Debates of Oct. 6th, 2026

Building Canada Strong Act

[Tamara Kronis, Conservative, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Madam Speaker, the member touched on the omnibus nature of the bill, so the breadth of the bill. He touched on the extensive transfer of powers to the government into cabinet. I wonder if he would also like to comment on the speed at which this bill is being brought into the House.

[Colin Reynolds, Conservative, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Madam Speaker, it is very concerning that this is all being brought forward, major environmental changes and labour changes, in the form of an omnibus bill that cannot be debated properly and considered properly.

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

Madam Speaker, with this bill, this government is once again trying to expedite projects by circumventing many laws passed by the House of Commons. I think that is the wrong approach. First, let us be clear on the principle: All of my colleagues who are here would like projects to move forward more quickly. We all agree with the one project, one assessment principle, but that assessment must be done right. It must respect the will of the provinces and Quebec, particularly when it comes to the environment. We must also not forget the principle of social licence. That is what makes the difference between a successful project and one that will face a lot of opposition.

I come from a mining region. For over 100 years, we have seen mining in Abitibi—Témiscamingue change and evolve. At one time, the environmental laws were not what they are today. That is why there are over 90 abandoned mines in my region. In Quebec, there are over 335 abandoned mines, and it will cost over $1.35 billion to clean them up. That is just one example among many that shows the importance of complying with strict environmental laws. If we do not, then we will just be creating new problems that will cost even more money a few years down the road. The first nations are saying that we need to plan projects with the next seven generations in mind. We will have to deal with the environmental impacts eventually, even if we do not want to think about them today.

Another example of a project that went ahead too quickly is the Malartic mine. This project, which now has some degree of social licence after more than 20 years of existence, did not get off to a very good start in the early 2000s. This mine, the largest open-pit mine in Canada, displaced homes before the mining company even had a permit to operate. What would have happened if the operating permit had been refused? This is exactly the kind of issue that could arise today as a result of Bill C-39, because the government can approve a project before its environmental assessment has been completed.

It is for that very reason that we must hold consultations and comply with the law. People are counting on us to do a job: to protect our environment, our living environments and our quality of life. Basically, the key question is this: What is the national interest? If I ask the government that question, I will get an answer that focuses on economic development and the development of energy projects, mainly involving oil and gas. If I ask my Conservative opposition colleagues the same question, I will likely get the same answer. Meanwhile, an environmentalist party could decide that the fight against climate change is in the national interest and use Bill C-39 to force the closure of a pipeline for the sake of national interest.

In short, the national interest is a variable and, from what the Prime Minister is proposing here, it seems to boil down to oil, gas and nuclear interests, which are at the heart of his policy and his personal economic interests related to Brookfield. The government is forgetting that our planet is in bad shape and that what it is proposing here is just going to lead us further down that path. That is dangerous.

This government is using the tariff crisis with the United States as an excuse to push projects through more quickly at the discretion of the Privy Council, and that creates a major problem for democracy.

The Liberals pride themselves on being the defenders of the charter. They oppose Quebec's laws because Quebec is using the notwithstanding clause to sidestep certain legal challenges. However, these same Liberals are now in the process of voting for a notwithstanding clause for all laws passed by the House of Commons. In fact, with Bill C‑39, the government will have the power to override, circumvent or suspend the laws passed right here. What the Liberals are doing is exactly what they are speaking out against and challenging at the Supreme Court. That is without taking into account the fact that this government is creating two different systems. One system for those who are chosen by the government, which will override various laws because these people have the right connections—a buddy is a buddy, as they say—and a system for everyone else, who will have to comply with all the laws.

Depending on its mining regime, a mine in Abitibi-Témiscamingue will end up with a regime that could damage its social acceptability among the public and turn even more people against it, if it is recognized to be in the national interests. On the other hand, it is important to complete the proper steps, engage in consultations and ensure that public concerns are addressed, despite the paperwork involved.

That, however, is what should be encouraged.

Returning to Malartic, the Université du Québec en Abitibi-Témiscamingue has worked with the mining industry and the public to improve the coexistence guide. Thanks to that experience and work done by researchers, best practices in consulting and in working with communities were developed in Abitibi-Témiscamingue and are now proving their worth. Mine development is much more orderly and socially acceptable.

I would like to point out that, if laws unsuited to modern realities are the problem, a much more acceptable solution exists: improve the laws. All parliamentarians are going to work on changing and improving these laws. Circumventing them is not the way to move things forward.

However, personally, as the transportation, infrastructure and communities critic, I would say that there are some positive aspects. Sometimes we have to be constructive. Digital trade modernization is one example, since some documents are still required on paper. Canada drew on a model law on electronic transferrable records in drafting Bill C‑39. This will facilitate international trade while bringing us into the 21st century.

Today, I met with the St. Lawrence Shipowners. They emphasized that Quebec is at the forefront of marine transportation development. The industry requires significant investment, which should be seen as a catalyst for development. Quebec has a strategy to develop its marine industry, and a sense of coherence and a vision have emerged around the St. Lawrence River as a result.

The marine aspects raised in the bill are interesting. We must acknowledge that there is a certain vision. However, unlike Quebec, Canada is still taking a piecemeal approach. This is yet another example of how Canada could draw inspiration from Quebec. It is possible for the federal government to provide better funding for Quebec's strategy and to add funds to ensure that not only the major ports, but also our medium-sized ports and regional ports can develop, renovate their infrastructure and continue to meet the needs of the various stakeholders working on the river. As we know, many of them are at the end of their service life.

However, amending the Coasting Trade Act is a problem with this bill. It is thanks to this act that Quebec has high-quality local marine transportation. We need only look at Australia, where local transportation is virtually non-existent because of the lack of a coasting trade act.

Instead of ensuring that Transport Canada addresses its urgent needs with shipowners, it is recommending that foreign-flagged vessels be given access to the river.

Furthermore, the notion of an emergency situation, a matter of utmost importance, like the concept of national interest, is left undefined, potentially opening the door to interpretations that favour foreign ships over our domestic carriers.

Let us have the courage to support our local marine industry, instead of opening the door to foreign players.

Is that not precisely why the Liberals keep telling us we need to support local businesses?

I would be remiss if I did not talk about another key issue in this bill, specifically the attack on workers.

The balance of power is under direct attack because Bill C‑39 allows employers to sit back and do nothing while waiting for the government to act, or rather for the Canada Industrial Relations Board, which is not accountable to the House of Commons for its decisions, to act.

This could be called a denial of democracy, not to mention that the new criteria relating to the national interest, such as severe social disruption, are designed to encourage a return to work.

A strike is a social disruption. It is workers making their voices heard. They are people just like us who are simply asking for better pay and better working conditions.

In the last labour dispute in which the government intervened, the employer wasted time negotiating at every opportunity while waiting for the government to force workers back to work, all without special legislation. Once again, this is a roundabout way for the government to bypass parliamentarians.

This bill is an attack on workers. We see the government giving itself an override provision to avoid labour disputes and to circumvent, override, or suspend laws.

There is a lot of talk about the U.S. President signing executive orders, but this administration is following the same path. To get around a law, all it will take is a big black Sharpie and a signature.

That, in my view, is what Bill C-39 is all about. That is what this government is proposing: to use underhanded tactics to push through more oil and gas projects, more nuclear projects, including a nuclear waste site located less than one kilometre from the Ottawa River, 200 kilometres from here.

All of this is to maintain the way our resources are exploited. In fact, Canada currently chooses to sell its natural resources to the highest bidder without maximizing the significant returns. We are—

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

The member's time is up.

The hon. member for Madawaska—Restigouche.

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

Madam Speaker, our colleague delivered a rousing speech. It is always interesting to hear such speeches in the House, but there was a hint of exaggeration in some of his points.

I would like to point out that Bill C-39 makes it very clear that we are able to move forward more quickly with projects of interest—projects that can contribute to the Canadian economy—while complying with rigorous environmental standards.

The two can go hand in hand, and those standards must always be met. He mentioned the list of projects. I am thinking specifically of Churchill Falls, which is the largest investment in renewable energy in North American history. I am thinking of the offshore wind projects off the coast of Halifax, in Atlantic Canada.

I would like to hear my colleague's views on the potential these projects have in terms of clean energy and on why it is important to move quickly to develop them.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I wonder whether it is appropriate, from a parliamentary point of view and in the light of the Standing Orders, to describe a colleague's analysis of a bill as an exaggeration. I wonder whether such remarks do not go beyond what should be considered acceptable standards of civility here in the House.

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

It is not up to me to judge that. It is up to the member to decide whether it is acceptable or not, or whether it causes a problem. That is not a bad word in itself.

The hon. member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue.

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

Madam Speaker, do not worry, I stand by what I said. I am very worried when I see Bill C‑39. It came after Bill C‑5 and Bill C‑15. It is now Bill C‑39's turn. What is left of our democracy? I am very concerned.

At the end of the day, who is the Privy Council? They are probably buddies of the Prime Minister or his privy councillors. Take Michael Sabia, for example.

Michael Sabia knows all the secrets of Hydro-Québec and the Caisse de dépôt. He is now working for Canadian interests. What about Quebec's interests? I am very concerned about this agreement and the impact it could have. Honestly, I am very wary of that, because Quebec's national interest has been based on its hydroelectricity for decades. We have the cleanest energy in the world. It is a source of great pride, but it could be threatened because Canada is developing oil, gas and nuclear energy.

That is one of my main concerns.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am concerned because under Bill C-39, the government is getting set to privatize our airports. That includes the Mirabel airport. The Mirabel airport was built on land that was expropriated, desecrated and stolen. That came as a result of crimes committed by the federal government, as recognized in a motion recently adopted by the House. This asset should serve the community, remain public and be a tool for economic development.

I wonder if my colleague shares my concerns, particularly with regard to the Mirabel airport.

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

Madam Speaker, allow me to express my sincere thoughts for the people of Mirabel, whom I met last week. There was a public meeting attended by my hon. colleague, the member for Mirabel. At that meeting, there were people who were concerned. They were concerned about a government that wants to rush through projects of national interest, such as a high-speed rail line, like the Alto project, for which there is no social acceptability, but which the government intends to impose through legislation that would sacrifice farmland by cutting it in half and split communities in two.

The people of Mirabel know the drill, and what happened has, quite simply, destroyed a once great community spirit. The scars are still fresh. We need to talk to the people of Mirabel. However, the situation that Mirabel experienced will repeat itself in Berthier—Maskinongé and in Rigaud, where we were just two weeks ago to hear the concerns of all stakeholders. Members will recall that no realistic cost estimate is available at this time for these projects. Is that what the national interest is all about, recklessly throwing our money out the window?

I am very concerned.

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

Madam Speaker, earlier, I used the word “exaggerated”, which made some colleagues uncomfortable. Perhaps I could have used a more common expression, like “he went a bit too far” in his speech. In short, my question was about renewable energy.

Bill C‑39 will help speed up the construction of major projects. I am thinking of hydroelectricity projects and wind energy projects.

Does my colleague see a potential in Bill C‑39 for developing renewable energy projects, and why is it important to do so?

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

Madam Speaker, my colleague from Madawaska—Restigouche should know that I will keep going a bit too far until our voices are heard outside the House because Quebeckers' fundamental rights, the right to live in a healthy environment, are on the line. It seems that a project of national interest is grounds for violating laws of interest to Quebec, the Bureau d'audiences publiques sur l'environnement et les lois environnementales, and social acceptability laws.

I will give an example. I campaigned alongside the Kebaowek community to protect their ancestral lands, because they had a right to be consulted. The Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission had failed to do so.

I am very proud to have been able to help secure the passage of an amendment and to have helped bring about change in this regard, and I thank the Conservatives for agreeing to remove the Indian Act from Bill C-5. However, the Liberals came back with Bill C-15, and Bill C-39. Now, they no longer see any point in consulting first nations. They are disregarding that and they do not care. That sets a dangerous precedent. All of this is to introduce nuclear power and store its waste near drinking water sources, near 80% of Quebec's population. If that is the case, then yes, I will keep going a bit too far.

[Patrick Bonin, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Madam Speaker, we are once again in the House to talk about a bill that builds on an existing bill. First, there was Bill C‑5, which was unprecedented in terms of the environment. It trampled 12 laws and seven regulations and was passed here in the House, I repeat, with the support of my Conservative colleagues, because they obviously saw their national interest as being the interests of oil companies.

That is exactly what we are seeing again today. There is nothing national about this bill. It is a bill that aims to fast-track this government's oil and gas policy agenda, using the excuse that the legislative framework that has been built over decades needs to be improved. It took decades to develop a legislative framework that protects the environment and the health of our communities. Now the government is telling us that we need to set it aside because we need to act quickly, because that is in our national interest.

One of the arguments being put forward by the Liberals is that we need to develop renewable energy. In their view, developing renewable energy means setting aside regulatory frameworks. We fully support efforts to accelerate the development of renewable energy. Quebec is already doing just that, while also complying with laws and regulations.

Is there room to improve certain aspects of environmental assessments for renewable energy projects? Absolutely. Should that be done by disregarding laws and regulations? No, and that is not how we do things in Quebec. Should it be done by ignoring public consultations? No, and and that is not how we do things in Quebec. Should it be done without proper environmental assessments? No, yet that is what the government is proposing. It is proposing to override the views of local communities, sideline public consultations, weaken environmental assessments and set aside laws under the guise of national interest.

We are entirely in favour of developing Quebec in a responsible manner, but the government is seeking to grant itself powers that are virtually unprecedented in scope. Bill C-39 is being put forward under the guise of national interest, and it goes even further. This bill allows laws and regulations to be suspended indefinitely. That means forever, if the government so wishes.

The Liberals are not only going to such extremes in their oil and gas mania, but they also want to designate so-called “regions of national interest”. Who decides which regions are of national interest, and on whose behalf? It is this government, led by the Prime Minister, who, as we know all too well, is in cahoots with the oil and gas companies. The proof is that the Liberals have just approved a massive oil sands pipeline project with a capacity of one million barrels per day, under the pretext that it is in the national interest. They tell us that they followed the law, of course, and that it is clear they considered the relevant criteria.

Bill C-39 follows the same logic: They set criteria for themselves that they are not required to follow. They may even decide that they will consider any factor of interest to be in the national interest, which means that, if it is of interest to them, it is in the national interest, and they can throw all the laws and regulations out the window. This is extremely concerning.

When we talk about a pipeline, such as the one that was announced, the Liberals tell us that it will help fight the climate crisis. Environment Canada itself estimates that this oil sands pipeline that will produce one million barrels a day will increase greenhouse gas emissions by 27.7 million tonnes in Canada just to produce the oil that will flow through the pipeline. Those 27.7 million tonnes of greenhouse gases account for more than one-third of Quebec's emissions. How can a government claim that increasing emissions on this scale—from Canada's most polluting sector, oil sands production—is consistent with the fight against the climate crisis? Clearly, it is not.

We can already see that all the criteria used by the government are phony. There is no environmental protection in this bill, despite the government's claims that environmental laws will be complied with. If we take a closer look, every single environmental group in Canada has spoken out against this bill. They say that it is bulldozing nature, that it is a historic setback and that it is unprecedented in terms of environmental backsliding.

All the environmental rights groups and environmental lawyers are saying that this bill is a serious setback for the environment.

How can the government grant itself extraordinary powers to set aside 12 laws and seven regulations, including a number of environmental laws, and claim that this will protect the environment? The government may end up respecting environmental laws, but that is certainly not what it intends to do.

Why does the government need this tool that the Prime Minister can use as he sees fit? It is because the government wants to get around environmental laws. Otherwise, it would not be doing that. That much is clear.

These “regions of national interest” that appear in Bill C-39 and that we have been talking about are entire regions where projects such as pipelines, for example, would be pre-approved even before an environmental assessment has taken place. Take the project of national interest involving the much-vaunted one-million-barrels-a-day pipeline, for example. Under this bill, the government would effectively pre-approve the project. The company would be able to start building its pipeline even before the project has been assessed. This could mean that, if a somewhat credible assessment were to later conclude that it is not a worthwhile project, the company may have already started work, building its pipeline and investing money. In this example, the company is actually the government. The government is prepared to invest $20 billion in federal funding, as part of a total public investment of $43 billion, in a project that it will champion for lack of private sector investment.

Does anyone think the government will decide, after the project assessment, not to go ahead? That is not going to happen.

If it is a private company and the government pre-approves a project and allows it to proceed with construction, the company will sue the government, arguing that it cannot stop the work. Clearly, this is literally about bulldozing their way to approving projects.

When it comes to pre-approved projects, the government says it may conduct an environmental assessment. That may be the case, but what it is actually doing is dismantling the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada. The agency that specializes in project assessments is being dismantled. It will no longer even be responsible for assessing pipeline projects. That responsibility will fall to the Canadian Energy Regulator, which is widely recognized as a haven for oil and gas industry lobbyists. It is a machine for approving pipeline, gas, and oil projects. I do not think the board has ever rejected an oil project in its entire history. This is part of a pattern of sidestepping laws, rushing through environmental assessments and pretending they are environmental assessments when in fact they are literally carried out by those who want these projects to move forward and have a vested interest in their development.

Bill C-39 not only makes no sense from an environmental standpoint, in terms of the logic of environmental assessments, or with regard to respect for communities, but it goes even further because, within its 250 pages, it also targets workers. It was not enough to try to scrap environmental protections. Now they say they are going to scrap the right to strike as well. That means the minister will have the right to decide whether workers can go on strike or not. The minister will decide, based on his own judgment, whether a strike is in the national interest. If this is not one of the biggest setbacks in the history of workers' rights, I do not know what is. According to the Fédération des travailleurs et des travailleuses du Québec, this is a serious setback, a serious violation of workers' rights.

We are not here to debate whether developing pipelines makes sense. We already know it does not. We are here to debate respect for democracy and respect for a regulatory and legislative framework that took decades to build and that this government is literally going to scrap in a few months.

The troubling part is that we are dealing with a government acting in authoritarian ways, with power centred in the Prime Minister's Office. It claims to want to fight against Donald Trump, and yet, to do so, it is engaging in Trumpism and developing Canada's oil and gas interests, the majority of which are held by Americans.

How does that help fight Mr. Trump? It does not help at all.

What interests us in Quebec is to develop the strengths that we already possess and can build on. It is called renewable energy. It is called public transit. It is called the electrification of transportation.

We can fast-track these projects, obey the law and respect people without trashing our citizens, our health and our environment for oil companies.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to remind my colleague that Bill C-39 is part of a broader context, specifically all the efforts our government has been making over the past year and a half to strengthen the Canadian economy and, of course, the Quebec economy. It builds on the projects we are trying to fast-track, such as the Contrecoeur container terminal project. It also builds on the major investments we are attracting, including with Churchill Falls, the largest investment in renewable energy in the history of North America. It also builds on the summit in Toronto, which unleashed over $500 billion in new investment commitments in Canada, including some in Québec.

I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on something. Does he recognize that Bill C-39 is a part of these ongoing efforts to strengthen the Canadian economy and, by extension, Quebec's economy as well?

[Patrick Bonin, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Madam Speaker, with all due respect to my colleague, that is ridiculous. It is ridiculous to say that we need to pass Bill C‑39, which is a giant setback for the environment, workers' rights and democracy, in order to develop renewable energy projects. We are already doing that. Projects like the one in Churchill Falls are already under way in Quebec. We have been doing that for decades. We do not need superpowers.

What the Liberals want to do with Bill C‑39 is essentially develop oil and gas companies and pipelines, undermine the fight against climate change and fast-track these projects. Who are they trying to please? They want to please Alberta using Quebeckers' money. We are talking about billions of dollars to develop projects that will accomplish nothing. In fact, we are going to pay for them three times over: first, for the pipeline, which will cost $43 billion, second, for the carbon capture and storage project, which will cost $10 billion in public funds, and third, for all the costs associated with the climate impacts we are already experiencing, like droughts, heat waves and floods, not to mention the issues of rising grocery prices—

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

I must interrupt the member so that other questions can be asked.

The hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Repentigny for his excellent speech. Now, for the other Liberal MPs who may have forgotten, it is not just a question of Bill C-39. There is also Bill C-5 from 2025, which currently suspends certain Canadian laws and gives cabinet the power to repeal other laws that get in the way. Bill C-5 remains unchanged, then we have Bill C-39 and, now, they add in regions of national interest. Obviously that is not the only provision in Bill C-39. There are other areas for improvement, because they render Canada's other laws weak and ineffective.

I simply want to ask my colleague whether it is possible to envisage improving anything in Bill C-39 while, at the same time, addressing the disaster that is Bill C-5.

[Patrick Bonin, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Madam Speaker, Bill C-39 is such a disaster from start to finish that I really cannot see how it could be improved to make it acceptable. To be perfectly honest, it should be scrapped entirely. The government should go back to the drawing board and reaffirm that, in Canada, we respect statutes and regulations. Yes, we will speed up projects, but that will include consulting local communities, protecting the environment and, above all, safeguarding our children's health as well. That is not what the Liberals are doing. They are doing exactly the opposite.

In my view, this bill should simply be sent to the shredder.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Madam Speaker, let us be honest, we have a Prime Minister who loves oil, who always wants more oil, and who wants to produce more oil. I wonder if he takes his cereal with oil for breakfast. That is what Bill C-39 is for: to facilitate projects like these and circumvent the law.

We heard the member for Madawaska—Restigouche tell us we are mistaken and that the goal is to generate clean electricity. He says that is what it is for.

I would like my colleague to explain how we in Quebec managed to build the La Grande-1 projects, namely the James Bay and La Romaine hydroelectric complexes and the wind farms. How did we build Quebec's economy around renewable energy without legislation such as Bills C-5, C-15 and C-39?

Did members know that when we heat our homes in Quebec, we use renewable energy? How come we have been able to do this, but our oil-loving Prime Minister has not?

[Patrick Bonin, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Madam Speaker, doing things right is possible. Quebec is one example. It may not be perfect, but it is getting better. Major wind energy projects are being developed in collaboration with first nations and communities in a way that respects the environment. That is the future, not oil and gas unfettered by the law, the way the government is proposing.

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

Madam Speaker, Canada is making headway in the world as it is, not passively waiting for the world we wish it to be. We are focused on what we can control. We are building a stronger, more independent and more sustainable economy. We are leveraging our strengths and moving quickly to open new markets, strengthen supply chains and accelerate projects across the country. We are also making sure that workers have the security and opportunities they need to succeed during these times.

This success requires a modern labour framework that protects and supports Canadian workers and workplaces. This is particularly important in the federally regulated sectors. These are the sectors that underpin Canada's economic growth, trade, supply chains and major projects. Bill C-39 features a suite of new measures to support the workers who will build them and help them thrive in the future.

Canadian workers are at the heart of Canada's economic strength, but the increased demand on critical infrastructure requires stronger worker protections. Bill C-39 is heavily informed by consultations with unions, employers and indigenous partners across Canada, and they all confirmed the need for increased workplace protections that keep up with our rapidly changing economy and workplaces. Unions and employers may not always see eye to eye, but worker protection was a subject upon which they could all agree.

Bill C-39 features a slew of worker supports that have been proposed through both legislative amendments and non-legislative investments. I will take a moment to outline each of these measures, starting with the ones that address health and safety.

Workplace safety is and will always be a top priority for the Government of Canada because there is nothing more important than returning home safely after a day's work. We know workplace injuries, including psychological ones, are costly for workers and their families, and also for the employer. We are also aware that our core workplace safety precautions in federally regulated workplaces are not perfect and that there are still gaps in enforcement. That is why we sought input from both employee and employer groups to strengthen these protections. Their input was invaluable and helped shape our way forward.

Bill C-39 is backed by targeted investments to hire new health and safety officers. That means more inspections, more prevention and more protective enforcement to ensure that workers return home safely from work, because we know safe and modern workplaces benefit employees and businesses alike.

I would like to talk now about driver misclassification in the road transport sector. Under the so-called Driver Inc. model, some carriers push drivers to incorporate. These drivers are treated as independent businesses, even though they drive the carrier's truck on the carrier's schedule and are, in every way that matters, an employee. The problem is that these drivers can then lose access to important protections they would be entitled to as employees. These include minimum wage, paid leave, employment insurance, the Canada pension plan and health protections. Unfortunately, it is often the most vulnerable workers who are hit the hardest, including newcomers to Canada.

The code already makes it clear that this is an illegal practice and it needs to stop. It hurts drivers and it puts honest employers that follow the rules at an unfair disadvantage. The Canadian Trucking Alliance, the national voice of the trucking industry, has been calling for stronger action for years. It has welcomed Bill C-39 as an opportunity to give the government better tools to recover the wages workers are owed.

The bill builds on work already well under way. Prevention has always been at the core of the labour program's approach. A dedicated team of labour program officers meet directly with employers and drivers to explain their responsibilities and rights under the code. They also work proactively with partners, including the provinces and territories, to crack down on driver misclassification.

This is done through proactive and targeted inspections, outreach and education. In the road transportation sector, this has included inspection blitzes in the greater Toronto and Hamilton area and in Montreal. Since 2023, more than 1,800 inspections and outreach and awareness activities have been conducted in the sector.

Drivers deserve fair treatment, and employers who follow the rules deserve a fair chance to compete. That is why Bill C-39 builds on previous measures with additional support and more inspectors to continue this important work.

I would like to switch gears, from trucking to the airline industry. Our airports connect Canadian businesses and travellers to the world, but today, when an airport service contract is retendered, workers who continue doing the same job lose their union certification and their collective agreement.

Bill C-39 changes that. This legislation will extend successor rights in cases of contract retendering in the air transportation industry at airports. These protections will apply to all Canadian airports. This means airport workers will keep both their union representation and their collective agreements when their contract changes from one contractor to another.

This measure was strongly supported by unions during our consultations, and it was not opposed in principle by employers. That certainly means stability for workers and for the airport that depends on them. This will go a long way in helping to strengthen protections for workers and promoting worker stability and fairness.

Protecting workers' wages has always been a cornerstone of the Government of Canada's labour framework. Our wage earner protection program already provides financial support to Canadian workers who have lost their jobs and are owed wages by their insolvent employers. Since its creation in 2008, it has paid almost $750 million in unpaid wages to more than 210,000 Canadians. Behind every payment is a worker who lost a job but did not get paid.

Bill C-39 will strengthen the integrity and stewardship of this program. This will be accomplished by addressing gaps to ensure more predictable payments while preventing the misuse of insolvency mechanisms. This will help ensure that payments happen the way they should, when they should. Eligible workers deserve no less.

I would like to talk about paid medical leave and the measures in Bill C-39 to address an issue that has posed challenges of late. Since December 2022, employees in the federally regulated private sector have been entitled to earn and take up to 10 days of medical leave with pay per year. However, there have been concerns about stacking of benefits with negotiated or employer-provided leave regimes that are equivalent or greater.

We have addressed this issue in Bill C-39, more clearly explaining how the paid leave provisions work. The bill clarifies that employees who are entitled to more favourable paid sick leave benefits in their collective agreement are not also eligible to the code's medical leave provisions on top of it. In this way, Bill C-39 will maintain access to up to 10 days of paid medical leave for all employees, while providing much needed clarity on an important yet sometimes misunderstood topic in federally regulated sectors.

Canadians are counting on us to work together to support them and secure Canada's long-term prosperity, and Bill C-39 does just that. The worker support items in Bill C-39 will help Canada build more, build efficiently and build stronger, so I encourage all members of the House of Commons to support this landmark legislation and help stabilize our labour landscape, because it takes all of us pulling in the same direction to build Canada strong.

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

Madam Speaker, I certainly appreciate the member's comments regarding the CTA. It does excellent work, and I agree that we should be supporting our workers.

One of the things we can do is support workers by showing that the government has the balance right. Under section 4.2 of the Department of Justice Act, the Minister of Justice is legally required to table a charter statement for every single government bill. The Liberals like to say that they are the party of the charter.

Does the member support everyone pulling together and asking the Minister of Justice to table a simple charter statement, so that the committee that is charged with studying Bill C-39 can do its work properly?

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

Madam Speaker, I certainly do understand, and I am sure that when the bill is at committee, the committee can recommend changes to the bill. This might be one of the recommendations the member may want to put forward at committee.

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

Madam Speaker, this summer, the Minister of Government Transformation, Public Works and Procurement said that Quebec's legislation should take precedence over federal legislation where duplication exists. In projects of national interest, such as mines, especially in my region, this can prevent any duplication.

The federal government asks for a thing, the proponent adjusts and, in the end, Quebec asks for something else that is consistent with environmental concepts but that is not the same. That is why it takes 15, 10 or seven years to build a mine, and that is a little too long.

With that in mind, does my colleague agree with her colleague that Quebec's laws should take precedence and be the only environmental law applicable? Alternatively, is the government essentially implementing what Bill C-39 contains, without the least consideration for provincial laws, environmental acceptability or the rights of first nations to be heard and to have their ancestral rights respected?

What is happening now? Can the government respect the will of local communities?

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

Madam Speaker, I agree that we, as the Canadian government, through Bill C-5, removed all the red tape with respect to the federal government. It is now the provincial government's duty to work with the federal government and comply with that.

As far as the one project, one review framework to reduce existing duplication between federal and provincial assessments, seven provinces have come on board with this agreement. I am not sure whether Quebec is one of the provinces. If it is not, then I am sure the government would keep working with it until it gets on board.