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 7th, 2026 / 9:15 p.m.

Conservative

John Brassard Conservative Barrie South—Innisfil, ON

Madam Speaker, all is not well in the Emerald City. Earlier today, while speaking on the bill, the Liberal member for West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, a member from the minister's caucus, spoke about Bill C-39's shortcomings but stopped short of explicitly calling for amendments to the bill. We believe there should be amendments.

Among the issues that he flagged are that there is too much discretion for ministers to exempt projects from environmental regulations and that the compressed timelines may prevent indigenous communities and NGOs from giving meaningful input, allowing construction to begin before an environmental assessment is complete. This is coming from a Liberal member of the caucus who has his own concerns about Bill C-39. There are multiple concerns right across the country with respect to this piece of legislation.

How would the minister react to the member's comments?

Building Canada Strong ActGovernment Orders

October 7th, 2026 / 9:20 p.m.

Liberal

Rebecca Alty Liberal Northwest Territories, NT

Madam Speaker, one great thing about this legislation is the opportunity to have efficiencies and to reduce duplication. For example, if there is an offshore energy project that is being proposed, right now it has to go through an assessment with the Impact Assessment Agency, as well as the Canada Energy Regulator. What is being proposed in Bill C-39 is that it would go from two agencies to one agency. It would be the Canada Energy Regulator doing the review. That would also be the federal department leading consultations and bringing the federal family in to do one project, one review, one consultation.

I would also note that the legislation allows for an extension, if need be, for further consultations. There are parameters in the legislation that allow for some flexibility, but the benefits of this legislation are really about reducing the duplication and having more coordinated consultation.

Another thing is that the minister's decision-making time goes from 90 days down to 65 days. Again, there would be no impact on consultation. It would just be with the minister for less time.

Building Canada Strong ActGovernment Orders

October 7th, 2026 / 9:20 p.m.

Bloc

Andréanne Larouche Bloc Shefford, QC

Madam Speaker, maybe it is because it is getting late, but I feel as though the government members are trying to hypnotize us into believing that everything is fine, but that is not true.

What does my colleague have to say to the Assembly of First Nations, which is concerned that the approval of major projects could have an impact on indigenous communities? What does she have to say about the fact that 100 indigenous communities could be affected by Bill C-39? What does she have to say about the fact that 14 indigenous communities are currently challenging this bill in court?

It is not just the Bloc Québécois that is saying this. Indigenous communities themselves are speaking out against this bill and saying that if Bill C-39 becomes law, it could seriously infringe on indigenous rights.

Building Canada Strong ActGovernment Orders

October 7th, 2026 / 9:20 p.m.

Liberal

Rebecca Alty Liberal Northwest Territories, NT

Madam Speaker, I have been talking about this legislation with indigenous leaders from across the country. Based on the feedback I am hearing about Bill C‑39, it offers the possibility of a consultation process coordinated by a single department. The process would be more organized, sparing communities from having to deal with different departments at different times of year.

The duty to consult remains unchanged. Currently, two agencies conduct assessments: the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada and the Canada Energy Regulator. The bill provides that only one agency will be responsible for assessment. That said, the factors to be considered and the duty to consult remain the same.

Building Canada Strong ActGovernment Orders

October 7th, 2026 / 9:20 p.m.

Liberal

Angelo Iacono Liberal Alfred-Pellan, QC

Madam Speaker, how would Bill C-39 help attract more investment to Canada while giving indigenous communities and peoples a say in approval processes?

Building Canada Strong ActGovernment Orders

October 7th, 2026 / 9:20 p.m.

Liberal

Rebecca Alty Liberal Northwest Territories, NT

Madam Speaker, I think that one of the benefits is that a lot of projects across Canada are led by indigenous communities or require their equitable participation. For them, the process is the same. With this bill, it will take less time and the work will move ahead faster.

Building Canada Strong ActGovernment Orders

October 7th, 2026 / 9:20 p.m.

Conservative

John Brassard Conservative Barrie South—Innisfil, ON

Madam Speaker, before I begin talking about Bill C-39, I want to wish my mom, Doreen, a very happy 80th birthday today. Earlier this evening, she was celebrating with family in Barrie. We do not have to sing happy birthday to her, because I know she will get embarrassed by it. She is a terrific lady, and I want to tell my mom I love her.

The second thing I would like to say tonight before I begin is that on this day, the third anniversary of October 7 and the massacre in Israel by Hamas, I want our Jewish community in Barrie South—Innisfil to know that I am here in Ottawa thinking about them today. To the members of the Am Shalom congregation, the Chabad Jewish Centre of Barrie and Chabad Innisfil with Rabbi Kaplan, we are all thinking about them today. I know this is a difficult day for our Jewish community. I know the thoughts of all parliamentarians are with our Jewish friends all across Canada today, not just in Barrie South—Innisfil.

In the time that I have, I want to focus on a couple of areas in Bill C-39. In particular, I want to focus on part 3, and I will explain what that is. I want to talk about the bureaucracy that would be created and the apparent lack of transparency and accountability that this bill would create, given the scope of ministerial power it allows.

As I said in a previous intervention, all is not well in Oz. The Emerald City is restless; there are many people who are dissenting against what Bill C-39 represents. Among those dissenters are labour organizations that have fought for generations for the types of gains they have had through the collective bargaining process.

As a proud former member and president of a firefighters association, the International Association of Fire Fighters, I believe in the collective bargaining process. I believe that negotiation is the best way to get a deal, not necessarily government intervention, which we have seen a lot of over the past several years with the Liberal government. There are many labour unions that have come out and spoken against what the bill represents.

Bill C-39 is an omnibus bill. By bringing it forward in the way that the Liberals have, they are effectively trying to force the opposition to support the bill in an all-or-nothing scenario. Earlier, we called for the Liberals to separate out part 3 of Bill C-39 for obvious reasons, as it is the most contentious part of the legislation, so that it could be scrutinized and voted on separately and not be part of this omnibus piece of legislation.

As I said earlier, there have been several labour organizations that have spoken out against the proposed changes in part 3, particularly those involved in federally regulated industries, including those of airline employees, airport workers, rail workers and dock workers. Many of them have spoken out about this.

The charge has really been led by the Canadian Labour Congress. In a document that it produced, it said that Bill C-39 would effectively give the Canadian government the broadest strike intervention powers in the entire G7. Not only has the Canadian Labour Congress come out but so too has the International Trade Union Confederation; United Steelworkers; CUPE; Unifor; OPSEU; the International Association of Fire Fighters, of which I was a member; and the Air Line Pilots Association of Canada. They have all come out and opposed this piece of legislation, particularly as it relates to part 3.

Here is what the Canadian Labour Congress said:

If passed, Bill C-39 would give the Canadian government broader unilateral power to end a legal strike than exists in any other G7 country, according to a comparative legal analysis commissioned by the Canadian Labour Congress....

That includes Donald Trump’s United States, where even the President cannot unilaterally end a national-emergency strike and impose a binding settlement. U.S. law requires a threat to national health or safety, court approval and a temporary limit on intervention.

“Canada should be setting the standard for workers’ rights, not falling behind every other G7 country.... If passed, Section 107 would give one minister extraordinary power to shut down a legal strike, with no parliamentary oversight and no one with the power to stop them.”

There are many unions, as I said, that are speaking out against this, including the Air Line Pilots Association. I bring that up because the riding I live in, Barrie South—Innisfil, is also known as “terminal 4”. There are two terminals at Pearson airport, 1 and 3, and Barrie South—Innisfil is known as terminal 4 for obvious reasons: because there is a large proportion of airline employees, pilots, flight attendants and airport workers who live there. They would be significantly impacted by the legislation and, in particular, the ministerial power that the legislation would grant to effectively end strikes or lockouts or actually preclude the negotiation process in a way that undermines workers' rights.

I talked about the G7 powers to intervene in legal strikes, and from the most limited to the broadest, if we compare France, for example, what triggers intervention is an urgent threat to public health or safety. In Germany, it is life or health risks. In Italy, it is serious and imminent harm to protected rights. In Japan, it is emergency adjustments. In the United Kingdom, there are none. In the United States, it is threats to national health and safety, as I said earlier. In Canada, if Bill C-39 is passed as is, it would be the minister's view of national interest. In that case, the minister could order work to be resumed and order binding resolution. The minister would retain the final decision, with no emergency threshold or fixed time limits.

Bill C-39 would effectively limit the ability of workers and unions to negotiate fair collective agreements and basically bring a sledgehammer to the negotiation process in an “either take it or leave it” offer. Worse yet, under the threat or guise of ministerial power, the bill could force those workers to accept a deal because the minister says it is in the national interest. That is quite concerning.

Look, there are good parts of the bill that we can support, but the omnibus nature of the bill really causes me concern as the MP for Barrie South—Innisfil, for the reasons I stated earlier, like having a lot of federally regulated employees who live in my riding. I know Conservatives will be seeking amendments at committee to ensure that the issues that have been addressed by these labour groups are thoughtfully considered when the bill gets to committee.

I hope, given the newfound manufactured majority at committees, that Liberal members will understand the broad concern that has been brought up by labour groups and will have those labour groups at the table so we can fully understand the impact of what Bill C-39 represents and make the appropriate amendments to the bill to ensure that labour rights and the collective bargaining process are protected in this country.

As I mentioned earlier, there are also concerns within the Liberal caucus. We heard a member earlier today speak about his concern in relation to the bill, the member for West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country. I will repeat what he said. He spoke about there being “too much discretion for ministers to exempt projects from environmental regulations, compressed timelines which may prevent Indigenous communities and NGOs from giving meaningful input and allowing construction to begin before an environmental assessment is complete.”

The other concern I have, and it is a significant one, is oversight, transparency and accountability on many of these decisions that would be made. When decisions are made in closed quarters, made by ministers or perhaps in backrooms, this prevents Canadians and MPs from ensuring that money is being spent and decisions are being made in the interests of our country, not in the interests of big business. As chair of the ethics committee, I will be keeping a very close eye on all of this to ensure that Canadians are getting the best bang for their buck.

Building Canada Strong ActGovernment Orders

October 7th, 2026 / 9:30 p.m.

Liberal

Angelo Iacono Liberal Alfred-Pellan, QC

Madam Speaker, if my opposition colleague claims to stand up for workers, why would he not support measures that increase health and safety inspections and strengthen the dispute resolution process?

Building Canada Strong ActGovernment Orders

October 7th, 2026 / 9:35 p.m.

Conservative

John Brassard Conservative Barrie South—Innisfil, ON

Madam Speaker, I think I gave the reasons I am concerned, in particular about part 3 of the bill. It would give broad ministerial discretion over the collective bargaining process and workers' rights under the guise of national interest. What is “national interest”? It is not defined. I am speaking here on behalf of the people I represent: the Air Line Pilots Association, flight attendants and other federally regulated workers who have expressed grave concern over this piece of legislation.

There are public sector unions that are not federally regulated that see this as a wedge and an opening to potential implications for the entire collective bargaining process in this country. That is what concerns me the most about this piece of legislation.

It is part of an omnibus bill. The Liberals included it in part 3 so that it would be an all-or-nothing approach. I resent that, and I hope that when the bill gets to committee, the voices of labour will be heard, and amendments will be made that correct this situation.

Building Canada Strong ActGovernment Orders

October 7th, 2026 / 9:35 p.m.

Green

Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC

Madam Speaker, I appreciated my hon. colleague's speech very much, particularly the commitment to address this bill and to make amendments in committee.

I do not know if the hon. member is aware, but I did contact all party whip offices, PROC and the Speaker's office to ask to be added to the special legislative committee that will be studying the bill. That request has been rejected, but I would appreciate any support from any member in this place to assist in pressing for amendments when it does get to committee.

I appreciate the hon. member's concern for labour rights. Would he also agree to try to add to the list that is in former Bill C-5 acts that they are not allowed to exempt?

Building Canada Strong ActGovernment Orders

October 7th, 2026 / 9:35 p.m.

Conservative

John Brassard Conservative Barrie South—Innisfil, ON

Madam Speaker, we have had a fulsome discussion at caucus about the bill. We have a strategy in place. We have shadow ministers who are leading that strategy, not just our shadow minister for transportation but for the environment as well. Our labour critic is certainly aware of what is needed to make sure this bill does not have unintended consequences. They will be doing everything they can to ensure that the rights of labour are protected, the rights of the environment are protected and certainly that transportation issues are addressed. I have full confidence in our transportation critic.

Building Canada Strong ActGovernment Orders

October 7th, 2026 / 9:35 p.m.

Bloc

Maxime Blanchette-Joncas Bloc Rimouski—La Matapédia, QC

Madam Speaker, I commend my colleague on his speech. I would like to make some historical references this evening, because what we are living through is a historic moment. Bill C-39 is not anodyne. It is a bill that takes a bulldozer to environmental laws. Just a few days ago, the former minister of environment and climate change, for those in this Parliament who still believe in climate change, said that Bill C‑39 goes further than what Stephen Harper was prepared to do in his day to defy environmental laws.

I would like my Conservative colleague to tell me whether he agrees with the former environment minister, former Liberal MP Steven Guilbeault, that the Liberals are currently going even further than Stephen Harper was prepared to go back when he was in power.

Building Canada Strong ActGovernment Orders

October 7th, 2026 / 9:35 p.m.

Conservative

John Brassard Conservative Barrie South—Innisfil, ON

Madam Speaker, I have heard the reference that this is a bulldozer rather than a building bill. It would certainly have an impact on environmental laws, labour laws and all of the things I said.

The one thing we have to watch, and the one thing, as I said earlier, as chair of the ethics committee that I will be watching from an oversight and transparency standpoint, is the impact that these decisions, which would be made for the most part by ministers and in large part in secret, are going to have on the Prime Minister's financial holdings. I am very concerned that public policy is aligning with not only Brookfield's strategy but also the Prime Minister's personal holdings, as it relates to the Brookfield Global Transition Fund I, and the impact that many of these projects, including carbon capture, ocean mapping, all of these things, will have on his personal holdings. It is incumbent upon not just me but all members of Parliament, in fact all Canadians, from a transparency standpoint, to watch very closely how the bill plays out.

Building Canada Strong ActGovernment Orders

October 7th, 2026 / 9:40 p.m.

Toronto Centre Ontario

Liberal

Evan Solomon LiberalMinister of Artificial Intelligence and Digital Innovation and Minister responsible for the Federal Economic Development Agency for Southern Ontario

Madam Speaker, it is a great honour to stand here today with my hon. colleagues in the House as we turn our attention to the proposed building Canada strong act, a bill, as we know, that would modernize regulatory reviews of major projects in this country and eliminate costly delays and uncertainty for proponents while ensuring that the rights and interests of indigenous peoples are upheld and that we maintain Canada's world-class environmental standards.

Canada has a simple question. Can we turn our enormous potential into real jobs, real projects and real prosperity? We have what the world wants. We have the energy, the resources, the technology, the workforce and what cannot be found in many other jurisdictions: We have the trust. However, it is not enough if it takes too long to make a decision, issue a permit or get shovels in the ground.

I do not think I need to remind anybody here that Canada faces an unprecedented economic threat, uncertainty and instability, circumstances that we did not create, that our workers did not create, but that have forced us to change in order to protect those good jobs, our economy and our sovereignty. That is exactly why we are bringing forward the building Canada strong act. This is about moving with urgency. It is about giving Canada a regulatory system that is clear, credible and capable of delivering. It is about doing it without in any way compromising Canada's world-class environmental protections and while upholding indigenous treaty rights.

We must move faster, but we cannot cut corners. We must protect the environment, but we also must create good jobs. We must build responsibly and with urgency because in the world we face today, delay is not an option. When a responsible project does not move forward, the investment will go somewhere else, the jobs and the opportunities will go somewhere else, and our government will not let the future be defined by missed opportunities because of delay.

The building Canada strong act proposes changes to a lot of things. We understand that. There would be changes to the Impact Assessment Act, the Building Canada Act, the Canadian Energy Regulator Act, the Fisheries Act, the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, the Species at Risk Act and the Canadian Navigable Waters Act. That is a lot of legislative titles, but the purpose is clear. It is to make federal decisions faster, to make the process clearer and to give communities, indigenous partners, workers, investors and Canadians greater certainty about what happens next.

We have heard from the public that we do not need weaker standards, and we will never have those. We need a government that can organize itself and coordinate things to work more responsibly and more expeditiously. That is the balance in this bill: speed and responsibility, growth and protection, ambition and trust.

The proposed amendments would create a more coordinated federal process for all major projects, with clear timelines and more predictable decisions. Once a proponent has submitted a complete application with all the required information, federal reviews and decisions would be made within a year. In simple terms, the work would happen together instead of separately, not one step after another. Impact assessments and permit reviews would proceed at the same time, federal experts would be brought in earlier, duplication would be reduced, and problems would be identified sooner, not at the end of the process when they are hard and, frankly, expensive to solve.

The Impact Assessment Agency of Canada is already helping proponents get ready before formal assessment begins. It is ensuring close coordination with federal departments and agencies, enhancing co-operation with provinces under landmark agreements for one project, one review, and focusing assessments on key issues within federal jurisdiction. This bill also introduces amendments that would ensure the federal regulator, with the most relevant experience and expertise, is carrying out impact assessments, putting the right expertise in the lead.

Under this proposed approach, pipelines, transmission lines and certain offshore renewable energy projects regulated by the Canada Energy Regulator would solely be assessed by the CER through its process under the Canadian Energy Regulator Act. For nuclear and uranium projects, the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission would, logically, conduct impact assessments by following the rigorous process and requirements set out by the Impact Assessment Act. This is all common sense. These regulators understand these technologies. They understand the risks. They understand the full life cycle of these projects that they regulate.

However, let me be clear: Environmental, health, social, economic and indigenous considerations would continue to be assessed. The standards would remain. The oversight would remain. What would change is the unnecessary duplication between federal processes that slows things down.

Another important improvement being introduced through the bill would be the creation of a federal review coordination function and a Crown consultation hub, both to be housed inside the Impact Assessment Agency.

The federal review coordinator would be responsible for ensuring that impact assessments are led by the Impact Assessment Agency and federal permits meet the new timelines. That is key. It would also work with experts in different federal departments to ensure that everything stays organized and on track.

The Crown consultation hub would coordinate one clear consultation process for each indigenous group affected by a major project. This would replace multiple overlapping and repetitive federal processes and help reduce, essentially, consultation fatigue. Meaningful consultation matters, but it need not be repetitive. It should not require indigenous partners to repeat the same work for different parts of the same government. Better coordination would ensure the Crown upholds its obligations and would provide indigenous partners a process that is clear, coherent and more respectful of their time.

Furthermore, to ensure clearer, more streamlined project decisions, the government is also proposing legislative changes to move toward a single comprehensive federal decision for major project permits and for approvals, which would result in one federal decision document that would be issued by the Minister of the Environment, Climate Change and Nature. This document would include all federal decisions required for a project to move forward if it is undergoing a comprehensive impact assessment, while the federal review coordinator would ensure that all relevant federal experts across the government would provide timely advice and any key recommendations needed for that decision.

For too long, proponents have had to move from department to department, process to process and decision to decision, creating unnecessary delays and a lot of uncertainty. The cost has been that this country has not remained competitive. This bill is practical and would make practical changes for that. It would move certain decisions, not all, from cabinet to the responsible minister. Conditions imposed on proponents would need to be technically and economically feasible. Some early construction activities could actually begin before final impact decisions, but only when the necessary permits have been approved. These are common-sense improvements that would help the federal government make the sound decisions we need to make.

When companies choose Canada, workers benefit. When responsible projects move forward, communities benefit. When we build the infrastructure, energy systems and nation-building projects the world needs, our whole country benefits. We have worked very hard with every province that supports our goal of one project, one review. That matters. This is a team effort. Provinces, territories, indigenous rights holders, municipalities, workers, industries and communities all have to play a role, and the changes proposed in Bill C-39 would give us a stronger, more efficient system.

As the Prime Minister said, Canada has what the world wants. It is now up to us to take action, to build our country faster and to create the jobs and opportunities here that will strengthen our economic sovereignty and our country.

We are turning Canada and our potential into prosperity. It is common sense. There would be no compromise on the environment. There would be no compromise on consultation with indigenous communities. This is about building stronger, building Canadian and building together.

Building Canada Strong ActGovernment Orders

October 7th, 2026 / 9:45 p.m.

Conservative

Dan Albas Conservative Okanagan Lake West—South Kelowna, BC

Madam Speaker, the Liberals keep talking about one year, one review, but it is not consistent, it is not predictable and it is not certain in Bill C-39.

I have asked Liberal members time and time again why major transportation projects are not subject to a statutory deadline of 12 months, as is purported for projects under the Impact Assessment Agency, the Canada Energy Regulator or the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission. Some have said that transportation is too difficult. That is ridiculous.

If we can require the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission to come up with a reasonable result, a yes or a no within 12 months, we can imagine that it would go for it. This creates a lot of questions, because someone could get a writ of mandamus and force a regulator to come to a decision if it went past the statutory deadline.

Can the minister take a look at his notes, maybe fire up Copilot and answer the question: Why is it two-tier, and why is transportation not getting the same treatment as other types of projects?