Debates of Sept. 25th, 2026

Questions on the Order Paper

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

Mr. Speaker, I would ask that all questions be allowed to stand, please.

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

Is it agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

Before we proceed to orders of the day, I believe there is a point of order stemming from something that happened during question period.

Oral Questions

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac, ON]

Mr. Speaker, during question period, the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands was repeatedly carrying on a very high-volume monologue, the purpose of which, I believe, was to interrupt the ability of members who were posing questions to concentrate and to ask their questions properly. That, of course, would be a violation of Standing Order 16(2), which states, “When a member is speaking, no member shall pass between that member and the chair, nor interrupt him or her, except to raise a point of order.”

During my own remarks, which were dealing with an aspect of Canadian correctional services, the member was speaking so loudly that it was very difficult for me to concentrate.

One of the goals of producing an effective debate in the House is to have us be capable of speaking in a normal speaking voice, as I am doing now, as opposed to yelling at each other. Had I been yelling, I think I could have successfully drowned out the member's yelling, but it is very difficult to carry on a civilized debate when this kind of, frankly, uncivilized behaviour is going on.

I have no idea if that constitutes something for which the member should apologize. One cannot retract a loud voice, but whatever the situation is, I seek your guidance on this, Mr. Speaker.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would sincerely like to apologize to the member for interrupting him. I do know that from time to time many members of the House get excited when listening to others discuss stuff, and certainly I am not the first person to ever heckle, but it does not mean it was right. Therefore, I apologize to the member and certainly withdraw my statement.

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

I thank both gentlemen for resolving this in a civilized manner, which is much appreciated, and for quoting Standing Order 16(2), my favourite standing order as members of the House know.

I believe there is another point of order, not on the same matter, from the member for Okanagan Lake West—South Kelowna.

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

Mr. Speaker, I know that in question period it can be very difficult to have everything running the way you would want, but I will bring to your attention that the hon. member, the Secretary of State for the Canada Revenue Agency, in his response to a Conservative member's question, did indirectly what he cannot do directly, which is to use a member's last name. In fact, the use of the term “long-term” effect, is salting his statements—

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

I do not believe that is a point of order. I have not heard a last name that would have been used, of one member or another member. I am going to rule that out of order.

[An hon. member]

Oh, oh!

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

I invite the member for Okanagan Lake West—South Kelowna to take direction from the Chair and just allow me to finish. The member is still talking, but I have risen, so none of this is in Hansard right now.

This is not a point of order; it is a matter of debate, and the member knows that. If members get really creative and start to make acronyms out of first letters that they are using, then maybe the Speakership will have to rein it in at some point if it brings disorder to the House. During question period, it did not bring disorder to the House, which is one of the rules for whether something is deemed parliamentary or unparliamentary.

Now I am going to invoke Standing Order 10, which says that no member can debate with the Chair. I am going to invite the members not to debate on the Chair's ruling on this matter. They are free to take it up in the future if it is repeated again by other members and they would like the Speaker directly to intervene.

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

Building Canada Strong Act

[Vincent Ho, Conservative, Richmond Hill South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister promised Canadians that his government was going to build at speeds not seen in generations, and I will give him this much: He was right, because Canadians have not seen a government build this slowly in generations.

A year and a half ago, the Liberals came before Canadians with Bill C-5 and told us that everything was about to change. We were told that Canada was entering a new era, that projects would finally move quickly, that investment would finally flow and that the Liberal government was going to unleash construction at a pace Canadians had not seen in decades.

Eighteen months after the Liberals took office, Canadians are still left waiting. Not one new project has been approved by the Liberal Major Projects Office. Approximately 500 projects are still waiting for approval, and the government that promised historic speed has produced historic delay. The only thing the Major Projects Office has managed to accomplish is to establish a brand new Liberal bureaucracy and hire Liberal insiders and friends of the Prime Minister as new high-priced bureaucrats at the taxpayers' expense. It is no wonder the Major Projects Office is being touted as the major photo ops office.

Now, eighteen months later, the Liberal Prime Minister has returned to the House with Bill C-39, another piece of legislation approaching 250 pages. The Liberals are once again telling Canadians that this time they have finally found the answer. Well, we have heard this before.

For years, Conservatives have told the government exactly what it needs to do if it wants to get Canada building. We have told it to approve major projects within six months; repeal the antidevelopment laws Liberal Bill C-69 and Liberal Bill C-48, which are still on the books; eliminate unnecessary duplication between governments; adopt a one project, one single review system; and provide investors with the certainty that if they put billions of dollars into Canada, they will actually have a reasonable opportunity to build something here.

Instead, the Liberals have spent years creating more layers of regulations, more uncertainty, more Liberal bureaucracies and more opportunities for delay. Then, after creating the problem, the Liberals arrive in the House every couple of years with another enormous piece of legislation announcing they are going to solve it. That is the pattern that Canadians have watched for more than a decade: create a Liberal-sponsored problem, announce a new Liberal program, create a new Liberal office, hire more Liberal bureaucrats, hold a Liberal press conference, hold a Liberal photo op, declare victory and then wonder why nothing gets built.

Canadians are not going to judge this legislation by its partisan Liberal title, by the Liberal press releases announcing it or by the talking points that Liberal ministers repeat on state-sponsored mass media. Canadians are going to judge it by whether it saves Canadians money, protects Canadian jobs and actually gets projects built.

The problem Canada faces today is not a shortage of Liberal announcements. The Liberals are only good at delivering announcements and strategies drafted by Liberal consultants. These new offices are usually staffed by Liberal insiders, these frameworks are usually crafted by Liberal strategists, and Liberal memoranda of understanding have no legally binding effect. We have Liberal ministers travelling across the country standing beside maps and artists' renderings of things that might one day get built. What Canadians are missing are completed approvals, shovels in the ground, workers on job sites and projects actually being constructed.

Pipelines do not carry energy products because they appear on some Liberal government list or on a website updated by a Liberal staffer. Mines do not produce critical minerals because a Liberal minister holds a press conference. Ports do not have another container moved because a Liberal memorandum of understanding with no legal effect has been signed. Factories do not employ Canadian workers because somebody in Ottawa created another Liberal advisory council drafted by some Liberal consultants.

At some point, the Liberal government has to stop announcing that it intends to build and start allowing Canadians to actually build. That is the fundamental problem with the Liberal approach over the last decade. The government acts as though economic growth is something that can be produced by Ottawa through more legislation, more regulation and more bureaucracy, when in reality, Liberal governments do not build most of these projects. Workers build them. Private investors invest in them, businesses operate them, engineers design them, tradespeople construct them, and entrepreneurs take the risks necessary to actually make it happen.

The government's job should be to establish clear and reasonable rules, protect the public interest and then get out of the way. Instead, Canada has become a country where somebody can be prepared to invest billions of dollars, employ thousands of Canadians and develop resources that the world desperately wants, and the first question they have to ask is not whether the project makes economic sense but whether they will spend the next decade trying to navigate a Liberal regulatory system. That is not economic strategy. It is Liberal self-sabotage.

The Liberals now say that Bill C-39 will create greater certainty and faster timelines, but Canadians should remember that these are almost the exact same promises and talking points we heard when Bill C-5 was introduced last year. If Bill C-5, more than a year ago, was supposed to get projects moving faster, why do we need Bill C-39?

The Prime Minister said Canada would move at speeds not seen in generations. Canadians looked around and waited, for the past year and a half. They waited for the new mines, the new pipelines and the new energy infrastructure. They waited for the new ports and the new major private sector projects that would create thousands of jobs and attract billions of dollars of investment. They are still waiting.

The Liberal Prime Minister promised speeds not seen in generations, and instead, Canadians have received delays not seen in generations. Eighteen months later, the Liberals are asking Canadians to believe that the problem was simply that they needed another 250 pages of federal legislation. Canadians are entitled to be skeptical. The issue has never been that Ottawa lacks enough power, regulations, departments, bureaucrats or pieces of paper. The issue is that the government has spent more than a decade making it harder to build anything in the country.

Bill C-69 created enormous uncertainty for major projects. Bill C-48 restricted Canada's ability to export our energy resources from the coast of British Columbia. Layers of Liberal federal legislation overlap with provincial processes. Project proponents face years of consultations, studies, assessments and bureaucratic demands before they know whether they will receive a final answer. While all that is happening, capital, both domestic and foreign, does not simply sit around waiting for Ottawa. It moves, and it goes somewhere. It goes to jurisdictions where governments understand that regulatory certainty matters, where permits can be obtained in a predictable period of time and where political leaders actually want investment rather than merely talk about wanting investment.

Every time that happens, Canada loses more investment. We lose jobs. We lose construction jobs, engineering jobs and manufacturing jobs, and we lose tax revenues that could help pay for health care and public services. Canadian families lose opportunities for the good-paying jobs that once allowed an income to support a family, buy a home and build the future. This is why Conservatives keep coming back to a very basic principle: one project, one review. The government should not require a company to repeatedly prove the same thing to different levels of government, different departments and different regulators. They should streamline the processes and get out of the way.

This brings us to a broader question before us, which is what kind of country Canada intends to become. We possess almost every natural advantage imaginable. We have some of the largest energy reserves in the world. We have critical minerals that our allies desperately need. We have enormous agricultural capacity. We have forestry, energy, uranium, natural gas and oil. We have access to three oceans. We have some of the most talented workers and entrepreneurs anywhere on the planet. Canada should be one of the richest countries in the world. There is no reason Canadians should have to accept economic stagnation, declining investment and fewer opportunities as if these things are somehow inevitable. They are not inevitable. They are consequences of Liberal choices.

Canada has everything we need to succeed here at home. What we need now is a government willing to get out of the way. The Liberals promised Canadians that we would build at speeds not seen in generations. Well, they were right about one thing. Canadians have not seen us build this slowly in generations. Canadians have had enough announcements, enough Liberal studies and enough delays. It is time to get out of the way and finally let Canada build.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is important to note that Bill C-39 is there to support and grow Canada's economy. All one needs to do is take a look at the last 18 months, where we have had a Prime Minister and cabinet going out and encouraging people to seek further trade opportunities for local businesses, to seek investments, to the degree that just a couple of weeks ago in Toronto, we saw half a trillion dollars. That is a historic amount of money, never before seen in Canada's history, because of the relationships with our Prime Minister. I would encourage the member of the Conservative caucus to look at the bigger picture.

Would the Conservatives not recognize that the bill complements that half a trillion dollars' worth of commitments coming over?

[Vincent Ho, Conservative, Richmond Hill South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal member is repeating talking points over and over again, and that one-minute spiel of his is not only raising the noise pollution in this chamber. It is also a testament to the Liberal talking points that have been spouted at Canadians over the last 18 months, which is that they want to do more, but there are no results. All we see is more talk, more announcements and more rhetoric coming from the Liberals.

This entire act is called the building Canada strong act. That is a Liberal partisan slogan, which they now want to enact as federal law. That is the thing about the Liberals. They do not want to get things done. All they want to do is talk a big game and have no results to show for it.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to see you in the chair.

My question for my colleague has to do with labour law and the right to strike. In 2015, the Supreme Court of Canada recognized the right to strike as a fundamental right protected by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. That was in Saskatchewan Federation of Labour v. Saskatchewan.

The Bloc Québécois believes this proves that in order to infringe upon a protected right, there must be a valid reason, such as protecting the life, health or safety of the public. Serving corporate interests is not a valid reason. That is why the section of Bill C-39 dealing with the right to strike may be unconstitutional.

What are my hon. colleague's thoughts on that? Does he think, as I do, that the Liberals are going to tout the benefits of the notwithstanding clause to defend this part of Bill C-39?

[Vincent Ho, Conservative, Richmond Hill South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for bringing up all of the labour unrest we have seen over the last 11 years under the Liberal government. The labour unrest we are seeing all across the country in almost every sector is a symptom. It is a symptom of 11 years of economic mismanagement, of a cost of living crisis that Canadians have to live through, of having the fastest food inflation and the most unaffordable housing in the G7.

This is a Liberal-sponsored cost of living crisis that we are living in, and the rising costs are what is causing the labour unrest we are seeing across the country. If we can address the endless inflationary spending and bring down the cost of living, then Canadians can finally afford to live again, but the Liberals choose to live in rhetoric rather than taking real action.

[Jeff Kibble, Conservative, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, almost a year and a half ago, we had the Building Canada Act, with grand promises of new organizations, Liberals will do this, they will do that, and with all kinds of platitudes but short on specifics. In fact, the member for Winnipeg North just stood up and said there was half a trillion dollars of commitments, but there are no signatures. There are no deals. There are no new mines. There is nothing.

We now have this building Canada strong act. The Liberals have added the word “strong”. Does the member feel that, under Liberal governance, the Liberals are doomed to continue failing, as they did with the first bill? They have added one word. Are the Liberals doomed to failure through their inaction and announcements, lack of signatures, and lack of actual decisions and projects starting, let alone being completed?

[Vincent Ho, Conservative, Richmond Hill South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member brings up a pertinent point. Canadians are still reading and going through the bill, but there is only one thing we know for certain, which is that it would create Liberal bureaucracy, delays and Liberal photo ops. It would be more talk with no results for Canadians.

Canadians are desperate for results. They do not need more Liberal press releases.

[Leslie Church, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Secretaries of State for Labour]

Mr. Speaker, we are living through a moment of enormous change. Global markets are shifting, our trading relationships are changing and Canada has to be ready to meet the moment. That means focusing on what we can control and building here at home. We can make Canada a place where businesses want to invest, where projects actually get built, where Canadian goods can reach new markets and where those investments create good jobs for Canadian workers.

That is what the building Canada strong act is about. It would bring greater speed, certainty and predictability to major project reviews. It would strengthen the trade corridors and ports that connect Canadian businesses to the world, and it would create the conditions to attract investment, put Canadian capital to work and build a more resilient and independent economy, because certainty matters. Certainty means investment. Investment means building. Building means jobs. All of that makes our economy stronger and more resilient in a world that is becoming less predictable.

However, we cannot do any of that without a strong labour relations framework. The people who will build these projects, operate our ports and railways, move our goods and keep our economy running are Canadian workers. The strongest workplaces are workplaces where workers are treated fairly, where employers and unions have productive relationships and where people can sit down together and solve problems.

That is why the labour measures in Bill C-39 matter. Free and fair collective bargaining is at the heart of our labour relations system. Let me be very clear: We are absolutely committed to workers' constitutional right to strike. The best deal is the deal reached by parties themselves at the table. In fact, our system works remarkably well. Approximately 95% of federally regulated labour disputes supported by the federal mediation and conciliation service are resolved without a work stoppage, but we also know that some of the bargaining relationships become difficult long before anyone reaches a picket line.

This bill is about getting in earlier. It would provide greater support for first collective agreements, including bringing in the federal mediation and conciliation service from the beginning. It would provide earlier support in difficult bargaining relationships and relationship building after a dispute, because anyone who has worked in a workplace knows that a bitter dispute does not magically disappear when a collective agreement is signed. It would also invest in the institutions that make collective bargaining work, including the Canada Industrial Relations Board and the federal mediation and conciliation service, so that problems can be addressed earlier and workers are not left waiting because of backlogs.

I also want to address section 107 directly, because I know that we have heard concern about it here in this House. Section 107 has existed in the Canada Labour Code for nearly 50 years. This bill does not create a new power. What it does is put new restrictions, guardrails and transparency around how that power can be used.

Before a minister could direct the Canada Industrial Relations Board to end or suspend an ongoing work stoppage and impose a binding dispute resolution, two new conditions would have to be met. First, a special mediator would work intensively with the parties and provide a report to the minister that would be made public, a key factor for ensuring accountability for both parties and for ensuring that both parties are bargaining in good faith. The appointment of that mediator would not take away the right to strike or lock out. Their job would be to help the parties do what we want them to do in the first place, which is to reach an agreement themselves. Second, there would have to be a national impact assessment examining whether the dispute is or may be adversely affecting the national interest, including the consideration of free collective bargaining and the protected right to strike.

These are real guardrails, and the principle behind them is straightforward: Collective bargaining remains the primary way labour disputes should be resolved. We have heard that recognition from labour. Canada's Building Trades Unions has been clear that it wants strong guardrails around government intervention and wants the right to strike protected, but the CBTU has also recognized the value of improving the process between bargaining and government intervention.

As Sean Strickland has put it, “you've gone through some really substantive steps here to try to get parties to make a deal”. That is exactly the objective, to have more opportunity to negotiate, more opportunity to mediate and more opportunity for parties themselves to find the way forward.

That is only one part of the labour reforms in this bill. Bill C-39 would strengthen protections for the workers we are asking to help build this country. It would crack down on wage theft and worker misclassification. It would strengthen workplace health and safety, including through more inspections and a greater focus on workers' health and safety, and it would protect workers in air transportation when contracts change hands, so they can keep their union representation and collective agreement.

These things matter. A worker should get the wages they earned. They should be safe when they go to work and safe when they come home. When something does go wrong, they should have a labour system capable of responding quickly and fairly.

I want to recognize what the Building Trades of Alberta has said about this bill. There are 19 unions in Alberta. I visited them only last week. These are ironworkers, carpenters, machinists and bricklayers. They have said that they welcome the Canadian government's Bill C-39, which will expedite project approvals and help our job-ready workforce build Canada strong.

I want to finish where I started. We are living in a more uncertain world, but we can control what we build here at home. We can build the projects this country needs. We can move Canadian goods to markets. We can attract investment, create good jobs and make sure Canadian workers share in the prosperity that they create, and we can do it with a labour relations system that protects workers, respects collective bargaining and gives employers and unions the tools to solve problems together, because this moment demands more than resilience from Canada; it demands ambition.

Canadians want to build. We want to invest in ourselves. We want to compete, and we want to give ourselves more of what no country, no trade dispute and no decision made beyond our borders can take away, which is the capacity to build for ourselves, the confidence to bet on ourselves and the ability to determine our own economic future.

That is what this bill would help Canada to do, and it is why I call on all members of the House to support the legislation. Let us get to work, and let us build Canada.

[Jeff Kibble, Conservative, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, three things caught my eyes. They have been saying “must meet the moment” for 18 months. That hardly meets the definition of “moment”. When speaking of the bill, they said, “where Canadian projects actually get built”. To me, that sounds like they are clearly admitting that the first bill has completely failed. Now the government has added the word “strong”. They talked about strengthening our corridors. Again, that is from 18 months ago, including during their campaign.

My question for the member opposite is this: Why in her own speech is she admitting to and highlighting their past failures, bringing those forward now under a new bill that has added the word “strong”? Does the member opposite expect that Canadians will believe them for this new bill?

[Leslie Church, Liberal, Toronto—St. Paul's, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this bill is the product of two rounds of public consultations with employers and unions. As well, it follows nearly half a year's worth of conversation and consultation with the tripartite council that we established in order to do the hard work and the heavy lifting to build this bill.

I take issue with the members' framing of this. The government is actually hard at work pushing projects to approval, including the port of Montreal, the Matawinie mine and BHP's potash project. There is the OPG Pickering refurbishment that the Minister of Natural Resources announced earlier this week.

These are all examples of projects that are moving forward, but we have to do more, and this bill would get us to one project, one decision, one year.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. parliamentary secretary for her speech. She spoke about the right to strike. Would she agree that the main problem is that the Canada Labour Code is outdated, especially since it allows the use of scabs during labour disputes? Quebec did away with that about 50 years ago.

Because of that provision, labour disputes drag on. Section 107 of the Canada Labour Code and the amendments proposed by Bill C-39 send employers the message that if they let a labour dispute drag on, the government will step in and deal with the situation. When negotiations fail to result in new working conditions, issues that should have been resolved are instead pushed forward to the next round of bargaining, which undermines social cohesion.

Does my colleague believe that we should remove the option of using scabs and modernize the Canada Labour Code?

[Leslie Church, Liberal, Toronto—St. Paul's, ON]

Mr. Speaker, our unionized workers are the backbone of a strong Canadian economy. This bill takes into account the recommendations made by unions, employers and management representatives during two rounds of public consultations. It seeks to strengthen good-faith bargaining and get better results for workers, employers and Canadians.

As workplaces continue to evolve, labour laws in Canada must evolve with them to ensure that these workplaces remain fair, safe and productive.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs and Associate Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, back in January 2023, I had the honour of being invited to an event where the special guest was the executive chairman of Maple Leaf Foods, Michael McCain, a very well-known businessman and philanthropist. It was a meeting of Liberal members of Parliament who were interested in business and economic growth. At one point in the meeting, Mr. McCain was asked, “If you had one piece of advice for the Government of Canada, what would it be?” I forget a lot of what happened in the meeting, but I remember his answer to that question. It was that every single federal government department, every single Crown corporation and everything that is affiliated with the Government of Canada should have in their mission statement the word “competitiveness”.

I invite the parliamentary secretary to reflect on that and how it aligns with what we are doing in Bill C-39.