Debates of Sept. 23rd, 2026

Building Canada Strong Act

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

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

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

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

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

Does the hon. member have unanimous consent?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

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

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

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

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

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

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

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

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

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

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

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

I have to give the member some time to respond.

The hon. member for Joliette—Manawan.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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