“I want the House to pass this bill to help our economy. It makes approvals for major projects faster by using a single regulator and setting a one-year deadline. It creates a single office to consult Indigenous communities. It also helps companies and unions settle labor disputes faster and updates how our ports are run.”

“Mr. Speaker, it is great to be back. I hope you had a great summer with your constituents in the Montreal area. I had the opportunity to engage with the people I have the privilege of representing, and it is great to bring their voices to Parliament. I hope all of my colleagues had an opportunity to do the same throughout the summer months. I will be splitting my time this morning with the hon. member for Davenport. Today, we are here to talk about the building Canada strong act, but I would be remiss if I did not take 30 seconds, given the fact that I was in my constituency this summer, to recognize some tremendous young athletes from my community. I am a former fast pitch softball player. I do not know if any members in the House have played fast pitch softball. It is a sport played mostly in smaller and rural communities across the country. I want to put into the Hansard that Nova Scotia had four medals on the men’s side in four different categories. At the under-17 level, the Brookfield Elks, with a number of athletes from my riding, won the Canadian championship. At the under-20 level, the Brookfield Elks won a bronze medal. At the under-23 level, the Nova Scotia team, again, composed of many athletes from Kings—Hants, won a silver medal, and at the top level of senior men’s softball, East Hants won a bronze medal. I want to make sure that is on the record. We are proud of our athletes and certainly proud of the work they are doing at the national level. On to more important things, we were elected as a government to focus on building a more resilient economy. We know there are headwinds and challenges globally. We are facing tariffs from the U.S. administration, which is changing its trade policy, but the focus of the Prime Minister and the government has been to focus on controlling what we can control as a country. The Prime Minister and the Minister of Transport have made very clear that the building Canada strong act is the most important piece of economic legislation the government has introduced to date to really focus on driving projects that matter in the national interest of the country, such as the modernization of key trade corridors, including ports, across this country, and to also look at our supply chains and the way our labour context works in this country. Generally, collective bargaining has worked very well, but in some key strategic areas, we want to ensure there are additional measures and initiatives that can ensure that both the employer and the union representing workers can get to a deal that is fair for parties. We feel it is incumbent on the government to actually establish the initiatives and supports to help make that happen. Those are the three pillars of this very important piece of legislation. I will take us through why that matters, and I am going to start on the regulatory permitting piece. Many members of the House would agree with me that Canada has what the world needs. We are an agricultural superpower in our ability to help feed the world. We have a major potash industry that is, in fact, the largest in the world. It is global in nature. We need to get that supply to the world. We have the energy the world needs. We have the ability to fuel the world. Again, whether that is in pipeline access or the ability to get energy to world markets, we have to have the supply chain to make that happen. We have to be willing, particularly at this moment when Canada is being called upon by countries around the world, to be even more of a secure energy supplier. We have to work on the major projects that help drive our economy forward. We can talk about critical minerals, whether from the perspective of a military application or of clean energy. As one of the younger members of the House, I think about the future that I would like to leave for my future family, our constituents and people around the world. Critical minerals are going to be a really important part to our clean energy future. However, Canada has an outsized role globally to make sure those critical minerals are available to our allies and that we have alternative supply chains. That requires us, as parliamentarians, and certainly as a government, to make sure the regulatory conditions are in place so we can drive that process forward. What the government is proposing is essentially one window, one regulator and a one-year review once the proponent has submitted all the necessary information to the federal regulator. Members of Parliament will remember that our government introduced Bill C-5 for this type of principle on major national projects. There have been 17 major projects that have been referred to the MPO. While I am on my feet, I would like to recognize the work of Dawn Farrell, someone who has great experience in the private sector and who is doing very important work to lead that agency and help ensure that we can advance projects that are in the national interest. Some members of Parliament have rightly asked if that is a good principle for major national projects. They have asked about how we take those principles and how we could ensure that perhaps mid-sized projects and projects of more local or regional interest could also have the same principles applied regarding the rigour in which we are trying to move processes forward quickly without shortcuts. I think it is important for Canadians at home to understand the values that underpin not only how we want to ensure environmental safety and participation with indigenous groups in this country, but also the desire to make sure we can create certainty for businesses to invest in this country. We are trying to reconcile all that and to do so on a more expedited timeline, and that is exactly what we are proposing today. What that looks like is that as opposed to having multiple line departments, such as Transport Canada, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, perhaps ECCC or, of course, indigenous engagement through Crown-Indigenous Relations, we should find a way to have it under one federal project review. While there could be a multitude of federal departments that would perhaps under current legislation have a role and responsibility, and we do not want to take away that expertise or that understanding of why those elements are important for projects, we have to be able to find the way to make it under one federal project review, not multiple ones, which is just challenging for the proponents trying to advance them. It is also challenging for indigenous communities. I have the privilege of representing three of them. One piece of feedback I have had in the seven years I have been involved in Parliament is that if we have ongoing consultation through multiple line departments, this does create a capacity challenge to ensure that indigenous communities are actively participating and have the resources to make sure they can share their perspective, as per our constitutional requirements in this country. Therefore, one thing this legislation proposes is a Crown consultation hub. This is the idea that in consultation, the multitude of federal departments that may have a say on a federal permitting decision could actually go through one body to engage with the nation in question to be able to provide the multitude of different perspectives we may need, as opposed to a series, a multitude, of departments playing that out over time. This is what we would, I guess, refer to as common sense. We think this is something that would reconcile the interests of ensuring that indigenous communities are engaged and we are meeting our constitutional requirements, with, at the same time, providing the proponent and a federal regulator with the ability to make that happen. Instead of a multitude of departments, it would be the Canada Energy Regulator, the Canada Nuclear Safety Commission or the Impact Assessment Agency. One of those three agencies would have the purview to make all the federal decisions, with engagement from federal departments, with the goal of having a one-year decision once all applicable information is submitted. That is incumbent. We as parliamentarians across the House, I hope, can recognize that is important. It is something we have to be able to push forward. On supply chain certainty, we have heard, and I have heard, commentary outside the House that the bill is trying to limit the ability to strike in this country. Let me say that this is simply not the case. What the bill is proposing is to put additional measures in terms of mediation support, such as a special mediator when there are complex cases between an employer and labour. I go back to the point I made, which is that we have what the world needs, we have an obligation and we are in a critical moment for this country. We as a government feel it is absolutely incumbent to ensure that we are putting all the resources possible to be able to get to a resolution between the employer and the union. We understand the importance of labour in this country. At the same time, we are putting critical provisions around the utilization of section 107, which is held by the Minister of Jobs. We feel that is an appropriate balance to make sure we are protecting the constitutional rights of workers and at the same time trying to ensure we are putting the resources to get the best deal at the table. When we look at the legislation and the proposals from the government, we see there is actually a proposal to put 100 additional resources, this being full-time equivalents, to the Canadian Industrial Review Board. Again, this is a mechanism where, if parties get to an impasse, we could be trying to provide assistance to ensure that there is good-faith bargaining and that we could get to an outcome that matters for employers and also matters, most importantly, for the workers and the people who drive our economy across this country. There is a lot in the bill, and I wish I had more than 10 minutes, but last is a modernization around port governance. Ports play an extremely important role in our country, and the provisions in the bill would allow for additional discretion for port boards in their capacity to make regulatory decisions, which we think is streamlined and the right way to go. At the end of the day, the bill is about building Canada. I look forward to taking questions from my colleagues.”

“Our government supports economic growth and protecting the environment. Over the last ten years, Canada's oil and gas sector grew while we lowered emissions. We built one pipeline to the west coast, and we are open to building another so we can sell gas to Asia and help replace coal.”

“Mr. Speaker, we have a new government under a new Prime Minister, and it is a government that is deeply focused on economic growth across the country. I would remind the hon. member that the oil and gas sector did grow under the last 10 years of the Liberal government, at the same time as we also reduced emissions in the country. The last government certainly sought the balance between economic growth and environmental protection. The current government will endeavour to do the same. The last government built a pipeline to the Pacific coast. The current government, through the work of the Prime Minister and certainly by engaging Premier Smith, is open to another west coast pipeline, because it knows that being able to move the product to Asian markets is extremely important. Our ability to move liquefied natural gas off the B.C. coast to ensure that countries in the Pacific do not have to burn more coal in their energy grid is actually part of a global emissions reduction strategy. We are proud of the work we are doing here, and I know that members of the member’s home province are proud of the current government as well.”

“Our cabinet members are elected MPs, so they are accountable to this House. We support free trade, but we had to put duties on imports to protect Canadian and Quebec workers and businesses. I want the member to say if he actually disagrees with that decision.”

“Mr. Speaker, certainly in our system, there is cabinet, which is made up of members of Parliament who sit in the House. The member, in his remarks, his intervention, talked about tariffs. I do not know if there was a substantive piece where he disagrees with the policy that the government has introduced of countervailing duties to protect Canadian industry, to protect Quebec businesses, to protect Quebec workers, I should say. The member has the privilege and honour, as a member of Parliament representing his constituents, to stand in this place and to be able to take a position if he disagrees with the elected government and its utilization of our policy to protect Canadian workers. Let us be very clear that we do this reluctantly. We believe in free and open trade. We recognize the importance of the commercial relationship we have had with the United States, but the executive stands behind the decisions it has made to protect Canadian workers at a time when, if we do not respond, we will be hurting Quebec businesses as well.”

“How will this bill help ports in Halifax and across Canada ship goods around the world?”

“Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary and I have adjoining ridings, so of course we have a lot of overlapping interests. At the end of his speech, the parliamentary secretary touched on ports a little bit. The port of Halifax is one of the major ports in our country, with direct access to the U.S. northeast, Europe and the rest of the world. I wonder if the member could elaborate a bit more on how the bill would aid our ports, not just in Halifax but across the country, to make sure we get our goods to market all around the world.”

“I want this bill to pass. It improves how ports like the one in Halifax are run, which helps them work together and move goods in and out of the country more easily. The ports asked for this.”

“Mr. Speaker, my colleague and I have the opportunity to work together, and I know we share an interest in the port of Halifax. If Parliament is to bring this forward, the bill itself would allow for additional governance for the port of Halifax or other ports across the country, which would centre around regulatory decisions, trade corridors and the ability to work together on how best we get to the outcomes around both importation and exportation of products across the country. This is what the ports were calling for. This would give additional flexibility for governance in that area.”

“I want the House to pass this bill. It speeds up federal approvals for big projects to one year. It also improves our shipping routes and adds worker protections. It does not take away environmental rules, Indigenous rights, or the right to strike.”

“Mr. Speaker, as always, it is a true honour for me to rise in the House on behalf of the residents of my constituency of Davenport to speak to Bill C-39, the building Canada strong act. Let me start by talking a little about the moment we are living in. I think it is really important for us to understand the context in which the bill is introduced. As we often say these days, the world has changed. The Prime Minister has called it a “rupture”. Our relationship with the United States, our largest trading partner, is not what it was. We face unjustified tariffs on Canadian workers and industries, and we face talk about our sovereignty that no Canadian ever expected to hear from an American president. Last week, before the European Parliament, the Prime Minister described what we were up against: trade being weaponized, tariffs used as pressure, and supply chains turned into vulnerabilities. His answer was not to retreat; it was to build our strength at home and to work with trusted, like-minded partners who share our belief in democracy and the rule of law. We are seeking alliances that are strong enough so that no one can dictate our choices here in Canada. That is exactly what Canadians have asked of us. They have given the government a clear mandate to protect our economy, our prosperity and our sovereignty. We are doing that by diversifying our trade with reliable partners and by building right here at home. The world is responding. Just over a week ago, at Canada’s first-ever investment summit, investors from nearly 30 countries, managing more than $100 trillion in assets, came to Toronto to look at more than 160 Canadian projects. The summit closed with nearly half a trillion dollars in new investment commitments. However, interest is not the same as shovels in the ground. Investors told us what communities have told us for years: Our approvals have taken too long. Projects have often waited more than five years for federal decisions, with separate reviews and separate consultations for each permit. That is why our government has introduced Bill C-39, which is before the House today. It would create the conditions for investment in projects that support good jobs and growth and for the safe and efficient movement of goods across our country, while protecting the environment and upholding the rights of indigenous peoples. I know we have heard this multiple times, but it is important for me to state as well that the bill has three key parts. The first part, “Build Canada Now”, would modernize our regulatory and permitting system to eliminate duplication with lengthy timelines. Our standard is simple: one project, one review and one year. Canada will always be a country of high standards, but high standards do not mean that the decisions have to be slow. The second part is “Keep Canada Moving”. We would be modernizing our transportation systems. This would reduce bottlenecks and better connect our trade corridors and ports so goods move faster and costs come down. The third part, “Canada Strong For All”, would modernize the Canada Labour Code and strengthen protections for workers. I have heard some questions from my constituents. They have been asking me why the bill is so large. The answer is that getting a project built never depends on just one thing. It depends on assessments, on energy regulation and on fisheries, waterways, ports, rails and the workers who build them. It depends on many things. If we fix only one of those aspects, the project is still stuck. To actually get things built, we have to fix a number of laws together, ideally all at once. Why do we have to move quickly? It is because investment decisions being made now will shape our economy for decades. The capital that does not come here will go elsewhere. However, urgency cannot mean skipping scrutiny. The bill deserves the debate we are having now in the House. It deserves careful study at committee. I know that we are open to making it even better. I want to spend a little bit more time on the labour aspects of the bill, which are in part 3, because there is a lot of misinformation out there and because I know that my constituents care about labour deeply. My riding of Davenport was built by working people, many of them newcomers to Canada. Let me be very clear: There is no provision in the bill that would take away the right to strike. That right is protected by the charter, and the current government will always protect it. What the bill would do is give workers and employers more tools, more time and more assets to reach a deal at the table, where the best agreements are made. About 95% of federally regulated disputes are already resolved without a work stoppage. This bill focuses on the few relationships that break down again and again. Let me highlight just a few of those measures. First, where the last round ended in a strike, a lockout or imposed arbitration, bargaining must start six months early with federal mediators at the table. Second, the bill would extend the conciliation period from 60 days to 90 days, giving both parties time to reach a deal before any strike or a lockout. Third, a new special mediator would work intensively with both sides, and if there were no deal, the mediator’s report would become public. That report would set out where each side stands and why talks broke down so members, employers and Canadians could see it all. Fourth, newly unionized workers, new unions, would get support from our government to reach a first contract. Fifth, the bill would enable penalties for bargaining in bad faith. Those measures are only part of it. Alongside these changes come stronger protections for workers on the job, from safer workplaces to a real crackdown on wage theft. Let me turn to section 107 because I know there has been a lot of discussion about it in the media and in this House. This is not a new provision. It has been in the Canada Labour Code since 1984. Unions have told us that it has been used without enough transparency, so we listened and have proposed some changes. Bill C-39 would put guardrails around it. Before a minister can even consider using it, a special mediator would need to have completed their work and a public report would need to have been considered. Then the minister would need to conclude that a work stoppage would have a significant adverse national impact in an assessment that must weigh the right to strike. There must be a balance of items that are weighed in that decision. As the Minister of Jobs and Families has said, the minister would have to show their work, clearly laying out the reasons why intervention was necessary in the national interest. I know that many labour leaders see this differently. I very much respect that and we will be listening very closely to them at the committee. However, it is important to remember that, at its heart, this bill would help parties address issues earlier, reach negotiated agreements and resolve disputes, while fully protecting the right to strike. Extraordinary intervention should always be a last resort. When negotiations go well, everyone wins. Davenport constituents have also written to me, worried that we are dismantling environmental protections. This bill would not remove impact assessments that examine environmental, health and social effects, nor would it remove permitting or consultation. It would change who leads the review and how departments work together, not the standards that apply. One year does not mean cutting corners. The clock only starts once a complete application and all studies are in. There have been extensive consultations on this bill because consultations matter. Over the summer, Canadians sent in more than 26,000 submissions. The government had proposed letting cabinet exempt some projects from the jeopardy test in the Species at Risk Act. We heard directly from Canadians that they did not like this. They pushed back very strongly and the proposal is not in this bill. Finally, I want to spend a minute on the impact on indigenous communities. This bill would not change the duty to consult, our modern treaty obligations or commitments under the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act. It would change the burden. Instead of a separate consultation for every department and every permit, there would be one coordinated process per community, per project, through a new Crown consultation hub that would identify concerns early with the aim of securing free, prior and informed consent. Timelines, though, could be extended or suspended to complete consultation. The Prime Minister often says we can give ourselves far more than anyone can take away. This bill is how we are doing that. We are building faster. We are protecting workers. We are protecting nature and building in partnership with indigenous peoples. I urge all members to support Bill C-39 and work with us to make it even stronger at committee.”

• Echo ×3

  A repeated line

  “Changes to the Canada Labour Code will strengthen collective bargaining by helping parties address issues earlier, reach negotiated agreements and resolve disputes, while fully protecting the right to strike.”

  Said 3 times by 3 members since September 24.

  Every time it was said →

“We learned from past rail and port strikes. Ministers spoke with union leaders this summer about how to help workers and bosses reach agreements. We put those ideas into this bill to help both sides make lasting deals and stop long strikes.”

“Mr. Speaker, it is directly because of those experiences over the last 10 years that I think we learned a lot as a government. I also want to say that both our Minister of Labour and our Minister of Employment and Jobs spent the summer talking to labour leaders right across our country about section 107, building Canada strong, and how is it we can actually support them better with respect to reaching a deal at the table, because we know that the best deals are when both sides agree. They are the ones that are sustained and strong. A lot of the things we heard were put into our bill so we can strengthen it and make sure we do not have those strikes ongoing.”

• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 100 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

“This bill does not weaken environmental rules. It only speeds up reviews by changing how departments work together, without lowering our standards. We also removed the five-year rule because big projects take longer than that, and investors need certainty. I welcome ideas at committee to make this clearer.”

“Mr. Speaker, there are two key questions there. On the first one, with respect to any type of weakening or dismantling of environmental protections, that is completely not the case. We are not removing in any way any of the impact assessments that examine the environmental effects. What it does do is change who leads the review and how the departments work together, not the standards that apply. Therefore, we are expediting it, but not in any way eliminating any of those standards. If there are suggestions about how we can make that clear or improve that, I am happy to hear about them at committee. With respect to why we have removed the five-year clause around building Canada strong, a lot of these projects take more than five years to build. Our investors need certainty, which is the reason that clause was taken away.”

• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 100 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

“People in my riding have the same concerns as people in yours. Can you explain how this bill keeps environmental rules steady? Does my colleague agree that making project decisions quickly is better for everyone than taking too long?”

“Mr. Speaker, I am very engaged in this debate and my colleague’s speech. We share adjoining ridings. Therefore, some of the concerns and questions that my colleague is hearing are also being asked in Taiaiako’n—Parkdale—High Park. I want to ask her, given her experience in this Parliament, to speak about the continuity pieces around the environmental regulations here. Also, would she not agree that it is important for people on the many sides of the environmental and resources extraction debate to agree that a quick decision is better than a slow decision, no matter which side of the debate they are on?”

“Five years is too long for the government to make a decision on a project. We need a new, simpler process that takes only one year. We can still do good reviews in that time while making it easier for businesses to move forward.”

“Mr. Speaker, I think for us five years was too long for a decision to be made by our government. The world has so completely changed that we needed to put a completely new process into place. We needed to create a process that would eliminate any type of overlap or duplication. We wanted to create certainty and an easy way for businesses and projects to be able to go ahead. Therefore, while I would say we wanted to have one decision, one project, and one year, I believe we will be able to do the proper amount of assessment and study within that year to be able to make good decisions that are long-standing and good for this country.”

• Vague
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Clarity 49 of 100

  Much of this statement used imprecise wording, lacked details on timing or responsibility, or made broad claims without support.

  See full analysis →

“This bill helps build a stronger economy and create good jobs. The Prime Minister just helped bring half a trillion dollars in investment to Canada. The Conservatives should admit that our plan is working.”

“Mr. Speaker, I welcome my friend back to the chamber. The member and the Conservative Party need to take a broader look at what is happening here. The Prime Minister just came back from a highly successful investment summit: half a trillion dollars, which is completely unheard of in Canadian history. This bill is part of building a stronger and healthier economy. Whether it is what took place in Toronto earlier this month, in attracting billions of dollars of investment, or ensuring that we can build projects, would the member not agree that we are on the right track to providing good-quality jobs and a stronger economy for the future of Canada?”