Building Canada Strong Act

An Act respecting certain measures to strengthen the economy

Sponsor

Steven MacKinnon  Liberal

Status

In committee (House), as of Oct. 8, 2026

Subscribe to a feed (what's a feed?) of speeches and votes in the House related to Bill C-39.

Summary

This is from the published bill.

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.

Elsewhere

All sorts of information on this bill is available at LEGISinfo, an excellent resource from Parliament. You can also read the full text of the bill.

Bill numbers are reused for different bills each new session. Perhaps you were looking for one of these other C-39s:

C-39 (2023) Law An Act to amend An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying)
C-39 (2017) An Act to amend the Criminal Code (unconstitutional provisions) and to make consequential amendments to other Acts
C-39 (2014) Law Appropriation Act No.3 , 2014-15
C-39 (2012) Law Restoring Rail Service Act

Votes

Oct. 8, 2026 Passed 2nd reading of Bill C-39, An Act respecting certain measures to strengthen the economy

Debate Summary

line drawing of robot

This is a computer-generated summary of the speeches below. Usually it’s accurate, but every now and then it’ll contain inaccuracies or total fabrications.

Bill C-39 proposes coordinated federal reviews with targeted timelines for major projects, changes to transportation corridors, ports, trade digitization and security, and amendments to federal labour rules concerning bargaining, dispute resolution and worker protections.

Liberal

  • Supports faster project approvals: Supports a coordinated “one project, one review, one year” process to attract investment and build infrastructure faster, while maintaining environmental standards and Indigenous rights and consultation.
  • Modernizes trade corridors: Would designate national trade corridors, improve port governance and coordination, and digitize trade processes to reduce bottlenecks, strengthen supply chains and diversify exports beyond the United States.
  • Protects workers and bargaining: Supports earlier bargaining, mediation and stronger workplace protections to improve labour stability, while affirming workers’ right to strike and adding guardrails to exceptional government intervention.

Conservative

  • Supports building projects: Conservatives support faster construction, investment and jobs, but will judge Bill C-39 by measurable results rather than announcements, and say the previous Bill C-5 has delivered little.
  • Questions timeline guarantees: They argue the one-year approval promise is not binding: preparation occurs before the clock starts, and officials or cabinet can pause or extend it, leaving investors without certainty.
  • Wants deeper deregulation: Conservatives call for repealing Bills C-69 and C-48 and the industrial carbon tax, with one project, one review and firm approval deadlines instead of more bureaucratic workarounds.
  • Demands scrutiny of labour changes: Members warn that changes to section 107 could weaken collective bargaining and workers’ right to strike, and demand thorough committee study, consultation and safeguards before decisions are made.

NDP

  • Opposes bill C-39: The NDP argues the bill concentrates power in ministers, weakens workers’ rights, risks environmental safeguards and Indigenous rights, and transfers decision-making away from communities and independent experts.
  • Protects the right to strike: The party opposes codifying and expanding ministerial powers to end legal strikes, saying this undermines constitutionally protected rights, weakens workers’ bargaining leverage and discourages employers from negotiating fairly.
  • Safeguards environment and Indigenous rights: The NDP warns that fixed approval deadlines, weakened project conditions and accelerated consultation could harm ecosystems and compress Indigenous rights; it says meaningful consultation and environmental review are essential to responsible development.
  • Builds fairly and together: The party supports building housing, clean energy and infrastructure, but says nation-building must create good union jobs, respect Indigenous rights, protect the environment and include communities rather than prioritize speed and corporate rewards.

Bloc

  • Opposes Bill C-39: The Bloc will vote against Bill C-39, arguing that it uses the trade crisis to justify permanent changes that weaken environmental protections, workers’ rights and democratic accountability.
  • Environmental safeguards: The Bloc warns that rushed assessments, project pre-approval and shifting reviews to energy regulators undermine scientific independence, public consultation and the ability to prevent environmental harm.
  • Right to strike: The Bloc says the bill gives ministers broad discretion to end lawful strikes based on undefined national-interest criteria, weakening collective bargaining and shifting power toward employers.
  • Executive power and Quebec: The Bloc objects to concentrating authority in ministers and the Prime Minister, circumventing Parliament and laws, and intruding on Quebec and provincial roles in managing natural resources.

Green

  • Opposes rushed project approvals: The Green Party warns that Bill C-39 could direct billions in public money to projects without basic cost-benefit analysis, risking economic waste and serious environmental and Indigenous-rights harms.
  • Demands evidence and transparency: The party rejects the premise that speed is inherently beneficial, arguing that weak planning, political pressure and cabinet discretion without transparent evidence make major projects more likely to fail.
  • Protects environmental conditions: The Greens oppose amendments that make project approval conditions subject to tests of economic feasibility or practicality, warning proponents could challenge binding safeguards and weaken environmental laws.
  • Defends collective bargaining: The party supports the Canadian Labour Congress’s concerns about part 3’s threat to collective bargaining and the trade union movement, and calls for substantial amendments.
Was this summary helpful and accurate?

Building Canada Strong ActGovernment Orders

October 6th, 2026 / 11:55 p.m.

Conservative

Arnold Viersen Conservative Peace River—Westlock, AB

Mr. Speaker, I am truly thankful for my colleague's comments tonight on Bill C-69. We have not heard one Liberal in this place talk about it. It is fundamentally the problem and the reason there are no projects being built in this country.

I want to remind the House that under Stephen Harper, we built nine major pipeline projects. We had 14 LNG projects ready to be built in this country, and after the Liberals came to power, all of those projects disappeared. I wonder what my colleague has to say about that.

Building Canada Strong ActGovernment Orders

October 6th, 2026 / 11:55 p.m.

Conservative

Cheryl Gallant Conservative Algonquin—Renfrew—Pembroke, ON

Mr. Speaker, it is going to take quite a while to make up for the damage the previous prime minister did. The problem is, we still have the same cast of characters here, and all it takes is another left-wing zealot to be in the position of environment minister and everything will shut down again.

Building Canada Strong ActGovernment Orders

October 6th, 2026 / 11:55 p.m.

Bloc

Sébastien Lemire Bloc Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC

Mr. Speaker, does my colleague seriously believe that it would be a good idea to set up a nuclear waste dump on a mountain top, knowing that the runoff would fall into the Ottawa River, 200 kilometres from here? The consequences could impact a population centre of 1.6 million here in the Gatineau-Ottawa region. The impact could then extend another 200 kilometres downstream to the Montreal area, affecting 80% or more of Quebec's population. Spent nuclear waste has to be stored somewhere. There may be suitable locations in the Canadian Shield. If Ontario wants to assume those risks, it can manage them within its own borders, but they should not be imposed on Quebec.

Building Canada Strong ActGovernment Orders

October 6th, 2026 / 11:55 p.m.

Conservative

Cheryl Gallant Conservative Algonquin—Renfrew—Pembroke, ON

Mr. Speaker, my dear colleague has mischaracterized what this project is. Those used booties, gloves and gowns are already in the ground.

The plan is to take those away from the outdated science that put it in the ground and put it into something safer. This is not Carp mountain, the hill of garbage. I would invite him to go to Cobourg, which has a near-surface disposal facility. It looks like it originally did, under nature. The water is tested. It is pure when it comes out. This is a good way to clean up our land. I would hope that the stalling done to prevent this from going forward moves to the side and allows our land to be remediated.

The House resumed from October 6 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, and of the motion that this question be now put.

Building Canada Strong ActGovernment Orders

October 7th, 2026 / 4:30 p.m.

Pontiac—Kitigan Zibi Québec

Liberal

Sophie Chatel LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs and Associate Minister of National Defence

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to speak to Bill C‑39, the building Canada strong act. It contains important legislative changes that are part of our government's effort to protect Canada's economic future by reducing red tape across the supply chain, including in transportation.

Last year, our government passed the Building Canada Act, which dramatically expedited projects of national interest, removed internal trade barriers and ensured labour mobility. Over the past few months, we have worked diligently to ensure that the review of all projects, not just those previously covered by Bill C‑5, will be approve within a time frame that meets Canadians' expectations. They expect their government to be efficient, and Bill C‑39 gives them a reasonable one-year timeline. A year to get a project approved is plenty.

These days, with our economy facing headwinds, we have to be efficient. We want to streamline government procedures and ensure that guardrails are in place when we accelerate project reviews and lower costs. We know that every delay in the approval process and every duplicate decision comes at a high cost to our businesses, and in the present circumstances, their patience is wearing thin.

Obviously, the global economic environment we face is different than the one we knew following the post-Cold War era. For a long time, our economy had the wind in its sails. Conditions with our southern neighbours were extremely steady. Access to the U.S. market was also freer within the North American trade environment, and the rules were understood and obeyed. Unfortunately, our businesses no longer operate in this environment. It is therefore absolutely essential that we act now through what remains within our control. Obviously, we have no control over what happens south of the border, but we can control what happens here, at home. We have long been told that we must become efficient.

We have talked a lot about our supply chains. Unfortunately, our neighbours to the south are using our supply chains as tools of coercion and turning our economic dependencies into a strategic vulnerability. In this rapidly changing world, our new Government of Canada is focusing, as I said earlier, on what we can control, including diversifying our markets to build a much stronger Canada. Transportation is a vital link between all of our other priorities. We cannot diversify our markets and trade to build the strongest economy in the G7 without strengthening our transportation network. By strengthening it, we will, of course, strengthen our competitiveness across all sectors.

We are going to build Canada strong through Canada's trade corridors that connect our Canadian businesses to markets and supply chains across the country and around the world. Indigenous peoples, transportation industry representatives and Canadians often tell us that to build stronger, more efficient and more resilient supply chains, we need to cut red tape, strengthen supply chains, accelerate infrastructure development and attract the investments needed to grow our economy.

At the end of the day, when our businesses are doing well and are no longer facing unnecessary barriers, job creation matters in Canada. Affordability always starts with a good, well-paying job.

Red tape and an insufficiently competitive tax system hinder our businesses' innovation and productivity. With this bill, we want to modernize our business environment and make Canada one of the best countries in the world in which to invest. This needs to be addressed urgently. Yes, we have challenges, but we also have opportunities. If we want to seize those opportunities, we obviously need a regulatory framework that allows us to do so. That is why we are modernizing the rules for getting projects built and making real investments in the infrastructure Canada needs to compete in this new environment.

That does not mean that we do not want to put protections in place. Canadians are asking us to build fast, create jobs, support our economy and build Canada strong, but we must also protect them. They are not asking us for one or the other; they are asking us for both. This bill is in line with the regulatory framework we are already operating under.

I just mentioned red tape. Federal departments and agencies have identified more than 500 recent initiatives and proposed measures to reduce the administrative burden.

This bill therefore allows our federal agencies to begin implementing some of those initiatives. This will demonstrate how Canada intends to fulfill its commitments to remove the barriers that slow private investment, limit trade and labour mobility, and of course, restrict business productivity.

We have made strategic, and indeed historic, investments to build Canada strong. We have introduced a number of strategies and made historic investments, as I just said. If we do not address persistent constraints, such as the administrative burden and the transportation system, we cannot maximize Canadians' investment in their economy. We need to maximize the return on every dollar Canadians invest in their economy. That is what we are doing with this bill, which is essential to making every dollar more productive.

Since I am running out of time, I want to get right to the issue of farmers. I am member from the Outaouais, which is a very prosperous region. We have corn, soybean and canola farmers, for example, who are among the most competitive in the world, but they have to be able to get their grain, soybeans or canola to international markets. This bill will ensure that our roads are efficient, our rail system is reliable and our ports are able to quickly process essential goods.

Every link in the chain is important, and when one of them is slowing things down, costs increase and our farmers' competitiveness decreases. Investing in transportation infrastructure is a direct investment in the competitiveness of our farmers.

In addition to agriculture, Pontiac—Kitigan Zibi also has a large number of food processors, people in the agri-food sector as well as in the technology and manufacturing sectors. That is important. We want to diversify our markets and provide opportunities for the people in these sectors, but again we need solid and effective infrastructure.

In closing, I would just like to add that the digitalization of all of the documents that must be submitted to the various government departments to send goods to the international market is crucial. The digitalization of documents is an important part of this bill.

Building Canada Strong ActGovernment Orders

October 7th, 2026 / 4:40 p.m.

Bloc

Alexis Deschênes Bloc Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Listuguj, QC

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her contribution to this important debate.

Yesterday, there was a lot of discussion about creating regions of national interest. One of the government's responses is that there are a dozen laws and seven regulations, that authorizations are deemed to have been granted in those regions, and that a regional assessment will take place. If we dig a little deeper, we see that this regional assessment process already exists, but it is really not the same kind of thing as an impact assessment.

Can my colleague tell me, before the regions of national interest are defined, what the regional assessment will cover? Will an analysis be done for each of the laws that will then be set aside?

Building Canada Strong ActGovernment Orders

October 7th, 2026 / 4:40 p.m.

Liberal

Sophie Chatel Liberal Pontiac—Kitigan Zibi, QC

Mr. Speaker, choosing a region does not necessarily mean changing all the laws that apply to it. The important thing in choosing a region is to truly recognize that there is a critical activity in the sector and that all departments must work together. The purpose of this bill is really to have one submission, one project and one decision in one year. We do not want to duplicate the various decisions. We really want things to be as efficient as possible in a given geographic area.

Furthermore, it will not necessarily work on a project-by-project basis. When an area is identified, it really means that a number of projects are related and that they must be considered together.

Building Canada Strong ActGovernment Orders

October 7th, 2026 / 4:40 p.m.

Conservative

Costas Menegakis Conservative Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON

Mr. Speaker, about 18 months ago, the government introduced the One Canadian Economy Act, Bill C-5. Since then, a whole slew of bureaucratic offices and agencies have been opened up by the government. Today we are debating Bill C-39, promising more and more of the same.

I wonder if the member opposite can point to where the shovel has hit the ground for just one project in Canada since the government took over 18 months ago.

Building Canada Strong ActGovernment Orders

October 7th, 2026 / 4:40 p.m.

Liberal

Sophie Chatel Liberal Pontiac—Kitigan Zibi, QC

Mr. Speaker, there are a number of projects in the energy sector. Of course, we have the Churchill Falls project in Quebec. That is a really critical project for Quebec in terms of energy production. We absolutely must double our energy production. We need to focus on our government's ability to deliver what Quebeckers and Canadians need when it comes to energy. If we fail to do so, we will be missing out on a very important industrial opportunity. Carrying out a number of projects like the one in Churchill Falls is therefore very important.

Although I do not have a list of the shovel-ready projects, there are many. In my riding, for example, we are already starting work on a number of projects to build affordable housing units. I could give him the list. There are several projects, including one in Gracefield, where 39 affordable housing units are being built.

Building Canada Strong ActGovernment Orders

October 7th, 2026 / 4:40 p.m.

Liberal

Steeve Lavoie Liberal Beauport—Limoilou, QC

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her fine speech. I know that she spent a lot of time this summer visiting businesses. I know that she heard from many people about the lack of predictability and the current uncertainty. They need more predictability from the government.

Can she share with us what these businesses had to say after she met with their executives this summer, and particularly any comments regarding the predictability that Bill C‑39 will be able to provide?

Building Canada Strong ActGovernment Orders

October 7th, 2026 / 4:45 p.m.

Liberal

Sophie Chatel Liberal Pontiac—Kitigan Zibi, QC

Mr. Speaker, every delay in a decision comes at a cost for businesses. Uncertainty also has a cost for our entrepreneurs. All the businesses I met with in Quebec told me this. They want decisions to be made quickly. When it takes three or four years to make a decision and there is no definitive answer, that has a very clear impact on the predictable growth of our businesses.

The aerospace industry, for example, has a great potential for growth in Quebec. However, delays in certain decisions, whether in terms of procurement or starting new projects, have a real cost for businesses in terms of business opportunities.

Building Canada Strong ActGovernment Orders

October 7th, 2026 / 4:45 p.m.

The Assistant Deputy Speaker John Nater

It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands, Climate Change; the hon. member for Courtenay—Alberni, Veterans Affairs; and the hon. member for York—Durham, Canada Revenue Agency.

Building Canada Strong ActGovernment Orders

October 7th, 2026 / 4:45 p.m.

Conservative

Costas Menegakis Conservative Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON

Mr. Speaker, I spent many years in the private sector running my own business. I can tell members that being out there in the real economy, meeting payroll, selling and delivering goods and services, one learns a very fundamental and simple lesson very quickly: Absolutely nobody pays people for announcements, nobody writes them a cheque for a press release, and customers certainly do not reward them for empty photo ops. They are judged strictly, fairly and ruthlessly by what they deliver.

The Prime Minister came into office making grand promises. He promised Canadians that he would build at speeds not seen in years, if not generations, yet here we are 18 months later, and still not one single shovel is in the ground. I will take some time today to look deeper into why this paralysis persists and why more broken legislation from a worn-out government will never fix legislation that it broke in the first place.

Just a year and a half ago, the Prime Minister marched into the chamber championing Bill C-5. He told Canadians that he would finally unleash construction speeds not seen in generations. The headlines were glowing, the announcement ceremonies were lavish and grand, and the promises were astronomical, but as Canadians have come to learn all too well, they were just empty words.

After all the endless talk, all the international summits, the luxury travel abroad, the expensive catering and the state photo ops, how many actual projects has this new government office built? Zero. How many permits has it successfully issued? Zero. How many hard-working Canadians are on a job site earning a living because of it? There are zero, zip, nada, rien, tipota.

What the government managed to build is an even more bloated bureaucracy and an unprecedented centralization of power in the minister's and Prime Minister's offices. In the last 18 months, the Prime Minister has somehow managed to create 14 brand new government agencies, which brings us squarely to where we find ourselves today: endless manufacturing urgency yet absolutely nothing accomplished.

People are judged by what they deliver. Look at the Pacific link pipeline. The Prime Minister grandly designated it a project of national interest. Let me share a news flash with my Liberal friends across the aisle: Another vital pipeline heading to our Pacific coast has always been a matter of critical national interest, and construction should have broken many years ago. Due to layer upon layer of punishing Liberal regulations, red tape and suffocating bureaucracy, no private proponent would step forward. No pipeline was ever built. Fast-forward to today, and the private sector still has zero confidence in the government's ability to provide regulatory certainty. That leaves taxpayers on the hook to own and build their own pipeline.

How does the Prime Minister propose to provide such much-needed certainty to private investors now? It is by proposing another bill, a legislative text that is supposed to fix what the last bill, passed 18 months ago, was supposed to fix. This new piece of legislation clocks in at a staggering 250 pages, and we are expected to believe that it would magically cure all the systematic problems the Liberals themselves engineered over the last 11 years.

Let us be clear about what is missing from the bill. It would not repeal Bill C-69, Justin Trudeau's notorious antidevelopment law. It would not repeal Bill C-48, the Liberal job-killing ban on shipping oil off our west coast. It would not eliminate the punishing industrial carbon tax. All the structural obstacles that have systematically chased investment capital and talent out of this country for a decade would remain entirely untouched.

The bill would still force project proponents to address “any other matter relevant to the impact assessment that the [agency] requires to be taken into account.” How can the Liberals stand up and lecture us about regulatory certainty, when their checklist of arbitrary demands has no end? Is it just the Prime Minister who gets to decide who wins and who loses?

The government's big selling point for this legislation is the magical one-year timeline: one project, one decision and one year. It sounds wonderful in a sound bite, but let us look closely at the fine print. I cannot tell the Speaker to pause the clock on my speaking time and allow me to speak for 20 minutes today. Under this new bill, the government would be able to do precisely that. The official clock could be stopped. The bureaucracy could hit the pause button for a multitude of reasons, and the suspended time would simply vanish from the calculation. A company could spend years wrapped up in red tape and the Liberals would still claim that it all happened within one year.

If that loophole is not wide enough, the minister could unilaterally tack on 90-day extensions. If that is not enough, the government could run behind closed doors to cabinet and extend the timeline yet again, with absolutely no hard limit whatsoever.

Let us put ourselves in the shoes of a serious investor for a moment. Would we allocate billions of dollars of capital knowing full well that a Liberal cabinet that has spent the last 10 years actively blocking major projects retains the absolute legal power to delay our money and our project's decision indefinitely?

Here is the critical part the Liberals deliberately avoid talking about. The famous one-year clock would not even start ticking until the proponent has completed all preplanning, finished every single consultation and submitted exhaustive engineering and scientific data for a full assessment on every secondary permit along the way. Let us be completely honest with Canadians about what this legislation actually is. There is no real enforceable one-year timeline in the bill. It is pure smoke and mirrors. There are shiny headlines without deadlines.

There are devastating real-world consequences when the government chooses endless talk over actual building. The Prime Minister grandly promised Canadians the fastest-growing economy in the G7. Instead, the OECD places Canada well deep in the pack, with our economic growth forecast slashed all the way down to a miserable 0.9 per cent. Canadian households are now among the most heavily indebted in the entire industrialized world. Let us think of that for a moment.

Families across our country watch their mortgage renewal approach with sheer dread and look at their grocery bill with absolute disbelief from week to week. International investors are noticing this dysfunction. Representatives from the U.A.E. came to this country looking to invest a staggering $90 billion. Just six months later, they returned and stated publicly that they could not find a single approved shovel-ready project to put that capital into.

What is the alternative? We as Conservatives have a clear, pragmatic plan that is beautifully simple: one project, one review and one approval within one year. We know it can be done, because it has been done. During the 2008-2009 global financial crisis, under the leadership of Prime Minister Stephen Harper, our minister John Baird told his department officials that he wanted the application form for infrastructure projects brought down to a single page. After significant back and forth, they delivered a clean, functional, one-page application form. What was the remarkable result? Roughly 23,500 projects went swiftly from concept to completion in under two years.

Other people warned at the time that it would be an unmitigated disaster for safety and environmental standards. However, when the environmental commissioners subsequently audited those exact projects, what did they find? Not a single one came back with a safety and environmental problem. That tells us something critically important: All the mountains of paperwork, all the endless procedural hoops and all the deliberate delays have everything to do with feeding a bloated, self-serving bureaucracy that thrives entirely by getting in the way of progress.

Here is what Conservatives will do: repeal Bill C-69, repeal Bill C-48, scrap the punishing industrial carbon tax once and for all, approve hundreds of projects currently languishing and put a real, hard, binding cap on approval times, not a fake timeline that can be paused, extended and stretched into infinity.

Canada should be the fastest place to secure a building permit, but we will certainly not take the government's word for anything it is saying, because Canadians have heard these exact hollow promises far too many times before. The blunt truth is that the Prime Minister does not need to do more announcements. He needs to stop blocking, stop taxing, stop obstructing, and stop signing meaningless memoranda of understanding that yield zero results. He needs to get out of the way and let our builders build, let our workers work, let our investors invest, and get projects built for the prosperity of all Canadians.

Building Canada Strong ActGovernment Orders

October 7th, 2026 / 4:55 p.m.

Liberal

Steeve Lavoie Liberal Beauport—Limoilou, QC

Mr. Speaker, I would like to set the record straight on two counts before I ask my question. My colleague said that there have been some grand announcements, but nothing concrete. I was actually in Lévis on March 29 for the steel cutting ceremony for the Polar Max icebreaker, so that is one project that is happening.

Our government announced an $11‑billion contract to build six icebreakers that will provide jobs for 5,000 people in our region. It also provides predictability for more than 600 suppliers in the region who will be able to invest so they can supply the Davie shipyard. That is what our businesses want.

With that, does my colleague still think that we need to stop making announcements that support our businesses?