House of Commons Hansard #143 of the 45th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was c-39.
This summary is computer-generated. Usually it’s accurate, but every now and then it’ll contain inaccuracies or total fabrications.
Building Canada Strong Act Second reading of Bill C-39. The bill, titled the Building Canada Strong Act, proposes to modernize federal permitting and environmental reviews by establishing a one-year decision timeline for major projects. The government argues these measures will streamline supply chains, modernize port governance, and improve labour relations to boost competitiveness. Conversely, opposition parties criticize the legislation, with Conservatives arguing it adds unnecessary bureaucracy and Bloc Québécois members warning it risks circumventing environmental laws and threatening worker protections. 49100 words, 6 hours in 2 segments: 1 2.
Protecting Young Persons from Exposure to Pornography Act Second reading of Bill S-209. The bill, S-209, seeks to restrict young persons’ online access to pornography via commercial age verification. Supporters argue it provides a vital tool for protecting children online. While Liberals support the objectives of Bill S-209, they contend that government initiatives like Bill C-34 offer a more effective way to address digital safety, sparking debate regarding the best legislative path. 7500 words, 1 hour.
Bill C-39 Building Canada Strong ActGovernment Orders
The Deputy Speaker Tom Kmiec
We are resuming debate.
Before I recognize the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley, this is just a reminder to members using “you” to speak through the Speaker and not directly to other members.
That being said, the hon. member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley.
Ellis Ross Conservative Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Sudbury.
We are here talking about Bill C-39. It is another announcement, another 250-page bill to talk about what we already announced last year, basically rewrapped in a more complicated bill. We are trying to talk about building Canada strong when we really should be talking about how to rebuild Canada strong, because we were a country that was growing before 10 years ago, when the Liberal government decided to stall and stifle our economy with Bill C-69 and Bill C-48.
To undo the damage done by these bills and the stifling of the economy, all we are getting now is announcements, whether we are talking about the Major Projects Office or Bill C-39. I was an MLA and was a chief councillor back in the days of LNG development 20 years ago, so this is where I come from. More specifically, I come from the processes of how to get projects approved, whether we are talking about environmental assessments provincially in B.C. or federally in Canada, and the regulations that go underneath them. Parallel to that is the consultation accommodation that must happen with aboriginal peoples.
It is great to see the conversation that we need an economy being so universal. After 10 years, we need an economy, but the government is not admitting that it did not like the economy growing. It did not like LNG development. It did not like LNG exports. In fact, it was the Liberal government that said that there was no business case for LNG development. It was this government that let Germany, when it came knocking on the door of Canada to secure an LNG deal, go away with a hydrogen deal.
I travelled to Ottawa to try to fix the record based on my experience of project development, whether we are talking about forestry, mining or LNG. The government did not take my request for a meeting. A member of the opposition did, and all I was here to say was that they were talking to the wrong people. The federal government has no idea what it is talking about. There is a huge business case for LNG. There is a huge demand, and if someone wants proof, they should come talk to the first nation leaders in B.C. They are the ones who put together the LNG export plan. They are the ones who fought for it and lobbied for it.
In fact, a lot of the leaders who fought for it did so with no praise or recognition, which is a shame. These are people like Elmer Derrick and the people of Nisga'a. The leadership at the time, who were supporting my band in getting LNG off the ground, never got recognition. Now LNG is pursuing its own LNG facility, but all of that was with all the opposition from the provincial government in B.C. and the federal government. I did everything I could to understand environmental assessments, regulations and case law, and the only thing I can say now is that I wish I knew then what I know now in terms of how this place operates. We could have gotten it done quicker.
It is a shame that Canada is in the position it is in now as a weak country, just because of the ideology of saying “no” to LNG development and exports. There were 18 major LNG projects in B.C. at a time when we just got started. All of them left. One major project from my territory, the only one that survived, was LNG Canada, and there are some minor floating LNG projects.
If there had been no opposition to development back then, we would not be here having this conversation. We would not be talking about affordability, jobs or our young people leaving the country. We would not be talking about the need to cut taxes, because the economy would have been keeping up. Unfortunately, the damage that has been done in 10 years has brought us to a place where the most we can do now is try to send signals to the world about announcements: Let us repack what we announced last year into a 250-page bill and call it Bill C-39.
However, I am glad that at a high level, the opinion of the Liberal government seems to be changing. It is a Festivus miracle, but will that translate into something of substance? Right now, it is going to take some time to understand how this 250-page bill fits with the fast-track approval of a project, given that we already had an announcement of a Major Projects Office that was supposed to do the same thing. That buzz over the Major Projects Office is now a fizzle.
Now, partially, Bill C-39 is talking about the existing powers of the Canadian Impact Assessment Agency and how it is going to be amended but also how some is going to be transferred over to the energy regulator and some might be fast-tracked to the Major Projects Office. I have just one fundamental question that the government cannot answer. At the end of the day, who signs the environmental assessment certificate? Is it going to be the regulator, the Major Projects Office or the Canadian Impact Assessment Agency? Whoever does it is going to take responsibility for that signature going forward. The government cannot answer that.
How is industry supposed to have the certainty to invest in Canada if the legislation and regulations are all over the map? Corporations, and first nations for that matter, are going to have to hire lawyers and consultants to pore over these new bills to find out exactly what the process is.
By the way, I heard a number of the government members talking about indigenous consultation. There is a contradiction in terms of what they are saying about consultative duties to first nations people affected by major projects. I am talking about that pre-decision, pre-approval, to approve it in one year, but the courts have said it cannot do that. When the Crown is aware of a decision that might affect rights and title, the government has to consult and accommodate first nations before it makes the decision.
Ellis Ross Conservative Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Shall I say it again? Before you make the decision, you must consult and accommodate, not after the fact, when you have made the decision. Your own policy says it. Read your policy on the Justice Canada site. It—
Bill C-39 Building Canada Strong ActGovernment Orders
The Deputy Speaker Tom Kmiec
I have to interrupt the member to remind him not to speak directly to the other side but to speak through the Speaker. I will let the member continue.
Ellis Ross Conservative Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Mr. Speaker, Canada's own policy says that. Even though I am getting heckled by the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader, I am just reciting what Canada's policy says. How is the government going to square that?
I have seen what has been done in the B.C. treaty process. The government makes the decision and then promises to continue consulting and accommodating. That is not what the court case said. Interestingly enough, though, back in the day, as first nations, we could only dream of planning our future. We had no money and no resources, and we were under the Indian Act. We could not plan a future under the Indian Act. It is a very punitive system for first nations, so it was very hard to plan a future.
There are entities out there now, though, and I think the government should seriously consider this, that could help, not with the process itself of environmental assessments, rights and title, but could help a region, town or first nation plan for the future in light of what might be major project development in Canada. Specifically, I am talking about the Canadian Institute of Planners. I know they are here lobbying the government and members of the opposition.
I can see my past, my history, in what they are talking about. It partly relates to what I wish I knew then as opposed to what I know now. It could have made life a lot easier not only for my first nations people but for the surrounding area. At the end of the day, as a judge said back in the day, “Let's face it, none of us are going anywhere. We're all in this together.”
Marcus Powlowski Liberal Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for his intervention, although I ended up feeling a little confused. He started off talking about Liberal policies stalling and stifling major projects.
In this bill, my understanding is that both the impact assessment and the permitting would be done concurrently and over the course of a year. I would think that would address his problem with our stalling major projects. Then he went on, and it seemed that at the end he was criticizing the one year as not being enough.
Exactly where does the member stand on the one-year timeline to get projects approved?
Ellis Ross Conservative Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his confusion because I am confused as well. I know the existing process under the Canadian Impact Assessment Agency, but I do not understand the correlation to the Major Projects Office, and now we have a new bill that talks about a regulator being in charge. As far as I can see, it is a three-ring circus. If people do not understand the process, which should be a clear-cut process for investors, first nations and Canadians, then how are we going to build Canada strong?
I understand your confusion.
Jenny Kwan NDP Vancouver East, BC
Mr. Speaker, over the course of the summer, the government consulted with unions and labour organizations. Federal unions have been calling for section 107 of the Canada Labour Code to be removed, after the government has used it to order workers back to work, undermining the collective bargaining process, at least 10 times. Now the government is proposing new language around section 107 and calling these changes “guardrails”, but unions are telling us that these changes could potentially weaken workers' bargaining power.
If organized labour did not ask for these changes, who does the member think did request these changes? Would it be the big corporations?
Ellis Ross Conservative Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Mr. Speaker, that is great question, and it is an important issue. I mean, the labour is what actually builds Canada. It provides the jobs, the contracts and the subcontracts. Those are the people who build the bridges, the buildings and the LNG plants.
Really, this issue is so important that it has to go to committee. It cannot just stay the way it is. That is what committees were built for, and that is what I will be hoping the government does: send this issue to committee.
Dave Epp Conservative Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON
Mr. Speaker, I wonder if my colleague from Skeena—Bulkley Valley would agree with the following statement. The presentation in this chamber of Bill C-39 is actually a proof point, in the same manner that Bill C-5 was a proof point.
What do I mean? Well, Bill C-5 is a proof point that 10 or 11 years of Liberal government has basically stifled resource development in this country, so the government needed Bill C-5. We supported it, fast-tracked it through, and now, after 18 months and 500 projects, absolutely zero has been done. Now the government has added a word, calling it “building Canada strong”, and here we are with Bill C-39.
Would the member agree that it is a proof point that neither 10 years of previous policy nor the issuance of Bill C-5 has developed this country at all?
Ellis Ross Conservative Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Mr. Speaker, without a doubt, we should not be here. We should be building on past successes. We should have been building 18 LNG projects out of B.C. We should not be having this discussion about Canada being Canada strong in terms of breaking down the barriers. I mean, after that big announcement of one Canada, one economy, we still cannot sell wine from one province to another province. It has just been announcement after announcement.
I agree that 10 years of damage to our economy trying to be undone by the people who actually did the damage is actually putting us far down the ladder in terms of economics.
Linda Lapointe Liberal Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC
Mr. Speaker, I would like to know what my colleague thinks about our commitment to ensuring that decisions on projects requiring a federal permit are made within one year.
This would give investors and project proponents the predictability and clarity they need. When it comes to making investments, people need to know what to expect.
Ellis Ross Conservative Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Mr. Speaker, without a doubt, yes, I agree with one year, as long as the process is followed and is described clearly and, by the way, as long as the case law is followed that has been laid out by the courts on how to address rights and title. We cannot put an arbitrary time limit on the rights and title of first nations people. That is what I am talking about when I talk about the contradiction in Bill C-39. There is no answer to that.
Linda Lapointe Liberal Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to address Bill C-39, the building Canada strong act. I would also like to take the opportunity to welcome my colleagues to this new parliamentary session. This is the first time I have spoken since we came back. I hope that we will have a good session of constructive work and that we will move quickly on all the bills that we need to move forward and pass.
When we talk about building Canada strong, we often think of major projects. We think of infrastructure. This includes ports, railways and major investments. In my view, a strong Canada starts in our communities. It starts at home.
I proudly represent the riding of Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, which is located in the Lower Laurentians of Quebec and includes the cities of Boisbriand, Rosemère, Deux-Montagnes and Saint-Eustache. I am very proud of these communities. I meet families and workers there, as well as entrepreneurs and small and medium-sized business owners. I meet people from the manufacturing sector who want to continue to produce and create good local jobs. What they want from us is simple. They want stability. They want clear rules. They want to be able to invest. They want to be able to hire as well as grow their businesses.
They want us to get things done.
This issue is even more important today. We live in a world where economic uncertainty has become a daily reality. We see it particularly clearly in our trade relationship with the United States.
Just a few months ago, entrepreneurs in my riding were telling me about plans to expand. They were talking to me about growing their businesses, buying new equipment and hiring more workers. I was told about plans in Saint-Eustache and elsewhere in the Lower Laurentians.
Today, the context has changed. With the uncertainty coming from the United States, some entrepreneurs are being more cautious. Some are re-evaluating their plans, while others prefer to wait before making a major decision. I can understand them. I was an entrepreneur before I got into politics. Expanding a plant, buying equipment and hiring workers are big decisions. A business needs to know where the markets will be. It needs to know what it will be able to get in return for its goods. It also needs to know that it will be able to deliver its products to its customers. It needs predictability.
We do not control every decision made south of the border, but we can act on what we control here in Canada. We can make our processes more efficient, strengthen our infrastructure, diversify our markets and create a climate where businesses have more confidence to invest within Canada.
A significant portion of Bill C‑39 focuses specifically on how we review major projects in Canada. Currently, a proponent may have to work with multiple departments. They may also need to go through a process to get the necessary authorizations. Bill C‑39 seeks to better coordinate these efforts. For certain designated projects, a decision should be made within a year once the required studies and information have been provided. A one-year timeline would be fantastic. The bill also calls for better coordination of assessments, federal authorizations and, of course, consultations with indigenous groups.
In my view, the idea is simple. Companies that want to invest in Canada need to know the rules. They need to know what the steps are. They also need to know how quickly a decision can be made. That does not mean that we are setting aside our environmental responsibilities, nor does it mean that we are setting aside consultations with indigenous peoples We need to do things right, but we also need to be able to do them efficiently.
We can build faster, and we can build responsibly.
Another aspect of Bill C‑39 is particularly important to me. I have been a member of the Standing Committee on International Trade for several years, and I am thinking here of supply chains and trade corridors. At committee, we talk a lot about trade agreements. In fact, we have signed about 20 of them in the past year. We are talking about new markets. We are talking about exporting more Canadian products. However, trade agreements are not enough. We need to be able to deliver the products.
I will give a very concrete example that we heard at the Standing Committee on International Trade. Earlier this year, we heard from Antoine Morin, senior vice-president at Olymel, a company with a strong presence in Quebec's pork production market. We are talking about Canadian exports to Japan, a very important market. Some of that pork is sold fresh, never frozen. It is a very valuable commodity that needs to be delivered in a very specific time frame. Mr. Morin explained that Olymel uses the port of Vancouver as its main gateway to Asia. He also explained what happens when there is a service disruption or a strike. When fresh pork piles up at the port, the company has to make a decision quickly. They may need to freeze a product that has to be sold fresh. They may also need to redirect it to another market. The product is not necessarily lost, but some of its value may be. They also have to pay for storage. There are delays and additional pressure on trading partners.
Olymel explained that roughly 250 containers pass through the port of Vancouver every week. That represents a lot of money and a lot of jobs in Quebec and Canada. When service is disrupted, up to 50 containers a day could be delayed. If a disruption lasts for as long as a week, losses can run into the millions of dollars. That is real money. Getting a container of fresh pork to market requires producers, factory workers, shippers, railways, the port and, at the end of the chain, customers in Asia waiting for their product. When just one link in that supply chain fails, the consequences can be felt everywhere.
That is why reliability matters.
Our partners need to know that when they buy a Canadian product, we can deliver it on time. We need to be able to deliver on time. It is a matter of trust. It is also a matter of Canada's reputation. That is why Bill C‑39 proposes, among other things, the designation of trade corridors. The bill would also allow for the creation of a national trade corridors council. This council would track the movement of goods, analyze significant disruptions and recommend solutions.
The bill also provides for the possibility of establishing a transportation project office. The goal is to better coordinate federal authorizations related to transportation projects. This objective is particularly important for Quebec. Quebec has the St. Lawrence River, ports, and road and rail networks. Quebec has businesses that sell products across Canada and around the world. The Lower Laurentians is part of that network. A business in Boisbriand may depend on a supplier on the other side of the country. A business in Saint‑Eustache may have customers in the United States, Europe or Asia. Everything is connected.
A trade agreement can open the door, but we still have to deliver the goods.
We also need to talk about workers because we cannot have a strong economy without the men and women who keep it running every day. Bill C-39 will not do away with labour disputes, but it does seek to encourage the parties to begin bargaining earlier. It seeks to strengthen the use of mediation and to provide more opportunities for workers and employers to come to an agreement on their own. It is important to note that workers must be able to defend their interests and rights, while employers need stability and predictability. The best solutions are often those that the parties are able to negotiate themselves.
The bill also seeks to strengthen occupational health and safety resources. It provides for additional resources for the Canada Industrial Relations Board. If we look at what happened with Olymel, we see just how closely related labour relations and supply chains are. A disruption can have consequences far beyond the place where it occurs.
I want to come back to my riding of Rivière‑des‑Mille‑Îles. When we debate an important bill here in Ottawa, we always need to be thinking of the people we are doing this work for. I am thinking of the business owners that I know in my riding. Some of them had plans to expand. Today, they are being more cautious about those plans.
Marc Dalton Conservative Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC
Mr. Speaker, it is a bit discouraging to be having this debate now in the House of Commons. Why? It is because we already passed a similar bill barely 18 months ago. The Conservatives voted in favour of it because the Prime Minister said that those projects would be fast-tracked at unimaginable speeds. The result is that 500 projects are currently stalled. We are not seeing any progress at all.
Can the member tell me whether we will see another bill like this one 18 months down the line?
Linda Lapointe Liberal Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC
Mr. Speaker, my colleague is talking about hypothetical projects. Today, I am here to speak to Bill C-39.
I would like to know what my colleague thinks about the fact that after the studies and the consultations with indigenous peoples are done, it would take only one year to initiate a major project. What does he think about investors knowing that it would only take a year for it to get started?
Mario Simard Bloc Jonquière, QC
Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether my colleague read the bill carefully. I did. It gives the government the option of launching oil or gas infrastructure projects without completing environmental assessments first.
Here is a very telling example. Back home, the GNL Québec project was turned down. Its proponents had said that they would respect the environmental assessments. However, when their proposal was flatly refused, they turned around and sued the government. I am loathe to think what would happen if an oil and gas project got off the ground, with infrastructure construction under way, only to find out that the project was a no-go and had to be shut down. That would lead to devastating lawsuits for the government.
Is my colleague aware of that?
Linda Lapointe Liberal Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague.
Which riding do you represent? Is it Chicoutimi or Lac-Saint-Jean?
Linda Lapointe Liberal Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC
Welcome to the Standing Committee on International Trade. I understand you are to be our new member. I very much look forward to working with you on the Standing Committee on International Trade.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to hear that he is going to join our committee.
His question was about consultations. Before a major project is approved and implemented, there is a one-year period for the environmental assessment and consultations with indigenous peoples.
No, we will not cut corners.
Bill C-39 Building Canada Strong ActGovernment Orders
The Assistant Deputy Speaker John Nater
I will just remind everyone that members are to speak through the Chair.
Questions and comments, the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands.
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Mr. Speaker, I am disappointed with Bill C-39.
Unlike the Liberal MPs, I would say that there are no environmental lawyers who believe this bill protects the environment. I would like to ask whether the government and its MPs are open to significant and serious amendments, because this bill is unacceptable.
Linda Lapointe Liberal Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my highly esteemed colleague.
Bill C‑39 will be studied by a special committee. If amendments are suggested and the parliamentarians on that committee accept them, there is definitely a way to move them forward.
When it comes to the environment, “one project, one year” still involves environmental studies and respect for indigenous peoples' rights and consultations.
