Fact-checking Bill C-39: Carney and Poilievre on project deadlines, strike powers, nuclear reviews and implications for Ignace and Northwestern Ontario

Carney promises faster decisions; Poilievre wants firmer deadlines and amendments. For Northwestern Ontario, the proposed nuclear-review changes deserve close scrutiny

THUNDER BAY — October 16, 2026 — Ottawa’s Building Canada Strong Act would reshape federal project reviews and labour relations, with potential implications for transportation workers, major developments and the proposed nuclear-waste repository near Ignace.

But several distinctions matter: Bill C-39 is not yet law; its one-year objective is not a guarantee of approval; and its proposed strike-intervention provisions do not govern every federal public servant.

The legislation passed second reading on October 8, by 296 votes to 26, and is being considered by a House of Commons committee. The Senate has also begun a pre-study of its subject matter. That is not Senate passage.

Carney: faster decisions without lower standards

Prime Minister Mark Carney set out the government’s approach in his September 15 Canada Investment Summit speech.

“One project. One review. One year,” he said.

He also said that “high standards do not require slow decisions,” arguing that speed and predictability would help attract investment.

The government’s position is that assessments, permitting and Indigenous consultation should be coordinated, with departments working concurrently rather than completing separate processes one after another.

For projects remaining in the Impact Assessment Agency’s stream, the proposal would consolidate specified federal approvals into a decision document. Different arrangements would apply to projects regulated by the Canada Energy Regulator or Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission. This is not a promise that every provincial, municipal or other authorization would be replaced by one federal permit.

Analysis: There is a real distinction between eliminating duplicated administrative work and reducing the evidence or safeguards required before construction. The central debate is whether C-39 achieves the former while adequately protecting against the latter.

Poilievre: support for committee study, with significant reservations

Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre has criticized the proposed deadlines while supporting further parliamentary examination.

In the September 23 Commons debate, he said:

“We need a real bill that will truly cap the consideration time for a project at under a year.”

He argued that preparation requirements, pauses and extensions could leave proponents waiting much longer than the headline suggested. He advocated a six-month target and described the government’s approach as “headlines without deadlines.” Those are his criticisms, not independent findings about every project.

Poilievre nevertheless voted yes at second reading on October 8, according to his official voting record.

The Conservatives intend to propose committee amendments, including stronger timelines and worker protections. Supporting second reading allows a bill to proceed for study; it does not establish support for its eventual final wording.

What the one-year promise actually means

The government’s review clock should not be confused with the entire period between a project idea and construction.

Proponents still need to prepare applications, complete studies and supply required information. Independent legal analysis explains that the preparation and completeness stages can materially affect the total elapsed time. Their duration will vary by project. There is no sound basis for presenting roughly 18 months of preparation as a universal requirement.

The proposed framework also contains mechanisms for extending or suspending timelines. For example, missing a specified decision-statement deadline would require an explanation; it would not automatically approve or reject the project.

A shorter decision timetable therefore means neither an automatic green light nor a guarantee that every necessary step finishes within one calendar year.

Early construction and changing conditions

C-39 would create authority to permit specified early activities before the main assessment decision, subject to conditions.

Analysis identifies separate powers for the environment minister and the nuclear regulator. It also notes that early works cannot encompass the whole project and that conditions must address harm caused by those activities.

The distinction matters for communities watching clearing, access roads or site preparation. Permission for early work would not necessarily mean approval of the entire development.

C-39 also broadens powers to alter approval conditions. It would end the sunset restriction on adding national-interest projects; that restriction is different from expiry of the entire Building Canada Act.

The Canadian Environmental Law Association argues that these changes would weaken participation, transparency and accountability, and has called for C-39’s withdrawal. That is its assessment of the proposed framework.

Who is covered by the labour changes?

Federal public servants should not all be grouped together with workers covered by the Canada Labour Code’s collective-bargaining provisions.

The government’s backgrounder says Part I of the Code, governing industrial relations, applies to more than one million employees and more than 22,000 employers in federally regulated private sectors.

Federal government departments and agencies generally operate under a different public-sector labour-relations system. Some Canada Labour Code health-and-safety provisions apply to public servants, but that does not make the Code’s Section 107 their general strike-intervention regime. The Canada Industrial Relations Board explains this jurisdictional distinction.

For Thunder Bay readers, workers in federally regulated transportation and communications businesses may have a direct interest in these proposals. Employees should check the regime governing their particular employer and bargaining unit.

What the proposed Section 107 says

Proposed subsection 107(2) would permit specified directions to the Canada Industrial Relations Board once a lawful strike or lockout begins. The minister must consider a special mediator’s report and conclude the stoppage adversely affects, or may adversely affect, the national interest.

Directions could resume operations, extend an agreement or impose binding dispute resolution. The text lists economic impacts, serious social disruption and freedom of association among relevant considerations.

The government describes this as a clearer framework with safeguards. Labour organizations argue that expressly entrenching intervention powers could weaken bargaining leverage.

The Canadian Labour Congress says a comparative legal analysis it commissioned found that C-39 would give Ottawa broader unilateral strike-ending powers than other G7 governments. That comparison should be attributed to the CLC and its commissioned analysis, rather than presented as an uncontested international ranking.

Analysis: The dispute is about more than whether an additional report is required. It concerns how the prospect of government intervention changes the incentives facing employers and unions before a settlement is reached.

Pipelines: the threshold measures new right of way

The threshold is new right of way, rather than total pipeline length. The CER Commission would decide certificates for projects requiring less than 300 kilometres of new right of way; those requiring 300 kilometres or more retain a government decision stage. This concerns federally regulated projects.

Nuclear reviews: 300 days is not the whole process

For designated nuclear and uranium projects, C-39 proposes making the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission the federal impact assessor, replacing the integrated IAAC–CNSC review-panel model.

The proposed timetable includes a report stage of up to 300 days and a decision stage of up to 65 days, alongside extension or suspension provisions. Describing that as a complete, unconditional 300-day approval process would be misleading.

A regulator conducting the assessment would still need to examine the project. Moving responsibility between institutions does not itself establish that a project is safe or should be licensed.

What this means for the repository near Ignace

Northwestern Ontario has a concrete reason to follow the legislation.

The Nuclear Waste Management Organization proposes a deep geological repository for used nuclear fuel near Wabigoon Lake Ojibway Nation and the Township of Ignace. The federal registry places the site approximately 43 kilometres northwest of Ignace and says the assessment is being conducted in collaboration with the CNSC.

The registry records the July 3 commencement announcement and issuance of guidelines for preparing the impact statement. The proposed repository is therefore already in a federal assessment process.

It should not be reported as automatically approved, transferred to a new process or ready for construction because C-39 has been introduced.

The treatment of projects already underway depends on transitional provisions and the stage reached when changes take effect.

Regional analysis: Residents should watch for a project-specific explanation of any proposed transition: who would conduct hearings, which studies remain required, how participation funding would work and what consultation arrangements apply.

Agreement by host communities to advance a proposal should also not be generalized into consent from every potentially affected Indigenous government or community.

Wildlife provisions: a more complicated picture than blanket opposition

The earlier proposal to allow exemptions from the Species at Risk Act’s jeopardy test was not included in C-39. That does not resolve concerns about the bill’s other environmental changes.

The Canadian Wildlife Federation’s position also needs nuance.

In a September 24 statement, it welcomed proposed third-party habitat banking and in-lieu fees under the Fisheries Act. The federation said pooling restoration resources could improve habitat outcomes, particularly where small individual projects are difficult to offset effectively.

It said the design of the system would matter to achieving net-positive outcomes. Its support for those tools should not be described as an endorsement of every part of the bill.

First Nations organizations want the bill withdrawn

On October 8, the Chiefs of Ontario, Nishnawbe Aski Nation, the Assembly of First Nations Quebec-Labrador and the British Columbia Assembly of First Nations jointly called for C-39’s withdrawal.

“First Nations rights cannot be made secondary to federally imposed project timelines,” Ontario Regional Chief Abram Benedict said.

The organizations argue that accelerated processes would undermine meaningful participation and influence over decisions affecting their territories.

The constitutional duty to consult cannot simply be extinguished by ordinary legislation. The disagreement concerns whether the proposed procedures would allow that duty to be fulfilled meaningfully in practice.

Business supporters see greater investment certainty

The Western Business Coalition welcomed C-39 in a September 22 statement, supporting the proposed review timeline and special-mediator process.

The coalition—representing business organizations in British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba—argued that the reforms would help attract investment and address competitiveness barriers.

Analysis: These are competing assessments of how the legislation would operate. Claims that it will necessarily deliver faster construction, or necessarily produce a particular environmental outcome, should be tested against implementation and evidence.

What happens next

C-39 still faces committee examination, the remaining Commons stages, Senate passage and Royal Assent. Some provisions would also require commencement decisions before operating.

However, saying that nothing related to the reform package is happening yet would be inaccurate. A separate Cabinet Directive took effect on September 21 to guide federal coordination while the legislation proceeds. A directive does not, by itself, supply statutory powers that Parliament has not enacted.

For Northwestern Ontario, the practical questions are specific: Will workers retain meaningful bargaining leverage? Will communities have time and resources to participate? Will scientific requirements remain clear? And will faster decisions remain decisions based on evidence?

Those are the issues to follow as Parliament examines the bill’s wording and proposed amendments.