“I do not want this bill to pass. It is another huge bill that breaks the government's promise to stop bundling unrelated laws together. We already gave the government special powers over a year ago to speed up big projects, and nothing got built. The problem is too many government rules and too much spending. The government should cut its regulations and let private businesses invest and build.”

“Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise on Bill C-39, another cynical Liberal bill. Do members remember years back when the Liberal government campaigned to end all government practice of using omnibus bills to reduce scrutiny of legislative measures? This was part of their campaign for a “real change” plan for restoring democracy. What do we have here? We have another massive omnibus bill, one of many introduced by a Liberal government that promised to do away with omnibus bills. It is the same Liberal government that promised to increase transparency, and it has done the opposite. It is the same Liberal government that said there would be more accountability for its legislation, yet we have the opposite. We have the same Liberal government creating side departments to circumvent Parliament and accountability, such as the Defence Investment Agency, which is called the DIA. It is actually more like the DOA because it is still being debated. It was created as part of the budget implementation act, but before it has even been officially created, the Liberals are already killing it off and trying to turn it into a Crown corporation, which would allow even less scrutiny and accountability. However, I digress. As I mentioned, here we go again with another omnibus bill from the Liberals. I am sure when they were putting this bill together, the Liberal PMO and other advisers were chortling about what a great wedge bill this is, because while it has legislation in it to increase economic growth, at the same time, there is a bit of a poison pill around labour so that if the Conservatives oppose the bill, they can say the Conservatives are opposing growth. If we support the bill, they will turn around and say the Conservatives are stabbing labour in the back. It is the same thing they are doing to my NDP colleagues. If the NDP does not support it, we know full well it is going to be a Liberal talking point to say the NDP is antidevelopment. If the NDP does support it, we know full well they will be saying the NDP supported all of their back-to-work legislation. It is a cynical wedge bill that could only be put forward by the government. It is unfortunate, but here we have it. Why, I have to ask, another piece of legislation? Over a year ago in this House, the Conservatives supported the Liberals in passing Bill C-5 and gave unprecedented powers to the government to push through projects at speeds we have never seen before, of course. What happened? Nothing. Nothing has been done or approved, except that the Major Projects Office and the DIA were created, but they have not moved at the speed of anything. The finance minister, when Bill C-5 was introduced, stated it was aimed at “accelerating transformative projects of national interest”. Where have we heard that? We have heard a lot lately about needing Bill C-39 to push through items of national interest. The Minister of Energy and Natural Resources said that Bill C-5 would remove barriers, leverage resources and help Canada become an energy superpower. That was for Bill C-5, so why is it repeated for Bill C-39? In this House, we gave the Liberals unprecedented powers to get projects built, to build the economy, to perhaps get a pipeline built, to develop the energy industry and to develop the mining industry, and nothing was done. They brought in the Major Projects Office to sidestep their own regulations. The question I have is, why does the government not just fix its broken regulatory regime? Why do we have all these bills and regulations on the books? Why do the Liberals have to create legislation such as Bill C-5 to get around their own bad laws and regulations, Bill C-39 to do the same thing and the Major Projects Office to do the same thing? With defence procurement, there is the DIA, which they are now killing off to create a Crown corporation. Why do we need cabinet or bureaucrats deciding what is deemed worthy of special treatment? That is what this is. It is the government picking winners and losers. It is no different from what the Liberals did a couple of years ago with piling taxpayers’ money into EV battery projects around the country for billions and billions of dollars. We saw it with Brampton. The Liberals gave Stellantis hundreds of millions of dollars. When we tried to investigate the money given to it, the deputy minister said that it was Stellantis that was refusing to release the documents about what happened with the money for Brampton. Stellantis came forward and said that this was not true, gave the documents and said the deputy minister was lying. Again, it goes back to the question of why the government is picking winners and losers. Why not clear up the regulatory regime, the 300,000 some-odd regulations that are on the books, so that private capital can decide what is a winner and what is a loser? How is it that we have a pipeline to the Lower Mainland, for which taxpayers are going to pay the bill of probably $50 billion, and $10 billion, give or take, to dredge up Roberts Bank, with more public money probably going into bailing out carbon capture? How is that in the public interest, with all the public money going into it, when we could just change our rules and allow the private sector to get that work done, as with northern gateway, originally proposed to a deepwater port, which did not need taxpayers’ money to dredge out? We did not need taxpayers’ money to build the pipeline. I support pipelines. We certainly need them. We saw today the gap between West Texas Intermediate and WCS, which is $25 a barrel because of the constrictions of exports caused by the government killing off northern gateway and killing off energy east. How is it in the public interest to spend billions and billions to do the pipeline when private capital could be doing it? Why not create a regulatory environment that is welcoming to capital and investment? The International Energy Agency calls the current energy crisis “the largest supply disruption in history”. Canada has the fourth-largest oil reserves. We are the only one in the top four that is a democracy, the only one that follows the rule of law. We would think people would be begging to develop our oil and gas and begging to get pipelines built to get oil. Instead, because of the Liberals and the regulatory regime, we have to have public money doing it. Why is the government doing this instead of just getting out of the way? According to a recent study, Canada has fallen from ninth to 18th on economic freedom. The factors in deciding this ranking include sound money, size of government and regulations. Under “Size of Government”, a thing that reads into our drop from ninth to 18th on freedom, is “Government consumption without interest payments”, which is very high under the government. “Government consumption with interest payments” is, again, very high. As for “Top marginal income tax rate and the threshold at which it applies”, the first thing the government did upon getting elected in 2015 was jack up the top marginal tax rate, followed by Premier Eby, it seems, right now. On “State ownership of assets”, having too much state ownership of assets causes us to drop lower in the ranking. What are we seeing? The government is going to be owning Pacific link on top of TransCanada because the Liberals have created a regulatory environment where no one is investing in Canada. Under “Sound Money” is “Money growth”. We saw the government printing hundreds of billions of dollars, with inflation. Under “Regulation” is “Regulatory burden”, which adds to our low ranking. There is “Bureaucracy costs” and “Impartial public administration”. It goes on and on. The government needs to get out of the way of private capital. It needs to get out of the way of business. It needs to reduce the regulatory burden. It needs to stop coming forward with all this legislation that is supposed to do so much but does nothing. The government just needs to get out of the way.”

• Echo ×8

  A repeated line

  “Canada has the fourth-largest oil reserves in the world.”

  Said 8 times by 7 members since October 5.

  Every time it was said →

“This bill promises a one-year approval timeline, but that is fake. The one-year clock only starts after the process is already underway, and the minister can still extend it. Some government members are also fighting against the very oil and gas projects this bill is supposed to help.”

“Mr. Speaker, I quite enjoy working with my hon. colleague on the operations committee. I think we have a mutual respect for each other. The legislation clearly proposes a one-year approval period, but it would not be one year as, perhaps, the government is pretending or creating propaganda about. It would be one year after the approval process gets through, and the minister could still step in and extend that one-year period. It is kind of a fake one year that the government is pushing out. Before the member spoke, we were debating with the member for West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, who was pushing for an oil and gas cap and could not even answer the question of whether he supported the very pipeline the government wants to build at taxpayers’ expense. This is the issue. There is the paperwork, but members of his own government are opposing the oil and gas that Bill C-39 is supposed to be helping.”

“Can my colleague explain why following the proper rules and process matters? Canadians need to understand what their government is doing so they can trust it.”

“Mr. Speaker, in the previous question, the member opposite lamented the fact that process holds up these bills. I wonder if my colleague, whose speech was excellent, could speak about the importance of process in making sure Canadians are able to comprehend what their government is doing so that they can have confidence that it is working for them.”

“I do not trust this bill. It gives too much power to the minister and unelected officials instead of Parliament. The minister alone would get to decide whether to end worker strikes, with no accountability to this House.”

“Mr. Speaker, I do not have a lot of faith in this process the government is creating. There would be too much power in the hands of the minister and too much power with the bureaucrats. Part of the bill, and I wish I had more time to get to it, is changes to the Labour Code, wherein an adjudicator appointed by the government would decide or help to decide whether to end a labour issue, not the House, as has been done traditionally. We would perhaps have a conflicted facilitator advising the government, and the minister alone deciding whether to order a stoppage. There would be no accountability to the House or to Canadians.”

“The solution is simple. We need to cancel the laws that block new pipelines and ban Alberta oil off the northern British Columbia coast. Those two laws have driven away more investment in Canada than anything else the government has done.”

“Mr. Speaker, there is a very simple solution: get rid of Bill C-69, the “no new pipelines” bill, and get rid of Bill C-48, which bans Alberta oil off the northern B.C. coast. These two pieces of government legislation are responsible for the killing of more investment in this country than anything else Trudeau or anyone else in the government could have thought of.”

• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 100 of 100

  Of this reply, 100% addressed the question or point raised.

  See full analysis →

“This bill does what my party wanted to do in 2015, before the Prime Minister tried to undo our work. Why did the government wait 11 years to do it?”

“Mr. Speaker, I listened closely to my colleague’s speech. I found it very interesting. It seems to be a continuation of what we wanted to do in 2015 after the election when Mr. Trudeau took office and tried to undo all the work we had done. Why wait 11 years to get this done?”

“This bill speeds up environmental reviews and project approvals. For the past 10 years, some Liberals used these reviews to delay projects. I want to know if all Liberals truly agree on speeding them up now.”

“Mr. Speaker, as we know, Bill C‑39 means that environmental assessments will be conducted much more quickly. Approvals should be made much faster. We also know that, over the past 10 years, there have been a number of people in the Liberal caucus who really liked environmental studies because they delayed certain projects. Is the caucus now unanimous, including the people who really wanted to delay projects?”

“This bill adopts Conservative ideas to cut red tape and approve projects within a year. Business investment per worker in Canada has dropped 16% in the last decade, while it grew 26% in the United States. Conservatives will only support this bill if it actually gets projects built faster. We will judge it by results, not promises.”

“Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to speak to Bill C‑39, which addresses an issue that is fundamental to the future of our country, namely Canada’s ability to build the infrastructure we need, develop our resources, attract investment and make decisions within a time frame that corresponds to the economic reality we are living in. I believe it is necessary to take action to ensure prosperity and to support all initiatives that are good for Canada and that strengthen our resilience. It is hard to be against virtue. It is crucial to make Canada stronger at a time when it may never have been so weak. That is the task we set for ourselves during the mandate of Conservative prime minister Stephen Harper. Our mission was to build a strong Canada, proud and free. We were able to do that. I truly believe that Canada would have reached new heights if we had been able to stay in the driver’s seat. Unfortunately, things turned out differently, and the Liberal era has been one of decline in almost every aspect of society. However, in Bill C‑39, the Liberals finally acknowledge that they have gone too far with regulation and red tape and that it has hurt investment. Where Bill C‑39 is commendable is in its adoption of Conservative positions that we have been hammering home for 10 years in the House of Commons. We need to simplify overly complex federal processes, reduce excessively long approval times and eliminate regulatory overlaps between the different levels of government. Among other things, the bill proposes to better coordinate the process and target federal decisions within one year of a complete application. That is exactly what our Conservative leader has been hammering home in every forum available to him over the past few years. Let us be honest: For too long in Canada, we have talked about building so much more than we have actually built. I will say it simply: If the government is serious, we will consider the legislation that will truly speed up construction in Canada. When a measure can get a project built faster, get a worker a job faster or allow a company to invest in Canada instead of investing elsewhere, we have a duty to take a serious look at it. However, there is one condition: It has to work. That is where we are going to be very vigilant. Canadians have heard a lot of promises in recent years. They heard governments announce new ways of doing things, but it was often just new red tape, new bureaucracy. Since the new Prime Minister took office, the government has increasingly embraced Conservative themes. It speaks in terms of productivity, competitiveness, major projects, economic security and resource development. It now recognizes that Canada needs to build and cannot afford to stand still in a world where our partners and competitors are engaged in an investment race. Again, I will give the government the benefit of the doubt when it puts forward measures that can actually make a difference. However, it is important to understand one thing: Changing one’s language is not the same as changing reality. Let us look at the energy sector. Canada sits on extraordinary energy resources. We have oil, natural gas, hydroelectricity, uranium and energy expertise that is recognized worldwide. We also have critical minerals that our international partners rely on to keep their economies going. However, at times we have appeared unable to reach consensus on a basic principle: that Canada’s natural resources should be developed responsibly to generate prosperity, create jobs and strengthen economic security for all Canadians. What we cannot do is have all these resources, the workers, the entrepreneurs, the capital and the potential markets, yet be unable to make a decision when a project is put forward. When that happens, investment goes elsewhere, and once investment goes elsewhere, it does not always come back. Meanwhile, the United States is investing heavily in its infrastructure and industrial capacity, European countries are seeking to strengthen their energy security, and Asian economies are seeking to secure their supply chains. Governments around the world understand that the ability to produce, transport and export goods has become a matter of economic security. While Canada has all the resources it needs to play a major role on the international stage, and even possesses numerous competitive advantages over the United States, it is lagging behind. According to the Montreal Economic Institute, business investment per worker has fallen from $20,900 in 2014 to $17,600 in 2024. That is a 16% drop over 10 years. Over the same period, the United States increased its investment per worker by 26%. The question, then, is whether we will finally seize the opportunity to set ourselves apart. This is where I want to come back to what should be the guiding principle of our approach to Bill C-39. The Liberals’ intentions are not what matter here; results are. The government can tell us it wants to reduce delays. We will look at the delays. It can tell us it wants to attract investment. We will look at investments. It can tell us it wants to develop natural resources. We will look at the projects that are actually being built. It can tell us it wants to diversify Canada’s markets. We will look at new infrastructure and new exports. At some point, we have to move from talk to action, from words to deeds. I think that is precisely what Canadians expect from their representatives. We are going to ask tough questions, demand assurances, demand accountability, demand timelines, and demand results because the Liberals have gotten us used to plenty of announcements, but results that are slow in coming. If the Liberal government truly wants to turn the page on this way of doing things, then today is its chance to prove it. I believe that is the real challenge of Bill C-39. This bill could mark a change in direction, and we must ensure that this new direction leads to a Canada that builds more, produces more, exports more, and provides more opportunities for its workers and businesses. If next year we are still here talking about the same delays, the same obstacles, and the same projects that are still awaiting approval, we will have to be honest and admit that the change will have been nothing more than a change in rhetoric, and that will be a failure. We have the natural resources, the workers, the entrepreneurs, the expertise, and the business partnerships around the world. What we need to regain is the confidence to invest, the predictability to plan, and the political courage to make decisions and that is what we will be looking for in Bill C-39. Will it truly help speed up projects? Will it truly reduce duplication? Will it truly give investors clarity on what to expect? If the answer is yes, then the government may earn our trust to support it. If the answer is no, then we will have to ask the government to go much further, because Canada cannot afford to wait. We will not judge this government by its intentions. We will judge it by what it builds. We will judge it by the investments it succeeds in attracting. We will judge it by the jobs it helps create. We will judge it by the infrastructure that is being built, because Canada has everything it needs to succeed. If the government truly wants to turn the page on the legacy of the Trudeau era, if it truly wants to demonstrate that Canada is back in the business of major investments, it should not do so merely through speeches, press releases, or bills, but on the ground, in our regions, our ports, our railways, our industries and our businesses. That is where the success of Bill C-39 will be measured.”

• Echo ×4

  A repeated line

  “Canada has everything it needs to succeed.”

  Said 4 times by 4 members since June 2.

  Every time it was said →

“This bill shortens the time for environmental reviews down to one year, instead of the eight years it used to take. I have said for a long time that these reviews should take one to two years so projects can move forward. We will study the bill in committee.”

“Mr. Speaker, everything I have seen in Bill C-39 aims to significantly shorten the timelines for the environmental assessment and approval process. We are talking about time frames that could be as short as one year. At one point in time, it took eight years. The government is now proposing a time frame of one year. As early as 2007, I said on LCN that the goal should be to complete the process within one to two years. Ultimately, projects must be allowed to proceed. We will review this issue at committee and see what we can do about it.”

“The Liberals hurt investor confidence by pushing for long environmental reviews. Before 2015, businesses around the world wanted to invest here. Now the government has to start over and try to win back that investment.”

“Mr. Speaker, it is music to my ears to hear my colleague, who has been a member of this House for the past 10 years all the while advocating for lengthy environmental studies and processes. The previous government, under Trudeau, undermined investor confidence. This government is now playing catch-up, trying to attract foreign investment so that investors come to Canada. The Liberals should have been doing that work sooner. They should have continued what we were doing prior to 2015. Investors from all over the world wanted to invest in Canada. They shattered investor confidence and now we have to start all over again. At least, hearing that sort of talk is music to my ears.”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 47 of 100

  None of this reply addressed the specific point raised or the topic under debate.

  See full analysis →
• Little substance
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Signal 37 of 100

  Much of this statement went to praise, blame, greetings, routine procedure or general stories rather than reasons, requests or specific points.

  See full analysis →

“I agree that we need to be careful with this bill and see how it works in practice. What are people in your riding saying about it?”

“Mr. Speaker, my colleague gave an excellent speech. I share his cautious approach. We need to see how this bill will be applied in practice. I would like to ask him what he is hearing from his constituents about Bill C‑39.”

“People want the government to approve projects faster with less paperwork. Business owners want to create good jobs and help the country grow, but too many rules get in the way. I support a bill that helps us move faster.”

“Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent question. It is very relevant. People want approvals to be done faster. They want less paperwork and less bureaucracy. Our entrepreneurs want a better Canada, a richer Canada and they want to ensure their employees have good jobs. They want prosperity for everyone. However, when we hit a wall in terms of government paperwork at the federal and other levels, it makes no sense. A bill that would allow us to move faster and restore Canada’s great entrepreneurial pride would be wonderful.”

• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 100 of 100

  Of this reply, 100% addressed the question or point raised.

  See full analysis →

“We want to study all 240 pages of this bill line by line to make sure it will help Canada's economy. I look forward to taking part in that study.”

“Mr. Speaker, as I said in my speech, we really want the 240 pages of this bill to be studied properly, line by line, to ensure that Canada’s future will be more prosperous. I look forward to taking part in that.”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 48 of 100

  None of this reply addressed the specific point raised or the topic under debate.

  See full analysis →

“I want the member to tell us what progress has been made on removing trade barriers between provinces.”

“Mr. Speaker, my colleague referred to the ability to have ingredients from multiple provinces for breakfast, lunch and dinner and talked about building Canada strong. I am wondering if she could update us on the progress of eliminating interprovincial trade barriers.”

“The justice minister is required to explain how government bills affect our charter rights. This bill affects workers' rights and freedom of association. I want the minister to table that charter report before we set up a committee to study the bill.”

“Madam Speaker, I really appreciate the member for Vancouver East for her presentation today, being from British Columbia. She is always a thoughtful member. The Minister of Justice and the justice department have a mandatory requirement to table a charter statement on every piece of government legislation. We have seen it with other major bills, and obviously this touches on freedom of association and workers’ rights. Does the member believe that, before the special legislative committee is formed for Bill C-39, the Minister of Justice must ensure that there is tabled in the House a charter statement so we can see what the justice department believes in terms of the balance of Bill C-39, particularly when it comes to section 107?”

“I do not want this bill to pass. It gives the government too much power to stop legal strikes and take away workers' rights to bargain. It also rushes environmental reviews, which could harm nature.”

“Madam Speaker, it is with great honour that I rise in the House today to speak on behalf of the hard-working people of Elmwood—Transcona. Before I was elected as a member of Parliament, I was a construction electrician for 20 years. I hung up my tools a few days before the election, but I have not left that world behind. To this day, I am proud to serve as the sitting vice-president of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 2085 in Manitoba. As I speak in the House today, I bring the perspective of someone who has spent my life putting on my boots and picking up my tools every day to earn a living and support my family. Bill C-39, the building Canada strong act, is a large, omnibus-style bill. The Liberal government says the goal is to speed up projects in major infrastructure, natural resources and transportation, but buried inside this large bill are proposed major changes to the Canada Labour Code. The Liberal government has brought together many policy updates and put them all into one bill that would affect the relationship among workers, employers and the federal government. Canada needs to build. We need more infrastructure, more investments and more well-paying jobs, but how we treat the people who are actually behind building this country matters a lot and should be a priority. Bill C-39 would make many changes to the federal labour law. The Liberal government says these changes are meant to modernize the Canada Labour Code, strengthen collective bargaining and help employers and employees find solutions to disagreements before they become major labour conflicts. The changes that are part of the bill include proposing a new position for a special mediator who would step in during hard negotiations and report directly to the minister, which would create more opportunities for the government to become involved earlier in difficult bargaining relationships instead of letting employees and employers work out their disagreements together. This would open up another opportunity for the government to become involved in the bargaining process. The bill would add more access to federal involvement when workers and employers are trying to negotiate their first agreement. There would also be changes dealing with multi-employer bargaining and expedited grievances. This would add more processes and responsibility to the Canada Industrial Relations Board. The bill also proposes a modification to paid medical leave, adding 100 health and safety officers and increasing the CIRB capacity by adding 26 staff members. These would be significant changes. However, proposed alterations in the bill to section 107 of the Canada Labour Code, and what effect these would have on employee and employer relationships, deserve special attention. Section 107 is not new. It has been part of the Canada Labour Code for decades, since 1984. Right now, section 107 gives the minister very broad authority in decision-making. It lets the minister, when they consider it necessary, take steps to maintain or secure industrial peace and promote conditions to help solve disagreements. The minister can also direct the CIRB to take the measures the minister considers necessary. The new proposed changes continue to make vague statements about the situations and power the minister holds. With the proposed implementation of Bill C-39, these are the steps that would have to take place when a disagreement happens between employees and employers. A special mediator would have to be appointed and complete their work within 21 days. The mediator would write a report to the minister. The minister would then have to give an opinion on whether a strike or a work stoppage would be a significant worry to the national interest. The minister could then direct the CIRB to order workers back to work, extend an existing collective agreement or establish a binding dispute resolution. However, the minister would still be the one deciding what the national interest is. The minister should not be given any more power to intervene in a lawful dispute. This is because the power would affect and change collective bargaining directly. The right to strike is one of the main forms of leverage that workers have during negotiations and it is a constitutional right. If this is taken away, the balance of bargaining changes. The “What We Heard—Building Canada Strong for All” report explains that collective bargaining works in most cases, saying that 95% of the time, “collective agreements are reached without a work stoppage.” The Conservative Party supports workers’ rights to organize democratically by bargaining collectively and peacefully withdrawing their services if necessary. Section 107, with and without the changes proposed by Bill C-39, allows the government to step in and stop lawful strikes. This directly affects workers’ right to strike and to negotiate a fair agreement. The Liberal government claims that section 107 would only be used in exceptional circumstances. While section 107 of the Canada Labour Code has been implemented for over 40 years, it was not normally used as a mechanism for ending lawful strikes. Since 2024, the Liberal government has used section 107 routinely to end major strikes and impose arbitration. The Liberals have involved themselves with WestJet, the Canadian National Railway, CPKC, the Teamsters Canada Rail Conference, west coast ports, the Port of Montreal, the Port of Quebec, Canada Post, the Canadian Union of Postal Workers and most recently Air Canada. Many of these interventions were challenged by unions in court. The Canadian Labour Congress and other organizations have argued that the recent use of section 107 undermines the workers’ right to strike and weakens collective bargaining in good faith. Many unions and organizations have spoken about the restrictions on the right to strike and wanting these restrictions removed. The Canadian Union of Public Employees recently made a claim against the Liberal government’s Bill C-39, highlighting that the right to strike is protected under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The bill would attack Canadian workers’ ability to negotiate by taking away the right to fair collective bargaining. Section 107 causes issues in the bargaining and negotiation process. Without a proper collective bargaining process, employers do not take bargaining seriously because they know the government will step in during a work stoppage. Government intervention can remove the leverage workers have at the bargaining table and encourage employers to wait for the government to intervene instead of reaching an agreement fairly. These are serious consequences that are possible with implementing this bill. Continuing to make significant Labour Code changes in a large bill without properly considering the negative impacts would have a negative effect on Canadian workers and their rights. The government should create conditions for workers to negotiate, not become the negotiator. Bill C-39 is not just about labour. It would also make substantial changes to Canada’s project approval and environmental framework. Bill C-39 would change how environmental decisions are made under federal law. The bill proposes one single federal project decision where there are currently separate federal decisions. It would create a one-year federal review timeline. It would give certain agencies, like the Canada Energy Regulator and the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, a larger role in leading reviews for projects in their field. It would also give the environment minister new authority to allow prep work to begin before a final decision if the minister considers it in the public interest and follows certain conditions. The Liberal government does not have the best track record of picking winners and losers. Additionally, there would be changes to the Species at Risk Act, the Fisheries Act and the Canadian Navigable Waters Act. The Liberal government argues that environmental assessment requirements would remain in place and would respect indigenous rights. However, environmental organizations have raised concerns. World Wildlife Fund Canada, Canada’s largest international conservation organization, explains that faster approvals must still be able to provide safeguards for species and ecosystems, and that the proposed changes could weaken environmental protections. Bill C-39 contains many objectives that Canadians understand. We do need a labour relations system that lets employers and employees reach sustainable agreements. The government should create a system that encourages bargaining instead of encouraging the parties to depend on the government when negotiations become difficult. The government should propose a national interest test that is objective and should listen to workers and employers who are actually living under these rules. Collective bargaining is not the enemy of economic growth. It is part of a working labour market. Workers have a right to bargain and employers have a right to negotiate. The government’s role should be to establish fair rules. I leave members with this question: Is an omnibus bill really the right tool we want to use to make so many significant changes without proper consideration and consultation?”

• Echo ×3

  A repeated line

  “The Canada Energy Regulator or the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission.”

  Said 3 times by 2 members since October 6.

  Every time it was said →

“The government uses a special power too often to force people back to work. Past governments did not use it for 40 years, but this government has used it seven or eight times in two years. One person should not make this choice alone. Parliament should decide instead.”

“Madam Speaker, I do not think it is more of a threat. It is about the Liberals’ use of section 107, which has been in place for 40 years. It was not used by previous governments, but over the last two years, it has been used seven or eight times. The issue is not about being more accountable. The issue is that one person gets to decide, and it is not an act of Parliament that would put workers back to work. I think most Canadians respect that process, but that process has not been used by the government in the last several years.”

• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 100 of 100

  Of this reply, 100% addressed the question or point raised.

  See full analysis →

“I oppose this bill. It gives one minister too much power to approve big projects on their own. These are major changes, and the government should not rush them through in one giant bill.”

“Madam Speaker, I think the biggest issue we are discussing is the fact that the major changes in approving national interest projects are all going to be made at the hands of a minister and at one person’s discretion. I think having all of these major changes coming forward in an omnibus bill is not the right approach to making such critical changes to our country’s legislation.”

“This bill gives the government the power to decide what is in the national interest without defining it. The Minister of Justice is also required by law to show how this bill affects Charter rights, but has not done so. I want that report released before a committee starts studying the bill.”

“Madam Speaker, I certainly appreciate the member’s intervention here today. He has brought a perspective that is rather refreshing. The other member from Winnipeg, on the Liberal side, was talking about section 107. In particular, he was asking what Conservatives might take issue with, saying there are lots of limiting factors. In that provision, essentially, the government gets to decide what is in the national interest without actually defining what it is. The issue I wanted to bring up is under section 4.2 of the Department of Justice Act. The Minister of Justice is legally required to table a charter statement for every single government bill. I have looked on the website, and it is not there. Does the member believe the government should table it before the special legislative committee begins its work on Bill C-39 so that all Canadians can see what the justice department thinks of the changes proposed in Bill C-39 when it comes to labour?”

“The member talked about how broad this bill is and how it gives too much power to cabinet. I want to know what he thinks about the government rushing this bill through the House.”

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