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

[Caroline Desrochers, Liberal, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we introduced the bill after our new government took office. I am a new member, elected in 2025. We have been taking action and launching strategies since we first took office, and now we are implementing those measures. We have already submitted 167 projects at the Canada investment summit that took place in Toronto three weeks ago and that helped attract roughly 500 billion dollars' worth of investment to Canada.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski—La Matapédia, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I commend my colleague from Trois‑Rivières. She said a lot of things in her speech, but we will try to keep it simple. How does fast-tracking projects make them better projects?

She says that there is no environmental risk and that there will be assessments. Imagine that it takes a year and a half to assess a project, but the bill says that is too long and it must be done within a year.

I would like my colleague to simply explain to the people of Trois‑Rivières and Quebec how it is that any project that needs more than a year is not a good project.

Under the bill, all projects must be approved within a year, at most, based on the minister's decision, obviously, whether or not he takes into account the assessments that have been done.

[Caroline Desrochers, Liberal, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, but I am a little disappointed that he oversimplified some things in his question.

I think it is clear that the fact that a project takes more than a year to be assessed does not make it a bad project. The assessment standards remain the same. The process remains as rigorous. The processes will take place simultaneously. The decision-making process will be coordinated to expedite the project.

The degree of rigour is not changing. The standards are not changing. The same standards apply. The timelines are there so people know whether or not a project can move forward. Investors need that predictability.

[Natilien Joseph, Liberal, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague. I have actually been to her riding, and I would like to congratulate the people of Trois‑Rivières because they are so fortunate to have her as their member of Parliament.

My question is very simple. What role can the Port of Trois-Rivières play in attracting more investment and supporting job creation and our SMEs?

[Caroline Desrochers, Liberal, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his excellent question. I have been to his riding as well. We had some great visits.

In fact, 50% of transshipments at the port of Trois-Rivières consist of critical minerals. There are investments that will speed up the process.

Canada's commitments to accelerate the development of critical minerals and mines in Quebec and elsewhere in Canada, and the use of a rail network connecting to the port of Trois-Rivières, will really allow the region to play its role to the full, whether in terms of shipping critical minerals to European markets or, once again, shipping domestically in Canada to meet processing needs.

[David Bexte, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the government has made great fanfare of announcements and more announcements. With the future implementation of the legislation, I wonder how the Liberals propose to measure results. What happens when they repeatedly do not deliver?

[Caroline Desrochers, Liberal, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, all the announcements we have made are very concrete. For example, at the Contrecoeur port, the work has already started. The work will start at Churchill Falls. With all the announcements we have made, those projects have already started, so I am not really sure what my colleague is referring to.

[Harb Gill, Conservative, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is always an honour and a privilege to rise on behalf of the people of Windsor West. I want to start by saying something fairly simple. I am encouraged by the direction of the bill. The government is finally acknowledging something Conservatives have been saying for years: Canada has too much red tape, building takes too long, there is too much duplication, there are too many government departments involved and investors certainly do not like uncertainty. If the bill generally makes it easier to build in Canada and if it saves Canadians money, protects Canadian jobs and gets investment moving, I will support those measures.

However, there is another principle I learned during my three decades of a policing career: Trust but verify. I wrote tickets for people not because I only thought they had broken the law. I checked. I looked at the evidence. I verified the facts. That is how I intend to approach Bill C-39. I am not going to oppose something just because the Liberal government has introduced it, but I am also not going to take the government's word for it. Show me the results.

There is something about the bill that should be pointed out. This is not exactly a new idea. In fact, much of what we are hearing today sounds pretty familiar. The Harper government understood that Canada had a problem with duplication and delays. It moved toward one project, one review. It introduced timelines. It reduced the number of federal organizations involved in major project reviews. The basic idea was pretty simple: Get the right people around the table, do the work, make a decision and get on with it.

That is not revolutionary. That is common sense. I think Canadians would understand that. What is different today is how big the problem has become. Over the years, governments have added regulations, agencies, assessments, consultations, forms and processes. One layer gets put on top of another, and eventually we get to the point where the process becomes the problem.

The government now comes forward and says it is going to coordinate all of this. It is going to establish timelines. It is going to make it easier to build. That is good. I am encouraged. However, I have a couple of questions. Why did it take so long? More importantly, will it actually work? There is a difference between making the bureaucracy easier to navigate and actually removing the bureaucracy. We can put better signs in a maze, and we can open an office to help people get through the maze, but at the end of the day, we still have a maze. That is where I have some concerns with Bill C-39.

If we are serious about cutting red tape, then let us cut red tape. Bill C-39 would not repeal Bill C-69. It would not repeal Bill C-48. It would not remove every regulatory barrier that businesses and investors have been telling us for years is making it harder to build in this country. My question is pretty straightforward: Would we actually be removing obstacles, or would we simply be creating a better system for navigating them? Those are two different things, and Canadians deserve to know the answer.

Let us talk about the one-year promise. One year sounds pretty good. Every Canadian understands “one year”. Here is the question I keep coming back to: one year from when? That is the important part. Would the clock start when a Canadian company says it wants to build, or would it start after the company has completed the studies, provided the information and satisfied all the requirements necessary to get the application moving?

If I tell somebody that I will get back to them within a year, they reasonably expect that year to start when I tell them that. They do not expect me to say that the clock does not actually start until I have finished asking them questions. That is the concern. If someone is investing a billion dollars, they need to know when the clock starts. They need to know who is responsible. They need to know what happens when the deadline is missed. They need to know whether that one-year promise is actually a deadline or simply an aspiration. They do not want a one-year headline. They want a one-year deadline that means something.

We heard a similar promise when Bill C-5 came forward. We were told that Canada was going to move at speeds not seen in generations. Eighteen months later, we are back here with another major piece of legislation. Some people are calling it the big beautiful bill from Canada again, telling Canadians that this time, things will be different. That is fair enough. Let us check. How many projects have actually moved? How many permits have actually been issued through the new major projects bureaucracy? What has actually been built?

An announcement is not a project. A designation is not a project. A memorandum is not a project. A project is when the shovel goes in the ground. It is when the crane goes up. It is when the factory starts running. It is when a Canadian worker gets a paycheque. That is what I am interested in.

I come from Windsor, and we understand this pretty well. We are an industrial city. We have manufacturers and skilled trades. We have tool and die companies. We have automotive suppliers that are tied into supply chains running across Canada, across the bridge and throughout North America. When a decision gets delayed in Ottawa, the consequences do not stay in Ottawa. They show up on the shop floor. They show up in the lunchroom. They show up at the kitchen table. For government, six months can be a line on a calendar. For a small manufacturer, six months can mean six months without an order. For a worker, it can mean six months without a job. For an investor, it can mean taking an investment somewhere else. This is why speed matters, but certainty matters just as much.

I also want to make something clear. Cutting red tape does not mean throwing out every rule. Canadians expect us to protect the environment. They expect projects to be safe. They expect indigenous rights to be respected. They expect taxpayers' money to be protected. This is reasonable. The question is not whether we have rules. The question is whether we have the right rules: rules that protect what actually needs protecting, rules that do not duplicate each other, rules that have an end point and rules that allow a responsible project to actually get built. That is what good government should do.

There is one part of this bill where I think we need to slow down, and that is part 3, the labour provisions. Workers are not the problem. Workers are people who build Canada. They operate the cranes. They weld the steel. They drive the trucks. They run the machines. They build the roads. They keep our factories running. Most importantly, they are taxpayers, so we have to get this part right. The government says these provisions deal with exceptional circumstances and the national interest. Well, maybe that is true, but whenever Parliament gives government additional powers to intervene in labour disputes, we need to understand exactly what those powers mean.

We have already heard these concerns. CUPE has been very clear. On September 23, its national executive board unanimously resolved that it would defy Bill C-39 if it passed unamended, arguing that the bill would limit the constitutionally protected right to strike. CUPE's national secretary-treasurer, Candace Rennick, said, “Governments cannot legislate labour peace.” Those are CUPE's words.

I am not going to stand here and tell the House that CUPE has settled the constitutional question, because it has not, but I am not going to ignore its concern either. We should hear from the unions. We should hear from employers. We should hear from constitutional experts. We should hear from the people who actually work under the Canada Labour Code. What threshold has to be met? When can the minister intervene? What safeguards are there? How do we make sure that exceptional powers stay exceptional? These are fair questions. That is why we are continuing to review part 3. Canadians expect us to read this bill. They expect us to understand it. They expect us to ask questions. That is what we are here to do.

Yes, I am encouraged by the direction of this bill. I am encouraged that the government finally recognizes that Canada has to build. I am encouraged that we are talking about reducing red tape, but I am not going to confuse a good signal with a proven result. My test is pretty simple. Does it save Canadians money and save Canadian jobs? Does it bring investment back? Does it actually remove red tape? Does it make government more accountable? Does it get projects built? If the answer is yes, I will support it, but I will not support it because somebody tells me to trust them. I will support it because we have done the work, we have read the bill, we have heard from Canadians and we have heard from workers.

Canada has everything we need. We have the resources, entrepreneurs, skilled trades and manufacturers. We just need to get out of our own way, and the government should start doing that sooner rather than later. It is about time we start doing what we promised Canadians we would do for them, not just show up and gum up the works as the Liberals have done for the past 11 years.

[Steeve Lavoie, Liberal, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I found my colleague's speech very interesting and encouraging when it comes to Bill C‑39. I think he agrees with the spirit of Bill C‑39, which is to fast-track projects.

He also wondered about the time limits. The bill is long—over 250 pages—but the information on time limits and analyses is there.

From his speech, I understand that he wants to fast-track things and make them work. He wants us to work together with the unions to make projects move forward and avoid additional delays.

I would like to know one thing: Will he vote in favour of the bill so that we can move forward and fast-track construction?

[Harb Gill, Conservative, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we heard these promises with Bill C-5. If I were a policeman and saw the Liberal bus in front of me going at the speed the Liberals are moving rather than the speed they claimed it would move at, I would pull it over and give them a ticket for impeding traffic. The Liberals have not moved at the speeds they promised us. That is the challenge.

If the Liberals amend the things that need to be amended and there is a one-year timeline or deadline, yes, we will support it, provided they also have the provisions that labour needs in order to ensure they have the right to strike when they need to. It is not something workers want to do willy-nilly. They do not want to go into a work stoppage because they feel like somebody looked at them wrong. It is their last option to gain leverage to do what they need to do.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for reminding us of the importance of consulting the union movement. I am pleased to hear him talk about the right to strike and workers' rights. We in the Bloc Québécois were the first to raise the red flag. My colleague is right.

Just yesterday, I met with people from the steelworkers union. Every day we receive comments, emails and requests for meetings from union groups that are extremely concerned about this bill. Contrary to the government's claims that it continues to stand up for workers' rights, every day I receive emails and calls from unions that dispute the government's claims. Yes, it is absolutely essential to consult unions, and no, this bill does not respect the right to strike and workers' rights.

I would like to hear my colleague speak more on the importance of consulting these folks who work every day.

[Harb Gill, Conservative, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I received an email from an OSSTF district, from Ms. Erin Roy, who is the president of the union. She expressed serious concerns regarding the Canada Labour Code provisions that are introduced in Bill C-39. She wrote that workers and families are facing real challenges in their daily lives because of the high cost of living, and their right to strike remains as the last leverage that provides them the ability to negotiate fair wages, safe work conditions, secure employment and meaningful solutions for workplace concerns.

I totally agree. This is the challenge that our friends across the aisle perhaps do not get: These workers are also taxpayers. We need to show them the respect they deserve and recognize the hard-earned dollars they contribute to the government, as well as what they do for all of us.

[Scott Anderson, Conservative, Vernon—Lake Country—Monashee, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I was looking at Bill C-5 and what it has produced. ChatGPT, which we have heard an awful lot of in the House lately, had this to say: It has produced some concrete regulatory changes in projects, but ChatGPT could not establish that it completed a major project. Then I looked up the Pacific oil pipeline, and it had this to say: The pipeline has not been built, and its final conditions remain outstanding. LNG Canada phase two does not establish that the expansion is completed. The Coastal GasLink construction is scheduled to begin next year, and the federal trade mobility—

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

I need to interrupt the member to give the member for Windsor West a chance to respond.

[Harb Gill, Conservative, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this is the challenge we have. If we want people's trust, we have to act and deliver on promises. Simply making promises is like someone's son telling them they are going to get an A, promising that and then never studying to get that A. We have to see the result at the end of the day, and there are no results that we can see from that side of the aisle.