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)

15 statements

Luc Thériault, Montcalm

Bloc Québécois
“I oppose these bills. The government is using the trade war as an excuse to weaken the environment, workers' rights, and democracy. These laws give too much power to the government leadership and take power away from elected lawmakers. Future governments will keep these powers, and that is dangerous.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, democracy is a daily challenge involving a delicate balance between the executive and legislative branches. However, Bill C-5 and especially Bill C-39 represent a step backwards not only for the environment and workers’ rights, but also for democracy. The tariff war is being exploited to quietly push through permanent rollbacks that will have no effect for the remainder of Donald Trump’s term of office. The cornerstone of democracy is the legislative branch, namely, the people’s representatives, and we are part of that branch. Is the member aware that, despite his good intentions, there are sometimes changes in government and that we are setting a historical precedent by granting extraordinary powers to the executive branch?

Patrick Bonin, Repentigny

Bloc Québécois
“I oppose this bill. Environmental groups agree that it weakens environmental protections and hurts workers' rights. It also removes a five-year limit on special government powers, letting the government bypass laws permanently. I want the government to explain why it wants these permanent powers.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, Bill C‑39 represents another another major step backward on environmental issues as well as on workers’ rights. The government would have people believe that the bill will not result in environmental rollbacks. It says environmental assessments will not be weakened. Leading environmental organizations and environmental law groups are unanimous. Ecojustice, West Coast Environmental Law, the Centre québécois du droit de l’environnement and Equiterre have all stated explicitly and unequivocally that the bill will result in major rollbacks. The government is not only introducing major rollbacks, it is also using the tariff crisis to implement permanent measures that would allow it to circumvent legislation. These discretionary powers were unacceptable to begin with, but they were subject to a five-year limit. Can someone explain to me why the government wants to remove that provision so it can make those powers permanent and permanently circumvent the law?

Mario Simard, Jonquière—Hébertville—Pays-des-Bleuets

Bloc Québécois
“The government is failing to get things done. Its financial aid for the forestry sector is not working, and no one in Quebec has been able to get the money. At the same time, this bill lets the government bypass environmental laws.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, it is rare for me to agree with my Conservative colleagues, but I do agree with them on one point. There is appalling ineffectiveness within the government. Allow me give an example. We have just come through an election campaign in Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, where it was made clear to the government that the funding, the liquidity support it wanted to provide to the forestry sector, is not working. The government was asked to lower the eligibility threshold from $2 million in annual revenue to $1 million. I have been checking for the past two weeks to see if anyone in Quebec has accessed this liquidity. No one has. This is appallingly ineffective. Meanwhile, the government is in the process of equipping itself with the tools to circumvent environmental laws. Ultimately, I have my doubts about both the Build Canada Homes strategy, as my colleague pointed out, and the strategy for providing access to liquidity for those in the forestry sector. No one is seeing any results yet. This is a terrible failure on the part of this government.

Patrick Bonin, Repentigny

Bloc Québécois
“This bill lets the government bypass environmental laws and approve projects before they are even checked. Companies will sue if those projects are stopped later. The government is also spending billions on a huge oil pipeline. I want the member to say if he supports giving public money to oil companies.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague seems to be in full agreement when it comes to the exceptional powers the government is giving itself to get around environmental laws. I would like to point out that Bill C-39 even allows for the creation of economic zones where projects will be pre-approved. Projects will be approved before they are even assessed. Obviously, we can expect companies to sue the government if, after the assessment, the government decides a project is no good. I wonder if my colleague is concerned about that. Does he not think this fits perfectly into a government strategy to deploy an oil arsenal using public funds? His party has stated that oil companies benefit from corporate welfare. The government is gearing up to invest $40 billion in a mega-pipeline project. Is my colleague in favour of giving public funds to oil companies?

Luc Thériault, Montcalm

Bloc Québécois
“I oppose this bill because it hurts our democracy. It takes power away from Parliament and gives too much control to the government. The Prime Minister is using the tariff crisis as an excuse to make bad, permanent changes.”
  • Question or comment in debate

    Respect 69 of 100

    This statement targeted a person rather than their actions or views: “The Prime Minister is exploiting the tariff crisis to impose permanent rollbacks”.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, parliamentary democracy is a daily challenge. It involves a delicate balance between the executive and legislative branches. Bill C-39 is a step backwards for democracy. It further centralizes power in favour of the executive branch by reducing the role we play here in Parliament. The Prime Minister is exploiting the tariff crisis to impose permanent rollbacks that will have no impact during Donald Trump’s presidency. Does the member not think that Bill C‑39 sets a dangerous precedent?

Luc Thériault, Montcalm

Bloc Québécois
“I oppose this bill. It gives a single minister too much permanent power over major projects, which weakens Parliament and hurts our democracy.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-5 contained a discretionary provision that gave the minister absolute authority to identify and make decisions about projects of national interest. Bill C-39 renders that discretionary authority permanent, thereby setting a dangerous precedent modelled after the Trump administration’s contempt for officials elected by the people. Someday, when the member is sitting on this side of the House, with the opposition, will she will feel the same enthusiasm at the prospect of having the government use a procedure that gives the executive branch absolute authority over the legislative, the bedrock of parliamentary democracy?

Mario Simard, Jonquière—Hébertville—Pays-des-Bleuets

Bloc Québécois
“I oppose this bill. It lets companies start building oil and gas projects before environmental reviews are finished. If a project is cancelled after construction starts, companies will sue the government.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether my colleague read the bill carefully. I did. It gives the government the option of launching oil or gas infrastructure projects without completing environmental assessments first. Here is a very telling example. Back home, the GNL Québec project was turned down. Its proponents had said that they would respect the environmental assessments. However, when their proposal was flatly refused, they turned around and sued the government. I am loathe to think what would happen if an oil and gas project got off the ground, with infrastructure construction under way, only to find out that the project was a no-go and had to be shut down. That would lead to devastating lawsuits for the government. Is my colleague aware of that?

Luc Thériault, Montcalm

Bloc Québécois
“I oppose this bill because it gives too much power to the government and weakens Parliament. The Liberals are using the tariff crisis to take away democratic rules permanently. They will regret giving the government this much power when they are no longer in charge.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-5 contained a discretionary provision that gave the minister absolute power to determine which projects are of national interest. Bill C-39 gives even more power to the executive branch by diminishing Parliament’s role. That is a subversion of parliamentary democracy. The Liberals are exploiting the tariff crisis to impose permanent rollbacks that will have no effect during what is left of Donald Trump’s term in office. The member is very enthusiastic about this dangerous precedent, but will he be just as enthusiastic and happy about this bill when he winds up on this side of the House facing a new government and that government starts trampling on democracy and our legislative power?

Mario Simard, Jonquière—Hébertville—Pays-des-Bleuets

Bloc Québécois
“Oil and gas projects only happen when the government spends public money on them. These projects do not make financial sense as the world moves to cleaner energy. This bill weakens environmental rules for projects that are not even profitable. I want to know if the member agrees with me.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, the reality is not what my colleague claims. The only oil and gas infrastructure projects that have been carried out were only possible because the government agreed to invest public funds in them. Back home in Saguenay—Lac‑Saint‑Jean, as soon as developers started asking for public money for the liquefied natural gas project, the LNG project, the Government of Quebec lost interest. People know full well that over the long term, with the energy transition under way, these very expensive infrastructure projects are not profitable. That is the problem. We are going to end up in a scenario where environmental assessments have been scrapped and people can pretty much do whatever they want with infrastructure projects that are not profitable. Does my colleague agree?

Mario Simard, Jonquière—Hébertville—Pays-des-Bleuets

Bloc Québécois
“Conservatives want oil and gas projects to move faster by cutting environmental reviews. Their leader has called public funding for these projects corporate welfare. I want the member to give a clear answer: does he agree that public money should not pay for oil and gas projects?”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I find this debate rather fascinating. All day, my Conservative colleagues have been arguing that the government is not allowing oil and gas projects to move forward quickly enough. They can hardly say that it is a good idea to get rid of environmental assessments so that oil and gas projects can move forward. However, there is one thing that I hope we agree on, and I would like my colleague to give me a clear answer. On several occasions, the leader of the official opposition has said that big oil companies that let the public pay for their infrastructure are receiving corporate welfare. Does my colleague agree with us that it is unacceptable that public money is being used to pay for oil and gas infrastructure?

Patrick Bonin, Repentigny

Bloc Québécois
“I oppose this bill. The government is using the trade war as an excuse to weaken environmental laws and workers' rights. The bill rushes environmental reviews by forcing them to finish in one year, and it puts industry-friendly regulators in charge of reviewing pipelines and nuclear projects. It lets big companies skip important rules and harms the environment.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, sometimes I wonder whether the government thinks our roads have potholes because of the trade war. Hearing the Liberals talk, one might almost believe that the trade war is responsible for traffic and late buses. The government is blaming the trade war for a lot of things. Bill C-39 clearly shows that the government has come to the conclusion that it has to trample on workers’ rights and our environmental laws to deal with the trade war. It seems to think that it has to adopt a Trump-like approach to deal with President Trump. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has announced that it is launching the largest deregulation action in U.S. history, and the Canadian government seems to find that inspiring. In a year and a half, the government scrapped carbon pricing. It introduced Bill C‑30, which is completely anti-science and puts pesticides that were banned back into circulation. It scrapped the EV mandate. It passed Bill C‑5, which has been described as the greatest rollback of environmental law in recent times. That is on top of giving tax breaks to oil and gas companies, announcing the construction and financing of pipelines and liquefied natural gas projects, and planning to triple gas production and double oil sands production. Clearly, the government will not respect the Paris Agreement, its commitments or its greenhouse gas reduction target, which it no longer talks about in the short term. Now it is talking about net zero by 2050. However, as every independent analyst has said, we know that the rollbacks are so serious that Canada cannot possibly meet its commitments. With Bill C‑39, it seems that the government is trying to attract investors by being even more open to air pollution and the destruction of land and water than our neighbour to the south can be. The Bloc Québécois believes that there are other strategies for developing our economy while protecting the environment and without having to circumvent environmental laws. The government’s Bill C‑39 is quite literally breaking up the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada. With this new bill, the government is literally compromising the independence of scientists in assessing pipelines and nuclear energy by making the Canada Energy Regulator and the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission responsible for conducting assessments. This is like putting wolves in charge of the sheep. The Canada Energy Regulator is an institution that is known to support pipelines and has nothing to do with protecting the environment. That is not part of its mandate. None of these institutions talk about protecting the environment, even though they will now be responsible for assessing the environmental impact of projects with potentially dire consequences. These are oil and gas megaprojects, likely some of the largest oil and gas megaprojects we have ever seen in Canada. It remains to be seen whether they get off the ground, because we obviously intend to join others in opposing this type of bill. I must point out that the House of Commons Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development has already highlighted the issue that the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission is not independent from the Department of Natural Resources. The Canada Energy Regulator, formerly known as the National Energy Board, is an institution that is completely biased toward pipelines. We have seen this in Quebec. Many of its members come from the fossil fuel sector. It is like asking cigarette manufacturers to carry out their own studies on the health consequences of smoking. It is completely biased. No one should take the public for fools, yet that is exactly what the government is doing right now. Contrary to what the title of Bill C-39 would have us believe, this bill weakens Canada by bowing to the interests of the fossil fuel barons, among others. I would remind the House that the government has already passed the “no laws” law, namely Bill C-5, the Building Canada Act. The Liberals passed it in record time. We were unable to examine it properly. This act specifically allows laws to be circumvented. Even so, over the past year, not a single project has been designated under this legislation, which the government rushed through as quickly as possible with the support of, among others, the Conservatives. Not a single project has been put on the list in a year. Why was it so urgent? Now the government is introducing Bill C‑39, and it even wants environmental assessments for all projects to take no more than a year despite the fact that the government has not managed to designate a single project under its legislation in a whole year. It seems clear that environmental protection is being used as a scapegoat to mask the current government’s failure to get things done. The issue is not environmental protection; it is the government’s failure to move multiple files forward in a timely manner. I can see it already: Assessments for complex projects will inevitably be rushed, if they happen at all, and consultations will be rushed because the government wants to meet a one-year deadline. The very notion of a one-year deadline is completely arbitrary. Projects must be assessed on the basis of their complexity and scale, and the government has to take the time to do it right. The government is literally bulldozing nature. Let us consider, for example, a new pipeline project, one that the Prime Minister wants to include on the list of projects of national interest. It is a 1,000-kilometre project. How is it possible to conduct proper consultations or assessments in just one year? There is no doubt this will be rushed through, once again to the benefit of companies that will face fewer safeguards and are clearly delighted with the government’s legislation. The Liberals hope that Bill C-39 will not affect environmental protection. I hate to break it to them, but the Prime Minister is not going to grant that wish. It is misleading to tell the public that Bill C-39 does not weaken environmental protections or environmental assessments across the country. I would remind members of all the laws and regulations that can now be circumvented under Bill C-5. Bill C-39 will make that permanent and will even apply to entire regions. The Fisheries Act, the International River Improvements Act, the National Capital Act, the Canadian Navigable Waters Act, the Dominion Water Power Act, the Migratory Birds Convention Act, 1994, the Canada Transportation Act, the Canada Marine Act, the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, the Species at Risk Act and the Impact Assessment Act can all be circumvented. I will now list the regulations. The migratory bird sanctuary regulations, the Dominion water power regulations, the wildlife area regulations, the port authorities operations regulations, the metal and diamond mining effluent regulations and the migratory birds regulations, 2022 can all be circumvented. Twelve laws and seven regulations can be circumvented to accommodate projects designated to be of national interest by the government. As I said, entire regions will now be able to use the this process to circumvent legislation, and the Prime Minister, like a king, will decide which are to be sacrificed. These regions will get access to projects pre-approved even before an impact assessment is done. Project pre-approval means that construction will start before projects are even assessed. Obviously, this is a new government that is promising the next gold rush by opening the territory up to development and fast-tracking projects, never mind what the law says. I would point out, however, that if we learned anything from the Wild West it is that when the law is weakened, outlaws are quick to step in. I would remind the House that legal action has been brought against the federal government for its Bill C-5 on the grounds that it is unconstitutional. To make matters worse, with Bill C-39, the government is broadening the scope of that legislation and making the exceptional powers enshrined in it permanent. Does the government expect the tariff crisis to be permanent? This tariff crisis is their excuse for everything. This is clearly a pretext for giving cabinet extraordinary powers, enabling it to sell land to foreign interests like a good deal maker. Liberal members seem to think that if they repeat often enough that Bill C‑39 will not affect environmental protections, that will become the reality. I am sorry to burst their bubble, but we were not elected to make things up. We were not elected to bow to the demands of the oil and gas companies. We were elected to make decisions that will be part of history. The bill explicitly includes serious rollbacks in environmental matters and workers’ rights. These are not just words on paper. This will have immediate and serious consequences on the land, on our ecosystems and on people’s health. That will be the legacy left to future generations. History has a long memory. Our speeches may fade, but decisions of this magnitude will not. One day, we will look back and ask ourselves who was aware of what was happening, who could have taken action and who looked the other way. The Bloc Québécois will not look the other way.

Patrick Bonin, Repentigny

Bloc Québécois
“I oppose this bill. It hurts the environment and weakens workers' rights, including the right to strike. The government is helping American oil and gas companies instead of standing up for workers.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 95 of 100

    Of this reply, 94% addressed the question or point raised.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, right now, the national interest is the government’s interest, and it is the government that decides what is in the national interest. Whether the government likes it or not, it is very clear to us that these debates must take place among elected officials, particularly when it comes to the use of arbitrators, restricting the right to strike and restricting workers’ rights. It is no wonder that the FTQ, the Fédération des travailleurs et travailleuses du Québec, is speaking out against this bill. Not only is this one of the worst rollbacks for the environment, but the bill also includes some extremely worrisome rollbacks in terms of workers’ rights. We in the Bloc Québécois are here to stand up for people and for workers, not to defend the interests of oil and gas companies, which, by the way, primarily belong to American interests.

Patrick Bonin, Repentigny

Bloc Québécois
“Canada should stop funding a $40-billion oil pipeline and invest in clean electricity instead. The pipeline will not lower gas prices, and more oil and gas will only worsen forest fires and heat waves.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 100 of 100

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

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, it is simple. Internationally, there are two classes of countries. There are those who are following President Trump, as the Prime Minister is doing, getting into oil and gas, and then there are those who want to break free from this dependence on foreign companies and so on. Canada should invest in the transition, plan for it and not fund a new oil sands pipeline project, to the tune of over $40 billion, that will be aimed at exports and will not change the cost at the pump for people, who will remain dependent on oil and gas. We have everything to gain from electrification, and Quebec is already doing that. My colleague talks about the fact that he has an electric vehicle. That is wonderful. He could also talk about the economic benefits it brings, both in terms of the fact that we keep our money and use Quebec hydroelectricity, and in terms of people’s wallets. Thinking that getting deeper into oil and gas is part of the solution will only worsen the climate crisis. I think he forgot about this summer’s forest fires, as well as the deadly heat waves.

Luc Thériault, Montcalm

Bloc Québécois
“A Liberal member is happy this bill lets foreign investors ignore our environmental laws, workers' rights, and democracy. Is the Prime Minister using this crisis to permanently weaken our rules?”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, my colleague’s speech was insightful and well-informed. Earlier, the Liberal member for Madawaska—Restigouche said he was enthusiastic and pleased that Bill C-39 would, as he put it, allow global investors to flout environmental laws by investing in Canada, to flout workers’ rights, and to flout parliamentary democracy. My colleague was talking about Trumpism. Does he not think that the Prime Minister is exploiting the crisis to push through permanent rollbacks that will not even be in effect during President Trump’s term?

Patrick Bonin, Repentigny

Bloc Québécois
“I oppose this bill. The government is using the tariff crisis as an excuse to permanently ignore our environmental and health laws. Good projects do not need to bypass the rules.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 100 of 100

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

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his clear remarks. We are very clearly dealing with a government that is currently exploiting the tariff crisis. Bill C-39 proposes to make it possible to circumvent environmental laws on a permanent basis. This has nothing to do with the tariff crisis. It shows very clearly that the Liberals want to make this permanent. We have laws and regulations for a reason. We have spent several decades establishing a system to protect the environment and people’s health. Essentially, what Bill C-39 does is allow us, within 24 hours, to throw this entire framework for protecting the environment and people’s health into the dustbin of history. There would be no need to bypass laws and regulations if the projects were sound. Clearly these are bad projects. The Liberal government is using the tariff crisis to literally engage in Trump-style politics, develop oil and gas, set aside the law and rule like a king.

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