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

[Roman Baber, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, 500 projects are available for approval right now that the Prime Minister can get going on. He does not need a 250-page bill. That is two projects that are ready to go for every page in the bill.

At this time, Speaker, I would like to request a brief indulgence.

Surrounded by his loved ones, Glen McFarland passed away last night. Glen McFarland was the financial agent for the York Centre EDA during the 2025 general election and was previously the financial agent for my nomination. Glen was a remarkable man. He is survived by his wife, Lisa, and their three children. He was an extraordinary accountant and a fellow with CPA Ontario. He was a managing partner of the McGovern Hurley accounting firm, which is proud of its more than 100 employees. He was such a gentleman. He passed away last night after a long fight with cancer. His family should know how much he was loved by his friends and his loved ones. He was a remarkable man. May he rest in peace.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, Humber River—Black Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it was good to see my colleague up on his feet today, although he certainly did not talk positively about Toronto. Given the fact that this member and I both share areas of the city of Toronto, we respect and acknowledge some of the challenges that have happened, but I would suggest that Bill C-39 is exactly the kind of bill that needs to come forward to help cities like Toronto, Vancouver and so on, so that we will be able to move things along faster.

Many of the complaints and comments my colleague made were about that very issue of having to move things forward, whether energy, infrastructure or housing. All of those things are going to be happening much faster now, especially once, with the member's help, we pass Bill C-39.

I would like to have some additional comments on that.

[Roman Baber, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I believe the member whose riding is west of mine was not attentive to my presentation. I love the city of Toronto. My first love is the city of Toronto. What I do not love is what we have done to Toronto's transportation. Line 5, which goes from my riding into that member's riding, was not on time or on budget. There is a streetcar on Finch Avenue. What an absurdity. The Eglinton LRT took double the time at double the budget. The St. Clair streetcar is insanity, and the Ontario line is also a debacle.

[Patrick Bonin, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, sometimes I wonder whether the government thinks our roads have potholes because of the trade war. Hearing the Liberals talk, one might almost believe that the trade war is responsible for traffic and late buses. The government is blaming the trade war for a lot of things.

Bill C-39 clearly shows that the government has come to the conclusion that it has to trample on workers' rights and our environmental laws to deal with the trade war. It seems to think that it has to adopt a Trump-like approach to deal with President Trump. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has announced that it is launching the largest deregulation action in U.S. history, and the Canadian government seems to find that inspiring.

In a year and a half, the government scrapped carbon pricing. It introduced Bill C‑30, which is completely anti-science and puts pesticides that were banned back into circulation. It scrapped the EV mandate. It passed Bill C‑5, which has been described as the greatest rollback of environmental law in recent times. That is on top of giving tax breaks to oil and gas companies, announcing the construction and financing of pipelines and liquefied natural gas projects, and planning to triple gas production and double oil sands production. Clearly, the government will not respect the Paris Agreement, its commitments or its greenhouse gas reduction target, which it no longer talks about in the short term. Now it is talking about net zero by 2050. However, as every independent analyst has said, we know that the rollbacks are so serious that Canada cannot possibly meet its commitments.

With Bill C‑39, it seems that the government is trying to attract investors by being even more open to air pollution and the destruction of land and water than our neighbour to the south can be. The Bloc Québécois believes that there are other strategies for developing our economy while protecting the environment and without having to circumvent environmental laws.

The government's Bill C‑39 is quite literally breaking up the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada. With this new bill, the government is literally compromising the independence of scientists in assessing pipelines and nuclear energy by making the Canada Energy Regulator and the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission responsible for conducting assessments. This is like putting wolves in charge of the sheep. The Canada Energy Regulator is an institution that is known to support pipelines and has nothing to do with protecting the environment. That is not part of its mandate. None of these institutions talk about protecting the environment, even though they will now be responsible for assessing the environmental impact of projects with potentially dire consequences. These are oil and gas megaprojects, likely some of the largest oil and gas megaprojects we have ever seen in Canada. It remains to be seen whether they get off the ground, because we obviously intend to join others in opposing this type of bill.

I must point out that the House of Commons Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development has already highlighted the issue that the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission is not independent from the Department of Natural Resources. The Canada Energy Regulator, formerly known as the National Energy Board, is an institution that is completely biased toward pipelines. We have seen this in Quebec. Many of its members come from the fossil fuel sector. It is like asking cigarette manufacturers to carry out their own studies on the health consequences of smoking. It is completely biased. No one should take the public for fools, yet that is exactly what the government is doing right now.

Contrary to what the title of Bill C-39 would have us believe, this bill weakens Canada by bowing to the interests of the fossil fuel barons, among others. I would remind the House that the government has already passed the “no laws” law, namely Bill C-5, the Building Canada Act. The Liberals passed it in record time. We were unable to examine it properly. This act specifically allows laws to be circumvented.

Even so, over the past year, not a single project has been designated under this legislation, which the government rushed through as quickly as possible with the support of, among others, the Conservatives. Not a single project has been put on the list in a year. Why was it so urgent?

Now the government is introducing Bill C‑39, and it even wants environmental assessments for all projects to take no more than a year despite the fact that the government has not managed to designate a single project under its legislation in a whole year. It seems clear that environmental protection is being used as a scapegoat to mask the current government's failure to get things done. The issue is not environmental protection; it is the government's failure to move multiple files forward in a timely manner.

I can see it already: Assessments for complex projects will inevitably be rushed, if they happen at all, and consultations will be rushed because the government wants to meet a one-year deadline. The very notion of a one-year deadline is completely arbitrary. Projects must be assessed on the basis of their complexity and scale, and the government has to take the time to do it right. The government is literally bulldozing nature.

Let us consider, for example, a new pipeline project, one that the Prime Minister wants to include on the list of projects of national interest. It is a 1,000-kilometre project. How is it possible to conduct proper consultations or assessments in just one year? There is no doubt this will be rushed through, once again to the benefit of companies that will face fewer safeguards and are clearly delighted with the government's legislation.

The Liberals hope that Bill C-39 will not affect environmental protection. I hate to break it to them, but the Prime Minister is not going to grant that wish. It is misleading to tell the public that Bill C-39 does not weaken environmental protections or environmental assessments across the country.

I would remind members of all the laws and regulations that can now be circumvented under Bill C-5. Bill C-39 will make that permanent and will even apply to entire regions.

The Fisheries Act, the International River Improvements Act, the National Capital Act, the Canadian Navigable Waters Act, the Dominion Water Power Act, the Migratory Birds Convention Act, 1994, the Canada Transportation Act, the Canada Marine Act, the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, the Species at Risk Act and the Impact Assessment Act can all be circumvented.

I will now list the regulations. The migratory bird sanctuary regulations, the Dominion water power regulations, the wildlife area regulations, the port authorities operations regulations, the metal and diamond mining effluent regulations and the migratory birds regulations, 2022 can all be circumvented.

Twelve laws and seven regulations can be circumvented to accommodate projects designated to be of national interest by the government.

As I said, entire regions will now be able to use the this process to circumvent legislation, and the Prime Minister, like a king, will decide which are to be sacrificed. These regions will get access to projects pre-approved even before an impact assessment is done. Project pre-approval means that construction will start before projects are even assessed.

Obviously, this is a new government that is promising the next gold rush by opening the territory up to development and fast-tracking projects, never mind what the law says. I would point out, however, that if we learned anything from the Wild West it is that when the law is weakened, outlaws are quick to step in.

I would remind the House that legal action has been brought against the federal government for its Bill C-5 on the grounds that it is unconstitutional. To make matters worse, with Bill C-39, the government is broadening the scope of that legislation and making the exceptional powers enshrined in it permanent. Does the government expect the tariff crisis to be permanent? This tariff crisis is their excuse for everything. This is clearly a pretext for giving cabinet extraordinary powers, enabling it to sell land to foreign interests like a good deal maker.

Liberal members seem to think that if they repeat often enough that Bill C‑39 will not affect environmental protections, that will become the reality. I am sorry to burst their bubble, but we were not elected to make things up. We were not elected to bow to the demands of the oil and gas companies. We were elected to make decisions that will be part of history.

The bill explicitly includes serious rollbacks in environmental matters and workers' rights. These are not just words on paper. This will have immediate and serious consequences on the land, on our ecosystems and on people's health. That will be the legacy left to future generations.

History has a long memory. Our speeches may fade, but decisions of this magnitude will not. One day, we will look back and ask ourselves who was aware of what was happening, who could have taken action and who looked the other way.

The Bloc Québécois will not look the other way.

[Jacques Ramsay, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Repentigny for his speech, which has made it very clear where the Bloc Québécois stands on the environmental aspects of Bill C-39.

However, I would now like to ask him to speak to us about another area, namely labour relations and the right to strike, and more specifically the use of section 107. This type of recourse has always been exceptional and should remain that way even more so under Bill C-39. This bill introduces the concept of national interest, which, in my view, makes perfect sense.

I would just like to hear the MP's opinion and perhaps get his response on how this criterion of national interest should be defined.

[Patrick Bonin, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, right now, the national interest is the government's interest, and it is the government that decides what is in the national interest.

Whether the government likes it or not, it is very clear to us that these debates must take place among elected officials, particularly when it comes to the use of arbitrators, restricting the right to strike and restricting workers' rights. It is no wonder that the FTQ, the Fédération des travailleurs et travailleuses du Québec, is speaking out against this bill.

Not only is this one of the worst rollbacks for the environment, but the bill also includes some extremely worrisome rollbacks in terms of workers' rights. We in the Bloc Québécois are here to stand up for people and for workers, not to defend the interests of oil and gas companies, which, by the way, primarily belong to American interests.

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people of Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola, and before I begin, I want to recognize someone from my riding who is getting married. Jodhbir Kang, who served as a school trustee in Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola, is marrying Poonam Deol. I want to take this opportunity to wish them the best of luck in their upcoming nuptials, and a long, fruitful life together.

I listened to my colleague's speech, in which he talked a lot about environmental issues, pipelines and things like that. I always wonder where the Bloc sees fossil fuels fitting into Canada. I have to fly here all the time. I drive an electric car. Where does he see that fitting in?

[Patrick Bonin, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is simple. Internationally, there are two classes of countries. There are those who are following President Trump, as the Prime Minister is doing, getting into oil and gas, and then there are those who want to break free from this dependence on foreign companies and so on.

Canada should invest in the transition, plan for it and not fund a new oil sands pipeline project, to the tune of over $40 billion, that will be aimed at exports and will not change the cost at the pump for people, who will remain dependent on oil and gas. We have everything to gain from electrification, and Quebec is already doing that.

My colleague talks about the fact that he has an electric vehicle. That is wonderful. He could also talk about the economic benefits it brings, both in terms of the fact that we keep our money and use Quebec hydroelectricity, and in terms of people's wallets.

Thinking that getting deeper into oil and gas is part of the solution will only worsen the climate crisis. I think he forgot about this summer's forest fires, as well as the deadly heat waves.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague's speech was insightful and well-informed.

Earlier, the Liberal member for Madawaska—Restigouche said he was enthusiastic and pleased that Bill C-39 would, as he put it, allow global investors to flout environmental laws by investing in Canada, to flout workers' rights, and to flout parliamentary democracy.

My colleague was talking about Trumpism. Does he not think that the Prime Minister is exploiting the crisis to push through permanent rollbacks that will not even be in effect during President Trump's term?

[Patrick Bonin, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his clear remarks.

We are very clearly dealing with a government that is currently exploiting the tariff crisis. Bill C-39 proposes to make it possible to circumvent environmental laws on a permanent basis. This has nothing to do with the tariff crisis. It shows very clearly that the Liberals want to make this permanent.

We have laws and regulations for a reason. We have spent several decades establishing a system to protect the environment and people's health. Essentially, what Bill C-39 does is allow us, within 24 hours, to throw this entire framework for protecting the environment and people's health into the dustbin of history.

There would be no need to bypass laws and regulations if the projects were sound. Clearly these are bad projects. The Liberal government is using the tariff crisis to literally engage in Trump-style politics, develop oil and gas, set aside the law and rule like a king.

[Branden Leslie, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Mr. Speaker, let me take members back in time a few years. When the Liberals introduced Bill C-69, they told us that the new process would make project reviews more efficient, predictable and timely. Now, eight years later, that sales pitch has not aged well at all.

Now we have Bill C-39, and the government's own explanation says its approval system suffers from lengthy timelines that delay projects and create uncertainty for investors. That is quite an admission. What matters now is whether Bill C-39 would actually fix them. This, of course, is after the Liberals brought in Bill C-5, which was going to bring in sweeping legislative changes to allegedly build at speeds not seen in generations. We now have a Major Projects Office that has issued no new permits, built no new projects and created no new jobs other than government jobs, of course, over the past 18 months.

In terms of Bill C-39, the first thing we should understand is the government's promise of a one-year federal review. That sounds simple, but it is not. The clock would not start when a company first brings forward a project. There could first be up to six months of planning. Then, the company would normally have up to a year to provide the studies and information government requires, and even that period could be extended. Only after government officials are satisfied that they have the information they need would the main review clock start. From there, the assessment report would generally be supposed to be completed within 300 days, followed by up to another 65 days for the final decision.

Therefore, when Canadians hear “one-year approval”, they should not assume that means one year from the day a project enters the federal system to the day it actually gets an answer. A company considering a $10-billion mine wants to know something simpler: How long will it take from entering the process until it has enough certainty to put billions of dollars on the line?

I will be splitting my time with the member for Fort McMurray—Cold Lake.

What happens if the government misses its own deadline? The project would not be automatically approved and the government could simply keep reviewing it. The only penalty for the government's delaying all this is that the minister would have to explain why the deadline was missed, and publish another proposed timeline. If the purpose of a deadline is certainty, how much certainty would it really provide if missing it simply produces some bureaucratic gobbledygook and yet another deadline further down the road?

The second major change would be what the government calls “one project, one decision”. Today a company could spend years completing an impact assessment and then discover it still needs another round of federal permits before construction can begin. Bill C-39 would allow the environment minister to issue certain permits at the same time as the final impact assessment decision. For a mine that needs Fisheries Act, Canadian Navigable Waters Act or Species at Risk Act approvals, that could remove some back-to-back processes, but it would not initially include every federal permit.

That leaves me with questions. Which permits are actually delaying projects today? How many would be covered properly by the bill? Which important ones would still remain outside it? If a company gets its impact assessment decision but still waits months for another approval, would we have achieved one project, one decision?

The bill also would allow certain construction to start before the final decision where doing so is in the “public interest”. Anyone who has built something in rural Canada understands why that can matter: If they miss a construction season, a project could lose many months. If construction could happen while the rest of the assessment continues, time could be saved, but companies need to know early what qualifies.

The nuclear changes would be more substantial. For nuclear projects, the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission would become the lead assessment body. Environmental review, public participation and indigenous consultation would remain. What would change is who would run that process. Instead of having the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada run one process while the nuclear regulator runs another, Bill C-39 would put the CNSC in the driver's seat, and the minister would no longer be able to send the project into another separate federal review. Instead, the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission would run the assessment, and once the project is approved, the conditions imposed during that review could simply become part of the nuclear licence the company must follow.

In other words, rather than creating one set of conditions through the environmental review and another through the licensing, the bill would try to bring the two processes together. That could reduce duplication, but does the CNSC have enough people and expertise for this new and expanded role? Would projects get decisions faster, or would the bureaucracy simply look cleaner on an organizational charge?

Changes for the Canadian Energy Regulator raise similar questions. Bill C-39 would make the CER the sole assessor for pipelines, designated power lines and offshore renewable energy projects. For pipelines, the bill creates two tracks based on how much entirely new corridor has to be built. If a pipeline requires less than 300 kilometres of new right-of-way, the CER would generally make the final decision itself.

Today, the regulator can spend up to 450 days reviewing a major pipeline and making a recommendation, only for the file to then go to cabinet for a final decision. For projects below the new threshold, that extra cabinet step would generally disappear, but for pipelines requiring 300 kilometres or more of new corridor, cabinet would still need to make the final call. The CER would have up to 180 days to complete its review and recommendation, and then cabinet would have another 60 days to decide, followed by another 125 days for the CER to issue the final certificate and conditions.

Those are significant changes, but where did these numbers come from? Why is it 300 kilometres? Why should a pipeline requiring 290 kilometres of new corridor be decided by the CER, while one requiring 310 kilometres still has to go through a cabinet approval process? Is that the threshold based on environmental risk or project complexity, or is it simply where the government just decided to draw the line? The same question applies to the timelines. Why is it 180 days? Why is it 60? Why is it another 125? Has the CER confirmed that applications can realistically be handled within those periods without stopping the clock more often?

The 300-kilometre threshold is also not in reference to the total length of the pipeline. Let us imagine a 500-kilometre pipeline where 350 kilometres follows an existing corridor. If only 150 kilometres requires an entirely new right-of-way, the project would fall below the threshold, even though the pipeline itself is 500 kilometres long. The bill is measuring how much new ground the project must break, not simply how long the pipeline is.

Then we get to the fine print. These clocks, they are not absolute. Parts of the process can still be excluded. Additional time can, and I fear most likely will, be added. If the CER or government misses deadlines, the project is not automatically approved. We need to determine whether these timelines will shorten the approval process or whether the clock will simply stop when the difficult parts begin for government.

Another idea that deserves attention is the creation of the regions of national interest. Cabinet could designate an entire region and identify categories of projects that may qualify within it. This could matter in an area chock full of critical minerals or a major energy corridor. If government has already completed a regional assessment of water, wildlife and cumulative effects, later project reviews should not have to start from zero.

This would not create an immediate fast track. Before a region can get such special treatment, the government would first have to complete a broader regional assessment. If the bill were to come into force, if it were to pass, the list of regions that qualify would be empty. The faster process would only become available later, after government has done the groundwork and designated a region. Who knows how long that will take, given the Liberal government's track record. Once again, implementation will determine whether this changes anything.

After years of being told that the old system was efficient and predictable, we should not just accept that a new set of promises from the Liberal government is going to be the solution. We need answers because we cannot afford to get this wrong. Our country, our future and our prosperous nation are simply too important.

Bill C-39 should be judged by a simple standard: Can a company with a project get a clear answer in a reasonable amount of time and then get to work? That is the test. Before Parliament passes this bill, we should be sure this legislation will pass that test.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Okanagan Lake West—South Kelowna, BC]

Mr. Speaker, when the Liberals wanted to say they were going to fix supply chains, they created a supply chain office. When they had issues with building homes, they suddenly built Build Canada Homes, which is a very original name. When they had issues with major projects, they built the Major Projects Office. In this bill, Bill C-39, they want to deal with a national trade corridor, so they are going to create an office to deal with that.

Does the member see a pattern, and does he think any of these things are helping on any of the issues I have mentioned?

[Branden Leslie, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the government is correctly identifying the problems after we point them out. They are self-imposed problems, but the problem with the government is that all it ever sees is a nail to hit, and it always seems to hit it with a new bureaucracy. As my colleague outlined, whether it be housing, energy or anything else, all the government tries to do is build new government bureaucracies.

It turns out, given that housing starts are down and that our oil and gas sector is struggling under this regime, it is time for a change. It is time for a Conservative economic agenda to get this country going.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-39, An Act respecting certain measures to strengthen the economy, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Laila Goodridge, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is no secret that I am a fan of building. My office is filled with model haul trucks, excavators and dozers, not just as a nod to my hometown and the industry that drives it but to serve as a reminder of where I came from and my roots in heavy construction and mining.

I am proud to represent Canadian oil sands workers here in Parliament. Many years ago, like my dad and my grandfather, I laced up my own steel-toed boots and reported to work in health and safety in the oil sands. I understand how hard the people who work in Canada's energy sector work, with long hours, rotating shifts and harsh weather, yet thousands of workers show up every single day to ensure that our houses stay warm in the winter and cool in the summer and that the lights are always on when we need them.

Through my experience, I have had the opportunity to see many major projects move from dream to design to construction and operation. This was the reality in the oil sands region for a long time. Then, just over 10 years ago, a new government came into power here in Ottawa, led by Justin Trudeau. He then made it his mission to demonize the industry that fuelled our economy, stigmatized the workers in this industry and created overbearing regulatory systems to shut down any new major project. He recruited eco-activists like Steven Guilbeault and then promoted them into his cabinet.

While the current iteration of the Liberal Party claims to support the energy industry and the energy workers, and claims that it wants to build at unimaginable speeds, it has chosen to keep all the Trudeau-era anti-energy, antidevelopment laws and legislation in place. For years, Conservatives have been telling the Liberals to get out of the way by approving projects in rapid order, in six months; repealing anti-energy and antidevelopment laws Bill C-69 and Bill C-48; and adopting a one-project, one-review system. Canada has everything we need to be an affordable, strong, self-reliant country, but we can only live up to our full potential if the Liberal government gets out of the way.

Liberals claimed a year and a half ago that Bill C-5 would allow them to move at speeds not seen in generations, yet no new projects have been approved by their Major Projects Office. Conservatives took the Liberals at their word, and we fast-tracked that bill through Parliament. Now, 18 months later, the only thing that has moved at unimaginable speeds was that piece of legislation.

They are once again coming back to this chamber claiming that this latest piece of legislation will be the difference maker. As always with the Liberals, it is all talk and no results. It is the lack of results, the lack of action, that has left well over 500 projects waiting on some bureaucrat's desk for approval. For businesses considering whether to invest in Canada or not, announcements are not enough. For workers wondering whether there will be a project to work on, speeches are not enough. For communities in Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, promises of future action are not enough.

It is worth noting that serious changes are being proposed to the Labour Code in part 3 that clearly require extensive committee study. We need to review the proposed legislation. We have many questions, and we must ensure that all aspects of this bill are thoroughly examined. The question I have for the government is, why are sweeping labour changes being made in a giant 250-page omnibus bill? I think that is the same question I have heard from a number of my constituents.

Conservatives have a clear objective. We are fighting for policies that will save Canadians money and save Canadian jobs. It is as simple as that. For generations, Fort McMurray—Cold Lake and its oil industry offered a beacon of hope to people from right across Canada and the world. People who were willing to work hard and work long hours, and who had a dream, could make it big. My family has called Fort McMurray home for over 50 years. My dad and grandparents moved up to Fort McMurray in the 1970s in search of a better life, and they got a better life. They worked hard to provide opportunities for their family and give back to their community.

Fort McMurray Wood Buffalo is home to the third-largest proven oil sands deposit in the world; 97% of Canada's oil comes from the oil sands, with 96% of the oil sands oil coming from the Fort McMurray region. When I say I know oil, I grew up around it; I know oil. I know a thing or two about it at the very minimum. Canada's oil sands production averages 3.1 million barrels a day.

Canada's energy sector currently employs nearly one million people, with 150,000 direct jobs, 300,000 indirect jobs and 450,000 induced jobs, providing strong paycheques and life-changing opportunities for families and communities right across the country. The oil and natural gas industries are among the largest employers of indigenous people in Canada. As I fly back and forth from Ottawa, I regularly meet oil sands workers coming from every corner of the country. In 2022, oil and gas contributed $45 billion in revenue to Canadian governments. That meant funds for our hospitals, our schools, our roads and so many other important public services.

When my dad was in the prime of his working years, there was no doubt that there was a future in Fort McMurray, but after 10 years of Liberals, doubt has become all too much of a reality. The energy industry 10 years ago was still growing. Families were building their lives, businesses were investing, and skilled tradespeople could look forward to the next generation with confidence and know that opportunities were waiting for them. Today, that has been replaced by a lot of questions.

After a decade of anti-energy legislation, people in communities like mine are asking very basic questions. What does the future of our industry actually look like? What does the future of our community look like? What happens if the Liberals go back to their active attacks on the energy industry? These are not some pie-in-the-sky questions. These are existential questions that people in my community have. They have a hard time taking the government at its word after the Liberals' record of a decade of a constant barrage of attacks and the talking down of the very hard-working people of Fort McMurray—Cold Lake.

This is not an abstract policy debate either. The ability to work on energy projects is not simply a line on a government spreadsheet. This is people's jobs, their mortgages, their businesses, their families and their communities. It is an apprentice hoping to become a journeyperson. It is an electrician building a career, a heavy equipment operator working long shifts to provide for his family, the engineer designing the next big project, the small business owner whose customers depend on a healthy energy sector.

I stand here today fighting for Canada's energy industry and, more importantly, fighting for all of the spectacular workers in Canada's energy industry, for those hundreds of thousands of hard-working Canadians from coast to coast to coast who have a job, in great part, due to my community and the resources we have developed over the years. I stand here for the future of my community.

When we talk about Canada's energy sector, we are also talking about Canada's ability to create good-paying jobs, attract investment, build infrastructure, generate government revenues and compete in the global economy. We are talking about whether Canadian workers can have the opportunity to build Canadian projects or whether those opportunities will continue to be built elsewhere. The reality is that for the last decade, we have seen those projects go elsewhere. We have seen those jobs go elsewhere. We have seen that opportunity flee.

It is no surprise that Conservatives support building. We have been on that train for many decades, and we will continue being on it, whether it is popular for the Liberals or not. The reality is that we need to make sure that what we are building is sustainable for the long-term health of our economy. Canada has the resources, the expertise, the workers and the know-how. What we need is a government that can get out of the way. What we need is a government that will repeal the anti-energy and antidevelopment legislation, which the current government has chosen to keep on the books, that has kept a foot on the throat of the industry, preventing it from being able to expand.

I will continue to stand up for Fort McMurray—Cold Lake and for Canada's energy sector and the skilled workers who make our economy stronger. Conservatives will continue to push the Liberal government to cut the red tape and regulations, to get the projects actually built and to get shovels in the ground faster in Canada. We will continue to fight for the projects that we need to build to deliver an affordable, safe, independent country and to secure our energy future, not just for Canada but for our allies across the world. This is not just a question. This is something we will do and will continue fighting for.