Sukhman Gill

Mr. Speaker, last week, hundreds of dump truck drivers hit the roads protesting the rising diesel prices. Diesel powers the trucks that move our goods, the equipment that builds our communities and the farms that put food on our tables. When diesel costs rise, Canadians pay more for everything. Today the Liberals have the opportunity to vote on a Conservative emergency fuel relief plan to cut all taxes on diesel until Canada Day and bring some relief during Thanksgiving. Will the Prime Minister listen to our truckers and finally give relief to Canadians?

Mr. Speaker, I know residents in the member's riding greatly appreciate the great work that he is doing. I just want to highlight something that happened in my neck of the woods in Abbotsford—South Langley. Diesel prices are so high that truck drivers had a convoy from Abbotsford to Vancouver in the Lower Mainland to make sure they could alert the government about the high prices. Canadians are struggling to fill their tanks. They are struggling to go about their day-to-day jobs. I would just like to hear from the hon. member about the Conservative platform. What are our Conservative ideas that we could implement against high diesel prices?

Mr. Speaker, it is always an honour to rise in the House to represent the good people of Abbotsford—South Langley. Before I begin to speak on this topic, I want to take the time to acknowledge the B.C. truck drivers' protest on rising diesel prices. The cost of these high prices is affecting their day-to-day lives, and for many, it is basically taking away their power to work. My colleagues and I are calling on the government to scrap the full federal fuel excise tax until Canada Day to bring down fuel costs. I want to take the time to go back to the 44th Parliament, when the Liberals marched into the House and introduced Bill C-69, which was intended to make projects more efficient and timely, but in hindsight, we know that has not been the case. We have not seen a record number of development projects, but we have seen a record number of approvals in waiting. Instead of repealing the antidevelopment law, the government decided to introduce Bill C-5 to solve timeline issues. Bill C-5 was supposed to bring quick and effective legislative change and to build at speeds not seen in generations. It has now been 18 months, and we have no new permits that have been passed, no new projects that have been built and no new jobs, other than government jobs, that have been created. Now the government has introduced a 246-page omnibus bill that, in its own explanation, was introduced to tackle the lengthy approval times that create investor uncertainty. The explanation around the necessity seems quite familiar, because it is the same argument that the government used for Bill C-69 and Bill C-5. The Liberals create the problems, then pass bills trying to fix the problems that they created, which leads to more delays and more bureaucracy, and the cycle continues. That is why I ask today, on behalf of all Canadians, why they should expect anything different this time around. We do not need speeches and summits. We need to build this economy, and there is rhetoric more than facts right now. The reality shows something completely different. We have the slowest-growing economy and the highest food inflation in the entirety of the G7. The members across the aisle have been championing this bill, which would cut bureaucracy and fast-track investment projects. The details of the bill show a different reality. I imagine a group of local dairy farmers or blueberry farmers in my neck of the woods, Abbotsford—South Langley, who want to build a state-of-the-art agricultural processing facility. Right now, they would have to pitch this idea to municipal, provincial and federal agencies, all working separately and not coordinating on timelines. It would take the farmers three to five years just to get the permits they need to build. In Bill C-39, the government promises these farmers a one-year federal review of their projects. While this sounds straightforward, it is far from that. The one-year clock would not start when the farmers bring projects forward. It could take up to six months for planning and then another year to provide studies and information the government requires. The bill even states that the timeline could be extended. Once the minister was satisfied with all the preliminary studies, the actual one-year clock would begin for the farmers, and then the process for the facility would start. As such, it is not that straightforward. The reality is that the tag line of “one-year approval” is misleading. Potential investors want thorough and straightforward legislation. Instead, misleading tag lines would only lead to more confusion and drag investors away. I imagine the government missing its own deadline. Common sense would say that the project would be moving forward regardless, but in true Liberal fashion, a missed deadline would lead to more bureaucracy. The minister would have to provide an explanation for the delay and propose another timeline. If the goal is to increase investor certainty and to attract big projects, how is this accomplishing any of those goals, unless the real goal here is to make these big announcements and more empty speeches? I ask the members across how long it would take an independent agribusiness from my community to even start the process of the application. Would they have to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to navigate through government overlap and to even get to the stage to get permission to apply? Would Bill C-39 simplify those front-end hurdles, or would it hide the bureaucratic delays inside the misleading narrative of a one-year approval? Worst of all, instead of building a rules-based predictable system that is easy to navigate for every business in Canada, part 1 of Bill C-39 would concentrate permanent power directly within the Prime Minister's cabinet. Businesses in Abbotsford—South Langley do not want to hire a high-priced Ottawa lobbyist just to get their projects noticed by cabinet. My constituents, the community members of Abbotsford—South Langley, and businesses across Canada do not need another Ottawa top-down approach. They need a streamlined system that works for every single project and cuts unnecessary red tape. This bill proposes making changes to the Canada Energy Regulator as well. Bill C-39 would make the CER the sole assessor for pipelines, designated power lines and offshore renewable energy projects. For new pipelines that are less than 300 kilometres of new right-of-way, the CER would make its final decision itself. Where did this 300-kilometre number even come from? What is the fundamental difference between a pipeline that is 295 kilometres of new right-of-way, which is approved by the CER, and a pipeline at 305 kilometres, which would still require cabinet approval? Are these thresholds based on environmental risk or project complexity, or is it simply another decision made by the government for where it would draw the line? The bill proposes to create regions of natural interest for fast-tracking projects. Cabinet could designate an entire region and identify categories of projects that may qualify within it. Something like this could matter greatly in areas full of natural resources and critical minerals where there are currently bureaucracy clogs delaying projects. One of the areas that has potential to be on the national interest region list is the Abbotsford and Sumas Prairie region. This is a critical energy- and agriculture-rich area, and the B.C. NDP government and the federal government signed an MOU this summer, which clearly created a path for the new southern route pipeline. If they were able to bring in this route alongside the existing energy corridor through the Sumas Prairie region, there would also need to be a government project to develop infrastructure for flood protection mitigation as well. The Sumas Prairie region is extremely vulnerable to flooding, and for years farmers in that region have been advocating for adequate infrastructure development to protect their lands in that area. The reason I bring this up is to draw attention to the fact that while we fast-track national interest projects, it is important we keep the development of local infrastructure up to par so families in the area and in the region are not burdened. Implementation would determine whether the creation of natural interest regions would truly make a difference. Given the Liberals' track record, it does not seem that this would be likely. Our position on this side of the House is simple. Any legislation must save Canadians money and cut red tape to unleash production. This is exactly why we have consistently called to repeal the antidevelopment law, Bill C-69, and truly release energy in our country. The government has promised Canadians infrastructure development at speeds we have not seen in generations. So far, we have no projects or development to show for it. Bill C-39 should be judged on one simple standard. Can Canadian companies develop a project and get answers when they want to get to work in any reasonable amount of time? If the goal of this bill is to increase investor security, then the answer to this question is required. We cannot afford to get things wrong. Our country, our future and the prosperity of our nation must come first.

Mr. Speaker, this is simple. The current government has been in power for 10 years. Canadians have been suffering for 10 years. If it were time to get stuff done, it would have been done already. That is what the mis-allusion is. The government keeps alluding to the fact that it is going to be helping everyday Canadians, but it is only cutting them short and shortchanging them. We do not see any projects being pushed to completion. The Liberals are not working with our provinces the way they should be, and streamlining projects the way they should be: efficiently and effectively.

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague is completely right. We see again and again that delays are being pushed back. It can be years and years. A one-year project can turn into a five-year project, or a 10-year project, for that matter. This is the problem we see. We do not see the necessities we need to bring forward so that projects can be completed in a streamlined process. That is what we are missing from the government.