Debates of Sept. 24th, 2026

Building Canada Strong Act

[Abdelhaq Sari, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to begin by saying that I will be sharing my time with the member for Eglinton—Lawrence.

Sometimes a country has to choose between watching history unfold or making history itself. Canada is at a point right now where we have to choose to be the master of our own destiny.

All around us, the world is changing and shifting gears. Technology is completely transforming industries. Supply chains are being redrawn and geopolitical uncertainty weighs on every investment decision. Meanwhile, capital waits for no one. It goes where people know how to build. It goes where the rules are clear and decisions are actually made.

Bill C-39 asks a simple question: Will Canada be that country?

We have everything we need to succeed. We have an abundance of natural resources, one of the most skilled workforces in the world, enterprising companies and strong institutions that inspire confidence well beyond our borders.

However, nothing is built on potential alone. It is like a mighty river without a power plant. Its immense power does not produce light until we learn how to harness it. A resource creates value only if we can develop it responsibly. Technology will transform the economy only if we can build the necessary infrastructure to properly support that technology. A product creates wealth only once it reaches the customer.

This country was not built by waiting. It was built by people who laid rail across impossible distances, who opened ports or rugged coastal lines, who believed that connecting a nation was worth the effort. They did not have certainty. They had conviction.

Today, our nation-building projects look different because we have critical minerals, clean energy, advanced manufacturing, modern port transmission lines and digital networks.

The question is this: Do we still have the resolve to build?

The question we must ask ourselves is the one our ancestors also asked. Do we still have the determination to build? Across the country, we are hearing the same message from workers, communities, indigenous partners and investors. Our federal approval processes are too long and too complex. The requirements—

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

I am sorry to intervene. I simply want to tell my colleague to pay particular attention to the microphones. When he puts down his papers, it can be very unpleasant for the interpreters. I know that is not really his intent.

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

I thank the hon. member for the reminder. Indeed, members should be very careful when leafing through documents near the microphones.

The hon. member may continue his speech.

[Abdelhaq Sari, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for that comment. I certainly do not want to jeopardize the health of our interpreters, who do an excellent job.

As I said earlier, our federal approval processes are too long and too complex. Requirements pile up, reviews overlap and the process drags on for years. Imagine a family wanting to renovate their home and being instructed to submit the same file to five different offices without ever being told when they can expect a decision. Eventually, they will give up. That is exactly what is happening with investments. When investors have to wait forever, capital goes elsewhere, taking jobs with it.

That is why the government must modernize federal project review processes. Our goal is clear: to make federal decisions on major projects within one year while maintaining rigorous environmental standards and respecting the rights of indigenous peoples. To be clear, this is not about lowering the bar. It is about making sure projects do not get lost in a maze. Efficiency need not come at the expense of rigour. A predictable timeline does not determine the decision. It simply guarantees that there will be one, be it positive or negative.

Collaboration with indigenous peoples lies at the heart of this approach. Indigenous communities must be part and parcel of the decisions affecting their lands, their rights and their social and economic future. A clearer process does not diminish their participation; it makes it more meaningful, more consistent and, above all, more frequent. We reject the idea that we must choose between economic development, environmental protection and reconciliation. A mature country knows how to make progress on all three fronts while also remaining aligned with all three at the same time.

Canada is a trading nation. Our prosperity travels by rail, road, sea and air. Our ports, highways and railways are the arteries of our economy, and every bottleneck acts as an invisible tax—a tax that stifles investment before it even begins, before it is even triggered. It is paid by the farmer waiting for their grain to be shipped, by the manufacturer whose parts are not arriving and, at the end of the chain, by the family seeing prices rise at the supermarket.

The bill modernizes the governance of the transportation sectors, strengthens our commercial infrastructure and consolidates our supply chains. It also takes account of a new reality. In a more unstable world, the security and resilience of our networks are no longer a luxury. They are a prerequisite for our growth.

Behind every port, every rail line and every construction site, there are people. More than a million Canadians work in federally regulated sectors, keeping goods moving and communities connected. In most cases, employers and unions reach agreements at their negotiating table, and that speaks to the strength of our system. This bill builds on that strength.

The bill tackles wage theft and the misclassification of workers. It improves workplace safety and supports stable and respectful labour relations.

That is because an economy that forgets its workers is neither modern nor fair.

I meet people every day in my riding of Bourassa, in Montreal, who are not asking for any special privileges. They are not asking for anything special because all they want is a chance: a stable job, a fair wage and a safe workplace. When we talk about major projects, trade corridors and competitiveness, these are the folks we are talking about. Growth only makes sense if it improves their lives.

This bill is the result of extensive consultations with indigenous peoples, the provinces and territories, businesses, unions and members of the public. While their points of view sometimes differed, there was one common message, namely that Canadians want a more efficient government, environmentally responsible growth, robust infrastructure and good jobs. They want an ambitious Canada that remains true to its values.

In closing, investment decisions are being made now. Major projects are being planned now. Tomorrow's trade partnerships are being developed today.

From northern communities to the Atlantic provinces, from the Prairies to British Columbia, from Ontario to Quebec, Canadians are ready to build. It is up to us to give them a country that is ready too. Let us move forward with confidence, build responsibly and leave future generations with a stronger, fairer Canada that is more ready than ever.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Madam Speaker, the government says it will coordinate consultation through a new Crown consultation hub, which is what they have called it. Ultimately, who gets to decide if and when that consultation is complete?

My colleague talked a lot about first nations. Will indigenous nations have a meaningful say in determining whether their concerns have actually been addressed in that consultation process, or will the government be the one marking its own homework?

Who will decide when that is complete and what that timeline looks like?

[Abdelhaq Sari, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Madam Speaker, today, as things stand, I think that this matter needs to be discussed by parliamentarians in committee. I urge all my colleagues, all MPs, to share their opinions and comments and put forward amendments.

Some consultations have been held, and there will be more, but we can talk about that in committee.

[Burton Bailey, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

Madam Speaker, the Liberals claim this bill would get projects built, but there are already 500 projects stuck in the federal permitting process.

Why does the government not simply approve these projects instead of continuing to add more bureaucracy, more bills, more offices and more announcements that have not built anything?

[Abdelhaq Sari, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Madam Speaker, first of all, members need to listen carefully to the speeches given by each of my colleagues on our side of the House. What we are saying is that we want to deliver an answer within a year, whether positive or negative. That is very important. This is no blanket approval process. We are not interested in giving out carte blanche. On the contrary, there will be some negotiation. That is very important.

Now, to speed things up, we simply need to make decisions in committee faster. If people here really want to move faster, the Conservatives will have to co-operate with us so we can make decisions in committee. Once again, Bill C-5, Bill C-39's predecessor, laid a strong foundation. Now, we are setting the stage for all future projects.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, as the Bloc Québécois critic for labour, human resources and skills development, I had the opportunity to speak yesterday and clearly demonstrate how workers' rights are being eroded. The members opposite laughed in my face, but what I read yesterday were comments from organized labour. These were initial reactions. I also talked a lot about setbacks for the environment, but I ended by talking about setbacks for democracy.

What does my colleague think about that?

Yesterday, I did not have time to say that we found out that in Bill C‑39, the Liberals are undoing the amendment that one of my colleagues made to Bill C‑5, which made the minister's powers subject to a five-year sunset clause. Now there will be no way of reviewing the minister's decisions after the fact.

My colleague talked about collaboration, proposals, amendments and improvements, but this change is unacceptable from a democratic standpoint.

I would like my colleague to talk a bit about that.

[Abdelhaq Sari, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Madam Speaker, as I understand it, the question was about strikes and unions. I would say that what we are now bringing back in this bill is the complete opposite. Section 107 of the Canada Labour Code has been used to end strikes in recent years. Its use will be clarified. I would say it will be much better monitored by the department. Today, things are vague. Tomorrow, things will be much less vague.

In fact, a number of unions are starting to warm up to this amendment to section 107.

[Lori Idlout, Liberal, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, the member's speech was excellent. I really appreciate that he incorporated the relationship with indigenous peoples and what the act would do. I wonder if the member, as part of the government, can explain just how important that relationship is with indigenous peoples and why it is important in this legislation.

[Abdelhaq Sari, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Madam Speaker, that is a great question.

Building Canada strong means seizing opportunities. For that reason, the changes in this bill are very important. That said, no one should be left behind. That is why it is very important to consult all stakeholders as well as Canadians who are having a tough time every day. Naturally, the stakeholders include indigenous peoples.

[Vince Gasparro, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Secretary of State (Combatting Crime)]

Madam Speaker, it is always an honour to rise in the House on behalf of the residents of Eglinton—Lawrence.

Canada is going through a period of significant change. We are in a tariff war with our largest trading partner, the Russian invasion of Ukraine continues to put pressure on global food markets and commodity markets, a conflict in the Middle East has disrupted global energy markets and pushed up the cost of oil and gas, and rising global bond yields have raised costs for everyday Canadians through debt instruments such as mortgages and auto loans.

For some Canadians, these events may feel distant, but they have real consequences here at home. I hear it from families that are dealing with higher grocery bills and higher costs at the pump. I hear it from manufacturers dealing with American tariffs and global uncertainty that impacts whether they can afford to invest, hire and expand here in Canada. These are the issues that matter to people in Eglinton—Lawrence and to all Canadians, and they point to a broader question: What can Canada control?

We cannot control decisions made in Washington, and we cannot control conflicts overseas, but we can control how we respond. We can decide whether Canada is a country that waits for the world to change, or whether we build the capacity to succeed in a changing world. Our government has a plan to do that in the short term, the medium term and the long term.

In the short term, we are acting decisively. We are standing up to unjustified American tariffs and are diversifying our trade relationships, 20 in total with more to come. We are putting money directly into Canadians' pockets through the Canada groceries and essentials benefit, which provides up to $1,890 for a family of four, and we are cutting the federal excise tax on gas and diesel by 10¢ per litre. These measures are important because, in the face of global instability, Canadians need help today.

However, short-term support is exactly that: short-term. We have to address the underlying problem. We need to be more competitive. We need greater private investment, specifically foreign direct investment working in our economy, and we need businesses that can expand, adopt new technology, hire more workers and compete in global markets. That is why our medium-term agenda matters.

We have eliminated the consumer carbon tax and cut taxes for the middle class, and we are introducing productivity-enhancing tax measures that make it more attractive for businesses to invest in Canada. Under these measures, businesses can immediately expense up to 15% of eligible capital investments. The principle is straightforward: When a Canadian business wants to invest in a new machine, modernize a facility, expand production or adopt new technology, we should make that investment easier, because investment drives productivity, productivity drives wages and economic growth, and economic growth gives Canadians more opportunity. This plan is working. Just last week, the Canadian investment summit unleashed nearly $500 billion of new capital.

Our fiscal policy is only part of the answer, We also need to build and execute. In the long term, we are building the foundation for a more productive, resilient and competitive Canadian economy. That is why I am supporting Bill C-39, the building Canada strong act. For years, one of the challenges facing major projects in Canada has been uncertainty. I saw this first-hand as a banker who financed infrastructure. A business develops a proposal and works to raise capital. If it cannot predict when decisions will be made or if labour will even be available to it, it becomes much harder to make an investment in the first place. As costs rise, the project economics become more uncertain.

The building Canada strong act is intended to change that fundamental dynamic. First, we would provide greater certainty by bringing federal mediation into the labour process earlier. Instead of waiting for a strike to occur, Bill C-39 would expand mediation and dispute resolution tools by establishing a time-limited special mediator to encourage good-faith bargaining before a dispute escalates. This would give workers and employers an additional opportunity to reach a negotiated agreement and avoid a strike or lockout.

Second, the building Canada strong act would enhance the One Canadian Economy Act passed last year by the current government, by creating one coordinated federal process, one lead authority and a one-year timeline for federal decisions once a complete application has been submitted.

Let me be clear. The bill would protect the environment and respect indigenous rights. What it would change is that it would improve the timeline for decisions to be made. The building Canada strong act would create a system that is more predictable, coordinated and efficient, because businesses need certainly, and our workers deserve certainty. The objective is simple: Move from an idea to financing, to construction and ultimately to a completed project. The fact is that process is not an outcome; results and execution are.

Our country has done this before. In the 1950s, we built the St. Lawrence Seaway in less than five years, the TransCanada pipeline in two years and the Trans-Canada Highway. These were enormous undertakings that all helped Canada move east-west rather than north-south.

The St. Lawrence Seaway gets raw materials from the interior out to market, the TransCanada pipeline connected the oil sands to refineries in eastern Canada, and the Trans-Canada Highway connected Canadians together. To continue to build a strong, independent country, we need to be more resilient east-west rather than north-south, which is exactly what the building Canada strong act would do. It would allow us to formally designate strategic trade corridors and advance priority projects within one year.

The point is simple: Canada cannot control what happens in Washington or what happens in conflicts around the world, but we can create a more productive and resilient economy, one that provides greater certainty to investors, certainty to workers and certainty for businesses to grow, succeed and invest here in Canada. That is what Bill C-39, the building Canada strong act, would help achieve.

We need to build faster, we need to build with certainty and we need to build for the long term. That is how we create good-paying, long-term jobs, attract private investment, strengthen our economy and make Canada more resilient. That is how we build Canada strong.

[Burton Bailey, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

Madam Speaker, according to the bill, project proponents would still have to analyze “the intersection of sex and gender with other identity factors”. I am not sure what any of that has to do with building a pipeline or a mine, but this is the type of woke, bureaucratic language we have come to expect from the Liberals. It means absolutely nothing, and it maintains layers of red tape.

My question is this: If the Liberals are trying to be taken seriously at a time that demands serious action, when will they drop the woke corporate-speak, pick up shovels and get building?

[Vince Gasparro, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Madam Speaker, the current government has been focused on the economy since day one, and we see that with our legislative agenda, with the pieces of legislation that have been passed and with the projects that we have approved. Churchill Falls, for example, in eastern Canada, is going to produce enough clean power to power Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver combined. That is the type of action the government is taking. That is the type of employment we are looking to create in this great country. We are going to continue to make these decisions, whether the opposition wants to support us or not.

[Mario Beaulieu, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Madam Speaker, Bill C-5 allowed the government to circumvent at least 12 environmental laws and seven regulations to make it easier for certain projects, including several oil projects, to move forward. However, there was a five-year limit on that authority. With C-39, the government wants to remove that limit so that it can permanently circumvent environmental legislation.

At a time when climate disasters are becoming more frequent and the cost of public services is rising, the Liberals want to circumvent environmental legislation for the benefit of oil companies whose proceeds often go abroad. What does my colleague think about that?

[Vince Gasparro, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Madam Speaker, in my previous answer I spoke about Churchill Falls, the largest clean energy development in North American history, which is being financed by the government. I can tell members that renewable energy, along with the jobs it creates, is incredibly important to the government. It will produce enough power to heat, cool and electrify all of the homes in Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver. That is something the member and his party should get behind.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Madam Speaker, I want to go back in time. The northern gateway pipeline was rejected by the courts in part because the Crown's consultations with the affected first nations were found to be inadequate. The lesson of that should have been clear to the government, and that lesson is that rushing consultation can delay projects rather than get them built.

My question is this: Why is the Liberal government repeating the same mistakes of the Harper Conservatives by prioritizing an arbitrary timeline over getting consultations with indigenous peoples right the first time? The government is repeating the same mistakes, and this will just end up in the courts again, wasting everybody's time and money.

[Vince Gasparro, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Madam Speaker, I think this is probably one of the first times I have been accused of being a Harper Conservative.

Indigenous rights and making sure we engage with our partners at the AFN and other organizations are things we have taken incredibly seriously. They really are at the heart of this legislation.

What I will say is this: The crisis we are in, and I said this in my remarks, requires us to act decisively, and we are going to do that with our partners.

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

Madam Speaker, I wonder if my colleague can go back to the part of his comments when he talked about the Toronto summit, an investment summit that attracted half a trillion dollars in commitments to invest in Canada, the lead-up that went into that, and how we can put that into the legislation that we are debating today.

The world is looking at Canada, and it wants to invest in Canada. This legislation would help. Could the member provide his thoughts?

[Vince Gasparro, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Madam Speaker, there was an article today in Bloomberg saying that capital is leaving the United States and coming to Canada, which is an indication of the confidence investors have in the Prime Minister and our new government.

[Melissa Lantsman, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, let us talk about Bill C-39, the building Canada strong act, not to be confused with the Building Canada Act or whatever act was before that.

Nearly 18 months ago, the Prime Minister promised that we would build “at speeds not seen in generations”. A year and a half later, the situation is dire, and I think most Canadians would agree. Not a single major project has gone from announcement to shovels in the ground. Antidevelopment laws like Bill C-69 and Bill C-48 are still on the books, and they are stifling investment and innovation in this country. The tanker ban and the industrial carbon tax remain, as does the stack of regulations and red tape that makes it next to impossible to build in this country. All of that remains despite Bill C-5.

I know those watching at home are confused by the numbers. The Liberals brought Bill C-5 through this place almost 18 months ago. They said it was revolutionary legislation that was going to have projects built. We passed it through the House in a record five days. They called it a catalyst, one of the Prime Minister's favourite words. They said it would let them do bigger things and do it faster with a brand new Major Projects Office to lead the way. Today, there are zero shovels in the ground, zero new major projects moving forward, and that office has spent more on bureaucracy and hiring people than it has on building a single project. Once again, the words outrun the results.

We have to ask if Bill C-39, the legislation that we are discussing today, which is absolutely needed after the Liberals got the legislation passed that they initially needed, is the solution that members opposite have been claiming it is or if it is another announcement, another press release, another sort of time stamp in the road so they can restart the clock, saying this is the thing that they need to move forward. Before, they said that was the last thing we needed to move forward. I am inclined to believe it is the latter, because past behaviour is the best predictor of future behaviour, and Canadians should not forget that.

Over 10 years, the government has driven investment out of Canada. It threw up roadblocks. It called anyone who wanted to build a pipeline a climate change denier. It discouraged risk-taking in this country with punitive taxes, and they picked winners and losers. The result was $1 trillion of capital leaving this country and going elsewhere. Our productivity stagnated. Our standard of living declined.

If productivity had kept pace even with the United Nations since 2015, every Canadian would be roughly $11,000 richer, $11,000 better off than today. Instead, half of full-time workers are spending their income or more on their living expenses, and half are living paycheque to paycheque. This is in a country that only a few years ago had the richest middle class in the developed world. We do not need to look at the past to suspect that the sizzle of this bill, Bill C-39, is bigger than the steak. We have seen this before.

The present tells the exact same story. The Prime Minister likes to say we should control what we can control, and I agree. Let us look at what he controls. Right now, there are over 500 proposals sitting on his desk, and all they need is a signature. They do not need a new slogan. They do not need a new bill. They do not need a new trade mission. They do not need a new photo op. He just has to sign them. That is his choice. Even the signature is no guarantee because we have seen investment summits, memorandums of understanding, agreements, press conferences and just yesterday, we saw the OECD downgrade Canada's growth outlook while peer countries saw theirs upgraded. The people now promising to fix this are, in many cases, the same ministers and MPs whose high-tax, anti-growth agenda caused this problem in the first place. If we were to look outside this place, we could forgive people for being skeptical. The results keep being pushed down the road with a new piece of legislation, a new MOU or a new announcement, but the results have not arrived.

Nowhere is the gap between promise and delivery wider than it is in resource development here in this country. I want to speak directly to the members of the left flank of the Liberal caucus. For a decade, they told Canadians that resource development was a moral question. To them, it was not about economics or engineering, and it was not about trade-offs. It was truly, in their eyes, a test of character. If we wanted a pipeline, we were deniers. If we wanted a mine, we did not care about our planet or our children's future. If we wanted to sell our energy to other markets, which would buy them from somebody else anyway, we were on the wrong side of history. They enforced that standard relentlessly on everybody who disagreed with them. They enforced it against the opposition, against premiers and against members of their own party who sometimes asked whether all of that was working.

Now, members can read Bill C-39. They can read what it would do to the federal review permitting. They can read about the exemption powers. They can read the section on labour. What would they have said if a Conservative government tabled a 246-page piece of omnibus legislation that would do nothing for workers and would build nothing? The bill claims to fast-track the very projects those Liberals once called a moral failure in the House, and that was not that long ago, but it even fails at that. They would have called it a betrayal. They would have used exactly that word.

The question is not whether they have changed their position. We know they did. The question is what that left flank of the Liberal Party got for it. They spent their political capital. They asked their most loyal supporters, people who believed this was about the planet, to accept their reversal, and 18 months in, with a Major Projects Office and legislation on the move, not one of these projects' delivery is under way. They burned all of that political capital passing these pieces of legislation without having a single shovel in the ground. They made the trade. They just did not get anything for it.

If they now believe that the last decade was too rigid and this country needs to build, then they should get up out of their seats to say so plainly, acknowledge that the cost was measured in projects that died and that investment went elsewhere outside of the country. That would at least be honest. However, what we are going to see over and over again is the left flank of the Liberal Party hiding behind rhetoric that just is not true, and they traded it away for nothing. It is the same pattern with big announcements, with there being little to show for them.

After last week's investment summit, the Prime Minister came away promising a half a trillion dollars of investment, and we welcome that. The problem is that people are filling their gas tanks, which were already empty, half full. A trillion dollars of investment left this country. That is why the skepticism runs high. The skepticism runs high when people look at the government and see it acting one way for 11 years. It had 18 months to change everything, but it is yet another piece of legislation, one that has produced no results.

I am going to end with this: I do not want members to take away that we are going to dismiss the bill before us. Conservatives are not rejecting Bill C-39, but we will study it, press for details, scrutinize it and work to improve it to make sure it actually builds something. That is our job as the official opposition, and that is how we are going to hold the government to account on what it brings before the chamber. However, we will not simply take the government's word and accept all the promises the Liberals have made.

Canada has everything it needs to succeed. We have fields of crops. We are rich in minerals. We have resources, oceans full of fish and the people with the talent to make it all happen. What we need is a government that will get out of the way, and one that will talk about repealing legislation already on the books, but everything we have seen until now tells us that is not this government.

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

Madam Speaker, I think it is important that the member recognize, if she wants to reflect on history and talk about Stephen Harper, that we had the largest trade deficit under Stephen Harper. If she wants to talk about the hardest hit in the manufacturing industry in the province of Ontario, again, let us talk about Stephen Harper. Imagine if Stephen Harper, along with her leader, who sat around his cabinet table, did his job. What a difference that would have been.

It is time that the Conservatives stopped thinking about Trudeau all the time and start reflecting on the new government that Canadians elected, with a new Prime Minister and 70 new Liberal MPs, and recognize that things have changed. People are looking at Canada and investing in Canada. Major projects are well under way.

[Melissa Lantsman, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Madam Speaker, the Liberals can change their leader, they can change their buzzwords and they can change the legislation number from Bill C-5 to Bill C-39, but they cannot change a record. They cannot change the legacy that Stephen Harper left in this country and I am glad to talk about it.

Under Stephen Harper's government, we had the richest middle class in the world. A young person could buy a home. Canada was a well-respected country on the world stage with moral clarity. It was so much so that the Prime Minister invited Stephen Harper to his investment summit to close it out to remind Canadians of a Canada that used to be.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, I actually get the sense that Stephen Harper was more to the left than the current Prime Minister. The more time goes by, the more the measures this Prime Minister is putting in place that make me think that the Conservatives are jealous that he is not on the right side of the House based on his political stripes.

Bill C‑39, which we analyzed with our teams, as I am sure the Conservatives did as well, contains things that seek to destroy or circumvent the laws that are there to protect the public, the environment and workers. I do not know what the Conservatives find in this bill that deserves support, aside from the fact that it goes way too far.

I want to hear my colleague's thoughts on the fact that we have a government that is proposing legislation that, in my opinion, goes beyond even what Conservatives have been calling for for years.