Glen Motz

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise and speak on behalf of the good people of Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner on an issue that greatly affects them as proud Canadians, as Albertans and certainly as concerned citizens. Bill C-39 is the latest attempt by the Liberal government to deliver on its promises to build the nation-building projects Canada desperately needs. We face an unpredictable trade situation abroad and an even less hospitable environment for our resources here at home. My constituents deserve certainty that the projects the Prime Minister promised, along with the jobs and economic opportunities they represent, will be given the green light without further delay or red tape. Conservatives have been taking the time to carefully examine this extensive bill. However, like most of the government's legislation, its sweeping powers and lofty promises are overshadowed by a critical lack of results. Actions really do speak louder than words, as the government has yet to demonstrate that it can deliver on the commitments it has already made. Canadians are left, therefore, to wonder if Bill C-39 would actually create the change we have been patiently waiting for. The bill claims to address long-standing structural barriers that are impeding investment and productivity. It also purports to increase our capacity to meet the demands of new and expanding trade opportunities. In preparation for this bill, the government said, it conducted a series of consultations from April to August of this year. It met with indigenous Canadians, the provinces and territories, and other key stakeholders. The Liberals claim that it drafted Bill C-39 in line with the priorities their consultations identified. Those consultations revealed several priorities that Conservatives have actually long championed. Canadians support stronger trade corridors while keeping safeguards in place. This would include a stronger hand for indigenous communities in governing trade corridors, protecting the environment, reducing barriers for indigenous employment and speeding up approvals. They also want one-year approval time limits through coordinated project reviews, one Crown consultation process, the designation of regions of national interest, and one final ministerial decision, all while maintaining environmental standards and indigenous rights. This has largely been the Conservative plan since before the escalation of the current trade war. While we are thankful that the government has so frequently stolen our ideas, all is not what it seems. As with much of the government's legislation, what may appear to be common sense comes with strings attached. In the case of Bill C-39, the pattern is no different. The Liberals have chosen to inject an unhealthy dose of red tape and bureaucracy into a process that should be industry-led and results-driven. Like Bill C-5 before it, Bill C-39 would do absolutely nothing to repeal the “no more pipelines” bill, Bill C-69; the west coast tanker ban, Bill C-48; the industrial carbon tax; and other federal obstacles that block or penalize development. Let us examine the proposed creation of the so-called national trade corridor council, for instance. While the government presents it as a mechanism for improving coordination between ports, railways, trucking, airports and other transportation providers, the Railway Association of Canada has raised concerns that the council could introduce unnecessary bureaucracy and government interference in supply chain operations. Let us think about that. At a time when the government says it wants to reduce red tape, attract investment and get goods moving faster, it is proposing a new layer of government oversight through yet another federal council. The question is not whether Canada needs more efficient trade corridors. Of course it does. The question is whether creating another advisory body is the answer, when it would have no direct authority to resolve the problems it has identified. Canadians have heard those promises before. They deserve results, not another announcement of a committee that would study the problems everybody already knows exist. The Leader of the Opposition likened the bill to a case of déjà vu, and for good reason. Just over a year ago, we debated Bill C-5, the One Canadian Economy Act. The Prime Minister told Canadians that this legislation would cut through red tape, accelerate approvals and allow us to build major projects at speeds not seen in generations, yet here we are, debating another sweeping piece of legislation promising to deliver what the last one failed to achieve. Canadians are asking a simple question: If the government already had the tools to build the projects through Bill C-5, why has it accomplished so little, and why is it back in Parliament asking for further powers through Bill C-39? As with its predecessor, we have every reason to believe this bill will do little to move the needle. Its promise of one project, one decision in one year is not as advertised. The clock only starts once the proponent has completed the work necessary to satisfy the government's requirements. The time spent preparing that application, navigating preliminary requirements and addressing outstanding information requests is not captured in the one-year promise. Even when the clock starts, the legislation provides mechanisms for timelines to be paused or extended, including when additional information or consultation is required. In effect, the one-year timeline does not necessarily represent the total time a project will spend navigating the federal approval process. Canadians should not assume that the one-year promise means that a project will receive a decision within one year of entering the federal system, and the government should not advertise it as such either. It may even result in serious ramifications. When a company cannot obtain timely decisions in Canada, it does not necessarily wait indefinitely. It may invest elsewhere. The jobs, tax revenue, supply chain opportunities and economic activity that would have accompanied that investment can go, along with that company, and once those opportunities are lost, no amount of legislation can guarantee that they will return. We have seen the real-world effects of a persistent antidevelopment posture in Ottawa. The government turned away $70 billion in investment from the UAE because Canada supposedly has a lack of projects available for investment. Even with the powers at its disposal to approve national projects, a decade of Liberal antidevelopment laws, delays and uncertainty has severely damaged our ability to get shovels in the ground so that Canadians can benefit from investment in our country. Canada can get nation building right. Conservatives have done it before and know what it takes. Through a one-and-done plan involving one project, a one-page application form and one approval, the previous Conservative government saw 23,500 projects through from concept to completion in under two years, with no environmental mishaps and no public safety issues. That is what decisive leadership and a results-driven approach can accomplish. Canadians know the Conservative position has been consistent. Through our economic action plan, we would green-light the 500 projects awaiting federal permits, end the industrial carbon tax and repeal the job-killing antidevelopment laws that have hampered our country for years. Our approach is simple. We are considering Bill C-39 and every other piece of legislation in the context of whether it builds a country that is affordable, delivers stronger paycheques and supports an economy that protects jobs and rewards hard work. Bill C-39 may contain measures worthy of consideration. Conservatives will examine those measures carefully, because our objective has not changed. We want to see projects approved, shovels in the ground and Canadians at work. Our economy cannot rely on a continuous cycle of announcements, empty promises and disappointments. Canada has an abundance of the resources the world needs. We have the expertise to develop them responsibly, the workforce to build the infrastructure and the geographic advantages to serve markets around the globe. What we need is a federal government that can translate those advantages into results. The government has already had the opportunity to deliver on the promise of Bill C-5. Until Canadians see those results, they are entitled to question whether Bill C-39 represents a genuine change in direction or simply another chapter in the same story.

Mr. Speaker, that is an interesting question. The whole idea behind an environmental assessment is to ensure that the proponent in a project takes into equal consideration not only the impact that project will have on the environment immediately, but the long-term impacts it might have on the environment. My assumption is that those assessments are absolutely necessary. They should not be shortchanged. However, they can be done with more speed to them and without causing a significant impact on the environment, if any. I cannot speak for the government. I will not speak for the government. I do not know how it assesses its environmental impacts, but I am left to wonder whether they actually get done in a timely manner as well as they could or should.

Mr. Speaker, what has been troubling in the years I have been here is that the good intentions of any government get bogged down in bureaucracy, and this is a prime example. Look at the national trade corridor council. I do not see any value in this council adding to the speed of projects or getting any projects completed at all. There are mechanisms in place already. How can a council speed things up when it adds another layer to go through and has more questions, delaying projects further? How it is advantageous to our Canadian economy and to getting projects built is beyond me. I think it is a colossal failure, again.

Mr. Speaker, what I am having trouble with, and what I think Canadians are going to have trouble with, is how we can improve the speed to get projects approved if we add a third layer of bureaucracy, because that is exactly what this bill would do. It troubles me that Bill C-5 did not seem to get it done, so let us add another layer in Bill C-39. This is what I believe is happening here. I am hopeful that it will work, but the results are in the pudding, and right now, the pudding is—