Bill C-39

Building Canada Strong Act

An Act respecting certain measures to strengthen the economy

Part 1 implements certain measures in relation to project evaluations.
Division 1 of Part 1 amends the Impact Assessment Act to, among other things,
(a) provide that the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission is to conduct the impact assessment of a designated project that includes activities that are regulated under the Nuclear Safety and Control Act ;
(b) authorize the Minister of the Environment to grant certain federal authorizations that are required in respect of a designated project at the same time that the Minister issues a decision statement in respect of the project;
(c) ensure that a decision statement in respect of a designated project for which the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada conducts the impact assessment is issued within one year after the proponent provides the required information or studies;
(d) provide for the coordination of the impact assessment of designated projects and the review processes for certain federal authorizations that are required in respect of those projects; and
(e) provide for the coordination of consultations with Indigenous groups.
Division 2 of Part 1 amends the Building Canada Act to, among other things,
(a) establish, for certain types of projects located within a region of national interest, a similar framework to the one applicable to national interest projects;
(b) allow the minister designated under that Act to add, remove or amend any condition in respect of an authorization that was granted for a national interest project before the name of that project was added to Schedule 1 to that Act;
(c) ensure that obligations to make information public associated with decisions made under that Act are administratively feasible; and
(d) authorize the Governor in Council to add the name of a region to a new schedule to that Act if the Governor in Council is of the opinion, having regard to certain factors, that the designation of that region is in the national interest.
Division 3 of Part 1 amends the Canadian Energy Regulator Act to, among other things,
(a) ensure decisions in respect of pipelines, designated power lines and offshore renewable energy projects are issued within one year of receiving the required information and studies;
(b) provide for the coordination of consultations with Indigenous peoples of Canada in respect of pipelines, designated power lines and offshore renewable energy projects;
(c) provide for the coordination of federal authorizations in respect of pipelines, designated power lines and offshore renewable energy projects with federal authorities;
(d) provide that the Commission is the sole assessor of applications in respect of pipelines, designated power lines and offshore renewable energy projects;
(e) provide authority for the Commission to
(i) make decisions in respect of applications relating to pipelines, designated power lines and offshore renewable energy projects, unless otherwise specified in the Act,
(ii) exempt certain pipelines or branches of or extensions to pipelines from the application of certain provisions, and
(iii) integrate a detailed route hearing into an ongoing hearing; and
(f) provide that the Governor in Council is to determine whether certain pipelines and designated power lines are in the public interest.
It also makes consequential amendments to the Federal Courts Act and the Northern Pipeline Act .
Division 4 of Part 1 amends the Canadian Navigable Waters Act to require the Minister of Transport to, among other things, take into account the feasibility of the terms and conditions in respect of an approval relating to certain works. It also transfers to that Minister the power to exempt bodies of water from the application of certain provisions of the Act if that Minister is satisfied that it would be in the public interest. Finally, it allows the Governor in Council to make regulations to exclude structures, devices or other things from the definition “work” to avoid duplication with other Acts and regulations.
Division 5 of Part 1 amends the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 to, among other things,
(a) ensure that environmental protection compliance orders may be issued with respect to any thing to which that Act applies and to non-continuing offences, including with respect to contravening imports;
(b) broaden the scope of such orders by permitting an enforcement officer to direct a person to take additional measures, such as managing contravening imports in the manner specified in the order, returning them to their place of origin or removing them from Canada; and
(c) provide that certain permits issued under that Act may, in certain circumstances, be valid for more than one year.
Division 6 of Part 1 amends the Species at Risk Act to, among other things, require the competent minister to take into account the feasibility of the terms and conditions in respect of certain agreements and permits.
Division 7 of Part 1 amends the Fisheries Act to, among other things,
(a) modify the fish habitat bank regime to allow for the use of habitat credits by third parties;
(b) authorize the making of regulations respecting the circumstances in which a person who is authorized to carry on a work, undertaking or activity may pay a fee to offset adverse effects on fish and fish habitat and provide for these fees to be credited to the Environmental Damages Fund; and
(c) transfer certain regulation-making powers from the Governor in Council to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.
Part 2 implements certain measures in relation to supply chains.
Division 1 of Part 2 amends the Department of Transport Act to provide the Minister of Transport with the power to establish a transportation project office that coordinates review processes for federal authorizations and consultations with respect to transportation projects.
Division 2 of Part 2 amends the Canada Transportation Act to, among other things,
(a) provide that the Minister of Transport may designate geographic areas as trade corridors and establish the National Trade Corridors Council, whose mandate is to monitor the movement of goods in trade corridors, analyze disruptions that may affect trade corridors and make recommendations and provide advice to that Minister;
(b) provide that Minister with the authority to make regulations to give effect to international standards or ensure compliance with Canada’s international obligations;
(c) expand the purposes for which that Minister may request that federal departments and agencies provide information that has already been provided by regulated entities to those federal departments and agencies;
(d) clarify the application of the requirement to notify that Minister of proposed transactions involving transportation undertakings;
(e) reduce the threshold for the requirement to notify that Minister and the Commissioner of Competition of proposed transactions involving transportation undertakings situated in a “port”, as defined in section 5 of the Canada Marine Act ;
(f) provide that that Minister may, for any purpose related to transportation security or safety, to the integrity of the national transportation system or to public safety or for any purpose specified by order, grant, suspend or cancel security clearances;
(g) authorize, for the purposes of administering and enforcing the security clearances regime, certain individuals or entities to collect information from and disclose information to each other;
(h) authorize the Governor in Council to make regulations respecting security clearances;
(i) expand the exceptions to the requirement to obtain the Canadian Transportation Agency’s approval for the construction of railway lines; and
(j) establish, for a period of four years, a zone in Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta in which any interswitching that occurs is subject to the rate determined by the Canadian Transportation Agency.
Division 3 of Part 2 amends the Canada Marine Act to, among other things,
(a) authorize the Governor in Council to allow a port authority to enter into joint-liability arrangements and to create entities other than wholly-owned subsidiaries to undertake activities within or outside the limits of the port;
(b) authorize the Minister of Transport to appoint certain directors of a port authority;
(c) add principles that a port authority must observe when fixing port fees and expand the grounds on which a fee-related complaint may be filed with the Canadian Transportation Agency;
(d) authorize the Governor in Council to appoint, in certain circumstances, an administrator for a not-for-profit corporation that has entered into an agreement in respect of the St. Lawrence Seaway;
(e) authorize that Minister to terminate such an agreement or any part of one and provide for a dispute resolution process to deal with any disputes arising from the termination; and
(f) authorize that Minister to require that any of the following persons take measures to prevent or mitigate certain threats or stop any activity that would contribute to such threats:
(i) a port authority,
(ii) a person in charge of a port facility,
(iii) a person responsible for the management and operation of all or part of the St. Lawrence Seaway or for any works, undertakings or property used in the operation of the Seaway,
(iv) an occupier or person in charge of any federal real property, or any federal immovable, that is subject to being administered under Part 3 of that Act.
It also makes consequential amendments to the Port Authorities Operations Regulations .
Division 4 of Part 2 amends the Marine Liability Act to, among other things,
(a) modify the definition “receiver” to refer to the person who physically receives bulk hazardous and noxious substances carried by sea as cargo and discharged at a port or terminal in Canada; and
(b) harmonize the inspection and enforcement provisions relating to that person.
It also makes related amendments to the Safeguarding Canada’s Seas and Skies Act .
Division 5 of Part 2 amends the Coasting Trade Act to allow foreign ships or non-duty paid ships to engage, without a licence, in activities in response to a declared emergency.
Division 6 of Part 2 repeals the Shipping Conferences Exemption Act, 1987 and makes a consequential amendment to the Access to Information Act .
Division 7 of Part 2 amends the International Bridges and Tunnels Act to allow the Minister of Transport to make certain decisions that were previously made exclusively by the Governor in Council.
Division 8 of Part 2 enacts the Enabling Digital Trade Act which, among other things,
(a) sets out the rules for the use of electronic trade documents as the functional equivalents to paper trade documents that are related to trade in goods;
(b) eliminates the requirement to provide information to the Government of Canada in physical form in relation to the importation or exportation of goods; and
(c) permits a federal minister, or an officer or employee of a department or agency of the Government of Canada, to disclose information that is related to the importation or exportation of goods if the receiving minister, department or agency of the government is permitted by law to collect that information.
Part 3 implements certain measures related to the work force.
Division 1 of Part 3 amends the Canada Labour Code to, among other things,
(a) establish new requirements and timelines related to collective bargaining;
(b) provide for the transfer of certain rights in the context of certain contractors being replaced by new contractors;
(c) establish new requirements and authorities in relation to entering into first collective agreements;
(d) provide that the Canada Industrial Relations Board may certify a trade union as the bargaining agent for existing bargaining units in certain industries in certain geographic areas on application of two or more employers, on referral of the Minister of Labour or on that Board’s initiative;
(e) confer on the Minister of Labour the power to appoint a special mediator to assist parties in settling a dispute that arises in connection with the entering into, renewal or revision of a collective agreement; and
(f) establish new requirements for that Minister to direct the Canada Industrial Relations Board to take measures under section 107 of that Act.
It also makes consequential amendments to certain regulations.
Division 2 of Part 3 amends the Canada Labour Code to, among other things,
(a) authorize the Head of Compliance and Enforcement to issue a settlement enforcement order requiring an employer or director of a corporation to pay any outstanding amounts that are to be paid under a settlement with an employee; and
(b) permit an order to debtor to be issued, in certain circumstances, before a settlement enforcement order or payment order has been issued.
Division 3 of Part 3 provides that Division XIII of Part III of the Canada Labour Code does not apply to an employer and employees who are parties to a collective agreement that confers rights and benefits at least as favourable as those conferred by that Division XIII with respect to medical leave of absence with pay.
Division 4 of Part 3 amends the Wage Earner Protection Program Act to, among other things, define the term “former employer” for the purposes of that Act and to specify that the Minister may confirm, vary or rescind a determination of eligibility even without a request for review.

Building Canada Strong Act

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent—Akiawenhrahk, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from New Brunswick. I commend him for his passion for his region, as we all have for our own. There is a reason we were elected by the people.

I know that my colleague was elected 18 months ago, and I congratulate him, but two years ago, before his time, his peers on that side of the House voted against Bill C‑375, which called for “one project, one environmental assessment”. It was my bill, in fact. We, the Conservatives, had introduced it. Today, however, the government is boasting about wanting to move forward. Even the King said as much in the throne speech.

What does my colleague have to say to his Liberal colleagues who voted against the “one project, one environmental assessment” bill but support that concept today?

[Guillaume Deschênes-Thériault, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Quebec. I always enjoy debating with him in the House.

When people in my riding ask me what we are doing to strengthen the Canadian economy, I am proud to tell them about our Prime Minister's and our government's leadership and about all of the work that we have done over the past 18 months to make Canada's economy stronger, more unified and more robust. I also tell them about the measures that we have put in place to promote projects of national interest and about the tax incentives that we have implemented to boost investment.

Bill C-39, the bill before us today, provides a clearer regulatory framework and more predictability. These measures are working. Just look at the summit that was held in Toronto, which resulted in $500 billion in investments for projects across the country, including New Brunswick and Quebec.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-5 contained a discretionary provision that gave the minister absolute power to determine which projects are of national interest. Bill C-39 gives even more power to the executive branch by diminishing Parliament's role. That is a subversion of parliamentary democracy.

The Liberals are exploiting the tariff crisis to impose permanent rollbacks that will have no effect during what is left of Donald Trump's term in office. The member is very enthusiastic about this dangerous precedent, but will he be just as enthusiastic and happy about this bill when he winds up on this side of the House facing a new government and that government starts trampling on democracy and our legislative power?

[Guillaume Deschênes-Thériault, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased that we, as members of the House of Commons, have several days to discuss Bill C‑39. I am pleased that we can exchange ideas here, at the heart of our Canadian democracy. I am also looking forward to following the committee's work on this. Many witnesses will share their points of view. All members, including opposition members, will have an opportunity to comment.

In his question, my colleague talked about enthusiasm. What I am hearing is enthusiasm on the part of people who want to invest in Canada and on the part of workers who are seeing the positive impact of these investments across the country, including in northern New Brunswick, the region I represent. While in Toronto for the summit, I spoke with four proponents championing projects in my region. They were eagerly awaiting measures like this one, measures that encourage investment for the benefit of all Canadians.

[Eric St-Pierre, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Madawaska—Restigouche, who is very involved in his community.

How will the people of Madawaska—Restigouche benefit in concrete ways from Bill C-39, the building Canada strong act?

[Guillaume Deschênes-Thériault, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Mr. Speaker, my riding is home to a number of projects and a great deal of momentum. The bill will provide a clear regulatory framework for people who want to invest in projects in northern New Brunswick. For example, responses about federal permits will be delivered within a year, providing predictability.

When it comes to transport, we want to make our ports more efficient. New Brunswick has the port of Belledune and the port of Saint John. Goods from my riding, Madawaska—Restigouche, sail from those ports to reach various markets around the world.

Modernizing port processes and procedures to make them more efficient will benefit our local businesses, which are already very active in international trade.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is good to be back in the House of Commons debating legislation. That is what we are elected to do. That is what we are in the House for. It is good to be here and talking about Bill C-39. The Liberals call it the building Canada strong act, which rings similar to a similar bill we dealt with about a year ago. I will maybe have time to come back to that, but I will start by saying that of course we agree, or that I agree, with the stated premise of the bill, which is to enable Canada to build things, to build Canada stronger.

That is certainly something that I not only very deeply believe needs to be done but also that is pretty consistent with what I have spent the last 11 years talking about. At the moment, to be sure, we are confronted with an unprovoked, unjustified, deeply damaging and unnecessary trade war with the United States. We did not choose it. It is not something that Canada chose, but it is the moment we find ourselves in.

However, the issues around this, around the necessity of building major projects and building our country back up again, have very deep roots. We have been talking about this for 11 years. We have spent the last 11 years being unprepared for this moment.

Before I go too much further, I will say that I am going to share my time with the member for Edmonton Southeast.

As I said, we did not choose to be in a trade war with the United States. We did not choose to have our country economically attacked, but for the last 11 years, the government has left us unprepared for the moment.

I was elected in 2015, and that year, the very first thing the government did was cancel the northern gateway pipeline. The Liberals are saying today, “If only we had a west coast pipeline.” There was a west coast pipeline approved and already on their desk the minute they took office. The first thing they did, by ministerial order, was cancel it: 525,000 barrels a day. At today's price, that is $50 million a day in economic activity, $20 billion a year.

[An hon. member]

Oh, oh!

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am being heckled by the member for Winnipeg North, who says that there was something misleading in that statement. There is nothing misleading. That is exactly what happened. There was a conditional approval that the Liberals rescinded by ministerial order, so here we are today without that pipeline. It would have been built years ago.

In 2016, the Liberals introduced the carbon tax. They also spent 2016 failing to champion the Keystone XL pipeline, another one that has not been built. It was cancelled by Biden later on. The government did not champion it and did not see it through to get it built when it had the chance. In 2016, the Liberals chased off TransCanada PipeLines, which wanted to build the energy east pipeline. Not only did it abandon that pipeline because of changing regulatory goalposts, but it also changed its name to TC Energy because “TransCanada PipeLines” did not fit what it was doing. It had to move its business to build pipelines in Mexico and the United States, where the opportunities were. That is the legacy of the government.

I am up only to 2016. In 2017, the Liberals brought in the clean fuel regulations, which is a misnomer. It is really just a tax on fuel. In 2018, they brought in Bill C-48, which banned shipping traffic on the northwest B.C. coast. Again, we are talking about wishing we could export our products to the Asian market at full global price. The Liberals passed a law banning the shipping traffic to be able to do that.

In 2019, Bill C-69 became law. We all know what Bill C-69 is. It is the “no more pipelines” bill. That was what they passed. There have been no major pipeline applications under that law. They even made changes to the Fisheries Act that made it impossible to get a hydro project approved. We heard about that at the natural resources committee yesterday. The head of WaterPower Canada told the committee that under the 2019 changes to the Fisheries Act, it is impossible to get a hydro project approved in Canada. The Liberals will not even allow hydro projects to go forward under the current government.

In 2022, Prime Minister Trudeau told the world that there was no business case for Canadian LNG to Europe. In a way, he was right, but the reason there was no business case was because of all the red tape and regulation, which the government imposed, that killed the business case. So, yes, we need to build Canada. If only we had spent the last 11 years building Canada, we would not be in such a precarious position today.

We agree with the government that we need to build things. Major projects need to be built, and it is not just oil and gas. I have spent a lot of time talking about pipelines, which is a really important one, but there are terrible deficiencies in our ports. We have among the worst ports in the world for efficiency. We have everything from ports to rail, airports, electrical transmission lines, etc. We have a need for major projects, and so we do support this stated purpose to build Canada.

It is funny that the fanfare with which the bill before us was tabled rings familiar, which is because the Liberals said many of the same things they said about 18 months ago when Parliament first sat following the last election. It was last spring, in June, that they passed Bill C-5. It was a bill that Conservatives supported a little reluctantly, because it granted extraordinary powers to ministers to interfere politically and cherry-pick and decide politically which projects they wanted to exempt from their own laws that they had passed. It was not quite the approach for us. We would rather they stripped away all these bad laws, but we said, “Look, we have to build something. If this is a way to get something done, we will support it”, and we did. Here we are, a year later, no major projects approved and no shovels in the ground. It did not seem to make any difference. Now, we have this latest bill that is more about bureaucratic structures than getting shovels in the ground.

This is a 250-page bill the Liberals dumped on Tuesday afternoon, a little less than 72 hours ago, and so I have not gone through all 250 pages with a fine-tooth comb. We are going to take the time to make sure that we understand the bill fully, but part of what I understand about it is the movement from the Impact Assessment Act to the Canadian Energy Regulator on certain projects, which is probably not a bad idea. The structure of Bill C-69 was there to kill projects.

The idea that the bill before us would give certainty to industry is quite misleading. The bill would give ministers the power, but would not compel them to make a decision within a year. It would give them the latitude to hit the pause button on how long that year takes. It would give them the power to extend the year. It would give the power to say, “No, I'm going to take extra time.” This is not going to give the certainty that industry needs.

We heard yesterday at the natural resources committee about how important it is to have regulatory certainty. Regulatory uncertainty makes the country uninvestable, and we have seen investment flee this country under this government. We do not need new laws. We do not need summits. We do not need announcements. We do not need speeches. We do not need vague MOUs. We do not need photo op signings. We do not need slush funds under political control. We do not need corporate welfare. We simply need to undo the approach that, for 11 years, has prevented major projects from going ahead in Canada.

We need major projects. We need pipelines. We needed pipelines 10 years ago, 11 years ago, and we need them now. We need better roads. We need better ports. We need better infrastructure. We need all these things, and we are still waiting.

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

Mr. Speaker, first of all, let us make it very clear. Under the 10 years of Stephen Harper, we actually saw zero inches of pipeline built going to the west coast through B.C. In the Trudeau era, the TMX was delivered.

Now having said that, we have a new government and a new Prime Minister elected just last year. Over that year, they have attracted a great deal of investment. One needs to look at Toronto, where half a trillion dollars of investment is coming to Canada. This bill is an important aspect of that.

While the member has not agreed, he should get on board, support the legislation and—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

The hon. member for Calgary Crowfoot.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, there is a lot to unpack there. The Liberals never talk about the investment outflows when they talk about inflows. The net has been an outflow of this country under this government.

I am really glad that the member brought up Trans Mountain, because I had meant to and did not quite have enough time. The Trans Mountain pipeline was a pipeline that a private builder would have built. They started under this government, and the regulatory uncertainty chased Kinder Morgan out of Canada. That is what happened.

The government nationalized the project and built it at a 500% overrun of what was projected. That is the Liberals' approach on building pipelines. The Harper government bequeathed the government a balanced budget. The New York Times described Canada as having the most wealthy middle class in the world and two approved pipelines, and the Liberal government blew it.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the reality is not what my colleague claims. The only oil and gas infrastructure projects that have been carried out were only possible because the government agreed to invest public funds in them.

Back home in Saguenay—Lac‑Saint‑Jean, as soon as developers started asking for public money for the liquefied natural gas project, the LNG project, the Government of Quebec lost interest. People know full well that over the long term, with the energy transition under way, these very expensive infrastructure projects are not profitable. That is the problem. We are going to end up in a scenario where environmental assessments have been scrapped and people can pretty much do whatever they want with infrastructure projects that are not profitable.

Does my colleague agree?

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with much of what the member said. I do not think it is a good thing that the public money has to prop up any private project that would otherwise, in a proper regulatory environment that had clear criteria, make it investable.

I do not agree with the government's approach. I do not agree that it has had the right approach on infrastructure at all. I could go on. I could talk about the failure of the Infrastructure Bank. The Liberal government has chased private capital out of energy during its 11 years in office.

[Burton Bailey, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague just delivered an informative, excellent speech.