MPs From Three Parties Demand Withdrawal of Bill C-39 Over Indigenous, Environmental and Workers' Rights

Three parties that rarely agree stood together on Parliament Hill — and their shared demand to scrap Bill C-39 is now the bill's toughest test

October 21, 2026 — MPs from three opposition parties held a joint news conference on Parliament Hill on Wednesday to call for the withdrawal of Bill C-39, the Building Canada Strong Act, warning, according to the participants, that it threatens Indigenous rights, environmental protections and workers' rights.

Image: Parliament Hill at dusk with opposition MPs at microphones calling for the withdrawal of Bill C-39. Credit: AI-generated illustration / Red Eye Eagle News.

Editor's Highlight: A Bloc MP, the NDP's parliamentary leader and the Green Party leader made the same demand on the same day, echoing First Nations governments that had already rejected the bill.

Table of Contents

• What Happened on Parliament Hill
• What Bill C-39 Would Change
• Why First Nations Leaders Say No
• The Government's Case and the Wider Debate
• Bottom Line
• FAQ
• Sources

Key Facts

Detail	Information
Event	Joint news conference calling for withdrawal of Bill C-39, October 21, 2026
Speakers	Patrick Bonin (Bloc), Don Davies (NDP), Elizabeth May (Green)
Bill	Bill C-39, Building Canada Strong Act, 243 pages
Introduced	September 21, 2026
Core proposal	One project, one decision, in one year
Second reading	Passed October 8, 2026; now before House and Senate committees simultaneously
Next deadline	Briefs to House legislative committee due October 26, 2026
Government target	Royal Assent targeted for December 2026, according to First Nations leaders

What Happened on Parliament Hill

Bloc Québécois MP Patrick Bonin, NDP leader Don Davies and Green Party Leader Elizabeth May held it together October 21, per CPAC.

In a separate party statement, the Green Party warned the bill would dismantle environmental protections, undermine Indigenous rights and threaten workers' right to strike — the party's characterization, not a court finding.

Elizabeth May called it “the omnibus of omnibuses,” a bid for executive power at the expense of environment and democratic process.

May also said she asked to serve on the committee studying the bill and was refused, but still intends to present amendments.

What Bill C-39 Would Change

Bill C-39 was introduced September 21, 2026. Per McMillan LLP, it would amend the Impact Assessment Act, the Canadian Energy Regulator Act and the Building Canada Act.

Its central promise is “one project, one decision, in one year.” Assessments, permits and consultations would run concurrently, with one decision within a legislated one-year timeline after a complete application.

It would also let Ottawa designate Regions of National Interest, such as energy corridors, where after a regional assessment some developments could be treated as pre-approved subject to standard conditions.

The bill changes 20 federal laws, according to the Green Party, and would repeal Bill C-5's five-year sunset clause.

Date	Event
September 21, 2026	Bill C-39 introduced
October 8, 2026	Second reading passed; First Nations leaders jointly reject bill
October 15, 2026	Manitoba Chiefs and West Coast Environmental Law publish rejections
October 21, 2026	Bonin, Davies and May joint news conference
October 26, 2026	Deadline for House committee briefs
December 2026	Royal Assent targeted, according to First Nations leaders

Tech Analysis: The one-year clock starts only after a complete application is accepted, McMillan notes — so real timelines still depend on preparatory work.

Why First Nations Leaders Say No

On October 8, the Chiefs of Ontario, Assembly of First Nations Quebec-Labrador, BC Assembly of First Nations and Nishnawbe Aski Nation jointly rejected it.

Their argument is constitutional: the Crown's duty to consult, protected under Section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, cannot, in their words, be sidelined for federal timelines.

“First Nations rights cannot be made secondary to federally imposed project timelines,” said Ontario Regional Chief Abram Benedict in that statement.

The Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs (63 First Nations) said October 15 the bill would allow work before assessments finish and never mentions free, prior and informed consent.

“First Nations are not opposed to development,” said Grand Chief Kyra Wilson. “When we are brought in at the end, they stall.”

Analysis Note: These are the organizations' stated positions, not court rulings. They warn bypassing rights will bring litigation — the opposite of the certainty the bill promises.

The Government's Case and the Wider Debate

Ottawa's case is speed: sequential reviews have left many decisions taking five years or more, McMillan notes.

The government has stated, via McMillan's summary, that assessment, permitting and consultation requirements remain, with the same safeguards, through one coordinated process.

West Coast Environmental Law disagreed October 15, calling the bill a route to “Wild West zones” — a critic's characterization, presented as advocacy.

On labour, Mike Morrice said in the Green statement that the Canadian Labour Congress calls the Canada Labour Code changes an attack on the right to strike, while noting the bill also contains union-sought wage-theft protections.

The Canadian Press reported October 9 that a special House committee will begin clause-by-clause study in mid-November. Don Davies, not a member, called it a “clear attempt to ram through this legislation through Parliament with sham consultations.”

Practical Takeaway: Watch October 26 and mid-November. Amendments on consent or timelines would show the pressure worked; an unchanged text moves the fight to the Senate — and, critics warn, the courts.

Bottom Line

On October 21, opposition became visibly cross-party, joining First Nations and labour critics already calling for withdrawal.

The government still holds the majority. Next, watch whether committee study changes the consent and timeline provisions — or whether this becomes a longer battle over how fast Canada can build, and who must agree first.

FAQ

What is Bill C-39?

The Building Canada Strong Act (243 pages, introduced September 21, 2026), consolidating major-project reviews into one decision in one year.

Who called for withdrawal on October 21?

According to CPAC, Patrick Bonin (Bloc), Don Davies (NDP) and Elizabeth May (Green) at a joint Parliament Hill news conference.

Why do First Nations leaders oppose it?

Fixed timelines and regional pre-approval would sideline Section 35 rights and consent, they say in their statements.

What does the government say?

Assessment, permitting and consultation remain, with the same safeguards, through one coordinated process — Ottawa's position, via McMillan.

What happens next?

Briefs due October 26, clause-by-clause study in mid-November, a parallel Senate study, and Royal Assent targeted for December, according to First Nations leaders.

Sources

• CPAC via YouTube — MPs call for withdrawal of Bill C-39, October 21, 2026: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LwUNzPyfM4I
• Green Party of Canada — Statement denouncing Bill C-39: https://www.greenparty.ca/en/news/green-party-denounces-bill-c-39
• Nishnawbe Aski Nation — Joint First Nations rejection, October 8, 2026: https://www.nan.ca/news/first-nations-leaders-reject-bill-c-39-and-the-rush-to-force-it-through-rights-cannot-be-fast-tracked/
• Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs — Bill C-39 fails the Treaty test, October 15, 2026: https://manitobachiefs.com/press_releases/bill-c-39-fails-the-treaty-test-no-consent-no-fast-tracking-of-projects/
• McMillan LLP — Bill C-39 analysis: https://mcmillan.ca/insights/publications/bill-c-39-the-building-canada-strong-act-introduces-significant-reforms-to-federal-project-review-and-permitting-process/
• West Coast Environmental Law — Scrap Bill C-39, October 15, 2026: https://www.wcel.org/blog/scrap-bill-c-39-protect-canadas-environmental-laws
• The Canadian Press via EuropeSays — Committee pushes Bill C-39 forward: https://www.europesays.com/canada/243833/