Building Canada Strong Act

Bill C-39, Building Canada Strong Act · Second reading · now at committee in the House Where it stands

What Bill C-39 would do

The bill would set one-year deadlines for impact assessments of major energy projects, including pipelines, power lines, and offshore renewables, once required information is submitted. It would also allow the federal government to designate trade corridors, adjust port governance and rail switching rules, and let electronic documents replace paper records for trade. In addition, the bill would introduce new collective bargaining rules and timelines under the Canada Labour Code, along with changes to environmental reviews and fisheries offsetting fees.

Official text (opens in a new tab)

65 statements

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

Liberal
“Our government has always focused on the economy. We approve projects like Churchill Falls that create jobs and make clean power. We will keep doing this even if the opposition does not support us.”
Official Hansard

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

Mario Beaulieu, La Pointe-de-l'Île

Bloc Québécois

Linked statement

“The government used to have a five-year limit on bypassing environmental laws for projects like oil. This bill removes that time limit so they can bypass the rules forever. This helps foreign oil companies while climate disasters get worse. What does the member think about that?”
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, Bill C-5 allowed the government to circumvent at least 12 environmental laws and seven regulations to make it easier for certain projects, including several oil projects, to move forward. However, there was a five-year limit on that authority. With C-39, the government wants to remove that limit so that it can permanently circumvent environmental legislation. At a time when climate disasters are becoming more frequent and the cost of public services is rising, the Liberals want to circumvent environmental legislation for the benefit of oil companies whose proceeds often go abroad. What does my colleague think about that?

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

Liberal
“We are funding the Churchill Falls clean energy project. It will create jobs and power every home in Toronto, Montreal, and Vancouver. The Bloc Québécois should support it.”
  • 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
Official Hansard

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

Gord Johns, Courtenay—Alberni

NDP
“I want to know why the government is rushing consultations with Indigenous peoples to meet strict deadlines. Rushing consultations caused courts to stop past projects. Doing it again will only lead to more court battles and waste time and money.”
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, I want to go back in time. The northern gateway pipeline was rejected by the courts in part because the Crown’s consultations with the affected first nations were found to be inadequate. The lesson of that should have been clear to the government, and that lesson is that rushing consultation can delay projects rather than get them built. My question is this: Why is the Liberal government repeating the same mistakes of the Harper Conservatives by prioritizing an arbitrary timeline over getting consultations with indigenous peoples right the first time? The government is repeating the same mistakes, and this will just end up in the courts again, wasting everybody’s time and money.

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

Liberal
“This bill takes Indigenous rights seriously. We worked with Indigenous groups on it. We are in a crisis, so we must take strong action together.”
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, I think this is probably one of the first times I have been accused of being a Harper Conservative. Indigenous rights and making sure we engage with our partners at the AFN and other organizations are things we have taken incredibly seriously. They really are at the heart of this legislation. What I will say is this: The crisis we are in, and I said this in my remarks, requires us to act decisively, and we are going to do that with our partners.

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

Liberal
“The world wants to invest in Canada. The recent Toronto summit brought in half a trillion dollars in commitments, and this bill will help bring in more. Can the member share his thoughts on how this bill connects to that summit?”
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, I wonder if my colleague can go back to the part of his comments when he talked about the Toronto summit, an investment summit that attracted half a trillion dollars in commitments to invest in Canada, the lead-up that went into that, and how we can put that into the legislation that we are debating today. The world is looking at Canada, and it wants to invest in Canada. This legislation would help. Could the member provide his thoughts?

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

Liberal
“A news report today says money is leaving the United States and coming to Canada. This shows investors trust the Prime Minister and our government.”
  • 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
Official Hansard

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

Melissa Lantsman, Thornhill

Conservative
“The government promises to build things fast, but nothing has been built. Its rules, taxes, and red tape drove away investment and slowed our economy. There are 500 projects waiting right now for the Prime Minister's signature. Conservatives will not just take the government's word on this bill. We will study it, push for details, and try to fix it so things actually get built.”
  • A repeated line

    “Canada has everything it needs to succeed.”

    Said 4 times by 4 members since June 2.

    Every time it was said
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, let us talk about Bill C-39, the building Canada strong act, not to be confused with the Building Canada Act or whatever act was before that. Nearly 18 months ago, the Prime Minister promised that we would build “at speeds not seen in generations”. A year and a half later, the situation is dire, and I think most Canadians would agree. Not a single major project has gone from announcement to shovels in the ground. Antidevelopment laws like Bill C-69 and Bill C-48 are still on the books, and they are stifling investment and innovation in this country. The tanker ban and the industrial carbon tax remain, as does the stack of regulations and red tape that makes it next to impossible to build in this country. All of that remains despite Bill C-5. I know those watching at home are confused by the numbers. The Liberals brought Bill C-5 through this place almost 18 months ago. They said it was revolutionary legislation that was going to have projects built. We passed it through the House in a record five days. They called it a catalyst, one of the Prime Minister’s favourite words. They said it would let them do bigger things and do it faster with a brand new Major Projects Office to lead the way. Today, there are zero shovels in the ground, zero new major projects moving forward, and that office has spent more on bureaucracy and hiring people than it has on building a single project. Once again, the words outrun the results. We have to ask if Bill C-39, the legislation that we are discussing today, which is absolutely needed after the Liberals got the legislation passed that they initially needed, is the solution that members opposite have been claiming it is or if it is another announcement, another press release, another sort of time stamp in the road so they can restart the clock, saying this is the thing that they need to move forward. Before, they said that was the last thing we needed to move forward. I am inclined to believe it is the latter, because past behaviour is the best predictor of future behaviour, and Canadians should not forget that. Over 10 years, the government has driven investment out of Canada. It threw up roadblocks. It called anyone who wanted to build a pipeline a climate change denier. It discouraged risk-taking in this country with punitive taxes, and they picked winners and losers. The result was $1 trillion of capital leaving this country and going elsewhere. Our productivity stagnated. Our standard of living declined. If productivity had kept pace even with the United Nations since 2015, every Canadian would be roughly $11,000 richer, $11,000 better off than today. Instead, half of full-time workers are spending their income or more on their living expenses, and half are living paycheque to paycheque. This is in a country that only a few years ago had the richest middle class in the developed world. We do not need to look at the past to suspect that the sizzle of this bill, Bill C-39, is bigger than the steak. We have seen this before. The present tells the exact same story. The Prime Minister likes to say we should control what we can control, and I agree. Let us look at what he controls. Right now, there are over 500 proposals sitting on his desk, and all they need is a signature. They do not need a new slogan. They do not need a new bill. They do not need a new trade mission. They do not need a new photo op. He just has to sign them. That is his choice. Even the signature is no guarantee because we have seen investment summits, memorandums of understanding, agreements, press conferences and just yesterday, we saw the OECD downgrade Canada’s growth outlook while peer countries saw theirs upgraded. The people now promising to fix this are, in many cases, the same ministers and MPs whose high-tax, anti-growth agenda caused this problem in the first place. If we were to look outside this place, we could forgive people for being skeptical. The results keep being pushed down the road with a new piece of legislation, a new MOU or a new announcement, but the results have not arrived. Nowhere is the gap between promise and delivery wider than it is in resource development here in this country. I want to speak directly to the members of the left flank of the Liberal caucus. For a decade, they told Canadians that resource development was a moral question. To them, it was not about economics or engineering, and it was not about trade-offs. It was truly, in their eyes, a test of character. If we wanted a pipeline, we were deniers. If we wanted a mine, we did not care about our planet or our children’s future. If we wanted to sell our energy to other markets, which would buy them from somebody else anyway, we were on the wrong side of history. They enforced that standard relentlessly on everybody who disagreed with them. They enforced it against the opposition, against premiers and against members of their own party who sometimes asked whether all of that was working. Now, members can read Bill C-39. They can read what it would do to the federal review permitting. They can read about the exemption powers. They can read the section on labour. What would they have said if a Conservative government tabled a 246-page piece of omnibus legislation that would do nothing for workers and would build nothing? The bill claims to fast-track the very projects those Liberals once called a moral failure in the House, and that was not that long ago, but it even fails at that. They would have called it a betrayal. They would have used exactly that word. The question is not whether they have changed their position. We know they did. The question is what that left flank of the Liberal Party got for it. They spent their political capital. They asked their most loyal supporters, people who believed this was about the planet, to accept their reversal, and 18 months in, with a Major Projects Office and legislation on the move, not one of these projects’ delivery is under way. They burned all of that political capital passing these pieces of legislation without having a single shovel in the ground. They made the trade. They just did not get anything for it. If they now believe that the last decade was too rigid and this country needs to build, then they should get up out of their seats to say so plainly, acknowledge that the cost was measured in projects that died and that investment went elsewhere outside of the country. That would at least be honest. However, what we are going to see over and over again is the left flank of the Liberal Party hiding behind rhetoric that just is not true, and they traded it away for nothing. It is the same pattern with big announcements, with there being little to show for them. After last week’s investment summit, the Prime Minister came away promising a half a trillion dollars of investment, and we welcome that. The problem is that people are filling their gas tanks, which were already empty, half full. A trillion dollars of investment left this country. That is why the skepticism runs high. The skepticism runs high when people look at the government and see it acting one way for 11 years. It had 18 months to change everything, but it is yet another piece of legislation, one that has produced no results. I am going to end with this: I do not want members to take away that we are going to dismiss the bill before us. Conservatives are not rejecting Bill C-39, but we will study it, press for details, scrutinize it and work to improve it to make sure it actually builds something. That is our job as the official opposition, and that is how we are going to hold the government to account on what it brings before the chamber. However, we will not simply take the government’s word and accept all the promises the Liberals have made. Canada has everything it needs to succeed. We have fields of crops. We are rich in minerals. We have resources, oceans full of fish and the people with the talent to make it all happen. What we need is a government that will get out of the way, and one that will talk about repealing legislation already on the books, but everything we have seen until now tells us that is not this government.

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

Liberal
“The previous Conservative government ran huge trade deficits and hurt manufacturing in Ontario. The Conservatives should stop talking about the past. Canada has a new government now, and businesses are investing in major projects here.”
  • Question or comment in debate

    Signal 32 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
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, I think it is important that the member recognize, if she wants to reflect on history and talk about Stephen Harper, that we had the largest trade deficit under Stephen Harper. If she wants to talk about the hardest hit in the manufacturing industry in the province of Ontario, again, let us talk about Stephen Harper. Imagine if Stephen Harper, along with her leader, who sat around his cabinet table, did his job. What a difference that would have been. It is time that the Conservatives stopped thinking about Trudeau all the time and start reflecting on the new government that Canadians elected, with a new Prime Minister and 70 new Liberal MPs, and recognize that things have changed. People are looking at Canada and investing in Canada. Major projects are well under way.

Melissa Lantsman, Thornhill

Conservative
“The Liberals cannot hide their bad record by changing leaders or bill numbers. Under Stephen Harper, Canada had the richest middle class in the world, young people could afford homes, and other countries respected us. Even the Prime Minister invited Mr. Harper to his summit to remind people how good things used to be.”
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, the Liberals can change their leader, they can change their buzzwords and they can change the legislation number from Bill C-5 to Bill C-39, but they cannot change a record. They cannot change the legacy that Stephen Harper left in this country and I am glad to talk about it. Under Stephen Harper’s government, we had the richest middle class in the world. A young person could buy a home. Canada was a well-respected country on the world stage with moral clarity. It was so much so that the Prime Minister invited Stephen Harper to his investment summit to close it out to remind Canadians of a Canada that used to be.

Martin Champoux, Drummond

Bloc Québécois
“This bill goes too far. It weakens laws that protect workers, the public, and the environment. I want the Conservatives to explain why they would support it.”
  • Question or comment in debate

    Signal 40 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
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, I actually get the sense that Stephen Harper was more to the left than the current Prime Minister. The more time goes by, the more the measures this Prime Minister is putting in place that make me think that the Conservatives are jealous that he is not on the right side of the House based on his political stripes. Bill C‑39, which we analyzed with our teams, as I am sure the Conservatives did as well, contains things that seek to destroy or circumvent the laws that are there to protect the public, the environment and workers. I do not know what the Conservatives find in this bill that deserves support, aside from the fact that it goes way too far. I want to hear my colleague’s thoughts on the fact that we have a government that is proposing legislation that, in my opinion, goes beyond even what Conservatives have been calling for for years.

Melissa Lantsman, Thornhill

Conservative
“This bill will not deliver what it promises, just like past government laws. We will study it closely in committee and propose changes so that projects actually get built.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Clarity 48 of 100

    Much of this statement used imprecise wording, lacked details on timing or responsibility, or made broad claims without support.

    See full analysis
  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 100 of 100

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

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, the member is certainly right that there are concerns with the legislation. A major concern with the legislation is it is not going to deliver what it says it is going to deliver. We saw that in the past. We see that with the Major Projects Office. We see that with Bill C-5. Now we see it potentially with Bill C-39. As I said before, we are going to take the time to scrutinize the legislation and look for pieces in the legislation that we can improve. Once it gets to that legislative committee, we are going to propose the amendments necessary to actually get shovels in the ground instead of promises into people’s pockets.

Gord Johns, Courtenay—Alberni

NDP
“Unions want the government to stop forcing people back to work. But this bill's changes could make workers' bargaining power even weaker. Nobody knows who asked for these changes. I want to know if the Conservatives support them.”
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, over the summer, the government consulted with labour, unions and different organizations. Federal unions have been calling for section 107 of the Canada Labour Code to be removed after governments, especially the Liberal government, have used it to order workers back to work and undermine their collective bargaining rights. The government is proposing new language, as we know, around section 107, and calling these changes “guardrails”. However, unions are telling us these changes could actually weaken workers’ bargaining power. Organized labour still has no answer on who brought these ideas forward and who asked for these changes. The Conservatives are saying they are friends with labour. Do they support these changes or do they know who asked for these changes?

Melissa Lantsman, Thornhill

Conservative
“Workers voted for the Conservatives in the last election because we support them. I want the member to stand up for workers against the government spending and high prices that are hurting their paycheques.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 5 of 100

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

    See full analysis
  • Reply to a debate question

    Signal 15 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
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, it is not about whether we are friends with labour. It is about whether labour supports a party that supports it. In the last election, it certainly came over in droves and the member knows it. I wish the member would speak this vigorously against the inflation that is driving down the paycheques of every single worker in this country. I wish he would stand up for labour when it comes to the fact that its buying power is not nearly as much because of the government’s spending. I wish he would stand up for labour.

Burton Bailey, Red Deer

Conservative
“I do not support this bill. The government promised the last bill would speed up building, but 18 months later, it has issued zero permits and started no work. This new bill will not build anything either.”
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, the Prime Minister has been known for the phrase, “We will build at speeds not seen in generations”. The last time the government promised speeds not seen in generations, it was with Bill C-5. The Major Projects Office, 18 months later, has issued zero permits and zero workers are on the ground. What good is this bill if the first one did not get anything built?

Melissa Lantsman, Thornhill

Conservative
“The Liberals have not kept their promises to build things in the past, so I do not trust them to do it now. We will keep fighting to get projects built and make life more affordable for Canadians.”
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, if the Liberals’ past behaviour is any indication of their future behaviour, I am not sure we have much to look forward to. As an opposition, we are going to fight to get projects built and we are going to fight for every single Canadian to live an affordable life in this country.

Mike Kelloway, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport

Liberal
“I want the House to pass this bill. It will update our ports and shipping routes so we can sell more goods to countries other than the United States. It helps ports raise money for new projects, improves security, and lets the government review smaller foreign investments to protect our supply chains.”
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, Bill C-39, the building Canada strong act, is a crosscutting piece of legislation that would unlock Canada’s maritime potential, reduce supply chain restraints at our major international trade gateways and position the Canadian maritime sector to enable our ambitious trade diversification agenda to double Canada’s non-U.S. exports within a decade. Our government’s trade diversification strategy is working. In 2025 alone, Canada’s exports to non-U.S. markets increased by 11.1%, reaching 32.8% of total Canadian exports, the highest share in over four decades. Canada’s ports are the gateways that make things happen, bringing Canadian products to markets around the world and building Canada’s economic sovereignty. In order to meet our objectives and double our non-U.S. trade, it is essential that we have reliable, efficient and secure marine transportation systems to connect Canada to the foreign markets that want Canadian grain, Canadian energy or the thousands of other products that we proudly produce in this country. Let me start by discussing Canada’s port authorities. Canada’s port authorities are at the heart of global trade for Canada and transport networks serving as critical nodes that connect Canadian businesses, Canadian farmers and Canadian producers to key international markets. Collectively, the 17 Canada port authorities facilitate the movement of containerized bulk and energy products that underpin our economic growth. To ensure that Canada port authorities are positioned to enable trade diversification and have the flexibility to react to changing international trade patterns, the building Canada strong act would give port authorities the tools and financial flexibility to operate within an increasingly complex marine environment, while ensuring greater transparency and accountability for marine terminals, shippers and other port users. The proposed amendments in this bill would enable Canada port authorities to become commercially oriented and empower them to attract the investment capital necessary to build the next generation of Canadian marine terminals such as Roberts Bank Terminal 2 at the port of Vancouver and Contrecœur at the port of Montreal. To support these types of generational infrastructure projects, the proposed bill would facilitate corridor-level planning to better situate commodities and ensure that Canada port authorities are working together rather than competing with each other for similar business lines. The proposed legislation would also enhance the ability of Canada port authorities to act on commercial opportunities and generate revenue by allowing joint ventures with private and public entities as well as enabling increased collaboration between port authorities. Other amendments would support improvements to the borrowing processes for Canada port authorities and reduce regulatory burden to allow for one project, one review, while others would close data and information gaps. With these proposed tools and financial opportunities, it is more important now than ever to ensure that those in leadership positions at Canada port authorities have the right technical and business-oriented skill sets to set strategic direction and strengthen existing operations. This is why the bill would modernize the governance of our ports through new skill matrices for appointments. Taken together, these proposals would enhance the fiscal and governance tools available to Canada port authorities while ensuring that port authority boards are properly equipped to invest in critical port infrastructure to meet and exceed Canada’s export trade goals. Ensuring that Canada port authorities have the right governance and operational tools is only part of the equation. To remain competitive and meet the growing trade demands, ports must also be able to attract and leverage investments to modernize infrastructure, expand capacity and strengthen supply chain resilience. Given the critical nature of our port facilities, these investments need to bring tangible benefits to the country and serve the best interests of Canada and Canadians. Currently, under the Canada Transportation Act, the Minister of Transport can review investments, acquisitions and mergers involving transportation undertakings that are at or above $93 million. Although the threshold captures major investment, it would not capture situations such as when a series of smaller investments cumulatively results in a large foreign investment in specific terminals or marine assets. As such, the government is proposing to broaden the scope of transactions eligible for review by reducing the notification threshold to $10 million to ensure these investments involve transportation undertakings and are in the interest and at the heart of Canadians. We must also ensure that the government is well positioned to respond to emerging threats and risk to marine transportation systems. This very important. Security events can have a significant impact on port and marine operations, which impact the efficiency and reliability of Canada’s supply chains. Concerns over security issues, including a dated regime, can lead to the perception that Canada is a weak link. Such perception could adversely affect Canada’s relations with other trading partners and have a significant impact on future opportunities for economic growth and development. Canada’s marine system needs a modern security framework to adapt and respond to increasingly complex challenges. The proposals in this bill would provide the government with a modern suite of authorities and tools to effectively administer Canada’s marine security framework and respond to emergency security threats. Information sharing would be enhanced across marine security partners and allow the Minister of Transport to enter into agreements with third parties and other departments to increase enforcement capacity and ensure critical provisions, such as cybersecurity protections, are being effectively met by the operators. Together, this would promote a more effective response to marine security threats and risks. Through this bill, we would also be seeking to equip the Government of Canada with new tools to support stable and continued operations at the St. Lawrence Seaway. These new tools would give the government needed authorities to safeguard seaway operations in exceptional circumstances to protect operational continuity for this important sector. This includes authorities aimed at reducing disruptions to navigation, such as the authority to appoint an administrator in place of the St. Lawrence Seaway Management Corporation board in certain circumstances, and requirements to terminate the operator agreements, supported by the structure and dispute resolution when needed. As we modernize and backstop the St. Lawrence Seaway, it is equally important that the Government of Canada have the tools necessary to respond quickly and effectively to emerging challenges across the marine transportation system. The building Canada strong act, therefore, complements the measures for the seaway and Canada port authorities by giving the Minister of Transport the power to respond to situations where there is an immediate, imminent and serious threat to ports, the seaway or supply chains. The ministerial order power would allow the minister to safeguard supply chains during a crisis. This could include, for example, pandemics, trade disputes, global conflicts or natural disasters. An order made under these provisions might require a port or the seaway operator to take any measure, including corrective measures, that the minister considers necessary to prevent or mitigate a threat, but would not be used in the event of a labour action or strike. These measures directly respond to the needs of Canada port authorities. Ports across the country support this plan. The Association of Canadian Port Authorities has applauded the government for focusing on the transportation system and creating the conditions for investment in the infrastructure Canada needs. This bill is a practical and forward-looking piece of legislation that recognizes the critical role Canada’s marine transportation system plays in supporting economic growth, trade diversification and national supply chain resilience. By modernizing the governance and financial frameworks of Canada port authorities, strengthening oversight of transportation investments and equipping the Minister of Transport with targeted tools to respond to emerging threats, this legislation would help ensure Canada’s marine gateway to remain competent, competitive, secure and efficient.

Dan Albas, Okanagan Lake West—South Kelowna

Conservative
“I want the parliamentary secretary to explain the major changes to geographic certification in this bill. I also want to know if the Minister of Justice will provide a Charter statement on that part of the bill.”
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, it is certainly a pleasure to hear the parliamentary secretary speak on Bill C-39 today. Specifically in part 3, there is a provision in regard to geographic certification. As I know the parliamentary is well briefed and well versed on all the things that are in this bill, could he please explain to the Canadian public exactly what the significant changes are to geographic certification and whether or not the Minister of Justice will be tabling a charter statement on Bill C-39, particularly section 3, on behalf of the government?

Mike Kelloway, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport

Liberal
“The justice minister will answer that question. I support this bill because its trade routes will help our supply chains, grow the economy, and create jobs for Canadians.”
  • 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
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, it is great to see the member, whom we spend a lot of time with in committee, here today to ask that question. I will leave it to the justice minister to talk about that, but when it comes to this particular piece of legislation, the very fact that we are looking at regional trade corridors is really important for developing growth and a systemic and integrated plan for supply chains with Canadian jobs and workers for Canadian businesses and all Canadians.

Andréanne Larouche, Shefford

Bloc Québécois
“I oppose this bill. It weakens workers' rights and environmental laws. It also creates a new council that takes away Quebec's control over transportation. I want the member to explain why the federal government is taking over provincial powers.”
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech, but despite what my colleagues have been saying for a while, they are trying to downplay the impact on labour rights. We are being told that environmental rights are not being rolled back. I think that environmental and labour groups will do their job and that, when we measure the scope of all this, we will truly realize that we have a government that is undermining democracy. In addition to a crushing rollback of workers’ democratic rights and environment laws, there is also an encroachment on Quebec’s jurisdictions. What is more, the government is not respecting jurisdictions. The Liberal government is creating a new and umpteenth transportation structure: the national trade corridors council. What does that mean? We in the Bloc Québécois refuse to allow the federal government to subject businesses to rules when, once again, they do not fall under its jurisdiction over transportation. In the end, we are really going backwards. What does he have to say about this jurisdictional encroachment?

Discussion

No comments yet

See the full discussion

Comment rules

More from sitting 143

  1. Government Orders Building Canada Strong Act 111 statements
  2. Oral Questions Condolences 2 statements
  3. Oral Questions Taxation 7 statements
  4. Oral Questions The Environment 4 statements
  5. Oral Questions Public Safety 10 statements
  6. Oral Questions Indigenous Affairs 2 statements
  7. Oral Questions The Economy 18 statements
  8. Oral Questions Indigenous Affairs 2 statements
  9. Oral Questions Artificial Intelligence 2 statements
  10. Oral Questions Transportation 2 statements
  11. Oral Questions Indigenous Affairs 2 statements
  12. Oral Questions Business of the House 2 statements
  13. Oral Questions Taxation 6 statements
  14. Oral Questions The Economy 9 statements
  15. Oral Questions Intergovernmental Affairs 6 statements
  16. Government Orders Building Canada Strong Act 65 statements
  17. Oral Questions Fisheries and Oceans 2 statements
  18. Oral Questions Taxation 12 statements
  19. Private Members' Business Protecting Young Persons from Exposure to Pornography Act 14 statements
  20. Adjournment Proceedings Adjournment Proceedings 4 statements
  21. Adjournment Proceedings Adjournment Proceedings 4 statements
  22. Adjournment Proceedings Adjournment Proceedings 4 statements