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

Laila Goodridge, Fort McMurray—Cold Lake

Conservative
“The government claims this bill will help build major projects quickly, but their past promises have not delivered. Hundreds of energy projects are still stuck waiting for approval because the Liberals refuse to get rid of their anti-development laws. This huge bill also makes big changes to labour laws that must be studied carefully in committee first.”
  • Speech on a bill

    Respect 97 of 100

    This statement targeted a person rather than their actions or views: “made it his mission to demonize the industry”.

    See full analysis
  • A repeated line

    “The Liberals are all talk and no results.”

    Said 13 times by 12 members since September 21.

    Every time it was said
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, it is no secret that I am a fan of building. My office is filled with model haul trucks, excavators and dozers, not just as a nod to my hometown and the industry that drives it but to serve as a reminder of where I came from and my roots in heavy construction and mining. I am proud to represent Canadian oil sands workers here in Parliament. Many years ago, like my dad and my grandfather, I laced up my own steel-toed boots and reported to work in health and safety in the oil sands. I understand how hard the people who work in Canada’s energy sector work, with long hours, rotating shifts and harsh weather, yet thousands of workers show up every single day to ensure that our houses stay warm in the winter and cool in the summer and that the lights are always on when we need them. Through my experience, I have had the opportunity to see many major projects move from dream to design to construction and operation. This was the reality in the oil sands region for a long time. Then, just over 10 years ago, a new government came into power here in Ottawa, led by Justin Trudeau. He then made it his mission to demonize the industry that fuelled our economy, stigmatized the workers in this industry and created overbearing regulatory systems to shut down any new major project. He recruited eco-activists like Steven Guilbeault and then promoted them into his cabinet. While the current iteration of the Liberal Party claims to support the energy industry and the energy workers, and claims that it wants to build at unimaginable speeds, it has chosen to keep all the Trudeau-era anti-energy, antidevelopment laws and legislation in place. For years, Conservatives have been telling the Liberals to get out of the way by approving projects in rapid order, in six months; repealing anti-energy and antidevelopment laws Bill C-69 and Bill C-48; and adopting a one-project, one-review system. Canada has everything we need to be an affordable, strong, self-reliant country, but we can only live up to our full potential if the Liberal government gets out of the way. Liberals claimed a year and a half ago that Bill C-5 would allow them to move at speeds not seen in generations, yet no new projects have been approved by their Major Projects Office. Conservatives took the Liberals at their word, and we fast-tracked that bill through Parliament. Now, 18 months later, the only thing that has moved at unimaginable speeds was that piece of legislation. They are once again coming back to this chamber claiming that this latest piece of legislation will be the difference maker. As always with the Liberals, it is all talk and no results. It is the lack of results, the lack of action, that has left well over 500 projects waiting on some bureaucrat’s desk for approval. For businesses considering whether to invest in Canada or not, announcements are not enough. For workers wondering whether there will be a project to work on, speeches are not enough. For communities in Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, promises of future action are not enough. It is worth noting that serious changes are being proposed to the Labour Code in part 3 that clearly require extensive committee study. We need to review the proposed legislation. We have many questions, and we must ensure that all aspects of this bill are thoroughly examined. The question I have for the government is, why are sweeping labour changes being made in a giant 250-page omnibus bill? I think that is the same question I have heard from a number of my constituents. Conservatives have a clear objective. We are fighting for policies that will save Canadians money and save Canadian jobs. It is as simple as that. For generations, Fort McMurray—Cold Lake and its oil industry offered a beacon of hope to people from right across Canada and the world. People who were willing to work hard and work long hours, and who had a dream, could make it big. My family has called Fort McMurray home for over 50 years. My dad and grandparents moved up to Fort McMurray in the 1970s in search of a better life, and they got a better life. They worked hard to provide opportunities for their family and give back to their community. Fort McMurray Wood Buffalo is home to the third-largest proven oil sands deposit in the world; 97% of Canada’s oil comes from the oil sands, with 96% of the oil sands oil coming from the Fort McMurray region. When I say I know oil, I grew up around it; I know oil. I know a thing or two about it at the very minimum. Canada’s oil sands production averages 3.1 million barrels a day. Canada’s energy sector currently employs nearly one million people, with 150,000 direct jobs, 300,000 indirect jobs and 450,000 induced jobs, providing strong paycheques and life-changing opportunities for families and communities right across the country. The oil and natural gas industries are among the largest employers of indigenous people in Canada. As I fly back and forth from Ottawa, I regularly meet oil sands workers coming from every corner of the country. In 2022, oil and gas contributed $45 billion in revenue to Canadian governments. That meant funds for our hospitals, our schools, our roads and so many other important public services. When my dad was in the prime of his working years, there was no doubt that there was a future in Fort McMurray, but after 10 years of Liberals, doubt has become all too much of a reality. The energy industry 10 years ago was still growing. Families were building their lives, businesses were investing, and skilled tradespeople could look forward to the next generation with confidence and know that opportunities were waiting for them. Today, that has been replaced by a lot of questions. After a decade of anti-energy legislation, people in communities like mine are asking very basic questions. What does the future of our industry actually look like? What does the future of our community look like? What happens if the Liberals go back to their active attacks on the energy industry? These are not some pie-in-the-sky questions. These are existential questions that people in my community have. They have a hard time taking the government at its word after the Liberals’ record of a decade of a constant barrage of attacks and the talking down of the very hard-working people of Fort McMurray—Cold Lake. This is not an abstract policy debate either. The ability to work on energy projects is not simply a line on a government spreadsheet. This is people’s jobs, their mortgages, their businesses, their families and their communities. It is an apprentice hoping to become a journeyperson. It is an electrician building a career, a heavy equipment operator working long shifts to provide for his family, the engineer designing the next big project, the small business owner whose customers depend on a healthy energy sector. I stand here today fighting for Canada’s energy industry and, more importantly, fighting for all of the spectacular workers in Canada’s energy industry, for those hundreds of thousands of hard-working Canadians from coast to coast to coast who have a job, in great part, due to my community and the resources we have developed over the years. I stand here for the future of my community. When we talk about Canada’s energy sector, we are also talking about Canada’s ability to create good-paying jobs, attract investment, build infrastructure, generate government revenues and compete in the global economy. We are talking about whether Canadian workers can have the opportunity to build Canadian projects or whether those opportunities will continue to be built elsewhere. The reality is that for the last decade, we have seen those projects go elsewhere. We have seen those jobs go elsewhere. We have seen that opportunity flee. It is no surprise that Conservatives support building. We have been on that train for many decades, and we will continue being on it, whether it is popular for the Liberals or not. The reality is that we need to make sure that what we are building is sustainable for the long-term health of our economy. Canada has the resources, the expertise, the workers and the know-how. What we need is a government that can get out of the way. What we need is a government that will repeal the anti-energy and antidevelopment legislation, which the current government has chosen to keep on the books, that has kept a foot on the throat of the industry, preventing it from being able to expand. I will continue to stand up for Fort McMurray—Cold Lake and for Canada’s energy sector and the skilled workers who make our economy stronger. Conservatives will continue to push the Liberal government to cut the red tape and regulations, to get the projects actually built and to get shovels in the ground faster in Canada. We will continue to fight for the projects that we need to build to deliver an affordable, safe, independent country and to secure our energy future, not just for Canada but for our allies across the world. This is not just a question. This is something we will do and will continue fighting for.

Martin Champoux, Drummond

Bloc Québécois
“This bill already goes too far by exempting oil and gas projects from environmental reviews. The Conservatives have wanted these changes for years, but they still say it is not enough. I want the member to explain what else they want.”
  • Question or comment in debate

    Signal 38 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, since this is the first time I have had the opportunity to speak to you today, I would like to take the opportunity to say hello and welcome you back to Parliament. Listening to the speech by my colleague from Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, I realize how far apart the Conservatives and the Bloc are on these issues. I thought that Bill C‑39 went beyond everything the Conservatives have wanted for years, but no, it seems that it still falls short, that it still does not go far enough. According to Bill C‑39, assessments will be more flexible, particularly for oil and gas projects, which will no longer be subject to the Impact Assessment Act. It seems to me that the Conservatives should be patting themselves on the back and celebrating, but what I have been hearing all day is the complete opposite. In our opinion, the bill goes so far as to be outrageous. In my colleague’s opinion, what is missing from the bill that would make it acceptable to the Conservatives?

Laila Goodridge, Fort McMurray—Cold Lake

Conservative
“We do not trust the Liberals to keep their promises. We supported an earlier bill because they said it would get projects moving, but nothing has been built. We want to see real construction, not just more government promises.”
  • 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, we do not trust the Liberals. We are not sure they are actually going to do what they say they are going to do. We voted in favour of Bill C‑5 because they said it was absolutely essential for moving projects forward. However, we have not seen that. No projects have been started under the Major Projects Office. We want to ensure that this will have a real impact and lead to actual construction projects in our country.

Abdelhaq Sari, Bourassa

Liberal
“This bill will go to a committee to be studied and improved. Conservatives like the plan to review projects within one year. Will they work with us to make the bill better?”
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, I would simply like to emphasize once again that, just like other bills, this one will be referred to committee. We know that many of her colleagues across the way are very supportive of the idea that it will take a year to review projects and decide whether they can go ahead. Will we be able to count on their work to improve the bill when it is studied in committee?

Laila Goodridge, Fort McMurray—Cold Lake

Conservative
“Conservatives will work in committee to improve this bill, but we have doubts about it. The government said their last bill would fix things. Now, 18 months later, nothing has been built, and they are offering another bill instead.”
  • 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, I am lucky to have studied in French, because I am now able to answer technical questions about oil sands in French. It has been a long time since I tried to use certain words in French. The Conservatives will certainly work in committee to improve this bill, just as they did during the study of Bill C‑5. However, we have concerns, because we were told that Bill C‑5 would be the solution. Now, 18 months later, nothing has been built, but the Liberals are telling us that there is another bill and that this one will be the solution. That is why we have concerns.

Gord Johns, Courtenay—Alberni

NDP

Linked statement

“The Liberals want to privatize major airports, ports, and security jobs that employ veterans. They are hurting workers' rights. I want the member to tell me if the Conservatives support this plan or if they would privatize even more public services.”
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, we have seen the Liberals are privatizing, or are talking about privatizing, four of Canada’s largest airports, which produce a half a billion dollars in revenue. They are talking about modernizing Canadian ports, which we know basically means they are going to privatize them. They are even privatizing and putting out to tender the contract that the Commissionaires, which hires veterans, gets. Now the Liberals are undermining workers’ rights. We hear a lot of people say that the Liberals have taken on the Conservative agenda, but I will ask my colleague, is this the Conservative agenda? Would the Conservatives have even gone this far, when it comes to privatizing Canadian public services?

Laila Goodridge, Fort McMurray—Cold Lake

Conservative
“I want this bill sent to committee so we can study it. We helped pass a similar bill a year and a half ago, but no projects have been built and hundreds are still waiting for approval. We need to make sure this bill will actually get things built.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 44 of 100

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

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, as I stated in my speech, Conservatives are fans of getting things built. We took the Liberals at their word, a year and a half ago when they put forward Bill C-5, that it was the solution to make things move at unimaginable speeds. We helped it get sped through Parliament. We worked and created amendments so that it was the best piece of legislation possible. Here we are, 18 months later, and we see no projects being built and nothing approved by the Major Projects Office. We know there are at least 500 projects sitting on some bureaucrat’s desk somewhere that are waiting for approval from Ottawa to be able to go forward. What we are saying from the Conservative perspective is that we are going to study this bill at committee to make sure it is actually going to work to get projects built, because we desperately need to have construction in this country.

Abdelhaq Sari, Bourassa

Liberal
“I support this bill. Canada needs to approve big projects like clean energy, mines, and ports faster. Our approval process takes too long, and investors will go to other countries if we do not speed it up.”
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, I would like to begin by saying that I will be sharing my time with the member for Eglinton—Lawrence. Sometimes a country has to choose between watching history unfold or making history itself. Canada is at a point right now where we have to choose to be the master of our own destiny. All around us, the world is changing and shifting gears. Technology is completely transforming industries. Supply chains are being redrawn and geopolitical uncertainty weighs on every investment decision. Meanwhile, capital waits for no one. It goes where people know how to build. It goes where the rules are clear and decisions are actually made. Bill C-39 asks a simple question: Will Canada be that country? We have everything we need to succeed. We have an abundance of natural resources, one of the most skilled workforces in the world, enterprising companies and strong institutions that inspire confidence well beyond our borders. However, nothing is built on potential alone. It is like a mighty river without a power plant. Its immense power does not produce light until we learn how to harness it. A resource creates value only if we can develop it responsibly. Technology will transform the economy only if we can build the necessary infrastructure to properly support that technology. A product creates wealth only once it reaches the customer. This country was not built by waiting. It was built by people who laid rail across impossible distances, who opened ports or rugged coastal lines, who believed that connecting a nation was worth the effort. They did not have certainty. They had conviction. Today, our nation-building projects look different because we have critical minerals, clean energy, advanced manufacturing, modern port transmission lines and digital networks. The question is this: Do we still have the resolve to build? The question we must ask ourselves is the one our ancestors also asked. Do we still have the determination to build? Across the country, we are hearing the same message from workers, communities, indigenous partners and investors. Our federal approval processes are too long and too complex. The requirements—

Martin Champoux, Drummond

Bloc Québécois
“Please be careful near the microphone. Dropping papers hurts the interpreters' ears.”
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am sorry to intervene. I simply want to tell my colleague to pay particular attention to the microphones. When he puts down his papers, it can be very unpleasant for the interpreters. I know that is not really his intent.

Abdelhaq Sari, Bourassa

Liberal
“I want the House to pass this bill. It speeds up federal reviews so big projects get a decision within one year. It also protects the environment, works with Indigenous peoples, fixes our transport systems, and protects workers' pay.”
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for that comment. I certainly do not want to jeopardize the health of our interpreters, who do an excellent job. As I said earlier, our federal approval processes are too long and too complex. Requirements pile up, reviews overlap and the process drags on for years. Imagine a family wanting to renovate their home and being instructed to submit the same file to five different offices without ever being told when they can expect a decision. Eventually, they will give up. That is exactly what is happening with investments. When investors have to wait forever, capital goes elsewhere, taking jobs with it. That is why the government must modernize federal project review processes. Our goal is clear: to make federal decisions on major projects within one year while maintaining rigorous environmental standards and respecting the rights of indigenous peoples. To be clear, this is not about lowering the bar. It is about making sure projects do not get lost in a maze. Efficiency need not come at the expense of rigour. A predictable timeline does not determine the decision. It simply guarantees that there will be one, be it positive or negative. Collaboration with indigenous peoples lies at the heart of this approach. Indigenous communities must be part and parcel of the decisions affecting their lands, their rights and their social and economic future. A clearer process does not diminish their participation; it makes it more meaningful, more consistent and, above all, more frequent. We reject the idea that we must choose between economic development, environmental protection and reconciliation. A mature country knows how to make progress on all three fronts while also remaining aligned with all three at the same time. Canada is a trading nation. Our prosperity travels by rail, road, sea and air. Our ports, highways and railways are the arteries of our economy, and every bottleneck acts as an invisible tax—a tax that stifles investment before it even begins, before it is even triggered. It is paid by the farmer waiting for their grain to be shipped, by the manufacturer whose parts are not arriving and, at the end of the chain, by the family seeing prices rise at the supermarket. The bill modernizes the governance of the transportation sectors, strengthens our commercial infrastructure and consolidates our supply chains. It also takes account of a new reality. In a more unstable world, the security and resilience of our networks are no longer a luxury. They are a prerequisite for our growth. Behind every port, every rail line and every construction site, there are people. More than a million Canadians work in federally regulated sectors, keeping goods moving and communities connected. In most cases, employers and unions reach agreements at their negotiating table, and that speaks to the strength of our system. This bill builds on that strength. The bill tackles wage theft and the misclassification of workers. It improves workplace safety and supports stable and respectful labour relations. That is because an economy that forgets its workers is neither modern nor fair. I meet people every day in my riding of Bourassa, in Montreal, who are not asking for any special privileges. They are not asking for anything special because all they want is a chance: a stable job, a fair wage and a safe workplace. When we talk about major projects, trade corridors and competitiveness, these are the folks we are talking about. Growth only makes sense if it improves their lives. This bill is the result of extensive consultations with indigenous peoples, the provinces and territories, businesses, unions and members of the public. While their points of view sometimes differed, there was one common message, namely that Canadians want a more efficient government, environmentally responsible growth, robust infrastructure and good jobs. They want an ambitious Canada that remains true to its values. In closing, investment decisions are being made now. Major projects are being planned now. Tomorrow’s trade partnerships are being developed today. From northern communities to the Atlantic provinces, from the Prairies to British Columbia, from Ontario to Quebec, Canadians are ready to build. It is up to us to give them a country that is ready too. Let us move forward with confidence, build responsibly and leave future generations with a stronger, fairer Canada that is more ready than ever.

Gord Johns, Courtenay—Alberni

NDP
“I want to know who decides when consultations with Indigenous nations are finished. Will these nations have a real say in whether their concerns were addressed, or will the government just decide for itself?”
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, the government says it will coordinate consultation through a new Crown consultation hub, which is what they have called it. Ultimately, who gets to decide if and when that consultation is complete? My colleague talked a lot about first nations. Will indigenous nations have a meaningful say in determining whether their concerns have actually been addressed in that consultation process, or will the government be the one marking its own homework? Who will decide when that is complete and what that timeline looks like?

Abdelhaq Sari, Bourassa

Liberal
“I want this bill to go to a committee. Members of Parliament should study it there, share their ideas, and suggest changes to it.”
  • 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, today, as things stand, I think that this matter needs to be discussed by parliamentarians in committee. I urge all my colleagues, all MPs, to share their opinions and comments and put forward amendments. Some consultations have been held, and there will be more, but we can talk about that in committee.

Burton Bailey, Red Deer

Conservative
“This bill will not get projects built. 500 projects are already stuck waiting for permits. The government should approve those projects instead of passing another bill that adds more paperwork.”
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, the Liberals claim this bill would get projects built, but there are already 500 projects stuck in the federal permitting process. Why does the government not simply approve these projects instead of continuing to add more bureaucracy, more bills, more offices and more announcements that have not built anything?

Abdelhaq Sari, Bourassa

Liberal
“This bill does not automatically approve projects. It just makes sure we give a yes or no answer within a year, and we will still negotiate. If the Conservatives want to speed things up, they need to work with us in committee.”
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, first of all, members need to listen carefully to the speeches given by each of my colleagues on our side of the House. What we are saying is that we want to deliver an answer within a year, whether positive or negative. That is very important. This is no blanket approval process. We are not interested in giving out carte blanche. On the contrary, there will be some negotiation. That is very important. Now, to speed things up, we simply need to make decisions in committee faster. If people here really want to move faster, the Conservatives will have to co-operate with us so we can make decisions in committee. Once again, Bill C-5, Bill C-39’s predecessor, laid a strong foundation. Now, we are setting the stage for all future projects.

Andréanne Larouche, Shefford

Bloc Québécois
“I oppose this bill because it hurts workers' rights, the environment, and democracy. It removes a rule that would have let us review the minister's powers after five years. I want the member to explain why they are taking away that review.”
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, as the Bloc Québécois critic for labour, human resources and skills development, I had the opportunity to speak yesterday and clearly demonstrate how workers’ rights are being eroded. The members opposite laughed in my face, but what I read yesterday were comments from organized labour. These were initial reactions. I also talked a lot about setbacks for the environment, but I ended by talking about setbacks for democracy. What does my colleague think about that? Yesterday, I did not have time to say that we found out that in Bill C‑39, the Liberals are undoing the amendment that one of my colleagues made to Bill C‑5, which made the minister’s powers subject to a five-year sunset clause. Now there will be no way of reviewing the minister’s decisions after the fact. My colleague talked about collaboration, proposals, amendments and improvements, but this change is unacceptable from a democratic standpoint. I would like my colleague to talk a bit about that.

Abdelhaq Sari, Bourassa

Liberal
“This bill makes the rules around ending strikes clearer and better monitored. Some unions are starting to support this change.”
  • 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
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, as I understand it, the question was about strikes and unions. I would say that what we are now bringing back in this bill is the complete opposite. Section 107 of the Canada Labour Code has been used to end strikes in recent years. Its use will be clarified. I would say it will be much better monitored by the department. Today, things are vague. Tomorrow, things will be much less vague. In fact, a number of unions are starting to warm up to this amendment to section 107.

Lori Idlout, Nunavut

Liberal
“I want the member to explain how important the government's relationship with Indigenous peoples is, and why it matters in this bill.”
Official Hansard

Uqaqtittiji, the member’s speech was excellent. I really appreciate that he incorporated the relationship with indigenous peoples and what the act would do. I wonder if the member, as part of the government, can explain just how important that relationship is with indigenous peoples and why it is important in this legislation.

Abdelhaq Sari, Bourassa

Liberal
“I support this bill. It helps us take advantage of new opportunities. We must make sure no one is left behind by talking with Indigenous peoples and Canadians who are struggling.”
  • 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, that is a great question. Building Canada strong means seizing opportunities. For that reason, the changes in this bill are very important. That said, no one should be left behind. That is why it is very important to consult all stakeholders as well as Canadians who are having a tough time every day. Naturally, the stakeholders include indigenous peoples.

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

Liberal
“I want the House to pass this bill. Global problems are driving up costs and hurting our economy. This bill will help us build major projects faster by setting a one-year limit on federal decisions and helping workers and bosses solve disputes before strikes happen. It will protect nature and Indigenous rights while making our economy stronger.”
  • A repeated line

    “That is how we build Canada strong.”

    Said 20 times by 14 members since April 23.

    Every time it was said
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, it is always an honour to rise in the House on behalf of the residents of Eglinton—Lawrence. Canada is going through a period of significant change. We are in a tariff war with our largest trading partner, the Russian invasion of Ukraine continues to put pressure on global food markets and commodity markets, a conflict in the Middle East has disrupted global energy markets and pushed up the cost of oil and gas, and rising global bond yields have raised costs for everyday Canadians through debt instruments such as mortgages and auto loans. For some Canadians, these events may feel distant, but they have real consequences here at home. I hear it from families that are dealing with higher grocery bills and higher costs at the pump. I hear it from manufacturers dealing with American tariffs and global uncertainty that impacts whether they can afford to invest, hire and expand here in Canada. These are the issues that matter to people in Eglinton—Lawrence and to all Canadians, and they point to a broader question: What can Canada control? We cannot control decisions made in Washington, and we cannot control conflicts overseas, but we can control how we respond. We can decide whether Canada is a country that waits for the world to change, or whether we build the capacity to succeed in a changing world. Our government has a plan to do that in the short term, the medium term and the long term. In the short term, we are acting decisively. We are standing up to unjustified American tariffs and are diversifying our trade relationships, 20 in total with more to come. We are putting money directly into Canadians’ pockets through the Canada groceries and essentials benefit, which provides up to $1,890 for a family of four, and we are cutting the federal excise tax on gas and diesel by 10¢ per litre. These measures are important because, in the face of global instability, Canadians need help today. However, short-term support is exactly that: short-term. We have to address the underlying problem. We need to be more competitive. We need greater private investment, specifically foreign direct investment working in our economy, and we need businesses that can expand, adopt new technology, hire more workers and compete in global markets. That is why our medium-term agenda matters. We have eliminated the consumer carbon tax and cut taxes for the middle class, and we are introducing productivity-enhancing tax measures that make it more attractive for businesses to invest in Canada. Under these measures, businesses can immediately expense up to 15% of eligible capital investments. The principle is straightforward: When a Canadian business wants to invest in a new machine, modernize a facility, expand production or adopt new technology, we should make that investment easier, because investment drives productivity, productivity drives wages and economic growth, and economic growth gives Canadians more opportunity. This plan is working. Just last week, the Canadian investment summit unleashed nearly $500 billion of new capital. Our fiscal policy is only part of the answer, We also need to build and execute. In the long term, we are building the foundation for a more productive, resilient and competitive Canadian economy. That is why I am supporting Bill C-39, the building Canada strong act. For years, one of the challenges facing major projects in Canada has been uncertainty. I saw this first-hand as a banker who financed infrastructure. A business develops a proposal and works to raise capital. If it cannot predict when decisions will be made or if labour will even be available to it, it becomes much harder to make an investment in the first place. As costs rise, the project economics become more uncertain. The building Canada strong act is intended to change that fundamental dynamic. First, we would provide greater certainty by bringing federal mediation into the labour process earlier. Instead of waiting for a strike to occur, Bill C-39 would expand mediation and dispute resolution tools by establishing a time-limited special mediator to encourage good-faith bargaining before a dispute escalates. This would give workers and employers an additional opportunity to reach a negotiated agreement and avoid a strike or lockout. Second, the building Canada strong act would enhance the One Canadian Economy Act passed last year by the current government, by creating one coordinated federal process, one lead authority and a one-year timeline for federal decisions once a complete application has been submitted. Let me be clear. The bill would protect the environment and respect indigenous rights. What it would change is that it would improve the timeline for decisions to be made. The building Canada strong act would create a system that is more predictable, coordinated and efficient, because businesses need certainly, and our workers deserve certainty. The objective is simple: Move from an idea to financing, to construction and ultimately to a completed project. The fact is that process is not an outcome; results and execution are. Our country has done this before. In the 1950s, we built the St. Lawrence Seaway in less than five years, the TransCanada pipeline in two years and the Trans-Canada Highway. These were enormous undertakings that all helped Canada move east-west rather than north-south. The St. Lawrence Seaway gets raw materials from the interior out to market, the TransCanada pipeline connected the oil sands to refineries in eastern Canada, and the Trans-Canada Highway connected Canadians together. To continue to build a strong, independent country, we need to be more resilient east-west rather than north-south, which is exactly what the building Canada strong act would do. It would allow us to formally designate strategic trade corridors and advance priority projects within one year. The point is simple: Canada cannot control what happens in Washington or what happens in conflicts around the world, but we can create a more productive and resilient economy, one that provides greater certainty to investors, certainty to workers and certainty for businesses to grow, succeed and invest here in Canada. That is what Bill C-39, the building Canada strong act, would help achieve. We need to build faster, we need to build with certainty and we need to build for the long term. That is how we create good-paying, long-term jobs, attract private investment, strengthen our economy and make Canada more resilient. That is how we build Canada strong.

Burton Bailey, Red Deer

Conservative
“This bill still makes companies study gender and identity before they can build things like mines or pipelines. That is useless red tape. I want the government to drop these rules and start building.”
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, according to the bill, project proponents would still have to analyze “the intersection of sex and gender with other identity factors”. I am not sure what any of that has to do with building a pipeline or a mine, but this is the type of woke, bureaucratic language we have come to expect from the Liberals. It means absolutely nothing, and it maintains layers of red tape. My question is this: If the Liberals are trying to be taken seriously at a time that demands serious action, when will they drop the woke corporate-speak, pick up shovels and get building?

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