a one-year deadline. The very notion of a one-year deadline is completely arbitrary. Projects must be assessed on the basis of their complexity and scale, and the government has to take the time to do it right. The government is literally bulldozing nature.

Let us consider, for example, a new pipeline project, one that the Prime Minister wants to include on the list of projects of national interest. It is a 1,000-kilometre project. How is it possible to conduct proper consultations or assessments in just one year? There is no doubt this will be rushed through, once again to the benefit of companies that will face fewer safeguards and are clearly delighted with the government's legislation.

The Liberals hope that Bill C-39 will not affect environmental protection. I hate to break it to them, but the Prime Minister is not going to grant that wish. It is misleading to tell the public that Bill C-39 does not weaken environmental protections or environmental assessments across the country.

I would remind members of all the laws and regulations that can now be circumvented under Bill C-5. Bill C-39 will make that permanent and will even apply to entire regions.

The Fisheries Act, the International River Improvements Act, the National Capital Act, the Canadian Navigable Waters Act, the Dominion Water Power Act, the Migratory Birds Convention Act, 1994, the Canada Transportation Act, the Canada Marine Act, the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, the Species at Risk Act and the Impact Assessment Act can all be circumvented.

I will now list the regulations. The migratory bird sanctuary regulations, the Dominion water power regulations, the wildlife area regulations, the port authorities operations regulations, the metal and diamond mining effluent regulations and the migratory birds regulations, 2022 can all be circumvented.

Twelve laws and seven regulations can be circumvented to accommodate projects designated to be of national interest by the government.

As I said, entire regions will now be able to use the this process to circumvent legislation, and the Prime Minister, like a king, will decide which are to be sacrificed. These regions will get access to projects pre-approved even before an impact assessment is done. Project pre-approval means that construction will start before projects are even assessed.

Obviously, this is a new government that is promising the next gold rush by opening the territory up to development and fast-tracking projects, never mind what the law says. I would point out, however, that if we learned anything from the Wild West it is that when the law is weakened, outlaws are quick to step in.

I would remind the House that legal action has been brought against the federal government for its Bill C-5 on the grounds that it is unconstitutional. To make matters worse, with Bill C-39, the government is broadening the scope of that legislation and making the exceptional powers enshrined in it permanent. Does the government expect the tariff crisis to be permanent? This tariff crisis is their excuse for everything. This is clearly a pretext for giving cabinet extraordinary powers, enabling it to sell land to foreign interests like a good deal maker.

Liberal members seem to think that if they repeat often enough that Bill C‑39 will not affect environmental protections, that will become the reality. I am sorry to burst their bubble, but we were not elected to make things up. We were not elected to bow to the demands of the oil and gas companies. We were elected to make decisions that will be part of history.

The bill explicitly includes serious rollbacks in environmental matters and workers' rights. These are not just words on paper. This will have immediate and serious consequences on the land, on our ecosystems and on people's health. That will be the legacy left to future generations.

History has a long memory. Our speeches may fade, but decisions of this magnitude will not. One day, we will look back and ask ourselves who was aware of what was happening, who could have taken action and who looked the other way.

The Bloc Québécois will not look the other way.

[Jacques Ramsay, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Repentigny for his speech, which has made it very clear where the Bloc Québécois stands on the environmental aspects of Bill C-39.

However, I would now like to ask him to speak to us about another area, namely labour relations and the right to strike, and more specifically the use of section 107. This type of recourse has always been exceptional and should remain that way even more so under Bill C-39. This bill introduces the concept of national interest, which, in my view, makes perfect sense.

I would just like to hear the MP's opinion and perhaps get his response on how this criterion of national interest should be defined.

[Patrick Bonin, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, right now, the national interest is the government's interest, and it is the government that decides what is in the national interest.

Whether the government likes it or not, it is very clear to us that these debates must take place among elected officials, particularly when it comes to the use of arbitrators, restricting the right to strike and restricting workers' rights. It is no wonder that the FTQ, the Fédération des travailleurs et travailleuses du Québec, is speaking out against this bill.

Not only is this one of the worst rollbacks for the environment, but the bill also includes some extremely worrisome rollbacks in terms of workers' rights. We in the Bloc Québécois are here to stand up for people and for workers, not to defend the interests of oil and gas companies, which, by the way, primarily belong to American interests.

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people of Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola, and before I begin, I want to recognize someone from my riding who is getting married. Jodhbir Kang, who served as a school trustee in Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola, is marrying Poonam Deol. I want to take this opportunity to wish them the best of luck in their upcoming nuptials, and a long, fruitful life together.

I listened to my colleague's speech, in which he talked a lot about environmental issues, pipelines and things like that. I always wonder where the Bloc sees fossil fuels fitting into Canada. I have to fly here all the time. I drive an electric car. Where does he see that fitting in?

[Patrick Bonin, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is simple. Internationally, there are two classes of countries. There are those who are following President Trump, as the Prime Minister is doing, getting into oil and gas, and then there are those who want to break free from this dependence on foreign companies and so on.

Canada should invest in the transition, plan for it and not fund a new oil sands pipeline project, to the tune of over $40 billion, that will be aimed at exports and will not change the cost at the pump for people, who will remain dependent on oil and gas. We have everything to gain from electrification, and Quebec is already doing that.

My colleague talks about the fact that he has an electric vehicle. That is wonderful. He could also talk about the economic benefits it brings, both in terms of the fact that we keep our money and use Quebec hydroelectricity, and in terms of people's wallets.

Thinking that getting deeper into oil and gas is part of the solution will only worsen the climate crisis. I think he forgot about this summer's forest fires, as well as the deadly heat waves.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague's speech was insightful and well-informed.

Earlier, the Liberal member for Madawaska—Restigouche said he was enthusiastic and pleased that Bill C-39 would, as he put it, allow global investors to flout environmental laws by investing in Canada, to flout workers' rights, and to flout parliamentary democracy.

My colleague was talking about Trumpism. Does he not think that the Prime Minister is exploiting the crisis to push through permanent rollbacks that will not even be in effect during President Trump's term?

[Patrick Bonin, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

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

We are very clearly dealing with a government that is currently exploiting the tariff crisis. Bill C-39 proposes to make it possible to circumvent environmental laws on a permanent basis. This has nothing to do with the tariff crisis. It shows very clearly that the Liberals want to make this permanent.

We have laws and regulations for a reason. We have spent several decades establishing a system to protect the environment and people's health. Essentially, what Bill C-39 does is allow us, within 24 hours, to throw this entire framework for protecting the environment and people's health into the dustbin of history.

There would be no need to bypass laws and regulations if the projects were sound. Clearly these are bad projects. The Liberal government is using the tariff crisis to literally engage in Trump-style politics, develop oil and gas, set aside the law and rule like a king.

[Branden Leslie, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Mr. Speaker, let me take members back in time a few years. When the Liberals introduced Bill C-69, they told us that the new process would make project reviews more efficient, predictable and timely. Now, eight years later, that sales pitch has not aged well at all.

Now we have Bill C-39, and the government's own explanation says its approval system suffers from lengthy timelines that delay projects and create uncertainty for investors. That is quite an admission. What matters now is whether Bill C-39 would actually fix them. This, of course, is after the Liberals brought in Bill C-5, which was going to bring in sweeping legislative changes to allegedly build at speeds not seen in generations. We now have a Major Projects Office that has issued no new permits, built no new projects and created no new jobs other than government jobs, of course, over the past 18 months.

In terms of Bill C-39, the first thing we should understand is the government's promise of a one-year federal review. That sounds simple, but it is not. The clock would not start when a company first brings forward a project. There could first be up to six months of planning. Then, the company would normally have up to a year to provide the studies and information government requires, and even that period could be extended. Only after government officials are satisfied that they have the information they need would the main review clock start. From there, the assessment report would generally be supposed to be completed within 300 days, followed by up to another 65 days for the final decision.

Therefore, when Canadians hear “one-year approval”, they should not assume that means one year from the day a project enters the federal system to the day it actually gets an answer. A company considering a $10-billion mine wants to know something simpler: How long will it take from entering the process until it has enough certainty to put billions of dollars on the line?

I will be splitting my time with the member for Fort McMurray—Cold Lake.

What happens if the government misses its own deadline? The project would not be automatically approved and the government could simply keep reviewing it. The only penalty for the government's delaying all this is that the minister would have to explain why the deadline was missed, and publish another proposed timeline. If the purpose of a deadline is certainty, how much certainty would it really provide if missing it simply produces some bureaucratic gobbledygook and yet another deadline further down the road?

The second major change would be what the government calls “one project, one decision”. Today a company could spend years completing an impact assessment and then discover it still needs another round of federal permits before construction can begin. Bill C-39 would allow the environment minister to issue certain permits at the same time as the final impact assessment decision. For a mine that needs Fisheries Act, Canadian Navigable Waters Act or Species at Risk Act approvals, that could remove some back-to-back processes, but it would not initially include every federal permit.

That leaves me with questions. Which permits are actually delaying projects today? How many would be covered properly by the bill? Which important ones would still remain outside it? If a company gets its impact assessment decision but still waits months for another approval, would we have achieved one project, one decision?

The bill also would allow certain construction to start before the final decision where doing so is in the “public interest”. Anyone who has built something in rural Canada understands why that can matter: If they miss a construction season, a project could lose many months. If construction could happen while the rest of the assessment continues, time could be saved, but companies need to know early what qualifies.

The nuclear changes would be more substantial. For nuclear projects, the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission would become the lead assessment body. Environmental review, public participation and indigenous consultation would remain. What would change is who would run that process. Instead of having the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada run one process while the nuclear regulator runs another, Bill C-39 would put the CNSC in the driver's seat, and the minister would no longer be able to send the project into another separate federal review. Instead, the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission would run the assessment, and once the project is approved, the conditions imposed during that review could simply become part of the nuclear licence the company must follow.

In other words, rather than creating one set of conditions through the environmental review and another through the licensing, the bill would try to bring the two processes together. That could reduce duplication, but does the CNSC have enough people and expertise for this new and expanded role? Would projects get decisions faster, or would the bureaucracy simply look cleaner on an organizational charge?

Changes for the Canadian Energy Regulator raise similar questions. Bill C-39 would make the CER the sole assessor for pipelines, designated power lines and offshore renewable energy projects. For pipelines, the bill creates two tracks based on how much entirely new corridor has to be built. If a pipeline requires less than 300 kilometres of new right-of-way, the CER would generally make the final decision itself.

Today, the regulator can spend up to 450 days reviewing a major pipeline and making a recommendation, only for the file to then go to cabinet for a final decision. For projects below the new threshold, that extra cabinet step would generally disappear, but for pipelines requiring 300 kilometres or more of new corridor, cabinet would still need to make the final call. The CER would have up to 180 days to complete its review and recommendation, and then cabinet would have another 60 days to decide, followed by another 125 days for the CER to issue the final certificate and conditions.

Those are significant changes, but where did these numbers come from? Why is it 300 kilometres? Why should a pipeline requiring 290 kilometres of new corridor be decided by the CER, while one requiring 310 kilometres still has to go through a cabinet approval process? Is that the threshold based on environmental risk or project complexity, or is it simply where the government just decided to draw the line? The same question applies to the timelines. Why is it 180 days? Why is it 60? Why is it another 125? Has the CER confirmed that applications can realistically be handled within those periods without stopping the clock more often?

The 300-kilometre threshold is also not in reference to the total length of the pipeline. Let us imagine a 500-kilometre pipeline where 350 kilometres follows an existing corridor. If only 150 kilometres requires an entirely new right-of-way, the project would fall below the threshold, even though the pipeline itself is 500 kilometres long. The bill is measuring how much new ground the project must break, not simply how long the pipeline is.

Then we get to the fine print. These clocks, they are not absolute. Parts of the process can still be excluded. Additional time can, and I fear most likely will, be added. If the CER or government misses deadlines, the project is not automatically approved. We need to determine whether these timelines will shorten the approval process or whether the clock will simply stop when the difficult parts begin for government.

Another idea that deserves attention is the creation of the regions of national interest. Cabinet could designate an entire region and identify categories of projects that may qualify within it. This could matter in an area chock full of critical minerals or a major energy corridor. If government has already completed a regional assessment of water, wildlife and cumulative effects, later project reviews should not have to start from zero.

This would not create an immediate fast track. Before a region can get such special treatment, the government would first have to complete a broader regional assessment. If the bill were to come into force, if it were to pass, the list of regions that qualify would be empty. The faster process would only become available later, after government has done the groundwork and designated a region. Who knows how long that will take, given the Liberal government's track record. Once again, implementation will determine whether this changes anything.

After years of being told that the old system was efficient and predictable, we should not just accept that a new set of promises from the Liberal government is going to be the solution. We need answers because we cannot afford to get this wrong. Our country, our future and our prosperous nation are simply too important.

Bill C-39 should be judged by a simple standard: Can a company with a project get a clear answer in a reasonable amount of time and then get to work? That is the test. Before Parliament passes this bill, we should be sure this legislation will pass that test.

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

Mr. Speaker, when the Liberals wanted to say they were going to fix supply chains, they created a supply chain office. When they had issues with building homes, they suddenly built Build Canada Homes, which is a very original name. When they had issues with major projects, they built the Major Projects Office. In this bill, Bill C-39, they want to deal with a national trade corridor, so they are going to create an office to deal with that.

Does the member see a pattern, and does he think any of these things are helping on any of the issues I have mentioned?

[Branden Leslie, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the government is correctly identifying the problems after we point them out. They are self-imposed problems, but the problem with the government is that all it ever sees is a nail to hit, and it always seems to hit it with a new bureaucracy. As my colleague outlined, whether it be housing, energy or anything else, all the government tries to do is build new government bureaucracies.

It turns out, given that housing starts are down and that our oil and gas sector is struggling under this regime, it is time for a change. It is time for a Conservative economic agenda to get this country going.

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.

[Laila Goodridge, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is no secret that I am a fan of building. My office is filled with model haul trucks, excavators and dozers, not just as a nod to my hometown and the industry that drives it but to serve as a reminder of where I came from and my roots in heavy construction and mining.

I am proud to represent Canadian oil sands workers here in Parliament. Many years ago, like my dad and my grandfather, I laced up my own steel-toed boots and reported to work in health and safety in the oil sands. I understand how hard the people who work in Canada's energy sector work, with long hours, rotating shifts and harsh weather, yet thousands of workers show up every single day to ensure that our houses stay warm in the winter and cool in the summer and that the lights are always on when we need them.

Through my experience, I have had the opportunity to see many major projects move from dream to design to construction and operation. This was the reality in the oil sands region for a long time. Then, just over 10 years ago, a new government came into power here in Ottawa, led by Justin Trudeau. He then made it his mission to demonize the industry that fuelled our economy, stigmatized the workers in this industry and created overbearing regulatory systems to shut down any new major project. He recruited eco-activists like Steven Guilbeault and then promoted them into his cabinet.

While the current iteration of the Liberal Party claims to support the energy industry and the energy workers, and claims that it wants to build at unimaginable speeds, it has chosen to keep all the Trudeau-era anti-energy, antidevelopment laws and legislation in place. For years, Conservatives have been telling the Liberals to get out of the way by approving projects in rapid order, in six months; repealing anti-energy and antidevelopment laws Bill C-69 and Bill C-48; and adopting a one-project, one-review system. Canada has everything we need to be an affordable, strong, self-reliant country, but we can only live up to our full potential if the Liberal government gets out of the way.

Liberals claimed a year and a half ago that Bill C-5 would allow them to move at speeds not seen in generations, yet no new projects have been approved by their Major Projects Office. Conservatives took the Liberals at their word, and we fast-tracked that bill through Parliament. Now, 18 months later, the only thing that has moved at unimaginable speeds was that piece of legislation.

They are once again coming back to this chamber claiming that this latest piece of legislation will be the difference maker. As always with the Liberals, it is all talk and no results. It is the lack of results, the lack of action, that has left well over 500 projects waiting on some bureaucrat's desk for approval. For businesses considering whether to invest in Canada or not, announcements are not enough. For workers wondering whether there will be a project to work on, speeches are not enough. For communities in Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, promises of future action are not enough.

It is worth noting that serious changes are being proposed to the Labour Code in part 3 that clearly require extensive committee study. We need to review the proposed legislation. We have many questions, and we must ensure that all aspects of this bill are thoroughly examined. The question I have for the government is, why are sweeping labour changes being made in a giant 250-page omnibus bill? I think that is the same question I have heard from a number of my constituents.

Conservatives have a clear objective. We are fighting for policies that will save Canadians money and save Canadian jobs. It is as simple as that. For generations, Fort McMurray—Cold Lake and its oil industry offered a beacon of hope to people from right across Canada and the world. People who were willing to work hard and work long hours, and who had a dream, could make it big. My family has called Fort McMurray home for over 50 years. My dad and grandparents moved up to Fort McMurray in the 1970s in search of a better life, and they got a better life. They worked hard to provide opportunities for their family and give back to their community.

Fort McMurray Wood Buffalo is home to the third-largest proven oil sands deposit in the world; 97% of Canada's oil comes from the oil sands, with 96% of the oil sands oil coming from the Fort McMurray region. When I say I know oil, I grew up around it; I know oil. I know a thing or two about it at the very minimum. Canada's oil sands production averages 3.1 million barrels a day.

Canada's energy sector currently employs nearly one million people, with 150,000 direct jobs, 300,000 indirect jobs and 450,000 induced jobs, providing strong paycheques and life-changing opportunities for families and communities right across the country. The oil and natural gas industries are among the largest employers of indigenous people in Canada. As I fly back and forth from Ottawa, I regularly meet oil sands workers coming from every corner of the country. In 2022, oil and gas contributed $45 billion in revenue to Canadian governments. That meant funds for our hospitals, our schools, our roads and so many other important public services.

When my dad was in the prime of his working years, there was no doubt that there was a future in Fort McMurray, but after 10 years of Liberals, doubt has become all too much of a reality. The energy industry 10 years ago was still growing. Families were building their lives, businesses were investing, and skilled tradespeople could look forward to the next generation with confidence and know that opportunities were waiting for them. Today, that has been replaced by a lot of questions.

After a decade of anti-energy legislation, people in communities like mine are asking very basic questions. What does the future of our industry actually look like? What does the future of our community look like? What happens if the Liberals go back to their active attacks on the energy industry? These are not some pie-in-the-sky questions. These are existential questions that people in my community have. They have a hard time taking the government at its word after the Liberals' record of a decade of a constant barrage of attacks and the talking down of the very hard-working people of Fort McMurray—Cold Lake.

This is not an abstract policy debate either. The ability to work on energy projects is not simply a line on a government spreadsheet. This is people's jobs, their mortgages, their businesses, their families and their communities. It is an apprentice hoping to become a journeyperson. It is an electrician building a career, a heavy equipment operator working long shifts to provide for his family, the engineer designing the next big project, the small business owner whose customers depend on a healthy energy sector.

I stand here today fighting for Canada's energy industry and, more importantly, fighting for all of the spectacular workers in Canada's energy industry, for those hundreds of thousands of hard-working Canadians from coast to coast to coast who have a job, in great part, due to my community and the resources we have developed over the years. I stand here for the future of my community.

When we talk about Canada's energy sector, we are also talking about Canada's ability to create good-paying jobs, attract investment, build infrastructure, generate government revenues and compete in the global economy. We are talking about whether Canadian workers can have the opportunity to build Canadian projects or whether those opportunities will continue to be built elsewhere. The reality is that for the last decade, we have seen those projects go elsewhere. We have seen those jobs go elsewhere. We have seen that opportunity flee.

It is no surprise that Conservatives support building. We have been on that train for many decades, and we will continue being on it, whether it is popular for the Liberals or not. The reality is that we need to make sure that what we are building is sustainable for the long-term health of our economy. Canada has the resources, the expertise, the workers and the know-how. What we need is a government that can get out of the way. What we need is a government that will repeal the anti-energy and antidevelopment legislation, which the current government has chosen to keep on the books, that has kept a foot on the throat of the industry, preventing it from being able to expand.

I will continue to stand up for Fort McMurray—Cold Lake and for Canada's energy sector and the skilled workers who make our economy stronger. Conservatives will continue to push the Liberal government to cut the red tape and regulations, to get the projects actually built and to get shovels in the ground faster in Canada. We will continue to fight for the projects that we need to build to deliver an affordable, safe, independent country and to secure our energy future, not just for Canada but for our allies across the world. This is not just a question. This is something we will do and will continue fighting for.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, since this is the first time I have had the opportunity to speak to you today, I would like to take the opportunity to say hello and welcome you back to Parliament.

Listening to the speech by my colleague from Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, I realize how far apart the Conservatives and the Bloc are on these issues. I thought that Bill C‑39 went beyond everything the Conservatives have wanted for years, but no, it seems that it still falls short, that it still does not go far enough. According to Bill C‑39, assessments will be more flexible, particularly for oil and gas projects, which will no longer be subject to the Impact Assessment Act. It seems to me that the Conservatives should be patting themselves on the back and celebrating, but what I have been hearing all day is the complete opposite.

In our opinion, the bill goes so far as to be outrageous. In my colleague's opinion, what is missing from the bill that would make it acceptable to the Conservatives?

[Laila Goodridge, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB]

Madam Speaker, we do not trust the Liberals. We are not sure they are actually going to do what they say they are going to do. We voted in favour of Bill C‑5 because they said it was absolutely essential for moving projects forward. However, we have not seen that. No projects have been started under the Major Projects Office. We want to ensure that this will have a real impact and lead to actual construction projects in our country.

[Abdelhaq Sari, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would simply like to emphasize once again that, just like other bills, this one will be referred to committee.

We know that many of her colleagues across the way are very supportive of the idea that it will take a year to review projects and decide whether they can go ahead. Will we be able to count on their work to improve the bill when it is studied in committee?

[Laila Goodridge, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am lucky to have studied in French, because I am now able to answer technical questions about oil sands in French. It has been a long time since I tried to use certain words in French.

The Conservatives will certainly work in committee to improve this bill, just as they did during the study of Bill C‑5. However, we have concerns, because we were told that Bill C‑5 would be the solution. Now, 18 months later, nothing has been built, but the Liberals are telling us that there is another bill and that this one will be the solution. That is why we have concerns.

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

Madam Speaker, we have seen the Liberals are privatizing, or are talking about privatizing, four of Canada's largest airports, which produce a half a billion dollars in revenue. They are talking about modernizing Canadian ports, which we know basically means they are going to privatize them. They are even privatizing and putting out to tender the contract that the Commissionaires, which hires veterans, gets. Now the Liberals are undermining workers' rights.

We hear a lot of people say that the Liberals have taken on the Conservative agenda, but I will ask my colleague, is this the Conservative agenda? Would the Conservatives have even gone this far, when it comes to privatizing Canadian public services?

[Laila Goodridge, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB]

Madam Speaker, as I stated in my speech, Conservatives are fans of getting things built. We took the Liberals at their word, a year and a half ago when they put forward Bill C-5, that it was the solution to make things move at unimaginable speeds. We helped it get sped through Parliament. We worked and created amendments so that it was the best piece of legislation possible. Here we are, 18 months later, and we see no projects being built and nothing approved by the Major Projects Office. We know there are at least 500 projects sitting on some bureaucrat's desk somewhere that are waiting for approval from Ottawa to be able to go forward.

What we are saying from the Conservative perspective is that we are going to study this bill at committee to make sure it is actually going to work to get projects built, because we desperately need to have construction in this country.

[Abdelhaq Sari, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to begin by saying that I will be sharing my time with the member for Eglinton—Lawrence.

Sometimes a country has to choose between watching history unfold or making history itself. Canada is at a point right now where we have to choose to be the master of our own destiny.

All around us, the world is changing and shifting gears. Technology is completely transforming industries. Supply chains are being redrawn and geopolitical uncertainty weighs on every investment decision. Meanwhile, capital waits for no one. It goes where people know how to build. It goes where the rules are clear and decisions are actually made.

Bill C-39 asks a simple question: Will Canada be that country?

We have everything we need to succeed. We have an abundance of natural resources, one of the most skilled workforces in the world, enterprising companies and strong institutions that inspire confidence well beyond our borders.

However, nothing is built on potential alone. It is like a mighty river without a power plant. Its immense power does not produce light until we learn how to harness it. A resource creates value only if we can develop it responsibly. Technology will transform the economy only if we can build the necessary infrastructure to properly support that technology. A product creates wealth only once it reaches the customer.

This country was not built by waiting. It was built by people who laid rail across impossible distances, who opened ports or rugged coastal lines, who believed that connecting a nation was worth the effort. They did not have certainty. They had conviction.

Today, our nation-building projects look different because we have critical minerals, clean energy, advanced manufacturing, modern port transmission lines and digital networks.

The question is this: Do we still have the resolve to build?

The question we must ask ourselves is the one our ancestors also asked. Do we still have the determination to build? Across the country, we are hearing the same message from workers, communities, indigenous partners and investors. Our federal approval processes are too long and too complex. The requirements—

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

I am sorry to intervene. I simply want to tell my colleague to pay particular attention to the microphones. When he puts down his papers, it can be very unpleasant for the interpreters. I know that is not really his intent.

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

I thank the hon. member for the reminder. Indeed, members should be very careful when leafing through documents near the microphones.

The hon. member may continue his speech.

[Abdelhaq Sari, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for that comment. I certainly do not want to jeopardize the health of our interpreters, who do an excellent job.

As I said earlier, our federal approval processes are too long and too complex. Requirements pile up, reviews overlap and the process drags on for years. Imagine a family wanting to renovate their home and being instructed to submit the same file to five different offices without ever being told when they can expect a decision. Eventually, they will give up. That is exactly what is happening with investments. When investors have to wait forever, capital goes elsewhere, taking jobs with it.

That is why the government must modernize federal project review processes. Our goal is clear: to make federal decisions on major projects within one year while maintaining rigorous environmental standards and respecting the rights of indigenous peoples. To be clear, this is not about lowering the bar. It is about making sure projects do not get lost in a maze. Efficiency need not come at the expense of rigour. A predictable timeline does not determine the decision. It simply guarantees that there will be one, be it positive or negative.

Collaboration with indigenous peoples lies at the heart of this approach. Indigenous communities must be part and parcel of the decisions affecting their lands, their rights and their social and economic future. A clearer process does not diminish their participation; it makes it more meaningful, more consistent and, above all, more frequent. We reject the idea that we must choose between economic development, environmental protection and reconciliation. A mature country knows how to make progress on all three fronts while also remaining aligned with all three at the same time.

Canada is a trading nation. Our prosperity travels by rail, road, sea and air. Our ports, highways and railways are the arteries of our economy, and every bottleneck acts as an invisible tax—a tax that stifles investment before it even begins, before it is even triggered. It is paid by the farmer waiting for their grain to be shipped, by the manufacturer whose parts are not arriving and, at the end of the chain, by the family seeing prices rise at the supermarket.

The bill modernizes the governance of the transportation sectors, strengthens our commercial infrastructure and consolidates our supply chains. It also takes account of a new reality. In a more unstable world, the security and resilience of our networks are no longer a luxury. They are a prerequisite for our growth.

Behind every port, every rail line and every construction site, there are people. More than a million Canadians work in federally regulated sectors, keeping goods moving and communities connected. In most cases, employers and unions reach agreements at their negotiating table, and that speaks to the strength of our system. This bill builds on that strength.

The bill tackles wage theft and the misclassification of workers. It improves workplace safety and supports stable and respectful labour relations.

That is because an economy that forgets its workers is neither modern nor fair.

I meet people every day in my riding of Bourassa, in Montreal, who are not asking for any special privileges. They are not asking for anything special because all they want is a chance: a stable job, a fair wage and a safe workplace. When we talk about major projects, trade corridors and competitiveness, these are the folks we are talking about. Growth only makes sense if it improves their lives.

This bill is the result of extensive consultations with indigenous peoples, the provinces and territories, businesses, unions and members of the public. While their points of view sometimes differed, there was one common message, namely that Canadians want a more efficient government, environmentally responsible growth, robust infrastructure and good jobs. They want an ambitious Canada that remains true to its values.

In closing, investment decisions are being made now. Major projects are being planned now. Tomorrow's trade partnerships are being developed today.

From northern communities to the Atlantic provinces, from the Prairies to British Columbia, from Ontario to Quebec, Canadians are ready to build. It is up to us to give them a country that is ready too. Let us move forward with confidence, build responsibly and leave future generations with a stronger, fairer Canada that is more ready than ever.

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

Madam Speaker, the government says it will coordinate consultation through a new Crown consultation hub, which is what they have called it. Ultimately, who gets to decide if and when that consultation is complete?

My colleague talked a lot about first nations. Will indigenous nations have a meaningful say in determining whether their concerns have actually been addressed in that consultation process, or will the government be the one marking its own homework?

Who will decide when that is complete and what that timeline looks like?

[Abdelhaq Sari, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Madam Speaker, today, as things stand, I think that this matter needs to be discussed by parliamentarians in committee. I urge all my colleagues, all MPs, to share their opinions and comments and put forward amendments.

Some consultations have been held, and there will be more, but we can talk about that in committee.

[Burton Bailey, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

Madam Speaker, the Liberals claim this bill would get projects built, but there are already 500 projects stuck in the federal permitting process.

Why does the government not simply approve these projects instead of continuing to add more bureaucracy, more bills, more offices and more announcements that have not built anything?

[Abdelhaq Sari, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Madam Speaker, first of all, members need to listen carefully to the speeches given by each of my colleagues on our side of the House. What we are saying is that we want to deliver an answer within a year, whether positive or negative. That is very important. This is no blanket approval process. We are not interested in giving out carte blanche. On the contrary, there will be some negotiation. That is very important.

Now, to speed things up, we simply need to make decisions in committee faster. If people here really want to move faster, the Conservatives will have to co-operate with us so we can make decisions in committee. Once again, Bill C-5, Bill C-39's predecessor, laid a strong foundation. Now, we are setting the stage for all future projects.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, as the Bloc Québécois critic for labour, human resources and skills development, I had the opportunity to speak yesterday and clearly demonstrate how workers' rights are being eroded. The members opposite laughed in my face, but what I read yesterday were comments from organized labour. These were initial reactions. I also talked a lot about setbacks for the environment, but I ended by talking about setbacks for democracy.

What does my colleague think about that?

Yesterday, I did not have time to say that we found out that in Bill C‑39, the Liberals are undoing the amendment that one of my colleagues made to Bill C‑5, which made the minister's powers subject to a five-year sunset clause. Now there will be no way of reviewing the minister's decisions after the fact.

My colleague talked about collaboration, proposals, amendments and improvements, but this change is unacceptable from a democratic standpoint.

I would like my colleague to talk a bit about that.

[Abdelhaq Sari, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Madam Speaker, as I understand it, the question was about strikes and unions. I would say that what we are now bringing back in this bill is the complete opposite. Section 107 of the Canada Labour Code has been used to end strikes in recent years. Its use will be clarified. I would say it will be much better monitored by the department. Today, things are vague. Tomorrow, things will be much less vague.

In fact, a number of unions are starting to warm up to this amendment to section 107.

[Lori Idlout, Liberal, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, the member's speech was excellent. I really appreciate that he incorporated the relationship with indigenous peoples and what the act would do. I wonder if the member, as part of the government, can explain just how important that relationship is with indigenous peoples and why it is important in this legislation.

[Abdelhaq Sari, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Madam Speaker, that is a great question.

Building Canada strong means seizing opportunities. For that reason, the changes in this bill are very important. That said, no one should be left behind. That is why it is very important to consult all stakeholders as well as Canadians who are having a tough time every day. Naturally, the stakeholders include indigenous peoples.

[Vince Gasparro, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Secretary of State (Combatting Crime)]

Madam Speaker, it is always an honour to rise in the House on behalf of the residents of Eglinton—Lawrence.

Canada is going through a period of significant change. We are in a tariff war with our largest trading partner, the Russian invasion of Ukraine continues to put pressure on global food markets and commodity markets, a conflict in the Middle East has disrupted global energy markets and pushed up the cost of oil and gas, and rising global bond yields have raised costs for everyday Canadians through debt instruments such as mortgages and auto loans.

For some Canadians, these events may feel distant, but they have real consequences here at home. I hear it from families that are dealing with higher grocery bills and higher costs at the pump. I hear it from manufacturers dealing with American tariffs and global uncertainty that impacts whether they can afford to invest, hire and expand here in Canada. These are the issues that matter to people in Eglinton—Lawrence and to all Canadians, and they point to a broader question: What can Canada control?

We cannot control decisions made in Washington, and we cannot control conflicts overseas, but we can control how we respond. We can decide whether Canada is a country that waits for the world to change, or whether we build the capacity to succeed in a changing world. Our government has a plan to do that in the short term, the medium term and the long term.

In the short term, we are acting decisively. We are standing up to unjustified American tariffs and are diversifying our trade relationships, 20 in total with more to come. We are putting money directly into Canadians' pockets through the Canada groceries and essentials benefit, which provides up to $1,890 for a family of four, and we are cutting the federal excise tax on gas and diesel by 10¢ per litre. These measures are important because, in the face of global instability, Canadians need help today.

However, short-term support is exactly that: short-term. We have to address the underlying problem. We need to be more competitive. We need greater private investment, specifically foreign direct investment working in our economy, and we need businesses that can expand, adopt new technology, hire more workers and compete in global markets. That is why our medium-term agenda matters.

We have eliminated the consumer carbon tax and cut taxes for the middle class, and we are introducing productivity-enhancing tax measures that make it more attractive for businesses to invest in Canada. Under these measures, businesses can immediately expense up to 15% of eligible capital investments. The principle is straightforward: When a Canadian business wants to invest in a new machine, modernize a facility, expand production or adopt new technology, we should make that investment easier, because investment drives productivity, productivity drives wages and economic growth, and economic growth gives Canadians more opportunity. This plan is working. Just last week, the Canadian investment summit unleashed nearly $500 billion of new capital.

Our fiscal policy is only part of the answer, We also need to build and execute. In the long term, we are building the foundation for a more productive, resilient and competitive Canadian economy. That is why I am supporting Bill C-39, the building Canada strong act. For years, one of the challenges facing major projects in Canada has been uncertainty. I saw this first-hand as a banker who financed infrastructure. A business develops a proposal and works to raise capital. If it cannot predict when decisions will be made or if labour will even be available to it, it becomes much harder to make an investment in the first place. As costs rise, the project economics become more uncertain.

The building Canada strong act is intended to change that fundamental dynamic. First, we would provide greater certainty by bringing federal mediation into the labour process earlier. Instead of waiting for a strike to occur, Bill C-39 would expand mediation and dispute resolution tools by establishing a time-limited special mediator to encourage good-faith bargaining before a dispute escalates. This would give workers and employers an additional opportunity to reach a negotiated agreement and avoid a strike or lockout.

Second, the building Canada strong act would enhance the One Canadian Economy Act passed last year by the current government, by creating one coordinated federal process, one lead authority and a one-year timeline for federal decisions once a complete application has been submitted.

Let me be clear. The bill would protect the environment and respect indigenous rights. What it would change is that it would improve the timeline for decisions to be made. The building Canada strong act would create a system that is more predictable, coordinated and efficient, because businesses need certainly, and our workers deserve certainty. The objective is simple: Move from an idea to financing, to construction and ultimately to a completed project. The fact is that process is not an outcome; results and execution are.

Our country has done this before. In the 1950s, we built the St. Lawrence Seaway in less than five years, the TransCanada pipeline in two years and the Trans-Canada Highway. These were enormous undertakings that all helped Canada move east-west rather than north-south.

The St. Lawrence Seaway gets raw materials from the interior out to market, the TransCanada pipeline connected the oil sands to refineries in eastern Canada, and the Trans-Canada Highway connected Canadians together. To continue to build a strong, independent country, we need to be more resilient east-west rather than north-south, which is exactly what the building Canada strong act would do. It would allow us to formally designate strategic trade corridors and advance priority projects within one year.

The point is simple: Canada cannot control what happens in Washington or what happens in conflicts around the world, but we can create a more productive and resilient economy, one that provides greater certainty to investors, certainty to workers and certainty for businesses to grow, succeed and invest here in Canada. That is what Bill C-39, the building Canada strong act, would help achieve.

We need to build faster, we need to build with certainty and we need to build for the long term. That is how we create good-paying, long-term jobs, attract private investment, strengthen our economy and make Canada more resilient. That is how we build Canada strong.

[Burton Bailey, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

Madam Speaker, according to the bill, project proponents would still have to analyze “the intersection of sex and gender with other identity factors”. I am not sure what any of that has to do with building a pipeline or a mine, but this is the type of woke, bureaucratic language we have come to expect from the Liberals. It means absolutely nothing, and it maintains layers of red tape.

My question is this: If the Liberals are trying to be taken seriously at a time that demands serious action, when will they drop the woke corporate-speak, pick up shovels and get building?

[Vince Gasparro, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Madam Speaker, the current government has been focused on the economy since day one, and we see that with our legislative agenda, with the pieces of legislation that have been passed and with the projects that we have approved. Churchill Falls, for example, in eastern Canada, is going to produce enough clean power to power Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver combined. That is the type of action the government is taking. That is the type of employment we are looking to create in this great country. We are going to continue to make these decisions, whether the opposition wants to support us or not.

[Mario Beaulieu, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Madam Speaker, Bill C-5 allowed the government to circumvent at least 12 environmental laws and seven regulations to make it easier for certain projects, including several oil projects, to move forward. However, there was a five-year limit on that authority. With C-39, the government wants to remove that limit so that it can permanently circumvent environmental legislation.

At a time when climate disasters are becoming more frequent and the cost of public services is rising, the Liberals want to circumvent environmental legislation for the benefit of oil companies whose proceeds often go abroad. What does my colleague think about that?

[Vince Gasparro, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Madam Speaker, in my previous answer I spoke about Churchill Falls, the largest clean energy development in North American history, which is being financed by the government. I can tell members that renewable energy, along with the jobs it creates, is incredibly important to the government. It will produce enough power to heat, cool and electrify all of the homes in Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver. That is something the member and his party should get behind.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to go back in time. The northern gateway pipeline was rejected by the courts in part because the Crown's consultations with the affected first nations were found to be inadequate. The lesson of that should have been clear to the government, and that lesson is that rushing consultation can delay projects rather than get them built.

My question is this: Why is the Liberal government repeating the same mistakes of the Harper Conservatives by prioritizing an arbitrary timeline over getting consultations with indigenous peoples right the first time? The government is repeating the same mistakes, and this will just end up in the courts again, wasting everybody's time and money.

[Vince Gasparro, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Madam Speaker, I think this is probably one of the first times I have been accused of being a Harper Conservative.

Indigenous rights and making sure we engage with our partners at the AFN and other organizations are things we have taken incredibly seriously. They really are at the heart of this legislation.

What I will say is this: The crisis we are in, and I said this in my remarks, requires us to act decisively, and we are going to do that with our partners.

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

Madam Speaker, I wonder if my colleague can go back to the part of his comments when he talked about the Toronto summit, an investment summit that attracted half a trillion dollars in commitments to invest in Canada, the lead-up that went into that, and how we can put that into the legislation that we are debating today.

The world is looking at Canada, and it wants to invest in Canada. This legislation would help. Could the member provide his thoughts?

[Vince Gasparro, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Madam Speaker, there was an article today in Bloomberg saying that capital is leaving the United States and coming to Canada, which is an indication of the confidence investors have in the Prime Minister and our new government.

[Melissa Lantsman, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, let us talk about Bill C-39, the building Canada strong act, not to be confused with the Building Canada Act or whatever act was before that.

Nearly 18 months ago, the Prime Minister promised that we would build “at speeds not seen in generations”. A year and a half later, the situation is dire, and I think most Canadians would agree. Not a single major project has gone from announcement to shovels in the ground. Antidevelopment laws like Bill C-69 and Bill C-48 are still on the books, and they are stifling investment and innovation in this country. The tanker ban and the industrial carbon tax remain, as does the stack of regulations and red tape that makes it next to impossible to build in this country. All of that remains despite Bill C-5.

I know those watching at home are confused by the numbers. The Liberals brought Bill C-5 through this place almost 18 months ago. They said it was revolutionary legislation that was going to have projects built. We passed it through the House in a record five days. They called it a catalyst, one of the Prime Minister's favourite words. They said it would let them do bigger things and do it faster with a brand new Major Projects Office to lead the way. Today, there are zero shovels in the ground, zero new major projects moving forward, and that office has spent more on bureaucracy and hiring people than it has on building a single project. Once again, the words outrun the results.

We have to ask if Bill C-39, the legislation that we are discussing today, which is absolutely needed after the Liberals got the legislation passed that they initially needed, is the solution that members opposite have been claiming it is or if it is another announcement, another press release, another sort of time stamp in the road so they can restart the clock, saying this is the thing that they need to move forward. Before, they said that was the last thing we needed to move forward. I am inclined to believe it is the latter, because past behaviour is the best predictor of future behaviour, and Canadians should not forget that.

Over 10 years, the government has driven investment out of Canada. It threw up roadblocks. It called anyone who wanted to build a pipeline a climate change denier. It discouraged risk-taking in this country with punitive taxes, and they picked winners and losers. The result was $1 trillion of capital leaving this country and going elsewhere. Our productivity stagnated. Our standard of living declined.

If productivity had kept pace even with the United Nations since 2015, every Canadian would be roughly $11,000 richer, $11,000 better off than today. Instead, half of full-time workers are spending their income or more on their living expenses, and half are living paycheque to paycheque. This is in a country that only a few years ago had the richest middle class in the developed world. We do not need to look at the past to suspect that the sizzle of this bill, Bill C-39, is bigger than the steak. We have seen this before.

The present tells the exact same story. The Prime Minister likes to say we should control what we can control, and I agree. Let us look at what he controls. Right now, there are over 500 proposals sitting on his desk, and all they need is a signature. They do not need a new slogan. They do not need a new bill. They do not need a new trade mission. They do not need a new photo op. He just has to sign them. That is his choice. Even the signature is no guarantee because we have seen investment summits, memorandums of understanding, agreements, press conferences and just yesterday, we saw the OECD downgrade Canada's growth outlook while peer countries saw theirs upgraded. The people now promising to fix this are, in many cases, the same ministers and MPs whose high-tax, anti-growth agenda caused this problem in the first place. If we were to look outside this place, we could forgive people for being skeptical. The results keep being pushed down the road with a new piece of legislation, a new MOU or a new announcement, but the results have not arrived.

Nowhere is the gap between promise and delivery wider than it is in resource development here in this country. I want to speak directly to the members of the left flank of the Liberal caucus. For a decade, they told Canadians that resource development was a moral question. To them, it was not about economics or engineering, and it was not about trade-offs. It was truly, in their eyes, a test of character. If we wanted a pipeline, we were deniers. If we wanted a mine, we did not care about our planet or our children's future. If we wanted to sell our energy to other markets, which would buy them from somebody else anyway, we were on the wrong side of history. They enforced that standard relentlessly on everybody who disagreed with them. They enforced it against the opposition, against premiers and against members of their own party who sometimes asked whether all of that was working.

Now, members can read Bill C-39. They can read what it would do to the federal review permitting. They can read about the exemption powers. They can read the section on labour. What would they have said if a Conservative government tabled a 246-page piece of omnibus legislation that would do nothing for workers and would build nothing? The bill claims to fast-track the very projects those Liberals once called a moral failure in the House, and that was not that long ago, but it even fails at that. They would have called it a betrayal. They would have used exactly that word.

The question is not whether they have changed their position. We know they did. The question is what that left flank of the Liberal Party got for it. They spent their political capital. They asked their most loyal supporters, people who believed this was about the planet, to accept their reversal, and 18 months in, with a Major Projects Office and legislation on the move, not one of these projects' delivery is under way. They burned all of that political capital passing these pieces of legislation without having a single shovel in the ground. They made the trade. They just did not get anything for it.

If they now believe that the last decade was too rigid and this country needs to build, then they should get up out of their seats to say so plainly, acknowledge that the cost was measured in projects that died and that investment went elsewhere outside of the country. That would at least be honest. However, what we are going to see over and over again is the left flank of the Liberal Party hiding behind rhetoric that just is not true, and they traded it away for nothing. It is the same pattern with big announcements, with there being little to show for them.

After last week's investment summit, the Prime Minister came away promising a half a trillion dollars of investment, and we welcome that. The problem is that people are filling their gas tanks, which were already empty, half full. A trillion dollars of investment left this country. That is why the skepticism runs high. The skepticism runs high when people look at the government and see it acting one way for 11 years. It had 18 months to change everything, but it is yet another piece of legislation, one that has produced no results.

I am going to end with this: I do not want members to take away that we are going to dismiss the bill before us. Conservatives are not rejecting Bill C-39, but we will study it, press for details, scrutinize it and work to improve it to make sure it actually builds something. That is our job as the official opposition, and that is how we are going to hold the government to account on what it brings before the chamber. However, we will not simply take the government's word and accept all the promises the Liberals have made.

Canada has everything it needs to succeed. We have fields of crops. We are rich in minerals. We have resources, oceans full of fish and the people with the talent to make it all happen. What we need is a government that will get out of the way, and one that will talk about repealing legislation already on the books, but everything we have seen until now tells us that is not this government.

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

Madam Speaker, I think it is important that the member recognize, if she wants to reflect on history and talk about Stephen Harper, that we had the largest trade deficit under Stephen Harper. If she wants to talk about the hardest hit in the manufacturing industry in the province of Ontario, again, let us talk about Stephen Harper. Imagine if Stephen Harper, along with her leader, who sat around his cabinet table, did his job. What a difference that would have been.

It is time that the Conservatives stopped thinking about Trudeau all the time and start reflecting on the new government that Canadians elected, with a new Prime Minister and 70 new Liberal MPs, and recognize that things have changed. People are looking at Canada and investing in Canada. Major projects are well under way.

[Melissa Lantsman, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Madam Speaker, the Liberals can change their leader, they can change their buzzwords and they can change the legislation number from Bill C-5 to Bill C-39, but they cannot change a record. They cannot change the legacy that Stephen Harper left in this country and I am glad to talk about it.

Under Stephen Harper's government, we had the richest middle class in the world. A young person could buy a home. Canada was a well-respected country on the world stage with moral clarity. It was so much so that the Prime Minister invited Stephen Harper to his investment summit to close it out to remind Canadians of a Canada that used to be.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, I actually get the sense that Stephen Harper was more to the left than the current Prime Minister. The more time goes by, the more the measures this Prime Minister is putting in place that make me think that the Conservatives are jealous that he is not on the right side of the House based on his political stripes.

Bill C‑39, which we analyzed with our teams, as I am sure the Conservatives did as well, contains things that seek to destroy or circumvent the laws that are there to protect the public, the environment and workers. I do not know what the Conservatives find in this bill that deserves support, aside from the fact that it goes way too far.

I want to hear my colleague's thoughts on the fact that we have a government that is proposing legislation that, in my opinion, goes beyond even what Conservatives have been calling for for years.

[Melissa Lantsman, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Madam Speaker, the member is certainly right that there are concerns with the legislation. A major concern with the legislation is it is not going to deliver what it says it is going to deliver. We saw that in the past. We see that with the Major Projects Office. We see that with Bill C-5. Now we see it potentially with Bill C-39.

As I said before, we are going to take the time to scrutinize the legislation and look for pieces in the legislation that we can improve. Once it gets to that legislative committee, we are going to propose the amendments necessary to actually get shovels in the ground instead of promises into people's pockets.

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

Madam Speaker, over the summer, the government consulted with labour, unions and different organizations. Federal unions have been calling for section 107 of the Canada Labour Code to be removed after governments, especially the Liberal government, have used it to order workers back to work and undermine their collective bargaining rights.

The government is proposing new language, as we know, around section 107, and calling these changes “guardrails”. However, unions are telling us these changes could actually weaken workers' bargaining power. Organized labour still has no answer on who brought these ideas forward and who asked for these changes.

The Conservatives are saying they are friends with labour. Do they support these changes or do they know who asked for these changes?

[Melissa Lantsman, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is not about whether we are friends with labour. It is about whether labour supports a party that supports it. In the last election, it certainly came over in droves and the member knows it.

I wish the member would speak this vigorously against the inflation that is driving down the paycheques of every single worker in this country. I wish he would stand up for labour when it comes to the fact that its buying power is not nearly as much because of the government's spending. I wish he would stand up for labour.

[Burton Bailey, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

Madam Speaker, the Prime Minister has been known for the phrase, “We will build at speeds not seen in generations”. The last time the government promised speeds not seen in generations, it was with Bill C-5. The Major Projects Office, 18 months later, has issued zero permits and zero workers are on the ground.

What good is this bill if the first one did not get anything built?

[Melissa Lantsman, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Madam Speaker, if the Liberals' past behaviour is any indication of their future behaviour, I am not sure we have much to look forward to. As an opposition, we are going to fight to get projects built and we are going to fight for every single Canadian to live an affordable life in this country.

[Mike Kelloway, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport]

Madam Speaker, Bill C-39, the building Canada strong act, is a crosscutting piece of legislation that would unlock Canada's maritime potential, reduce supply chain restraints at our major international trade gateways and position the Canadian maritime sector to enable our ambitious trade diversification agenda to double Canada's non-U.S. exports within a decade. Our government's trade diversification strategy is working. In 2025 alone, Canada's exports to non-U.S. markets increased by 11.1%, reaching 32.8% of total Canadian exports, the highest share in over four decades.

Canada's ports are the gateways that make things happen, bringing Canadian products to markets around the world and building Canada's economic sovereignty. In order to meet our objectives and double our non-U.S. trade, it is essential that we have reliable, efficient and secure marine transportation systems to connect Canada to the foreign markets that want Canadian grain, Canadian energy or the thousands of other products that we proudly produce in this country.

Let me start by discussing Canada's port authorities. Canada's port authorities are at the heart of global trade for Canada and transport networks serving as critical nodes that connect Canadian businesses, Canadian farmers and Canadian producers to key international markets. Collectively, the 17 Canada port authorities facilitate the movement of containerized bulk and energy products that underpin our economic growth. To ensure that Canada port authorities are positioned to enable trade diversification and have the flexibility to react to changing international trade patterns, the building Canada strong act would give port authorities the tools and financial flexibility to operate within an increasingly complex marine environment, while ensuring greater transparency and accountability for marine terminals, shippers and other port users.

The proposed amendments in this bill would enable Canada port authorities to become commercially oriented and empower them to attract the investment capital necessary to build the next generation of Canadian marine terminals such as Roberts Bank Terminal 2 at the port of Vancouver and Contrecœur at the port of Montreal. To support these types of generational infrastructure projects, the proposed bill would facilitate corridor-level planning to better situate commodities and ensure that Canada port authorities are working together rather than competing with each other for similar business lines.

The proposed legislation would also enhance the ability of Canada port authorities to act on commercial opportunities and generate revenue by allowing joint ventures with private and public entities as well as enabling increased collaboration between port authorities. Other amendments would support improvements to the borrowing processes for Canada port authorities and reduce regulatory burden to allow for one project, one review, while others would close data and information gaps.

With these proposed tools and financial opportunities, it is more important now than ever to ensure that those in leadership positions at Canada port authorities have the right technical and business-oriented skill sets to set strategic direction and strengthen existing operations. This is why the bill would modernize the governance of our ports through new skill matrices for appointments. Taken together, these proposals would enhance the fiscal and governance tools available to Canada port authorities while ensuring that port authority boards are properly equipped to invest in critical port infrastructure to meet and exceed Canada's export trade goals.

Ensuring that Canada port authorities have the right governance and operational tools is only part of the equation. To remain competitive and meet the growing trade demands, ports must also be able to attract and leverage investments to modernize infrastructure, expand capacity and strengthen supply chain resilience. Given the critical nature of our port facilities, these investments need to bring tangible benefits to the country and serve the best interests of Canada and Canadians.

Currently, under the Canada Transportation Act, the Minister of Transport can review investments, acquisitions and mergers involving transportation undertakings that are at or above $93 million. Although the threshold captures major investment, it would not capture situations such as when a series of smaller investments cumulatively results in a large foreign investment in specific terminals or marine assets. As such, the government is proposing to broaden the scope of transactions eligible for review by reducing the notification threshold to $10 million to ensure these investments involve transportation undertakings and are in the interest and at the heart of Canadians.

We must also ensure that the government is well positioned to respond to emerging threats and risk to marine transportation systems. This very important. Security events can have a significant impact on port and marine operations, which impact the efficiency and reliability of Canada's supply chains. Concerns over security issues, including a dated regime, can lead to the perception that Canada is a weak link. Such perception could adversely affect Canada's relations with other trading partners and have a significant impact on future opportunities for economic growth and development.

Canada's marine system needs a modern security framework to adapt and respond to increasingly complex challenges. The proposals in this bill would provide the government with a modern suite of authorities and tools to effectively administer Canada's marine security framework and respond to emergency security threats. Information sharing would be enhanced across marine security partners and allow the Minister of Transport to enter into agreements with third parties and other departments to increase enforcement capacity and ensure critical provisions, such as cybersecurity protections, are being effectively met by the operators. Together, this would promote a more effective response to marine security threats and risks.

Through this bill, we would also be seeking to equip the Government of Canada with new tools to support stable and continued operations at the St. Lawrence Seaway. These new tools would give the government needed authorities to safeguard seaway operations in exceptional circumstances to protect operational continuity for this important sector. This includes authorities aimed at reducing disruptions to navigation, such as the authority to appoint an administrator in place of the St. Lawrence Seaway Management Corporation board in certain circumstances, and requirements to terminate the operator agreements, supported by the structure and dispute resolution when needed.

As we modernize and backstop the St. Lawrence Seaway, it is equally important that the Government of Canada have the tools necessary to respond quickly and effectively to emerging challenges across the marine transportation system. The building Canada strong act, therefore, complements the measures for the seaway and Canada port authorities by giving the Minister of Transport the power to respond to situations where there is an immediate, imminent and serious threat to ports, the seaway or supply chains. The ministerial order power would allow the minister to safeguard supply chains during a crisis. This could include, for example, pandemics, trade disputes, global conflicts or natural disasters. An order made under these provisions might require a port or the seaway operator to take any measure, including corrective measures, that the minister considers necessary to prevent or mitigate a threat, but would not be used in the event of a labour action or strike.

These measures directly respond to the needs of Canada port authorities. Ports across the country support this plan. The Association of Canadian Port Authorities has applauded the government for focusing on the transportation system and creating the conditions for investment in the infrastructure Canada needs.

This bill is a practical and forward-looking piece of legislation that recognizes the critical role Canada's marine transportation system plays in supporting economic growth, trade diversification and national supply chain resilience. By modernizing the governance and financial frameworks of Canada port authorities, strengthening oversight of transportation investments and equipping the Minister of Transport with targeted tools to respond to emerging threats, this legislation would help ensure Canada's marine gateway to remain competent, competitive, secure and efficient.

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

It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Regina—Lewvan, The Economy; the hon. member for Riding Mountain, Health; the hon. member for St. Albert—Sturgeon River, Public Services and Procurement.

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

Madam Speaker, it is certainly a pleasure to hear the parliamentary secretary speak on Bill C-39 today. Specifically in part 3, there is a provision in regard to geographic certification.

As I know the parliamentary is well briefed and well versed on all the things that are in this bill, could he please explain to the Canadian public exactly what the significant changes are to geographic certification and whether or not the Minister of Justice will be tabling a charter statement on Bill C-39, particularly section 3, on behalf of the government?

[Mike Kelloway, Liberal, Sydney—Glace Bay, NS]

Madam Speaker, it is great to see the member, whom we spend a lot of time with in committee, here today to ask that question.

I will leave it to the justice minister to talk about that, but when it comes to this particular piece of legislation, the very fact that we are looking at regional trade corridors is really important for developing growth and a systemic and integrated plan for supply chains with Canadian jobs and workers for Canadian businesses and all Canadians.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech, but despite what my colleagues have been saying for a while, they are trying to downplay the impact on labour rights. We are being told that environmental rights are not being rolled back.

I think that environmental and labour groups will do their job and that, when we measure the scope of all this, we will truly realize that we have a government that is undermining democracy.

In addition to a crushing rollback of workers' democratic rights and environment laws, there is also an encroachment on Quebec's jurisdictions. What is more, the government is not respecting jurisdictions.

The Liberal government is creating a new and umpteenth transportation structure: the national trade corridors council. What does that mean? We in the Bloc Québécois refuse to allow the federal government to subject businesses to rules when, once again, they do not fall under its jurisdiction over transportation.

In the end, we are really going backwards. What does he have to say about this jurisdictional encroachment?

[Mike Kelloway, Liberal, Sydney—Glace Bay, NS]

Madam Speaker, one thing that seems to be missing over the last four days is the “why”. Why are we doing this? The Prime Minister spoke to it at Davos when he talked about a rupture in the economy and how the only thing we can control is what we can control as a country. That means working with the provinces, with Canadian businesses and indeed with Canadian workers to ensure that we are evolving our economy and putting the steps in place to make sure that happens. That does not happen without Canadian workers, unionized workers. I come from Cape Breton Island. Cape Breton Island was built on unionized workers; so was Canada and so will Canada.

[Kristina Tesser Derksen, Liberal, Milton East—Halton Hills South, ON]

Madam Speaker, for me, the underlying sentiment of this bill is about unity. It is about Canadians coming together regardless of political affiliation or background and understanding that it is a pivotal time for our country to have national unity.

Just a few moments ago, the opposition member for Thornhill mentioned the lasting legacy of former prime minister Stephen Harper. Former prime minister Harper delivered closing remarks at the Canada investment summit recently. I would like to ask my colleague, the parliamentary secretary, what he thinks it means to Canadians and what it means to him and the people in his riding that a former Conservative prime minister delivered remarks with such an undercurrent of unity, of coming together for Canada and of support for the investment summit that was held by our Prime Minister?

[Mike Kelloway, Liberal, Sydney—Glace Bay, NS]

Madam Speaker, I will go back to Cape Breton for a second to tie this together. My father was in charge of mine rescue for about 35 years. He trained the individuals who went underground to save or recover folks, and he often talked about the idea that crisis reveals character. I see with leadership here in the House and leadership outside of the House, and I will give former prime minister Harper his due, that crisis reveals character.

We are at an inflection point in this country that requires all of us to come together and work together. That does not mean we cannot be questioned, but cynicism never created a business, cynicism never built a house, cynicism never fed a hungry child and cynicism is not what is going to build this country.

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Madam Speaker, I feel like I have been here before, because we debated a bill that was supposed to get things built about 18 months ago, and not only get things built, but get things built at speeds we had never seen before. Unfortunately, what we saw were things getting built at the exact same speed they have been built for 11 years under the Liberal government. Not a single new project was approved by the so-called Major Projects Office and not a single new shovel was put in the ground.

Here we are again. We are back. We are looking at another Liberal piece of legislation that is supposed to accelerate building in this country, but if we go back to Bill C-5, let us also not forget that it was supposed to be the One Canadian Economy Act. It was supposed to remove interprovincial trade barriers, all of that by July 1, 2025. The last time I checked, we are in September 2026, and all of the interprovincial trade barriers are still there, which brings us to where we are today.

The Liberal government is all talk, no results. I will give the Liberals this. They are very good at the talk part. There are lots of photo ops, lots of announcements and lots of fancy backdrops making it look like they are building something that get taken down a few days later. They are very good at all of that, but when it comes to actually delivering for Canadians, this is where the rubber hits the road and they significantly fail.

What we have seen in this country is an inflationary and cost of living crisis that this country has never seen before. Every single day, Conservative members get up in the House of Commons to ask questions based on conversations they have had with real Canadians, people who are struggling every single day to put food on the table and struggling every single day to pay their rent or mortgage. That is the legacy of the government, not the fancy photo ops and not the fancy words that ministers get up to say in the House of Commons day after day.

What I want to talk about in particular today is part 3 of this gigantic omnibus piece of legislation. I want to start off by saying this. Canada has never seen more labour disruptions in 40 years than it has under the Liberal government. Do members want to know why? A huge part of it is the cost of living crisis created by the Liberal government, with the terrible management of the economy over the last 11 years that has led to workers all across this country, our friends and neighbours, fighting hard for better wages so they can put food on the table. What we saw were labour and unions fighting for better wages, better benefits and things for their members, and fighting hard.

Because of the ham-fisted approach of the Liberal government, labour relations in this country have never been worse. We saw record use of section 107 by the Liberals. I lost count of that. They used it 13 times in 18 months or something like that. They often used it pre-emptively. In fact, they used it pre-emptively on flight attendants who were fighting to get rid of unpaid work. Think about that for a second.

[An hon. member]

Untrue.

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Madam Speaker, the member is saying that is untrue. Let me take a moment to educate the member.

I have met with flight attendants. I have met with flight attendant unions. They have unpaid work, unlike what the minister said in this House and at committee about looking into whether or not flight attendants provide unpaid work. Do members know what the head of the airline union said to that? He asked if they will look into whether water is wet next. This is legitimately where we are on that subject.

The Liberals used section 107 to order flight attendants back to work, using the Canada Industrial Relations Board and their section 107 order before the strike had even happened, therefore effectively sending them back to work unpaid. That is their record. Now they are going to make more changes to section 107. Do members know what I and just about every single union in this country have to say about that? We do not trust them. We do not trust their changes. They are making changes to section 107 at a time when the use of section 107, the constitutionality of it, is being challenged in court. They know this, and they decided to go ahead and make changes anyway.

The changes to the legislation are embedded in a giant omnibus piece of legislation in which one section has nothing to do with the other sections. There are significant changes to the Canada Labour Code. For example, my colleague asked about the changes to geographic certification. The Liberal parliamentary secretary had no idea what geographic certification was and could not comment on the changes to geographic certification.

I can say this. The changes to geographic certification are significant. There used to be a process through the Canada Industrial Relations Board. It was a complicated change. It took time. Two businesses could now petition the Canada Industrial Relations Board to create a geographic certification. What will be the effect of that? We have no idea. Will it cause, in fact, more labour strife as some union locals are combined? Could a union local represented by one union be combined with a union local from another union? I do not know. Perhaps it could. Do the Liberals know? Have they looked into this?

When we look at the omnibus nature of this piece of legislation, we have to ask ourselves why. Why have they decided to put these significant changes to the Canada Labour Code in a gigantic omnibus piece of legislation? I hope it is not because they plan to ram this piece of legislation through committee with their majority, as they have done with other pieces of legislation, so there is no proper study of the changes they are making to the Canada Labour Code. I do not know, but I will go back to what I said when I first started talking about the changes they are making to the Canada Labour Code. I do not trust them.

I forget the number of pages in this piece of legislation, 425 pages or 285 pages, but I suspect that all of that is going to go to one committee. How long will it look at the changes that are being made? Is it one day, two days, maybe a week? Give me a break.

The Liberals are doing this so there can be very little scrutiny of what they are doing. They are doing this so that union members will not have the opportunity to come to committee and make their case for why the changes being made are a problem. They are doing this to make it difficult for opposition parties, and members of the Canadian public when they get in touch with their members of Parliament, to put forward amendments to this piece of legislation.

I do not play the lottery and do not bet on sports, but I will tell members this. I am going to bet on the idea that this piece of legislation will not get the proper study at committee. The Liberals will rush this through committee. They will use their majority in the chamber to make sure that the bill gets out of committee as quickly as possible and that it is not studied in detail.

They think they can pull one over on Canadians. Well, we on the Conservative side are going to fight. We are going to fight to make sure that this legislation gets studied. We are going to fight to make sure that the people who are going to be affected by this legislation get to come to committee and that the Liberals hear what these changes are going to do to them. We will be with those people every step of the way.

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

Madam Speaker, there is no doubt that the bill will ultimately get to committee. We look forward to what the different stakeholders might have to say on the legislation. We look forward to what degree the Conservatives will position themselves on the legislation. I would like to think they would be inclined to support the legislation, or at the very least the principle of the legislation. We will see that at second reading.

At the end of the day, it is all about building a stronger and healthier Canada. What we need to do is take advantage of a lot of the work that the Prime Minister and cabinet have been doing over the last 18 months. Whether it is on trade or investments, we are talking about a significant amount of positive change that is coming to Canada. I wonder if the member could provide his thoughts on that.

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Madam Speaker, I know this segment is called questions and comments, and that was mostly a comment. I am not sure what the question is, because as I said, we want to study the legislation. I will turn it into a question for the member: Will the Liberals allow the legislation to be studied? At the member's next opportunity, will he get up today and tell the House that the Liberals are going to allow as much study on the legislation as necessary to make sure it is fully studied and fully understood? Will the Liberals commit to that?

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my Conservative colleague for his remarks, his comments and his speech.

Since he was elected in 2025, we have seen this Prime Minister acting as if he could not care less about parliamentary procedure. He has his objective, so he is going ahead and trampling on just about every established procedure and tradition, and that is very worrisome.

This bill raises some serious concerns about democracy. My colleagues talked about this earlier. Yes, this bill will end up in committee. Yes, the Conservatives and the Bloc Québécois will make suggestions to improve this bill as much as possible, since it goes much too far in many areas. We have been pointing that out from the beginning. However, this government, with its arrogant attitude and its manufactured majority, will probably adopt the same attitude in committee.

I would like to know whether my colleague agrees with me and whether he shares my concern that the work we will have to do on this very serious bill, with its far-reaching consequences, will ultimately amount to very little progress in committee because of this arrogant government.

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would agree with the member. The Prime Minister has shown remarkable contempt for Parliament. He shows up to answer barely any questions in the chamber. The Liberals ram pieces of legislation through. They use programming motions to make sure there is very little debate on them.

We have received no commitment from the Liberals that there will be ample days to study the bill at committee. I would love to get a commitment that says that if we want 25 or 30 witnesses from the union movement to come talk about this piece of legislation, the Liberals will agree that they would all get to give their comments before they rush it through committee. We have heard none of these things, and the silence on that is deafening. I suspect we will once again see that they do not have respect for the parliamentary process. They will rush the bill through to committee and leave it the way it is without amendments.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Madam Speaker, Conservatives are winning the argument. When Stephen Harper took office as prime minister of this country, he argued that we needed to diversify our market away from the United States, so he went on a tear to sign 43 free trade agreements around the world. Now we see that the Liberal government has finally come to its senses and has started to adopt the Conservative narrative, at least, on these things. What would the member like to see done?

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Madam Speaker, there is no doubt that this is not the same Liberal Party it was a few years ago, which was constantly trying to beat down resource projects. Imagine, if it had actually approved things like energy east, what position we would be in. Imagine if it had built LNG liquefaction facilities across the country. Europe is begging for that. It took it 10 years, but I guess, as we say, a broken clock is right twice a day. We are happy that the government has seen the light on some of these things, and hopefully we will build a better, stronger and more resilient Canada that exports our resources around the world.

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

Madam Speaker, the Conservatives consistently want to go back to the Trudeau era. If they want to go back and do a comparison, they should do a nine-year comparison to Stephen Harper when he was prime minister and the manufacturing sector that lost a quarter of a million jobs in that sector. They can contrast that even to the years that the Conservatives dream of all the time: the Justin Trudeau years. At least there was growth in the manufacturing industry.

If we get over the facts of the past and start focusing on where we are today and what we have been able to accomplish since the last federal election, members opposite will get a better understanding of why this legislation is so critically important to pass. It is because all Canadians in all regions of the country would benefit through the legislation. It is all about the theme going right from the election through to post-election and to this very day, which is to build a stronger, healthier Canada and an economy that works for all Canadians, and to protect our social programs, as the Prime Minister has done with several programs.

The Prime Minister and the cabinet have been aggressively pursuing the issue of expanding Canada's economy beyond the Canada-U.S.A. border. Unlike the Conservatives, we do take the issue very seriously, to the degree that we have a Prime Minister who is committed to appealing to the world. The Minister of International Trade and others, such as the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Industry, continuously are in different countries, and are working within Canada, to attract opportunities for small businesses, and it is paying off in a very significant way.

More than 20 trade and security agreements have been signed in the last 18 months. We have other trading opportunities. The Minister of International Trade is someone for whom I have an immense amount of respect and for whom I have done a lot of lobbying in regard to the Canada-Philippine trade agreement. I want a Canada-Philippine trade agreement. I was glad when we had the opportunity to meet with President Marcos over a lunch with the Prime Minister and those two leaders recognized that maybe 2026 can be the year for trade. The Prime Minister was also having discussions with the leadership in India, saying that we want to achieve that trade agreement, ideally even in the year 2026.

Expanding those trade opportunities beyond the Canada-U.S. border is good for all of Canada. At the end of the day, that is how we are going to be able to protect our sovereignty. That is the way we are going to be able to ensure continual growth, protect important jobs that Canadians have and build upon this.

These are difficult times with the relationship between Canada and the United States. The issue of Trump, tariffs and trade should be on our minds, because it is on the minds of constituents and on the minds of all Canadians, because it does have a real, tangible economic impact. We do not deny that. We recognize that, but we are not going to capitulate. We are still going to fight for the best deal we can with the United States, but we are not going to surrender sovereignty in any way in dealing with a final agreement, and we are going to continue to look at ways that we can not only enhance trade opportunities but also attract investment to Canada.

There has not been a prime minister, I would argue, in the history of this country who has generated as much potential commitment to investment in Canada from outside Canada and has even retained some of the pension funds that have been flowing outside Canada. We are talking about billions of dollars, maybe half a trillion dollars, of investments, all within 18 months. It is more than just the government. I will concede that it has a lot to do with relationships. We have a Prime Minister who has an A++ relationship and background to be able to protect the interests of Canadians and to talk to other world leaders, whether in the political or financial investment areas.

We had a good sense of that just a couple of weeks ago in downtown Toronto. Toronto was open to the world on behalf of Canada, and individuals, investors, premiers and indigenous leaders attended. There was a great deal of input involved in making sure our very first investment summit, which was an invitation to the world, was a success, and it was. We can think of it in terms of half a trillion dollars. Can any member of the House stand up to indicate whether, over an 18-month period of time, any prime minister in Canadian history has attracted that kind of investment commitments?

[An hon. member]

Oh, oh!

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, it is commitments to invest. That is an important point; I recognize that.

If we travel outside Canada, as I know many members do, Canada is looked at in a very positive way. People are looking to Canada, in a way they have not in many generations, as a place to invest in, and hopefully we will see that all materialize. That is what I want, that is what this government wants and that is what many of the stakeholders want.

We have seen people take off their partisan hats in order to make sure that this team Canada is going to work. Stephen Harper was a guest speaker at the summit and gave closing remarks. Premiers from different political parties participated. From my home province of Manitoba, Premier Wab Kinew not only participated by trying to get people to invest in the port of Churchill but also provided a tax incentive so investors prepared to invest in the port of Churchill would not have to pay sales tax.

In terms of the port of Churchill, the Arctic Gateway Group is actually leading the charge. It actually comes from OneNorth, the owners. OneNorth is made up of 41 indigenous and northern communities from Manitoba and, I think, maybe one of the territories. This is something that has brought people together, recognizing that it is going to take a team Canada approach to build Canada strong.

We can think in terms of the Major Projects Office. There are over two dozen major projects. The Major Projects Office opened just last year. I think it was in September 2025. It is already talking about billions of dollars in tangible investments. There are projects that deal with everything from mining to the port of Montreal, which I know, Madam Speaker, you would be happy to hear about, and to nuclear energy.

There are all forms of projects out there. We have all come together and listed them off, and we are going to continue to push for them. We hope to see the Conservative Party onside.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, the government keeps trying to reassure workers, particularly on the issue of labour rights, which, quite frankly, are literally being trampled by Bill C-39. Despite the government's attempts to sugar-coat it, Bill C-39 actually weakens protections for workers' rights, which is a real cause for concern for trade unions across Quebec and Canada.

They are trying to sugar-coat all this by saying there will be a mediator to advise the minister, but the minister will still have the right, under the bill, to disregard the mediator's recommendations. The minister will have the right to stop a strike if he believes it is going too far and is in some way detrimental to the project at hand. Workers who hear this feel that they are losing their bargaining power and their dignity, in a sense. Their rights are truly being trampled by this bill.

Despite the government's attempts to sugar-coat things and its claims that it is putting all kinds of protections in place, at the end of the day, the minister is the one who will have the final say on matters affecting workers during bargaining and strikes.

I would really like to hear my colleague from Winnipeg North do his level best to reassure me about that, but I am not sure he will be able to.

I would also like him to tell the workers, unions and labour representatives watching us that he is truly committed to ensuring that, when the committee studies Bill C‑39, solid protections for workers' rights will be added.

As things stand, the bill offers no reassurance at all.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I think it is important. When we think of union workers, they have a constitutional right to strike. I have always advocated that the best deal is a negotiated deal, and there is no doubt in my mind in regard to that.

I have served in the Manitoba legislature. I can tell the member opposite that all sorts of political entities, whether New Democrats, Conservatives, Progressive Conservatives or Liberals, in provincial and federal governments have at times had a need to legislate workers back to work. Just recently, in the province of Manitoba, health care workers were told to go back to work by the provincial government.

Unfortunately, in certain situations, the government is put in a very difficult position, but we believe that individuals have a right to strike, and the best agreement is a negotiated agreement. I hope that members will be open-minded about what is actually being proposed in this legislation.

[Kelly DeRidder, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, 11 years ago, we had the richest middle class in all of the G7 under the Harper government. After 11 years of failed policy and blocking our economy, we now seem to be turning course.

After many announcements and billions of dollars spent, why does nothing seem to get approved so that we can get back to the amazing Canada we had before the Liberal government took office?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, that is unfortunate, and a good example would be the Canada Infrastructure Bank. The Canada Infrastructure Bank is constantly criticized by the Conservative Party of Canada. Conservatives have always said that it has done nothing and that we should get rid of it, but anyone can look into that. They should not believe the briefings from the Conservative backroom, because the reality is that the Canada Infrastructure Bank has had over 100 projects. We are talking about over $40 billion. That is real jobs. That is real investment. It is not all government money. However, the Conservatives will try to give the impression that the bank has not done anything and we should get rid of it.

At the end of the day, we cannot trust the Conservatives to have credible information often.

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

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

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

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

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

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The House resumed from September 24 consideration of the motion that Bill C-39, An Act respecting certain measures to strengthen the economy, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Gabriel Hardy, Conservative, Montmorency—Charlevoix, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Benjamin is 20 years old. He comes from my riding of Montmorency—Charlevoix. School was not always easy for him. Although he struggled to finish his studies, he later completed a vocational diploma in sheet metal work. Now he works six days a week. He gets up at 4 a.m. to install ventilation systems in homes in Quebec, homes that he knows very well he will never be able to afford. Benjamin wrote to me with a very simple question: When will the government keep its promises?

According to Statistics Canada, the cost of groceries has increased by 29% since 2021. Evidently, Benjamin's wages have not kept pace. There are many people like Benjamin in Montmorency—Charlevoix, people who work full time but who have to put things back on the grocery store shelves every week because they cannot afford them and because they are struggling to make ends meet.

Following the last election in 2025, the minority government had to work with the opposition parties. We all had to work together to find solutions to move the country forward. At that time, the Liberal government introduced Bill C-5, which made it possible to build at a pace not seen in generations. The government granted itself exceptional powers to deal with an exceptional situation, meaning the trade war with our neighbours to the south. Canadians were clear. They were asking us to work together in their best interests, to act for the common good and to avoid politicizing the situation.

The Conservatives said yes to Bill C-5 out of respect for Canadians. We did it not because we were naive, but because we wanted to be co-operative. For years, we have wanted to get this country building. We kept our word and respected the will of the people. We voted in favour of Bill C-5.

Today, I want to ask a question on Benjamin's behalf. What did the Liberals do with that power that was entrusted to them and with the co-operation that we extended to them out of respect for democracy? The answer is that they got a majority without voters returning to the polls, through agreements made behind closed doors. They bought themselves a majority and took control of Parliament.

The Liberals have been in power for 11 years. Since then, there has been no shortage of promises.

Allow me to recap the slogans and announcements made since 2017 about the housing crisis.

In 2017, there was the Reaching Home program, part of the national housing strategy. The Liberals announced that housing would be built for all Canadians, that more homes would be built more quickly and that housing would be made affordable. There was also Build Canada Homes, which they said would unlock more housing development. These are nothing but slogans.

In 2024, they said it was time to build, and they proposed Canada's housing plan. They said they would increase supply, reduce costs and cut red tape. They said that every Canadian deserves a place to call home. Once again, these were just slogans.

In 2025, they unveiled “Building Canada Strong”, supposedly the most ambitious plan since the Second World War.

A promise is like a cheque. For 11 years, that cheque has always bounced for the same reason: insufficient funds. Since the Liberal government took power, there have been plenty of slogans and promises, but not many shovels in the ground. In the meantime, as I said earlier, grocery costs have risen by 29% since 2021, and the price of gas has increased by 23% or so in a year. One couple from Charlevoix, both 23 years old, wrote to me last week. To save money, they have to shop at three different grocery stores. They skipped taking a vacation because gas costs too much. That is the reality ordinary people are facing. That is the result of the Liberals' decisions.

The government says that the situation is urgent and that we need to act fast and pass Bill C-39 as fast as possible. This emergency did not come out of nowhere. It comes after close to 11 years of delaying and failing to get this country building; 11 years without diversifying our markets; 11 years without building the infrastructure that would have put us in a position of strength going into the negotiations with the Americans; 11 years of growing poorer instead of growing.

Does anyone find this reminiscent of the fable of the grasshopper and the ant? Well, the government has spent the past 11 years trying to look good to the rest of the world, inviting everyone to come and enjoy our services, and constantly asking Canadians to pay more for less. I want to come back to Bill C-5. It passed 15 months ago, and yet not a single project has been designated as a project of national interest under that legislation. Meanwhile, a new Major Projects Office has been established and funded to the tune of $214 million over five years. That office cost $42 million last year alone. When I asked the director of the Major Projects Office how many major projects had been launched for that $42 million, she said none.

Worse still, more than six new federal agencies, offices or entities have been created. There is plenty of bureaucracy and administration, but nothing is actually being produced.

Today, that same government, which now holds a majority, is presenting a massive 250-page bill. It was introduced on Monday. The government is telling us once again that we need to move quickly, that we need to pick up the pace and move at a speed never seen since the last time we moved at a speed never seen before. Fifteen months later, it is back with the same promise and a catchier title that is a little more grandiose and impressive. It is just more smoke and mirrors.

I mentioned Benjamin earlier. Benjamin makes $800 a week. His pay goes toward the car he uses to get to work, groceries, rent, insurance and gas. In his letter to me, he wrote in all caps that every penny counts. When Benjamin asks for a raise, it will not be for little luxuries. It will be for groceries, rent, gas and insurance. Workers who are fighting for higher wages are not enemies of our economy. They are the ones who build it with their own hands at 4 a.m.

Members may recall that in the summer of 2025, 10,000 Air Canada flight attendants went on strike. What were they asking for? They were asking to be paid for the hours they work, that is, during boarding, during time spent waiting and during airport delays. These hours were unpaid. Less than 12 hours into this strike, the government invoked section 107 of the Canada Labour Code to send them back to work. All they wanted was to be paid for the hours they work.

Part 3 of Bill C‑39 reforms section 107. The government is talking about creating a framework to prevent abuse. Workers are saying that this will make it almost impossible for port, rail and airline workers to invoke their right to strike. Those who have experienced the effects of the law tell us that they see things completely differently from what the government says. Our role here is to understand, analyze and defend the interests of workers and Canadians. The role of the opposition is to be loyal to the people and to the nation. I am not talking about administrative structures and organizations. I am talking about real people. I am talking about people like Benjamin. I am talking about standing up for Canadians who are working but still cannot make ends meet.

To be fair, there are some good points in the bill. For example, the “one project, one review, one year” approach is a very good idea. It is so good, in fact, that it was our idea. My colleague from Louis-Saint-Laurent—Akiawenhrahk introduced it in the House as Bill C-375. In May 2024, the House rejected it by 177 votes to 150. The Liberals voted against it.

The Minister of Finance told us this week that the Conservatives do not have a monopoly on common sense, but it seems we laid claim to most of it before he came around. I do not, however, blame the government for having changed its mind in the end. It is good that the Liberals are discovering that they have their shortcomings, because the ideas we are defending here do not belong to any one party. They belong to all those who want to move the country forward, who want us to prosper as a society and who want to build a better future.

After 11 years of big announcements, Benjamin wants more than just good intentions. He wants things to work. He wants to see progress and results that make a difference for him. Another person wrote to me recently to say that Canadians are not asking for promises. They are asking for real, measurable results. This person asked us to spend less time playing politics and more time finding real solutions.

I want to suggest two very simple solutions. The first is that we do a real study in committee. I do not want to see the debates cut short or the committee voting to speed up the work because the government has a majority now. We need to listen to what workers, employers, experts and first nations have to say. We need to listen to people in regions like mine and our business owners. We need to hear from those who may be positively or negatively affected by the bill. We cannot analyze 250 pages in just a few days.

My second suggestion is that we need to actually stick to the schedule. The government is talking about taking one year to assess a project. There cannot be any hidden delays, any extensions granted behind closed doors or any claims that we need to understand that there is a backlog. That is a promise. If the government is promising that it will take one year, then the process needs to take one year from start to finish.

When the government tells us that this is urgent, that we need to trust it and grant it more power because there is a crisis, our duty is not to rush into anything. It is to slow down and read carefully, because every comma, every period and every sentence raises important concerns. It is because every comma affects a worker's wage. Every period affects a construction project in some region. Every sentence represents a promise made to Benjamin. We want to make sure that these promises do not end up as a bounced cheque this time.

Benjamin will get up at 4 a.m. tomorrow and head out to build a house he cannot afford. He does not want to hear any more slogans. He wants us to build a country where working hard is still enough. Slogans do not build anything. Construction sites do. It is high time we started building together.

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

Mr. Speaker, the type of information the member put on the record is somewhat disappointing. He is saying that the price of gasoline is the federal government's fault.

[An hon. member]

It's called tax.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the member says it is taxes. Just over a year ago, 18 months ago, Canada elected a new Prime Minister. The new Prime Minister and the government got rid of the carbon tax. That is 17¢ off a litre. The new government also put relief on the excise tax. That is 10¢ a litre. At the end of the day, the new government with a new Prime Minister in 18 months has done a great deal on the issue of affordability, and we continue to look at ways we can improve affordability.

Why will the member not get on board and recognize good legislation when—

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

The hon. member for Montmorency—Charlevoix.

[Gabriel Hardy, Conservative, Montmorency—Charlevoix, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is always quite something to hear that.

First, the opposition is playing its part. We have offered up plenty of solutions here in the House, and the Liberals, unfortunately, are stealing our ideas. However, since they did not come up with these ideas themselves, they do not know how to implement them. They have scrapped the excise tax on gasoline, but temporarily and only partially. What we are calling for is the removal of all federal taxes to give families some real breathing room.

More taxes, more red tape, more bureaucracy—that is not the solution. It is high time they realized that the government needs to step aside and let our country grow so that, ultimately, we can all prosper together.

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as part of Bill C-5, the building Canada act, the Bloc Québécois was able to secure the co-operation and support of the Conservatives for an amendment that I myself introduced, which sought to include a sunset clause in Bill C-5. The goal was to at least provide a framework for and limit the extraordinary and exceptional powers that the bill was creating in response to the exceptional circumstances arising from the American threat across the border.

The Conservatives agreed with us that these were indeed exceptional powers. Even constitutional experts agreed with us. Some said that Bill C-5 was similar or almost similar to the Emergency Measures Act. In Bill C-39, the Liberals are trying to undo all the measures that we put in place in Bill C-5 with the Conservatives' co-operation, including the five-year sunset clause.

I am wondering if we can count on the Conservatives' support once again to prevent this abuse of power.

[Gabriel Hardy, Conservative, Montmorency—Charlevoix, QC]

Mr. Speaker, yes, once again, the Liberal government is using fear to govern and grant itself more power.

As we said, exceptional circumstances sometimes warrant an exceptional response or exceptional legislation. We passed that legislation in Parliament 15 months ago, but the only results we have seen involve what the Liberals do best, which is creating more bureaucracy, giving more money to their cronies and leaving less money in the pockets of ordinary Canadians.

We need to continue keeping an eye on them. We need to continue rising here in the House, out of loyalty to the people and to the nation, and we need to ensure that our laws work for people and that the government is not just using this crisis to play politics. Yes, we will be there to double-check every comma and to hold the Liberals to account for their decisions.

[Jacob Mantle, Conservative, York—Durham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the deputy government House leader rattled off some measures that the government undertook. My hon. colleague can explain that we supported those tax cuts for Canadians because we will always support making life more affordable for Canadians and saving them money.

As my hon. colleague mentioned, we supported the government in giving it more powers to build things at speeds not seen before. After 18 months of the government having those powers, what is his assessment of what it has accomplished?

[Gabriel Hardy, Conservative, Montmorency—Charlevoix, QC]

Mr. Speaker, things are moving forward at speeds not seen in generations.

As I said in my speech, the current pace of things is unprecedented. Nothing is getting built, but money is being spent. The government allocated $42 million to the Major Projects Office, which has been scrutinizing paperwork for a year now without a single project getting off the ground. We, the Conservatives, are not the ones saying so. It comes from testimony given in committee by the Major Projects Office director, who said that $42 million had been spent without a single project being approved.

It would be a good thing if that kind of speed, not seen in generations, could move faster than a Ford Model T and finally move our country forward.

[Tim Louis, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the King’s Privy Council for Canada and Minister responsible for Canada-U.S. Trade]

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to speak to the building Canada strong act. We find ourselves at a critical juncture in our nation's history. Around the world, global trade patterns are shifting, geopolitical instability is rising and competition for capital is fierce. For years, Canada has relied heavily on a single trading partner, leaving our businesses, workers and communities vulnerable to external shocks and sudden tariffs.

To secure our national sovereignty and long-term prosperity, Canada must build capacity for true economic self-reliance. Our government set an ambitious goal to double our non-U.S. exports over the next decade, unlocking new trade and attracting investment.

As a nation, we are now turning that potential into progress. Federal decision-making in Canada has been slow, fragmented and plagued by duplication. Projects that could create good-paying jobs and power our clean energy transition have faced regulatory paralysis, taking up to five years or more just to get answers. The building Canada strong act would address these structural bottlenecks directly through three interconnected pillars: accelerating major project reviews, modernizing supply chains and trade corridors, and modernizing collective bargaining and strengthening worker protections.

I know that significant legislation can raise concerns, so today I want to address questions that are being raised regarding environmental protections, labour rights and indigenous reconciliation and explain how this bill would address them.

A question that has been raised is, if we accelerate federal reviews, how do we do so without cutting corners or weakening environmental standards? I want to be clear that the building Canada strong act represents a reform of process, not a reduction of standards. This is not a choice between protecting the environment and building major infrastructure. We can and we must do both.

Under our current system, federal departments review projects consecutively. A proponent might spend two years completing an assessment under the Impact Assessment Act, only to start from scratch with separate sequential permits from Fisheries and Oceans Canada or Transport Canada. That is unnecessary duplication.

This bill would transition federal reviews from consecutive to concurrent workflows. Under the new framework, the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada would coordinate federal departments simultaneously. In plain terms, instead of making projects wait in line for one department after another, all federal agencies would work at the same time, together.

The federal government would commit to completing its review and delivering one comprehensive federal decision, whether it is a yes or a no, within one year once a complete application is submitted. The scope of environmental assessments would remain intact, incorporating health, social and environmental impacts, along with indigenous traditional knowledge.

Our government listened carefully during extensive consultations, where we received over 26,000 submissions. In response to this feedback, we have explicitly removed proposed changes to the Species at Risk Act jeopardy clause, so the Species at Risk Act would remain fully untouched and uncompromisingly protected.

Strong environmental protections remain a non-negotiable foundation of our approach, ensuring that economic growth and conservation go hand in hand. By identifying environmental considerations earlier in the process, this approach maintains environmental protection while providing greater certainty for communities and for project proponents alike.

The second area of feedback comes from our union workforce and labour representatives. Workers want to know that legislation will not restrict the constitutional right to strike or expand government intervention in collective bargaining. I firmly believe that a strong economy is built by well-paid, protected workers.

The building Canada strong act would preserve and enshrine the constitutional right to strike. The best, most durable agreements are those negotiated directly by workers and employees at the bargaining table.

To address disputes in critical supply chain sectors or disagreements that can leave negotiations stalled for months due to bad-faith bargaining from employers or unions, this bill would modernize the Canada Labour Code to help parties reach an agreement before a crisis occurs. For complex negotiations, we would be starting talks earlier and extending federal conciliation time. Rather than forcing a deal, a neutral conciliator would help manage discussions and work with employers and unions toward a fair compromise before a dispute escalates to a work stoppage. We would be introducing a special mediator to help resolve deadlocks. If talks stall, their reports would be published publicly within five days to hold both sides accountable.

Beyond dispute resolution, we would be investing directly in workers' everyday protections by strengthening workplace safety, by resolving complaints faster and by cracking down on wage theft. The building Canada strong act would ensure that as we grow our economy, we protect, respect and support the workers who build it.

The third thing I would like to address is our constitutional and moral obligations to indigenous peoples. The Crown's duty to consult and accommodate is constitutionally protected. It is non-negotiable, and it would be fully mandated under this act. Economic reconciliation is embedded in this legislation through the indigenous advisory committees and through enabling indigenous equity ownership in major infrastructure. This bill would replace the confusing web of separate departmental reviews with a new Crown consultation hub, giving indigenous communities one single coordinated federal contact point for every project.

To grow our economy together, we must also modernize our trade corridors and transportation networks. Eighty per cent of Canada's non-U.S. trade moves through our marine ports. The building Canada strong act would establish a tell-us-once digital frame network. By transitioning from paper-based forms to UN-aligned electronic trade records, we eliminate duplicate filings across government departments and can unlock tremendous economic potential for Canadian exporters.

In conclusion, we will build a stronger Canada by standing with the people who build it. The building Canada strong act is an ambitious, integrated economic package. It would bring speed and certainty to project approvals while upholding world-leading environmental standards. It would respect section 35 indigenous rights while streamlining consultation. It would protect the constitutional right to strike while equipping workers and employers with modern tools to reach fair deals at the bargaining table.

Let us move forward together, support our workers, protect our environment and build an economy that is resilient, competitive and strong for all Canadians.

[Ellis Ross, Conservative, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member's speech made significant mention of aboriginal rights and title without actually talking about aboriginal rights and title. There are so many clauses in this bill that affect rights and title and affect the promises made under UNDRIP by the government. One in particular is about enabling the designation of regions of national interest in areas such as energy corridors, transportation corridors and industrial corridors for the purposes of pre-approval.

This is an interesting dilemma, because the courts have already said that we cannot have a pre-approval if we are aware of a decision that might infringe on rights and title. We must consult and accommodate. In this equation, we are asking two questions of rights and title: designation of land and the activity. How will the government proceed if it does not get consent on either of these activities?

[Tim Louis, Liberal, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I respect my colleague. These are the kinds of conversations we need to have now in the House.

By setting up an indigenous advisory council, we will get in consultation right away on projects. Also, we will start earlier. If we know that projects are going to be in certain areas and certain ports, we are going to start environmental assessments and start working even before a project is put forward. If we are working within departments to do environmental assessments and consultations with indigenous communities in advance, then when things start, when a project comes forward, we will already have baseline data that can be used. Each project will be able to draw from that baseline data and use it moving forward. By doing that in conjunction with working consecutively and having the consultation hub, we can work a lot faster and work together to get things done while protecting indigenous rights.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette—Manawan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my question concerns environmental assessments.

The government is removing the task of assessing energy projects from scientists and handing it over to the Canada Energy Regulator.

Let us look at who the commissioners are: The lead commissioner is the former senior legal counsel for TC Energy; the deputy lead commissioner is a former legal adviser with Royal Dutch Shell; another is a former legal adviser with the Pembina Pipeline Corporation and Shell Canada Limited; another was formerly with Imperial Oil and Canadian Oil Sands Limited; and another comes from the Pembina Pipeline Corporation and Shell Canada Limited.

Why should oil company lobbyists be entrusted with assessments previously conducted by scientists?

[Tim Louis, Liberal, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my French is not there yet to answer in French. I am getting there.

The Impact Assessment Act is still in place. Some of the projects that are used to going through the CER, the regulator, are still going to go through it, but it is an arm's-length process. By working together through the Impact Assessment Act and through the CER, we are going to make sure that these projects happen at arm's length and that thoroughness is done.

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

I, too, would like to thank my colleague from Ontario for his contribution to this debate.

At the beginning of his speech, he pointed out that the safeguards will still be there but that we are going to find a way to reduce delays and make a decision, whether positive or negative. I would like him to expand on that.

[Tim Louis, Liberal, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Mr. Speaker, let us imagine going for a driver's licence. We have to get our driver's licence in one place, go to another place to get our picture taken, go to another place to get eye-exam certified and then go back to the first place and start that process over again. By consolidating the processes and making the departments work together concurrently instead of consecutively, we can get things done quicker. We can get our driver's licence a lot sooner.

Saying we are going to get things done in a year means it is a yes or no in a year. It does not mean it is a yes in a year. It means yes or no in a year. We just need to be more efficient and move faster so we can grow our economy for Canadians.

[Chak Au, Conservative, Richmond Centre—Marpole, BC]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians want Canada to build. They want more housing and energy infrastructure, stronger ports, better transportation corridors, and major projects that create jobs and expand our trade. Therefore, the question before Parliament is not whether Canada should build, but whether Bill C-39 fixes the problems that are preventing Canada from building.

That brings me to this basic question: What happened to Bill C-5? Just over a year ago, Parliament passed the One Canadian Economy Act. Bill C-5 created the Building Canada Act to accelerate projects of national interest and provide a more coordinated and predictable federal approval process. The Liberals also created the Major Projects Office as a central point of contact.

At the time, the Liberals told Canadians that this framework would streamline approvals, reduce duplications and move major projects forward faster, yet only a year later they are back with Bill C-39, another major bill, another new framework and another promise that this time they will get it right. That raises a fundamental question. If Canada is not building fast enough, is the problem a lack of legislation or the Liberals' failure to implement the legislation Parliament already passed?

If the problem is bureaucratic coordination, then improve coordination. If the problem is insufficient resources, then provide the resources. If the problem is duplication, then remove it. If the existing legislation is outdated, repeal or consolidate it, rather than continually adding another layer. A new law does not magically solve an implementation problem; it simply papers over it.

This is why timing matters. Parliament created a new framework only a year ago, with clear objectives, clear authorities and a dedicated Major Projects Office, yet after 12 months, only a few projects have been listed, and none have been approved. If the existing framework has not delivered results, Parliament deserves to know why. What coordination challenges remain? What duplications persist? Why would adding another major piece of legislation suddenly resolve delays that clearly stem from execution, not from the absence of statutory authority? Before creating a new framework, Parliament should insist on a clear explanation of why the existing one has not delivered the results Canadians were promised.

That brings us to the one-year timeline, the centrepiece of the Liberals' argument for Bill C-39. At first glance, it sounds compelling. The Liberals say federal reviews and decisions would be completed within one year once all required information has been received. What happens when that year is not met? Is the project automatically approved? Does the government lose jurisdiction? Is there any consequence at all? The Liberals' own explanation make it clear that the clock begins only after the proponents submit comprehensive applications and finalize the required studies and information. Proponents may opt out of the timeline. Extensions and expansions may apply, including to complete indigenous consultations. There may be legitimate reasons for flexibility. Indigenous consultations cannot be rushed. Technical information cannot be ignored. Proponents may need additional time.

That brings us to the core issue, which is accountability. If the timeline can be extended, suspended or opted out of, what makes one year a binding commitment rather than another Liberal talking point? If the goalpost can be removed and there is no consequence for missing the targets, who is accountable? Who explains the delay: the department, the regulator, the minister or the lead assessor? Would Canadians be able to see how often timelines are extended or suspended and for how long?

A one-year target can be useful, but it must be accompanied by transparency and accountability. Otherwise, it is simply another promise without enforcement.

Ports illustrate the border problem. Canada's trade strategy depends on moving goods efficiently from producers to international markets. The Liberals say transportation infrastructure faces overlapping requirements, duplicative process and lengthy timelines. Bill C-39 proposed changes to improve trade corridors and modernize port governance. These are significant proposals.

Canada already has the Canada Marine Act, the Canada Transportation Act, Canada port authorities and the national trade corridors fund. Now Canada has the Building Canada Act and the Major Projects Office. If those tools are not producing timely results, then the problem is not legislative gaps; it is operational bottlenecks that Bill C-39 does not directly address.

Consider the Roberts Bank Terminal 2 project in B.C. It underwent more than a decade of federal assessments. Its impact assessment was completed in 2023. It has been referred to the Major Projects Office, and yet it is still sitting there. Parliament should ask precisely what Bill C-39 will change for a project like this. Will it eliminate duplication? Will it coordinate the remaining permits? Will it establish clear responsibility? Will it produce a measurable timeline? Or, is it simply creating another layer of bureaucracy?

A trade corridor is not just a port. It is the entire chain: the producer, the truck or rail connections, the terminal, the port, the vessel and, ultimately, the customer. If one part is slow, the entire corridor is slow. Parliament should support efforts to build faster, but building faster requires implementation, coordination and accountability, not simply more legislation.

Two questions should guide our examination of Bill C-39. First, if the problem is implementation, why is another law the answer? Bill C-5 already created the Building Canada Act and the Major Projects Office to accelerate and coordinate major projects. Second, if the Liberals promise one-year decisions, what makes that a genuine commitment, if the timeline can be extended or suspended, and there is no consequence for missing it?

Those are the questions Parliament should keep at the centre of the examination of Bill C-39. Canada needs major projects, efficient ports, reliable trade corridors, and a regulatory system that provides certainty to investors, communities and indigenous partners. Another law is not the solution if the problem is implementation. Canada does not need more layers of legislation; it needs results.

[Abdelhaq Sari, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Mr. Speaker, before I ask my question, I would like to explain something very important to my colleague. Bill C-5 opened the door or laid the foundation, but Bill C-39 is what puts the framework in place to help our projects move forward. That is something I wanted to clarify.

I see that the members opposite want us to move on projects more quickly, to build faster and stronger. We all agree on that. My question is very simple. Can we count on them to move things along more quickly in committee too?

[Chak Au, Conservative, Richmond Centre—Marpole, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as I have already explained, we need the right tools to address the right problems. If the problem was not moving faster enough, the problem may not be the lack of legislation; it could be a problem of implementation or inefficiency.

Before we introduce more legislation, we have to answer the question to find out where the problem is. Is it implementation or is it a lack of another layer of bureaucracy?

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

Mr. Speaker, I am a bit surprised that my colleague seems unhappy and is saying that things are not moving fast enough. The changes being made with Bill C-39 are quite extraordinary.

The Impact Assessment Agency of Canada is being stripped of its mandate to protect the environment, uphold the rights of indigenous peoples and emphasize collaboration, and the role of assessing pipeline projects is being transferred to the Canada Energy Regulator. The CER's mandate is to keep energy moving safely and efficiently through pipelines.

What does my Conservative colleague not like about that? It appears rather contradictory to me. We, on this side, do not agree with that, because we believe that it removes all environmental protections. I would like to hear his thoughts on that.

[Chak Au, Conservative, Richmond Centre—Marpole, BC]

Mr. Speaker, actually I am not in favour of doing away with all of that legislation. As I have pointed out in my speech, the legislation already exists. The Canada Marine Act, the Canada Transportation Act and the port authorities national trade corridors fund are already in place. I am not arguing that we should get rid of that legislation. I am just saying that, if that legislation is not put into good implementation, we should reveal the implementation first, instead of just rushing through another new build that promises a one-year timeline, which is not going to happen.

[Rhonda Kirkland, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there is probably nothing I enjoy more in this House than listening to my Conservative colleague from Richmond Centre—Marpole speak with such common sense. He lays it out very plainly and very clearly that legislation upon legislation is not the answer. We have heard from the Liberals repeatedly that, every time they implement new legislation, it is going to create speed and certainty. We have not seen any of that speed and certainty over the last 11 years. We have heard a lot of talk. We have seen no action and no results.

I wonder if my colleague would agree and would like to elaborate on that.

[Chak Au, Conservative, Richmond Centre—Marpole, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is just like the example of the Roberts Bank Terminal 2 project that I used in my speech. It has undergone more than a decade of federal assessment. The assessments were actually completed in 2023, and it is still sitting there. Again, the problem is not with legislation. We have the legislation to support the project. It takes the federal government more than a decade to complete the assessment, and even when it is completed, it is still there, so it is an efficiency problem. It is an implementation problem. It is not a legislative problem.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to join the debate briefly and ask my friend from Richmond a question.

This entire debate around the environmental impacts is as though Bill C-5 never passed. Bill C-5 says the government can break any law it wants to, including the Species at Risk Act or the Impact Assessment Act, if a project is of national interest. I know my Conservative colleagues may not agree with me that this is a bad thing, but I wonder if the Conservative caucus has noticed that Bill C-5 would be on top of Bill C-39.

[Chak Au, Conservative, Richmond Centre—Marpole, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as I repeatedly said, we do not need another layer of bureaucracy, papers and legislation in order to build faster and more responsibly.

[Carlos Leitão, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, it is my turn to say a few words about Bill C-39, which, as some of my colleagues have already mentioned, is primarily an economic bill. It is a set of measures. I am fully aware that it is a rather complete piece of legislation, let me put it that way, that is absolutely necessary in order to accelerate our economy and our economic growth.

We were elected, a year and a half or so ago, to build Canada strong and to rebuild the Canadian economy. To do that, we need to speed up the process of approvals. Basically, we need to get things done. In order to get things done, we do require several legislative changes to make sure the Canadian economy adapts to the new environment.

I start with the context of why we are doing this now. We are doing this now, first of all, because it has to be done. We would have had to have done this in any case to modernize and update our regulatory framework. However, the context right now is particularly complex and requires a major structural reform, which is what this bill would contribute, to achieve. The context is one of a trade war that we did not start. The trade war was imposed on us totally arbitrarily and totally without regard for the fact that the Canadian economy and the U.S. economy, at least for the past 30 years, were increasingly integrated, particularly our industrial sectors, which are completely integrated.

It is not the case that Canada is like a mini U.S. and that we produce everything here that is produced in the United States, only on a smaller scale. It is not that at all. The Canadian economy has specialized in a relatively small number of sectors and products that are completely integrated into the North American supply chain. Our neighbours to the south, particularly the administration, and we should not mix things up as it is the U.S. administration, has total disregard for that integration and has decided to disintegrate the North American economy, break it apart, saying it does not need anything we make here.

Well, it does need it, but regardless of that, it believes it does not need what we have here. Therefore we have to pivot. We have to change our structure. We have to make products that are in demand in the local market, so there is some import substitution going on. At the same time, we have to look for other markets, other opportunities, elsewhere in the world.

With this bill, we would try to accomplish that pivot. To do that, there are a number of things we need to do. First of all, we need to make sure we are actually able to approve projects, particularly in the infrastructure world. We have to improve our infrastructure. We have to improve our ability to move goods and people across this country. Massive improvements to our infrastructure are required, and the bill would accelerate the process.

I can already hear our friends from the Bloc Québécois saying that this would be a massive intrusion into areas of provincial responsibility and provincial jurisdiction. Let us be clear: What we are proposing to do would apply to federal legislation and federal regulations. We would not in any way be changing or forcing any sort of change in provincial regulations.

We clearly invite the provinces as well to participate in this process and to harmonize. In fact, seven provinces have already signed agreements with the federal government, so the objective we have, which is one project, one approval process and one year, that it gets done within one year, will speed things up if indeed the provinces are already onside. If they are not, well, then provincial legislation and provincial procedures will remain in place.

The objective is to build a stronger, more resilient economy, a more productive economy and ultimately a more independent economy.

By the way, we have also talked a lot in the House, since we came back, about affordability issues and the high cost of living, which is a fact and is top of mind for most Canadians. I will say two things about that. First of all, we do have the necessary social programs to help Canadians get over, or adjust and adapt to, this higher-cost environment. Social programs are important. In fact, a robust social safety net is one of the characteristics of Canada. Canada is Canada in no small measure because we care about each other and because we help people at the lower-income levels with targeted and somewhat generous social programs. We will continue to do that. In fact, we have added quite a bit to those social programs.

However, more fundamentally, the only way to improve affordability on a long-term, sustainable basis is to improve productivity. Improved productivity will lead to a much more efficient economy, which will allow incomes to go up. If incomes go up, then life becomes more affordable. The government, the state, cannot and should not directly regulate prices. That does not work. It has been shown in many instances in many other countries that it does not work. However, if we put in place policies that promote investment and promote productivity growth, incomes will rise, and then Canadians will be able to afford life and lead a better life.

There is also an issue with the supply side. There are certain areas where supply is an issue, namely in housing. In housing, one of the big contributors to the high cost of living, the high cost of rents and the high cost of houses is supply. There is not sufficient supply. Again, it is a complex, complicated issue. Bill C-39 would not necessarily address that directly, but indirectly in a way, yes, it would, because we would be improving infrastructure.

One of the issues on the housing side, one of the factors that are holding construction back, is also the poor state of municipal infrastructure in many cases right across all provinces, including in my province and in my riding in particular. The basic municipal infrastructure, such as sewers, water treatment plants and things like that, is holding back construction as well. Therefore, if we are able to accelerate processes and accelerate building, then that would contribute.

Again, let us not forget the demand side: the increase in incomes that can occur in a sustained way only if the economy becomes more productive. That requires massive investment, and the principal objective of Bill C-39 is to make sure that required investment will take place. It has been particularly complex, and it takes quite a bit of time for a major project to be approved in Canada, and clearly what we would do is to massively accelerate that project.

There are three components to Bill C-39. We are going to build now, and we have to accelerate movement and be strong for all Canadians.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the member identified many of the challenges and problems within the Canadian economy, one being a lack of investment in basic infrastructure across the country. I wonder if he would remind Canadians which party has been in government for the last 11 years and presided over this deficit in infrastructure despite the promises it made in each of its four elections.

[Carlos Leitão, Liberal, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have been a member of the House since April 2025, as have many of my colleagues, and the Prime Minister has been leading this country since April 2025. What we are focused on is improving and accelerating the pace of economic growth in Canada in a sustainable and meaningful way.

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague on his speech.

The fact is that the federal government has been using Donald Trump to justify imposing its legislative agenda, particularly Bill C‑5, which fast-tracks major projects and sidesteps environmental laws and other laws that they do not like and that get in the way.

During the study in committee, we agreed that it looked like a national emergency, as the Liberals were saying, but that President Trump would no longer be here in five years. We therefore included a sunset clause in Bill C‑5 so that we can return to the normal process in five years, but the Liberals want to get rid of that in Bill C‑39.

Why is it that, essentially, the justification is becoming permanent? This is not normal. Do they want the rollbacks to be permanent when it comes to the environment, labour laws and decisions made behind closed doors between a future minister and project proponents? I do not think that is right. Why does the member agree with that?

[Carlos Leitão, Liberal, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I disagree with that; that is not what we are doing. Give me a break.

What we are doing is speeding up the process. We are not scrapping regulations. We are speeding up the way in which regulations are reviewed.

I want to add one final point. This is not an excuse. It is not because of Trump. This is the reality. The U.S. administration has irreversibly changed the Canada–U.S. relationship. We must adapt to this new world. It is not an excuse. It is not something that will magically disappear in 2029. It will not disappear.

[Braedon Clark, Liberal, Sackville—Bedford—Preston, NS]

Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary touched on a very important topic, of course, which is working with provinces in a spirit of co-operative federalism. As the parliamentary secretary has, I have served in a provincial legislature, in my case in Nova Scotia. I wonder if he could touch a bit on that and talk about the importance of working with provinces in a spirit of co-operation to execute on important bills such as Bill C-39.

[Carlos Leitão, Liberal, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in fact, yes, the member, I and several other colleagues in the House were also in provincial legislatures, and it is extremely important that the federal government and the provinces are able to co-operate. Ever since April 2025, we have clearly been in a period of co-operative federalism. We talk with the provinces, we collaborate and we move forward together. That is the only way we are going to achieve something. The provinces are onside, generally speaking, and we are ready and willing to co-operate with them further.

[Jeff Kibble, Conservative, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, almost a year and a half ago, we had building Canada, with all kinds of great promises and platitudes saying that the government is going to do this and that. Almost a year and a half later, we have building Canada strong, and the member opposite stands to make the same promises that the Liberals are going to do this and that. However, Canadians have not seen anything happen. In fact, I will quote the member's own speech: “we need to get things done”. He also said that we need to speed things up. It has been a year and a half, and he has the audacity to stand there and say that.

Does the member opposite believe that the Liberals can continue to fool Canadians with yet another set of promises and nothing getting done? It is completely embarrassing.

[Carlos Leitão, Liberal, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that is a good one: “nothing getting done”. Someone much wiser than me once said that whatever is exaggerated becomes meaningless. Unfortunately, we have had a great example of that in the House because for about a year and a half or so, everything has been consistently and continuously exaggerated.

We are moving forward. For that, we need significant legislative change. That is what we would be doing here. It would be a significant legislative change, which at the end of the day, I suspect, the Conservatives will actually approve. I think they will vote in favour of Bill C-39, but now they are just going off and saying things.

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.

[Vincent Ho, Conservative, Richmond Hill South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister promised Canadians that his government was going to build at speeds not seen in generations, and I will give him this much: He was right, because Canadians have not seen a government build this slowly in generations.

A year and a half ago, the Liberals came before Canadians with Bill C-5 and told us that everything was about to change. We were told that Canada was entering a new era, that projects would finally move quickly, that investment would finally flow and that the Liberal government was going to unleash construction at a pace Canadians had not seen in decades.

Eighteen months after the Liberals took office, Canadians are still left waiting. Not one new project has been approved by the Liberal Major Projects Office. Approximately 500 projects are still waiting for approval, and the government that promised historic speed has produced historic delay. The only thing the Major Projects Office has managed to accomplish is to establish a brand new Liberal bureaucracy and hire Liberal insiders and friends of the Prime Minister as new high-priced bureaucrats at the taxpayers' expense. It is no wonder the Major Projects Office is being touted as the major photo ops office.

Now, eighteen months later, the Liberal Prime Minister has returned to the House with Bill C-39, another piece of legislation approaching 250 pages. The Liberals are once again telling Canadians that this time they have finally found the answer. Well, we have heard this before.

For years, Conservatives have told the government exactly what it needs to do if it wants to get Canada building. We have told it to approve major projects within six months; repeal the antidevelopment laws Liberal Bill C-69 and Liberal Bill C-48, which are still on the books; eliminate unnecessary duplication between governments; adopt a one project, one single review system; and provide investors with the certainty that if they put billions of dollars into Canada, they will actually have a reasonable opportunity to build something here.

Instead, the Liberals have spent years creating more layers of regulations, more uncertainty, more Liberal bureaucracies and more opportunities for delay. Then, after creating the problem, the Liberals arrive in the House every couple of years with another enormous piece of legislation announcing they are going to solve it. That is the pattern that Canadians have watched for more than a decade: create a Liberal-sponsored problem, announce a new Liberal program, create a new Liberal office, hire more Liberal bureaucrats, hold a Liberal press conference, hold a Liberal photo op, declare victory and then wonder why nothing gets built.

Canadians are not going to judge this legislation by its partisan Liberal title, by the Liberal press releases announcing it or by the talking points that Liberal ministers repeat on state-sponsored mass media. Canadians are going to judge it by whether it saves Canadians money, protects Canadian jobs and actually gets projects built.

The problem Canada faces today is not a shortage of Liberal announcements. The Liberals are only good at delivering announcements and strategies drafted by Liberal consultants. These new offices are usually staffed by Liberal insiders, these frameworks are usually crafted by Liberal strategists, and Liberal memoranda of understanding have no legally binding effect. We have Liberal ministers travelling across the country standing beside maps and artists' renderings of things that might one day get built. What Canadians are missing are completed approvals, shovels in the ground, workers on job sites and projects actually being constructed.

Pipelines do not carry energy products because they appear on some Liberal government list or on a website updated by a Liberal staffer. Mines do not produce critical minerals because a Liberal minister holds a press conference. Ports do not have another container moved because a Liberal memorandum of understanding with no legal effect has been signed. Factories do not employ Canadian workers because somebody in Ottawa created another Liberal advisory council drafted by some Liberal consultants.

At some point, the Liberal government has to stop announcing that it intends to build and start allowing Canadians to actually build. That is the fundamental problem with the Liberal approach over the last decade. The government acts as though economic growth is something that can be produced by Ottawa through more legislation, more regulation and more bureaucracy, when in reality, Liberal governments do not build most of these projects. Workers build them. Private investors invest in them, businesses operate them, engineers design them, tradespeople construct them, and entrepreneurs take the risks necessary to actually make it happen.

The government's job should be to establish clear and reasonable rules, protect the public interest and then get out of the way. Instead, Canada has become a country where somebody can be prepared to invest billions of dollars, employ thousands of Canadians and develop resources that the world desperately wants, and the first question they have to ask is not whether the project makes economic sense but whether they will spend the next decade trying to navigate a Liberal regulatory system. That is not economic strategy. It is Liberal self-sabotage.

The Liberals now say that Bill C-39 will create greater certainty and faster timelines, but Canadians should remember that these are almost the exact same promises and talking points we heard when Bill C-5 was introduced last year. If Bill C-5, more than a year ago, was supposed to get projects moving faster, why do we need Bill C-39?

The Prime Minister said Canada would move at speeds not seen in generations. Canadians looked around and waited, for the past year and a half. They waited for the new mines, the new pipelines and the new energy infrastructure. They waited for the new ports and the new major private sector projects that would create thousands of jobs and attract billions of dollars of investment. They are still waiting.

The Liberal Prime Minister promised speeds not seen in generations, and instead, Canadians have received delays not seen in generations. Eighteen months later, the Liberals are asking Canadians to believe that the problem was simply that they needed another 250 pages of federal legislation. Canadians are entitled to be skeptical. The issue has never been that Ottawa lacks enough power, regulations, departments, bureaucrats or pieces of paper. The issue is that the government has spent more than a decade making it harder to build anything in the country.

Bill C-69 created enormous uncertainty for major projects. Bill C-48 restricted Canada's ability to export our energy resources from the coast of British Columbia. Layers of Liberal federal legislation overlap with provincial processes. Project proponents face years of consultations, studies, assessments and bureaucratic demands before they know whether they will receive a final answer. While all that is happening, capital, both domestic and foreign, does not simply sit around waiting for Ottawa. It moves, and it goes somewhere. It goes to jurisdictions where governments understand that regulatory certainty matters, where permits can be obtained in a predictable period of time and where political leaders actually want investment rather than merely talk about wanting investment.

Every time that happens, Canada loses more investment. We lose jobs. We lose construction jobs, engineering jobs and manufacturing jobs, and we lose tax revenues that could help pay for health care and public services. Canadian families lose opportunities for the good-paying jobs that once allowed an income to support a family, buy a home and build the future. This is why Conservatives keep coming back to a very basic principle: one project, one review. The government should not require a company to repeatedly prove the same thing to different levels of government, different departments and different regulators. They should streamline the processes and get out of the way.

This brings us to a broader question before us, which is what kind of country Canada intends to become. We possess almost every natural advantage imaginable. We have some of the largest energy reserves in the world. We have critical minerals that our allies desperately need. We have enormous agricultural capacity. We have forestry, energy, uranium, natural gas and oil. We have access to three oceans. We have some of the most talented workers and entrepreneurs anywhere on the planet. Canada should be one of the richest countries in the world. There is no reason Canadians should have to accept economic stagnation, declining investment and fewer opportunities as if these things are somehow inevitable. They are not inevitable. They are consequences of Liberal choices.

Canada has everything we need to succeed here at home. What we need now is a government willing to get out of the way. The Liberals promised Canadians that we would build at speeds not seen in generations. Well, they were right about one thing. Canadians have not seen us build this slowly in generations. Canadians have had enough announcements, enough Liberal studies and enough delays. It is time to get out of the way and finally let Canada build.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is important to note that Bill C-39 is there to support and grow Canada's economy. All one needs to do is take a look at the last 18 months, where we have had a Prime Minister and cabinet going out and encouraging people to seek further trade opportunities for local businesses, to seek investments, to the degree that just a couple of weeks ago in Toronto, we saw half a trillion dollars. That is a historic amount of money, never before seen in Canada's history, because of the relationships with our Prime Minister. I would encourage the member of the Conservative caucus to look at the bigger picture.

Would the Conservatives not recognize that the bill complements that half a trillion dollars' worth of commitments coming over?

[Vincent Ho, Conservative, Richmond Hill South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal member is repeating talking points over and over again, and that one-minute spiel of his is not only raising the noise pollution in this chamber. It is also a testament to the Liberal talking points that have been spouted at Canadians over the last 18 months, which is that they want to do more, but there are no results. All we see is more talk, more announcements and more rhetoric coming from the Liberals.

This entire act is called the building Canada strong act. That is a Liberal partisan slogan, which they now want to enact as federal law. That is the thing about the Liberals. They do not want to get things done. All they want to do is talk a big game and have no results to show for it.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette—Manawan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to see you in the chair.

My question for my colleague has to do with labour law and the right to strike. In 2015, the Supreme Court of Canada recognized the right to strike as a fundamental right protected by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. That was in Saskatchewan Federation of Labour v. Saskatchewan.

The Bloc Québécois believes this proves that in order to infringe upon a protected right, there must be a valid reason, such as protecting the life, health or safety of the public. Serving corporate interests is not a valid reason. That is why the section of Bill C-39 dealing with the right to strike may be unconstitutional.

What are my hon. colleague's thoughts on that? Does he think, as I do, that the Liberals are going to tout the benefits of the notwithstanding clause to defend this part of Bill C-39?

[Vincent Ho, Conservative, Richmond Hill South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for bringing up all of the labour unrest we have seen over the last 11 years under the Liberal government. The labour unrest we are seeing all across the country in almost every sector is a symptom. It is a symptom of 11 years of economic mismanagement, of a cost of living crisis that Canadians have to live through, of having the fastest food inflation and the most unaffordable housing in the G7.

This is a Liberal-sponsored cost of living crisis that we are living in, and the rising costs are what is causing the labour unrest we are seeing across the country. If we can address the endless inflationary spending and bring down the cost of living, then Canadians can finally afford to live again, but the Liberals choose to live in rhetoric rather than taking real action.

[Jeff Kibble, Conservative, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, almost a year and a half ago, we had the Building Canada Act, with grand promises of new organizations, Liberals will do this, they will do that, and with all kinds of platitudes but short on specifics. In fact, the member for Winnipeg North just stood up and said there was half a trillion dollars of commitments, but there are no signatures. There are no deals. There are no new mines. There is nothing.

We now have this building Canada strong act. The Liberals have added the word “strong”. Does the member feel that, under Liberal governance, the Liberals are doomed to continue failing, as they did with the first bill? They have added one word. Are the Liberals doomed to failure through their inaction and announcements, lack of signatures, and lack of actual decisions and projects starting, let alone being completed?

[Vincent Ho, Conservative, Richmond Hill South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member brings up a pertinent point. Canadians are still reading and going through the bill, but there is only one thing we know for certain, which is that it would create Liberal bureaucracy, delays and Liberal photo ops. It would be more talk with no results for Canadians.

Canadians are desperate for results. They do not need more Liberal press releases.

[Leslie Church, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Secretaries of State for Labour]

Mr. Speaker, we are living through a moment of enormous change. Global markets are shifting, our trading relationships are changing and Canada has to be ready to meet the moment. That means focusing on what we can control and building here at home. We can make Canada a place where businesses want to invest, where projects actually get built, where Canadian goods can reach new markets and where those investments create good jobs for Canadian workers.

That is what the building Canada strong act is about. It would bring greater speed, certainty and predictability to major project reviews. It would strengthen the trade corridors and ports that connect Canadian businesses to the world, and it would create the conditions to attract investment, put Canadian capital to work and build a more resilient and independent economy, because certainty matters. Certainty means investment. Investment means building. Building means jobs. All of that makes our economy stronger and more resilient in a world that is becoming less predictable.

However, we cannot do any of that without a strong labour relations framework. The people who will build these projects, operate our ports and railways, move our goods and keep our economy running are Canadian workers. The strongest workplaces are workplaces where workers are treated fairly, where employers and unions have productive relationships and where people can sit down together and solve problems.

That is why the labour measures in Bill C-39 matter. Free and fair collective bargaining is at the heart of our labour relations system. Let me be very clear: We are absolutely committed to workers' constitutional right to strike. The best deal is the deal reached by parties themselves at the table. In fact, our system works remarkably well. Approximately 95% of federally regulated labour disputes supported by the federal mediation and conciliation service are resolved without a work stoppage, but we also know that some of the bargaining relationships become difficult long before anyone reaches a picket line.

This bill is about getting in earlier. It would provide greater support for first collective agreements, including bringing in the federal mediation and conciliation service from the beginning. It would provide earlier support in difficult bargaining relationships and relationship building after a dispute, because anyone who has worked in a workplace knows that a bitter dispute does not magically disappear when a collective agreement is signed. It would also invest in the institutions that make collective bargaining work, including the Canada Industrial Relations Board and the federal mediation and conciliation service, so that problems can be addressed earlier and workers are not left waiting because of backlogs.

I also want to address section 107 directly, because I know that we have heard concern about it here in this House. Section 107 has existed in the Canada Labour Code for nearly 50 years. This bill does not create a new power. What it does is put new restrictions, guardrails and transparency around how that power can be used.

Before a minister could direct the Canada Industrial Relations Board to end or suspend an ongoing work stoppage and impose a binding dispute resolution, two new conditions would have to be met. First, a special mediator would work intensively with the parties and provide a report to the minister that would be made public, a key factor for ensuring accountability for both parties and for ensuring that both parties are bargaining in good faith. The appointment of that mediator would not take away the right to strike or lock out. Their job would be to help the parties do what we want them to do in the first place, which is to reach an agreement themselves. Second, there would have to be a national impact assessment examining whether the dispute is or may be adversely affecting the national interest, including the consideration of free collective bargaining and the protected right to strike.

These are real guardrails, and the principle behind them is straightforward: Collective bargaining remains the primary way labour disputes should be resolved. We have heard that recognition from labour. Canada's Building Trades Unions has been clear that it wants strong guardrails around government intervention and wants the right to strike protected, but the CBTU has also recognized the value of improving the process between bargaining and government intervention.

As Sean Strickland has put it, “you've gone through some really substantive steps here to try to get parties to make a deal”. That is exactly the objective, to have more opportunity to negotiate, more opportunity to mediate and more opportunity for parties themselves to find the way forward.

That is only one part of the labour reforms in this bill. Bill C-39 would strengthen protections for the workers we are asking to help build this country. It would crack down on wage theft and worker misclassification. It would strengthen workplace health and safety, including through more inspections and a greater focus on workers' health and safety, and it would protect workers in air transportation when contracts change hands, so they can keep their union representation and collective agreement.

These things matter. A worker should get the wages they earned. They should be safe when they go to work and safe when they come home. When something does go wrong, they should have a labour system capable of responding quickly and fairly.

I want to recognize what the Building Trades of Alberta has said about this bill. There are 19 unions in Alberta. I visited them only last week. These are ironworkers, carpenters, machinists and bricklayers. They have said that they welcome the Canadian government's Bill C-39, which will expedite project approvals and help our job-ready workforce build Canada strong.

I want to finish where I started. We are living in a more uncertain world, but we can control what we build here at home. We can build the projects this country needs. We can move Canadian goods to markets. We can attract investment, create good jobs and make sure Canadian workers share in the prosperity that they create, and we can do it with a labour relations system that protects workers, respects collective bargaining and gives employers and unions the tools to solve problems together, because this moment demands more than resilience from Canada; it demands ambition.

Canadians want to build. We want to invest in ourselves. We want to compete, and we want to give ourselves more of what no country, no trade dispute and no decision made beyond our borders can take away, which is the capacity to build for ourselves, the confidence to bet on ourselves and the ability to determine our own economic future.

That is what this bill would help Canada to do, and it is why I call on all members of the House to support the legislation. Let us get to work, and let us build Canada.

[Jeff Kibble, Conservative, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, three things caught my eyes. They have been saying “must meet the moment” for 18 months. That hardly meets the definition of “moment”. When speaking of the bill, they said, “where Canadian projects actually get built”. To me, that sounds like they are clearly admitting that the first bill has completely failed. Now the government has added the word “strong”. They talked about strengthening our corridors. Again, that is from 18 months ago, including during their campaign.

My question for the member opposite is this: Why in her own speech is she admitting to and highlighting their past failures, bringing those forward now under a new bill that has added the word “strong”? Does the member opposite expect that Canadians will believe them for this new bill?

[Leslie Church, Liberal, Toronto—St. Paul's, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this bill is the product of two rounds of public consultations with employers and unions. As well, it follows nearly half a year's worth of conversation and consultation with the tripartite council that we established in order to do the hard work and the heavy lifting to build this bill.

I take issue with the members' framing of this. The government is actually hard at work pushing projects to approval, including the port of Montreal, the Matawinie mine and BHP's potash project. There is the OPG Pickering refurbishment that the Minister of Natural Resources announced earlier this week.

These are all examples of projects that are moving forward, but we have to do more, and this bill would get us to one project, one decision, one year.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette—Manawan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. parliamentary secretary for her speech. She spoke about the right to strike. Would she agree that the main problem is that the Canada Labour Code is outdated, especially since it allows the use of scabs during labour disputes? Quebec did away with that about 50 years ago.

Because of that provision, labour disputes drag on. Section 107 of the Canada Labour Code and the amendments proposed by Bill C-39 send employers the message that if they let a labour dispute drag on, the government will step in and deal with the situation. When negotiations fail to result in new working conditions, issues that should have been resolved are instead pushed forward to the next round of bargaining, which undermines social cohesion.

Does my colleague believe that we should remove the option of using scabs and modernize the Canada Labour Code?

[Leslie Church, Liberal, Toronto—St. Paul's, ON]

Mr. Speaker, our unionized workers are the backbone of a strong Canadian economy. This bill takes into account the recommendations made by unions, employers and management representatives during two rounds of public consultations. It seeks to strengthen good-faith bargaining and get better results for workers, employers and Canadians.

As workplaces continue to evolve, labour laws in Canada must evolve with them to ensure that these workplaces remain fair, safe and productive.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs and Associate Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, back in January 2023, I had the honour of being invited to an event where the special guest was the executive chairman of Maple Leaf Foods, Michael McCain, a very well-known businessman and philanthropist. It was a meeting of Liberal members of Parliament who were interested in business and economic growth. At one point in the meeting, Mr. McCain was asked, “If you had one piece of advice for the Government of Canada, what would it be?” I forget a lot of what happened in the meeting, but I remember his answer to that question. It was that every single federal government department, every single Crown corporation and everything that is affiliated with the Government of Canada should have in their mission statement the word “competitiveness”.

I invite the parliamentary secretary to reflect on that and how it aligns with what we are doing in Bill C-39.

[Leslie Church, Liberal, Toronto—St. Paul's, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague hit the nail on the head. This legislation is designed to ensure that we can meet the moment. Under the strain and threat we are facing from abroad, it is important that we be able to demonstrate to Canadians that we can move projects forward, be competitive—

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

Resuming debate, the hon. Secretary of State for Nature.

[Nathalie Provost, Liberal, Secretary of State (Nature)]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise in the House today. I will be speaking in the context of this debate on Bill C‑39. I am going to focus on the part that deals with environmental protection.

Between the fall of 2015 and the spring of 2025, I had the honour of serving as director general of Quebec's ministry of environment and climate change. During those 10 years, I learned about, discovered and explored all sorts of areas of environmental protection, including industry, transportation and infrastructure. I also worked with committed and dedicated professionals who understand very well the importance of enforcing environmental laws and regulations. That is the lens through which I would like us to discuss the bill before us today.

In Quebec, there was a proposal in 2015 to review the Environment Quality Act. One of the major challenges was the issue of predictability and transparency in issuing authorizations. Quebec committed to fast-tracking and reviewing its processes in that respect.

Interestingly enough, that is the very topic that the Government of Canada is focusing on in this bill, because it is absolutely essential if we are to be able to carry out projects quickly.

Since our colleagues in the House are constantly raising the issue of the speed of our decision-making, it is absolutely essential that we give ourselves the means to make decisions efficiently and quickly, so that developers can build our country and public institutions can swiftly carry out the projects that are essential to the establishment and development of our economic autonomy.

I just want to remind my colleagues of Quebec's objectives, which are public.

The Declaration of services to citizens and businesses states that a permit should be issued within 75 days for any project with moderate environmental impact. In Quebec, the target for the revised Impact Assessment Act is nine months. We are hoping that decisions will be reached within a one-year timeline. That is essentially the process being considered here, not the rigour with which regulations are enforced, and certainly not an encroachment on provincial decisions.

We want to be able to move quickly and provide all developers with accurate information so they can help build Quebec.

Since the beginning of their history, Canadians have built Canada. Previous generations have undertaken projects that have transformed the country. The national railway, which connected communities, helped establish Canada as a continental country. The Trans-Canada Highway is a great example of a project that connected our regions and strengthened economic ties from coast to coast to coast. Then there is the St. Lawrence Seaway. We have some great examples of projects that have been completed and have helped build our country.

That is what we need to do today. We need to do this if we want to become an energy powerhouse. We are going to do this with projects that use fossil fuels, but we are going to transform them with projects that reduce their carbon footprint. We are going to reduce methane emissions.

On top of that, we will be able to implement clean electricity projects. The Churchill Falls project is not isolated only to Quebec. This project will enable us to produce energy that can be delivered to Canadians in the Maritimes and Ontario and that we could even sell to our economic partners. This is important if we want to be able to meet our net-zero targets.

To be able to carry out projects effectively and efficiently, we need to have the means to respond quickly so that we can meet these commitments. That is why we are making these decisions. We are streamlining processes and consolidating permit applications that stem from various initiatives.

In addition, we are finding a way to incorporate them in the same decision. This will have no impact on provincial regulatory frameworks. The regulatory frameworks of the provinces involved in a project must and will apply.

I have some examples. In 2024, Bombardier wanted to relocate its warehouse and found a very interesting piece of land in Saint-Philippe. That project needed to be built quickly given Bombardier's various challenges and deadlines. Rosefellow, which was Bombardier's developer, succeeded and we managed to incorporate the entire analysis under the Species at Risk Act within 75 days. We got involved early in the project and found solutions. Without the ability to incorporate feedback from colleagues and make decisions quickly, Bombardier would not have set up operations in the Montérégie region, and the project, which was announced this summer and is now up and running, not long after it was conceived, would not have come to fruition.

When we read the impact assessment for the port of Contrecoeur, we see everything that was done to ensure alignment and connection with Quebec's laws and regulations. The agreement to protect the copper redhorse was made in agreement with Quebec. We are not substituting or erasing Quebec's constitutional rights. We are proactively working with Quebec so that authorizations are efficient and so that proponents can move forward.

Another example involves the Quebec Central Railway, which connects Lévis and Thetford Mines. It was a project to rehabilitate a rail line, but it ran into some problems. Some of the land on which the rail line was built contained asbestos tailings, which fall under Quebec's legislation. Although this was a federal project, Quebec's laws were applied, and Quebec authorizations were used. There is therefore a way to work in a fast, predictable and clear context. This will allow us to proceed much more efficiently. People have been calling for this.

We are introducing this today because there is a tariff crisis, but there are also other crises. We need to take back control of our economy and boost our productivity. The whole issue of environmental approvals means that we need to be able to do this properly.

I would be remiss if I did not emphasize how central our partnership with indigenous peoples remains to these efforts. Indigenous communities must play a key role in shaping projects that affect their lands, their rights and their future. We can coordinate projects based on clear processes, and we will be able to secure a strong commitment that provides a great deal of certainty to all parties involved.

Let me conclude with this final point. These proposals have been shaped by a deep commitment. Over the past few months, our government has listened to indigenous peoples, provincial and territorial governments, workers, businesses, industry representatives and Canadians across the country. Canadians emphasized the importance of improving the efficiency of federal processes while maintaining environmental safeguards and respecting indigenous rights. Stakeholders highlighted the need for greater certainty, clear timelines, strong supply chains and modern frameworks that can support future growth.

That made sense to us, which is why the bill before Parliament reflects what we learned from those conversations and seeks to seize the opportunities before us and address the challenges facing our country. Urgent action is required, and that is why we are introducing this bill. We are confident that Canada can make decisions in a timely manner and provide reliable infrastructure. This is not just about improving processes. It is about preparing our country for the future. Let us build a competitive economy, create more opportunities for workers and communities, strengthen our ties at home and abroad and ensure that Canada remains a country where we can achieve great things together.

[Eric Melillo, Conservative, Kenora—Kiiwetinoong, ON]

Mr. Speaker, when we are talking about this piece of legislation, it is important to note that a lot of work has been done in this Parliament already, and very quickly. We passed a lot of measures to enable the government to move quickly on major projects. There was a lot of discussion last year, and it continues, about how existential it is for our country to secure our economic sovereignty and to ensure that we can stand on our own two feet. Of course, that still remains today, but the government is dragging its feet and bringing forward more and more legislation to duplicate a lot of work that has already been done by Parliament.

Why is the government bringing forward more legislation instead of taking action to ensure we can get projects built in Canada?

[Nathalie Provost, Liberal, Châteauguay—Les Jardins-de-Napierville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am surprised to hear my colleague say that our government is dragging its feet. I have not been a member of Parliament for very long, but in the few months since we took office, there has already been some acknowledgement of our government's ability to introduce laws and regulations for Canadians.

It is important to create the right conditions. That is Parliament's role. My role is not to pick up a shovel and start digging to build a railway track or a power transmission corridor. My role is to create the proper conditions so that developers who want help build Canada can do so. That is what we are doing here today.

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Mr. Speaker, during question period, I had an opportunity to ask my colleague opposite about a provision in Bill C-5 that the government wants to remove using Bill C-39.

This provision states that, after five years, the exceptional powers conferred by Bill C‑5 cease to apply. In answer to my question, she said that her government was not using Bill C‑39 to backtrack on environmental progress.

I have a question for the government. If that is not backtracking, what is? A power that was supposed to be temporary and limited to five years is being made permanent and unlimited, and we know full well that this power is used precisely to get around environmental rules.

[Nathalie Provost, Liberal, Châteauguay—Les Jardins-de-Napierville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, if we read the content of Bills C-5 and C-39 carefully, we can see that they work on the assumption that projects can be developed in keeping with legal requirements while allowing sufficient time for determining the conditions surrounding their implementation.

This approach, which resembles what in Quebec is known as the pre-tabling of authorizations, is quite common in countries that take a strict and streamlined approach to environmental approvals.

We are familiar with the projects, and we do not want to expose them to legal challenges; we simply want to create the conditions necessary to meet environmental requirements.

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

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if my colleague could provide her thoughts in regard to how the legislation is part of a bigger agenda the government has for building Canada stronger and healthier. A good example of that, as I have cited on numerous occasions, is the investment summit that the Prime Minister hosted, which generated close to half a trillion dollars of potential commitments coming to Canada. What impact is that going to have on our nation, and how is this legislation there to help support it?

[Nathalie Provost, Liberal, Châteauguay—Les Jardins-de-Napierville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we have not said much about it, but almost half if not more of the projects discussed at the 2026 Canada Investment Summit that elicited considerable interest are projects focused on renewable energy.

However, to get these renewable energy projects built quickly and efficiently, and for Canadians to reap the full benefits, it is essential that proponents be given the tools they need to take effective action. As a reminder, these timelines and this integrated work approach are already part of the philosophy espoused by Quebec's environment ministry.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance and National Revenue and to the Secretary of State (Canada Revenue Agency and Financial Institutions)]

Mr. Speaker, Canada is entering a decisive period in its history, as we can all appreciate. Around the world, economies are adapting to new realities, supply chains are being rapidly reshaped and countries are competing to attract investment, talent and innovation. In this environment, Canada has a clear choice to make. We can move with confidence and seize new opportunities or we can allow lengthy approval processes to slow our progress. Our government has chosen to move forward with urgency.

Today I rise to speak about legislation that would help Canada build major projects and many other projects more efficiently, modernize key elements of our transportation and trade systems, and strengthen the foundations of productive and fair workplaces. Together, these measures would help create jobs, attract investment, improve economic resilience and position Canada for long-term success.

Canada begins from a position of strength. We are a country rich in natural resources, home to a highly skilled workforce and supported by strong public institutions. We have the rule of law, we have a great social safety net and we have a strong and stable democracy. We are recognized around the world as a reliable trading partner and a stable place to invest, but strengths alone are not enough. Canada is unfortunately known for quite lengthy regulatory reviews. To achieve the growth and prosperity we all aspire to, we must be able to turn our potential into results.

Throughout our history, Canadians have demonstrated what is possible when ambition is matched by action. Generations before us built projects that transformed our country, things that captured the imagination of the nation. The national railway connected communities and established Canada as a truly continental nation, the Trans-Canada Highway linked regions and strengthened economic ties from coast to coast, and the St. Lawrence Seaway expanded trade opportunities and connected Canadian businesses to global markets.

These are great accomplishments, but they did not happen by accident. They required vision, co-operation, investment and a lot of determination. Above all, they required people who understood that building for the future often means overcoming challenges in the present. That same spirit is needed today, and that is the spirit of this legislation.

The projects that will define the next generation may look different from those of the past. They may include critical mineral development or supporting emerging technologies. They will include energy projects that enhance economic and energy security. They will involve ports and transportation corridors, electricity transmission, advanced manufacturing facilities, telecommunications infrastructure or other strategic investments that strengthen Canada's economic future. Whatever form they take, these projects will help create opportunity, increase productivity, help us diversify trade and support good-paying jobs across Canada.

The question before us is whether our systems are equipped to deliver those outcomes in a world that is quick-moving. For too many years, in fact, project approvals in Canada often involved lengthy and complex federal processes. Delays can create uncertainty for workers, communities, indigenous partners, businesses and especially investors. In some cases, projects have waited years before receiving the decisions needed to proceed.

In a competitive global economy, time matters. At the investment summit the Prime Minister hosted recently, which I participated in, I heard from investors who talked about how they wanted to deploy money in Canada and wanted to invest in Canada, as they saw Canada as a great place, but they all expressed the fact that we had this reputation for slower approval processes, which we needed to address.

This bill really would address those issues. When decisions take too long, investment opportunities can be lost. Jobs that could have been created here may be created—

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I just wanted to tell my hon. colleague that the interpreter has indicated that a cell phone is vibrating near the microphone.

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

There seems to be a device near the desk, which is receiving a phone call or notification, and it is causing interference for interpretation. If the hon. member could just move it away and continue his comments, it would be appreciated.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I apologize for that. I was timing myself to make sure I stay on time. I have removed the device from the desk. I apologize to the interpreters.

As I was saying, when decisions take too long, investment opportunities can be lost. Jobs that could have been created here may be created elsewhere. Communities that are counting on major economic development projects may be forced to wait, and I believe strongly that right now Canada simply cannot afford to fall behind or wait.

That is why our government is proposing significant reforms designed to improve the efficiency and predictability of federal decision-making. Our objective is straightforward: to provide federal decisions on all projects within one year while maintaining high standards of environmental protection and respecting the rights of indigenous people. This approach is not making Canada a jurisdiction of low standards. It in fact says that we can do both: have high standards and speed up the process. It is not about reducing scrutiny. It is about improving coordination and eliminating unnecessary duplication. Moving from consecutive to concurrent review processes is the key.

Canadians should not have to choose between economic growth and responsible development. We can achieve both together. Strong environmental stewardship and efficient government are not mutually exclusive. A process can be both rigorous and timely.

We need to get to a yes or a no faster, and that is exactly what we intend to do with this legislation. Over decades of experience, Canada has developed significant expertise in environmental assessment and project review. We have learned valuable lessons about how reviews can be conducted more effectively, how technology can support better outcomes and how governments can work together more efficiently, like between provinces and the federal government, for example.

Our goal is to ensure that projects are reviewed carefully, decisions are based on evidence, consultations are meaningful and outcomes are achieved within a predictable time frame. Predictability is key if we want to see the global capital we are competing for get deployed in Canada and really get to work in our communities. It needs certainty in order to flow, and that is exactly what we are trying to provide.

Indigenous partnership remains central to this effort. We recognize that indigenous communities must play an important role in shaping projects that affect their lands, rights and futures. Better coordination and clearer processes can support more meaningful engagement while providing greater certainty to all participants. In fact, a modern project review system should advance economic opportunity, support reconciliation and protect the environment at the same time. We believe Canada can accomplish all three.

Building a stronger economy also depends on our ability to move people and goods efficiently. Transportation networks are the arteries of our economy. Railways, highways, ports, airports and marine corridors connect producers to customers, and communities to markets. They help businesses grow, support jobs and enable trade throughout Canada and around the world. When goods move efficiently, costs are reduced, competitiveness improves and consumers benefit.

That is why this legislation includes measures to strengthen transportation systems and improve Canada's trade infrastructure. Our objective is to support modern, reliable and efficient supply chains that can meet the demands of a changing economy. By reducing administrative barriers, simplifying processes and encouraging investment in key infrastructure, we can help Canadian businesses reach new markets and expand existing opportunities.

These efforts are also important to Canada's broader economic security. As the global environment becomes more complex, transportation systems face new risks and challenges. Supply chains must be resilient and capable of adapting to evolving threats. Secure transportation networks are essential for protecting trade, attracting investment and maintaining public confidence.

The measures before Parliament in this bill, Bill C-39, would help ensure that federal authorities have modern tools to address emerging risks while maintaining transparency, accountability and predictability for workers, communities, indigenous partners and industries. A stronger transportation system means a stronger Canadian economy.

Economic growth also depends on people. Behind every construction project, every shipment and every investment are workers whose efforts make Canada's success possible. Ensuring that workers have safe, fair and productive workplaces is therefore a fundamental part of building a prosperous country.

Canada's federal labour relations system covers more than one million workers and thousands of employers across key sectors of the economy. In most cases, collective bargaining functions effectively and agreements are reached through constructive negotiations. That success should be recognized and celebrated. However, there are instances where disputes can become prolonged and where disruptions in federally regulated sectors can have consequences that extend far beyond the immediate parties involved. Our government's objective is to strengthen the conditions for successful bargaining while maintaining a balanced and effective labour relations framework. The legislation before Parliament includes measures to modernize federal labour protections, improve workplace health and safety, support fair treatment of workers, and address issues such as worker misclassification, wage theft and much more.

Before I wrap up, I move:

That this question be now put.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have asked this question of other Liberal members and I am hoping that the parliamentary secretary, being so well briefed on the subject, will be able to shine some light on it.

In part 3 of Bill C-39, there is a significant change to the geographic certification process. I would ask the good parliamentary secretary to please speak to it, to explain exactly what the government is trying to do and how significant this change would be. It used to be that only a union could ask for certification of this site, but what the government is planning is quite different than that. Also, is the government going to be putting any kind of charter statement on those provisions in the bill?

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Mr. Speaker, what I can say about this bill is that it is going to speed up approval processes in this country, from an average of about five years to one year. I think we can all agree that ambition is something that we share, that this country needs to build much faster, that regulatory review processes have lagged, and that the international best practices and standards in this country have weighed down on the possibility of Canada really putting capital to work and competing for global capital. That is really what we are focused on.

I know that the bill also contains measures in terms of improving labour relations and ensuring that the 5% of cases that do not make it through a collective bargaining process have additional responsibilities and layers built in to ensure that the process can be successful for all parties involved.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette—Manawan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, why remove environmental assessment processes carried out by scientists and hand them over to the Canada Energy Regulator, which is essentially an oil lobby?

The CER's lead commissioner is the former senior legal counsel at TC Energy. The deputy lead commissioner is a former employee of Royal Dutch Shell. Another commissioner is a former legal adviser to Pembina Pipeline Corporation and Shell Canada. Another one comes from Imperial Oil and Canadian Oil Sands Limited. Then there is one from Pembina Pipeline Corporation and Shell Canada. Then, a fifth comes from Cenovus Energy.

If that is not an oil lobby, what is it? Why take this away from scientists, impartial people who are carrying out a proper assessment, and hand it over to people who appear to have a conflict of interest?

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. colleague and I served together on the finance committee for some time previously and I always enjoyed the debates we had.

In this bill, we are not seeking to water down environmental protections. In fact, we are just trying to ensure that we uphold a high standard while moving a lot faster. A timely process really matters when it comes to building big projects in this country, projects like the member opposite would know well, with the agreement between Quebec and Newfoundland and Labrador. For example, the largest clean energy investment in North American history is sizable, and I am sure the member opposite will agree with me that those clean energy projects are sizable, whether they are transmission lines that cross interprovincial boundaries or new electricity generation through hydroelectric or other renewable sources. In my province, it is nuclear, but these are sizable projects. They need regulatory reviews that are timely so that we can get those big things built in this country.

[Harb Gill, Conservative, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Supreme Court has recognized the right to strike as constitutionally protected. Can the parliamentary secretary tell us why his government is giving its own minister the power to interfere or replace that fundamental right with binding arbitration?

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we will always protect the constitutional right of workers to strike.

We are putting in place measures that have been consulted on. There have been over 26,000 submissions and 78 different engagements that have taken place over many months to ensure that we get this right, which is to really look at those 5% of cases where collective bargaining does not reach an agreement at the table and where there is then risk of the federal government having to step in when there is a strike and use section 107.

The key here is to get parties working together and to find ways to get agreements at the table—

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

We will resume debate.

The hon. member for Mégantic—L'Érable—Lotbinière.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L’Érable—Lotbinière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, before I begin, allow me to acknowledge the work of the firefighters from Lac-Mégantic, Nantes, Lac-Drolet and Audet, who yesterday fought a fire that devastated an apartment block near Lac-Mégantic town centre. Several residents were impacted and lost their homes, and the Red Cross is there to support them. Fortunately, no one was injured thanks to the support and assistance of everyone living in the surrounding area. Once again, I would like to thank the firefighters.

Canadians do not judge a government by the number of announcements or programs it creates. They judge it by what is left in their pockets, by their ability to put food on the table and to look to the future with a little more confidence. Today, too many families are telling us that life is becoming increasingly difficult. It is time to save Canadian families money. It is time to protect Canadians' jobs. It is time to ensure their safety. It is time to fix our immigration system. It is time to put Canada first again. This is exactly the Conservative plan we are proposing to Canadians and that we are asking the government to support.

In the House this week, I talked about Jessy, who lives in Notre-Dame-de-Lourdes. Not very long ago, she was spending about $120 a week on groceries. Now they cost her about $170 a week. That amounts to $50 more a week, every week. Jessy does not measure the Canadian economy based on numbers, statistics or how many programs the government announces, and certainly not based on the number of press conferences, symposia or speeches that the Prime Minister delivers in foreign countries. She measures it by how much she has when she gets to the grocery store checkout, and how much is left to pay for everything else.

Obviously, she is not alone. We also spoke in the House this week about Olesya, who has to use her credit card to pay rent and feed her family. We talked about Chantal, a single mother in Saint‑Georges who works full-time but still needs to use a food bank. That reality, their reality, is what should guide us here, in the House, with every decision we make. That is why Bill C-39, before us today, deserves our serious consideration.

I hear the government members asking what the connection is between Bill C-39 and Jessy's grocery bill, since Bill C-39 deals with environmental assessments, major projects, permits and federal regulations. However, there is a very simple and very real connection. An economy that can attract investment, carry out major projects and create good jobs provides more opportunities for families and workers. On the other hand, when a project remains stalled for years in a process where no one knows when a decision will be made, the uncertainty ends up costing everyone: the businesses that are waiting for the decision, the workers who are waiting for jobs and the regions who are waiting for the economic benefits of those projects.

We have heard this song from the government before, when it told us that it wanted to fast-track major projects. Eighteen months ago, we were asked to pass Bill C-5 in a rush. What was the bill's purpose? It was meant to decide exactly which major projects could be fast-tracked, because the Prime Minister had said when he was elected that the government was going to move faster than ever before.

Acting in good faith, the Conservatives supported the Liberals' Bill C‑5. Acting in good faith, we figured that, considering the circumstances and the tariff war with the United States, we should do our part, set partisanship aside, collaborate and put Canada first. We believed that the Liberals really wanted to move fast, do better and, above all, get major projects going again.

We are a little disappointed, very disappointed even, with the outcome. Eighteen months on, there are no new major projects and no new shovels in the ground to get them built. We have not seen any new projects to ensure our independence from the U.S. We are therefore a little skeptical.

Today, the government is focusing on Bill C‑39. What does this bill add? It adds a new word to the title. It also adds a few hundred pages to show how badly the government dropped the ball when it introduced Bill C‑5. That is the reality.

Bill C‑5 did not do what it was supposed to do, so here we are, 18 months later, with Bill C‑39. The purpose of the bill is to speed up projects and make everything faster. For example, the government wants each project to have a single assessment and it wants projects to be carried out within one year. The bill also amends certain laws, including the Canada Labour Code.

Over the past 18 months, we have seen announcement after announcement. Some projects have been announced. There have been lists of projects, but none of them have been fully completed. Most of the announcements have been about new government structures.

Announcing a project or a bill and actually setting it in motion or implementing it are two different things. A company planning to invest millions or billions of dollars in Canada needs to know what rules it will be subject to, who will make the decision and, above all, how long it will have to wait. According to Bill C-39, it will take a year. A year from when? Does a year mean 12 consecutive months without a single day's break, or is it a year with breaks to allow the government to catch up? The private sector moves quickly. The Liberal government is slow.

Through Bill C-39, the government has given itself the option to pause the clock during the one year in which everything is supposed to take place. According to Bill C-39, the clock starts ticking once the company has completed all the studies required for the submission of its project. Carrying out the studies required for the project's submission means carrying out the studies that the government will ask it to carry out. If the government asks questions and demands study after study to avoid having to start the clock for a year, it is the company that will end up taking all that time to carry out the project.

It is important that we get more explanations and more information about Bill C-39. The devil is in the details when it comes to figuring out whether the government is serious or whether it is merely posturing or grandstanding, claiming that it is taking care of business when nothing is actually getting done.

We want to get everything in place as quickly as possible. We want projects. We want to make Canada more independent and more self-reliant. We want to get projects built. There are over 500 projects in the queue that could be built right now.

Unfortunately, the government has wasted 18 months since Bill C-5 passed, and these projects are still just ideas in the minds of business leaders. We will be lucky if they are still around, because the crisis is getting worse and investors may be less keen to invest. A company in my riding had to adopt job sharing as of yesterday. Because of the tariff war and the countertariffs, this company has to pay between $500,000 and $1 million a week in cash just to stay afloat. I do not think this is the time to be asking it to use its cash reserves to invest in Canada. That is the result of 18 months of inaction by the Liberal government.

We are going to closely monitor the committee's study of Bill C-39. We will see if jobs are being created and if businesses are investing. Above all, we will see if Jessy will have more money in her pocket to pay for groceries at the end of the month. What matters most is that women like Jessy, from Notre-Dame-de-Lourdes, or Chantal, from Beauce, have more money and are able to make ends meet. They want hope, hope that they will be able to keep living the life Canada once promised, that is, a life where they can live on a safe street with enough money to pay their bills at the end of the month.

Canadians do not want more announcements. Canadians want real results.

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

We have time for a very short question.

Questions and comments, the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance and National Revenue and to the Secretary of State (Canada Revenue Agency and Financial Institutions)]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member's comments, and I share the ambition that I think permeated through his remarks today, but some things he got factually wrong.

As to the Major Projects Office and the projects that have been referred, quite a number of them have shovels in the ground, like the north coast transmission line and Contrecoeur, Quebec. For Darlington's SMR project, I can verify that for a fact. I have seen first-hand with my own eyes the construction there. I have actually seen people working on the site. It is incredible. If someone looks, they will see that these projects are moving forward and shovels are in the ground.

We have also seen record business investment and more foreign direct investment than in 20 years. Does the member understand that the—

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

I have to cut off the parliamentary secretary. I did say a short question. I know the chamber will wait with bated breath until the next time we take up this particular piece of legislation for the member's commentary and response.