Debates of Oct. 6th, 2026

Building Canada Strong Act

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

Mr. Speaker, my Conservative colleague makes it sound like nothing good ever happens. It is high time he recognized all the efforts that have been made and all the results achieved over the past year and a half to strengthen the Canadian economy.

He wants concrete examples. The Toronto summit attracted a total of $500 billion in investment in Canada that will go towards projects in our communities, that will support our workers and that will boost our economy. These are concrete examples. The 24 projects that the office is currently considering, all the projects already under construction, the port expansions and the various projects where work has already begun are all concrete examples linked to our government's leadership since we were elected last year.

I would like to know whether my colleague will finally recognize the work we are doing to strengthen the Canadian economy and support us on Bill C-39.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am going to remind the member opposite that Bill C-5, the omnibus Building Canada Act, was passed in this chamber with our support.

We are the ones that said, “Let us get going.” We are the ones that said, “We really need to get Canada moving.” The evidence has not been there. Now here we are, one year later, with the building Canada strong act.

[Charles Sousa, Liberal, Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-39, the building Canada strong act, would put forward important legislative changes that build on our government's efforts to protect Canada's economic future by reducing the regulatory burden faced by the Canadian transportation sector.

Last year, the House passed the Building Canada Act, which focused on accelerating the development of projects of national interest and removing barriers to international trade and labour mobility. Today, I am pleased to say that we have worked diligently in the past months on new projects and streamlining processes.

For much of our history, Canadians were able to count on favourable trade connections and conditions, including a stable relationship with the United States. That has shifted. The decades-long economic integration is over. Tariffs are being treated as leverage and supply chains as vulnerabilities.

In a rapidly changing world, Canada's new government is focused on what it can control. We are building strength at home and diversifying our partnerships abroad. We are on track. Transportation is the vital link. We cannot diversify trade, build the strongest economy in the G7 and strengthen Canada's competitiveness without a transportation system that works. Canada's trade corridors connect Canadian business to markets and supply chains both at home and around the world.

We heard directly from Canadians about what is needed to build stronger, more efficient and more resilient supply chains. As such, we are taking action to reduce red tape, strengthen supply chains, accelerate infrastructure development and attract investment to grow Canada's economy and create new jobs.

For too long, red tape and underinvestment hindered innovation and productivity in Canadian companies. We often heard that we are not modern, that we are too bureaucratic, that we have not invested enough in our infrastructure and that other countries were finding us to be unreliable. These issues have to be addressed. That is why we are providing regulatory certainty to modernize the rules that govern how we build and invest to compete, while protecting the health and security of Canadians and the environment and respecting indigenous rights.

To support our commitment to lower costs and build a stronger economy, this government launched a red tape review in July 2025. Federal departments and agencies identified approximately 500 actions to reduce regulatory red tape. This bill would begin the implementation of some of these forward-looking actions, showing how the government will deliver on its commitment to address barriers that limit trade and restrict competition.

Canada is and needs to be seen as a reliable and beneficial place to invest and do business. Inefficiencies in our trade processes and supply chains are costly and hurt our reputation as a reliable trading partner. To maximize the full value of our budget 2025 investments, we must address long-standing constraints in the system that limit investment and productivity. This will support a more modern, responsive transportation system that can handle economic pressures, improve performance and unlock new capacity across our supply chains.

A critical piece of the bill addresses coordinated reviews and securing timely approvals. Delays deter investment in our nation-building projects. The bill includes measures to reduce red tape and regulatory burden through a new transportation project office. This would complement efforts being led by the Major Projects Office and the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada.

We need to expedite permits. Our government's commitment of one project, one review, within one year of receiving all necessary information from a proponent, is key. These changes would enable industry to advance large-scale projects more efficiently and with greater certainty, and would help attract investment. The transportation project office would work to reduce bottlenecks, improve coordination and offer a one-window approach for proponents. All the while, this improved approach would maintain existing safeguards to ensure the integrity of those project reviews. The objective is to unlock greater efficiency, not more risk.

Equally important is our government's commitment to having indigenous partnerships that shape how projects are developed and carried out. We also remain committed to upholding those indigenous rights, including rights stemming from section 35 of the Constitution, to work with indigenous peoples during the implementation phase.

The bill would also give Canada tools to rapidly align with international standards and strengthen how we collect, use and protect our industry data to better protect critical Canadian assets. Following the “tell us once” principle, government efforts on trade digitization would make it simple for Canadian business to submit the information. I want to specifically highlight this last point.

Today, industries fulfilling regulatory requirements are routinely required to submit the same or similar data to multiple departments in various formats and on different timelines. This imposes real costs and administrative burdens on businesses. Canadian businesses expect clear communication, faster turnaround times and the ability to track the status of their requests. By reducing duplication and streamlining reporting, our trade digitization initiative, once implemented, would lower costs, save time and let businesses focus on what they want: growth and innovation.

For example, in the marine sector, vessels arriving at Canadian ports must file 12 distinct forms with five different federal departments and agencies, often in duplicate. Approximately 90% of Canada's trade with non-U.S. countries is carried by marine vessels. Making it easier to file the data once and have it shared securely across departments would meaningfully cut red tape as we diversify trade.

The bill would also align with trusted international standards, giving industry the certainty it needs to plan and invest with confidence, especially as Canada seeks to grow its trade. When rules and regulations move at the same pace as international partners, Canadian innovation and productivity are unleashed, and Canadian companies can compete on a level playing field with their international competitors.

I am looking forward to the discussion and the debate on this consequential bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to exhibit the member as a great representative of our party, because here he is, the former Ontario minister of finance, sitting on our backbench. I know that, over the years, he has been involved in a lot of different government programs and a lot of different projects. He has probably seen the best and worst of governments.

What does the member like best from an economic perspective in Bill C-39? I know there is a lot of good out there. What does he think would have the greatest impact from an economic perspective?

[Charles Sousa, Liberal, Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question, and I also appreciate what most Canadians are appreciating, which is the fact that we are looking for results, we are looking at outcomes, we are working closely together with other nations, we are diversifying our trade, we are broadening our reach and we are protecting our sovereignty by becoming more resilient. These economic efforts are for the benefit of our future in Canada. I am very encouraged that all of us recognize how important the bill is to achieving those results.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member's weighing in on this important topic. I just would point out to the member from Thunder Bay, though, that the greatest thing about the bill is actually the nice packaging. It has a nice cardboard outside, and it does not fall apart when I open it. Usually the bills we get are just photocopies.

Proposed section 19 would essentially allow an authority, whether it be the Impact Assessment Agency, the Canadian Energy Regulator or the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, to actually tell a proponent to get another study, to the point where there could be no decision made on starting the one-year clock that the government purports to support. Why would the government give an unlimited amount of time, in proposed section 19, for that completeness to happen? Is the member concerned that could be abused?

[Charles Sousa, Liberal, Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have the bill before me, and I am going to read something within it verbatim:

The purpose of this Act is to enhance Canada’s prosperity, national security, economic security, national defence and national autonomy by ensuring that projects that are in the national interest and projects of an eligible type within a region of national interest are advanced through an accelerated process that enhances regulatory certainty and investor confidence, while protecting the environment and respecting the rights of Indigenous peoples.

That is item 4 on page 71.

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

Mr. Speaker, over the past 18 months, we have been focused on strengthening the Canadian economy. Our Prime Minister and our government have shown leadership in this regard. We have signed treaties with over 20 countries. We have supported major projects of national interest and attracted hundreds of billions of dollars in investment to Canada.

I would like to hear from my colleague about how he sees Bill C-39 fitting within our government's broader approach to build Canada strong.

[Charles Sousa, Liberal, Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague brings up a very important fact. Canada is sought-after around the world. We have negotiated over 20 trade agreements, and we are the top foreign direct investment jurisdiction in the world because of those initiatives and because Canada is seen as a trusted partner. Other countries want to deal with those that abide by the rule of law and that ensure social justice as well as security in trade agreements. I am very excited about where we are heading.

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

Mr. Speaker, in his previous answer to me, the member bypassed the question and pulled out his bill. I hope he would agree that the cover makes it quite nice to hold, but I would like him to actually answer the question. He talks about an accelerated one-year review, but it literally says that an agency, or in this case the regulatory authority, must view it as complete for the process to begin. Does he not believe this would be abused?

[Charles Sousa, Liberal, Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I agree that we need to enact certain legislation to speed up the process. We have had too much interference by the bureaucracy to enable some of these projects to take place. The system will always abide by and have safeguards, and so it must, but we need to expedite that more quickly—

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Kenora—Kiiwetinoong.

[Eric Melillo, Conservative, Kenora—Kiiwetinoong, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise and join the debate this evening.

I will start by simply saying that we must be able to build in Canada. It should go without saying, but after 11 years of Liberal policies, I feel it necessary to say so, because Liberal taxes, regulations and inflationary spending, which drive up the cost of living, have chased investment away from Canada for too long. It is why, for years, Conservatives have urged the Liberals to get out of the way by approving projects within six months, repealing antidevelopment Bill C-69 and Bill C-48, removing the industrial carbon tax and adopting one project, one review.

The debate we have been having here for some time is a bit like déjà vu. We all know that a year ago we essentially had the same debate. We, as Parliament, passed Bill C-5 to allow the government the unprecedented ability to move projects ahead. The Prime Minister at that time effectively said that we were facing an existential threat from the United States and that we must move quickly to approve major projects, which would support our economy, create good jobs for Canadians and, of course, protect our sovereignty in a more roundabout sense. He said that he was the guy to get it done, and that Bill C-5 would be the tool in his tool box to allow that to happen with the Major Projects Office. That is what was said about a year and a half ago, that Bill C-5 would allow the government to move at speeds not seen in generations, and now here we are, all this time later, and the result is absolutely nothing. No new projects have been approved. There have only been more speeches and more announcements from the Prime Minister.

This lack of action has left 500 projects on the table for approval, such as projects that could grow our economy, create jobs and, as I mentioned, protect our sovereignty. When I think of these projects, I think of my home in northwestern Ontario. Of course, we have the Ring of Fire, which we see some progress on with the federal government, with the Liberals agreeing to one project, one review for that particular project with the Province of Ontario. However, they are nowhere to be seen on the road to construction and still it is not designated in the national interest.

There is also the Great Bear Gold project near Red Lake and Ear Falls, which would help the region grow and strengthen our economy. As an aside, folks in the chamber might not know that Red Lake really punches above its weight. There are some 4,000 residents in the community. All of the gold exploration nearby has contributed $4.2 billion to our economy over nine years, resulting from mining operations. Great Bear would also be an incredible opportunity, and Ear Falls as well, to help grow, especially in the face of the sawmill closure that has recently happened.

I look as well to the Nuclear Waste Management Organization, which has the deep geological repository project. I will add, it is mandated by the government through the Nuclear Fuel Waste Act. The project is supported by 77% of voters in Ignace and supported by residents of Wabigoon Lake Ojibway Nation. This was referred to the Major Projects Office, but still no action and no clear designation that this project, mandated by the federal government, is in the national interest.

As I go further down the list of projects, I would be remiss if I did not mention the Trans-Canada Highway going through northwestern Ontario. I have spoken about it a lot in this place. I cannot think of anything that is a better nation-building project than the only east-west corridor connecting our country. Improving the highway through northwestern Ontario, which is just a single lane in each direction, is critical for the safety of travellers and for our economic efficiency. It is why I brought forward a petition in the last session of Parliament, which was signed by thousands of Canadians from every single province, recognizing the need for improving the highways, specifically through northwestern Ontario. The petitioners called on the government to support the twinning project that has begun with support of the Province of Ontario, but the federal government, the Liberals, are nowhere to be seen.

There are projects out there. There is lots of opportunity for nation building, and there is lots of opportunity for growth and for supporting Canadian jobs. The examples I just listed certainly do not form an exhaustive list, but they show the stark contrast between the Prime Minister's rhetoric and the reality facing Canadians.

The Prime Minister said he would build “at speeds not seen in generations”, and he has built nothing nearly two years in. Nearly halfway through his mandate, no new projects have been approved. He said that Canada would have the fastest-growing economy in the G7, and we are now fourth. He said he would secure a new trade deal with the United States by July of last year, and he has failed to do so. He said he would be judged by prices at the grocery store, and they continue to rise. In fact, inflation is outpacing wage growth, meaning Canadians are getting poorer. Canadian households are the most indebted in the G7 as well. Very simply put, with the Prime Minister, it has been all talk with no results.

That is why Conservatives have been advocating for our plan and encouraging the government to work with us to implement it. Our Conservative plan to save Canadian jobs and money is to repeal the antidevelopment laws Bill C-69 and Bill C-48, approve the 500 projects currently stuck waiting for approval on the Prime Minister's desk, scrap the industrial carbon tax, remove the capital gains tax on reinvestments in Canada and cut taxes on food, fuel and work. We will continue fighting for Canadian jobs and Canadian livelihoods while making life affordable by cutting taxes and stopping the inflationary spending that is driving up costs on Canadians.

[Pauline Rochefort, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Secretary of State (Rural Development)]

Mr. Speaker, in particular, I am interested in my colleague's views on highways 11 and 17. I am a northerner, like he is. I would simply like to point out first, to maybe help him remember, that our minister from Thunder Bay announced funding for highways in the north, in northwestern Ontario. Certainly that history is there.

More specifically tonight, I am interested in your views, because I believe there is—

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

I know it is a late hour, but members cannot use “you” to refer directly to a member. They must speak through the Chair.

I invite the parliamentary secretary to finish her comment.

[Pauline Rochefort, Liberal, Nipissing—Timiskaming, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would be interested in the member's views on the national trade corridors council.

[Eric Melillo, Conservative, Kenora—Kiiwetinoong, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as to the first part of the question about highways, it is noteworthy that the federal government, the Liberal government, has allocated support to certain sections of the Trans-Canada Highway across the country, but none to Highway 17 through northwestern Ontario between Thunder Bay and the Manitoba border. The construction that has started for the first few kilometres is solely funded and supported by the Province of Ontario, working in partnership with local first nations and municipalities as well.

That is a critical area of the country for travel. I am sure the member would agree that it is of critical importance not just for the safety of travellers, as there are frequent accidents, but for our economic efficiency as well. Every time there are closures and accidents, it stops goods from flowing east to west. I hope the Liberals get on board and recognize how important the Trans-Canada Highway through northwest Ontario is.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his contribution to this debate. I want to hear his thoughts on a subject that really troubles me. I am talking about this step forward in Bill C‑39, or rather this major step backward, to identify regions of national interest in which several laws will not apply when the projects move forward.

What is a region of national interest? That fundamental principle is not defined in Bill C‑39. There is a schedule that should list the regions, but no regions are mentioned. Does my colleague agree with that approach?

[Eric Melillo, Conservative, Kenora—Kiiwetinoong, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member raised a very noteworthy point. That is why it is so important that this bill, which is quite lengthy and has many components to it, is debated thoroughly, not just in this chamber, but also through the committee process, where it can be examined and understood and where amendments can be brought forward from various political parties. This is certainly a large piece of legislation with many moving factors to it. I appreciate the question from the member.

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

Mr. Speaker, to hear my colleagues, it almost seems that nothing good is happening. Over the past 18 months, however, we have made significant progress toward building a stronger and more prosperous economy. It shows in the investment summit, which attracted over $500 billion to be injected into our economy; it shows in the 24 projects being studied by the Major Projects Office; and it shows in the more than 20 trade agreements that we have signed around the world. While we make progress on this side of the House, the Conservatives keep raining on everyone's parade.

I would like to ask my colleague why he cannot acknowledge the potential of Bill C-39 to build a stronger economy, to build a stronger Canada.

[Eric Melillo, Conservative, Kenora—Kiiwetinoong, ON]

Simply, Mr. Speaker, it is because we have been here before. A year and a half ago we passed Bill C-5, which the Prime Minister said would allow the government to move at speeds not seen in generations. Since its passage, nothing has been approved. No new projects have been approved. There are no shovels in the ground. I listed a number of critically important projects that are by no means new. How long have we been talking about the Ring of Fire in this country? It is not a new project. With respect to the highway through northwestern Ontario, former prime minister Harper had initially put supports toward that in 2009.

There are a number of projects that, I would argue, are low-hanging fruit for the Liberal government to move forward on, not just in northwestern Ontario but right across the country, but it is just standing idle and not moving forward on them, so we will believe it when we see it.

[Pauline Rochefort, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Secretary of State (Rural Development)]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of Bill C-39, the building Canada strong act, and to explain why to the residents of Nipissing—Timiskaming.

Canadians elected this government to protect what matters to them while defending and growing our economy. For me, those responsibilities belong together. I want children to have affordable day care and healthy meals at schools, families to find homes they can afford, and seniors to receive the benefits and services they depend on. Canada must also have the means to defend our sovereignty, protect our freedom and contribute to peace, all while leaving the next generation a strong financial future. That takes a strong economy with good jobs, growing businesses and revenues to sustain our commitments. Day care, housing and retirement security may seem far removed from a railway, a pipeline or a port, but they are connected. The prosperity we help create today pays for the promises we intend to keep in the future.

As a proud Canadian, I like to believe that Canada is among the world's best in so many categories, yet research confirms that we have room to improve when it comes to how quickly we build infrastructure. Certainly, we have long distances, a scattered population and harsh weather to contend with here in Canada, and in northern Ontario, we know all three. Those are the realities that push us to build smarter. Furthermore, we can learn from other democracies and examine overlapping approvals, repeated reviews and unclear responsibilities that have made it harder and slower to get projects built.

Business owners planning a project should know who makes the decision, what information is needed and when to expect an answer. When departments need the same information, they should speak to one another. Canadians have mastered the group chat. Governments should be able to manage one too. As the Prime Minister has said, “high standards do not require slow decisions.” Every unnecessary delay holds back a job, a business expansion or infrastructure that a community needs. Bill C-39 would tackle all of these challenges.

The first part of the bill, “Build Canada Now”, would make federal reviews more coordinated and predictable: one project, one decision, one year. The proposed one-year timeline would begin once a proponent provides all the information required for federal reviews and decisions: a good application and a thorough assessment that works. Once the information is there, government should have a clear responsibility to reach a decision, so the bill would put a federal assessor in charge of coordinating reviews and bring decisions and permits together where the legislation allows. Our Prime Minister has explained that it is about moving from sequential to parallel decision-making.

Through all of that, environmental protection must remain central. In Nipissing—Timiskaming, our lakes, forests and waterways support jobs, recreation and our quality of life. We take our lakes seriously, and protecting them is important. Better planning can help us eliminate environmental impacts earlier and decide where projects belong and what conditions they must meet.

Indigenous rights and participation deserve absolutely the same care. The bill's proposed Crown consultation hub would help coordinate federal consultation. Indigenous partners must be involved early, with the resources to assess proposals, raise concerns and help shape decisions. This would include opportunities for indigenous jobs, businesses and ownership. Trust takes time and work. Government must organize itself to help build it.

The second part of the bill, “Keep Canada Moving”, matters greatly to northern Ontario. Our manufacturers, farmers, forestry operations and mining businesses need dependable transportation. An excellent product still has to reach the customer. Unreliable highways, limited rail capacity, inadequate air carrier networks and crowded ports mean delays and higher costs. Canada must plan the whole journey from where a product is made to where it is sold. That is why I support the proposed national trade corridor framework and the authority to establish a national trade corridors council.

For northern Ontario, this would be an opportunity to bring railways, highways, connections, air service, access to ports and community needs into one plan. It would mean working with the Province of Ontario, indigenous partners and municipalities toward safer, more dependable connections along highways 11 and 17. We would also examine expanding fibre optic infrastructure alongside transportation investments. Businesses need reliable connections for their goods and their information. The truck, and the email announcing its arrival, should both arrive at the same time.

The strategy to tell us once and tell us digitally, which is included in the bill, also makes sense. Businesses should submit information once and have it securely shared across government where it is authorized. Filling out the same form five times is certainly an activity, but I think we can all agree that it is not a growth strategy. Less paperwork leaves more time for customers, employees and investment. This work must accompany efforts to reduce trade barriers within Canada. Our roads should connect our regions, and our rules should help Canadians do business across them.

The third part, “Canada strong for all”, recognizes the workers who make this economy possible. I support the measures tackling wage theft and the misclassification of employees as contractors, improving safety and helping workers recover wages when an employer becomes insolvent. At airports, preserving union representation and collective agreements when service contracts change would give workers greater stability. The government is also committed to adding 100 health and safety workers and 26 staff at the Canada Industrial Relations Board. Protections need people to enforce them, and complaints need timely answers.

The bill would encourage earlier bargaining in difficult labour relationships, provide more time for conciliation and expand access to additional mediation tools. We all know the best agreements are those that workers and employers negotiate themselves. Changes to section 107 deserve careful attention, as the bill would introduce guardrails that encourage early engagement. Before intervening under the proposed framework, the minister would have to consider a special mediator's report and conclude that a strike or lockout would have a significant adverse national impact.

These are serious powers. Their use must be transparent, carefully justified and respectful of freedom of association, including the protected right to strike, and that is what the bill would deliver.

These changes require all of us to make an effort. The government must coordinate its work more effectively and be accountable. Businesses must treat their employees fairly and honour their commitments to their communities. We must all ask ourselves whether our current approaches still meet the needs of Canadians.

I understand that change can be unsettling. Workers have fought for their protections. Indigenous peoples have fought for the recognition and respect of their rights. Generations of people have worked to protect the environment and build our social programs. These hard-won achievements must guide our future.

It is often said that compromise is everything. This may be the most controversial point in my speech, but the meaning is simple. Everyone needs to come one step closer, listen, and seek common ground.

We can improve the way we work together while honouring our commitments. That is essentially what Bill C-39 is all about.

I support this bill, because a stronger economy helps sustain affordable day care, school meals, housing and security for seniors. The bill would help young people find careers worth staying or coming home for. It would give Canada the means to defend its sovereignty, build a strong economy and build a strong future. Northern Ontario and Nipissing—Timiskaming have much to contribute.

Let us measure success in projects completed responsibly, workers coming home safely, businesses reaching new customers and communities gaining opportunities. Let us build this future together.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite talked a lot about the national trade corridor council that would be charged with digital tools and advising the minister, yet the national supply chain office that was created in 2023 by the government essentially has the same mandate to deal with data. I would just like to ask her what new value added the council would have that the national supply chain office does not already have. Are we not just in Groundhog Day, where the government just keeps bringing back the same tired ideas, rolling them out and expecting us to have a different result?

[Pauline Rochefort, Liberal, Nipissing—Timiskaming, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question. Maybe the other questions that come forward will build on it to some extent.

We can certainly drill down into the weeds, but for me, it is about looking at the overall picture. This is what the bill is about: one project, one decision, one year, moving forward. If it is good for our country, let us move forward. Tonight I explained why I support that direction, and that includes transportation. There will be other opportunities in Parliament to examine further details.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my riding neighbour for her eloquent speech.

I would like to point out that a growing number of people in our region are saying that the Liberal government is not there for them and that a bill like Bill C-39 is not going to make them feel more included.

I want to give an example. In my neighbour's riding, in Kapuskasing, the department of innovation and industry awarded funding to the paper industry, the forestry industry. My riding got no funding, so 425 jobs were lost at RYAM last weekend. That is bad. The minister, like her colleague at natural resources, is aware of the situation, and yet the government refuses to take action.

There is a project of national interest in a region close to both of us. It is the Crawford nickel project proposed by Canada Nickel Company in Timmins. The federal government has recognized it. Funding has been provided for it. However, a project by Dumont Nickel in northern Abitibi, in my riding, is still waiting for recognition from the federal government.

Another example is a cobalt processing plant in the Cobalt area. The municipality is clearly appropriately named. The Horne smelter in Rouyn-Noranda is still awaiting investment to the tune of $149 million. That is peanuts for the federal government, which, as we all know, is running a massive deficit. This money is needed to invest in gas capture and modernizing the plant. It would be a game-changer for air quality issues in Rouyn-Noranda.

Where is the federal government, and why does it want to pass laws that will stifle community engagement and override environmental legislation?