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

Gabriel Ste-Marie, Joliette—Manawan

Bloc Québécois
“I oppose this bill. It weakens environmental rules and worker rights just to help big international investors. It also takes power away from scientists and gives project reviews to regulators linked to the oil industry.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, first of all, that already happened with Bill C-5. As soon as a project is designated as being in the national interest, a whole host of environmental protection laws no longer apply. In this case, rather than maintain the consultation process involving scientists, a gain achieved under the Liberals in 2015—I do not know where the hon. member was at the time—the government is now proposing to have the Canada Energy Regulator take care of that process. A quick look at the list of commissioners shows that they are all oil industry lobbyists. Even if the regulator were to oppose a project, it would be pre-approved anyway, so the regulator would no longer have any power. That is what the government is doing. It is trampling on the environment and workers’ rights. I could take a highlighter to the 250 pages of the bill and show him every place where this bill clearly undermines workers’ rights and the environment for the benefit of big international investors. Is that what standing up for the public means to this government? Does it mean favouring big international investors? I think the government should have tried to strike a balance.

Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Rimouski-Neigette—Mitis—Matapédia—Les Basques

Bloc Québécois
“The Prime Minister used to work on climate issues for the United Nations, but now he is spending public money on a pipeline and ignoring environmental laws. I want the member for Joliette to tell us if the government is using the tariff crisis as an excuse to weaken environmental rules.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, it is quite clear that we are witnessing an ecological betrayal. We know that the Prime Minister is not just anyone. He worked at Brookfield. Most importantly, he is the United Nation’s former special envoy on climate. However, he is the one buying a second pipeline with public funds and disregarding all of Canada’s environmental laws for the sake of projects that are in the so-called national interest. If that is not a betrayal, my colleagues will have to let me know the strongest word there is to judge, observe and analyze that situation. I would like my colleague from Joliette to explain his point of view. Is the government turning the environment into a pipe dream by trying to take advantage of the tariff crisis to push things that could never have been done before?

Gabriel Ste-Marie, Joliette—Manawan

Bloc Québécois
“I oppose this bill. The Prime Minister is weakening environmental rules more than any leader before him. It takes decades to protect the environment, but this government is tearing those protections down in minutes.”
  • 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, a Conservative government would never have gotten away with backtracking so much on the environment. There would have been an outcry from across society. Now people are afraid of our American neighbours, with good reason, so they are giving this Prime Minister carte blanche. For all his green promises, never has the environment suffered so many setbacks as it has under the current Prime Minister, including with Bill C-39. It is unprecedented. As the Bloc Québécois leader said, it takes decades to put measures in place to protect the environment and only five minutes to tear them down. That is what this government is doing.

Braeden Caley, North Vancouver—Capilano

Liberal
“I support this bill. It speeds up federal reviews for big projects, helps trade move through our ports, and protects workers' rights and the environment.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time today with the member for Beauport—Limoilou. I rise to give my first speech in the House with gratitude to the people of North Vancouver—Capilano and a profound sense of responsibility. This seat belongs to them, and I will hold it in trust and work every day to further earn the confidence that they have placed in me. I thank my predecessor, Jonathan Wilkinson, for his service to our community and continued service to our country; the Prime Minister; and so many friends and neighbours for their confidence throughout such an important campaign. With the highest voter turnout in a British Columbia federal by-election in nearly half a century, I am grateful to everyone who cast a ballot, whatever their choice, for their faith and their involvement in our democracy at this important moment for our country. From Loutet Park to Ambleside, through thousands of conversations, we heard what our community expects, which is for everyday costs to be brought down, homes people can afford to be built faster, transportation that keeps pace with the growing north shore, action on climate change and protection of nature. Above all, I heard determination about Canada being able to choose its own strong future. That is why I rise today in support of Bill C-39, the building Canada strong act. For the people I represent, a stronger, more independent Canadian economy is a practical necessity. It means a job that can withstand a tariff, a business that can reach another market and a community whose future cannot and will not be decided elsewhere. The Prime Minister has clearly set out our task, and it has always been our new government’s plan A to build our strength at home and broaden our partnerships abroad. At last week’s Canada investment summit, he made the case for turning Canada’s advantages into investment and investment into lasting prosperity for all. Our responsibility in the House is to make that prosperity real in people’s lives. In an uncertain world, we have argued that Canada can offer something increasingly valuable, which is trust, the confidence that a commitment will be honoured, that an investment can really become a project and that a trading partner will deliver. We have to earn that confidence in what we do next, and we will with this bill. On the north shore, we can also see what that means from the waterfront. Neptune Terminals beside Low Level Road is the world’s largest potash terminal. It connects workers and communities in Saskatchewan with customers in China, Brazil and beyond. Cargill, Richardson and G3 connect prairie grain growers with markets all around the world. Lynnterm moves forest products that sustain livelihoods all across British Columbia. Our community moves what the world needs. Every railcar and every ship carries more than cargo. It carries the work of Canadians, the incomes of families all across the country and the promise of another order from another market far or near. A ship built at Seaspan on the north shore means skilled, high-paying work; an apprenticeship for someone’s kid; and Canadian capability that we can depend on to secure our sovereignty on all of our shores, not just the north shore. Our home is where national ambition meets a working waterfront and a gateway to a world that wants more Canada, but the opportunity before us will not realize itself, as we know. New projects need reliable routes to market. Businesses need confidence that decisions will come reliably. Workers need to know that the gains from growth will reach them directly. Bill C-39 would help connect these pieces, designating national trade corridors, enabling a national trade corridors council, modernizing port governance and laying the groundwork for updated transportation security clearances. The purpose is straightforward. It is to get Canadian goods to customers with more certainty, attract investment and give Canadian businesses more choices about where they sell and can sell. More routes to market mean more room for Canada to make our own decisions. However, that requires government itself to work better, too. A project should not stall because one department is waiting on another or because the same information has to be submitted again and again. Building on last year’s Building Canada Act, these reforms would better coordinate federal reviews and permitting, with a one-year decision timeline in place once the required information and studies are submitted. Rigorous scrutiny and timely decisions must go together. Canadians deserve both, and people across the north shore have long demanded both. Provinces are also working to accelerate infrastructure and energy development. In British Columbia, that effort includes reforms to infrastructure approvals and renewable energy permitting. Federal and provincial governments also have different responsibilities, and the people depending on us need those responsibilities to add up to results. That is what a whole-of-government approach should and can mean: a system that works together so Canadians can get to work. How we build matters as much as what we build, as the Prime Minister often says. My mother taught school for decades, like my grandmother before her. My father was a bus driver and fuelled aircraft at Vancouver International Airport. In my family, like so many represented in the House, service meant doing a day’s work with determination, taking responsibility and being there when people needed us. Those lessons belong in this House, too. So, too, does the understanding that a paycheque supports a household and that strong unions and collective bargaining help people build and secure lives they can count on. That is why this bill’s labour measures matter as well. Earlier engagement and stronger mediation can help unions and employers reach lasting agreements at the bargaining table. Following significant consultations, the bill also proposes key important guardrails on certain interventions under section 107 of the Canada Labour Code, alongside public reporting by special mediators. These measures will and always must support genuine collective bargaining and respect Canadians’ right to strike. We must always build in solidarity with Canadian workers, whose skill and effort make the kind of transformation that we are talking about possible, and we always will. Success must mean more apprentices learning a trade, more families with a secure income and more young Canadians able to see a place for themselves in the stronger economy that we are building together. We must also build in partnership with indigenous people, including the Squamish and Tsleil-Waututh nations on the north shore, which will also be leading builders of our shared future. Their leadership and ambition are also helping shape so much of what our region and indeed our country can become. I have heard directly about how difficult overlapping federal processes can be to navigate for them and others. Better coordination needs to mean that meaningful participation is easier and that the Crown’s obligations are upheld. Alongside this legislation, a Crown consultation hub within the Impact Assessment Agency would help coordinate federal consultation, working toward one comprehensive process per project, per indigenous community. Partnership must begin early and carry through to the opportunities and prosperity that a project creates. For a community framed by mountains, forests and ocean, protecting nature is also inseparable from building our future. Following a lot of the consultation we saw this summer, the government dropped one earlier discussion point to allow exemptions from the species at risk jeopardy test, and I would say that is a very welcome response to the considerations Canadians raised. Building faster must go hand in hand with protecting the natural world that we live in, thrive off of and pass on. Listening well is part of governing, and I really applaud the ministers’ leadership in that regard and the depth of the consultation that the ministers undertook. Canada’s advantages are extraordinary, but future generations will inherit the country we build with those advantages, not simply a list of the advantages we once had. They deserve a country that can make things, move them and sell them to the world, a country where the people who make our communities work can afford to live in them, a country that protects its lands and waters, honours its commitments and gives its people the confidence to plan a future across the country. That is the purpose of the work before us. It is why I support this bill. I will say to the people of North Vancouver—Capilano that I will bring their ambitions into the House and carry the responsibility of the House back into our community too. Canada’s future will be built in places like ours by people like those who sent us here. In this House, let us be worthy of their work and get on with ours. Let us build Canada strong.

Dan Albas, Okanagan Lake West—South Kelowna

Conservative
“I congratulate the new member on winning his seat. I want him to tell us what voters in his riding told him and what his main goals are.”
  • Question or comment in debate

    Relevance 0 of 100

    None of this question addressed the preceding speech or the topic under debate.

    See full analysis
  • Question or comment in debate

    Signal 26 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

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Conservative members from British Columbia, I would like to congratulate the member for North Vancouver—Capilano on his victory and welcome him to this chamber. I remember that when I came to Ottawa, my predecessor was also a minister. I know how difficult it is when people say that we have big shoes to fill. I took it as a challenge. I hope the member does too. In the member’s speech, he talked about a lot. I would like to hear how his election was, what he heard on the streets of his riding and what his priorities as a member of Parliament in this parliamentary session are.

Braeden Caley, North Vancouver—Capilano

Liberal
“People in my community are worried about trade conflicts. They want us to buy Canadian goods and build a stronger, more independent economy. This bill supports those goals.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 49 of 100

    None of this statement addressed the specific topic under debate.

    See full analysis
  • Reply to a debate question

    Signal 7 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

Mr. Speaker, genuinely, I thank the hon. member across the way. It is an important opportunity to speak about a lot of what we heard in the community, over the past two months especially. It was and is a fascinating time, with so much vulnerability in all the communities we come from given exposure to the trade war, but it is also a time to reflect on a lot of the upside. I found at every door a lot of hope for that too. There was hope in buying more Canadian, investing in more of our own community capacities to build big again, and thinking big again about how our country can build more independence into so many facets of our economy. There was a lot of hope and optimism about that, even for a place with such incredible exposure to the rest of the world’s economy, and we are going to carry those priorities into this House.

Alexis Deschênes, Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Listuguj

Bloc Québécois
“This bill lets projects start before their environmental assessments are done. An assessment is useless if work has already begun. I want the member to explain how that protects the environment.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I would like to start by welcoming our new colleague on behalf of the Bloc Québécois. I would like to congratulate him on his election, and I hope that we will have fruitful debates in pursuit of the common good. My colleague talked about development, but he also talked about environmental protection. If a project is approved before an environmental assessment has been done, and if the project is already under way, what value can that environmental assessment possibly have when it is carried out? How can anyone seriously believe the environment will be protected if the assessment does not happen until the project is already under way?

Braeden Caley, North Vancouver—Capilano

Liberal

Linked statement

“I support this bill. It makes project reviews faster while still making sure they are thorough and protect the environment.”
  • 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 appreciate the member’s important question. I know that exactly that kind of consideration was a key theme of the consultations that have taken place over previous months. It is one that is important to me as well in ensuring that those assessments are rigorous from the beginning, that they are built in from the beginning and that they are serious at every stage. The bill would do that by ensuring that rigour is not conflated alone with the time that such a process takes, and that this rigour could be brought into the timelines that allow us to build faster while still building sustainably. That is what I believe the bill would do, and that is why I am very proud to support it.

Wade Grant, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change

Liberal
“I want to ask the member about his recent door-knocking. How does this bill address the concerns he heard from people in his community?”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague from North Vancouver—Capilano, along the same sort of lines as my colleague across the way. I know that he was knocking on doors for almost a month recently, and it has been a great success for him. I also want to ask him about how this bill specifically would answer or quell any concerns that he heard when knocking on the doors of the great people of North Vancouver—Capilano.

Braeden Caley, North Vancouver—Capilano

Liberal
“I support this bill. It will help Canada build big projects faster, find new trading partners, protect jobs, and protect the environment.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague’s excellent question. The bill would allow us to build faster in Canada once again, to build big once again, to orient our economy in the way that we need to, to reach new markets and to diversify our market partners around the world much more quickly than we otherwise might have, having this conversation years ago. That is exactly what people at their doors were expecting across North Vancouver—Capilano this summer in a very important campaign. Urgency is what is expected, as is the ability to do that in solidarity with Canadian workers and in a way that is sustainable for our nature. These are key facets of every community across the north shore, and really of every community across B.C. and of so many communities across the country. The bill would ensure that we can meet those balances properly and quickly.

Elizabeth May, Saanich—Gulf Islands

Green
“I oppose this bill. It weakens long-standing environmental laws by putting business costs ahead of protecting waters, fish, and endangered species. I want the member to explain how he can support this bill while ignoring an Indigenous court case against dredging that destroys protected habitat.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I also welcome the member for North Vancouver—Capilano to the House. I suppose I could also welcome him to North Vancouver. I also was up and down the hills of North Vancouver quite a lot through the by-election, and I may have heard different things from the voters there. I do want to help the hon. member. This question was asked to my friend the member for Joliette—Manawan by the hon. member for Hull—Aylmer: Where in the bill do we find retrenchments and abandonment of endangered species? It is riddled throughout the bill. It is changes in the Canadian Navigable Waters Act, it is changes in the Fisheries Act and it is changes in the Species at Risk Act all around the idea that before conditions can be set, they would have to be examined for their practical feasibility and economic impact. This bill is nothing but a disgraceful abandonment of environmental regulation across Canada and decades of work. Since the hon. member references the Tsleil-Waututh Nation, how can he ignore, and does he ignore, the Tsleil-Waututh Nation court case against the dredging of Burrard Inlet, which would destroy habitat that the federal government committed to protect?

Braeden Caley, North Vancouver—Capilano

Liberal
“I want this bill to pass. It helps us work with First Nations to build our economy together, which makes the country stronger.”
  • 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
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, the centrality of first nations partnership and building has been a key commitment of the government and is a key commitment of the Prime Minister and all of the cabinet team. The bill would really honour that commitment in several important ways, and it is a commitment that as a member of Parliament and working with the bill that we will hopefully pass, I would certainly want to uphold in every way we can as one team of Parliament. This is a fundamental set of partnerships across the north shore, two nations in the Tsleil-Waututh and Squamish, that have thoughtfully and ambitiously prepared visions about how we build our economy together. It builds the country stronger when they do, and I am grateful for that chance at partnership.

Steeve Lavoie, Beauport—Limoilou

Liberal
“I met with many groups in my riding this summer. Government funding for summer student jobs is helping these local groups do their work.”
  • Question or comment in debate

    Relevance 0 of 100

    None of this question addressed the preceding speech or the topic under debate.

    See full analysis
  • Question or comment in debate

    Signal 41 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

Mr. Speaker, as the parliamentary session begins, I would like to take this opportunity to wish you and all my colleagues well, along with the many parliamentary employees who make our work here in the House possible, day in and day out. I am very pleased to see everyone again after a great summer in my riding of Beauport—Limoilou. Over the past few months, I have met with over 50 organizations and businesses in my riding and participated in various activities and festivities in my community. Before I speak to Bill C-39, the building Canada strong act, I want to take a moment to tell you about an experience I had this summer in my riding. It shines a light on the importance of our work as MPs, whether here, in Ottawa, or through programs that directly affect our communities, like the Canada summer jobs program. I met with more than 30 organizations this summer that participate in this program. I can guarantee one thing: The program is making a real difference on the ground. People from one of the organizations I visited told me that they had been asking for two student job positions for a number of years but, unfortunately, they always received only one. This year, we made sure that they got two. I would like to repeat what the people at this organization told me. They told me that the second position would let them give their volunteers some time off—

Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Rimouski-Neigette—Mitis—Matapédia—Les Basques

Bloc Québécois
“The member is telling stories about his summer instead of debating this bill. I want him to stick to the topic.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I understand that my colleague from Beauport—Limoilou has some good stories to share about his summer, but that is not the subject of the bill we are currently discussing. I would like you to call him to order.

Steeve Lavoie, Beauport—Limoilou

Liberal
“I want the House to pass this bill. Slow rules make it too hard to build big projects in Canada. This bill speeds up federal approvals to within one year, improves our ports, and protects the environment at the same time.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, my story is almost finished. My colleague will be able to put it to good use and I will get back to Bill C-39 very soon. What the people at that organization told me is worth remembering. The second student job position really helped get volunteers some time off, time for their first-ever vacation. Let that sink in for a second. Having one extra person made it possible for volunteers to take some vacation time. What we do here has a real impact in our communities. I wanted to highlight that at the start of my speech today. Now, I would like to get back to Bill C-39, the building Canada strong act, under discussion today. I want to begin by referring to a book published in 2025, which I am sure will call to mind Bill C-39 for my colleagues. In the book Abundance, by Ezra Klein and Derek Thompson, one of the questions the authors ask is why a country as rich and technologically advanced as our southern neighbour currently struggles to build enough housing, infrastructure, energy and other essential goods. To some degree, I think we all see some similarity to the challenges facing Canada today. The authors argue that part of the problem is the rules, procedures and institutions that, over time, have made delivering major projects much slower and much more difficult. They therefore advocate for placing greater emphasis on our ability to produce, build and deliver. In short, this means shifting from a policy focused primarily on distributing resources to one that also seeks to increase supply, ramp up our production capacity and boost our ability to build. At this point, I think it is fair to draw a parallel between that analysis and what we are proposing in Bill C‑39 to build Canada strong. I am sure all of my colleagues have heard the old saying about doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. We need to do things differently. We need to think differently. Anyone who believes we can keep doing exactly the same things and suddenly achieve different results is sticking their head in the sand. That is choosing inaction. That is choosing the status quo, and the status quo is a choice. Changing nothing is a choice. Leaving things the way they are is a choice. We must move away from this mindset and regain our ability to build. We are capable of building more, with greater ambition, and more quickly. Let us take an example from our history: the St. Lawrence Seaway. Major construction work began in 1954, and the Seaway was officially opened to navigation in 1959. It took five years to build the Montreal-Lake Ontario section, which spans approximately 300 kilometres of waterways. It was not just a matter of digging a canal. It required building locks, constructing canals, erecting dams, carrying out major dredging work, modifying bridges and relocating infrastructure. Continuing westward, Montreal is about 600 kilometres from Lake Erie by waterway via Lake Ontario and the Welland Canal. The entire waterway network connecting the St. Lawrence to the heart of the Great Lakes stretches over 2,000 kilometres. Just think about that for a moment. In the 1950s, in just a few years, we were able to carry out one of the greatest infrastructure projects of our time, and we did a significant portion of the work right here at home in Canada. We built, we thought big, and we transformed our economy. The question we need to ask ourselves today is simple. Can we still build with that same ambition? I believe that Bill C‑39 invites us to reflect on this question and, above all, to regain the ability to complete major projects for future generations of Canadians. What does that mean in concrete terms? First, it means making our approval processes for major projects more predictable. These days, when a business, community or proponent wants to build a major project, they often have to navigate multiple processes and steps that might overlap and make the work more complex. It can take longer to get results. Bill C-39 proposes to better coordinate these processes so that decisions on projects requiring a federal permit can be made within one year. Let me be clear. We do not have to choose between upholding Canada’s strong environmental protections and streamlining the project review process. We can and must do both. We can be ambitious and rigorous at the same time. I cannot help but immediately think of my region, the Quebec City region, and specifically the Port of Québec, which plays an important role in our regional economy and our trade with the rest of the world. Bill C‑39 proposes to modernize the governance of Canadian ports, reduce certain administrative burdens and facilitate the digitization of trade. The bill also designates strategic trade corridors and establishes a transportation project office to better coordinate federal permits and advance priority projects. A product manufactured in Quebec does not only create value when it leaves the factory. It must then be efficiently transported to a port, a railway or the border and on to new markets. An efficient supply chain is essential to enabling our businesses to grow and innovate. At a time when Canada is looking to diversify its trade and reduce its dependence on certain markets, this capability becomes even more important. We have signed 20 trade agreements over the past year. We must now honour our commitments. This is what building Canada strong means in practical terms. It means enabling a business to carry out a project. It means enabling a port to operate more efficiently. It means enabling our products to reach new markets. It means providing future generations with the infrastructure, jobs and opportunities they will need. Canada has the resources, the talent, the workers, the businesses and the communities capable of achieving great things. Our challenge is not knowing whether we have the capacity to build. Our challenge is equipping ourselves with the means to do just that, the means to realize our ambitions. We need to simplify where we can simplify, coordinate where we can coordinate better, protect what we need to protect. Above all, we need to rediscover our collective ability to build Canada strong.

Élisabeth Brière, Sherbrooke

Liberal
“The government gave an $11-billion contract to a Quebec shipyard to build six icebreakers. This is good for workers and suppliers. I want my colleague to explain how this bill connects to that contract.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I commend my colleague for his excellent speech. He is obviously very proud of his beautiful region of Quebec City. In August, the government awarded a contract worth over $11 billion to the Davie shipyard to build six new icebreakers. I would like my colleague to tell us how such a contract, which is good for our workers and our suppliers, fits into Bill C-39.

Steeve Lavoie, Beauport—Limoilou

Liberal
“Our long-term contract with the Davie shipyard supports 5,000 good jobs. It helps suppliers across Quebec invest in their businesses and gives families stability. This is the kind of support our government wants to provide.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 43 of 100

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

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent question. We were fortunate to be able to make that extraordinary announcement this summer after years and years of working with Davie, a real gem in our community. I worked in the Quebec City area as the president of the chamber of commerce. The Davie shipyard is located on the other side of the river, in Lévis. Most of its suppliers are from the Quebec City area. The rest of them are from the surrounding areas. I reviewed the list of all of the suppliers and they are from all over Quebec. An announcement like this has a direct impact on a community like Lévis. We are talking about 5,000 workers, 5,000 good jobs. That gives those families predictability because these are long-term contracts. It provides predictability for Davie over the very long term. It will enable business owners to invest in their companies to supply Davie. This is the kind of thing that the government wants to do and that people need.

Dan Albas, Okanagan Lake West—South Kelowna

Conservative
“This bill creates more red tape. It lets companies start early work on projects only if the minister personally approves it. The government should set clear, predictable rules instead of giving the minister that power.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite mentioned the administrative burden. Under Bill C-39, proponents would be allowed to do preliminary, early site work, but only if the minister deemed it in the public interest. Why is the government creating such subjective ministerial discretion instead of just simple, clear, predictable rules? Why add to the red tape?

Steeve Lavoie, Beauport—Limoilou

Liberal
“I want the House to pass this bill. It will speed up project reviews, which used to take up to eight years. We can review projects faster without lowering our standards, and this will help businesses plan better.”
  • 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
  • A repeated line

    “We can walk and chew gum at the same time.”

    Said 3 times by 2 members since June 8.

    Every time it was said
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I talked about something very important in my speech: the status quo. I have talked about it throughout my career, and I will keep talking about it. People often keep doing the same things while hoping to achieve different results. We introduced a bill. We want to do things differently. We want to speed up projects and provide predictability for investors. Doing things faster does not mean being less rigorous. We must always be rigorous. We can walk and chew gum at the same time, as they say. That is what the government is going to do. This will provide predictability for businesses and contractors, who will be able to pursue projects. The process used to take up to eight years, which is way too long, but it will go much faster now. We are doing the right thing. We are taking action, and that is what Canadians want.

Dan Albas, Okanagan Lake West—South Kelowna

Conservative
“I want the member to answer my question. He claims he opposes red tape, but this bill adds more rules and government bureaucracy. Why does every Liberal solution grow the government instead of getting out of the way?”
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, the member across the way says that he repeats things over and over about the administrative burden. He did not answer the question before about ministerial discretion and what the public interest is. Maybe he will answer this instead. Part one adds regions of national interest and more administrative layers. Why does every Liberal solution involve expanding Ottawa’s bureaucracy rather than getting out of the way? Why more bureaucracy? Why more discretion? Why more rules? I thought the member said he was against red tape.

Discussion

No comments yet

See the full discussion

Comment rules

More from sitting 142

  1. Oral Questions The Economy 12 statements
  2. Oral Questions Intergovernmental Affairs 6 statements
  3. Oral Questions Justice 15 statements
  4. Oral Questions Canadian Identity and Culture 4 statements
  5. Oral Questions Justice 11 statements
  6. Oral Questions The Economy 22 statements
  7. Oral Questions Air Transportation 6 statements
  8. Oral Questions Canadian Identity and Culture 2 statements
  9. Oral Questions Foreign Affairs 2 statements
  10. Oral Questions Climate Change 2 statements
  11. Government Orders Building Canada Strong Act 65 statements
  12. Adjournment Proceedings Adjournment Proceedings 4 statements
  13. Adjournment Proceedings Adjournment Proceedings 4 statements
  14. Adjournment Proceedings Adjournment Proceedings 4 statements
  15. Private Members' Business Criminal Code 9 statements