Bill C-39 Building Canada Strong Act

C-39 An Act Respecting Certain Measures to Strengthen the Economy

Short Title: Building Canada Strong Act

Bill Type:  House Government Bill

Bill Sponsor:  Minister of Transport and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons MP Steven MacKinnon

Status: 2nd Reading, House of Commons 

Estimated read time: 6 minutes

What is this Bill For?

The Government says Bill C-39 is intended “to strengthen the economy.” It would change how Canada assesses and authorizes major projects, moves goods and handles some labor disputes. It also covers environmental permits, ports, shipping, electronic trade documents, unpaid wages and wage-earner protection.

The Bill contains both shortcuts and safeguards. Some provisions would take effect only on dates later set by Government Order. Its faster target timelines are not automatic project approvals.

WHO GAINS POWER

Ministers and the Government would gain more control over some project decisions. The Government could name Regions of National Interest by Order. For a project meeting a region’s criteria, findings needed for specified Federal Authorizations could be treated as favorable. The Minister could decide that a particular required measure is no longer needed as a result of the Regional Assessment. 

The Bill’s Regional Schedule starts empty: it names no region or eligible project.

The Transport Minister would gain powers involving trade corridors, transportation security clearances, ports, emergency measures and certain international bridge and tunnel decisions. Government approval would remain necessary to construct an international bridge or tunnel, while the Minister could approve certain alterations. The Government could appoint an administrator over a St. Lawrence Seaway operator in specified circumstances.

Federal officials could share import/export information with other Federal officials legally permitted to collect it, even despite confidentiality provisions listed in Schedule 3. The Government could change that list by Order.

In labor matters, the Minister could appoint a special mediator. During an otherwise lawful strike or lockout, the Minister could direct the Labour Board toward specified Return-to-Work or Binding Resolution measures only after considering a special Mediator’s report and forming the opinion that the dispute adversely affects or may adversely affect the national interest.

WHO LOSES POWER

An individual Project Assessment would not revisit effects the Minister is satisfied were already covered by a Regional Assessment. Certain works situated in a port would leave the Canadian Navigable Waters Act process, with specified existing Ministerial authorizations and conditions treated as Port-Authority authorizations and conditions.

For a first Collective Agreement still unresolved nine months after Notice to Bargain, either party could seek a Board Order for binding resolution. That Order would suspend the right to strike or lock out while it operates. Appointing a special Mediator alone would not suspend that right.

WHO GAINS MONEY

Workers owed wages could benefit from stronger collection tools. If an employer failed to pay a written wage settlement, the Head of Compliance and Enforcement could issue an Enforcement Order. In specified circumstances, someone who owes money to the employer could be directed to pay the Head instead.

Certain marine-pollution claimants could receive interest. The Bill would require additional records about hazardous and noxious substances and HNS Fund contributions, allow verification and extend specified violation procedures to ships. Listed fines and penalties have maximum amounts, not automatic amounts.

WHO LOSES MONEY

An employer subject to a specified Wage Payment or Settlement Enforcement Order could owe an administrative fee equal to the greater of $200 or 15% of the amount indicated.

A person could challenge a Port Authority’s fee decision with the Canadian Transportation Agency but the complaint would not stop the fee taking effect. The Agency could order a remedy after deciding it.

WHAT ELSE CHANGES?

For certain environmental authorizations, decision-makers would have to consider whether conditions are technically, economically and practically feasible. The Bill would allow transfers of certified fish habitat credits and allow regulations specifying when an authorized person may pay a fee to offset harmful effects. A fee is not presented as an unconditional substitute for habitat protection. In the other direction, the Bill would expand the scope of Environmental Compliance Orders.

A foreign or non-duty-paid ship could respond to a declared emergency without a Coasting Trade License, subject to time limits and an information requirement. The Bill would also repeal the Shipping Conferences Exemption Act, 1987. It would create a temporary Prairie railway inter-switching zone, with its four year period tied to commencement of the specified rules.

Qualifying electronic trade documents could stand in for paper documents when reliable methods establish control, distinguish the document from copies and protect it against unauthorized changes. People would not be required to use an electronic trade document without consent, though consent could be inferred from conduct.

For federally regulated workers, certain bargaining rights and collective agreements would carry over when one contractor succeeds another. Some agreements would trigger earlier bargaining and mediation. A qualifying collective agreement with at least as favorable paid medical leave benefits and third-party dispute resolution would govern those leave disagreements.

THE CATCH

⚠️ The project clock can stop — Proposed decision periods allow specified extensions and suspensions. Missing a deadline would not automatically approve a project or end the decision-maker’s authority.

⚠️ Regional findings can shape later approvals — Schedule 2 starts empty, but the Government could later name regions and eligible project types. For a qualifying project, specified Authorization findings could be deemed favorable. The Minister could decide that a required measure is no longer needed because of the Regional Assessment.

⚠️ Some effects cannot be revisited in the Project Assessment — An individual Assessment would not re-examine effects the Minister is satisfied the Regional Assessment already covered. The quality and detail of that earlier Assessment would matter.

⚠️ Listed confidentiality provisions can be overridden for disclosure — Schedule 3 identifies provisions in the Customs Act, Income Tax Act, Excise Tax Act and other Acts. The receiving Federal official would still have to be legally permitted to collect the import/export information.

⚠️ A lawful labor dispute can face Government intervention — After considering a special mediator’s report, the Minister could seek specified Board measures during a lawful strike or lockout if the Minister forms the Bill’s stated National Interest opinion. A separate First Agreement Binding Resolution Order would suspend strike and lockout rights while it operates.

⚠️ A challenged port fee can take effect — Filing a complaint with the Agency would not pause the fee. A remedy could come only after the Agency decides the complaint.

⚠️ Port works leave a separate navigation process — The Bill would remove works situated in a Port from the Canadian Navigable Waters Act. That is a change in who administers these works, not just a shorter deadline.

⚠️ Business continuity affects wage protection — The proposed Wage Earner Protection Program wording concerns an insolvent former employer that permanently ends operations. A business continuing operations under changed ownership or legal form would not count as having permanently ended operations. The Bill text alone does not establish whether every affected worker could recover wages another way.

⚠️ The official Summary leaves out consequences — It identifies the Bill’s major subjects, but does not plainly explain favorable deeming rules, limits on revisiting effects, Schedule 3’s listed confidentiality provisions or what happens when a project deadline is missed. 

The official Summary identifies the Bill’s main subjects, but leaves out several important consequences. It is incomplete, not wholly false.