Debates of Oct. 5th, 2026

Speaker's Ruling

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

I thank the hon. member for Winnipeg Centre for her intervention. However, I am not satisfied that this request meets the requirements of the Standing Orders at this time.

Alleged Foreign Interference in the Alberta Referendum

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am seeking an emergency debate today because Canada is facing a serious threat to our democracy and our sovereignty, and that is happening right now.

In just two weeks from today, Albertans will vote in a referendum on the future of our country. The Globe and Mail revealed this past weekend the extent of co-operation, maybe even collusion, between Alberta's separatist movement and extremist Republican political operatives connected to the Trump administration. There are credible reports that these separatist leaders are using American political technology to target, identify and mobilize voters. There is talk of a $500-million slush fund, and the separatists have reportedly offered access to Alberta's oil and water in exchange for assistance.

Let us be absolutely clear about what that means. These are not simply Albertans having a political disagreement with Ottawa. These are extremists seeking foreign assistance to break up Canada. There is a word for people who put foreign interests ahead of their own country: traitors. Under Canadian law, they would be investigated, and if convicted, they should face the full force of the law.

However, this goes even further. Nearly 2.9 million Albertans had their personal information exposed after the provincial list of electors was improperly obtained. That information does not simply disappear. We now have legitimate questions about whether Albertans' data could be used as part of political targeting and foreign influence operations.

Who is the foreign political figure at the centre of all this? It is Donald Trump, a man who has repeatedly threatened Canada's sovereignty and talked about making Canada the 51st state.

American Republican operatives are now showing an interest in an Alberta separatist movement that could fundamentally weaken this country. That should alarm every Canadian from every political party. This is precisely why we need an emergency debate right now, not after October 19, not after foreign actors have had another two weeks to manipulate Canadians, not after Albertans have cast their ballots, but now.

Parliament must demand answers about foreign interference, foreign political financing, the use of Alberta's personal information and involvement of American political operatives in Canada's constitutional future. Albertans have every right to debate their future, but that future must be decided by Albertans, not by Donald Trump, Republicans, Russians or malignant foreign interests.

This is an emergency. Canadian sovereignty is at stake, and the people trying to trade it away for foreign political support should understand how seriously Canadians take this threat. Canada is worth fighting for. We need to have a debate in this House now.

Speaker's Ruling

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

I thank the hon. member for Edmonton Strathcona for her intervention. However, I am not satisfied that this request meets the requirements of the Standing Orders at this time.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-39, An Act respecting certain measures to strengthen the economy, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the motion that this question be now put.

Building Canada Strong Act

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by sharing that—

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L’Érable—Lotbinière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I think I had four minutes left to answer questions from last Friday.

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

From last Friday?

Debate resumed this morning. I apologize to the hon. member.

We will go back to the hon. member for Winnipeg Centre.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by sharing that I joined the PSAC security workers' picket line at the Bank of Canada this morning. They are on day 105 of their strike as the government refuses to give them a fair deal and, meanwhile, enforce the NDP anti-scab legislation. It is essential, as I begin this debate, to remember that Bill C-39 seeks to undermine the rights of workers even further, like those who have been on strike for 105 days. It is a dangerous trend that the Liberal government has been participating in, violating the charter-protected right to strike at a time when workers need fair deals more than ever.

I would like to tell members that Bill C-39 has drawn severe criticism from all over the country, including from indigenous peoples, environmental organizations, activists, unions and civil liberty groups. In fact, according to the Centre québécois du droit de l’environnement, Bill C-39 proposes to impose a fixed one-year deadline between the submission of studies by the project proponent and the final decision. Such a rigid timeline would be incompatible with the assessment of complex, large-scale projects, which often involve significant risks and which require studies spanning multiple seasons, analysis of cumulative impacts, meaningful public participation and genuine consultation with indigenous peoples.

The NDP absolutely supports the need to build a strong economy, but we are very clear that this cannot be done by violating the constitutional rights of workers and indigenous peoples or violating the human right to a healthy environment, and that is exactly what Bill C-39 would do. Bill C-39 proposes sweeping changes to the federal review process, fast-tracking all processes of reviews and even letting one Liberal minister override these processes whenever they think it is inconvenient. Only one minister could make a decision, on a whim, without even consulting their colleagues, overriding any environmental assessment or constitutional obligation.

I have to ask. Does the Liberal government think it is above our Constitution and rule of law? We already saw these violations of the Constitution and attacks on the democratic process in Bill C-5 last year, but Bill C-39 would eliminate even previous time limits on Bill C-5, making these constitutional violations permanent. I could not imagine anything worse than Bill C-5, but now we have permanent constitutional violations that this Carney Liberal government is trying to ram through.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

I would just remind the member not to use the name of an hon. member. The hon. member may continue.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, we are not going to build Canada strong with this legislation. We would be building, in fact, a pipeline to the courts. For example, Bill C-39 would limit project review times to an arbitrary timeline of just one year, restricting time and resources for indigenous peoples to exercise their right to consultation and accommodation, as enshrined in section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982. As AFN National Chief Cindy Woodhouse Nepinak has stated, “Any predetermined timeline principally designed to attract investment subordinates the honor of the Crown to commercial imperatives.”

Moreover, in reaction to the publication of Bill C-39, vice-chief Michael Smithers of Coldwater Indian Band said, “There is anger in our community today, as we hear that Canada has given the green light to a third Trans Mountain pipeline through the Coldwater Valley.... The Crown’s duty to consult and accommodate Coldwater remains unfilled and Canada and Trans Mountain are not legally or respectfully operating in our reserve.”

It is a pipeline to the courts. Nowhere in Bill C-39 is the right of accommodation mentioned, which would allow regulators to ignore what they learn in consultations about potential impacts to indigenous and first nations communities and to move forward.

Bill C-39 also does not contain any reference to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, particularly the obligation to seek and obtain the free, prior and informed consent of indigenous peoples. That is the right to say yes, no, yes with conditions or maybe later. This is despite, through Bill C-15, the government's being legally obliged to align all past and future legislation with UNDRIP.

I would like to remind the Liberal government that the critical purposes of UNDRIP are found in article 5, that the UN declaration is a human rights instrument with application in Canadian law and that the government must take all measures necessary to ensure its laws are consistent with UNDRIP. Moreover, as of right now, Bill C-39 repeatedly talks about indigenous groups while, in fact, “indigenous groups” is not defined within the legislation, nor in international law, which recognizes the rights of indigenous nations as “peoples”, not groups.

The question can legitimately be asked: Is Bill C-39 consistent with UNDRIP? The answer is a very clear no. This raises the question of who exactly the bill is referring to, even in the case of indigenous peoples, when it talks about consultation with indigenous “groups” instead. Why is the government trying to use vague language to avoid the clear terminology in constitutional and international law?

In November 2024, Bill S-13 was adopted to add to the federal Interpretation Act a safeguard provision, a non-derogation clause, to protect indigenous peoples' section 35 constitutional rights. I question today whether any measures in Bill C-39 are inconsistent with this non-derogation clause of Bill S-13. If so, which would take precedent? Indigenous peoples' constitutional rights are being attacked, a clear sign of the government once again ignoring the rule of law.

Concerning these dangerous anti-indigenous measures in Bill C-39, the Nishnawbe Aski Nation said, “Our Chiefs are watching the Carney government’s legislative agenda with growing alarm. Bill C-5 was a direct attack on our rights, and Bill C-39 elevates this to an unprecedented level. This government is making clear and deliberate choices to accelerate development at the expense of the rights of our Nations and our leaders”.

The bill would also establish whole so-called regions of national interest, which experts have likened to special economic zones in Doug Ford's anti-indigenous, anti-environment Bill 5.

Bill C-39 would also impose arbitrary review deadlines for complex, large-scale projects with multi-faceted environmental and species risks. In fact, it would give the minister of the One Canadian Economy Act the power to ignore critical species protection laws, and we know why. The government is trying to turn a blind eye to species at risk, like the southern resident orcas, whose population has been reduced to 73 adults and whose survival is jeopardized by the government's careless plans for major projects.

According to Charlie Hatt, the director of climate at Ecojustice, “The oil and gas lobby has gotten what it has long wanted, but it does not have to be this way. We can strengthen environmental safeguards while securing our economy by investing in clean energy”.

Let us talk about water. Bill C-39 would allow ministers to exempt whole bodies of water from protective regulations and legislation, and to unilaterally permit companies to dump waste water. I am going to be keeping an eye out this Friday, when the government introduces Bill C-37, which would take away the human right to clean drinking water for first nations. The NDP is watching this bill closely.

The NDP will always stand side by side to protect the rule of law and protect our Constitution.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member made reference to the issue of labour. I would like to get her to think about essential services.

The Manitoba government actually asked the Manitoba Labour Board to order striking Dynacare employees back to work. It used the mechanism of the labour board, and the labour board agreed that Dynacare is an essential service.

Whether it is an NDP government in Manitoba or Conservatives in other jurisdictions, they seem to recognize essential services. Does this particular member or the federal NDP recognize essential services?

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I respect the charter. That means the right to strike and the right to free collective bargaining.

The minister is talking about how they consulted with labour, but I think labour is experiencing what indigenous people in Canada have experienced since time immemorial: The government says it consults, and then it violates the Constitution and does what it wants.

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

Mr. Speaker, in the member's last answer, she talked about the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and how she believes in it.

The last I checked, the Liberals like to say all the time that they are the party of the charter. Given that the section 107 provision in the Canada Labour Code raises questions around the right to strike, does the member support the Minister of Justice tabling a charter statement so that we can see whether or not the justice department believes the bill has captured and balanced those rights correctly?

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, absolutely. I would just say this government totally lacks transparency about everything.

I certainly support that.

Once again, the Liberals are trying to fast-track legislation.

Actually, the NDP is going further than that. I put forward a private member's bill to totally repeal section 107 of the Canada Labour Code because of the Liberal government's abuse of section 107, including the Air Canada workers', port workers' and CN workers' right to strike. I hope the Conservatives will support my private member's bill.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech and for her staunch defence of indigenous rights. She has done so eloquently once again.

As an aside, I would like to thank Idriss, the good Samaritan who came to my rescue when I got a flat tire in La Vérendrye Park. Without his help, I would not be here today. I would also like to thank the Carquest garage in Gracefield that fixed my tire. It is thanks to their help that I am able to be here today.

That said, I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on the potential for authoritarian abuse of power with Bill C-39. This expression was thrown around rather freely during the election campaign, as I am sure the member will agree. At times, during the election campaign, close ties to certain individuals, their spouses or their relatives led organizations like Amnistie internationale Canada francophone to raise concerns about it based on their assumptions.

However, in this case, we have an actual example. After Bill C-5, Bill C-15 and now Bill C-39, the government wants to give itself powers with no consultations required. This affects first nations, environmental laws and social licence in particular. Is there a risk of authoritarian abuse of power here?

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, all the government is building is a pipeline to the courts. Whether it is with workers or indigenous peoples, there are already court challenges starting to brew from the legislation.

The government, time and time again, puts forward legislation that violates the Constitution and violates the charter. This is the latest and greatest.

In fact, the bill would violate section 35 rights. The bill would not only violate section 35 rights; it also talks about indigenous groups without definition. It does not even have a definition in international law.

I am calling this out for what it is. It is paving a way for the Liberals' corporate buddies on the backs of the charter rights and constitutional rights of Canadians.

[Carol Anstey, Conservative, Long Range Mountains, NL]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise in the House, on behalf of the incredible people of Long Range Mountains and as the shadow minister for energy and natural resources, to speak to Bill C-39.

I think most Canadians would agree on one thing, which is that we need to get this country building. We need mines, pipelines, LNG facilities, transmission lines, ports and the infrastructure that would allow Canadian resources to get to market.

Canada has the resources, workers and expertise the world needs, but for the past 11 years, major projects have been stalled and delayed by an uncertain federal regulatory system, driving investment out of Canada and, in too many cases, leaving projects abandoned altogether. That is really what I want to focus on today, along with another part of this bill, which is the changes to the Canada Labour Code.

We have heard promises about faster approvals before. When Bill C-5 was introduced, Canadians were told the federal government was going to speed up major projects and give proponents more certainty. Conservatives supported that goal of getting projects moving, because we have been calling for faster approval for years.

The Liberal government then created the Major Projects Office and said it would help coordinate projects and provide proponents with a clearer path through the federal system. More than a year later, we are back here in the House, debating yet another bill that is supposed to make it easier to build.

I think the question most Canadians are asking is quite simple: Will this actually help to get major projects built?

Given the track record of the Liberal government for the last 11 years, Canadians are certainly not going to measure success by how many offices are created or how many announcements are made. They are going to measure success by whether projects actually move forward, whether investment comes back or stays in Canada, whether shovels are in the ground and whether people actually get hired. This is especially important for resource-rich provinces like mine, Newfoundland and Labrador.

I know the importance of responsible resource development and what it means for our communities. It means good jobs and profitable local businesses but, more importantly, it means the ability to live and thrive at home. For generations, too many of our young people have had to leave home to find work somewhere else. Families watch their children finish school and learn a trade or earn a degree, only to leave because the opportunities they are looking for are somewhere else.

I know that experience personally, because I had to leave the province I love under those exact circumstances, just as my parents did when I was a young girl. Now I look at my four children and all of the young people in the communities I represent who want the opportunity to stay home. That is why this issue is especially important to me, to the people I represent and to Canadians right across this country.

Even small projects can transform communities. A mine, a sawmill expansion, an energy project or a major piece of infrastructure can mean that a young person can stay home, start a small business, build a career, raise a family and stay in the community they grew up in. These projects provide work for local contractors and suppliers and investment in communities that already have the people, the resources and the experience to contribute to Canada's economy, which is exactly why Conservatives have been calling on the Prime Minister to approve the 500 projects that are caught up in federal review.

Population growth and workforce retention are such important issues in my province, where we have a declining population and high levels of out-migration, but those challenges cannot be overcome and opportunities cannot become reality if any project, big or small, spends years sitting in the federal process waiting for approval.

Bill C-39 is the government's newest answer to years of Liberal delays in the federal permitting system. The government is presenting this legislation as a one-year timeline, but let us break that down. The clock would only begin once all of the required information and studies have been provided and accepted. That is not the same thing as saying a project would receive a federal decision one year after it first enters the process. This is simply because there is no limit to the number of things that the bureaucracy would consider and ask for before a project was approved and the time actually starts.

In addition, the process could be delayed, extended or suspended; and, if the government misses its timeline, it is only required to give an explanation and a new proposed timeline. A company deciding to invest billions of dollars in Canada needs to know with certainty how long the process will take from start to finish, especially given the track record of the current Liberal government. That certainty matters even more when cabinet retains the ability to extend or suspend the process, not to mention that workers want to know when the projects will begin and communities want to know when the jobs and investment will follow.

I want to bring some real-life context to this and explain why this is so important. During one of my commutes back and forth to Ottawa, I spoke to a young man named Justin. Justin is a dad of three and a tradesperson working in Ontario. He told me, “I just want to work close to my family so I can pick up my kids after school and take them to hockey. If we could get some work in Newfoundland, I could do that.” Justin is one of the people I think about when we talk about getting projects moving. Trades NL states that currently the unemployment rate among its members is about 70% and people are looking for work everywhere across the country except in the province. That is why we need these projects now, not when Justin's kids are grown up and that opportunity no longer exists for him. That is why the timelines in this legislation matter so much. What Canada needs is a system in which proponents know what is expected of them; from the start, the process is clear; and government's decisions are made within a reasonable time frame.

Timelines are only a part of the problem. The government keeps making changes around the edges while refusing to address the root of the problem: the regulatory and tax policies that continue to hold projects and investment back. Conservatives have consistently called for the repeal of antidevelopment laws like Bill C-69 and Bill C-48 because Canada needs a regulatory system that gives investors certainty across the board, not a government deciding project by project which ones get special treatment. We have called to remove the federal industrial carbon tax to make Canada more competitive and bring investment back.

There are roughly 500 projects waiting in the federal approval system. Conservatives have called on the Liberal government to approve them, remove the barriers holding back investment and give investors the certainty that they need to put their capital to work in Canada. Newfoundland and Labrador has tremendous offshore energy, hydroelectricity, mining and critical minerals potential. Those resources should be creating well-paying jobs, attracting private investment and giving young people a reason to build their future at home. The same is true across Canada where our energy and natural resources are in demand around the world, but having those resources means very little if the regulatory system makes it unnecessarily difficult to develop them and get them to market. The answer cannot be to leave those laws in place and then have Ottawa decide which individual projects deserve an accelerated path.

While much of this bill deals with major projects and approvals, it also would make significant changes to the Canada Labour Code. I recently met with the Newfoundland and Labrador regional representative of the Canadian Labour Congress. We had a good discussion about the issues facing workers in organized labour and their deep concerns with this legislation. One of the things that I took away from that conversation was how important it is that the workers who would be affected by these changes have a meaningful opportunity to come before Parliament and explain their concerns. There would be substantial changes to federal labour law and they should not be rushed through simply because they are part of a much larger bill. Union members should have enough time to appear before a committee and make their case for why they believe the changes being made are a problem.

Canada is not short on potential. We have the resources, the skilled workers and the communities ready to build. What Canada needs is the certainty to turn that potential into projects, investment and well-paying jobs. Business managers need certainty about the rules and the timelines, workers need confidence that they will be heard and provincial leaders need to know that their jurisdiction will be respected. Canadians should be able to expect that when Ottawa promises faster approvals, those promises lead to projects moving forward.

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

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague certainly represents a beautiful part of the country. I had the privilege of being in her riding four times in the last year.

The member talks about the work that is needed to help drive the economy of the country forward. I would submit to her that this is exactly what is in this bill, this build Canada strong act, which is all about moving faster on timelines and creating the certainty that businesses need.

When I look at what this government has done for Newfoundland and Labrador, whether it is Churchill Falls and helping to support Premier Wakeham and the Government of Quebec; whether it is the fifth Marine Atlantic ferry, which is crucial for her riding; $30 million and I was part of an announcement in Corner Brook in her riding; or whether it is Corner Brook Pulp and Paper expansion project, Bay du Nord, the mining sector opportunities or tourism, there certainly have been some good things that I have been a part of that have been announced in her riding.

I am wondering whether she would acknowledge that the government has put forward things that are making a difference in western Newfoundland.

[Carol Anstey, Conservative, Long Range Mountains, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member opposite for visiting my beautiful riding. As I alluded to in my speech, I absolutely want to see construction move forward. I am happy that the member talked about Churchill Falls. This sort of gives me the opportunity to break down some of the components of that. This is a large announcement and complex.

One of the things the government announced in this large project was the Churchill Falls expansion. We have been talking about the Churchill Falls expansion for a very long time. The government's commitment is only to study the Churchill Falls expansion. In the previous MOU, there was a commitment on construction. On the wind project, there is no proponent or route proposed. Once again, we need the projects now, not commitments to study, but for construction of the projects.

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure if parliamentarians from the governing party here are aware of this omnibus bill. Earlier, during question period, I got the impression that they were saying yes because it will save us from Donald Trump. In fact, they are not even listening to me. Perhaps it is because I am speaking in French. I get the feeling they are under a spell. As we take a closer look at the bill and focus on strengthening democracy and the rule of law, in all seriousness, I would take a moment and go read all 250 pages. No one can tell me otherwise. I want to know whether my colleague agrees that Bill C‑39 weakens democracy.

[Carol Anstey, Conservative, Long Range Mountains, NL]

Mr. Speaker, as I alluded to in my speech, specifically around the changes to labour laws, one of the concerns I certainly heard from constituents in my riding is that this is being put in this massive piece of legislation and being pushed through in majority committees. There will not be time to talk properly about the repercussions for people who will be impacted by this piece of legislation.

I would agree with the member that we need to have that time, especially on that piece of legislation.

[Dan Muys, Conservative, Flamborough—Glanbrook—Brant North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad my colleague talked about timelines. A Liberal government member spoke earlier in the debate today and talked about the need for diversification of our trade. I think we would all agree, as I certainly do, we need to do that, but that particular member was part of a government that said no to Japan and Germany that wanted our LNG. That would have been an incredible opportunity to diversify our trade. Germany, in fact, went to Qatar, that built them the intake facility in six and a half months. The Netherlands has built an LNG intake facility in six months. Finland has built an LNG intake facility in four months.

Why is it that these countries can build a facility in four to six months and we cannot in Canada? Maybe the member can expand on that. It is probably a lot of talk and no—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

The hon. member for Long Range Mountains.

[Carol Anstey, Conservative, Long Range Mountains, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I absolutely agree with my colleague that the time is now. Canadians need results. We do not need another office and bureaucratic process. What we need is action, commitment to construction, projects moving forward and shovels in the ground. Canadians will hold the government to account based on that.

[Kristina Tesser Derksen, Liberal, Milton East—Halton Hills South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today after a busy summer in my riding of Milton East—Halton Hills South to speak to Bill C-39, the building Canada strong act, and to the important balance this legislation seeks to strike between economic growth, business investment and the protection of Canadian workers.

This legislation recognizes something that I believe is fundamental to Canada's economic future: We cannot build a stronger economy without stronger business and we cannot build stronger business without an equally strong workforce. These two things should never be competing goals, because they vitally depend on one another.

I was raised in a blue-collar, working-class home. My mom was a long-term care nurse for over three decades, and my father learned the carpentry trade after immigrating from Italy, before working as a truck driver. I learned from my parents that work can be hard, but it can be meaningful when properly recognized and supported.

Canada faces a rapidly changing global economy and we have an opportunity to meet the moment and attract new investment, expand Canadian businesses, strengthen our domestic supply chains and build major projects that create good jobs. However, as we do that, we also have a responsibility to ensure that workers have safe workplaces, fair wages, meaningful collective bargaining agreements and the protections they need to succeed. That balance is particularly important in critical sectors like aviation, ports, railways and logistics, industries that Canadians rely on every day.

Bill C-39 would require earlier bargaining in higher-risk situations with the goal of preventing labour disruptions before they occur, and its measures are designed to strengthen the collective bargaining process. For example, parties in high-risk relationships would need to begin the bargaining process at least six months before the current CBA expires, and the conciliation period would be extended from 60 days to 90 days, giving both sides more time to negotiate before a dispute escalates. Accordingly, a key part of our labour reform is the introduction of a special mediator, who would have a defined 21-day mandate to work with both parties during the conciliation period.

Most importantly, this process would not eliminate the right to strike. I believe that collective bargaining should remain the foundation of Canada's labour relations system. Workers and employers should be able to negotiate their own agreements, and government intervention should not become a substitution for bargaining. That being said, there are exceptional circumstances where a labour dispute can have consequences that extend well beyond the parties at the bargaining table.

This brings me to section 107 of the Canada Labour Code. Section 107 gives the Minister of Labour the authority to take measures considered necessary to maintain or secure industrial peace and promote conditions favourable to the settlement of industrial disputes.

Members may remember the dispute between flight attendants and a national airline in August last year. I have many flight attendants and airport workers who live in my riding, just a short drive from Toronto Pearson Airport, and many of them contacted my office to explain the conditions of their work. Likewise, I received calls from those impacted by the unexpected cancelling of flights, about families who were stranded, cargo that was delayed and businesses that were affected.

Many will say that labour strikes are supposed to be painful and disruptive, and those people are right. That is how we experience just how crucial the role of the striking worker is. We all profoundly feel the absence of their work. It impacts our lives and it impacts their lives. That particular strike was ended using section 107. Our government ordered an inquiry into the very valid grievances of the attendants. I publicly responded at that time, acknowledging the crucial work that flight attendants provide to keep our economy moving, and I expressed my disappointment that more time was not available for meaningful bargaining between the parties.

We know that the best, fairest and most comprehensive deals are the ones made at the bargaining table by the parties themselves. Bill C-39 is our government's response to this. It proposes a clearer framework for when those powers can be used, providing greater protections for collective bargaining. Section 107 should always be a genuine last resort, not something that is used simply because of a strike or lockout being inconvenient.

Bill C-39 introduces clear guardrails and greater accountability by requiring a special mediator to investigate and provide a public report to the minister outlining the following: firstly, the issues in dispute; secondly, the parties' positions on those issues; thirdly, the extent of the parties' participation in the process; and lastly, the likelihood of reaching a negotiated settlement. Only after considering this new report would the minister be able to consider invoking section 107.

We must recognize that federally regulated industries are essential to maintaining our economy and protecting Canadians. That is why there needs to be a clear and transparent process for responding to disputes at major ports, railways and other critical infrastructure. Bill C-39 attempts to establish that process, while maintaining collective bargaining as the primary means of resolving disputes.

Our country needs a system that provides balance between protecting our economy and protecting our workers, which is why Bill C-39 proposes several other labour protections regarding worker misclassification, wage theft, workplace safety and stronger support through the wage earner protection program.

Over the summer, I spoke with many union leaders, including from the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, who represent airline workers in my riding. They expressed concerns over what they call “contract flipping”, where contracts are retendered and subcontractors are switched, which can negatively affect workers and their wages. This bill would extend successor rights in certain contract retendering situations in airports and air transportation, helping preserve union representation and collective agreements when a contract moves from one contractor to another.

I will speak a little about business investment as well. Not only do workers deserve certainty, but businesses do too. For businesses considering whether to expand, invest, hire or build new facilities in Canada, uncertainty is very costly. If approvals take years longer than anticipated, investment can and often does move elsewhere. I have heard many similar stories from businesses in my riding.

Canada is competing for investment with countries around the world. Our system must be rigorous but also predictable. This bill proposes a more coordinated federal approval process, with the goal of one project, one review, one year, but we do not need to choose between upholding Canada's strong environmental protections and streamlining project reviews. We can do both and must do both.

Businesses need to know what the rules are, and workers need to know that those rules will protect them. Communities need to know that projects will be properly assessed, and indigenous communities must continue to have meaningful opportunities to participate in decisions that affect their rights and interests. A modern economy should be capable of doing all these things at the same time.

Bill C-39 also recognizes that expanding Canadian businesses requires more than just approving individual projects. We need stronger transportation corridors. We need reliable ports and railways. We need efficient supply chains, and we need to reduce unnecessary duplication for businesses. This is particularly important at a time when Canada is working to diversify its trade relationships and strengthen the economy.

We cannot control what other nations do, but we can control whether Canada is prepared to compete. We can make it easier for businesses to invest and easier to build. We can strengthen our infrastructure and protect Canadian workers, and we can create a labour relations system that encourages employers and unions to reach agreements together.

That is the balance that I see reflected in Bill C-39. It is about recognizing that Canada's economic success depends on both workers and business. We need a framework that encourages investment while maintaining strong standards, and we need collective bargaining that really works. We need safe workplaces. We need fair treatment for workers. We need an approval system that gives businesses the confidence to put capital to work in Canada.

Canada has tremendous economic potential. We have skilled workers, entrepreneurs who want to grow, natural resources, manufacturing capacity, infrastructure, and communities ready to build, but potential alone is just not enough. We need to create the conditions for Canadians to turn that potential into investment, jobs, innovation and long-term economic security, while ensuring that the workers who make growth possible are protected and have meaningful voices.

Bill C-39 would bring these objectives together to make our economy more competitive, protect workers, make the regulatory process more predictable and uphold environmental protections and indigenous consultation requirements. It seeks to ensure that when labour disputes become particularly serious, there is a transparent and structured process before exceptional government authority is used as a last resort.

What I and I expect many Canadians want to see is more investment, more businesses expanding, more projects getting built, more Canadians working good, well-paying jobs and stronger protections for those workers. That is the balance we should continue working toward.