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)

32 statements

Chak Au, Richmond Centre—Marpole

Conservative
“We do not need new laws to get projects approved. For example, the Roberts Bank project finished its review last year after more than ten years, but it is still waiting. The real problem is how slowly the government works.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 100 of 100

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

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, it is just like the example of the Roberts Bank Terminal 2 project that I used in my speech. It has undergone more than a decade of federal assessment. The assessments were actually completed in 2023, and it is still sitting there. Again, the problem is not with legislation. We have the legislation to support the project. It takes the federal government more than a decade to complete the assessment, and even when it is completed, it is still there, so it is an efficiency problem. It is an implementation problem. It is not a legislative problem.

Elizabeth May, Saanich—Gulf Islands

Green
“An earlier bill already lets the government ignore environmental laws for major projects. This new bill sits on top of that power. I want the Conservatives to acknowledge this.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to join the debate briefly and ask my friend from Richmond a question. This entire debate around the environmental impacts is as though Bill C-5 never passed. Bill C-5 says the government can break any law it wants to, including the Species at Risk Act or the Impact Assessment Act, if a project is of national interest. I know my Conservative colleagues may not agree with me that this is a bad thing, but I wonder if the Conservative caucus has noticed that Bill C-5 would be on top of Bill C-39.

Chak Au, Richmond Centre—Marpole

Conservative
“We do not need more rules, paperwork, and government workers to build things faster and better.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, as I repeatedly said, we do not need another layer of bureaucracy, papers and legislation in order to build faster and more responsibly.

Carlos Leitão, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry

Liberal
“I want the House to pass this bill. It will speed up government approvals for big building projects so we can get them done faster. This will help our economy adapt to the trade war with the United States and help build more housing.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, it is my turn to say a few words about Bill C-39, which, as some of my colleagues have already mentioned, is primarily an economic bill. It is a set of measures. I am fully aware that it is a rather complete piece of legislation, let me put it that way, that is absolutely necessary in order to accelerate our economy and our economic growth. We were elected, a year and a half or so ago, to build Canada strong and to rebuild the Canadian economy. To do that, we need to speed up the process of approvals. Basically, we need to get things done. In order to get things done, we do require several legislative changes to make sure the Canadian economy adapts to the new environment. I start with the context of why we are doing this now. We are doing this now, first of all, because it has to be done. We would have had to have done this in any case to modernize and update our regulatory framework. However, the context right now is particularly complex and requires a major structural reform, which is what this bill would contribute, to achieve. The context is one of a trade war that we did not start. The trade war was imposed on us totally arbitrarily and totally without regard for the fact that the Canadian economy and the U.S. economy, at least for the past 30 years, were increasingly integrated, particularly our industrial sectors, which are completely integrated. It is not the case that Canada is like a mini U.S. and that we produce everything here that is produced in the United States, only on a smaller scale. It is not that at all. The Canadian economy has specialized in a relatively small number of sectors and products that are completely integrated into the North American supply chain. Our neighbours to the south, particularly the administration, and we should not mix things up as it is the U.S. administration, has total disregard for that integration and has decided to disintegrate the North American economy, break it apart, saying it does not need anything we make here. Well, it does need it, but regardless of that, it believes it does not need what we have here. Therefore we have to pivot. We have to change our structure. We have to make products that are in demand in the local market, so there is some import substitution going on. At the same time, we have to look for other markets, other opportunities, elsewhere in the world. With this bill, we would try to accomplish that pivot. To do that, there are a number of things we need to do. First of all, we need to make sure we are actually able to approve projects, particularly in the infrastructure world. We have to improve our infrastructure. We have to improve our ability to move goods and people across this country. Massive improvements to our infrastructure are required, and the bill would accelerate the process. I can already hear our friends from the Bloc Québécois saying that this would be a massive intrusion into areas of provincial responsibility and provincial jurisdiction. Let us be clear: What we are proposing to do would apply to federal legislation and federal regulations. We would not in any way be changing or forcing any sort of change in provincial regulations. We clearly invite the provinces as well to participate in this process and to harmonize. In fact, seven provinces have already signed agreements with the federal government, so the objective we have, which is one project, one approval process and one year, that it gets done within one year, will speed things up if indeed the provinces are already onside. If they are not, well, then provincial legislation and provincial procedures will remain in place. The objective is to build a stronger, more resilient economy, a more productive economy and ultimately a more independent economy. By the way, we have also talked a lot in the House, since we came back, about affordability issues and the high cost of living, which is a fact and is top of mind for most Canadians. I will say two things about that. First of all, we do have the necessary social programs to help Canadians get over, or adjust and adapt to, this higher-cost environment. Social programs are important. In fact, a robust social safety net is one of the characteristics of Canada. Canada is Canada in no small measure because we care about each other and because we help people at the lower-income levels with targeted and somewhat generous social programs. We will continue to do that. In fact, we have added quite a bit to those social programs. However, more fundamentally, the only way to improve affordability on a long-term, sustainable basis is to improve productivity. Improved productivity will lead to a much more efficient economy, which will allow incomes to go up. If incomes go up, then life becomes more affordable. The government, the state, cannot and should not directly regulate prices. That does not work. It has been shown in many instances in many other countries that it does not work. However, if we put in place policies that promote investment and promote productivity growth, incomes will rise, and then Canadians will be able to afford life and lead a better life. There is also an issue with the supply side. There are certain areas where supply is an issue, namely in housing. In housing, one of the big contributors to the high cost of living, the high cost of rents and the high cost of houses is supply. There is not sufficient supply. Again, it is a complex, complicated issue. Bill C-39 would not necessarily address that directly, but indirectly in a way, yes, it would, because we would be improving infrastructure. One of the issues on the housing side, one of the factors that are holding construction back, is also the poor state of municipal infrastructure in many cases right across all provinces, including in my province and in my riding in particular. The basic municipal infrastructure, such as sewers, water treatment plants and things like that, is holding back construction as well. Therefore, if we are able to accelerate processes and accelerate building, then that would contribute. Again, let us not forget the demand side: the increase in incomes that can occur in a sustained way only if the economy becomes more productive. That requires massive investment, and the principal objective of Bill C-39 is to make sure that required investment will take place. It has been particularly complex, and it takes quite a bit of time for a major project to be approved in Canada, and clearly what we would do is to massively accelerate that project. There are three components to Bill C-39. We are going to build now, and we have to accelerate movement and be strong for all Canadians.

Pat Kelly, Calgary Crowfoot

Conservative

Linked statement

“The member talked about our weak economy and the lack of basic infrastructure. The Liberals have been in power for 11 years and broke their promises on infrastructure across four elections.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, the member identified many of the challenges and problems within the Canadian economy, one being a lack of investment in basic infrastructure across the country. I wonder if he would remind Canadians which party has been in government for the last 11 years and presided over this deficit in infrastructure despite the promises it made in each of its four elections.

Carlos Leitão, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry

Liberal
“The Prime Minister and I have only been in office since April 2025. Our focus now is on growing Canada's economy faster and in a lasting way.”
  • 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 have been a member of the House since April 2025, as have many of my colleagues, and the Prime Minister has been leading this country since April 2025. What we are focused on is improving and accelerating the pace of economic growth in Canada in a sustainable and meaningful way.

Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères

Bloc Québécois
“The government used Donald Trump as an excuse to pass laws that bypass environmental rules and fast-track big projects. We agreed to those rules only because they would end in five years. Now the government wants to make them permanent. I do not think that is right, and I want to know why the member supports it.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague on his speech. The fact is that the federal government has been using Donald Trump to justify imposing its legislative agenda, particularly Bill C‑5, which fast-tracks major projects and sidesteps environmental laws and other laws that they do not like and that get in the way. During the study in committee, we agreed that it looked like a national emergency, as the Liberals were saying, but that President Trump would no longer be here in five years. We therefore included a sunset clause in Bill C‑5 so that we can return to the normal process in five years, but the Liberals want to get rid of that in Bill C‑39. Why is it that, essentially, the justification is becoming permanent? This is not normal. Do they want the rollbacks to be permanent when it comes to the environment, labour laws and decisions made behind closed doors between a future minister and project proponents? I do not think that is right. Why does the member agree with that?

Carlos Leitão, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry

Liberal
“We are not getting rid of environmental rules with this bill. We are just making the review process faster. Our relationship with the United States has permanently changed, and Canada must adapt to that reality.”
  • 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 disagree with that; that is not what we are doing. Give me a break. What we are doing is speeding up the process. We are not scrapping regulations. We are speeding up the way in which regulations are reviewed. I want to add one final point. This is not an excuse. It is not because of Trump. This is the reality. The U.S. administration has irreversibly changed the Canada–U.S. relationship. We must adapt to this new world. It is not an excuse. It is not something that will magically disappear in 2029. It will not disappear.

Braedon Clark, Sackville—Bedford—Preston

Liberal
“I support this bill. I want the parliamentary secretary to explain why it is important for the federal government to work closely with the provinces to carry it out.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary touched on a very important topic, of course, which is working with provinces in a spirit of co-operative federalism. As the parliamentary secretary has, I have served in a provincial legislature, in my case in Nova Scotia. I wonder if he could touch a bit on that and talk about the importance of working with provinces in a spirit of co-operation to execute on important bills such as Bill C-39.

Carlos Leitão, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry

Liberal
“The federal government and the provinces must work together. We have been talking and working with them since April 2025. Most provinces agree with us, and we want to keep working with them.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, in fact, yes, the member, I and several other colleagues in the House were also in provincial legislatures, and it is extremely important that the federal government and the provinces are able to co-operate. Ever since April 2025, we have clearly been in a period of co-operative federalism. We talk with the provinces, we collaborate and we move forward together. That is the only way we are going to achieve something. The provinces are onside, generally speaking, and we are ready and willing to co-operate with them further.

Jeff Kibble, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford

Conservative
“A year and a half ago, the government made these same promises to build things, and nothing happened. Now they are making them again. They need to admit they have not done what they promised.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, almost a year and a half ago, we had building Canada, with all kinds of great promises and platitudes saying that the government is going to do this and that. Almost a year and a half later, we have building Canada strong, and the member opposite stands to make the same promises that the Liberals are going to do this and that. However, Canadians have not seen anything happen. In fact, I will quote the member’s own speech: “we need to get things done”. He also said that we need to speed things up. It has been a year and a half, and he has the audacity to stand there and say that. Does the member opposite believe that the Liberals can continue to fool Canadians with yet another set of promises and nothing getting done? It is completely embarrassing.

Carlos Leitão, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry

Liberal
“The Conservatives are exaggerating when they say we get nothing done. This bill makes the big legal changes we need to move major projects forward. I think the Conservatives will end up voting for it.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, that is a good one: “nothing getting done”. Someone much wiser than me once said that whatever is exaggerated becomes meaningless. Unfortunately, we have had a great example of that in the House because for about a year and a half or so, everything has been consistently and continuously exaggerated. We are moving forward. For that, we need significant legislative change. That is what we would be doing here. It would be a significant legislative change, which at the end of the day, I suspect, the Conservatives will actually approve. I think they will vote in favour of Bill C-39, but now they are just going off and saying things.

Discussion

No comments yet

See the full discussion

Comment rules

More from sitting 144

  1. Government Orders Building Canada Strong Act 32 statements
  2. Oral Questions Finance 4 statements
  3. Oral Questions Taxation 8 statements
  4. Oral Questions The Environment 4 statements
  5. Oral Questions Taxation 8 statements
  6. Oral Questions The Economy 4 statements
  7. Oral Questions Taxation 2 statements
  8. Oral Questions Public Safety 10 statements
  9. Oral Questions Health 2 statements
  10. Oral Questions The Economy 8 statements
  11. Oral Questions Fisheries and Oceans 6 statements
  12. Oral Questions Infrastructure 2 statements
  13. Oral Questions Internal Trade 2 statements
  14. Oral Questions Women and Gender Equality 2 statements
  15. Oral Questions Public Safety 4 statements
  16. Oral Questions National Defence 2 statements
  17. Oral Questions Correctional Service of Canada 2 statements
  18. Oral Questions The Environment 2 statements
  19. Oral Questions Climate Change 2 statements
  20. ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS Points of Order 3 statements
  21. Oral Questions Families, Children and Social Development 2 statements
  22. Government Orders Building Canada Strong Act 32 statements
  23. Oral Questions Labour 2 statements
  24. Oral Questions The Environment 4 statements