“I want the House to pass this bill. It cuts red tape and sets a one-year limit to approve major projects. This will fix our supply chains, help our farmers sell goods abroad, and protect our economy from unfair trade pressure.”

“Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to speak to Bill C‑39, the building Canada strong act. It contains important legislative changes that are part of our government’s effort to protect Canada’s economic future by reducing red tape across the supply chain, including in transportation. Last year, our government passed the Building Canada Act, which dramatically expedited projects of national interest, removed internal trade barriers and ensured labour mobility. Over the past few months, we have worked diligently to ensure that the review of all projects, not just those previously covered by Bill C‑5, will be approve within a time frame that meets Canadians’ expectations. They expect their government to be efficient, and Bill C‑39 gives them a reasonable one-year timeline. A year to get a project approved is plenty. These days, with our economy facing headwinds, we have to be efficient. We want to streamline government procedures and ensure that guardrails are in place when we accelerate project reviews and lower costs. We know that every delay in the approval process and every duplicate decision comes at a high cost to our businesses, and in the present circumstances, their patience is wearing thin. Obviously, the global economic environment we face is different than the one we knew following the post-Cold War era. For a long time, our economy had the wind in its sails. Conditions with our southern neighbours were extremely steady. Access to the U.S. market was also freer within the North American trade environment, and the rules were understood and obeyed. Unfortunately, our businesses no longer operate in this environment. It is therefore absolutely essential that we act now through what remains within our control. Obviously, we have no control over what happens south of the border, but we can control what happens here, at home. We have long been told that we must become efficient. We have talked a lot about our supply chains. Unfortunately, our neighbours to the south are using our supply chains as tools of coercion and turning our economic dependencies into a strategic vulnerability. In this rapidly changing world, our new Government of Canada is focusing, as I said earlier, on what we can control, including diversifying our markets to build a much stronger Canada. Transportation is a vital link between all of our other priorities. We cannot diversify our markets and trade to build the strongest economy in the G7 without strengthening our transportation network. By strengthening it, we will, of course, strengthen our competitiveness across all sectors. We are going to build Canada strong through Canada’s trade corridors that connect our Canadian businesses to markets and supply chains across the country and around the world. Indigenous peoples, transportation industry representatives and Canadians often tell us that to build stronger, more efficient and more resilient supply chains, we need to cut red tape, strengthen supply chains, accelerate infrastructure development and attract the investments needed to grow our economy. At the end of the day, when our businesses are doing well and are no longer facing unnecessary barriers, job creation matters in Canada. Affordability always starts with a good, well-paying job. Red tape and an insufficiently competitive tax system hinder our businesses’ innovation and productivity. With this bill, we want to modernize our business environment and make Canada one of the best countries in the world in which to invest. This needs to be addressed urgently. Yes, we have challenges, but we also have opportunities. If we want to seize those opportunities, we obviously need a regulatory framework that allows us to do so. That is why we are modernizing the rules for getting projects built and making real investments in the infrastructure Canada needs to compete in this new environment. That does not mean that we do not want to put protections in place. Canadians are asking us to build fast, create jobs, support our economy and build Canada strong, but we must also protect them. They are not asking us for one or the other; they are asking us for both. This bill is in line with the regulatory framework we are already operating under. I just mentioned red tape. Federal departments and agencies have identified more than 500 recent initiatives and proposed measures to reduce the administrative burden. This bill therefore allows our federal agencies to begin implementing some of those initiatives. This will demonstrate how Canada intends to fulfill its commitments to remove the barriers that slow private investment, limit trade and labour mobility, and of course, restrict business productivity. We have made strategic, and indeed historic, investments to build Canada strong. We have introduced a number of strategies and made historic investments, as I just said. If we do not address persistent constraints, such as the administrative burden and the transportation system, we cannot maximize Canadians’ investment in their economy. We need to maximize the return on every dollar Canadians invest in their economy. That is what we are doing with this bill, which is essential to making every dollar more productive. Since I am running out of time, I want to get right to the issue of farmers. I am member from the Outaouais, which is a very prosperous region. We have corn, soybean and canola farmers, for example, who are among the most competitive in the world, but they have to be able to get their grain, soybeans or canola to international markets. This bill will ensure that our roads are efficient, our rail system is reliable and our ports are able to quickly process essential goods. Every link in the chain is important, and when one of them is slowing things down, costs increase and our farmers’ competitiveness decreases. Investing in transportation infrastructure is a direct investment in the competitiveness of our farmers. In addition to agriculture, Pontiac—Kitigan Zibi also has a large number of food processors, people in the agri-food sector as well as in the technology and manufacturing sectors. That is important. We want to diversify our markets and provide opportunities for the people in these sectors, but again we need solid and effective infrastructure. In closing, I would just like to add that the digitalization of all of the documents that must be submitted to the various government departments to send goods to the international market is crucial. The digitalization of documents is an important part of this bill.”

“This bill does not change the laws in a chosen region. It makes government departments work together so we can review related projects at the same time. The goal is to make one decision for a project within one year, instead of repeating the same reviews.”

“Mr. Speaker, choosing a region does not necessarily mean changing all the laws that apply to it. The important thing in choosing a region is to truly recognize that there is a critical activity in the sector and that all departments must work together. The purpose of this bill is really to have one submission, one project and one decision in one year. We do not want to duplicate the various decisions. We really want things to be as efficient as possible in a given geographic area. Furthermore, it will not necessarily work on a project-by-project basis. When an area is identified, it really means that a number of projects are related and that they must be considered together.”

• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 100 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

“We must double our energy production with projects like Churchill Falls, or we will miss out on big economic opportunities. We are also getting things built, like affordable housing in my riding.”

“Mr. Speaker, there are a number of projects in the energy sector. Of course, we have the Churchill Falls project in Quebec. That is a really critical project for Quebec in terms of energy production. We absolutely must double our energy production. We need to focus on our government’s ability to deliver what Quebeckers and Canadians need when it comes to energy. If we fail to do so, we will be missing out on a very important industrial opportunity. Carrying out a number of projects like the one in Churchill Falls is therefore very important. Although I do not have a list of the shovel-ready projects, there are many. In my riding, for example, we are already starting work on a number of projects to build affordable housing units. I could give him the list. There are several projects, including one in Gracefield, where 39 affordable housing units are being built.”

• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 100 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

“I want the member to tell us what business leaders told her this summer. Did they say this bill will give them the certainty they need?”

“Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her fine speech. I know that she spent a lot of time this summer visiting businesses. I know that she heard from many people about the lack of predictability and the current uncertainty. They need more predictability from the government. Can she share with us what these businesses had to say after she met with their executives this summer, and particularly any comments regarding the predictability that Bill C‑39 will be able to provide?”

“Businesses lose money and opportunities when the government takes years to make decisions. Companies in Quebec, including in the aerospace industry, told me they need fast and clear answers so they can grow.”

“Mr. Speaker, every delay in a decision comes at a cost for businesses. Uncertainty also has a cost for our entrepreneurs. All the businesses I met with in Quebec told me this. They want decisions to be made quickly. When it takes three or four years to make a decision and there is no definitive answer, that has a very clear impact on the predictable growth of our businesses. The aerospace industry, for example, has a great potential for growth in Quebec. However, delays in certain decisions, whether in terms of procurement or starting new projects, have a real cost for businesses in terms of business opportunities.”

“Our announcements lead to real work. We gave an 11-billion-dollar contract to build six icebreakers. That creates 5,000 jobs and supports over 600 local businesses. Work has already started, so I ask my colleague if he still wants us to stop supporting our businesses.”

“Mr. Speaker, I would like to set the record straight on two counts before I ask my question. My colleague said that there have been some grand announcements, but nothing concrete. I was actually in Lévis on March 29 for the steel cutting ceremony for the Polar Max icebreaker, so that is one project that is happening. Our government announced an $11‑billion contract to build six icebreakers that will provide jobs for 5,000 people in our region. It also provides predictability for more than 600 suppliers in the region who will be able to invest so they can supply the Davie shipyard. That is what our businesses want. With that, does my colleague still think that we need to stop making announcements that support our businesses?”

“I want the House to pass this bill. It protects workers in federally regulated jobs and gives unions and bosses better tools to reach deals without strikes. It also adds protections against wage theft and makes government intervention a true last resort.”

“Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise in the House to highlight the labour components of Bill C-39. Today, I will outline the labour components of the bill and how they would strengthen labour relations in federally regulated sectors. We know that a strong economy depends on a strong workforce and strong relationships between workers and their employers. Workplaces with healthy labour relations have the stability and the confidence to invest and grow. The labour components of the bill are designed to strengthen good-faith bargaining and worker protections in Canada’s federally regulated workplaces. The Canada Labour Code is a framework that supports workers and employers in federally regulated sectors, such as interprovincial transportation, banking and telecommunications. The framework and the tools within it help 95% of federally regulated workplaces renew their collective agreements without labour disruption. For the other 5%, getting to a renewed agreement is much more difficult and some present cycles of an inability to conclude agreements without labour disruption. This cycle is often self-reinforcing, as relationships between workers and the employer often remain strained. The inability to resolve their disputes together further places the next collective bargaining process at risk. This is unfortunate, because all parties agree that the best deals are the ones that they arrive at together. We asked employers, workers and Canadians how to improve the tools of the federal government that are offered to parties and that can help them get to agreements in a better way. We heard that, for the most part, Canada’s labour relations system works well. We also heard that existing tools do not always help resolve the most complex and contentious disputes. That is why Bill C-39 focuses first and foremost on strengthening the tools, supports and processes to help workers and employers find solutions together. The bill focuses on three priorities. First, we would be modernizing collective bargaining with strengthened tools and additional supports. This means earlier engagement, helping to rebuild labour management relationships following disputes, adding supports for first collective agreements, providing more time for parties to reach an agreement and laying the groundwork for expedited grievance arbitration and an administrative monetary penalty regime for bad-faith bargaining. Second, the bill would strengthen workers’ protections. We would increase our government’s capacity to protect workers from wage theft, misclassification and workplace accidents, and we would make it easier for the conclusion of a first collective agreement. We would also protect airport workers by preserving their union representation and collective agreements when contracts change hands. Finally, we would be clarifying section 107 of the Labour Code and defining clear requirements for the use of this last resort tool. It bears repeating that 95% of federal collective agreements are renewed without labour disruption. The new tools in Bill C-39 are designed to help parties in high conflict focus on transparent solution-focused bargaining. The bill would also place clear guardrails around the use of section 107, which permits a minister to refer a dispute to the Canada Industrial Relations Board. The use of section 107 would move to a tool of last resort, only usable once parties had gone through an intensive, transparent process to resolve their differences and only usable after a strike begins. First, a special mediator would be appointed to work intensively with the parties and help them reach an agreement. The parties would then have five days after the receipt of the report from the mediator to get to an agreement. If the parties were still not able to resolve their differences, the special mediator report would be made public. Second, an assessment of national interest would be made that considers economic impact and social impact, and balances the constitutional right to strike. Third, importantly, a strike would actually need to have commenced. This new guardrail would prevent the pre-emptive use of section 107, strengthening workers’ rights to strike. The overwhelming majority of collective bargaining negotiations will proceed as usual. Canada’s workers are the foundation of a stronger Canada. Every major project, every infrastructure and every opportunity to grow our economy depends on Canadian workers. A stronger workforce means a stronger economy. A stronger economy means a stronger Canada. These labour measures would help build Canada strong.”

“I want this bill to pass. We listened to workers and employers, and they agree that the right to strike matters. This bill protects that right, stops the government from stepping in too early, and helps workers and bosses make their own deals.”

“Mr. Speaker, we worked extensively with employers and labour unions, and of course Canadians, who all told us that it is very important to uphold a collective right to strike. It is in our Constitution. That is exactly what this legislation would do. It would address the challenges that workers are having in their workplaces, in particular around those first collective agreements, which can also be very difficult to arrive at. Importantly, it would strengthen workers’ rights to be able to pursue a strike without the pre-emptive interference of the government. Finally, it would put the onus on the parties themselves to get to an agreement by using new tools, especially in high-conflict relationships. That is a very important new process that I believe will help parties get a deal at the table where it ought to be made.”

• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 100 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

“I want the House to pass this bill. Forcing people back to work by law is bad for everyone. This bill makes employers and workers solve their own labour disputes together at the bargaining table.”

“Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Labour does have the responsibility and the right to use the Canada Labour Code to foster industrial peace. Section 107 is not the only tool that ministers have used in the past to end labour disruption because of national economic interest. As the member would know, this House has been used to pass back-to-work legislation, which is obviously a worst-case scenario for everyone, including the employers, the employees and certainly the government. The legislation that we are proposing today in Bill C-39 would actually bring the responsibility back to the table, between the employers and the workers, where that decision ought to be made, to form collective agreements to help workers and companies into the next—”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 45 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

“We need union workers and skilled trades programs to build a stronger Canada. I want the member to share her thoughts on this.”

“Mr. Speaker, over the last 18 months, whether it has been a minister or the Prime Minister, we have heard about how we are going to build a stronger and healthier Canada. A major component of that is unionized labour. We constantly hear about the government’s desire to encourage, promote and get unionized labour involved in the building of a stronger Canada because we cannot do it without it. We have excellent programs such as the Red Seal program, and the enhancement and promotion of it. I am wondering if the member can provide her thoughts on that aspect of labour.”

“This bill will create good union jobs. We are working with trade unions to help young people get into the trades and become certified.”

“Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has risen many times and talked about the importance of good union jobs as an outcome of build Canada strong. In fact, that is why the Building Trades Unions stood with the Prime Minister a year ago or so as we announced the creation of the Major Projects Office. It is why it has been so supportive of the team Canada strong approach to ensuring that young people choose the trades and that apprentices can complete their studies, resulting in full Red Seal certification. I will say, as a proud mother of a Red Seal crane operator, this is something that I know is very important, and we have these incredible professionals across the country who can help build Canada strong.”

“We added rules to this bill to protect workers' right to strike. The government will only step in during a strike as a last resort in an emergency.”

“Mr. Speaker, I would point out that section 107, a contentious part of the Canada Labour Code, has been used pre-emptively two times in the past. In fact, we are responding to unions’ concerns that this particular part of the code could be used to pre-emptively prevent a strike from occurring. We have said that is unconstitutional, so we have put guardrails around this particular piece of the code, which must, in my opinion, remain there as an emergency piece of the code for when parties are at an impasse and a strike has no end. The point is that we will be there to support employers and workers in getting to those collective agreements, and we will respect Canadians’ right to strike.”

• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 100 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

“I want the House to pass this bill because it speeds up project approvals. Doing nothing leaves important projects stuck for years and makes them cost more, like the rail bypass in Lac-Mégantic. I want to know if the member has any real ideas to speed things up instead of just keeping things as they are.”

“Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, whom I respect and with whom I work in committee. I have two things to say. First, what I have been hearing from him and his colleagues since the beginning of the debate on Bill C‑39 can be summed up by the words “status quo”. They want to maintain the status quo in many areas. They want to know why we would do this or that and why we would make changes. As we know, the status quo means not making a decision. Something occurred to me. I know my colleague worked very late last night and again this morning. I did my homework, too, and I looked into it. Bill C‑39 speeds up projects, but it also speeds up situations like the one in Lac‑Mégantic. People have been waiting for 13 years, and things are stuck in administrative projects. We are talking over $100 million. The project is going to cost more. Bill C‑39 makes it possible to fast-track projects like the one in Lac‑Mégantic. Did my colleague’s research yield any concrete suggestions for speeding up decision-making, so that situations like this never happen again and so that we can actually resolve things more quickly?”

“The government does care about the environment and workers. This bill is the right way forward because it lets us build big projects while working with Indigenous leaders, the provinces, and environmental groups. I want to know if the member has anything good to say about this bill.”

“Mr. Speaker, I have listened to Bloc members comment on this for the last couple of days, and ultimately I would argue that the extreme attitude that the government does not care about the environment or labour could not be further from the truth. Quite frankly, working on major projects, working with environmental issues, working with indigenous leadership and working with the provinces collaboratively is the way to go. Does the member have anything positive to say about any aspect of the legislation?”