Building Canada Strong Act

An Act respecting certain measures to strengthen the economy

Sponsor

Steven MacKinnon  Liberal

Status

Second reading (House), as of Sept. 25, 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

The EnvironmentOral Questions

September 25th, 2026 / 12:05 p.m.


See context

NDP

Leah Gazan NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB

Mr. Speaker, indigenous peoples and environmental groups warned that Bill C-5 lets the government override environmental protections and constitutionally protected indigenous rights in the name of the so-called national interest, but apparently that was not enough. Now with Bill C-39, the Liberals are expanding their power to fast-track major projects and weaken those same protections.

After a summer of wildfires burned homes to the ground, why does the government keep bending the rules for corporations while trampling on indigenous rights and putting our environment at risk?

The EconomyOral Questions

September 25th, 2026 / 11:45 a.m.


See context

London Centre Ontario

Liberal

Peter Fragiskatos LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Immigration

Mr. Speaker, the member calls for a focus on economic renewal in this country. We have an opportunity as members of Parliament in this House of Commons to support Bill C-39, a bill that is focused on building up this country. We used to build things in this country. We used to do that, and that is exactly what this government wants to do.

We call on Conservatives to put aside partisanship, much along the lines of what former prime minister Harper did quite recently. He put aside partisanship for the benefit of this country. Let us work together.

The EnvironmentOral Questions

September 25th, 2026 / 11:35 a.m.


See context

Bloc

Xavier Barsalou-Duval Bloc Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC

Mr. Speaker, what the Liberals are doing through Bill C-39 is nothing new. It is rooted in the concept of a permanent state of emergency. That is when a government exploits a crisis, a temporary situation, to impose changes that are actually permanent and that would never be acceptable under normal circumstances.

The Liberals are using the trade war and Donald Trump to introduce permanent rollbacks that will impact the environment, workers' rights, land protection, endangered species and more. The Liberals are not doing this to protect Quebeckers; they are doing it to line the pockets of the oil companies. Have they no shame?

The EnvironmentOral Questions

September 25th, 2026 / 11:35 a.m.


See context

Bloc

Xavier Barsalou-Duval Bloc Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC

Mr. Speaker, with Bill C-39, the Liberals are exploiting the public's fear of Donald Trump.

Let us not forget that, under the pretext of fighting tariffs, they gave themselves the power to circumvent all environmental laws in order to build pipelines. That is irresponsible, but at least the Bloc Québécois managed to get a sunset clause added so that it would expire after five years, because Donald Trump will no longer be in office in five years' time. However, in Bill C‑39, they are repealing that provision. They want to circumvent environmental laws for good.

Does this not prove that the tariff crisis is basically just an excuse for them to bulldoze over everything?

TaxationOral Questions

September 25th, 2026 / 11:35 a.m.


See context

Nipissing—Timiskaming Ontario

Liberal

Pauline Rochefort LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Secretary of State (Rural Development)

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to wish my colleague a happy Franco-Ontarian Day. In answer to his question, I would also like to make two points.

This week, our government introduced two very important bills that go hand in hand. We introduced Bill C-38, which comprehensively addresses affordability issues, and I could name others, considering the numerous initiatives introduced over the past few months. We also introduced Bill C-39, which is going to create good jobs and strengthen our economy. That is what Canadians in our ridings want.

Gabriel Ste-Marie Bloc Joliette—Manawan, QC

Mr. Speaker, indeed, we could call it pipeline spaghetti.

Bill C‑39 also undermines workers' rights. At the federal level, strikes always play out the same way. Employers allow negotiations to deteriorate while they wait for Ottawa to put an end to them using section 107. That would not change.

What is changing is that Ottawa is now going to tell unions when and how to begin negotiations. It would also be able to stop negotiations by invoking vague concepts of national interest and social disruption.

According to the Fédération des travailleurs et travailleuses du Québec, Bill C‑39 would give the government the power of life or death over the right to strike. Why would anyone trust the federal government with that power?

The EnvironmentOral Questions

September 25th, 2026 / 11:25 a.m.


See context

Bloc

Yves Perron Bloc Berthier—Maskinongé, QC

Mr. Speaker, the leader of the House is right. The goal of Bill C-39 is not to lower environmental standards. It is to eliminate them.

If a pipeline were to go through Quebec, here is what Bill C-39 sets out for the environmental assessment. The energy regulator in Calgary will be the one to make the final decision. It is made up of seven commissioners, and five of the seven come from the oil industry.

At the table are TC Energy, Shell, Pembina Pipeline, Canadian Oil Sands Limited and Cenovus Energy. Meanwhile, scientists and Quebeckers do not have a seat at the table.

If we are not at the table, are we on the menu?

The EnvironmentOral Questions

September 25th, 2026 / 11:20 a.m.


See context

Bloc

Yves Perron Bloc Berthier—Maskinongé, QC

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister claims that Bill C‑39 does not lower environmental standards.

Let us imagine a pipeline project in Quebec, like Marinvest. Under Bill C‑39, pipelines are exempt from environmental impact assessments. The only assessment will be the one completed by the energy regulator in Calgary, which has never seen a pipeline it did not like. Worse still, Ottawa wants to be able to allow proponents to start their work before the assessment is complete.

How can anyone claim that this is not a step backwards?

Business of the HouseOral Questions

September 24th, 2026 / 3:15 p.m.


See context

Gatineau Québec

Liberal

Steven MacKinnon LiberalMinister of Transport and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, I want to extend my own welcome back to Parliament to my colleague across the floor. I know that this particular slot in the week keeps people on the edge of their seats rapt, as we do the Thursday question at this time every week.

This is season two, episode one, and we do have to leave some cliffhangers, in the best TV tradition. I have taken careful note of the requests of my friend, the opposition House leader. He can be sure that we will continue to find ways to make life more affordable for Canadians, and prolonging the excise tax relief is an important step. As for the war in Iran, any increase in revenue that the government may have derived from it, we are returning to Canadians.

With respect to major projects, that is where we will leave the cliffhanger. As we return for the next episode, the opposition House Leader may have a different question to ask.

This afternoon and tomorrow, we will continue with the second reading debate of Bill C-39, the building Canada strong act.

When we return after spending a week in our ridings, we will resume consideration of that bill on Monday and Wednesday.

I would also like to inform the House that Tuesday, October 6, and Thursday, October 8, shall be allotted days.

Finally, Friday will be devoted to the second reading debate of Bill C-37, the first nations clean water act.

Thank you and welcome back, Mr. Speaker. It is good to see you again, too.

The EnvironmentOral Questions

September 24th, 2026 / 2:40 p.m.


See context

Bloc

Patrick Bonin Bloc Repentigny, QC

Mr. Speaker, I would remind the House that, using Bill C-5, the Prime Minister gave himself the power to suspend environmental laws for his oil projects. Luckily, the Bloc Québécois managed to limit that abuse to five years. According to the Liberals, it was all in a bid to combat Donald Trump. Bill C-39 removes this five-year limit and allows the application of environmental laws to be suspended indefinitely.

Why are the Liberals using the tariff war as a pretext to exacerbate the climate crisis and line the pockets of the oil companies?

The EnvironmentOral Questions

September 24th, 2026 / 2:40 p.m.


See context

Bloc

Patrick Bonin Bloc Repentigny, QC

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister just returned from the United Nations, where Secretary-General Guterres once again implored countries to phase out fossil fuels. Meanwhile, Canada introduced Bill C‑39, which gets rid of impact assessments for pipeline projects and makes it possible to permanently circumvent environmental laws. Greenpeace and Environmental Defence called it the “Bulldoze Nature” bill. Ecojustice called the bill catastrophic. No other bill in Canadian history has been worse for the environment.

How can the Liberals sleep at night after defending such a bill?

Intergovernmental AffairsOral Questions

September 24th, 2026 / 2:30 p.m.


See context

Bloc

Yves-François Blanchet Bloc Beloeil—Chambly, QC

Mr. Speaker, this is not an idle question. We are talking about permanently suspending the rule of law and possibly the Constitution to benefit foreign multinationals.

Some people are even talking about putting parts of Quebec and the provinces under federal control.

Does the Prime Minister recognize that Bill C‑39 will result in Ottawa taking control of parts of Quebec and the provinces?

Intergovernmental AffairsOral Questions

September 24th, 2026 / 2:30 p.m.


See context

Nepean Ontario

Liberal

Mark Carney LiberalPrime Minister

Mr. Speaker, Bill C‑39 involves federal decisions. Yes, it is true that we have co-operation agreements with six provinces. In those cases, we are using the provinces' skills, expertise and so on. However, this bill only involves the federal government and decisions made by the federal government.

Intergovernmental AffairsOral Questions

September 24th, 2026 / 2:25 p.m.


See context

Nepean Ontario

Liberal

Mark Carney LiberalPrime Minister

Mr. Speaker, Bill C‑39 is about efficiency, not about how high the standards are. That is the first thing. It should only take one year to get a decision on environmental standards, co-operation with indigenous peoples and all other aspects of a project.

That is the idea behind the bill: to take action.

Intergovernmental AffairsOral Questions

September 24th, 2026 / 2:25 p.m.


See context

Bloc

Yves-François Blanchet Bloc Beloeil—Chambly, QC

Mr. Speaker, first, there were projects of national interest. Then there were corridors of national interest. Now there are regions of national interest.

The Bloc Québécois, experts and media outlets know that, with Bill C‑39, the federal government is permanently taking over jurisdiction from Quebec and the provinces, particularly regarding the environment, and suspending its own laws based on the judgment of a single minister.

Can the Prime Minister confirm that this interpretation is accurate?

Intergovernmental AffairsOral Questions

September 23rd, 2026 / 2:30 p.m.


See context

Bloc

Jean-Denis Garon Bloc Mirabel, QC

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is completely cutting Quebec out of decisions that affect it. It happened with Bill C-39, and it happened again this morning with the tax cut for businesses. Christine Fréchette says that she was never consulted about this tax cut that will blow a $1-billion hole in Quebec's public finances every year. In the middle of an election, all the parties are finding out that they will have to prepare a budget on October 6 with $1 billion less to work with.

The Prime Minister's stubborn insistence on flying solo is plainly detrimental to the governance of Quebec. Is he going to keep on behaving as though the Government of Quebec does not exist?

Intergovernmental AffairsOral Questions

September 23rd, 2026 / 2:25 p.m.


See context

Bloc

Christine Normandin Bloc Saint-Jean, QC

Mr. Speaker, I will take that as a no. Quebec was not consulted on regions of national interest. That is not all. After announcing, without consulting Quebec, that it planned to privatize airports, the government is now using Bill C‑39 to privatize ports. Quebec's ports are obviously essential infrastructure for our economy, but the federal government is opening the door for them to be run by foreign investors.

Did the Prime Minister once again forget to consult Quebec before introducing legislation to privatize its ports?

Intergovernmental AffairsOral Questions

September 23rd, 2026 / 2:25 p.m.


See context

Bloc

Christine Normandin Bloc Saint-Jean, QC

Mr. Speaker, Bill C‑39 has nothing to do with making Canada strong. It is a bill for making democracy weak. It is 250 pages of measures that take an axe to almost every federal law, undermining our rights and harming our environment. In one of these measures, Ottawa is giving itself the power to designate any part of Quebec as a region of national interest and place it under federal control.

Did the Prime Minister consult Quebec before seizing power over Quebec soil?

National Day for Truth and ReconciliationStatements by Members

September 23rd, 2026 / 2:10 p.m.


See context

Bloc

Marilène Gill Bloc Côte-Nord—Kawawachikamach—Nitassinan, QC

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Bloc Québécois, I rise to mark the National Day for Truth and Reconciliation.

As we all know, reconciliation means bringing together what was divided. However, in a colonial context, that unifying bond never existed. To build that bond, we need to truly connect with one another as trusted equals. That is the key to ensuring the vitality and sustainability of this relationship.

For this trust to exist, it must be deeply rooted in the truth. It is only by learning about and acknowledging our history, as painful as it might be, that we can dispel mistrust.

Truth and reconciliation: These two words need to actually mean something. They need to lead to change and show our resolve. We cannot champion truth and reconciliation on one hand, while advancing a bill such as Bill C-39 on the other.

In closing, I hope that this day will remind us not only of our duty to indigenous people and humanity but also to life itself.

Tshinashkumitin.

The EconomyAdjournment Proceedings

September 23rd, 2026 / midnight


See context

Conservative

Brad Vis Conservative Mission—Matsqui—Abbotsford, BC

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise in the evening.

Before I begin my comments, I will note that we have had a debate throughout the entire day on Bill C-38. Many of the things I want to say that relate to my question from June were said during the debate on Bill C-38 as well. The point I would like to make, and I hope the government side can hear it, is that even though the Prime Minister has commenced a process to erase the legacy of Justin Trudeau, to move away from his most disastrous policies, structural reforms are still needed to ensure that small businesses, the businesses that pay the majority of taxes in Canada, are made whole.

We are going to see that through taxation and regulatory reform on a major scale, but we have not seen that yet. I encourage the government to heed the words that small businesses, the ones with eight to 10 employees, still need market access to the United States. These are 50-year-old relationships that are in jeopardy right now.

Today, business leaders from across western Canada came to Parliament. I will acknowledge that they are happy with Bill C-39, the Liberals' big, beautiful bill. They are happy about the attack the Liberals are going to make on organized labour, even though the Conservatives are still debating it and trying to figure it out. However, they have stressed the need for regulatory reform and measures that are going to help small businesses in western Canada. In Manitoba, for example, 50% of exports go to the United States. It is higher in a lot of other provinces. We have to take that relationship seriously.

In my question back in June, I highlighted that Canada has lost 100,000 entrepreneurs over the last two decades, and there has been a 19% increase in business exits since 2019. That is not acceptable. Right now, we are facing major challenges, but the government can do a couple of things better. It can look at the RTRI. Very few businesses understood what that program was, and the Minister responsible for Pacific Economic Development Canada was around nine months late in delivering it based on the timelines he stated when the program was announced.

If the Liberals say we are at economic war, why would they make businesses wait nine months for a program they said they would deliver in three months? That is simply not acceptable. We need confidence that the public service, the ministers and the parliamentary secretaries are going to step up, hold their public servants to a higher standard, do things in their power and actually move at the speeds they said they would in the last election. So far, we have not seen that. It has to change. We have to stand up for Canada. The government needs to stand up for Canada, and it is not doing that in a responsible way.

The final statistic I will mention is that according to a TD Economics report, graduates in mathematics, computer science and engineering are less likely to remain in Canada than non-STEM graduates. The University of Waterloo shows that the highest performing students are the most likely to leave Canada after graduation. Those are the entrepreneurs starting businesses. They are going to the United States to do that. We need to bring in the structural reforms to support small businesses and—

Canadian Fuel Affordability ActGovernment Orders

September 22nd, 2026 / 8:55 p.m.


See context

Nipissing—Timiskaming Ontario

Liberal

Pauline Rochefort LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Secretary of State (Rural Development)

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of Bill C-38, the Canadian fuel affordability act. This legislation is a focused and practical response to very a real pressure facing Canadian families and businesses: the sharp increase in fuel costs caused by global conflict and disruptions in international energy markets.

Canadians did not create these circumstances, but they are paying the price. Bill C-38 would extend the full suspension of the federal fuel excise tax introduced earlier this year until January 31, 2027. It would then restore the tax at half its regular rate for February and March, before returning to the regular rate on April 1.

In the case of gasoline, the full suspension represents a savings of 10¢ per litre, compared to four cents per litre for diesel and aviation fuel and 10¢ per litre for unleaded aviation gasoline. These savings are significant across Canada, but they are particularly significant in rural and northern communities, including the one I represent, the riding of Nipissing—Timiskaming.

In my riding, driving is not a choice. It is often the only realistic way to get to work, attend a medical appointment or bring a child to a hockey practice. Residents from Mattawa to Englehart and throughout our many rural communities regularly travel significant distances to obtain services that residents in large urban centres may find only a few blocks away. For many of our residents, there is no subway, commuter train or bus waiting around the corner. Distances do not become shorter when fuel prices rise, and medical appointments cannot be postponed until prices fall. That is why any national affordability policy must understand the realities of rural and northern Canada, and Bill C-38 does exactly that.

Fuel costs also affect the businesses and workers sustaining our regional economy. In the little clay belt, one of northern Ontario's most productive agricultural regions, our farmers use diesel to operate tractors and other machinery to transport livestock and deliver food to market. In a region with a shorter growing season, that work must often be completed within a very narrow window. A farmer cannot simply park the tractor because diesel has become more expensive. Fuel is not a discretionary expense in agriculture. It is part of the cost of producing the food Canadians depend on.

The same is true in forestry. Harvesting equipment requires fuel. Trucks travel into the forest, carry logs to mills and move finished products to customers. At a time when northern Ontario's forestry sector is already facing tariffs, market uncertainty and difficult operating conditions, reducing diesel costs provides meaningful relief to workers and businesses. The benefit extends well beyond into manufacturing as well.

Gincor Werx is a company in Mattawa that manufactures specialty trucks. Throughout the riding of Nipissing—Timiskaming, there are manufacturing companies and mining industry suppliers shipping equipment and parts to northern Ontario, Quebec, and other parts of Canada. These products do not transport themselves. A drop in diesel prices has ripple effects well beyond gas stations. It helps the truck driver transporting food products north, the construction company hauling aggregate and building materials, the logging contractor transporting equipment, and the courier service delivering supplies to a small business. Ultimately, a drop in diesel prices helps reduce costs throughout the entire supply chain.

Bill C-38 would also extend relief for aviation fuel, and that is especially important in northern Ontario, where aviation is not simply about holidays and business travel. It connects rural and remote communities and supports medical transportation, emergency response, firefighting, search and rescue, workforce movement and the delivery of essential services.

No single measure will solve every affordability challenge. Bill C-38 is not presented as a permanent answer to global energy volatility. It provides immediate, time-limited relief in response to an extraordinary external pressure, full stop. Some will argue that this bill does not go far enough and that the excise tax should be abolished permanently. I would respond that being a responsible government means addressing the immediate pressure while preserving the fiscal capacity required to fund health care, infrastructure, national defence and other essential services that are important to all of us in this chamber.

Bill C-38 takes a measured approach, with full relief through January, followed by a two-month transition at half the regular rate. We can provide immediate affordability relief without abandoning the longer-term work of making our economy more competitive. Long-term ambition and immediate affordability are not competing objectives. A responsible government must be able to advance both at the same time, and that broader approach is reflected in our government's current legislative agenda.

Alongside Bill C-38, the government has introduced Bill C-39, the building Canada strong act. That legislation is intended to bring greater speed, certainty and predictability to federal project reviews, to strengthen trade corridors and supply chains, and to support the workers who are building our next generation of Canadian infrastructure. We saw the evidence of Canada's economic potential at last week's Canada investment summit in Toronto, which resulted in nearly $500 billion in investment commitments and financing for Canadian infrastructure, businesses and our strategic industries.

We are also seeing progress in Canada's economic performance. Today, our Minister of Finance spoke to us about results. According to the OECD, Canada's real GDP grew by 0.8% in the second quarter, and that is the strongest quarterly growth among G7 countries. That is important. By comparison, the economies of the United States and the United Kingdom grew by 0.4%, Japan's by 0.3%, and those of France, Germany and Italy by 0.2%.

I recognize, however, that these figures do not mean that every household feels economically secure. Economic growth does not erase the pressure on Canadians, including the residents in my riding of Nipissing—Timiskaming. It does not erase the pressure that they face when buying groceries, homes or fuel, but these figures demonstrate that Canada has important strengths on which to build.

Across the G7 and G20, countries are confronting higher costs arising from war, tariffs, trade disruptions and volatility in global energy markets. It is happening in other countries. What distinguishes governments is how they respond. Our response is to provide immediate relief. That is what we are doing in Canada: protecting workers and businesses, attracting investment, diversifying our trade and accelerating the projects that will make Canada more productive and resilient while creating good-paying jobs. This is something we all want in this chamber.

Bill C-38 would put money back into the pockets of Canadians. It would support the businesses that move our economy and recognizes that the transportation realities of rural and northern communities are important. For those reasons, I want to tell the citizens of Nipissing—Timiskaming watching this presentation that I will be supporting Bill C-38, as it is so important to our riding.

The EconomyOral Questions

September 22nd, 2026 / 2:45 p.m.


See context

Markham—Thornhill Ontario

Liberal

Tim Hodgson LiberalMinister of Energy and Natural Resources

Mr. Speaker, I was speaking with my sister Sharon and my brother-in-law Jim, and I explained to them that when we passed Bill C-5, we would apply everything we learned from major projects to all projects in Canada. We would learn from the shovels in the ground at the Darlington nuclear project, from the shovels in the ground at the Montreal port and from the shovels in the ground at the north coast transmission line, and we would apply that to all projects in Canada. That is what Bill C-39 does.

We really hope the members opposite will join with us and help us build Canada strong.

Government PrioritiesOral Questions

September 22nd, 2026 / 2:25 p.m.


See context

Bloc

Yves-François Blanchet Bloc Beloeil—Chambly, QC

Mr. Speaker, when it comes to taxation, labour rights and the labour code, and the environment, Bill C‑39 is a brutal step backward. Tucked into this bill are provisions saying that oil and nuclear projects will be automatically approved and, even worse, that this will be done in advance.

Does the government realize that the framework protecting the people of Quebec and Canada, which took so many years to build, will be destroyed in just 24 hours?

LabourAdjournment Proceedings

September 21st, 2026 / 6:25 p.m.


See context

Liberal

Leslie Church Liberal Toronto—St. Paul's, ON

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-39 has many objectives. At its heart, it would strengthen collective bargaining by helping parties address issues earlier, reach negotiated agreements and resolve disputes while fully protecting the right to strike. I hope the member opposite takes this to heart. By acknowledging Canada's economic realities and promoting free and fair bargaining, we enable Canada to remain strong, stable and competitive. Ultimately, that protects workers.

However, I would hope that all parties in this House agree over the coming days as we debate this important legislation that workers know and should know that their rights are protected and respected. Employers need to know that there is a clear, fair and effective process for resolving disputes. When negotiations go well, everyone wins, and that is the best way for us to create a strong, stable and growing economy for all Canadians.

LabourAdjournment Proceedings

September 21st, 2026 / 6:20 p.m.


See context

Toronto—St. Paul's Ontario

Liberal

Leslie Church LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Secretaries of State for Labour

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Winnipeg Centre for her commitment to Canadian workers.

We are firmly committed to protecting workers' rights and ensuring a free and fair collective bargaining process. Workers must have real bargaining power. The right to strike is protected in Canada because it is an essential element of free and balanced negotiations. Our government has taken concrete measures to protect that right. Bill C-58 was a major milestone in the fight for fairness at the bargaining table.

Prohibiting the use of replacement workers protects a meaningful right to strike and makes employers and unions work together and find solutions. Collective bargaining works. Over the last five years, 95% of disputes that the federal mediation and conciliation service supported were resolved without work stoppages. This shows the system works well when the right support tools are available.

However, negotiation is not a simple process, and we are at a pivotal moment. Trade rules are rapidly changing, and our economy faces unprecedented attacks. This is having damaging consequences. At the same time, Canada is working to build major infrastructure, strengthen trade corridors and supply chains, and create good jobs across the country through measures such as Bill C-39.

Some labour disputes can therefore have serious economic repercussions, but we cannot build a strong economy without respecting the workers who keep it running every day. That is why Bill C-39 proposes measures to modernize the federal labour framework, strengthen protections for workers in federally regulated industries and help parties address issues earlier, while fully protecting the right to strike.

We all have a stake in ensuring an economy can withstand shocks and remain competitive. In some situations, the economic and social impacts are substantive. There can be extraordinary times where the government must retain the ability to intervene, but there should be a clear framework in place to explain that decision to Canadians transparently.

I want to be very clear: Our government believes that extraordinary interventions in a labour dispute should always be a last resort. Canadians appreciate this. They know that prolonged disputes can have a massive impact on Canadian families, Canadian jobs and our entire economy.

Canadians understand that we must do two things at once: We must protect workers and strengthen economic resilience. They know that when there are strong, supported relationships between employers and workers, where workers are fairly paid and their concerns are addressed, that is the best way to create stability, and that stability drives investment and economic growth, which Canada needs today more than ever.

The members opposite need to remember that Canadians chose a government that they knew would keep the state of labour relations strong.

Our approach must be pragmatic. We continue to work together with unions and employers to maintain trust in the system and ensure fairness in the workplace.

Our collective objective is clear. It is to strengthen good-faith bargaining, protect workers' rights and ensure a strong labour relations framework that helps achieve better outcomes for workers, for employers and for Canadians.

LabourAdjournment Proceedings

September 21st, 2026 / 6:15 p.m.


See context

NDP

Leah Gazan NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB

Mr. Speaker, earlier this year on International Workers' Day, I asked the Liberal government why it continued refusing to support my bill, NDP Bill C-247, to repeal section 107 and stop violations against workers' right to strike. This bill is supported by workers and unions across Canada. In response, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Jobs deflected her government's failures and advised that consultations were ongoing concerning changes to the Labour Code.

Today, the cat is out of the bag. We learned that the Liberal government has done these consultations and is putting forward an omnibus bill, Bill C-39, trying to turn back the clock on workers' fundamental rights by expanding the minister's ability to shut down a strike and violate workers' rights whenever the Liberals and their CEO buddies deem it inconvenient, as we saw with port workers, flight attendants and rail workers. Of course, they did consult with the CEOs who will benefit. It is not only a historic insult to workers, but also an immense threat to workers' constitutional rights.

We know that right now there are countless families, communities and individuals being devastated by Trump's tariffs. Nobody is arguing with that. Nobody is arguing that we are not in a cost of living crisis. Instead of addressing this, the government is siding with CEOs, and instead of giving workers the relief they need to lift up their rights as workers, the Liberals have caved into the wish lists of corporations across this country by pushing forward Bill C-39 and violating their constitutional obligations to uphold the rights of workers, the rights of indigenous peoples and important environmental laws, even after a summer of disastrous wildfires during which we saw communities and homes literally burn to the ground. This past summer, the Liberal government saw what was going on, and once again it has doubled down in favour of its corporate buddies.

I want to be clear that workers do not want to strike. Who wants to go on strike to get a reduction in pay, be out of work and be more financially worse off than they are when they are working and being ripped off by the Liberals' corporate friends? Workers have rights, and these rights are protected in international law. The right of workers to walk off the job in solidarity is the only collective means to push back against powerful corporations and CEOs as the Liberal government lines its pockets. This so-called Canada strong plan is being built off the backs of people, workers, indigenous people, our environment and a livable planet.

The NDP is very firm in its belief that we must protect the rights of workers. We must protect workers' rights, and that includes the right to strike and free and collective bargaining.