“I support this bill. It speeds up approval times for major projects so we can build infrastructure faster. A stronger economy pays for important services like day care, housing, and senior care, while protecting workers and the environment.”

“Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of Bill C-39, the building Canada strong act, and to explain why to the residents of Nipissing—Timiskaming. Canadians elected this government to protect what matters to them while defending and growing our economy. For me, those responsibilities belong together. I want children to have affordable day care and healthy meals at schools, families to find homes they can afford, and seniors to receive the benefits and services they depend on. Canada must also have the means to defend our sovereignty, protect our freedom and contribute to peace, all while leaving the next generation a strong financial future. That takes a strong economy with good jobs, growing businesses and revenues to sustain our commitments. Day care, housing and retirement security may seem far removed from a railway, a pipeline or a port, but they are connected. The prosperity we help create today pays for the promises we intend to keep in the future. As a proud Canadian, I like to believe that Canada is among the world’s best in so many categories, yet research confirms that we have room to improve when it comes to how quickly we build infrastructure. Certainly, we have long distances, a scattered population and harsh weather to contend with here in Canada, and in northern Ontario, we know all three. Those are the realities that push us to build smarter. Furthermore, we can learn from other democracies and examine overlapping approvals, repeated reviews and unclear responsibilities that have made it harder and slower to get projects built. Business owners planning a project should know who makes the decision, what information is needed and when to expect an answer. When departments need the same information, they should speak to one another. Canadians have mastered the group chat. Governments should be able to manage one too. As the Prime Minister has said, “high standards do not require slow decisions.” Every unnecessary delay holds back a job, a business expansion or infrastructure that a community needs. Bill C-39 would tackle all of these challenges. The first part of the bill, “Build Canada Now”, would make federal reviews more coordinated and predictable: one project, one decision, one year. The proposed one-year timeline would begin once a proponent provides all the information required for federal reviews and decisions: a good application and a thorough assessment that works. Once the information is there, government should have a clear responsibility to reach a decision, so the bill would put a federal assessor in charge of coordinating reviews and bring decisions and permits together where the legislation allows. Our Prime Minister has explained that it is about moving from sequential to parallel decision-making. Through all of that, environmental protection must remain central. In Nipissing—Timiskaming, our lakes, forests and waterways support jobs, recreation and our quality of life. We take our lakes seriously, and protecting them is important. Better planning can help us eliminate environmental impacts earlier and decide where projects belong and what conditions they must meet. Indigenous rights and participation deserve absolutely the same care. The bill’s proposed Crown consultation hub would help coordinate federal consultation. Indigenous partners must be involved early, with the resources to assess proposals, raise concerns and help shape decisions. This would include opportunities for indigenous jobs, businesses and ownership. Trust takes time and work. Government must organize itself to help build it. The second part of the bill, “Keep Canada Moving”, matters greatly to northern Ontario. Our manufacturers, farmers, forestry operations and mining businesses need dependable transportation. An excellent product still has to reach the customer. Unreliable highways, limited rail capacity, inadequate air carrier networks and crowded ports mean delays and higher costs. Canada must plan the whole journey from where a product is made to where it is sold. That is why I support the proposed national trade corridor framework and the authority to establish a national trade corridors council. For northern Ontario, this would be an opportunity to bring railways, highways, connections, air service, access to ports and community needs into one plan. It would mean working with the Province of Ontario, indigenous partners and municipalities toward safer, more dependable connections along highways 11 and 17. We would also examine expanding fibre optic infrastructure alongside transportation investments. Businesses need reliable connections for their goods and their information. The truck, and the email announcing its arrival, should both arrive at the same time. The strategy to tell us once and tell us digitally, which is included in the bill, also makes sense. Businesses should submit information once and have it securely shared across government where it is authorized. Filling out the same form five times is certainly an activity, but I think we can all agree that it is not a growth strategy. Less paperwork leaves more time for customers, employees and investment. This work must accompany efforts to reduce trade barriers within Canada. Our roads should connect our regions, and our rules should help Canadians do business across them. The third part, “Canada strong for all”, recognizes the workers who make this economy possible. I support the measures tackling wage theft and the misclassification of employees as contractors, improving safety and helping workers recover wages when an employer becomes insolvent. At airports, preserving union representation and collective agreements when service contracts change would give workers greater stability. The government is also committed to adding 100 health and safety workers and 26 staff at the Canada Industrial Relations Board. Protections need people to enforce them, and complaints need timely answers. The bill would encourage earlier bargaining in difficult labour relationships, provide more time for conciliation and expand access to additional mediation tools. We all know the best agreements are those that workers and employers negotiate themselves. Changes to section 107 deserve careful attention, as the bill would introduce guardrails that encourage early engagement. Before intervening under the proposed framework, the minister would have to consider a special mediator’s report and conclude that a strike or lockout would have a significant adverse national impact. These are serious powers. Their use must be transparent, carefully justified and respectful of freedom of association, including the protected right to strike, and that is what the bill would deliver. These changes require all of us to make an effort. The government must coordinate its work more effectively and be accountable. Businesses must treat their employees fairly and honour their commitments to their communities. We must all ask ourselves whether our current approaches still meet the needs of Canadians. I understand that change can be unsettling. Workers have fought for their protections. Indigenous peoples have fought for the recognition and respect of their rights. Generations of people have worked to protect the environment and build our social programs. These hard-won achievements must guide our future. It is often said that compromise is everything. This may be the most controversial point in my speech, but the meaning is simple. Everyone needs to come one step closer, listen, and seek common ground. We can improve the way we work together while honouring our commitments. That is essentially what Bill C-39 is all about. I support this bill, because a stronger economy helps sustain affordable day care, school meals, housing and security for seniors. The bill would help young people find careers worth staying or coming home for. It would give Canada the means to defend its sovereignty, build a strong economy and build a strong future. Northern Ontario and Nipissing—Timiskaming have much to contribute. Let us measure success in projects completed responsibly, workers coming home safely, businesses reaching new customers and communities gaining opportunities. Let us build this future together.”

“I support this bill because it speeds up project decisions to just one year. We can look at the small details later. It is good for our country and for transportation, so we should move forward.”

“Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question. Maybe the other questions that come forward will build on it to some extent. We can certainly drill down into the weeds, but for me, it is about looking at the overall picture. This is what the bill is about: one project, one decision, one year, moving forward. If it is good for our country, let us move forward. Tonight I explained why I support that direction, and that includes transportation. There will be other opportunities in Parliament to examine further details.”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 48 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

“I support this bill. We consulted people across the country, with over 26,000 responses and 78 meetings. This bill moves Canada in the right direction and will help these projects get built.”

“Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question from my neighbour, and I genuinely appreciate him as a neighbour. He is a wonderful MP. That is a good question. However, we must remember that the bill is based on more than 26,000 responses and 78 consultation sessions that took place this summer. These consultations were important and showed us how to move forward with all the projects he mentioned. For me, the fundamental question this evening is simple: Does this bill move Canada in the right direction, and does it enable us to carry out the projects my colleague mentioned? The answer is yes.”

• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 100 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

“Our government is funding major power and building projects that create tens of thousands of jobs. I want the member to talk about the work we are doing to get them built.”

“Mr. Speaker, I listened intently to my hon. colleague. Maybe she could talk about some of the projects our government is helping to get completed, get started and get financed. Churchill Falls is the largest renewable energy project in North American history, producing enough clean power to heat, cool and power all the homes in Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver. It will create 22,000 jobs. We have LNG phase two and the refurbishment of Darlington. These are significant power projects and significant infrastructure projects creating tens of thousands of jobs. Maybe the hon. member could talk about some of the great work that Canada’s government is doing to get these projects built.”

“Our government is moving major projects forward. For example, the Crawford mine in northern Ontario will bring 4,000 jobs.”

“Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that my colleague has outlined a few of the very important projects that have been announced by our government and that are moving forward. In northeastern Ontario, a particular project that is critical and that has been designated to the Major Projects Office is the Crawford mine. It will provide 4,000 jobs in northern Ontario. It is a very important example of the types of projects happening in Canada.”

“Our government brought in $500 billion in promises and signed over 23 deals for economic projects. This bill is the next step to build Canada strong. I want the opposition to work with us and pass it.”

“Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the member of the opposition about the $500-billion promises that were made during the Toronto summit. We signed over 23 agreements around the world for those economic projects, which is proof of our great leadership. Bill C-39 is also the next step to build Canada strong. I would like to ask the member of the opposition why he will not work with us and approve the bill.”

“This bill hires 100 new health and safety officers and 26 new labour board officials to clear a backlog of cases. I want to know if the member thinks this is good for unions and workers.”

“Mr. Speaker, my colleague opposite touched on the importance of labour issues, and I wonder if he could comment on the importance of the fact that this legislation would hire 100 new health and safety officers and 26 new officials at the Canada Industrial Relations Board to clear out a backlog of cases. I wonder if he would see that as a positive move, particularly affecting unions and organized labour.”

“I want the House to pass this bill. It sets clear, faster deadlines for expert regulators to review major energy and nuclear projects. This will give investors certainty without lowering environmental standards or weakening our duty to consult Indigenous peoples.”

“Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise in the House today to speak to some of the natural resource development aspects of this bill. However, before I address these points, I know that Canadians want to understand why we are proposing these changes. Earlier this month, we hosted our country’s first-ever investment summit. The world came to Toronto to learn that Canada thinks big, and we gave them the opportunity to build with us. Investors from nearly 30 countries liked what they heard. They understand that we are committed to making Canada the most competitive country in the G7 for new investment. The $500 billion in capital raised in two days is a game-changer. It sends a clear signal to investors around the world that Canada has what the world is looking for. We have clear evidence that the world agrees with us. Canada did not reach that remarkable position by chance, but through a series of choices that deliver on our commitment to making Canada an energy and natural resource superpower. We implemented many measures to attract those investments, including lowering taxes on income, capital gains and new business investments. We eliminated all federal barriers to internal trade, opened a new Major Projects Office and introduced historic regulatory reforms to streamline the construction of infrastructure that makes us a superpower in clean and conventional energy. However, we can do more to attract investors while keeping the commitments that are important to Canadians, our commitments and obligations to the environment and indigenous peoples. That is precisely what I will be discussing today. Investors have told us time and time again that they need certainty. Today, we have the opportunity to apply the lessons we learned from the Building Canada Act to all major projects. The measures I am speaking about today are meant to ensure that two independent federal agencies within the Natural Resources portfolio—the Canada Energy Regulator and the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission—complete assessments for projects under their jurisdiction faster and more conclusively. The best projects will advance quickly, without ever compromising our commitment to identifying and addressing environmental, indigenous and socio-economic concerns pertaining to major projects. In other words, we are making the system work better without lowering our standards. For greater certainty and to maintain robust oversight, the proposed legislation provides for a number of changes. First, it amends the Canadian Energy Regulator Act and the Impact Assessment Act to assign environmental assessments to expert Canadian regulatory agencies for projects under their jurisdiction. These agencies are the Canada Energy Regulator and the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission. They will also be responsible for coordinating federal permits and Crown consultations, which will promote more constructive dialogue, based on respect for rights. This bill formalizes that coordination role. The result is a more transparent and predictable process that is easier to understand and that reduces duplication and delays. It is a win-win situation. Investors benefit from greater certainty. Canadians benefit from a transparent and accountable system. Workers benefit from a framework that fosters the creation of thousands of jobs. We are meeting Canadians’ expectations with transparency and speed for a specific category of projects overseen by the Canada Energy Regulator, known as the CER. The overall objective is clear. Once an application is submitted and deemed complete, the CER will conduct an assessment and coordinate permit-related activities, with the goal of reaching a final decision on the environmental assessment and permits within one year. This does not mean cutting any corners. Rather, it is about arriving at a decision more efficiently, after doing the necessary work to identify a project’s potential impacts on the environment, indigenous peoples and communities, and to determine whether those impacts can be managed and mitigated appropriately. To help get to a faster final decision, the legislation would also establish very specific new timelines. For smaller, more routine projects, particularly those that have been designed to run alongside land that has already been developed for provincial or federally regulated infrastructure, these amendments would create shorter assessment deadlines. For projects requiring new rights-of-way of 40 kilometres or less, the timelines would be reduced from 300 days to 180 days, or from 10 months to six months. For new rights-of-way longer than 40 kilometres and less than 300 kilometres, the timeline for reaching a final decision would be reduced from 450 days to 300 days, meaning that almost 15 months would become 10 months. The legislation for that particular distance would also eliminate an additional administrative step for projects in that category. Right now, the Canada Energy Regulator’s commission passes on their assessment findings to the Governor in Council for a final say, requiring another 90 days for the Governor in Council to make a decision. These amendments propose that the CER’s commission itself would be able to make the final determination, eliminating that further three-month delay. Only projects involving new rights-of-way of more than 300 kilometres would continue to require a Governor in Council decision. To help reduce delays, we are proposing to allow the Governor in Council to make an early public interest determination on a project, followed by the commission determining the conditions for the project to proceed. Any conditions required to address potential impacts would still need to be developed and applied. What would change is not the rigour of the review. What would change is how quickly people get clarity about a project’s future. Whether it is a yes or a no, providing a decision sooner would give investors and project proponents greater certainty. Certainty is not just about timelines. It is also about having the right expertise involved from the beginning. Today, the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, also called the CNSC, is responsible for regulating nuclear and uranium projects under the Nuclear Safety and Control Act. Larger projects require an integrated review panel under the Impact Assessment Act, as well as a licensing decision under the Nuclear Safety and Control Act. Under the proposed change, the CNSC would lead an impact assessment for all larger uranium and nuclear projects under the Impact Assessment Act within one year, followed by a licensing decision under the Nuclear Safety and Control Act within two years. This approach would provide investors and proponents early confidence that a project will proceed if the impact assessment is positive. Proponents could also choose to align the impact assessment and licensing decisions. These amendments would not only boost investor confidence, but also recognize that the CNSC has decades of technical expertise and experience overseeing these projects throughout their entire life cycle. What would change is that these assessments would be led by a regulator with deep, specialized knowledge of the technology, operation and safety requirements involved. Members have heard the changes that these amendments are proposing, but let me be equally clear about what the amendments would not change. They would not change environmental assessments and oversight. They would not weaken indigenous rights. They would not remove the Crown’s duty to consult indigenous people. In some cases, more time may still be required to understand the impact, fully address concerns, carry out meaningful consultation and respect indigenous rights. Canada should not have to choose between rigorous assessment and timely decisions. We can do both. We can uphold strong environmental standards. We can respect indigenous rights and carry out meaningful consultation. We can also provide the certainty that workers, communities, indigenous partners and investors are asking for.”

• Reasons given
  ?

  Speech on a bill

  Reasoning 100 of 100

  This statement drew 6 conclusions and gave a reason for each one.

  See full analysis →

“I want the House to pass this bill. It takes lessons from earlier legislation and applies them to all investment projects in Canada. It will help the government make clearer and faster decisions on projects while keeping the rules and openness people expect.”

“Mr. Speaker, this bill is based on the lessons that we learned from Bill C-5, and it provides us with an opportunity to apply those lessons to all investment projects in Canada. This is part of our commitment to reach our full potential and build unwavering resilience. This bill will improve government operations, provide greater clarity and predictability and ensure that decisions on the right projects are made in a timely manner. All this will be done while maintaining the safeguards and transparency that Canadians expect.”

“This bill has one group coordinate all the rules for a project. Just because the fisheries department is not mentioned does not mean it loses its say. Projects will still have to follow every rule.”

“Mr. Speaker, I will help my colleague understand the bill. The fact that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans has not been brought up does not mean that it has no say. It simply means that one organization is responsible for coordinating all of our standards and rules across Canada on behalf of the project. Just because it is not mentioned at the outset and just because it will not be done sequentially by each of these groups does not mean that we are getting rid of responsibilities or that the project proponent does not have to comply with the rules in all cases. That must apply.”

• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 100 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

“Mining and critical minerals are very important to Canada's economy. Can my colleague explain how this bill will help those projects move forward?”

“Mr. Speaker, critical minerals and mining projects are very important to Canada’s economy. Can my colleague explain how this bill can help advance these projects, which are very important for moving Canada’s economy forward?”