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

Vincent Ho, Richmond Hill South

Conservative

Linked statement

“I oppose this bill. The government promised to speed up construction, but hundreds of projects are still waiting for approval. Adding another large bill and more bureaucrats will only cause more delays. We need to cut red tape, approve projects within six months, and let workers actually build things.”
  • A repeated line

    “Canada should be one of the richest countries in the world.”

    Said 5 times by 5 members since May 25.

    Every time it was said
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister promised Canadians that his government was going to build at speeds not seen in generations, and I will give him this much: He was right, because Canadians have not seen a government build this slowly in generations. A year and a half ago, the Liberals came before Canadians with Bill C-5 and told us that everything was about to change. We were told that Canada was entering a new era, that projects would finally move quickly, that investment would finally flow and that the Liberal government was going to unleash construction at a pace Canadians had not seen in decades. Eighteen months after the Liberals took office, Canadians are still left waiting. Not one new project has been approved by the Liberal Major Projects Office. Approximately 500 projects are still waiting for approval, and the government that promised historic speed has produced historic delay. The only thing the Major Projects Office has managed to accomplish is to establish a brand new Liberal bureaucracy and hire Liberal insiders and friends of the Prime Minister as new high-priced bureaucrats at the taxpayers’ expense. It is no wonder the Major Projects Office is being touted as the major photo ops office. Now, eighteen months later, the Liberal Prime Minister has returned to the House with Bill C-39, another piece of legislation approaching 250 pages. The Liberals are once again telling Canadians that this time they have finally found the answer. Well, we have heard this before. For years, Conservatives have told the government exactly what it needs to do if it wants to get Canada building. We have told it to approve major projects within six months; repeal the antidevelopment laws Liberal Bill C-69 and Liberal Bill C-48, which are still on the books; eliminate unnecessary duplication between governments; adopt a one project, one single review system; and provide investors with the certainty that if they put billions of dollars into Canada, they will actually have a reasonable opportunity to build something here. Instead, the Liberals have spent years creating more layers of regulations, more uncertainty, more Liberal bureaucracies and more opportunities for delay. Then, after creating the problem, the Liberals arrive in the House every couple of years with another enormous piece of legislation announcing they are going to solve it. That is the pattern that Canadians have watched for more than a decade: create a Liberal-sponsored problem, announce a new Liberal program, create a new Liberal office, hire more Liberal bureaucrats, hold a Liberal press conference, hold a Liberal photo op, declare victory and then wonder why nothing gets built. Canadians are not going to judge this legislation by its partisan Liberal title, by the Liberal press releases announcing it or by the talking points that Liberal ministers repeat on state-sponsored mass media. Canadians are going to judge it by whether it saves Canadians money, protects Canadian jobs and actually gets projects built. The problem Canada faces today is not a shortage of Liberal announcements. The Liberals are only good at delivering announcements and strategies drafted by Liberal consultants. These new offices are usually staffed by Liberal insiders, these frameworks are usually crafted by Liberal strategists, and Liberal memoranda of understanding have no legally binding effect. We have Liberal ministers travelling across the country standing beside maps and artists’ renderings of things that might one day get built. What Canadians are missing are completed approvals, shovels in the ground, workers on job sites and projects actually being constructed. Pipelines do not carry energy products because they appear on some Liberal government list or on a website updated by a Liberal staffer. Mines do not produce critical minerals because a Liberal minister holds a press conference. Ports do not have another container moved because a Liberal memorandum of understanding with no legal effect has been signed. Factories do not employ Canadian workers because somebody in Ottawa created another Liberal advisory council drafted by some Liberal consultants. At some point, the Liberal government has to stop announcing that it intends to build and start allowing Canadians to actually build. That is the fundamental problem with the Liberal approach over the last decade. The government acts as though economic growth is something that can be produced by Ottawa through more legislation, more regulation and more bureaucracy, when in reality, Liberal governments do not build most of these projects. Workers build them. Private investors invest in them, businesses operate them, engineers design them, tradespeople construct them, and entrepreneurs take the risks necessary to actually make it happen. The government’s job should be to establish clear and reasonable rules, protect the public interest and then get out of the way. Instead, Canada has become a country where somebody can be prepared to invest billions of dollars, employ thousands of Canadians and develop resources that the world desperately wants, and the first question they have to ask is not whether the project makes economic sense but whether they will spend the next decade trying to navigate a Liberal regulatory system. That is not economic strategy. It is Liberal self-sabotage. The Liberals now say that Bill C-39 will create greater certainty and faster timelines, but Canadians should remember that these are almost the exact same promises and talking points we heard when Bill C-5 was introduced last year. If Bill C-5, more than a year ago, was supposed to get projects moving faster, why do we need Bill C-39? The Prime Minister said Canada would move at speeds not seen in generations. Canadians looked around and waited, for the past year and a half. They waited for the new mines, the new pipelines and the new energy infrastructure. They waited for the new ports and the new major private sector projects that would create thousands of jobs and attract billions of dollars of investment. They are still waiting. The Liberal Prime Minister promised speeds not seen in generations, and instead, Canadians have received delays not seen in generations. Eighteen months later, the Liberals are asking Canadians to believe that the problem was simply that they needed another 250 pages of federal legislation. Canadians are entitled to be skeptical. The issue has never been that Ottawa lacks enough power, regulations, departments, bureaucrats or pieces of paper. The issue is that the government has spent more than a decade making it harder to build anything in the country. Bill C-69 created enormous uncertainty for major projects. Bill C-48 restricted Canada’s ability to export our energy resources from the coast of British Columbia. Layers of Liberal federal legislation overlap with provincial processes. Project proponents face years of consultations, studies, assessments and bureaucratic demands before they know whether they will receive a final answer. While all that is happening, capital, both domestic and foreign, does not simply sit around waiting for Ottawa. It moves, and it goes somewhere. It goes to jurisdictions where governments understand that regulatory certainty matters, where permits can be obtained in a predictable period of time and where political leaders actually want investment rather than merely talk about wanting investment. Every time that happens, Canada loses more investment. We lose jobs. We lose construction jobs, engineering jobs and manufacturing jobs, and we lose tax revenues that could help pay for health care and public services. Canadian families lose opportunities for the good-paying jobs that once allowed an income to support a family, buy a home and build the future. This is why Conservatives keep coming back to a very basic principle: one project, one review. The government should not require a company to repeatedly prove the same thing to different levels of government, different departments and different regulators. They should streamline the processes and get out of the way. This brings us to a broader question before us, which is what kind of country Canada intends to become. We possess almost every natural advantage imaginable. We have some of the largest energy reserves in the world. We have critical minerals that our allies desperately need. We have enormous agricultural capacity. We have forestry, energy, uranium, natural gas and oil. We have access to three oceans. We have some of the most talented workers and entrepreneurs anywhere on the planet. Canada should be one of the richest countries in the world. There is no reason Canadians should have to accept economic stagnation, declining investment and fewer opportunities as if these things are somehow inevitable. They are not inevitable. They are consequences of Liberal choices. Canada has everything we need to succeed here at home. What we need now is a government willing to get out of the way. The Liberals promised Canadians that we would build at speeds not seen in generations. Well, they were right about one thing. Canadians have not seen us build this slowly in generations. Canadians have had enough announcements, enough Liberal studies and enough delays. It is time to get out of the way and finally let Canada build.

Kevin Lamoureux, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Liberal
“This bill will help grow Canada's economy. The Prime Minister's work just helped bring half a trillion dollars in new investments to Canada. I want the Conservatives to see that this bill supports those investments and to back it.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, it is important to note that Bill C-39 is there to support and grow Canada’s economy. All one needs to do is take a look at the last 18 months, where we have had a Prime Minister and cabinet going out and encouraging people to seek further trade opportunities for local businesses, to seek investments, to the degree that just a couple of weeks ago in Toronto, we saw half a trillion dollars. That is a historic amount of money, never before seen in Canada’s history, because of the relationships with our Prime Minister. I would encourage the member of the Conservative caucus to look at the bigger picture. Would the Conservatives not recognize that the bill complements that half a trillion dollars’ worth of commitments coming over?

Vincent Ho, Richmond Hill South

Conservative
“I oppose this bill. The government makes many announcements, but they do not get real results. They are just trying to turn a party slogan into a federal law.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 18 of 100

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

    See full analysis
  • Reply to a debate question

    Signal 17 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, the Liberal member is repeating talking points over and over again, and that one-minute spiel of his is not only raising the noise pollution in this chamber. It is also a testament to the Liberal talking points that have been spouted at Canadians over the last 18 months, which is that they want to do more, but there are no results. All we see is more talk, more announcements and more rhetoric coming from the Liberals. This entire act is called the building Canada strong act. That is a Liberal partisan slogan, which they now want to enact as federal law. That is the thing about the Liberals. They do not want to get things done. All they want to do is talk a big game and have no results to show for it.

Gabriel Ste-Marie, Joliette—Manawan

Bloc Québécois
“The Supreme Court ruled that the right to strike is protected by the Charter. The government can only limit that right to protect public health and safety, not business interests. I believe the section of this bill on the right to strike violates the Constitution. I am asking my colleague if he agrees.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to see you in the chair. My question for my colleague has to do with labour law and the right to strike. In 2015, the Supreme Court of Canada recognized the right to strike as a fundamental right protected by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. That was in Saskatchewan Federation of Labour v. Saskatchewan. The Bloc Québécois believes this proves that in order to infringe upon a protected right, there must be a valid reason, such as protecting the life, health or safety of the public. Serving corporate interests is not a valid reason. That is why the section of Bill C-39 dealing with the right to strike may be unconstitutional. What are my hon. colleague’s thoughts on that? Does he think, as I do, that the Liberals are going to tout the benefits of the notwithstanding clause to defend this part of Bill C-39?

Vincent Ho, Richmond Hill South

Conservative
“Workers across the country are striking because living costs are too high. I blame the Liberals and their spending for high food and housing prices. The government must cut spending to lower costs for Canadians.”
  • 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, I would like to thank the member for bringing up all of the labour unrest we have seen over the last 11 years under the Liberal government. The labour unrest we are seeing all across the country in almost every sector is a symptom. It is a symptom of 11 years of economic mismanagement, of a cost of living crisis that Canadians have to live through, of having the fastest food inflation and the most unaffordable housing in the G7. This is a Liberal-sponsored cost of living crisis that we are living in, and the rising costs are what is causing the labour unrest we are seeing across the country. If we can address the endless inflationary spending and bring down the cost of living, then Canadians can finally afford to live again, but the Liberals choose to live in rhetoric rather than taking real action.

Jeff Kibble, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford

Conservative
“The government made big promises with the first bill, but they never actually built anything or signed any deals. Now they just added the word strong to the name. They make announcements instead of taking action, and this new bill will fail just like the last one.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, almost a year and a half ago, we had the Building Canada Act, with grand promises of new organizations, Liberals will do this, they will do that, and with all kinds of platitudes but short on specifics. In fact, the member for Winnipeg North just stood up and said there was half a trillion dollars of commitments, but there are no signatures. There are no deals. There are no new mines. There is nothing. We now have this building Canada strong act. The Liberals have added the word “strong”. Does the member feel that, under Liberal governance, the Liberals are doomed to continue failing, as they did with the first bill? They have added one word. Are the Liberals doomed to failure through their inaction and announcements, lack of signatures, and lack of actual decisions and projects starting, let alone being completed?

Vincent Ho, Richmond Hill South

Conservative
“I agree with my colleague. This bill will only create more bureaucracy and delays instead of real results for Canadians.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Signal 14 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, the member brings up a pertinent point. Canadians are still reading and going through the bill, but there is only one thing we know for certain, which is that it would create Liberal bureaucracy, delays and Liberal photo ops. It would be more talk with no results for Canadians. Canadians are desperate for results. They do not need more Liberal press releases.

Leslie Church, Parliamentary Secretary to the Secretaries of State for Labour, for Seniors, and for Children and Youth, and to the Minister of Jobs and Families (Persons with Disabilities)

Liberal
“I want the House to pass this bill. It will speed up approvals for big building projects and help get Canadian goods to market. It also protects workers by helping them solve labour disputes sooner, keeping them safe, and making sure they get the pay they earned.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, we are living through a moment of enormous change. Global markets are shifting, our trading relationships are changing and Canada has to be ready to meet the moment. That means focusing on what we can control and building here at home. We can make Canada a place where businesses want to invest, where projects actually get built, where Canadian goods can reach new markets and where those investments create good jobs for Canadian workers. That is what the building Canada strong act is about. It would bring greater speed, certainty and predictability to major project reviews. It would strengthen the trade corridors and ports that connect Canadian businesses to the world, and it would create the conditions to attract investment, put Canadian capital to work and build a more resilient and independent economy, because certainty matters. Certainty means investment. Investment means building. Building means jobs. All of that makes our economy stronger and more resilient in a world that is becoming less predictable. However, we cannot do any of that without a strong labour relations framework. The people who will build these projects, operate our ports and railways, move our goods and keep our economy running are Canadian workers. The strongest workplaces are workplaces where workers are treated fairly, where employers and unions have productive relationships and where people can sit down together and solve problems. That is why the labour measures in Bill C-39 matter. Free and fair collective bargaining is at the heart of our labour relations system. Let me be very clear: We are absolutely committed to workers’ constitutional right to strike. The best deal is the deal reached by parties themselves at the table. In fact, our system works remarkably well. Approximately 95% of federally regulated labour disputes supported by the federal mediation and conciliation service are resolved without a work stoppage, but we also know that some of the bargaining relationships become difficult long before anyone reaches a picket line. This bill is about getting in earlier. It would provide greater support for first collective agreements, including bringing in the federal mediation and conciliation service from the beginning. It would provide earlier support in difficult bargaining relationships and relationship building after a dispute, because anyone who has worked in a workplace knows that a bitter dispute does not magically disappear when a collective agreement is signed. It would also invest in the institutions that make collective bargaining work, including the Canada Industrial Relations Board and the federal mediation and conciliation service, so that problems can be addressed earlier and workers are not left waiting because of backlogs. I also want to address section 107 directly, because I know that we have heard concern about it here in this House. Section 107 has existed in the Canada Labour Code for nearly 50 years. This bill does not create a new power. What it does is put new restrictions, guardrails and transparency around how that power can be used. Before a minister could direct the Canada Industrial Relations Board to end or suspend an ongoing work stoppage and impose a binding dispute resolution, two new conditions would have to be met. First, a special mediator would work intensively with the parties and provide a report to the minister that would be made public, a key factor for ensuring accountability for both parties and for ensuring that both parties are bargaining in good faith. The appointment of that mediator would not take away the right to strike or lock out. Their job would be to help the parties do what we want them to do in the first place, which is to reach an agreement themselves. Second, there would have to be a national impact assessment examining whether the dispute is or may be adversely affecting the national interest, including the consideration of free collective bargaining and the protected right to strike. These are real guardrails, and the principle behind them is straightforward: Collective bargaining remains the primary way labour disputes should be resolved. We have heard that recognition from labour. Canada’s Building Trades Unions has been clear that it wants strong guardrails around government intervention and wants the right to strike protected, but the CBTU has also recognized the value of improving the process between bargaining and government intervention. As Sean Strickland has put it, “you’ve gone through some really substantive steps here to try to get parties to make a deal”. That is exactly the objective, to have more opportunity to negotiate, more opportunity to mediate and more opportunity for parties themselves to find the way forward. That is only one part of the labour reforms in this bill. Bill C-39 would strengthen protections for the workers we are asking to help build this country. It would crack down on wage theft and worker misclassification. It would strengthen workplace health and safety, including through more inspections and a greater focus on workers’ health and safety, and it would protect workers in air transportation when contracts change hands, so they can keep their union representation and collective agreement. These things matter. A worker should get the wages they earned. They should be safe when they go to work and safe when they come home. When something does go wrong, they should have a labour system capable of responding quickly and fairly. I want to recognize what the Building Trades of Alberta has said about this bill. There are 19 unions in Alberta. I visited them only last week. These are ironworkers, carpenters, machinists and bricklayers. They have said that they welcome the Canadian government’s Bill C-39, which will expedite project approvals and help our job-ready workforce build Canada strong. I want to finish where I started. We are living in a more uncertain world, but we can control what we build here at home. We can build the projects this country needs. We can move Canadian goods to markets. We can attract investment, create good jobs and make sure Canadian workers share in the prosperity that they create, and we can do it with a labour relations system that protects workers, respects collective bargaining and gives employers and unions the tools to solve problems together, because this moment demands more than resilience from Canada; it demands ambition. Canadians want to build. We want to invest in ourselves. We want to compete, and we want to give ourselves more of what no country, no trade dispute and no decision made beyond our borders can take away, which is the capacity to build for ourselves, the confidence to bet on ourselves and the ability to determine our own economic future. That is what this bill would help Canada to do, and it is why I call on all members of the House to support the legislation. Let us get to work, and let us build Canada.

Jeff Kibble, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford

Conservative
“The government has made these same promises for 18 months, and their old plan failed to get projects built. All they did was add the word strong to the name. Why should Canadians believe this new bill will work?”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, three things caught my eyes. They have been saying “must meet the moment” for 18 months. That hardly meets the definition of “moment”. When speaking of the bill, they said, “where Canadian projects actually get built”. To me, that sounds like they are clearly admitting that the first bill has completely failed. Now the government has added the word “strong”. They talked about strengthening our corridors. Again, that is from 18 months ago, including during their campaign. My question for the member opposite is this: Why in her own speech is she admitting to and highlighting their past failures, bringing those forward now under a new bill that has added the word “strong”? Does the member opposite expect that Canadians will believe them for this new bill?

Leslie Church, Parliamentary Secretary to the Secretaries of State for Labour, for Seniors, and for Children and Youth, and to the Minister of Jobs and Families (Persons with Disabilities)

Liberal
“We worked hard with businesses and unions to write this bill. Our government is already moving big building projects forward, but we need to do more. This bill will make sure project reviews take only one year.”
  • 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, this bill is the product of two rounds of public consultations with employers and unions. As well, it follows nearly half a year’s worth of conversation and consultation with the tripartite council that we established in order to do the hard work and the heavy lifting to build this bill. I take issue with the members’ framing of this. The government is actually hard at work pushing projects to approval, including the port of Montreal, the Matawinie mine and BHP’s potash project. There is the OPG Pickering refurbishment that the Minister of Natural Resources announced earlier this week. These are all examples of projects that are moving forward, but we have to do more, and this bill would get us to one project, one decision, one year.

Gabriel Ste-Marie, Joliette—Manawan

Bloc Québécois
“Our labour laws are outdated because they still let employers use replacement workers during strikes. This drags disputes out instead of solving problems. Quebec banned replacement workers 50 years ago. Does the government agree we should ban them across Canada?”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. parliamentary secretary for her speech. She spoke about the right to strike. Would she agree that the main problem is that the Canada Labour Code is outdated, especially since it allows the use of scabs during labour disputes? Quebec did away with that about 50 years ago. Because of that provision, labour disputes drag on. Section 107 of the Canada Labour Code and the amendments proposed by Bill C-39 send employers the message that if they let a labour dispute drag on, the government will step in and deal with the situation. When negotiations fail to result in new working conditions, issues that should have been resolved are instead pushed forward to the next round of bargaining, which undermines social cohesion. Does my colleague believe that we should remove the option of using scabs and modernize the Canada Labour Code?

Leslie Church, Parliamentary Secretary to the Secretaries of State for Labour, for Seniors, and for Children and Youth, and to the Minister of Jobs and Families (Persons with Disabilities)

Liberal
“I support this bill. It updates our labour laws to make bargaining fairer and workplaces safer, using ideas from both unions and employers.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 47 of 100

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

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, our unionized workers are the backbone of a strong Canadian economy. This bill takes into account the recommendations made by unions, employers and management representatives during two rounds of public consultations. It seeks to strengthen good-faith bargaining and get better results for workers, employers and Canadians. As workplaces continue to evolve, labour laws in Canada must evolve with them to ensure that these workplaces remain fair, safe and productive.

Sean Casey, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs and Associate Minister of National Defence

Liberal
“A business leader once told me that every government department should focus on economic competitiveness. I want the parliamentary secretary to explain how this bill helps our economy stay competitive.”
  • Question or comment in debate

    Relevance 49 of 100

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

    See full analysis
  • Question or comment in debate

    Signal 13 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, back in January 2023, I had the honour of being invited to an event where the special guest was the executive chairman of Maple Leaf Foods, Michael McCain, a very well-known businessman and philanthropist. It was a meeting of Liberal members of Parliament who were interested in business and economic growth. At one point in the meeting, Mr. McCain was asked, “If you had one piece of advice for the Government of Canada, what would it be?” I forget a lot of what happened in the meeting, but I remember his answer to that question. It was that every single federal government department, every single Crown corporation and everything that is affiliated with the Government of Canada should have in their mission statement the word “competitiveness”. I invite the parliamentary secretary to reflect on that and how it aligns with what we are doing in Bill C-39.

Leslie Church, Parliamentary Secretary to the Secretaries of State for Labour, for Seniors, and for Children and Youth, and to the Minister of Jobs and Families (Persons with Disabilities)

Liberal
“I support this bill. Canada faces threats from abroad, so we need to show we can build projects quickly and stay competitive.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, my colleague hit the nail on the head. This legislation is designed to ensure that we can meet the moment. Under the strain and threat we are facing from abroad, it is important that we be able to demonstrate to Canadians that we can move projects forward, be competitive—

Nathalie Provost, Secretary of State (Nature)

Liberal
“I want the House to pass this bill. It speeds up federal environmental reviews so we can build major energy and infrastructure projects faster. It sets clear timelines without lowering environmental standards or stepping on provincial powers.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise in the House today. I will be speaking in the context of this debate on Bill C‑39. I am going to focus on the part that deals with environmental protection. Between the fall of 2015 and the spring of 2025, I had the honour of serving as director general of Quebec’s ministry of environment and climate change. During those 10 years, I learned about, discovered and explored all sorts of areas of environmental protection, including industry, transportation and infrastructure. I also worked with committed and dedicated professionals who understand very well the importance of enforcing environmental laws and regulations. That is the lens through which I would like us to discuss the bill before us today. In Quebec, there was a proposal in 2015 to review the Environment Quality Act. One of the major challenges was the issue of predictability and transparency in issuing authorizations. Quebec committed to fast-tracking and reviewing its processes in that respect. Interestingly enough, that is the very topic that the Government of Canada is focusing on in this bill, because it is absolutely essential if we are to be able to carry out projects quickly. Since our colleagues in the House are constantly raising the issue of the speed of our decision-making, it is absolutely essential that we give ourselves the means to make decisions efficiently and quickly, so that developers can build our country and public institutions can swiftly carry out the projects that are essential to the establishment and development of our economic autonomy. I just want to remind my colleagues of Quebec’s objectives, which are public. The Declaration of services to citizens and businesses states that a permit should be issued within 75 days for any project with moderate environmental impact. In Quebec, the target for the revised Impact Assessment Act is nine months. We are hoping that decisions will be reached within a one-year timeline. That is essentially the process being considered here, not the rigour with which regulations are enforced, and certainly not an encroachment on provincial decisions. We want to be able to move quickly and provide all developers with accurate information so they can help build Quebec. Since the beginning of their history, Canadians have built Canada. Previous generations have undertaken projects that have transformed the country. The national railway, which connected communities, helped establish Canada as a continental country. The Trans-Canada Highway is a great example of a project that connected our regions and strengthened economic ties from coast to coast to coast. Then there is the St. Lawrence Seaway. We have some great examples of projects that have been completed and have helped build our country. That is what we need to do today. We need to do this if we want to become an energy powerhouse. We are going to do this with projects that use fossil fuels, but we are going to transform them with projects that reduce their carbon footprint. We are going to reduce methane emissions. On top of that, we will be able to implement clean electricity projects. The Churchill Falls project is not isolated only to Quebec. This project will enable us to produce energy that can be delivered to Canadians in the Maritimes and Ontario and that we could even sell to our economic partners. This is important if we want to be able to meet our net-zero targets. To be able to carry out projects effectively and efficiently, we need to have the means to respond quickly so that we can meet these commitments. That is why we are making these decisions. We are streamlining processes and consolidating permit applications that stem from various initiatives. In addition, we are finding a way to incorporate them in the same decision. This will have no impact on provincial regulatory frameworks. The regulatory frameworks of the provinces involved in a project must and will apply. I have some examples. In 2024, Bombardier wanted to relocate its warehouse and found a very interesting piece of land in Saint-Philippe. That project needed to be built quickly given Bombardier’s various challenges and deadlines. Rosefellow, which was Bombardier’s developer, succeeded and we managed to incorporate the entire analysis under the Species at Risk Act within 75 days. We got involved early in the project and found solutions. Without the ability to incorporate feedback from colleagues and make decisions quickly, Bombardier would not have set up operations in the Montérégie region, and the project, which was announced this summer and is now up and running, not long after it was conceived, would not have come to fruition. When we read the impact assessment for the port of Contrecoeur, we see everything that was done to ensure alignment and connection with Quebec’s laws and regulations. The agreement to protect the copper redhorse was made in agreement with Quebec. We are not substituting or erasing Quebec’s constitutional rights. We are proactively working with Quebec so that authorizations are efficient and so that proponents can move forward. Another example involves the Quebec Central Railway, which connects Lévis and Thetford Mines. It was a project to rehabilitate a rail line, but it ran into some problems. Some of the land on which the rail line was built contained asbestos tailings, which fall under Quebec’s legislation. Although this was a federal project, Quebec’s laws were applied, and Quebec authorizations were used. There is therefore a way to work in a fast, predictable and clear context. This will allow us to proceed much more efficiently. People have been calling for this. We are introducing this today because there is a tariff crisis, but there are also other crises. We need to take back control of our economy and boost our productivity. The whole issue of environmental approvals means that we need to be able to do this properly. I would be remiss if I did not emphasize how central our partnership with indigenous peoples remains to these efforts. Indigenous communities must play a key role in shaping projects that affect their lands, their rights and their future. We can coordinate projects based on clear processes, and we will be able to secure a strong commitment that provides a great deal of certainty to all parties involved. Let me conclude with this final point. These proposals have been shaped by a deep commitment. Over the past few months, our government has listened to indigenous peoples, provincial and territorial governments, workers, businesses, industry representatives and Canadians across the country. Canadians emphasized the importance of improving the efficiency of federal processes while maintaining environmental safeguards and respecting indigenous rights. Stakeholders highlighted the need for greater certainty, clear timelines, strong supply chains and modern frameworks that can support future growth. That made sense to us, which is why the bill before Parliament reflects what we learned from those conversations and seeks to seize the opportunities before us and address the challenges facing our country. Urgent action is required, and that is why we are introducing this bill. We are confident that Canada can make decisions in a timely manner and provide reliable infrastructure. This is not just about improving processes. It is about preparing our country for the future. Let us build a competitive economy, create more opportunities for workers and communities, strengthen our ties at home and abroad and ensure that Canada remains a country where we can achieve great things together.

Eric Melillo, Kenora—Kiiwetinoong

Conservative
“We already passed laws to help the government approve big projects quickly. The government is repeating old work instead of actually getting projects built.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, when we are talking about this piece of legislation, it is important to note that a lot of work has been done in this Parliament already, and very quickly. We passed a lot of measures to enable the government to move quickly on major projects. There was a lot of discussion last year, and it continues, about how existential it is for our country to secure our economic sovereignty and to ensure that we can stand on our own two feet. Of course, that still remains today, but the government is dragging its feet and bringing forward more and more legislation to duplicate a lot of work that has already been done by Parliament. Why is the government bringing forward more legislation instead of taking action to ensure we can get projects built in Canada?

Nathalie Provost, Secretary of State (Nature)

Liberal
“Our government is not moving slowly. In our few months in office, we have already introduced many new rules and laws. Our job in Parliament is not to build projects ourselves. Our job is to set up the right rules so developers can build things across Canada, and that is what this bill does.”
  • 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 am surprised to hear my colleague say that our government is dragging its feet. I have not been a member of Parliament for very long, but in the few months since we took office, there has already been some acknowledgement of our government’s ability to introduce laws and regulations for Canadians. It is important to create the right conditions. That is Parliament’s role. My role is not to pick up a shovel and start digging to build a railway track or a power transmission corridor. My role is to create the proper conditions so that developers who want help build Canada can do so. That is what we are doing here today.

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

Bloc Québécois
“I want the government to keep the five-year limit on its special powers. This bill makes those powers permanent. The government uses these powers to get around environmental rules, and making them permanent is a step backward.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, during question period, I had an opportunity to ask my colleague opposite about a provision in Bill C-5 that the government wants to remove using Bill C-39. This provision states that, after five years, the exceptional powers conferred by Bill C‑5 cease to apply. In answer to my question, she said that her government was not using Bill C‑39 to backtrack on environmental progress. I have a question for the government. If that is not backtracking, what is? A power that was supposed to be temporary and limited to five years is being made permanent and unlimited, and we know full well that this power is used precisely to get around environmental rules.

Nathalie Provost, Secretary of State (Nature)

Liberal
“These bills do not weaken our environmental rules. They let projects move forward legally while we set their environmental conditions. Other places do this too, and it protects good projects from lawsuits.”
  • 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, if we read the content of Bills C-5 and C-39 carefully, we can see that they work on the assumption that projects can be developed in keeping with legal requirements while allowing sufficient time for determining the conditions surrounding their implementation. This approach, which resembles what in Quebec is known as the pre-tabling of authorizations, is quite common in countries that take a strict and streamlined approach to environmental approvals. We are familiar with the projects, and we do not want to expose them to legal challenges; we simply want to create the conditions necessary to meet environmental requirements.

Kevin Lamoureux, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Liberal
“I want to ask the member how this bill fits into our plan to make Canada stronger. The Prime Minister's recent summit brought in almost 500 billion dollars in potential investments. How does this bill help support that?”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if my colleague could provide her thoughts in regard to how the legislation is part of a bigger agenda the government has for building Canada stronger and healthier. A good example of that, as I have cited on numerous occasions, is the investment summit that the Prime Minister hosted, which generated close to half a trillion dollars of potential commitments coming to Canada. What impact is that going to have on our nation, and how is this legislation there to help support it?

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