Debates of Oct. 5th, 2026

Building Canada Strong Act

[Connie Cody, Conservative, Cambridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is absolutely correct. How could one person make a decision like this that would affect so many people?

The strongest message I am hearing right now is that people need a reason to be optimistic again. They want businesses to grow instead of laying people off. They want investment coming into Canada instead of leaving. They want to know that opportunities for their children and grandchildren will still exist here in the years ahead. The concern I am now hearing is not frustration. It is exhaustion. Business owners have spent years adapting to rising costs, supply chain challenges, labour shortages and uncertainty.

That is what the debate comes down to. Canadians want a path forward, and they want decisions that support jobs, investment and opportunity in Canada, by Canadians and for Canadians.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I think I know what kind of answer I am going to get, but I would still like the member to share her thoughts on the impartiality of the people who will be assessing certain projects, particularly pipeline projects. We know that it will now be the Canada Energy Regulator and not the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada that will be responsible for conducting those assessments. However, five of the regulator's seven commissioners used to work in the oil industry. The CER's mission is to promote the transmission of electricity and the transportation of oil. It is safe to say that this body is not impartial.

I would like the member to tell us about how important it is to have impartial agencies assess all projects, particularly major projects that are in the so-called national interest.

[Connie Cody, Conservative, Cambridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there is a lot to discuss about who would be involved with the decision-making. We have to think about who cares about whether local businesses stay open and whether children and grandchildren can find opportunities close to home. Those objectives should not be in conflict. Canada has some of the most skilled workers, highest environmental standards and strongest regulatory expertise in the world. Surely we should be capable of conducting a rigorous review process while still providing businesses and workers with certainty. That is why Parliament's responsibility would be not simply to review projects or have specific people assigned to review these projects. It would be to ensure that decisions are made before jobs, investment and opportunities disappear from Canada.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am always surprised when Conservatives agree so readily with Liberal talking points.

The member mentioned that we wanted to have a project that attracted private investors. Does she not agree that a possible 10% from Pembina Pipeline is not a large stake in the project and that the taxpayers are paying for most of it?

[Connie Cody, Conservative, Cambridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is absolutely correct. I think what we need to do is have the bill brought to committee so we can have further discussions.

[Doly Begum, Liberal, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is always an honour to rise on behalf of the good people of Scarborough Southwest, especially when it is to address challenges we are facing not only across my riding but across Canada.

Over the past several years, Canadians have witnessed how quickly events beyond our control and beyond our borders can affect our economy at home. A conflict, a war or atrocities on the other side of the world can disrupt energy markets on this side. A shortage of shipping capacity can increase costs for Canadian businesses. A disruption to rail lines, highways or ports can affect producers and consumers on both ends of the supply chain.

We have heard in the House, even this morning, about the bureaucracy and time constraints related to putting shovels in the ground. We need to ensure that we are addressing those challenges, and doing that fast and efficiently by streamlining the system. Across this country, Canadians are feeling the pressure of what is happening right now, and I am really excited to speak to Bill C-39, because we are addressing those challenges. With higher prices at grocery stores, small businesses having to make very difficult decisions or families having to sacrifice one thing for another just to make ends meet, we must try to ensure that Canadians' paycheques can cover all their costs and that they are able to pay their bills.

In the face of these global realities, our government was elected on a firm commitment to reinforce Canada's economic sovereignty and empower our country to build bigger, stronger and faster. Our supply chain is built from ports, railways, roads and, most important, the great workers who work so hard every single day to keep goods moving. They are the backbone of our economy. Over the past year and a half, our Prime Minister and our Liberal government have been moving at record speed to ensure Canadian economic resilience as the world becomes increasingly volatile.

Stronger supply chains are imperative to our government's ambitious plan to double non-U.S. exports, build major projects and attract record investments. This is why Bill C-39 is so important. The building Canada stronger act aims to do exactly that: further strengthen our existing supply chains while supporting good-paying jobs, helping Canadian businesses compete and keeping costs down for the hard-working people of our country.

Bill C-39 recognizes that our transportation network does not operate in isolation. Our ports, railways and roads are part of a connected system, and we need to start planning and investing in them that way. That means looking at the movement of goods across an entire corridor, identifying where the delays are and the capacity constraints occur, and measuring how the system is performing. The bill would also create a national trade corridors council to monitor trade disruptions, continuously identify bottlenecks and recommend improvements to the Minister of Transport.

As we invest in our trade infrastructure, these measures would ensure that those investments are directed toward the places where they would have the greatest impact. A congested port can mean additional storage costs. A lack of rail capacity can mean grain sitting in elevators rather than moving to markets. For small businesses, a shipment arriving late can result in loss of revenue, higher costs and a difficult decision-making process. Whether to pass on that cost to the consumers or to maybe lay off employees, it could mean the end of a business. It could be the end for a lot of local small businesses that had been running for 10, 20 or 30 years.

This summer I had an opportunity to visit a local business, Accuenergy, an electrical parts manufacturer in my riding of Scarborough Southwest. It has been run by a father and his son since 1998. Accuenergy supplies its products to over 170 countries around the world, and it employs more than 300 people. I had the opportunity, with the Minister of AI, to talk to some of the employees from my riding and from across Scarborough and the GTA. There are so many businesses like Accuenergy across Canada that are building right here at home, creating good-paying jobs and seeking to compete in markets around the world. As we ask businesses to diversify into new markets beyond the United States, our government has the responsibility of making sure our infrastructure can keep up with that ambition.

There are other major pieces in the bill that I would have loved to have highlighted, but I wanted to make sure to point out that what we hear in the House, such as the complaints from the other side about putting shovels in the ground and moving things faster, would be addressed by the bill. Bill C-39 would modernize our process to make sure we are able to get shovels in the ground, make decisions faster and get faster approvals so we can address the challenges people across this country are facing.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals talk about building things faster with Bill C-39. Why not get rid of the “no new pipelines” bill that was deemed mostly unconstitutional, Bill C-69, and get rid of the anti-Alberta bill, Bill C-48?

[Doly Begum, Liberal, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I wish I had more time to speak to some of the things Bill C-39 would do about exactly some of the complaints we hear from the other side, such as to make sure that, first of all, we are uniting the entire country. Our Prime Minister is going coast to coast to coast to make sure that we are not only addressing challenges in Ontario, Manitoba, Quebec or Alberta but are also addressing challenges across different provinces and uniting the provinces. Another part of our goal has been to make sure we make trade easier between provinces as well.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague mentioned that she did not have enough time to discuss the bill in its entirety. One might also wonder whether a year is enough time for scientists to properly assess the impact of any projects that might be launched, especially given that this one year allows for 300 days for assessment and reporting, and then 65 days for the minister to make a decision. That does not even allow for the four full seasons that would be needed to determine whether certain projects actually have an impact on the natural environment.

Does my colleague not see the risks involved in moving too quickly?

[Doly Begum, Liberal, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this is why it is so important that we have a timeline. In the past, a lot of infrastructure costs have risen because of delays in our projects due to delays in the decision-making process. There are exceptional circumstances, and this is why the Minister of Transport would have the authority to be able to make those exceptional decisions. It is really important that at this time, a time of crisis, we are focusing on making sure we have a review process that has a timeline and that we get shovels in the ground, and this is exactly why the bill is really important.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her very important speech on Bill C-39.

She talked a lot about market diversification. As we know, the government has signed more than 20 agreements over the past year. She also talked about grain, which is actually shipped through my riding. We also heard about the importance of speeding up projects, and she mentioned a company in her riding that does business around the world. I have noticed the same thing: Some businesses want to invest more and are asking for more predictability. Often, that predictability is measured in time. Bill C‑39 will actually help things move faster and will give businesses the predictability they need to invest and attract more investment here.

I would like my colleague to talk about what the government has done over the past year. I would also like to hear her thoughts on what Bill C‑39 will enable the government and Canada to do.

[Doly Begum, Liberal, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is exactly right. The bill would address those challenges, those bottlenecks, that businesses face. Over the past year, previous legislation has also addressed these kinds of issues that we have faced.

An efficient supply chain is one of the key parts of making sure that we are focusing on our economy and strengthening our economy. Canada's long-term economic strength depends on reliable and efficient trade quarters, for example, and making sure that we are making decisions faster and being more effective. That is not just for domestic trades but also for international trade, to be able to attract new investors from across the world.

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

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my hon. colleague from Scarborough Southwest again on her recent election. Knowing she has not read as many bills as I have in this place, I will say that I have never seen a bill drafted to be as deceitful as this one. I want to put it to her that it is odd that in the summary of what we can expect in the bill, page ii notes that division 2 of part 1 would amend the Building Canada Act, Bill C-5, to say, among other things, in section 99, that the sunset clause on bill C-5, the part that says that this bill would not have an effect five years from this date, would be repealed. It lists four things of less consequence than this one it does not mention.

Does my colleague have any comments on the impact of making the draconian power grabs of Bill C-5 permanent?

[Doly Begum, Liberal, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for her comments and, of course, for welcoming me to the House. There are a lot of things we agree on and some that, even if we disagree, I feel like we can sit together and come to terms on. We are all here to represent our communities and make sure that the people we represent are well served.

This bill addresses some of the challenges we are facing right now across this country, especially with the trade war with the U.S., but also challenges with the conflicts across the world.

It is important that we recognize the power we hold within this House. There are decisions we make in this House that are changed over time because of the needs coming from changes, which may be necessary in the future, and when that time comes—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

Unfortunately, we have run out of time.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Saint-Jean.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by saying that Bill C-39 is the perfect example of a saying that often comes up in politics: Never let a good crisis go to waste. That is certainly the impression I am getting from the government side. The Liberals are using the President of the United States, Donald Trump, as a scare tactic—even though he is scary enough on his own—to justify permanent changes to our ways of doing things and our values. When I say “our”, I am referring to both Canada's and Quebec's ways of doing things and our values. Now that I have said that, I will return to the issue of the sunset clause.

A crisis that is already frightening enough for Canadians and Quebeckers is being used to justify major legislative changes that will shake the very foundations of the temple of values that we thought were otherwise secure and that took years to build. Now, they could crumble in the blink of an eye.

In a way, I find it hard to believe that people are surprised by this, since it is, after all, part of the DNA of successive governments to use crises to seize power for themselves. We have seen this in the past.

I would now like to take a moment to provide a bit of background.

Crises have often been used to centralize power within the federal government. Let me provide a bit of history. During the First World War, the War Measures Act was enacted, giving Ottawa powers that were otherwise generally reserved for the provinces, such as economic regulation, censorship, detention and internment.

In 1917, the federal government introduced a federal income tax, a measure that was allowed under the Constitution but that had never before been implemented by the federal government. It enacted the Income War Tax Act. It was meant to be a temporary measure, but it never went away. People still have to file two tax returns in Quebec, and one tax return everywhere else, which just goes to show that nothing is more permanent than a temporary solution.

We see this again with the sunset clause in Bill C-5, which called for the measures to expire after five years. Under Bill C-39, they will become permanent.

In 1930, during the Great Depression, the government of Richard Bedford Bennett tried to centralize power even further on the premise that Ottawa needed to have significant economic and social capacity so it could function as a kind of welfare state.

In 1940, after the crisis, the provinces transferred employment insurance to the federal government. During the Second World War, Canada managed to persuade the provinces to temporarily surrender more tax room in return for making transfer payments to the provinces to fund the wartime economy. That never went away either, and it eventually became what we now know as the “spending power”.

A bit more recently, and closer to home, was the 2008-09 financial crisis, the infamous asset-backed commercial paper crisis. Once again, the federal government tried to take control of an exclusively provincial jurisdiction, securities regulation, by creating a Canada-wide securities commission, a move firmly opposed by Bloc Québécois. In fact, the Supreme Court later declared it unconstitutional.

Even more recently, during COVID‑19, the federal government used its spending power to control, legislate and regulate jurisdictions outside its authority, including standards in nursing homes and long-term care facilities. It wanted to establish national standards that the provinces would have to meet in order to receive transfers, even though the provinces are the ones responsible for delivering care to the public.

As history has shown us, crises have often been used to justify things that would otherwise have been considered unacceptable. Bill C‑39 is no exception, particularly when it comes to the environment. I am going to talk a bit about that.

In the past, powers that belonged to the provinces were centralized. Now, however, powers that would otherwise belong to the House or to other ministers and agencies are being centralized and often concentrated in the hands of a single minister, or even the Prime Minister.

All of this is allegedly being done as a way to deal with Donald Trump and the trade war, at a time when Canada wants to attract more investors. The government is saying that we are moving far too slowly, that we need to lower barriers in order to keep the economy healthy, and that this will not start until Donald Trump is gone. The government is therefore implementing measures that will last forever to solve a problem that, basically, is only temporary.

For example, the government is chipping away at certain environmental pillars that we thought were firmly established. It is speeding up project assessment to the extreme, as I mentioned in my questions a little earlier. It is introducing a one-year time frame for granting permits for major projects. One year means 300 days to carry out assessments and draft the reports to be submitted to the minister, who must then make a decision within 65 days.

I mentioned earlier that when a decision is made to grant a permit for a major project, the assessment of potential environmental impacts will not even cover four full seasons. Compliance with numerous laws is also going to be optional for regions designated as being of national interest. It is not clear exactly what constitutes a region of national interest. Included in those laws are the Fisheries Act; the Migratory Birds Convention Act, 1994; the Canadian Environmental Protection Act and the Species at Risk Act.

We will also be relying on far fewer impartial experts to decide whether a project will move forward. The government is completely disregarding the expertise of the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada when it comes to pipelines, for example, and will be relying exclusively on the Canada Energy Regulator. However, I would like to remind the House that the CER's mission is to keep energy moving safely and efficiently through this country's pipelines and power lines. Its mandate is to promote energy, not to protect the environment or impartially assess the impact of a project, like the agency did. I should note that five of the CER's seven commissioners used to work for oil companies, so I think it is safe to assume that they will have a definite bias when making decisions.

A lot of decisions that used to be made by the Governor in Council will now be made by a single minister. Changes have been made to what ministers can do. I would like to quickly refer my colleagues to the document that was provided by the government itself, the summary of Bill C-39.

There was a time when the Department of the Environment issued a statement on the decision it was making under the Impact Assessment Act, but the other departments issued the permits. Now, everything is in the hands of the environment minister, who will make a single decision. In the past, work could not begin until the assessments were completed, but now the environment minister will have the power to authorize work to begin in advance, even before the permits are issued. In the past, we have had environment ministers who were staunch supporters of the oil sands, such as Peter Kent. We should therefore not assume that just because someone is an environment minister, they will make decisions that are good for the environment, particularly if those decisions are ultimately made by the Prime Minister.

We know that, previously, the minister could only modify the conditions imposed on a project as long as there was no adverse impact on the environment. Now, however, these kinds of changes can be authorized if the minister decides they are in the public interest. Ministers used to be able to attach conditions to assessment and permit decisions. Now, however, decision-making authorities will have to consider the technical, economic and practical feasibility of any conditions they impose on proponents who want to roll out projects.

This goes to show that the bar has been significantly lowered. The government is basically tearing down the fences around the chicken coop and hoping that the foxes will not attack them. That is what we are hearing from the Liberal benches. The Liberals deny that they are lowering environmental standards. However, certain laws can be circumvented. They say that they simply hope it will not happen.

I could have spoken a lot longer. I am only halfway through the third page of my presentation, and I have not even addressed the labour law issue. The Liberals say that they are going to keep protecting the right to strike, just as they say that they are going to keep protecting freedom of expression, provided that no one hears the protesters protesting. The right to strike will be protected, unless the strike disrupts the national interest. What that is, we do not know. It could simply mean any economic disruption, but a strike without disruption is not a strike.

Since I have only a few seconds left, unfortunately, I must conclude my speech by reiterating that the government wants to speed things up and is using the trade war as a pretext, even though it will be over by the time we see the consequences. At the end of the day, whose interests will this national interest really serve, apart from the Prime Minister's? It is not hard to imagine that the public will suffer many negative consequences in the short, medium and long terms.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to my colleague's speech, which could be summed up quickly in one phrase: status quo. What is being sought here is the status quo or, as the saying goes, doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.

My colleague talked about a crisis. She said it was the crisis that brought this to light. Yes, the crisis may have highlighted the inefficiencies of the construction sector in Canada. Just building has become difficult. Now we want to build faster because, when it comes to predictability in contracts, projects that take eight to 10 years to get off the ground always end up failing. I would perhaps invite my colleague to read an interesting book by Ezra Klein called Abundance, which highlights this point.

The question I would like to ask my colleague is this: What would she change? What specific measures would she include in a bill to speed up projects?

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I do not claim to be able to write a 249-page bill on my own, but I am willing to acknowledge that there are some good points in the bill. For example, the unions have acknowledged that there are certain positive measures, such as bargaining unit protection when contractors are replaced. There are some small positive aspects to the bill, but overall, it is a tough pill to swallow.

Again, we are not opposed to the economy performing well or to accelerating certain projects. However, this cannot be done at any cost, and certainly not by trimming all environmental protections, especially when we know from a report by the Institut de recherche en économie contemporaine that groceries are 8.4% more expensive due to climate change, that insurance costs are much higher, that Canada is now paying $2 billion for insurance in disaster-stricken areas, and that this figure is expected to reach $15 billion in the future.

Exactly whose interest are the Liberals referring to when they talk about the national interest?

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague brought up a lot of very valid points. One of them, of course, is that there is not a lot of structure. Despite the bill being 250 pages, there are a lot of areas where it would allow the bureaucracy or the ministers to make additional decisions. What is going to be in the national interest? Someone is going to be allowed to extend this magical one-year permit timeline at any time.

I wonder if my colleague could spend a bit of time explaining the need to have clear direction in the rules and not allow so much leeway for ministers, the government or bureaucrats to mess around with the legislation.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent question. In fact, it is something that the President of the United States has been criticized for: governing by executive order by giving himself powers that would otherwise have been counterbalanced by lawmakers.

That is exactly what the government is doing with this bill. To protect ourselves from Donald Trump, we are turning into Donald Trump. That is a terrible idea. The government is doing this under the pretense of boosting the economy and dealing with a situation that is likely to change in the short term, or so we hope. Nevertheless, the government is repealing the five-year sunset clause that was previously put in place. Significant changes are therefore becoming permanent and, to top it all off, the government is making these changes in an omnibus bill that combines environmental law with labour law. All this is being done under the pretense of dealing with a crisis that we hope will soon be over.

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I think this historical overview of the situation is essential, and my colleague's speech was very informative.

That said, am I to understand that the democratic, environmental and labour protection rules adopted by the provinces, as well as all our parliamentary bodies and boards, are so detrimental to the Prime Minister's vision of Canada that they need to be scrapped?

Did nothing good come out of all that, really? Do we really need to eliminate everything that has been put in place over the past few decades?

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as I said in my speech, the government is scrapping things that took years to build and that are based on values that are dear to Canadian society and to the Quebec nation: protecting the environment and protecting workers' rights.

The government is undermining all that in the name of a trade crisis that is not expected to last, and it is making these measures permanent. Years of hard work that were guided by Canadian and Quebec values are being destroyed. That could all be destroyed in a matter of minutes. It is heartbreaking, to say the least.

[Daniel Gobeil, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food]

Mr. Speaker, as we debate Bill C-39, the building Canada strong act, I want to take this opportunity to deliver my first speech in the House of Commons. My riding, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, is located in the heart of the industrial region of Saguenay—Lac‑Saint‑Jean and aims to serve as a gateway to the natural resources of Quebec and northern Canada and, of course, as a window to the world to diversify trade, attract investment and help build a strong, more independent and more resilient economy.

Over the past year, Canadians have seen just how quickly events beyond our borders can affect our economy and our wallets. A conflict on the other side of the world can disrupt markets and the energy sector. Just ask farmers right now. A lack of shipping capacity can drive up costs. For a Canadian company, a disruption to a rail line, a highway, or a road can hurt producers and consumers at both ends of the supply chain.

Faced with this global reality, our government was elected on a firm commitment to reinforce Canada's economic sovereignty and to empower our country to build bigger, stronger and faster. The people of Chicoutimi—Le Fjord expressed those same expectations during the August 31 by-election. In the midst of the trade war, it is now time to be masters in our own house, control what we can control and diversify our economies. Our supply chains are built from ports, railways and roads, and the workers who keep them running are the backbone of our economy. Back home in Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean, we often say we are like beavers: We build roads, dams and large-scale infrastructure, and we are ready to rise to this challenge.

For all these reasons, stronger supply chains are essential to our government's ambitious plan to double exports worldwide—beyond the U.S. market, of course—to build major projects and to attract record levels of investment, as we have seen recently in Toronto. First and foremost, the building Canada strong act aims to strengthen our supply chains. This ambitious legislation creates more robust supply chains by taking steps to treat Canada's transport system as an integrated national commercial network, rather than as a collection of separate, dysfunctional parts.

Under this legislation, the federal government can formally designate national trade corridors and set performance targets for them. That means monitoring the movement of goods across an entire corridor, identifying where delays and capacity constraints are occurring and, of course, measuring how the system is performing. The bill also creates a national trade corridors council. Its role would be to monitor the movement of goods, analyze disruptions affecting trade corridors, of course, identify systems or sectors that are not functioning properly or as they should, and most importantly, provide recommendations to the Minister of Transport.

As we invest in our trade infrastructure, these measures will ensure that those investments are directed to the areas where they will have the greatest impact for Canadians and taxpayers. This is about moving from a fragmented approach to an integrated transportation system.

The reliability of our trade corridors has a real impact. A congested port can lead to additional storage costs and significant delays. A lack of rail capacity can mean farmers' grain sitting in silos rather than moving to markets. Our government's goal is simple: to strengthen our trade corridors to ensure that Canadians and Canadian products can reach their destinations.

The second major element is our ports. As members know, my riding is home to the Grande-Anse deepwater sea port, an asset to Canada. Canada's port authorities are a vital part of our supply chains. Bill C-39 will, of course, modernize their governance and give them greater trade and financial flexibility to invest, generate revenue and expand the infrastructure needed to support trade. The bill will create new indigenous advisory boards in recognition of the fact that indigenous communities are important partners in the development and operation of Canada's transportation infrastructure and the extraction of our critical minerals.

It is important to note that the bill maintains the role of ports as non-profit organizations and creates more opportunities for partnerships and capital projects through increased flexibility.

However, infrastructure is just one part of the challenge. The other part is the regulatory system that surrounds it. Today, companies may be required to provide similar information to multiple government departments and agencies. That means more forms, more paperwork, more duplication and, of course, higher costs and longer timelines.

Bill C-39 would establish authorities to enable greater information sharing among authorized government agencies, in order to reduce the administrative burden and streamline our processes.

The bill would also support paperless commerce by recognizing electronic records that are transferable in accordance with international standards. This means more efficient information sharing, less duplication and a streamlined approach to documentation.

Bill C-39 also addresses the approvals themselves.

The bill would establish a major projects office within Transport Canada to coordinate federal authorizations and consultations for transportation projects.

The goal is to provide a clearer federal pathway for priority transportation infrastructure and to support the government's broader goal of getting projects from the application phase to the decision phase more efficiently. On that point, the bill is very clear. It is not about eliminating standards. It is about reducing duplication. It is not about removing consultation. Rather, it is about making federal processes more consistent and predictable, while upholding the same high standards that we are proud of, as Canadians and as a government. Canada needs to be able to build faster while continuing to build responsibly.

Lastly, Bill C‑39 recognizes that supply chain resilience depends on security. This bill will modernize Canada's framework for transportation security clearances. It will expand the roles and functions to which transportation security clearances could apply. It will improve risk assessments, improve information sharing and strengthen clearances in terms of the granting, refusal, suspension or cancellation of clearances. The goal is to better address complex and evolving threats, because security is a key part of supply chain resilience.

Taken together, these measures offer a practical, coordinated approach to strengthening the infrastructure and systems that keep Canada's economy going. We need to move goods from farms to silos, from mines to ports, from factories to markets and from our communities to customers around the world. We need a transportation system that can keep pace with our investments and with the opportunities available to us.

That means building our capacity, but also making better use of the capacity we already have. It means having the information we need to understand how our trade corridors work. It also means ensuring that our ports have the necessary tools and flexibility to grow. It also means making sure that when we approve and build major transportation projects, we do so with the coordination and predictability that Canadians expect.

That is why strengthening supply chains is fundamentally about strengthening Canada's economy. It is about building the transportation capacity, coordination and resilience that Canada needs for the economy that we are building today and, ultimately, for the economy that we want to build for future generations.

That is how we are going to build Canada strong. As the member for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, I speak with people involved with aluminum plants, seaports and critical minerals, and I know that all stakeholders agree on the importance of having the government involved in efforts to build Canada strong.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lévis—Lotbinière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague on his first speech in the House. I have a rather special question to ask him.

Through its bill, the government wants to improve the Canadian economy, but why did it wait 11 years before doing something useful for our country? We have been waiting 11 years for a bill to help grow the Canadian economy. What took so long?

[Daniel Gobeil, Liberal, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that is a very good question the Conservative member asked me.

I am newly elected. As you know, the by-election was held on August 31. Since coming to power last year, Mr. Carney's government has had a plan to build Canada strong.

There is a bill on the table. The business community has been calling for it. We believe it is never too late to act. The point of the bill is to do things right and to move more quickly. Introducing such a bill means aligning with Quebec's demands and ensuring a strong Quebec within a strong Canada.