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

[Angelo Iacono, Liberal, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I completely agree with my colleague. This is the type of leadership Canada needs today. We have the resources, workers and businesses needed to build a stronger economy. Bill C‑39 gives us the tools to move projects forward more quickly, attract investment and strengthen our supply chains, all without compromising our environmental standards or our commitments to indigenous peoples. We can protect the environment and create jobs, and we must do both.

[Helena Konanz, Conservative, Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my question is pretty simple to my colleague across the floor. I appreciated his presentation.

I am fairly new at this. I have only been an MP for a little over a year, close to a year and a half. I just want to know what happened to Bill C-5. Why did it not work? The government was supposed to build at speeds unheard of. I cannot name a project that has come through; maybe the member can.

What happened to Bill C-5 and why do we need this new bill?

[Angelo Iacono, Liberal, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is quite simple: real projects planned out with predictable permitting timelines. Any serious project requires planning. Businesses, workers and communities need to know when decisions will be made. That is why Bill C‑39 seeks to make processes more predictable and efficient, with the goal of reaching a federal decision within one year when an application is complete. This does not mean projects will be approved automatically; it means we are providing a clear timeline while continuing to follow the rules.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I feel like we are playing a game of spot-the-lie tonight. How can my colleague say that this bill respects indigenous rights when over 100 communities are being threatened by the prospect of a western pipeline and when 14 communities are challenging Bill C‑39 in court? How can he say things like that and not see that his nose is growing longer?

[Angelo Iacono, Liberal, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I completely disagree with my colleague's remarks. Bill C‑39 does not release our government from its duty to consult indigenous peoples and respect their rights. On the contrary, it seeks to make consultations more coordinated and more predictable.

Our government is proposing a coordinated consultation process to facilitate indigenous participation in project assessments. Accelerating a process should not come at the cost of rights. Consultations must continue, impacts must be assessed and mitigation measures must be applied fully.

[Helena Konanz, Conservative, Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is always an honour to speak in this House on behalf of my constituents of Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay, especially on legislation of such national importance as Bill C-39.

I cannot help but feel some déjà vu. One of the first votes I took in this chamber after election last year was on Bill C-5. At that time, the Liberal government presented it because faster approvals for the Canadian economy were getting trapped in the Liberals' own rules and red tape. In my experience at the local government level, when we heard from builders that a piece of red tape was restricting their ability to get critical infrastructure built, we would do what we could do, and I would do what I could to remove it. However, the Liberal government passed new laws that allow them to ignore the old Liberal laws. Those burdensome regulations, like antidevelopment laws Bills C-69 and C-48, still exist and are still applying to projects that are struggling to get built. If the government would like to introduce legislation to repeal those bills, I would be pleased to help it pass quickly.

The Liberals chose to build complicated workarounds that sacrifice clear rules in favour of ministerial influence. In other words, there is a lot of red tape. Nonetheless, I supported Bill C-5 as the only available option to get around that red tape, because I support building the critical infrastructure that is needed to strengthen our economic sovereignty. However, here we are a year and a half later debating another law, Bill C-39, which again seeks to adopt a workaround to bad Liberal laws.

What happened to C-5? Is this because 18 months after we passed Bill C-5, zero major projects proposed under it have been built? With Bill C-5, the Liberals promised Canada would soon be building at unimaginable speeds. It has taken a year and a half and I am not seeing those projects. No one is. Instead, we are still stuck in the same delays and bureaucracy they created in their 11 years in office. For these 18 months under the Prime Minister, we have only seen projects stack up on desks around the city of Ottawa. Hundreds of proposed projects are stuck in bureaucratic processes across the many agencies and impact assessment offices we find across government.

The government now proposes Bill C-39 as a solution, another Liberal solution to a problem a Liberal bill caused. Too much of what the government claims as success exists only on paper and not in reality. There is no concrete steel rebar we can touch, just signatures on paper and MOUs.

Certainly, in my region, as a major centre of the Canadian economy when it comes to lumber, mining and agriculture, infrastructure upgrades are certainly needed but have seen no urgency. One example is that cellular reception remains critically poor in 90% of the communities in my very large riding, something I have raised with the Liberal government several times with no results or announcements.

Another example is that infrastructure links are vital in the south Okanagan, a growing region that is seeking to supply Canadian meat, fruit and agriculture products alongside critical minerals and lumber products from the Similkameen and Boundary to our country and the world. Our region is entirely dependent on transporting goods north or south on a two-lane highway, Highway 97, in a region heavily affected by both wildfires, as we heard about in Summerland and Penticton this past summer, and flooding, where there are regular landslides, accidents and the like, and the road is blocked or closed on the one artery we have between the north and south Okanagan.

The Minister of Transport has heard and seen the proposals made by myself and my colleague, the member for Okanagan Lake West—South Kelowna, for a partnership of investment between the province and federal government into constructing a permanent secondary route between Kelowna and the south Okanagan to expedite transportation times through the Okanagan in times of crisis.

Similarly, the minister is aware of my advocacy for the upgrades needed to the Castlegar airport that services the Selkirk College Ion-source Research Centre, which drives particle acceleration and ion-source technology innovation for global medical, semiconductor, clean energy and research markets. Yet, no concrete action on the upgrades that the Castlegar airport requires have been followed up on.

Will these projects be better served under Bill C-39? These are just examples. The bill promises to accelerate the Liberals' complicated project approvals, but will it? On first reading, it seems it would only create more delays instead of completions.

The Liberals opposite have been saying that Bill C-39 would create a one-year approval process, but when does the clock start on that process? It would not be until the subsection 19(4) completeness determination is issued by the responsible authority. What is the timeline or deadline for that assurance? There is none. The bill sets no deadline for making that determination. It is no good saying that we will deliver a pizza in 30 minutes if the pizza shop cannot decide when that 30 minutes starts. A one-year timeline for project approvals is not a finish line if we cannot tell the applicant where and when they start. Those looking to apply need certainty and predictability, especially when we are talking about projects that may cost hundreds of billions of dollars.

The government is also promoting that Bill C-39 would create the transportation projects office, another office perhaps for my local regional districts or airport authorities to apply to, which is more red tape. However, nothing in this legislation would provide this office any authority. It seems to be yet another concrete filing cabinet where applications go, but never come back out. This is no different from the current process and the hundreds of proposals stranded in office towers all around this city.

Real legislation to open major construction, private investment and industrial development would require eliminating the industrial carbon tax, which increases the cost to build with Canadian-made steel and aluminum. It would also require repealing the Liberals' antidevelopment law, Bill C-69, which gums up our major infrastructure projects in constant reapprovals to satisfy vague rules. How vague? The legislation states that project applications would still have to consider, “any other matter relevant to the impact assessment that the Agency...requires to be taken into account.” That is about as vague and unhelpful to a private developer or a municipal planner as we are bound to find.

Lastly, I want to touch quickly upon the issue of labour and the changes proposed to the Labour Code, which are extensive and merit scrutiny. I have heard from many residents opposed to the bill because of these changes, and I appreciate them sharing their feedback with me and my office. Any time Parliament touches upon workers' rights in their workplace or in their union, we owe workers an extensive right of response. It is my hope that when the government passes its bill on to the committee stage, workers can have a seat at that committee table to have their voices heard. I will certainly look forward to following the debate as it continues.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague does us a great favour.

I would ask the member if she can remember the rush that everybody was in, in June 2025, that Bill C-5 had to be passed before we rose for the summer. We went from second reading to royal assent between a Monday and a Friday. There was no time to study it, and no time to think. It was just important to get it passed, because we were in such a hurry, and exactly as she said, not one single project was listed under Bill C-5 until about two weeks ago when the Liberals decided, in cabinet, to say that what they are now calling the Pacific link is the first project. After more than a year, after the rush to pass the bill we could not study, they have now put forward a pipeline, which they could not even accurately describe in the Canada Gazette.

Does the member have any thoughts on this?

[Helena Konanz, Conservative, Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I remember Bill C-5 because it was one of the first bills I voted on. I was happy to support anything that would bring infrastructure to our country and infrastructure to create a more sovereign country. I think because of the criticism that the government has had for not creating any projects with Bill C-5, even though it was rushed through so fast, the Liberals made an announcement last week. Is it actually going to happen? Is that project going to come through? I doubt it.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, imagine this. The Prime Minister was elected 18 months ago with a new government and said we were going to have a new projects office, which was set up a few months later. We passed legislation and worked with premiers and indigenous leaders. A lot of collaboration took place. There are already half a trillion dollars' worth of projects at the new office located in Calgary. The member opposite and Conservatives are asking where all the buildings are and where they were all built. We are talking about multi-billion-dollar projects. We do not just click our heels and they appear out of nowhere. It takes some time. Canadians understand that. The Conservatives are out in the wilderness, and they do not understand that fact.

Does the Conservative Party not realize that it does take some time? I will give my personal guarantee that there will be thousands of things built within the next year by—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

I am sorry, but I have to give time to the member to respond.

The hon. member for Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay.

[Helena Konanz, Conservative, Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I think my colleague needs to remember that there were promises that Canada would soon be building at unimaginable speeds. Instead, what we are hearing now is that the Liberals need another layer of bureaucracy in order to start building at those unimaginable speeds.

The member promises there will be thousands and thousands of projects coming forward. I would like to see one thing built. I am looking forward to it.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have a quick question for my colleague. I thank her for her interesting speech. She drew a connection to Bill C-5, which, I repeat, was a massive bill that repealed other democratically enacted laws. Bill C-39 is also a bill that repeals a whole host of laws.

What message does that send about democracy?

[Helena Konanz, Conservative, Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the message being sent is that there can be promises made and not kept, and that is not a good thing for democracy.

If the Liberals would like to introduce legislation to repeal Bill C-69 and Bill C-48, I would be pleased to help them pass that legislation really quickly. I would trust that they have Canadians in mind and are here to help us, but since they are not, those bills are plugging up infrastructure being built, and I do not see how it can be done.

[Karim Bardeesy, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to this very important bill today. I want to start with the context of the legislation and the context that became quite apparent during the election campaign. I want to start with that because it is important to establish the “why” of this piece of legislation and what is guiding the government's agenda.

I am going to start with a quote from our campaign manifesto because it identifies very well the calls that Canadians had around the items in this bill and that indeed motivated many people in their support of our campaign. It is on the very first page of the manifesto:

Canada is the best country in the world. Our sovereignty is under threat. America's unjustified trade war is an attempt to weaken us. We will not let that happen. It's time to build a future that makes Canada strong. We can give ourselves much more than any foreign government, including the United States, can ever take away. Building one Canadian economy, for example, can expand our economy by up to $200 billion—proof that we are strongest when we are united.

To unite this country, [we] will build one economy where Canadians can work wherever they want. Where goods can move freely from coast to coast to coast. Where the government's significant purchasing power buys Canadian goods and supports Canadian industries and workers. Where we use domestic strength to grow a strong economy that can never be taken away.

As Canadians, we have our own unique identity, history, and geography. To keep Canada strong, we will protect our culture, protect our environment, and protect our core values. And continue to build in true partnership with Indigenous Peoples.

That was the context of this campaign, and that was the context that resulted in the questions and encouragement I was hearing from constituents in Taiaiako'n—Parkdale—High Park. It really came down to three or four things that were underlying the arguments we were making and the support we got.

First, Canadians and people in Taiaiako'n—Parkdale—High Park were looking for a new generation of economic growth in the context of the attack on our sovereignty and in the context of the realization that we needed to do some things differently. They were also looking for climate policy that works, that gets results, that continues to achieve the greenhouse gas reductions we need and that gets us to net zero by 2050.

They also observed, especially in contrast to the economic growth that they were seeking and the sovereignty that they expected us to express, some frustrations with the ways that we build. Indeed, in this bill, we have been talking about projects that cover vast distances. In cities, we also build. The residents of the city of Toronto and the residents in my riding have been getting frustrated on occasion by the slow pace of building, whether it is building transportation infrastructure in particular or building the other kinds of economic goods that maybe are not as visible. On transportation infrastructure, there is the Eglinton Crosstown LRT and other transportation projects that are taking a long time to build. However, we have other economic and transportation projects that are delivering results to people in our ridings and to people in cities.

It is an important question when we look at the kinds of projects that this bill is contemplating, like the natural resource projects and the energy and electricity projects. They might appear to be far away from urban residents, but people in our ridings and people in urban Canada see the benefit of these projects that are being built sometimes far away from them because we have nuclear engineers in our ridings. We have tradespeople. We have people who work in the oil and gas sector. We have people who work on electricity, on renewable energy and definitely in ports and transportation. I have people in my riding, in a beautiful corner of west Toronto, Taiaiako'n—Parkdale—High Park, who work in the services sectors that are covered by the kinds of projects we are talking about in this bill.

We can talk about how we build in cities, especially in a city like Toronto, the capital of the largest province in Canada, the financial capital of this country, a centre for research, a centre for innovation and a centre of not only the services economy but the goods economy. There is manufacturing that happens within our borders, including in my riding, and people are looking at those things and the broader picture of how economic growth happens. They were asking us the question during the campaign, “Can we catalyze a new generation of economic growth while asserting sovereignty and achieving climate policy results?”

This bill is a very natural response to the kinds of things that people in west Toronto, in my riding of Taiaiako'n—Parkdale—High Park and indeed across the country were responding to and expecting when the campaign was unleashed and when the words that I read in our party's manifesto were written. I think it is really important to share some of the things the bill would do and some of the things the bill would not do, because I think there has been a lot of misinformation and a lot of misconceptions about what the bill would and would not do. I will give some examples.

For instance, the bill would allow an opportunity to formally designate strategic national trade corridors. I think a lot of Canadians would be surprised that the federal government does not have this power already. This is a very important thing to be able to do if we are going to be building transportation infrastructure.

This bill would also give the power to declare regions of national interest. I see this as part of good planning. Cities already have the power to do land use planning. Provinces often have industrial regions. We have Alberta's industrial heartland, and there are many parts of cities that provide a set way of doing regional planning for economic purposes, while also including the full set of environmental considerations for certain species and other considerations. The bill would simply brings that lens to the opportunities that the federal government might identify with partners.

I think a lot of people would be surprised that these powers do not exist already. Where the bill says to do those kinds of things, it would not mean we end consultations. In fact, before and after permits are issued, there would still be consultation involved. This bill would not mean we would disregard cumulative effects. In fact, when we do regional planning, the kind of planning that is contemplated by the processes in this bill, land use planning cumulative effects would still be very much at the fore.

Enabling digital trade is another key part of this bill. I think Canadians would be very surprised that digital documents in the transportation sector are not already recognized as being equivalent. This is a very positive measure to help the federal government help people who are involved in trade and transportation-related trade to catch up to the ways of doing business that we would expect.

The bill would provide for one year for reviews for pipelines, designated power lines and offshore renewable energy projects. That is what it would do. It would not presume the outcome of any review. It would not say that a project will or will not go ahead. It would provide a one-year timeline, and it would provide that opportunity for, in particular, designated power lines and offshore renewable energy projects. I am going to get to those in a second.

Bill C-39 would provide, as my colleague from Calgary Confederation and the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations mentioned, the coordination of indigenous consultations. It would not end UNDRIP. It would not change our obligations under the charter in section 35. Those are entirely preserved. The bill would provide the coordination that makes it easier for indigenous peoples, and especially smaller communities, to take part meaningfully in consultations.

The bill would codify existing practices, including some economic and other considerations in the species at risk determinations. It would not end or gut the Species at Risk Act in any way. In fact, one of the major things we did from the consultation we did at the outset of this bill, which resulted in reports over the summer that were published in the early fall and that helped inform this legislation, was remove the limited exemptions to the jeopardy test that were of rightful concern to many Canadians.

The legislation would do a lot of things that would provide economic certainty and provide certainty to investors, but it would maintain high standards. This piece of legislation would not do a lot of the things that some of the fearmongering that I have heard in this House alleges.

This is also in the context of an incredibly rich set of climate policy achievements that this government has brought forward. They are achievements like the national electricity strategy, which is going to double our electricity generation with major projects like Churchill Falls. It is a very exciting project that has been mentioned repeatedly in my riding of Taiaiako'n—Parkdale—High Park.

The bill would tackle the methane emissions that we have been looking to tackle for a long time. We have an industrial carbon price that has been preserved despite the complaints from the members opposite. It has clean energy tax credits. We have a nature strategy, an oceans protection strategy, EV rebates and a whole set of climate policy objectives that are an important piece of context for the bill. They are not in the bill, but they all create the permission space for us to do the kind of work we need to do, especially in electrification. In fact, I would argue that if members want to accelerate the move to net zero and do more electrification, then they should get behind this bill 100%, because it would create the permissions, opportunities and timelines to get electrification done faster.

That is the context of the bill. It would mean that we can build in the right way, build towards net zero and we can build sustainably.

I appreciate the chance to participate in the debate.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-39 does not have to gut the Endangered Species Act, and it does not have to gut the federal Impact Assessment Act, because Bill C-5 has already done that, and Bill C-5 is in place, allowing maximum discretion for whenever a project is dreamed up by cabinet with no guidelines or criteria. As for a project in the national interest, it is allowed to exempt that project from the application of all the other acts that are mentioned, except the specific ones that I will mention in my speech that it is not allowed to exempt.

Bill C-5 and Bill C-39 together mean bulldozing through decades of progress in knowing how to plan a project to succeed. This is reckless fiscal irresponsibility.