Chak Au

Mr. Speaker, Canadians want Canada to build. They want more housing and energy infrastructure, stronger ports, better transportation corridors, and major projects that create jobs and expand our trade. Therefore, the question before Parliament is not whether Canada should build, but whether Bill C-39 fixes the problems that are preventing Canada from building. That brings me to this basic question: What happened to Bill C-5? Just over a year ago, Parliament passed the One Canadian Economy Act. Bill C-5 created the Building Canada Act to accelerate projects of national interest and provide a more coordinated and predictable federal approval process. The Liberals also created the Major Projects Office as a central point of contact. At the time, the Liberals told Canadians that this framework would streamline approvals, reduce duplications and move major projects forward faster, yet only a year later they are back with Bill C-39, another major bill, another new framework and another promise that this time they will get it right. That raises a fundamental question. If Canada is not building fast enough, is the problem a lack of legislation or the Liberals' failure to implement the legislation Parliament already passed? If the problem is bureaucratic coordination, then improve coordination. If the problem is insufficient resources, then provide the resources. If the problem is duplication, then remove it. If the existing legislation is outdated, repeal or consolidate it, rather than continually adding another layer. A new law does not magically solve an implementation problem; it simply papers over it. This is why timing matters. Parliament created a new framework only a year ago, with clear objectives, clear authorities and a dedicated Major Projects Office, yet after 12 months, only a few projects have been listed, and none have been approved. If the existing framework has not delivered results, Parliament deserves to know why. What coordination challenges remain? What duplications persist? Why would adding another major piece of legislation suddenly resolve delays that clearly stem from execution, not from the absence of statutory authority? Before creating a new framework, Parliament should insist on a clear explanation of why the existing one has not delivered the results Canadians were promised. That brings us to the one-year timeline, the centrepiece of the Liberals' argument for Bill C-39. At first glance, it sounds compelling. The Liberals say federal reviews and decisions would be completed within one year once all required information has been received. What happens when that year is not met? Is the project automatically approved? Does the government lose jurisdiction? Is there any consequence at all? The Liberals' own explanation make it clear that the clock begins only after the proponents submit comprehensive applications and finalize the required studies and information. Proponents may opt out of the timeline. Extensions and expansions may apply, including to complete indigenous consultations. There may be legitimate reasons for flexibility. Indigenous consultations cannot be rushed. Technical information cannot be ignored. Proponents may need additional time. That brings us to the core issue, which is accountability. If the timeline can be extended, suspended or opted out of, what makes one year a binding commitment rather than another Liberal talking point? If the goalpost can be removed and there is no consequence for missing the targets, who is accountable? Who explains the delay: the department, the regulator, the minister or the lead assessor? Would Canadians be able to see how often timelines are extended or suspended and for how long? A one-year target can be useful, but it must be accompanied by transparency and accountability. Otherwise, it is simply another promise without enforcement. Ports illustrate the border problem. Canada's trade strategy depends on moving goods efficiently from producers to international markets. The Liberals say transportation infrastructure faces overlapping requirements, duplicative process and lengthy timelines. Bill C-39 proposed changes to improve trade corridors and modernize port governance. These are significant proposals. Canada already has the Canada Marine Act, the Canada Transportation Act, Canada port authorities and the national trade corridors fund. Now Canada has the Building Canada Act and the Major Projects Office. If those tools are not producing timely results, then the problem is not legislative gaps; it is operational bottlenecks that Bill C-39 does not directly address. Consider the Roberts Bank Terminal 2 project in B.C. It underwent more than a decade of federal assessments. Its impact assessment was completed in 2023. It has been referred to the Major Projects Office, and yet it is still sitting there. Parliament should ask precisely what Bill C-39 will change for a project like this. Will it eliminate duplication? Will it coordinate the remaining permits? Will it establish clear responsibility? Will it produce a measurable timeline? Or, is it simply creating another layer of bureaucracy? A trade corridor is not just a port. It is the entire chain: the producer, the truck or rail connections, the terminal, the port, the vessel and, ultimately, the customer. If one part is slow, the entire corridor is slow. Parliament should support efforts to build faster, but building faster requires implementation, coordination and accountability, not simply more legislation. Two questions should guide our examination of Bill C-39. First, if the problem is implementation, why is another law the answer? Bill C-5 already created the Building Canada Act and the Major Projects Office to accelerate and coordinate major projects. Second, if the Liberals promise one-year decisions, what makes that a genuine commitment, if the timeline can be extended or suspended, and there is no consequence for missing it? Those are the questions Parliament should keep at the centre of the examination of Bill C-39. Canada needs major projects, efficient ports, reliable trade corridors, and a regulatory system that provides certainty to investors, communities and indigenous partners. Another law is not the solution if the problem is implementation. Canada does not need more layers of legislation; it needs results.

Mr. Speaker, as I have already explained, we need the right tools to address the right problems. If the problem was not moving faster enough, the problem may not be the lack of legislation; it could be a problem of implementation or inefficiency. Before we introduce more legislation, we have to answer the question to find out where the problem is. Is it implementation or is it a lack of another layer of bureaucracy?

Mr. Speaker, actually I am not in favour of doing away with all of that legislation. As I have pointed out in my speech, the legislation already exists. The Canada Marine Act, the Canada Transportation Act and the port authorities national trade corridors fund are already in place. I am not arguing that we should get rid of that legislation. I am just saying that, if that legislation is not put into good implementation, we should reveal the implementation first, instead of just rushing through another new build that promises a one-year timeline, which is not going to happen.

Mr. Speaker, it is just like the example of the Roberts Bank Terminal 2 project that I used in my speech. It has undergone more than a decade of federal assessment. The assessments were actually completed in 2023, and it is still sitting there. Again, the problem is not with legislation. We have the legislation to support the project. It takes the federal government more than a decade to complete the assessment, and even when it is completed, it is still there, so it is an efficiency problem. It is an implementation problem. It is not a legislative problem.