Debates of Oct. 7th, 2026

Building Canada Strong Act

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie South—Innisfil, ON]

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

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

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

[Rebecca Alty, Liberal, Northwest Territories, NT]

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

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

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

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

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

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

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

[Rebecca Alty, Liberal, Northwest Territories, NT]

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

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

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

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

[Rebecca Alty, Liberal, Northwest Territories, NT]

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

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie South—Innisfil, ON]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here is what the Canadian Labour Congress said:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie South—Innisfil, ON]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie South—Innisfil, ON]

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

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Mitis—Matapédia—Les Basques, QC]

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

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

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie South—Innisfil, ON]

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

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

[Evan Solomon, Liberal, Minister of Artificial Intelligence and Digital Innovation and Minister responsible for the Federal Economic Development Agency for Southern Ontario]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Evan Solomon, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, that was a great question, and I would welcome the hon. member's support as we build great transportation projects like high-speed rail. If he wants to help expedite those kinds of things, I would be more than delighted to welcome him and his support to move some of the major projects in transportation forward. We will count on his support. I look forward to the foreshadowing of his support for expediting great projects like high-speed rail.

Through this particular bill, Bill C-39, it is absolutely important that we are doing one project, one review, one year for major projects while keeping the regulations, the safety of the environment and the consultation with indigenous partners in place.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière—Hébertville—Pays-des-Bleuets, QC]

Madam Speaker, I hope to have better luck with the minister than I did with his two colleagues, the member for Halifax and the member for Guelph. I asked them earlier how fast-tracking the Pacific link pipeline was going to help us sell more oil to other countries. His colleague from Guelph told me that there would potentially be customers in Europe and Asia, which is completely false.

I would like to remind the minister that 91% of our oil exports go to the United States. We are in the midst of a trade crisis. The government wants to use public money to build infrastructure that will benefit the Americans.

I would like to know, once and for all, and especially from him, whether he thinks it makes sense to make Canadian and Quebec taxpayers foot the bill for infrastructure that will mainly benefit Americans.

[Evan Solomon, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

First of all, I want to point out that the projects of this government have supported Quebec, as we saw with Churchill, the largest clean-energy infrastructure project in North America, which benefited Quebec. This is absolutely critical.

To the member's question, and it is a good question, as the member knows, we sell oil now to the United States at a discount because it is the only customer. This project would allow us to expand our markets to have the revenue to support the very projects we want to build and to support all Canadians and, of course, the people of Quebec.

[Tom Osborne, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board]

Madam Speaker, part of the problem we are facing in the country in these current geopolitical times is the fact that a proponent must go through a process where in one department, a silo, a number of boxes need to be checked, and in another department, another silo, a number of boxes need to be checked. Some of those are duplicates. I am asking the minister to comment on the importance of ensuring that we are competitive as a country so that we can attract business in this country, as opposed to it going to other countries, such as south of the border.

[Evan Solomon, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, we know that delays have made Canada in some ways less competitive. The purpose of this bill is to have one project, one review, one year. This would give certainty to investors, get projects built and make Canada more competitive.

[Scott Anderson, Conservative, Vernon—Lake Country—Monashee, BC]

Madam Speaker, about a year and a half ago, the Liberal government told Canadians that Bill C-5 would fundamentally change the way major projects were approved and built in this country. Canada was going to build “at speeds not seen in generations”. We Conservatives allowed Bill C-5 to go through because we thought that the grandiose promises we were hearing would improve things even a bit. We were wrong, because the only thing of any importance that has been produced has been a cloud of MOUs and bucketloads of promises.

Eighteen months later, here we are again discussing another bill promising to do the same thing. What exactly has changed? There are a couple of projects that Bill C-5 was supposed to speed up. The Pacific link oil pipeline has not been built. The LNG Canada phase two expansion has not been done. The Coastal GasLink phase two construction has not even started.

Then I looked up projects around the world that had been finished in 18 months, and not just the building portion, but all the way from planning to completion. First of all, there was the Space Needle in 1962. There was also the Empire State Building in 1930, the Pentagon in 1941, the Alaska Highway in 1942, Tesla's gigafactory in Shanghai in 2019, and the Crystal Palace in London in 1851. Even the Eiffel Tower took less than two years from planning to completion. Why did these projects get built? It was because people actually wanted them to get built. They all shared a hard completion date, and on that date they were complete.

Unlike builders that want things to get built, the Liberal government seems to measure progress by announcements and handouts. By that measure, the Liberals clap themselves on their backs and announce that they stand behind Canadian workers, but Canadian workers and businesses measure progress by construction sites and paycheques. They want a society where people can succeed without depending on government handouts. They would prefer that the Liberal government not stand behind them if it means that the government will have its hand in their wallets.

At some point, loud media announcements have to become construction projects, and so far we have seen very few. Investors can manage even Liberal red tape when the rules are clear and predictable, but it is an impossible minefield with this degree of uncertainty. A company considering a multi-billion-dollar investment needs to know what information will be required, who will make the decision, how the federal and provincial processes will interact, and when the process will actually end. If Canada cannot provide that certainty, investors have other choices. We are competing for capital with jurisdictions around the world, and having enormous resources is not enough if companies will not invest because it will take too long or cost too much to develop projects.

Let us look at the Trans Mountain expansion. It was first proposed in 2012, received federal approval in 2016, had that approval quashed by the Federal Court of Appeal and was finally purchased by the federal government in 2018. The expansion itself did not get rolling until two years ago, in 2024. Until the Liberal government gets serious, projects will spend years navigating regulatory processes and government decisions before Canadians actually see shovels in the ground, if they ever do.

Let us take a look at one false promise. Bill C-39 promises a one-year period once an investor has submitted the required information and studies. This is sheer nonsense. I have been around government bureaucracies long enough to know that the step Liberals are promising in Bill C-39 should take no more than a week because the bottleneck is not there. The bottleneck comes long before that.

Do members remember the phrase “once an investor has submitted the required information and studies”? Those steps, the expensive studies, the arbitrary interpretations by bureaucratic middle managers in government, the lost reports, the forgotten files and the endless red tape are where the bottleneck is, long before the final step comes. That collection of documents, reports and permissions can take years and millions of dollars for any large project, and in a climate of grudging and self-sabotaging “hurry up and wait”, it is not looking promising.

In this political climate of overpromising and underdelivering, if the project ever does start, it will be in spite of the government, because so far, the speeds not seen in generations, the speeds promised by the Liberal government, have turned out to be speeds so slow that they have not been seen since the last ice age. Here we are again, lighting the fuse to a promised Liberal rocket ship of economic activity a year after the last one sputtered out in an ashtray.

I want to be optimistic. I want to think that this time, in spite of all the very real drawbacks, in spite of history and in spite of common sense, Bill C-39 will magically succeed where Bill C-5 failed so dismally, but it is a faint hope.

I want to give an analogy. We have a drought back home in my riding. One proposed solution is to raise the local dam by two metres to retain the freshet in the spring so the supply lasts all summer. The regional district argued that since no water has spilled over the top of the existing dam for the last couple of years, raising it will not actually help. On the face of it, this is reasonable logic. If the water does not even come up to the top of the existing dam, what is the point of raising the dam even higher?

That common sense leads me to ask, if the Building Canada Act, which gave the Liberal cabinet almost unprecedented power, did not manage to build anything, why should Canadians think for a minute that giving the Prime Minister's Office even more power with the building Canada strong act would work any better? Is this really about getting Canada working, or is it more about gathering power in the Prime Minister's Office?

Here is the thing. During the 2008-09 financial crisis, the Harper government introduced measures intended to do much the same thing, with the stated objective of shortening approval times for major projects. That proposal was much less hyped than Bill C-39 and much more effective. Back then, when Canada faced another economic crisis, the very idea of speeding things up set Liberal hair on fire. To take just one example, my very esteemed colleague, the Minister of Defence, at that time the Liberal environment critic, described the Conservative government as a “far-right Reform, Republican, Conservative regime...undermining the very environmental assessment that Brian Mulroney brought into this country in 1992”.

Apparently the minister is now not bothered by that prospect and has no concerns whatsoever, nor is any single member of the Liberal caucus concerned about a concentration of economic power or decision-making power almost oligarchic in scope. Does the minister now believe that his own Liberal government is aligned with the far-right Republican government in another country, the very country that his party blames for the dismal economy in Canada?

We have gone from the Building Canada Act to the building Canada strong act. I sincerely hope the second one works better than the first, but if we are back here in another year, debating another bill with “build Canada” in the title, Canadians are going to be disgusted, as they should be. Ultimately the test should be results. Canadians do not need handouts and school lunch programs, and loud announcements cannot replace jobs and the self-respect that comes with providing for a family.

I will approach the legislation with an open mind but also with the skepticism that comes from having heard promises before about accelerating major projects. The government has said it wants Canada to build at speeds not seen in generations. That is an ambitious standard, but ultimately Canadians should not judge this legislation by the number of announcements it kicks off. They should judge by what they can actually see being built, and so far it is not looking good.

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

Mr. Speaker, the room did not all jump up at once, but what a great speech that was. The member has really brought some things to mind. I know that the Prime Minister tweeted the other day, “In September last year, we referred LNG Canada Phase 2 in Kitimat, B.C., to the Major Projects Office. Now, it’s moving forward”.

This points out what the member has said. This was a final investment decision by the proponent. The Major Projects Office the Prime Minister talks about did not approve or advance the project. It is a form of regulatory Kabuki theatre. In the bill, the Liberals like to talk about creating a transportation project office, saying that this thing would help get projects done. The funny thing is that it would have no authority. It would be completely discretionary and optional for the minister. He could choose not to go ahead with it. Worse than that, unlike part 1 of the bill, which actually says that we would have a timeline, for which, of course, there are exemptions, it does not have any timelines for transportation projects.

Does the member feel, as I do, that there is so much regulatory Kabuki theatre going on?

[Scott Anderson, Conservative, Vernon—Lake Country—Monashee, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I was taken by the last speaker's claim that this would get rid of duplication and would make for more coherence. I am wondering why, after 11 years, there is so much duplication and why our process is incoherent. How can that be? We talk about these things, and I guess it feels almost as if we were talking about it in the abstract. No member of the House is sitting around the kitchen table wondering if they can make their mortgage. No member of the House is worried about their next paycheque. These are things that matter to people outside the House.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague spoke at length about the current government's lack of transparency and less democratic approach.

Thanks to work done by my colleague, the member for Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, we included a five-year sunset clause in Bill C-5 to review the act. Strangely, the Liberals reversed that clause in Bill C‑39. This move even drew criticism from the Canadian Civil Liberties Association.

What does my colleague think about the fact that Bill C‑39 removes this five-year sunset clause?