“This bill sets a one-year deadline to review some big projects, but not transportation projects. It also creates loopholes that could delay reviews over and over. I want the member to explain why transportation projects do not get the same one-year deadline as other projects.”

“Madam Speaker, I know that the Liberals like to say that they are against two-tier anything, but Bill C-39 would create a statutory authority for the regulator, or in this case the responsible authority, that would give the one year, one review. There would be exemptions. Obviously, there is proposed section 19(4), which would force a completeness sign-off that could be like Groundhog Day for someone. In addition to the loopholes in the bill, there would be no statutory deadline for transportation projects. I would like to ask the member why transportation projects would have no statutory one year, one review equivalent like the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, the Impact Assessment Agency or the Canadian Energy Regulator have. Why would there be a two-tier approach to big projects?”

“This bill only helps rail shippers get competition for four years. It should be permanent. The bill also creates an office with no real power that the minister might not even open. I want the member to explain how these temporary and weak fixes give our transportation system any real certainty.”

“Madam Speaker, in regard to the interswitching provisions of part 2 of Bill C-39, the whole idea is to give certainty and predictability, yet farmers and shippers, particularly in the natural resource sector, who would depend on that competition created by the interswitching measures, would have it for only 48 months. Does the member believe this should be made permanent? This has been tried under the Harper government. It has been tried under the Trudeau government. Why would we not be putting that and making it a permanent program? Second to that, many Liberals have talked about the transportation project office as if it were something that would add to this, but like the Major Projects Office, it would not have any authority. In fact, the minister of transport would be given the discretion to open said office. Does the member think that putting forward offices that may or may not happen and putting forward provisions that are simply temporary and, again, subject to good U.S. relations, would be creating certainty and predictability in the transportation sector?”

“I do not want this bill to pass. It helps the government sell off our major airports to private companies. It lets the minister stop airport strikes, which takes away power from the workers and makes it easier for investors to take over. Selling our airports will hurt safety, raise costs for travellers, and put profits ahead of the public good.”

“Madam Speaker, as we discuss Bill C-39 in advance of its likely going to committee, I want to raise some concerns about how I think the bill would be used to further the current government’s airport privatization agenda. I believe that is an agenda that deserves some severe scrutiny, and it is one that I oppose wholeheartedly. Sometimes it is difficult to get people to pay attention in this job to what is going on in Ottawa, but I do hope that, with my comments today, I can encourage Canadians to pay attention to just how bad airport privatization would be for our country and why Bill C-39 is a problem because it would further that agenda. When I was doing research on this topic, I learned that when I was five years old, the federal government, in the House of Commons, had a debate about airport privatization. Obviously I was too young to pay attention at the time. I was busy watching Hulk Hogan and Ultimate Warrior on television. I learned that it was a Liberal prime minister, the Right Hon. Jean Chrétien, who put an end to the airport privatization deal for Pearson airport at that time. There was a lot of back and forth, and in the record, we can see that ultimately, when he was elected prime minister of this country, Chrétien concluded that airport privatization does not serve the public’s interest. I think he was completely correct. It is interesting to see how much things have changed since then. We are now having this debate again with another Liberal government that is coming to a completely different conclusion from what Prime Minister Chrétien came to. In fact, the current Liberal Prime Minister has actually contracted help from big banks, such as CIBC and J.P. Morgan, to sell off four major Canadian airports, in Toronto, Montreal, Calgary and Vancouver. I believe that the policy idea, the goal that the Prime Minister has set out, is bad news, not just for Canada’s national interest but also for workers and for travellers. I am going to use my time to outline why I think that is such a concern and why Bill C-39 is of particular concern for how it would facilitate the selling off of our airports. I will start with the national interest. Prime Minister Chrétien was correct to say that airport privatization does not serve the public’s interest. The federal government is fundamentally altering the way that airports function in our country. Instead of treating airports as critical national infrastructure, which they are; instead of treating airports as necessary for our economy to function, which they are; and instead of treating airports as necessary for connecting people across our country, which they are, the government’s current plan is to make airports a profit-seeking venture, a complete transformation from what airports are currently doing across this country today. The International Air Transport Association has been clear in warning of the dangers of privatization, because of how it shifts the way that airports function. It has outlined in its studies of privatization across the world that it produces bad outcomes for a country’s ability to preserve airports as critical national infrastructure. I would like to quote from some of its research. It states, “The primary focus of airports should be to support local and national prosperity as an economic catalyst.” However, the IATA goes on to say, “in private hands, shareholder returns take top priority.” That is the danger of the current Liberal Prime Minister’s airport privatization agenda. By putting shareholder interests at the centre of how our airports operate, it is fundamentally changing the nature of how these very important economic, cultural and political institutions behave. The IATA goes on to say, “When [airports] are privatised, the public entities...wash their hands about this infrastructure”. That means that the record in studies done around the world is that once privatization occurs, governments tend to stop caring about making investments themselves and preserving the integrity of the infrastructure. They stop taking responsibility for making sure that maintenance is good or that the public interest is being served. In the context of what is happening in Canada right now, multiple organizations have warned of what the government’s agenda is going to do to airports in this country. The Air Line Pilots Association of Canada has echoed warnings of the dangers of airport privatization, warning that the federal government’s privatization agenda opens up the country’s largest airports to foreign private investment that poses significant risks not only to the independence of the country but also to the operation of the facilities, including safety risks. The reason the Air Line Pilots Association raised that point is that it shares what Prime Minister Chrétien said, which is that airports have a duty to serve the good, and they will no longer do that if shareholder interests take primacy. The association also said, “Canada’s airports are important national assets, and the government must ensure they continue to prioritize the public interest, safety, and the needs of Canadians—not the interests of private investors and shareholders.” The reason that all of this is very important to keep in mind when we take a look at Bill C-39 is that it is a violation of the direction that the government set last year. In passing the Building Canada Act, the government set out a definition of what constitutes national interest for infrastructure projects. That definition included a very important line from the government’s legislation, which said that it strengthens Canada’s autonomy, resilience and sovereignty. It is very clear that airports are essential to that. With that context in mind, it makes absolutely zero sense to sell off our airports in this country, because that does not serve the national interest, even taking the government’s own definition of that concept at face value. Where does Bill C-39 come in to facilitate this? To advance the airport privatization agenda, the Liberal Prime Minister is exploiting the concept of national interest to change labour laws in our country. Through this legislation, the Prime Minister seeks to make it easier for airport privatization to move forward. Bill C-39 would hurt the collective bargaining power of airport workers, and the federal government would use this bill to ensure that private interests face lower labour resistance as they seek higher profit margins in their takeover of this industry. The reality is this. We are in a scenario where the Liberals have a majority government. There is only so much that the opposition parties that occupy seats in this House are able to do, but one of the important lines of defence in ensuring that our airports do not become something we are not proud of is ensuring that unions are able to actively negotiate and fight for their own interests. This legislation would completely put them at a disadvantage. This legislation would, in fact, give the government the ability to railroad unions in its effort to hand over our airports to private interests. That should be of concern to all Canadians. Unifor, which represents 17,000 unionized airport workers, has taken issue with some of the changes to labour law in this legislation. Specifically, Unifor has pointed to section 107, which would give the federal government, in particular the minister of labour, new powers to end labour disputes and force binding arbitration. Under section 107, the minister could direct the CIRB to end a strike or lockout, which would put unions at a disadvantaged position for negotiating and would limit their ability to hold private interests accountable. The Air Line Pilots Association of Canada has also pointed out how its members would be affected by this type of privatization, citing potentially negative outcomes for “runway maintenance, de-icing capacity, staffing” and other safety measures. From a national interest standpoint and a worker standpoint, Bill C-39 would facilitate an agenda that threatens to bring harm and risk to our country. Lastly, with the remainder of my time, I want to talk about travellers, the people who are worried about how expensive it is to fly anywhere in Canada right now. Members know how hard it is to travel across this country, especially with the affordability crisis the way it is. The International Air Transport Association, academics across the country and the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission have all found constantly, over and over again in their studies, that privatization only makes air travel more expensive, not less expensive. In fact, in Australia, they have found that since privatization occurred there, travellers and airlines have paid $1.6 billion more to travel around their country than they would have if privatization had not occurred. For the good of our country and the good of people who are trying to see their families, we should oppose this agenda.”

• Personal attack
  ?

  Speech on a bill

  Respect 97 of 100

  This statement targeted a person rather than their actions or views: “the Liberal Prime Minister is exploiting the concept of national interest”.

  See full analysis →

“I only speak for the people in my riding, not anyone else. I want the government to answer my concerns about their plans for airports. Instead, they try to scare people about the United States to distract from unpopular policies.”

“Madam Speaker, it is shameful for the member opposite to suggest that I speak for anyone but my constituents. I have fought very hard for a better relationship between us and the United States at a time when I believe the governing party is exploiting bad relationships between the two countries for its own political benefit. The conversation we are having today is a perfect example. I just spoke for 10 minutes about the Liberals’ airport privatization agenda, and instead of responding to any of the legitimate concerns Canadians are noting, they want to draw attention to the United States. This is their political strategy in a nutshell: advance policies that under no other circumstances would have public support, but hope that if they fearmonger enough, they will get their agenda done. I am not falling for it.”

• Little substance
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Signal 8 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 →

“The government is using a temporary crisis to make big, permanent changes to the country, like privatizing airports. We have barely debated this, and it will hurt future generations. We must speak out against these changes every chance we get.”

“Madam Speaker, what a fantastic question that was from my colleague. He precisely pointed out what is going on, which is that we are facing a temporary crisis and the government is using it to bring in permanent measures and changes to our country. The airport privatization issue is a perfect example. We have had very little public discussion about this and very little conversation here in the House of Commons, yet we are seeing massive changes being done to our country under the guise of responding to the current crisis. We will deal with the consequences of these decisions for generations, and that is exactly why we have to be vocal and oppose them every chance we get, even when the Liberals point a finger at us and smear our good reputations.”

• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 100 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

“The law requires the government to explain how this bill affects people's Charter rights. The government has not shared that explanation with the public or the committee studying the bill. It needs to follow the law and release it.”

“Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for talking about how the government tries to distract from core issues. The member spoke a lot about workers’ rights and the fact that in Bill C-39, the government has proposed a number of changes that seem to be running roughshod over many workers’ concerns. Under section 4.2 of the Department of Justice Act, the Minister of Justice is legally required to table a Charter of Rights and Freedoms statement for every single government bill. This means the Department of Justice should weigh in and tell Parliament and the Canadian people exactly what its legal opinion is of the measures that are in Bill C-39. We have not seen that published on the government’s website. The special committee that is organizing very soon to study this legislation has not received it. Does the member believe the government needs to start being transparent with Canadians as to what its plans are in regard to the Charter of Rights and fulfilling its responsibilities under the law to Parliament?”

“Unifor says this bill could hurt union workers' constitutional rights. I want the government to share an analysis of how this bill affects Canadians' Charter rights.”

“Madam Speaker, transparency is such a great word, and absolutely we need more transparency here. Unifor has raised concerns about how this bill would impact the constitutional rights of unionized workers. I would love to see the government produce an analysis of how this bill would affect the charter rights of Canadians.”

• 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 not actually speed up trade projects. The new transportation office it talks about does not exist yet, the minister does not have to create it, and it will have no power to issue permits or make officials work faster. The bill also sets no deadlines to finish these big projects. I want to know why the government is pretending this office will get things done.”

“Madam Speaker, the member is a member of the transportation, infrastructure and communities committee with me, so it is wonderful to see my colleague here today. She talked a lot about trade infrastructure and the need to get things done, yet the Minister of Transport and her colleagues keep talking about this transportation projects office as though it is a real thing. Bill C-39 would only give the minister discretion to start an office. I may not be opposed to a single window, as I think that might be a helpful introduction, but this particular new project office would have no formal authority, meaning that it could not grant a permit or force another part of Transport Canada to speed it up. Why is there all this rhetoric about getting trade infrastructure done when they have an office that does not exist, is discretionary by the minister and does not have any authority? While I am on this topic, why the heck is there not a deadline, as there is in section one of the bills, to force these big transportation projects to get done quickly?”

“This bill creates more government offices instead of actually building things. We need fewer rules and simpler reviews for all projects, not just the ones the government likes. I want to send this bill to a committee so we can fix it and get real results.”

“Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to address the House this evening, as always. When I was growing up, I had four siblings. Members will be shocked to know that, as my desk often is today, my room was very messy growing up. My parents would, from time to time, insist that I clean it and then conduct a thorough inspection to ensure the room had been cleaned. I mastered the technique of cleaning my room. It involved picking up all my stuff and moving it into my sister’s room across the hall. Following the inspection, I would move the items back. I say this to demonstrate to members that I know well the difference between getting something done and feverishly moving things around in order to create the impression of activity and results when nothing is actually changing. That brings me to the bill before the House today, Bill C-39. The government is very fond of describing itself as a new government, of all the same people, more or less. Nonetheless, we are starting to get a bit of a sense of the character of this new government of the same people. Frankly, they are a bit slippery. They pride themselves on their slipperiness. I will give some examples. A year ago, before the House, we had the Build Canada Act, which was supposed to be transformational. It was going to make it so much easier to build things, and it was going to be transformational. It created the Major Projects Office. It did not create major projects, but it created a Major Projects Office. It was so successful that a year later, the Liberals decided they needed a new bill. This is not the Build Canada Act; it is the building Canada strong act. The sequel is always a little worse. The bill would have even more offices. We would have the transportation projects office. We would have a national transportation council. We would have all kinds of new bodies and offices. I hate to imagine what the name of the bill will be this time next year. Maybe all those watching CPAC at home can send their suggestions in to the Prime Minister. Maybe it will be the “build Canada even stronger act” or “the build Canada the strongest yet act”. It will keep going as long as they have a chance, with the proliferation of new offices. However, the reality is that they are calling Bill C-39 the building Canada strong act. It is the building Canada strong act in more ways than one. It is the building Canada strong act instead of the building Canada strong reality, because the government is continually talking about how this is really going to be the big one that actually gets it done. The government is just going to create five or six more offices. It is going to have more councils of different bureaucrats, and that will be the game-changer for now. We can see the political utility of this. It is to constantly be putting in the window this new sense of engaging in feverish activity. The government is putting in place more instruments and more mechanisms. As I hope the anecdote I shared at the beginning established, that feverish activity is not the same as results. Generally speaking, we need fewer offices, not more offices. We need less bureaucratic intervention, not more bureaucratic intervention. We need government to get out of the way so that major projects can move forward. We do not need to add to the number of offices and bureaucrats. We need to simplify the process. We very much support the principle of one project, one review; of having efficient timelines for all projects to move forward. The approach the government takes is cherry-picking: “Okay, this is a major project we like and we are going to give it special treatment.” The approach was better than nothing in the midst of the regulatory pile-on that Canadian companies have dealt with for so long, but we favour an approach that simplifies the approval processes for all companies, large and small, for all kinds of projects, and we favour processes that are focused on results. It is time to have a government that actually focuses on the results instead of the appearance of activity, and that asks to be measured by the results that are produced. Increasingly, what we hear from Canadians is the challenging results in their lives. We are going to see job numbers later this week, but already, even before the escalation of the trade war with the United States, we had a significant increase in job losses. There was another big increase in youth unemployment last month. We continue to hear from people whose businesses are struggling as a result of overtaxation and over-regulation. Again, we need simplified processes. We need policies that actually deliver on the promises of this legislation. Canadians, in general, welcome a certain change in tone that we have seen from the Liberals. At one time in the past, the Liberals were more explicitly antidevelopment. Now they talk in ways that sound like they are more supportive of development, but what really matters are the results. Again, we see the slipperiness of the current government, putting forward big acts with big names and repeatedly doing that year after year, but we are not seeing the results. Canadians will not long be fooled by a slippery government. They will demand a reality in this country that flows from the big claims and the big rhetoric. We saw another demonstration today of the slipperiness of the government, in bizarre and tragic terms. We had a colleague from the Conservative Party put forward an excellent bill to protect Canadians by ending the possibility of MAID for those with mental health challenges. The government, on the one hand, said it agrees with the principle of ending MAID for those with mental health challenges, and then almost universally voted against the bill. The Liberals voted to kill a bill that would have done something that they said they wanted to do, but they said that if they did it, they would do it with their own legislation, which has yet to be drafted and which would be paired with another further expansion of MAID, an expansion that raises all kinds of significant concerns at a time when Canadians are increasingly alarmed by the extreme and dangerous nature of the MAID regime in Canada. The government hears those concerns and is therefore trying to pretend that it is responding to them, while at the same time voting against a bill that would actually address the issue. It is a slippery government that is saying one thing but trying to bury the reality in the midst of what it is saying. Our vision in the Conservative Party is for action that is genuinely pro-development; that unleashes the potential of this country’s economy, of its people and of its natural resources; that creates review processes that are clear and are simple. Our vision does not use these kinds of moments as excuses for the greater proliferation of bureaucracy and administration, but zeroes in on the changes that would actually produce results. There is some of the rhetoric around Bill C-39 and some of the stated objectives that we can certainly get behind, but I will believe it when I see it. We will believe it when we are no longer seeing year after year of bills with nice-sounding names that promise this is going to be the one that does it, and yet we never actually see those results. People want to see major projects and big investments built, and able to move forward in this country as used to happen in the past. They want to see jobs, opportunity and prosperity flow from that. That is what we are going to be fighting for on this side of the House as we move this bill forward, as we study it at committee and we scrutinize the provisions to try to push the government to actually deliver on the promise.”

“This bill claims to do things Conservatives have wanted for a long time. But creating more government offices and processes does not mean getting real results. I want our committee to study the bill and make changes to ensure it actually works.”

“Madam Speaker, I think the member was maybe not listening too carefully. He maybe listened to the anecdote at the beginning and then prepared his question before hearing the rest of it. I do acknowledge that the stated aspirations in this bill are, in many cases, aligned with things we have been calling for for a long time. The question will be the results. I look forward to the study that is going to happen on this bill at committee and the constructive work the Conservatives will do to put forward amendments to try to deliver on that promise. However, when I see the government emphasize that we are going to have more offices, councils and more processes, that again seems to be that push toward feverish activity instead of results.”

“We need project reviews that are simple, fair, and fast. We can listen to people and still have clear time limits. Some people make these reviews too complicated just because they do not want anything built.”

“Madam Speaker, what we need in this country is project reviews that are appropriate, accessible and timely. We should expect and look for simplicity and timeliness. I think we can achieve effective reviews that are meaningful and invite the engagement of those who need to be heard from, within clear, reasonable and defined timelines. I think sometimes there are those who just do not want to build things and who try to create these review processes that are complex enigmas that nobody can ever get through. The goal is to have a fair process that is timely and gets to results.”

“Kelowna has had Canada's highest unemployment rate for four months, and many young people cannot find jobs. The member recently met with students there. I want him to share what they told him and what would help them and our economy.”

“Madam Speaker, I certainly appreciate what the Conservative shadow minister for employment has done, not just in this speech but across Canada, where he has been speaking to young people. In our discussions, I mentioned to him that Kelowna has had the highest unemployment rate in the country for four months standing. He was recently at UBC Okanagan speaking to young Canadians who want to participate in the economy. I was wondering if he would enlighten the House a bit about what some of the students are thinking, because youth unemployment is much higher. I would like to hear what he believes would be good for not just these students, but for this great country.”

“I visited university campuses across the country to talk to students. Most of them feel worse off than their parents because they cannot afford a home or find a job. I blame the government's policies for making life harder for young people.”

“Madam Speaker, I was recently at UBC Okanagan, which is, I believe, either in my colleague’s riding or very close to it. I have been now in six provinces, at many university campuses, asking students in public areas, as they go by, the question, “Are you better or worse off than your parents’ generation?” That has been a starting point for lots of great conversations about economic issues, but also cultural issues and some of the different ways in which young people perceive their lives as having been affected and changed by various changes in our society. Overwhelmingly, the concern about being able to afford a home and being able to find a job is driving a sense that young people have that they are worse off than their parents’ generation. Starting out in life, pretty fundamental core things are whether someone can afford a home or find a job. That is much more difficult for young people today than it used to be as a result, in many cases, of the government’s policies.”

• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 100 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

“Even a Liberal MP pointed out flaws in this bill, like giving ministers too much power to skip environmental rules and rushing reviews before Indigenous groups can give input. This bill needs changes. I want to know how the minister responds to those concerns from his own party.”

“Madam Speaker, all is not well in the Emerald City. Earlier today, while speaking on the bill, the Liberal member for West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, a member from the minister’s caucus, spoke about Bill C-39’s shortcomings but stopped short of explicitly calling for amendments to the bill. We believe there should be amendments. Among the issues that he flagged are that there is too much discretion for ministers to exempt projects from environmental regulations and that the compressed timelines may prevent indigenous communities and NGOs from giving meaningful input, allowing construction to begin before an environmental assessment is complete. This is coming from a Liberal member of the caucus who has his own concerns about Bill C-39. There are multiple concerns right across the country with respect to this piece of legislation. How would the minister react to the member’s comments?”

“I want the government to separate part 3 from this bill so we can vote on it on its own. Part 3 gives a single minister too much power to stop legal strikes. Labour unions oppose this, and many airline and airport workers live in my riding. We will try to change this bill in committee to protect workers' rights.”

“Madam Speaker, before I begin talking about Bill C-39, I want to wish my mom, Doreen, a very happy 80th birthday today. Earlier this evening, she was celebrating with family in Barrie. We do not have to sing happy birthday to her, because I know she will get embarrassed by it. She is a terrific lady, and I want to tell my mom I love her. The second thing I would like to say tonight before I begin is that on this day, the third anniversary of October 7 and the massacre in Israel by Hamas, I want our Jewish community in Barrie South—Innisfil to know that I am here in Ottawa thinking about them today. To the members of the Am Shalom congregation, the Chabad Jewish Centre of Barrie and Chabad Innisfil with Rabbi Kaplan, we are all thinking about them today. I know this is a difficult day for our Jewish community. I know the thoughts of all parliamentarians are with our Jewish friends all across Canada today, not just in Barrie South—Innisfil. In the time that I have, I want to focus on a couple of areas in Bill C-39. In particular, I want to focus on part 3, and I will explain what that is. I want to talk about the bureaucracy that would be created and the apparent lack of transparency and accountability that this bill would create, given the scope of ministerial power it allows. As I said in a previous intervention, all is not well in Oz. The Emerald City is restless; there are many people who are dissenting against what Bill C-39 represents. Among those dissenters are labour organizations that have fought for generations for the types of gains they have had through the collective bargaining process. As a proud former member and president of a firefighters association, the International Association of Fire Fighters, I believe in the collective bargaining process. I believe that negotiation is the best way to get a deal, not necessarily government intervention, which we have seen a lot of over the past several years with the Liberal government. There are many labour unions that have come out and spoken against what the bill represents. Bill C-39 is an omnibus bill. By bringing it forward in the way that the Liberals have, they are effectively trying to force the opposition to support the bill in an all-or-nothing scenario. Earlier, we called for the Liberals to separate out part 3 of Bill C-39 for obvious reasons, as it is the most contentious part of the legislation, so that it could be scrutinized and voted on separately and not be part of this omnibus piece of legislation. As I said earlier, there have been several labour organizations that have spoken out against the proposed changes in part 3, particularly those involved in federally regulated industries, including those of airline employees, airport workers, rail workers and dock workers. Many of them have spoken out about this. The charge has really been led by the Canadian Labour Congress. In a document that it produced, it said that Bill C-39 would effectively give the Canadian government the broadest strike intervention powers in the entire G7. Not only has the Canadian Labour Congress come out but so too has the International Trade Union Confederation; United Steelworkers; CUPE; Unifor; OPSEU; the International Association of Fire Fighters, of which I was a member; and the Air Line Pilots Association of Canada. They have all come out and opposed this piece of legislation, particularly as it relates to part 3. Here is what the Canadian Labour Congress said: If passed, Bill C-39 would give the Canadian government broader unilateral power to end a legal strike than exists in any other G7 country, according to a comparative legal analysis commissioned by the Canadian Labour Congress.... That includes Donald Trump’s United States, where even the President cannot unilaterally end a national-emergency strike and impose a binding settlement. U.S. law requires a threat to national health or safety, court approval and a temporary limit on intervention. “Canada should be setting the standard for workers’ rights, not falling behind every other G7 country.... If passed, Section 107 would give one minister extraordinary power to shut down a legal strike, with no parliamentary oversight and no one with the power to stop them.” There are many unions, as I said, that are speaking out against this, including the Air Line Pilots Association. I bring that up because the riding I live in, Barrie South—Innisfil, is also known as “terminal 4”. There are two terminals at Pearson airport, 1 and 3, and Barrie South—Innisfil is known as terminal 4 for obvious reasons: because there is a large proportion of airline employees, pilots, flight attendants and airport workers who live there. They would be significantly impacted by the legislation and, in particular, the ministerial power that the legislation would grant to effectively end strikes or lockouts or actually preclude the negotiation process in a way that undermines workers’ rights. I talked about the G7 powers to intervene in legal strikes, and from the most limited to the broadest, if we compare France, for example, what triggers intervention is an urgent threat to public health or safety. In Germany, it is life or health risks. In Italy, it is serious and imminent harm to protected rights. In Japan, it is emergency adjustments. In the United Kingdom, there are none. In the United States, it is threats to national health and safety, as I said earlier. In Canada, if Bill C-39 is passed as is, it would be the minister’s view of national interest. In that case, the minister could order work to be resumed and order binding resolution. The minister would retain the final decision, with no emergency threshold or fixed time limits. Bill C-39 would effectively limit the ability of workers and unions to negotiate fair collective agreements and basically bring a sledgehammer to the negotiation process in an “either take it or leave it” offer. Worse yet, under the threat or guise of ministerial power, the bill could force those workers to accept a deal because the minister says it is in the national interest. That is quite concerning. Look, there are good parts of the bill that we can support, but the omnibus nature of the bill really causes me concern as the MP for Barrie South—Innisfil, for the reasons I stated earlier, like having a lot of federally regulated employees who live in my riding. I know Conservatives will be seeking amendments at committee to ensure that the issues that have been addressed by these labour groups are thoughtfully considered when the bill gets to committee. I hope, given the newfound manufactured majority at committees, that Liberal members will understand the broad concern that has been brought up by labour groups and will have those labour groups at the table so we can fully understand the impact of what Bill C-39 represents and make the appropriate amendments to the bill to ensure that labour rights and the collective bargaining process are protected in this country. As I mentioned earlier, there are also concerns within the Liberal caucus. We heard a member earlier today speak about his concern in relation to the bill, the member for West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country. I will repeat what he said. He spoke about there being “too much discretion for ministers to exempt projects from environmental regulations, compressed timelines which may prevent Indigenous communities and NGOs from giving meaningful input and allowing construction to begin before an environmental assessment is complete.” The other concern I have, and it is a significant one, is oversight, transparency and accountability on many of these decisions that would be made. When decisions are made in closed quarters, made by ministers or perhaps in backrooms, this prevents Canadians and MPs from ensuring that money is being spent and decisions are being made in the interests of our country, not in the interests of big business. As chair of the ethics committee, I will be keeping a very close eye on all of this to ensure that Canadians are getting the best bang for their buck.”

“I am against this bill as it is written. It gives a minister too much power to interfere with workers' rights and union bargaining. Many airline workers and other unions are worried about this. The government also forced these labour changes into a huge bill so we cannot vote on them separately. The committee must listen to workers and fix this part of the bill.”

“Madam Speaker, I think I gave the reasons I am concerned, in particular about part 3 of the bill. It would give broad ministerial discretion over the collective bargaining process and workers’ rights under the guise of national interest. What is “national interest”? It is not defined. I am speaking here on behalf of the people I represent: the Air Line Pilots Association, flight attendants and other federally regulated workers who have expressed grave concern over this piece of legislation. There are public sector unions that are not federally regulated that see this as a wedge and an opening to potential implications for the entire collective bargaining process in this country. That is what concerns me the most about this piece of legislation. It is part of an omnibus bill. The Liberals included it in part 3 so that it would be an all-or-nothing approach. I resent that, and I hope that when the bill gets to committee, the voices of labour will be heard, and amendments will be made that correct this situation.”

• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 100 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

“My party has a plan for this bill. Our critics will work to protect workers, the environment, and transportation.”

“Madam Speaker, we have had a fulsome discussion at caucus about the bill. We have a strategy in place. We have shadow ministers who are leading that strategy, not just our shadow minister for transportation but for the environment as well. Our labour critic is certainly aware of what is needed to make sure this bill does not have unintended consequences. They will be doing everything they can to ensure that the rights of labour are protected, the rights of the environment are protected and certainly that transportation issues are addressed. I have full confidence in our transportation critic.”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 46 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

“We must watch this bill closely. Ministers would make major decisions in secret. I am worried these decisions could benefit the Prime Minister's personal investments.”

“Madam Speaker, I have heard the reference that this is a bulldozer rather than a building bill. It would certainly have an impact on environmental laws, labour laws and all of the things I said. The one thing we have to watch, and the one thing, as I said earlier, as chair of the ethics committee that I will be watching from an oversight and transparency standpoint, is the impact that these decisions, which would be made for the most part by ministers and in large part in secret, are going to have on the Prime Minister’s financial holdings. I am very concerned that public policy is aligning with not only Brookfield’s strategy but also the Prime Minister’s personal holdings, as it relates to the Brookfield Global Transition Fund I, and the impact that many of these projects, including carbon capture, ocean mapping, all of these things, will have on his personal holdings. It is incumbent upon not just me but all members of Parliament, in fact all Canadians, from a transparency standpoint, to watch very closely how the bill plays out.”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 9 of 100

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

  See full analysis →
• Personal attack
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Respect 83 of 100

  This statement targeted a person rather than their actions or views: “public policy is aligning with not only Brookfield's strategy but also the Prime Minister's personal holdings”.

  See full analysis →

“I want the minister to explain why transportation projects do not have the same one-year deadline as other projects under this bill. This creates two different sets of rules.”

“Madam Speaker, the Liberals keep talking about one year, one review, but it is not consistent, it is not predictable and it is not certain in Bill C-39. I have asked Liberal members time and time again why major transportation projects are not subject to a statutory deadline of 12 months, as is purported for projects under the Impact Assessment Agency, the Canada Energy Regulator or the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission. Some have said that transportation is too difficult. That is ridiculous. If we can require the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission to come up with a reasonable result, a yes or a no within 12 months, we can imagine that it would go for it. This creates a lot of questions, because someone could get a writ of mandamus and force a regulator to come to a decision if it went past the statutory deadline. Can the minister take a look at his notes, maybe fire up Copilot and answer the question: Why is it two-tier, and why is transportation not getting the same treatment as other types of projects?”

• 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 made big promises that its last bill would speed up building major projects, but nothing was built. Now they are offering this new bill that promises the same thing. It does not fix the real delays, like the endless studies and red tape. I doubt this bill will build anything either. We should judge the government by what actually gets built, not their announcements.”

“Madam Speaker, about a year and a half ago, the Liberal government told Canadians that Bill C-5 would fundamentally change the way major projects were approved and built in this country. Canada was going to build “at speeds not seen in generations”. We Conservatives allowed Bill C-5 to go through because we thought that the grandiose promises we were hearing would improve things even a bit. We were wrong, because the only thing of any importance that has been produced has been a cloud of MOUs and bucketloads of promises. Eighteen months later, here we are again discussing another bill promising to do the same thing. What exactly has changed? There are a couple of projects that Bill C-5 was supposed to speed up. The Pacific link oil pipeline has not been built. The LNG Canada phase two expansion has not been done. The Coastal GasLink phase two construction has not even started. Then I looked up projects around the world that had been finished in 18 months, and not just the building portion, but all the way from planning to completion. First of all, there was the Space Needle in 1962. There was also the Empire State Building in 1930, the Pentagon in 1941, the Alaska Highway in 1942, Tesla’s gigafactory in Shanghai in 2019, and the Crystal Palace in London in 1851. Even the Eiffel Tower took less than two years from planning to completion. Why did these projects get built? It was because people actually wanted them to get built. They all shared a hard completion date, and on that date they were complete. Unlike builders that want things to get built, the Liberal government seems to measure progress by announcements and handouts. By that measure, the Liberals clap themselves on their backs and announce that they stand behind Canadian workers, but Canadian workers and businesses measure progress by construction sites and paycheques. They want a society where people can succeed without depending on government handouts. They would prefer that the Liberal government not stand behind them if it means that the government will have its hand in their wallets. At some point, loud media announcements have to become construction projects, and so far we have seen very few. Investors can manage even Liberal red tape when the rules are clear and predictable, but it is an impossible minefield with this degree of uncertainty. A company considering a multi-billion-dollar investment needs to know what information will be required, who will make the decision, how the federal and provincial processes will interact, and when the process will actually end. If Canada cannot provide that certainty, investors have other choices. We are competing for capital with jurisdictions around the world, and having enormous resources is not enough if companies will not invest because it will take too long or cost too much to develop projects. Let us look at the Trans Mountain expansion. It was first proposed in 2012, received federal approval in 2016, had that approval quashed by the Federal Court of Appeal and was finally purchased by the federal government in 2018. The expansion itself did not get rolling until two years ago, in 2024. Until the Liberal government gets serious, projects will spend years navigating regulatory processes and government decisions before Canadians actually see shovels in the ground, if they ever do. Let us take a look at one false promise. Bill C-39 promises a one-year period once an investor has submitted the required information and studies. This is sheer nonsense. I have been around government bureaucracies long enough to know that the step Liberals are promising in Bill C-39 should take no more than a week because the bottleneck is not there. The bottleneck comes long before that. Do members remember the phrase “once an investor has submitted the required information and studies”? Those steps, the expensive studies, the arbitrary interpretations by bureaucratic middle managers in government, the lost reports, the forgotten files and the endless red tape are where the bottleneck is, long before the final step comes. That collection of documents, reports and permissions can take years and millions of dollars for any large project, and in a climate of grudging and self-sabotaging “hurry up and wait”, it is not looking promising. In this political climate of overpromising and underdelivering, if the project ever does start, it will be in spite of the government, because so far, the speeds not seen in generations, the speeds promised by the Liberal government, have turned out to be speeds so slow that they have not been seen since the last ice age. Here we are again, lighting the fuse to a promised Liberal rocket ship of economic activity a year after the last one sputtered out in an ashtray. I want to be optimistic. I want to think that this time, in spite of all the very real drawbacks, in spite of history and in spite of common sense, Bill C-39 will magically succeed where Bill C-5 failed so dismally, but it is a faint hope. I want to give an analogy. We have a drought back home in my riding. One proposed solution is to raise the local dam by two metres to retain the freshet in the spring so the supply lasts all summer. The regional district argued that since no water has spilled over the top of the existing dam for the last couple of years, raising it will not actually help. On the face of it, this is reasonable logic. If the water does not even come up to the top of the existing dam, what is the point of raising the dam even higher? That common sense leads me to ask, if the Building Canada Act, which gave the Liberal cabinet almost unprecedented power, did not manage to build anything, why should Canadians think for a minute that giving the Prime Minister’s Office even more power with the building Canada strong act would work any better? Is this really about getting Canada working, or is it more about gathering power in the Prime Minister’s Office? Here is the thing. During the 2008-09 financial crisis, the Harper government introduced measures intended to do much the same thing, with the stated objective of shortening approval times for major projects. That proposal was much less hyped than Bill C-39 and much more effective. Back then, when Canada faced another economic crisis, the very idea of speeding things up set Liberal hair on fire. To take just one example, my very esteemed colleague, the Minister of Defence, at that time the Liberal environment critic, described the Conservative government as a “far-right Reform, Republican, Conservative regime...undermining the very environmental assessment that Brian Mulroney brought into this country in 1992”. Apparently the minister is now not bothered by that prospect and has no concerns whatsoever, nor is any single member of the Liberal caucus concerned about a concentration of economic power or decision-making power almost oligarchic in scope. Does the minister now believe that his own Liberal government is aligned with the far-right Republican government in another country, the very country that his party blames for the dismal economy in Canada? We have gone from the Building Canada Act to the building Canada strong act. I sincerely hope the second one works better than the first, but if we are back here in another year, debating another bill with “build Canada” in the title, Canadians are going to be disgusted, as they should be. Ultimately the test should be results. Canadians do not need handouts and school lunch programs, and loud announcements cannot replace jobs and the self-respect that comes with providing for a family. I will approach the legislation with an open mind but also with the skepticism that comes from having heard promises before about accelerating major projects. The government has said it wants Canada to build at speeds not seen in generations. That is an ambitious standard, but ultimately Canadians should not judge this legislation by the number of announcements it kicks off. They should judge by what they can actually see being built, and so far it is not looking good.”