“The member did not talk about this bill at all, even though it includes the fixes he asked for. I want him to read the bill and come back to talk about what is actually in it.”

“Madam Speaker, I quite liked my colleague’s anecdote about his messy bedroom. I think there was a bit of disorder going on in his thoughts this evening, because he talked about everything but Bill C-39. He even talked about another bill that had nothing to do with Bill C-39 when he was talking about streamlining and results. Those things are found in Bill C-39. My question for my colleague is, will he commit to reading the bill in detail and returning to the House to speak to Bill C-39? I think he will find answers to many of his questions.”

“I want the House to pass this bill. It helps us build clean energy, roads, and other major projects faster by cutting repeat paperwork across government departments. It still protects the environment, respects treaties, and ensures Indigenous communities are properly consulted and can partner in these projects.”

“Madam Speaker, I would like to begin by acknowledging that we are gathered on the unceded traditional territory of the Algonquin Anishinabe people. Today, I want to speak about Bill C-39, the building Canada strong act, and why it matters for Canada’s future. Canada is at a pivotal moment. The global economy is undergoing a major transformation. Countries around the world are competing to attract investment, create jobs and develop new industries. At the same time, Canadians are feeling the effects of the rising cost of living and economic uncertainty. To meet these challenges, we must grow. We must build roads, ports, clean energy projects, transportation networks and other infrastructure that will enable Canada to grow and create good jobs. When we talk about building Canada, we must remember something important. It is not just about what we build, but also about how we build. That is why indigenous peoples must be part of this work. After all, first nations, Inuit and Métis are not only rights holders. They are business leaders, investors, entrepreneurs, employers and project owners. They are helping to shape Canada’s economy and create opportunities for future generations. Simply put, we cannot build a stronger Canada without indigenous peoples. That is why we have taken steps to support indigenous participation in major projects. We have opened new consultation resource centres to help communities participate in project reviews. We have provided funding so indigenous communities have the expertise and capacity they need to engage in discussions about projects that affect them. The growing role of indigenous ownership is reflected in the success of the First Nations Finance Authority, a first nations-led, not-for-profit financial institution created under the federal First Nations Fiscal Management Act. Earlier this year, the FNFA issued a record $800-million bond, helping push total first nations investments financed through the institution beyond $5 billion. Those investments are supporting housing, infrastructure, business development, clean energy and indigenous participation in major projects across Canada because participation is important, but ownership is even more powerful. When communities have ownership, they do not just have a seat at the table; they have a stake in what is being built and a share in the benefits that result. Across Canada, we are already seeing examples of what that looks like. Wataynikaneyap Power is a first nations majority-owned transmission project. The project connected remote communities and Ontario’s electricity grid, reducing reliance on diesel fuel while creating a long-term indigenous-owned infrastructure asset that will provide benefits for generations to come. The Canada Nickel’s Crawford project is showing how indigenous communities are becoming true partners in Canada’s critical mineral sector. The Taykwa Tagamou First Nation made a significant equity investment in the project, helping ensure that economic opportunities, decision-making and long-term benefits are shared with the community. The project will help supply the critical minerals needed for batteries and other clean technologies that drive down emissions while also creating jobs and economic growth in the region. In B.C., the Portland Canal marine terminal is a deep-sea port with the primary purpose of critical mineral transportation from the region to overseas markets. The terminal is jointly owned by the Nisg̱a’a and Tahltan nations, as well as Arrow Transportation Systems. These projects are among many across the country that show what reconciliation looks like in action. They demonstrate that indigenous communities are not simply participants in Canada’s economy, but helping lead it. Many indigenous communities have told us that consultations often start too late. Others have told us that they have to answer the same questions posed by different government departments. Some communities are experiencing consultation fatigue; in other words, they spend so much time navigating government processes that they have less time to devote to the issues that matter most. We have listened to these concerns. These comments have helped shape the building Canada act. The goal of the legislation is simple. We want to make project reviews more efficient and more predictable while maintaining indigenous rights and environmental protections. One of the key parts of the bill is reducing duplication. Instead of having several federal bodies reviewing the same project separately, the legislation supports a more coordinated approach with the goal of having one federal review process and one coordinated consultation process whenever possible. We also propose creating a Crown consultation hub. We can think of it as a central coordination team. Its job would be to help federal departments work together, identify issues earlier and improve communication with indigenous communities. The goal is not to have less consultation; the goal is to have better consultation. We want indigenous communities spending less time dealing with red tape and more time having meaningful discussions about projects that affect their lands, waters and futures. I also want to be very clear about what does not change under the building Canada strong act. Canada’s duty to consult does not change. Our obligations under modern treaties and self-government agreements do not change. Indigenous rights remain protected. Meaningful consultation remains essential. When more time is needed for consultation, the legislation allows for extensions or timelines to be paused. There is another reason why it is important for good projects to move ahead faster. If Canada really wants to fight climate change, we need to build infrastructure that will help to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and improve our future. That includes the renewable energy generation, power lines, energy storage and other clean energy projects. All too often, projects that could help communities reduce their dependence on diesel are subject to long, complicated approval processes. By making reviews more efficient, reducing duplication and improving coordination, we can help move forward projects that Canadians need while continuing to uphold strong environmental protections and meaningful consultation with indigenous peoples. Building faster and protecting the environment are not competing goals. When done properly, they go hand in hand. I also want to note that the situation in Canada’s north is unique. In the Yukon, Nunavut and much of the Northwest Territories, project reviews are already carried out through modern treaty and co-management systems that were designed with indigenous partners and reflect constitutionally protected agreements. Bill C-39 does not replace those systems. However, in the Inuvialuit settlement region, where federal impact assessment processes continue to play a significant role, the improvements in coordination, consultation and permitting proposed in this legislation could help provide greater certainty and efficiency while continuing to respect indigenous rights and existing obligations. Some people talk as though economic development and reconciliation were at odds. I see them as working hand in hand. Indigenous peoples are not just being consulted on major projects: They are increasingly owning, investing in and leading them. When indigenous communities are true partners, projects are stronger, communities benefit and everyone is better off. That is the vision behind the building Canada strong act. It is a Canada that builds, a Canada that creates jobs, a Canada that attracts investment and a Canada that respects indigenous rights, honours treaties and advances reconciliation. We can build the infrastructure our country needs. We can create opportunities for future generations, and we can do it together. That is how we advance reconciliation. That is how we create shared prosperity. That is how we build Canada strong for all.”

• Echo ×20

  A repeated line

  “That is how we build Canada strong.”

  Said 20 times by 14 members since April 23.

  Every time it was said →

“I support this bill because it speeds up project reviews and cuts down on duplicate work. For example, some energy projects would only need a review from one agency instead of two. The minister would also have less time to make a decision, which gets projects moving faster without hurting consultations.”

“Madam Speaker, one great thing about this legislation is the opportunity to have efficiencies and to reduce duplication. For example, if there is an offshore energy project that is being proposed, right now it has to go through an assessment with the Impact Assessment Agency, as well as the Canada Energy Regulator. What is being proposed in Bill C-39 is that it would go from two agencies to one agency. It would be the Canada Energy Regulator doing the review. That would also be the federal department leading consultations and bringing the federal family in to do one project, one review, one consultation. I would also note that the legislation allows for an extension, if need be, for further consultations. There are parameters in the legislation that allow for some flexibility, but the benefits of this legislation are really about reducing the duplication and having more coordinated consultation. Another thing is that the minister’s decision-making time goes from 90 days down to 65 days. Again, there would be no impact on consultation. It would just be with the minister for less time.”

“I support this bill. Indigenous leaders told me it will make consultations simpler because only one department will handle them instead of several. Our duty to consult Indigenous communities does not change.”

“Madam Speaker, I have been talking about this legislation with indigenous leaders from across the country. Based on the feedback I am hearing about Bill C‑39, it offers the possibility of a consultation process coordinated by a single department. The process would be more organized, sparing communities from having to deal with different departments at different times of year. The duty to consult remains unchanged. Currently, two agencies conduct assessments: the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada and the Canada Energy Regulator. The bill provides that only one agency will be responsible for assessment. That said, the factors to be considered and the duty to consult remain the same.”

• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 100 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

“How will this bill bring more investment to Canada while still letting Indigenous communities have a say in project approvals?”

“Madam Speaker, how would Bill C-39 help attract more investment to Canada while giving indigenous communities and peoples a say in approval processes?”

“This bill helps Indigenous communities because it makes the approval process faster for their projects without changing the rules.”

“Madam Speaker, I think that one of the benefits is that a lot of projects across Canada are led by indigenous communities or require their equitable participation. For them, the process is the same. With this bill, it will take less time and the work will move ahead faster.”

“If the member says he supports workers, he should support this bill. It adds more safety inspections and helps workers solve disputes.”

“Madam Speaker, if my opposition colleague claims to stand up for workers, why would he not support measures that increase health and safety inspections and strengthen the dispute resolution process?”

“I want the House to pass this bill. It makes reviews for major projects faster by setting a one-year deadline and cutting out duplicate steps. We still protect the environment and talk with Indigenous groups, but decisions will happen sooner so we do not lose jobs and investments.”

“Madam Speaker, it is a great honour to stand here today with my hon. colleagues in the House as we turn our attention to the proposed building Canada strong act, a bill, as we know, that would modernize regulatory reviews of major projects in this country and eliminate costly delays and uncertainty for proponents while ensuring that the rights and interests of indigenous peoples are upheld and that we maintain Canada’s world-class environmental standards. Canada has a simple question. Can we turn our enormous potential into real jobs, real projects and real prosperity? We have what the world wants. We have the energy, the resources, the technology, the workforce and what cannot be found in many other jurisdictions: We have the trust. However, it is not enough if it takes too long to make a decision, issue a permit or get shovels in the ground. I do not think I need to remind anybody here that Canada faces an unprecedented economic threat, uncertainty and instability, circumstances that we did not create, that our workers did not create, but that have forced us to change in order to protect those good jobs, our economy and our sovereignty. That is exactly why we are bringing forward the building Canada strong act. This is about moving with urgency. It is about giving Canada a regulatory system that is clear, credible and capable of delivering. It is about doing it without in any way compromising Canada’s world-class environmental protections and while upholding indigenous treaty rights. We must move faster, but we cannot cut corners. We must protect the environment, but we also must create good jobs. We must build responsibly and with urgency because in the world we face today, delay is not an option. When a responsible project does not move forward, the investment will go somewhere else, the jobs and the opportunities will go somewhere else, and our government will not let the future be defined by missed opportunities because of delay. The building Canada strong act proposes changes to a lot of things. We understand that. There would be changes to the Impact Assessment Act, the Building Canada Act, the Canadian Energy Regulator Act, the Fisheries Act, the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, the Species at Risk Act and the Canadian Navigable Waters Act. That is a lot of legislative titles, but the purpose is clear. It is to make federal decisions faster, to make the process clearer and to give communities, indigenous partners, workers, investors and Canadians greater certainty about what happens next. We have heard from the public that we do not need weaker standards, and we will never have those. We need a government that can organize itself and coordinate things to work more responsibly and more expeditiously. That is the balance in this bill: speed and responsibility, growth and protection, ambition and trust. The proposed amendments would create a more coordinated federal process for all major projects, with clear timelines and more predictable decisions. Once a proponent has submitted a complete application with all the required information, federal reviews and decisions would be made within a year. In simple terms, the work would happen together instead of separately, not one step after another. Impact assessments and permit reviews would proceed at the same time, federal experts would be brought in earlier, duplication would be reduced, and problems would be identified sooner, not at the end of the process when they are hard and, frankly, expensive to solve. The Impact Assessment Agency of Canada is already helping proponents get ready before formal assessment begins. It is ensuring close coordination with federal departments and agencies, enhancing co-operation with provinces under landmark agreements for one project, one review, and focusing assessments on key issues within federal jurisdiction. This bill also introduces amendments that would ensure the federal regulator, with the most relevant experience and expertise, is carrying out impact assessments, putting the right expertise in the lead. Under this proposed approach, pipelines, transmission lines and certain offshore renewable energy projects regulated by the Canada Energy Regulator would solely be assessed by the CER through its process under the Canadian Energy Regulator Act. For nuclear and uranium projects, the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission would, logically, conduct impact assessments by following the rigorous process and requirements set out by the Impact Assessment Act. This is all common sense. These regulators understand these technologies. They understand the risks. They understand the full life cycle of these projects that they regulate. However, let me be clear: Environmental, health, social, economic and indigenous considerations would continue to be assessed. The standards would remain. The oversight would remain. What would change is the unnecessary duplication between federal processes that slows things down. Another important improvement being introduced through the bill would be the creation of a federal review coordination function and a Crown consultation hub, both to be housed inside the Impact Assessment Agency. The federal review coordinator would be responsible for ensuring that impact assessments are led by the Impact Assessment Agency and federal permits meet the new timelines. That is key. It would also work with experts in different federal departments to ensure that everything stays organized and on track. The Crown consultation hub would coordinate one clear consultation process for each indigenous group affected by a major project. This would replace multiple overlapping and repetitive federal processes and help reduce, essentially, consultation fatigue. Meaningful consultation matters, but it need not be repetitive. It should not require indigenous partners to repeat the same work for different parts of the same government. Better coordination would ensure the Crown upholds its obligations and would provide indigenous partners a process that is clear, coherent and more respectful of their time. Furthermore, to ensure clearer, more streamlined project decisions, the government is also proposing legislative changes to move toward a single comprehensive federal decision for major project permits and for approvals, which would result in one federal decision document that would be issued by the Minister of the Environment, Climate Change and Nature. This document would include all federal decisions required for a project to move forward if it is undergoing a comprehensive impact assessment, while the federal review coordinator would ensure that all relevant federal experts across the government would provide timely advice and any key recommendations needed for that decision. For too long, proponents have had to move from department to department, process to process and decision to decision, creating unnecessary delays and a lot of uncertainty. The cost has been that this country has not remained competitive. This bill is practical and would make practical changes for that. It would move certain decisions, not all, from cabinet to the responsible minister. Conditions imposed on proponents would need to be technically and economically feasible. Some early construction activities could actually begin before final impact decisions, but only when the necessary permits have been approved. These are common-sense improvements that would help the federal government make the sound decisions we need to make. When companies choose Canada, workers benefit. When responsible projects move forward, communities benefit. When we build the infrastructure, energy systems and nation-building projects the world needs, our whole country benefits. We have worked very hard with every province that supports our goal of one project, one review. That matters. This is a team effort. Provinces, territories, indigenous rights holders, municipalities, workers, industries and communities all have to play a role, and the changes proposed in Bill C-39 would give us a stronger, more efficient system. As the Prime Minister said, Canada has what the world wants. It is now up to us to take action, to build our country faster and to create the jobs and opportunities here that will strengthen our economic sovereignty and our country. We are turning Canada and our potential into prosperity. It is common sense. There would be no compromise on the environment. There would be no compromise on consultation with indigenous communities. This is about building stronger, building Canadian and building together.”

“I want the member to support our major transportation projects like high-speed rail. This bill makes project reviews take only one year while still protecting the environment, keeping safety rules, and consulting Indigenous groups.”

“Madam Speaker, that was a great question, and I would welcome the hon. member’s support as we build great transportation projects like high-speed rail. If he wants to help expedite those kinds of things, I would be more than delighted to welcome him and his support to move some of the major projects in transportation forward. We will count on his support. I look forward to the foreshadowing of his support for expediting great projects like high-speed rail. Through this particular bill, Bill C-39, it is absolutely important that we are doing one project, one review, one year for major projects while keeping the regulations, the safety of the environment and the consultation with indigenous partners in place.”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 45 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

“Our projects have helped Quebec, like the clean energy project at Churchill Falls. Right now, Canada sells oil at a discount because we only sell to the United States. This project lets us sell to new markets. That will bring in money to fund more projects for all Canadians, including people in Quebec.”

“Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. First of all, I want to point out that the projects of this government have supported Quebec, as we saw with Churchill, the largest clean-energy infrastructure project in North America, which benefited Quebec. This is absolutely critical. To the member’s question, and it is a good question, as the member knows, we sell oil now to the United States at a discount because it is the only customer. This project would allow us to expand our markets to have the revenue to support the very projects we want to build and to support all Canadians and, of course, the people of Quebec.”

“Businesses have to deal with too many government departments asking for the same things. I want the minister to explain why we must make this process easier so businesses invest in Canada instead of the United States.”

“Madam Speaker, part of the problem we are facing in the country in these current geopolitical times is the fact that a proponent must go through a process where in one department, a silo, a number of boxes need to be checked, and in another department, another silo, a number of boxes need to be checked. Some of those are duplicates. I am asking the minister to comment on the importance of ensuring that we are competitive as a country so that we can attract business in this country, as opposed to it going to other countries, such as south of the border.”

“I want the House to pass this bill. Slow reviews hurt Canada, and this bill makes project approvals take only one year so things can get built.”

“Madam Speaker, we know that delays have made Canada in some ways less competitive. The purpose of this bill is to have one project, one review, one year. This would give certainty to investors, get projects built and make Canada more competitive.”

“I want the House to pass this bill. It will speed up approvals for big building projects and set a one-year limit on federal decisions. It also protects the environment, respects Indigenous rights, and hires 100 new safety officers for workers.”

“Mr. Speaker, I am proud to rise today to express my support for Bill C‑39, the building Canada strong act. As the member for Alfred-Pellan, I represent a community that is at the heart of a growing region. Laval is a vibrant city of workers, families and businesses that depend on efficient infrastructure to grow. Bill C‑39 is based on a simple reality: The world is changing quickly, so Canada must also be able to act quickly. We need to attract investment, build the infrastructure we need, diversify our trade and strengthen our economy. However, we must do so responsibly, upholding rigorous environmental standards and the rights of indigenous peoples. That is precisely the balance that Bill C‑39 proposes. This bill would establish clearer, simpler and more predictable processes for carrying out projects. Our government is committed to issuing decisions on projects requiring a federal permit within one year. This stability is essential for businesses and investors. It allows them to plan ahead, raise capital and create jobs. However, moving faster does not mean compromising on quality. Bill C‑39 does not ask us to choose between the economy and the environment. We can build faster while maintaining high environmental standards. The bill provides for better coordination of processes and aims to reduce unnecessary overlap, particularly between federal and provincial assessments. This approach is particularly relevant for Laval and my riding, Alfred-Pellan. Laval is at the heart of the greater Montreal area, and its economy depends on efficient transportation networks, both for citizens and for businesses. With over 13,500 businesses and nearly 165,400 people employed there, Laval is a community where infrastructure plays a central role in our economic development. In addition, with Bill C‑39, our government wants to improve the coordination of federal approvals and create a transportation project office that can move priority projects forward. For a city like Laval, that means infrastructure that is more predictable and that allows our businesses to access major transportation networks and markets more efficiently. This is not just about the economy. It is also about jobs. Workers are at the heart of this legislation. Bill C-39 seeks to modernize the Canada Labour Code, encourage early bargaining and strengthen dispute resolution mechanisms. The bill also provides for the hiring of 100 new health and safety officers, which would significantly increase inspection capacity. In other words, we are not just building infrastructure. We are also building an economy that must provide good jobs and protect workers. Bill C-39 provides for several safeguards. It upholds Canada’s strict environmental standards and indigenous rights. It also protects the right to strike, while encouraging the parties to resolve disputes more quickly through mediation and bargaining. We want Canada to invest in its future, while doing things right. We want a Canada where businesses can invest with confidence, where workers are protected and where communities benefit from better transit systems. Most importantly, we want a Canada that can move from planning to action. For Laval, Quebec and all of Canada, this legislation represents an important step toward building a stronger and more resilient economy. It is time to build.”

“This bill helps build a stronger economy by moving big projects forward. I want the member to share his thoughts on the government's overall plan to help Canada grow.”

“Mr. Speaker, I am wondering if my friend could provide his thoughts in regard to the overall approach that the government has taken since the last federal election. When we think about Bill C-39, it is all about advancing what we have been talking about for the last year and a half since Canadians elected a new Prime Minister, and that was to build a stronger and a healthier economy here in Canada, an economy that works for all Canadians. In order to do that, we need a substantial piece of legislation like Bill C-39. It is to enable projects to actually go ahead. We can look at the 24-plus projects that have been handed over to the Major Projects Office. We can think of the half a trillion dollars of investment at a summit that was hosted by the Prime Minister just last month. Can the member provide his thoughts on the bigger picture—”

“I want the House to pass this bill. It will help us build projects faster, bring in investment, and create jobs while still protecting the environment and respecting Indigenous peoples.”

“Mr. Speaker, I completely agree with my colleague. This is the type of leadership Canada needs today. We have the resources, workers and businesses needed to build a stronger economy. Bill C‑39 gives us the tools to move projects forward more quickly, attract investment and strengthen our supply chains, all without compromising our environmental standards or our commitments to indigenous peoples. We can protect the environment and create jobs, and we must do both.”

“I want the House to pass this bill. It sets a clear one-year timeline for federal project reviews once an application is finished. Businesses and workers need predictable decisions, but projects will still have to follow the rules.”

“Mr. Speaker, it is quite simple: real projects planned out with predictable permitting timelines. Any serious project requires planning. Businesses, workers and communities need to know when decisions will be made. That is why Bill C‑39 seeks to make processes more predictable and efficient, with the goal of reaching a federal decision within one year when an application is complete. This does not mean projects will be approved automatically; it means we are providing a clear timeline while continuing to follow the rules.”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  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 →

“This bill does not let the government ignore its duty to consult Indigenous peoples. Instead, it makes consultations more organized and predictable. Speeding up project reviews will not take away anyone's rights.”

“Mr. Speaker, I completely disagree with my colleague’s remarks. Bill C‑39 does not release our government from its duty to consult indigenous peoples and respect their rights. On the contrary, it seeks to make consultations more coordinated and more predictable. Our government is proposing a coordinated consultation process to facilitate indigenous participation in project assessments. Accelerating a process should not come at the cost of rights. Consultations must continue, impacts must be assessed and mitigation measures must be applied fully.”

• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 100 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

“We set up a new projects office, worked with premiers and Indigenous leaders, and already have half a trillion dollars in projects registered. Huge projects take time to build. They do not appear overnight, but thousands of things will be built in the next year.”

“Mr. Speaker, imagine this. The Prime Minister was elected 18 months ago with a new government and said we were going to have a new projects office, which was set up a few months later. We passed legislation and worked with premiers and indigenous leaders. A lot of collaboration took place. There are already half a trillion dollars’ worth of projects at the new office located in Calgary. The member opposite and Conservatives are asking where all the buildings are and where they were all built. We are talking about multi-billion-dollar projects. We do not just click our heels and they appear out of nowhere. It takes some time. Canadians understand that. The Conservatives are out in the wilderness, and they do not understand that fact. Does the Conservative Party not realize that it does take some time? I will give my personal guarantee that there will be thousands of things built within the next year by—”

“I support this bill and want it to pass. It helps us build clean energy and trade projects faster by setting one-year review timelines. It protects the environment, respects Indigenous rights, and makes our economy stronger.”

“Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to this very important bill today. I want to start with the context of the legislation and the context that became quite apparent during the election campaign. I want to start with that because it is important to establish the “why” of this piece of legislation and what is guiding the government’s agenda. I am going to start with a quote from our campaign manifesto because it identifies very well the calls that Canadians had around the items in this bill and that indeed motivated many people in their support of our campaign. It is on the very first page of the manifesto: Canada is the best country in the world. Our sovereignty is under threat. America’s unjustified trade war is an attempt to weaken us. We will not let that happen. It’s time to build a future that makes Canada strong. We can give ourselves much more than any foreign government, including the United States, can ever take away. Building one Canadian economy, for example, can expand our economy by up to $200 billion—proof that we are strongest when we are united. To unite this country, [we] will build one economy where Canadians can work wherever they want. Where goods can move freely from coast to coast to coast. Where the government’s significant purchasing power buys Canadian goods and supports Canadian industries and workers. Where we use domestic strength to grow a strong economy that can never be taken away. As Canadians, we have our own unique identity, history, and geography. To keep Canada strong, we will protect our culture, protect our environment, and protect our core values. And continue to build in true partnership with Indigenous Peoples. That was the context of this campaign, and that was the context that resulted in the questions and encouragement I was hearing from constituents in Taiaiako’n—Parkdale—High Park. It really came down to three or four things that were underlying the arguments we were making and the support we got. First, Canadians and people in Taiaiako’n—Parkdale—High Park were looking for a new generation of economic growth in the context of the attack on our sovereignty and in the context of the realization that we needed to do some things differently. They were also looking for climate policy that works, that gets results, that continues to achieve the greenhouse gas reductions we need and that gets us to net zero by 2050. They also observed, especially in contrast to the economic growth that they were seeking and the sovereignty that they expected us to express, some frustrations with the ways that we build. Indeed, in this bill, we have been talking about projects that cover vast distances. In cities, we also build. The residents of the city of Toronto and the residents in my riding have been getting frustrated on occasion by the slow pace of building, whether it is building transportation infrastructure in particular or building the other kinds of economic goods that maybe are not as visible. On transportation infrastructure, there is the Eglinton Crosstown LRT and other transportation projects that are taking a long time to build. However, we have other economic and transportation projects that are delivering results to people in our ridings and to people in cities. It is an important question when we look at the kinds of projects that this bill is contemplating, like the natural resource projects and the energy and electricity projects. They might appear to be far away from urban residents, but people in our ridings and people in urban Canada see the benefit of these projects that are being built sometimes far away from them because we have nuclear engineers in our ridings. We have tradespeople. We have people who work in the oil and gas sector. We have people who work on electricity, on renewable energy and definitely in ports and transportation. I have people in my riding, in a beautiful corner of west Toronto, Taiaiako’n—Parkdale—High Park, who work in the services sectors that are covered by the kinds of projects we are talking about in this bill. We can talk about how we build in cities, especially in a city like Toronto, the capital of the largest province in Canada, the financial capital of this country, a centre for research, a centre for innovation and a centre of not only the services economy but the goods economy. There is manufacturing that happens within our borders, including in my riding, and people are looking at those things and the broader picture of how economic growth happens. They were asking us the question during the campaign, “Can we catalyze a new generation of economic growth while asserting sovereignty and achieving climate policy results?” This bill is a very natural response to the kinds of things that people in west Toronto, in my riding of Taiaiako’n—Parkdale—High Park and indeed across the country were responding to and expecting when the campaign was unleashed and when the words that I read in our party’s manifesto were written. I think it is really important to share some of the things the bill would do and some of the things the bill would not do, because I think there has been a lot of misinformation and a lot of misconceptions about what the bill would and would not do. I will give some examples. For instance, the bill would allow an opportunity to formally designate strategic national trade corridors. I think a lot of Canadians would be surprised that the federal government does not have this power already. This is a very important thing to be able to do if we are going to be building transportation infrastructure. This bill would also give the power to declare regions of national interest. I see this as part of good planning. Cities already have the power to do land use planning. Provinces often have industrial regions. We have Alberta’s industrial heartland, and there are many parts of cities that provide a set way of doing regional planning for economic purposes, while also including the full set of environmental considerations for certain species and other considerations. The bill would simply brings that lens to the opportunities that the federal government might identify with partners. I think a lot of people would be surprised that these powers do not exist already. Where the bill says to do those kinds of things, it would not mean we end consultations. In fact, before and after permits are issued, there would still be consultation involved. This bill would not mean we would disregard cumulative effects. In fact, when we do regional planning, the kind of planning that is contemplated by the processes in this bill, land use planning cumulative effects would still be very much at the fore. Enabling digital trade is another key part of this bill. I think Canadians would be very surprised that digital documents in the transportation sector are not already recognized as being equivalent. This is a very positive measure to help the federal government help people who are involved in trade and transportation-related trade to catch up to the ways of doing business that we would expect. The bill would provide for one year for reviews for pipelines, designated power lines and offshore renewable energy projects. That is what it would do. It would not presume the outcome of any review. It would not say that a project will or will not go ahead. It would provide a one-year timeline, and it would provide that opportunity for, in particular, designated power lines and offshore renewable energy projects. I am going to get to those in a second. Bill C-39 would provide, as my colleague from Calgary Confederation and the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations mentioned, the coordination of indigenous consultations. It would not end UNDRIP. It would not change our obligations under the charter in section 35. Those are entirely preserved. The bill would provide the coordination that makes it easier for indigenous peoples, and especially smaller communities, to take part meaningfully in consultations. The bill would codify existing practices, including some economic and other considerations in the species at risk determinations. It would not end or gut the Species at Risk Act in any way. In fact, one of the major things we did from the consultation we did at the outset of this bill, which resulted in reports over the summer that were published in the early fall and that helped inform this legislation, was remove the limited exemptions to the jeopardy test that were of rightful concern to many Canadians. The legislation would do a lot of things that would provide economic certainty and provide certainty to investors, but it would maintain high standards. This piece of legislation would not do a lot of the things that some of the fearmongering that I have heard in this House alleges. This is also in the context of an incredibly rich set of climate policy achievements that this government has brought forward. They are achievements like the national electricity strategy, which is going to double our electricity generation with major projects like Churchill Falls. It is a very exciting project that has been mentioned repeatedly in my riding of Taiaiako’n—Parkdale—High Park. The bill would tackle the methane emissions that we have been looking to tackle for a long time. We have an industrial carbon price that has been preserved despite the complaints from the members opposite. It has clean energy tax credits. We have a nature strategy, an oceans protection strategy, EV rebates and a whole set of climate policy objectives that are an important piece of context for the bill. They are not in the bill, but they all create the permission space for us to do the kind of work we need to do, especially in electrification. In fact, I would argue that if members want to accelerate the move to net zero and do more electrification, then they should get behind this bill 100%, because it would create the permissions, opportunities and timelines to get electrification done faster. That is the context of the bill. It would mean that we can build in the right way, build towards net zero and we can build sustainably. I appreciate the chance to participate in the debate.”

“This bill is not like the old Conservative laws. It still protects the environment while coordinating approvals. I want the member to look at these protections again and support the bill.”

“Mr. Speaker, I have a lot of respect for my colleague opposite and her history of engagement on these files, including her engagement on the proposed Harper-era changes that she was involved in and that, indeed, I was involved in when I was a journalist covering that government. I would submit that this is very different, that we have a coordination of approvals. We have eminent protections on either end of the process. We have an important cabinet directive that was published at the same time as the introduction of the legislation and that would prioritize the mitigation hierarchy with respect to projects. I think there is a lot in this legislation regarding the protections we have in place, combined with those other elements of our climate policy that I described, that I would commend to the member for further consideration.”