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

[Dominique O'Rourke, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Madam Speaker, this is my first time speaking to legislation since we came back in the fall, so I would like to take the opportunity to welcome the pages, who are from all over the country, to this House. They are in for a spectacular year. I myself sat where they are in 1991, but do not do the math.

We congratulate the pages.

What an honour this is and what a full-circle moment it is to welcome the pages and to be here speaking to legislation that is transformative in this country.

I also want to thank everyone in Guelph for the conversations, meetings, site tours and community events over the summer. It is a real honour to represent Guelph in this House. As we approach Thanksgiving, I am so grateful for the privilege, the responsibility and the honour of serving my community and this great country at this historic time.

Guelph is the fourth-largest exporter to the U.S. per capita. This means we engineer, we make things and we ship things primarily by road and rail. Did members know that the city of Guelph is one of the few municipalities that owns a railway? In the 1880s, businesses in Guelph were frustrated with the freight rates and service provided by the Grand Trunk Railway, which held a monopoly on rail transport in the city, so local merchants and civic leaders decided to build their own. They believed competition was essential for economic growth, and they created the Guelph Junction Railway to connect Guelph to the growing Canadian Pacific Railway network, providing local industries with an alternative route to markets across Canada. Now, 142 years later, the GJR owns approximately 38 kilometres of track. It connects with both Canadian Pacific Kansas City and the CN network, serving local manufacturers and industries.

As Guelph heads into our bicentennial year, I want to celebrate those early industrialists and civic leaders who I think would agree with the building canada strong act. They wanted to give themselves more certainty. They built a stronger, more resilient and more independent economy.

Everyone in Guelph I have met and have been working with for the past 18 months, including some of the largest employers in advanced manufacturing, agri-food, clean tech, packaged goods and consumer products, wants predictability and certainty. I heard this all the time when I was on city council. Of course, it is at a micro level, but people will tell us that they want faster processes, because sequential approvals and multiple reviews, and sometimes a change in municipal or provincial government, can derail a project. It definitely increases costs. It can delay a store opening. It can threaten the viability of an entire project. A lot of money and time can be spent in this churn that is not productive, and it is magnified when multiple jurisdictions are involved. This is what Bill C-39 seeks to address.

We are in a trade war with our largest trading partner, which is something the opposition has sought to minimize repeatedly. We did not ask for it. We do not deserve it. It is illegal and it is unjustified, yet here we are. We will not be complacent. We will have our own plans.

We cannot control what other countries do, but we can take down our interprovincial trade barriers, which the federal government has done and provinces are working on. We can control our own processes and regulations at home to get big things built, people working and goods to our own projects and to an expanding list of international markets. We can make sure federal reviews and decisions are completed within one year of a proponent submitting a completed comprehensive application, while upholding Canada's rigorous environmental standards and respecting indigenous rights. We can and we must do so. How? It is by removing duplication and conducting reviews and consultations concurrently rather than sequentially. We can accelerate these processes. In fact, already since December 2025, Canada has achieved co-operation agreements with seven provinces to advance a one-project, one-review framework to reduce existing duplication between federal and provincial assessments.

To be clear, the building canada strong act would make no changes to federal environmental standards. It would be a change in process. All factors would still need to be taken into consideration, including climate impacts, species at risk, ecological and nature implications, and more. I know this is really important to folks in Guelph.

Let us remember that major projects, like electrification, massive hydro and wind projects, and critical mineral extraction and processing, also support our climate goals. They support Guelph businesses like Hammond Power, which makes the transformers that keep our industries humming and is key to cleaner energy and transportation, and Hitachi Construction Truck Manufacturing, which makes a partly electrified 150-tonne rigid-frame mining truck using Hamilton steel and manufactured in Canada by highly skilled workers.

Canada's new government has set an ambitious vision of major projects, electrification, nuclear, a defence industrial strategy, homebuilding and massive investments in infrastructure. Who is going to build all this? Who is going to fabricate the steel we need, make the moulds and build the ports, roads and towers? Canadian workers are. This government is so invested in our skilled tradespeople that we are investing $6 billion in the team Canada strong initiative. Working with unions, we have set a goal to recruit, train and hire 80,000 to 100,000 new Red Seal trades by 2031 and to support them financially along the way.

We are a government that believes in labour, and we consulted with labour on this bill. Bill C-39 would modernize the federal labour framework and strengthen protection for workers in federally regulated industries. Changes to the Canada Labour Code will strengthen collective bargaining by helping parties address issues earlier, reach negotiated agreements and resolve disputes, while fully protecting the right to strike.

Section 107 has been in the Canadian Labour Code for nearly 50 years. This bill would create guardrails around its use, adding transparency and predictability while ensuring that it is reserved as a last resort tool for exceptional circumstances in which both parties have reached an impasse. Any decision to invoke section 107 would require the federal government to demonstrate significant national, economic and social risks.

The government will also be adding new health and safety officers to increase inspection capacity by 70%, hiring new staff at the Canadian Industrial Relations Board to clear the backlog of complaints by workers against employers and cracking down on worker misclassification with more inspectors. Together, these changes will ensure workers are treated fairly, are protected on the job and have greater income security, and they will promote stable labour relations. This is important to the workers, to their families, to people in my riding and to all Canadians.

Bill C-39 would also formally designate strategic trade corridors, remove bottlenecks and establish a transportation project office to coordinate federal permitting and advance priority transportation projects within one year. Guelph is a manufacturing hub. Advanced manufacturing is Guelph's largest employment sector, accounting for $4.5 billion in exports every year. Getting raw material in and finished products out faster and more predictably improves productivity, reduces business costs and makes Canadian business more competitive. This includes logistics and shipping companies such as PDI and Traxxside, which use the Guelph Junction railway, and multiple trucking companies.

Since last spring, Canada has signed 20 new economic and security agreements. We want to export to the world. To do that, we need modern border crossings, including ports and trade digitization. When I spoke with people from UPS operations this summer in Guelph, they told me that digital trade processes will reduce costs for exporters, improve supply chain resiliency and help small and medium-sized enterprises participate in international markets. These small and medium-sized businesses sometimes get lost in the conversation on major projects. They seem far from Guelph, but these faster supply chains and trade corridors are for small and medium-sized businesses too. They account for approximately 99% of all employer businesses in Canada. There are 444 CFIB members in Guelph alone.

I am so excited. I am so proud to be on the industry committee and the transportation committee at this moment in time. It is an awesome intersection. This is the most ambitious reform to how Canada builds in a generation. We are modernizing regulatory approvals, maintaining rigorous environmental standards, upholding indigenous rights and ensuring workers are treated fairly.

We can all work together to build Canada now, keep Canada moving and ensure Canada is strong for all.

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

Madam Speaker, the member is a member of the transportation, infrastructure and communities committee with me, so it is wonderful to see my colleague here today. She talked a lot about trade infrastructure and the need to get things done, yet the Minister of Transport and her colleagues keep talking about this transportation projects office as though it is a real thing. Bill C-39 would only give the minister discretion to start an office. I may not be opposed to a single window, as I think that might be a helpful introduction, but this particular new project office would have no formal authority, meaning that it could not grant a permit or force another part of Transport Canada to speed it up.

Why is there all this rhetoric about getting trade infrastructure done when they have an office that does not exist, is discretionary by the minister and does not have any authority? While I am on this topic, why the heck is there not a deadline, as there is in section one of the bills, to force these big transportation projects to get done quickly?

[Dominique O'Rourke, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Madam Speaker, I believe my colleague from Calgary Confederation began to address it. First of all, when we are talking about linear infrastructure, it can take some time to assemble the land, to do the engineering, to get the partners onside, etc. That may be why. I would encourage my hon. colleague to support the bill and get it to committee, where we could have a more fulsome discussion.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, earlier, we were talking about infrastructure to promote international trade. I pointed out to my colleague from Halifax that division 3 accelerates pipeline construction. If we take a closer look at where our oil exports go, we see that most of them go to the United States. In fact, 91% of our oil exports go to the United States.

The government is scrapping environmental laws so it can send more oil to the United States to shore up that country's energy security despite the ongoing trade conflict. That makes no sense to me, especially since oil companies are largely owned by American interests.

Does my colleague agree that it makes absolutely no sense to scrap environmental legislation in order to supply more oil to the Americans, who are the main beneficiaries?

[Dominique O'Rourke, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Madam Speaker, first, I would remind the House that no environmental legislation will be amended and that all existing requirements must be met. Second, thanks to oil and gas pipelines, our exports will not necessarily be going to the United States anymore; they may go to Asia and Europe instead. Given the geopolitical situation in Europe, our allies are very eager to access Canadian energy to heat their homes.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her excellent speech. I am very happy to know that there are so many manufacturers in Guelph. I come from a region that has many as well. For example, Quebec City is home to 27 industrial parks, and Beauce also has a large manufacturing sector.

My colleague spoke at length about predictability. Having worked in banks and lent money to businesses, I know that all banks need predictability. All businesses and businesspeople need it, too.

What does Bill C-39 contain that will help provide the predictability everyone keeps talking about, encourage investment and strengthen our supply chain?

[Dominique O'Rourke, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Madam Speaker, as I said in my remarks, since December 2025, Canada has already entered into co-operation agreements with seven provinces, in order to advance the “one project, one review” approach. I do think Bill C‑39 contains many initiatives that create certainty for business owners, workers and investors.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to address the House this evening, as always.

When I was growing up, I had four siblings. Members will be shocked to know that, as my desk often is today, my room was very messy growing up. My parents would, from time to time, insist that I clean it and then conduct a thorough inspection to ensure the room had been cleaned. I mastered the technique of cleaning my room. It involved picking up all my stuff and moving it into my sister's room across the hall. Following the inspection, I would move the items back. I say this to demonstrate to members that I know well the difference between getting something done and feverishly moving things around in order to create the impression of activity and results when nothing is actually changing. That brings me to the bill before the House today, Bill C-39.

The government is very fond of describing itself as a new government, of all the same people, more or less. Nonetheless, we are starting to get a bit of a sense of the character of this new government of the same people. Frankly, they are a bit slippery. They pride themselves on their slipperiness. I will give some examples. A year ago, before the House, we had the Build Canada Act, which was supposed to be transformational. It was going to make it so much easier to build things, and it was going to be transformational. It created the Major Projects Office. It did not create major projects, but it created a Major Projects Office.

It was so successful that a year later, the Liberals decided they needed a new bill. This is not the Build Canada Act; it is the building Canada strong act. The sequel is always a little worse. The bill would have even more offices. We would have the transportation projects office. We would have a national transportation council. We would have all kinds of new bodies and offices.

I hate to imagine what the name of the bill will be this time next year. Maybe all those watching CPAC at home can send their suggestions in to the Prime Minister. Maybe it will be the “build Canada even stronger act” or “the build Canada the strongest yet act”. It will keep going as long as they have a chance, with the proliferation of new offices.

However, the reality is that they are calling Bill C-39 the building Canada strong act. It is the building Canada strong act in more ways than one. It is the building Canada strong act instead of the building Canada strong reality, because the government is continually talking about how this is really going to be the big one that actually gets it done. The government is just going to create five or six more offices. It is going to have more councils of different bureaucrats, and that will be the game-changer for now.

We can see the political utility of this. It is to constantly be putting in the window this new sense of engaging in feverish activity. The government is putting in place more instruments and more mechanisms. As I hope the anecdote I shared at the beginning established, that feverish activity is not the same as results.

Generally speaking, we need fewer offices, not more offices. We need less bureaucratic intervention, not more bureaucratic intervention. We need government to get out of the way so that major projects can move forward. We do not need to add to the number of offices and bureaucrats. We need to simplify the process.

We very much support the principle of one project, one review; of having efficient timelines for all projects to move forward. The approach the government takes is cherry-picking: “Okay, this is a major project we like and we are going to give it special treatment.” The approach was better than nothing in the midst of the regulatory pile-on that Canadian companies have dealt with for so long, but we favour an approach that simplifies the approval processes for all companies, large and small, for all kinds of projects, and we favour processes that are focused on results. It is time to have a government that actually focuses on the results instead of the appearance of activity, and that asks to be measured by the results that are produced.

Increasingly, what we hear from Canadians is the challenging results in their lives. We are going to see job numbers later this week, but already, even before the escalation of the trade war with the United States, we had a significant increase in job losses. There was another big increase in youth unemployment last month. We continue to hear from people whose businesses are struggling as a result of overtaxation and over-regulation. Again, we need simplified processes. We need policies that actually deliver on the promises of this legislation.

Canadians, in general, welcome a certain change in tone that we have seen from the Liberals. At one time in the past, the Liberals were more explicitly antidevelopment. Now they talk in ways that sound like they are more supportive of development, but what really matters are the results. Again, we see the slipperiness of the current government, putting forward big acts with big names and repeatedly doing that year after year, but we are not seeing the results. Canadians will not long be fooled by a slippery government. They will demand a reality in this country that flows from the big claims and the big rhetoric.

We saw another demonstration today of the slipperiness of the government, in bizarre and tragic terms. We had a colleague from the Conservative Party put forward an excellent bill to protect Canadians by ending the possibility of MAID for those with mental health challenges. The government, on the one hand, said it agrees with the principle of ending MAID for those with mental health challenges, and then almost universally voted against the bill. The Liberals voted to kill a bill that would have done something that they said they wanted to do, but they said that if they did it, they would do it with their own legislation, which has yet to be drafted and which would be paired with another further expansion of MAID, an expansion that raises all kinds of significant concerns at a time when Canadians are increasingly alarmed by the extreme and dangerous nature of the MAID regime in Canada. The government hears those concerns and is therefore trying to pretend that it is responding to them, while at the same time voting against a bill that would actually address the issue. It is a slippery government that is saying one thing but trying to bury the reality in the midst of what it is saying.

Our vision in the Conservative Party is for action that is genuinely pro-development; that unleashes the potential of this country's economy, of its people and of its natural resources; that creates review processes that are clear and are simple. Our vision does not use these kinds of moments as excuses for the greater proliferation of bureaucracy and administration, but zeroes in on the changes that would actually produce results.

There is some of the rhetoric around Bill C-39 and some of the stated objectives that we can certainly get behind, but I will believe it when I see it. We will believe it when we are no longer seeing year after year of bills with nice-sounding names that promise this is going to be the one that does it, and yet we never actually see those results. People want to see major projects and big investments built, and able to move forward in this country as used to happen in the past. They want to see jobs, opportunity and prosperity flow from that. That is what we are going to be fighting for on this side of the House as we move this bill forward, as we study it at committee and we scrutinize the provisions to try to push the government to actually deliver on the promise.

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

Madam Speaker, I quite liked my colleague's anecdote about his messy bedroom. I think there was a bit of disorder going on in his thoughts this evening, because he talked about everything but Bill C-39. He even talked about another bill that had nothing to do with Bill C-39 when he was talking about streamlining and results. Those things are found in Bill C-39.

My question for my colleague is, will he commit to reading the bill in detail and returning to the House to speak to Bill C-39? I think he will find answers to many of his questions.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, I think the member was maybe not listening too carefully. He maybe listened to the anecdote at the beginning and then prepared his question before hearing the rest of it.

I do acknowledge that the stated aspirations in this bill are, in many cases, aligned with things we have been calling for for a long time. The question will be the results. I look forward to the study that is going to happen on this bill at committee and the constructive work the Conservatives will do to put forward amendments to try to deliver on that promise.

However, when I see the government emphasize that we are going to have more offices, councils and more processes, that again seems to be that push toward feverish activity instead of results.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like my colleague to talk about the slogan “build Canada strong,” which the government repeats ad nauseam. Do they think they can build Canada strong by undermining accountability and weakening assessments? There is a fixed deadline for all projects, regardless of their scope. Within one year, the project developer must submit all assessments. Previously, the deadline was a maximum of three years. Now, they are cutting corners. I would like my colleague to explain this to me. Is this how they strengthen things, build something more solid, when, in reality, they just want to speed things up?

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, what we need in this country is project reviews that are appropriate, accessible and timely. We should expect and look for simplicity and timeliness. I think we can achieve effective reviews that are meaningful and invite the engagement of those who need to be heard from, within clear, reasonable and defined timelines.

I think sometimes there are those who just do not want to build things and who try to create these review processes that are complex enigmas that nobody can ever get through. The goal is to have a fair process that is timely and gets to results.

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

Madam Speaker, I certainly appreciate what the Conservative shadow minister for employment has done, not just in this speech but across Canada, where he has been speaking to young people. In our discussions, I mentioned to him that Kelowna has had the highest unemployment rate in the country for four months standing. He was recently at UBC Okanagan speaking to young Canadians who want to participate in the economy.

I was wondering if he would enlighten the House a bit about what some of the students are thinking, because youth unemployment is much higher. I would like to hear what he believes would be good for not just these students, but for this great country.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, I was recently at UBC Okanagan, which is, I believe, either in my colleague's riding or very close to it. I have been now in six provinces, at many university campuses, asking students in public areas, as they go by, the question, “Are you better or worse off than your parents' generation?” That has been a starting point for lots of great conversations about economic issues, but also cultural issues and some of the different ways in which young people perceive their lives as having been affected and changed by various changes in our society.

Overwhelmingly, the concern about being able to afford a home and being able to find a job is driving a sense that young people have that they are worse off than their parents' generation. Starting out in life, pretty fundamental core things are whether someone can afford a home or find a job. That is much more difficult for young people today than it used to be as a result, in many cases, of the government's policies.

[Rebecca Alty, Liberal, Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations]

Madam Speaker, I would like to begin by acknowledging that we are gathered on the unceded traditional territory of the Algonquin Anishinabe people.

Today, I want to speak about Bill C-39, the building Canada strong act, and why it matters for Canada's future.

Canada is at a pivotal moment. The global economy is undergoing a major transformation. Countries around the world are competing to attract investment, create jobs and develop new industries. At the same time, Canadians are feeling the effects of the rising cost of living and economic uncertainty. To meet these challenges, we must grow. We must build roads, ports, clean energy projects, transportation networks and other infrastructure that will enable Canada to grow and create good jobs.

When we talk about building Canada, we must remember something important. It is not just about what we build, but also about how we build. That is why indigenous peoples must be part of this work. After all, first nations, Inuit and Métis are not only rights holders. They are business leaders, investors, entrepreneurs, employers and project owners. They are helping to shape Canada's economy and create opportunities for future generations. Simply put, we cannot build a stronger Canada without indigenous peoples. That is why we have taken steps to support indigenous participation in major projects. We have opened new consultation resource centres to help communities participate in project reviews. We have provided funding so indigenous communities have the expertise and capacity they need to engage in discussions about projects that affect them.

The growing role of indigenous ownership is reflected in the success of the First Nations Finance Authority, a first nations-led, not-for-profit financial institution created under the federal First Nations Fiscal Management Act. Earlier this year, the FNFA issued a record $800-million bond, helping push total first nations investments financed through the institution beyond $5 billion. Those investments are supporting housing, infrastructure, business development, clean energy and indigenous participation in major projects across Canada because participation is important, but ownership is even more powerful. When communities have ownership, they do not just have a seat at the table; they have a stake in what is being built and a share in the benefits that result. Across Canada, we are already seeing examples of what that looks like.

Wataynikaneyap Power is a first nations majority-owned transmission project. The project connected remote communities and Ontario's electricity grid, reducing reliance on diesel fuel while creating a long-term indigenous-owned infrastructure asset that will provide benefits for generations to come.

The Canada Nickel's Crawford project is showing how indigenous communities are becoming true partners in Canada's critical mineral sector. The Taykwa Tagamou First Nation made a significant equity investment in the project, helping ensure that economic opportunities, decision-making and long-term benefits are shared with the community. The project will help supply the critical minerals needed for batteries and other clean technologies that drive down emissions while also creating jobs and economic growth in the region.

In B.C., the Portland Canal marine terminal is a deep-sea port with the primary purpose of critical mineral transportation from the region to overseas markets. The terminal is jointly owned by the Nisg̱a'a and Tahltan nations, as well as Arrow Transportation Systems.

These projects are among many across the country that show what reconciliation looks like in action. They demonstrate that indigenous communities are not simply participants in Canada's economy, but helping lead it.

Many indigenous communities have told us that consultations often start too late. Others have told us that they have to answer the same questions posed by different government departments. Some communities are experiencing consultation fatigue; in other words, they spend so much time navigating government processes that they have less time to devote to the issues that matter most. We have listened to these concerns. These comments have helped shape the building Canada act.

The goal of the legislation is simple. We want to make project reviews more efficient and more predictable while maintaining indigenous rights and environmental protections.

One of the key parts of the bill is reducing duplication. Instead of having several federal bodies reviewing the same project separately, the legislation supports a more coordinated approach with the goal of having one federal review process and one coordinated consultation process whenever possible. We also propose creating a Crown consultation hub. We can think of it as a central coordination team. Its job would be to help federal departments work together, identify issues earlier and improve communication with indigenous communities.

The goal is not to have less consultation; the goal is to have better consultation. We want indigenous communities spending less time dealing with red tape and more time having meaningful discussions about projects that affect their lands, waters and futures.

I also want to be very clear about what does not change under the building Canada strong act. Canada's duty to consult does not change. Our obligations under modern treaties and self-government agreements do not change. Indigenous rights remain protected. Meaningful consultation remains essential. When more time is needed for consultation, the legislation allows for extensions or timelines to be paused.

There is another reason why it is important for good projects to move ahead faster. If Canada really wants to fight climate change, we need to build infrastructure that will help to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and improve our future. That includes the renewable energy generation, power lines, energy storage and other clean energy projects. All too often, projects that could help communities reduce their dependence on diesel are subject to long, complicated approval processes.

By making reviews more efficient, reducing duplication and improving coordination, we can help move forward projects that Canadians need while continuing to uphold strong environmental protections and meaningful consultation with indigenous peoples. Building faster and protecting the environment are not competing goals. When done properly, they go hand in hand.

I also want to note that the situation in Canada's north is unique. In the Yukon, Nunavut and much of the Northwest Territories, project reviews are already carried out through modern treaty and co-management systems that were designed with indigenous partners and reflect constitutionally protected agreements. Bill C-39 does not replace those systems. However, in the Inuvialuit settlement region, where federal impact assessment processes continue to play a significant role, the improvements in coordination, consultation and permitting proposed in this legislation could help provide greater certainty and efficiency while continuing to respect indigenous rights and existing obligations.

Some people talk as though economic development and reconciliation were at odds. I see them as working hand in hand. Indigenous peoples are not just being consulted on major projects: They are increasingly owning, investing in and leading them. When indigenous communities are true partners, projects are stronger, communities benefit and everyone is better off. That is the vision behind the building Canada strong act. It is a Canada that builds, a Canada that creates jobs, a Canada that attracts investment and a Canada that respects indigenous rights, honours treaties and advances reconciliation.

We can build the infrastructure our country needs. We can create opportunities for future generations, and we can do it together. That is how we advance reconciliation. That is how we create shared prosperity. That is how we build Canada strong for all.