Branden Leslie

Mr. Speaker, Procedure · 10 wordslet me take members back in time a few years.Procedure Claims · 22 wordsWhen the Liberals introduced Bill C-69, they told us that the new process would make project reviews more efficient, predictable and timely.¹ Positioning · 13 wordsNow, eight years later, that sales pitch has not aged well at all.Positioning Claims · 26 wordsNow we have Bill C-39, and the government’s own explanation says its approval system suffers from lengthy timelines that delay projects and create uncertainty for investors. Positioning · 5 wordsThat is quite an admission.Positioning Reasoning · 11 wordsWhat matters now is whether Bill C-39 would actually fix them. Claims · 182 wordsThis, of course, is after the Liberals brought in Bill C-5, ²which was going to bring in sweeping legislative changes to allegedly build at speeds not seen in generations. We now have a Major Projects Office that has issued no new permits, built no new projects and created no new jobs other than government jobs, of course, over the past 18 months.³ In terms of Bill C-39, the first thing we should understand is the government’s promise of a one-year federal review.⁴ That sounds simple, but it is not. The clock would not start when a company first brings forward a project. There could first be up to six months of planning. Then, the company would normally have up to a year to provide the studies and information government requires, and even that period could be extended. Only after government officials are satisfied that they have the information they need would the main review clock start. From there, the assessment report would generally be supposed to be completed within 300 days, followed by up to another 65 days for the final decision.⁵ Reasoning · 64 wordsTherefore, when Canadians hear “one-year approval”, they should not assume that means one year from the day a project enters the federal system to the day it actually gets an answer. A company considering a $10-billion mine wants to know something simpler: How long will it take from entering the process until it has enough certainty to put billions of dollars on the line? Procedure · 13 wordsI will be splitting my time with the member for Fort McMurray—Cold Lake.Procedure Positioning · 9 wordsWhat happens if the government misses its own deadline?Positioning Claims · 42 wordsThe project would not be automatically approved and the government could simply keep reviewing it. The only penalty for the government’s delaying all this is that the minister would have to explain why the deadline was missed, and publish another proposed timeline. Reasoning · 31 wordsIf the purpose of a deadline is certainty, how much certainty would it really provide if missing it simply produces some bureaucratic gobbledygook and yet another deadline further down the road? Claims · 92 wordsThe second major change would be what the government calls “one project, one decision”. Today a company could spend years completing an impact assessment and then discover it still needs another round of federal permits before construction can begin. Bill C-39 would allow the environment minister to issue certain permits at the same time as the final impact assessment decision.⁶ For a mine that needs Fisheries Act, Canadian Navigable Waters Act or Species at Risk Act approvals, that could remove some back-to-back processes, but it would not initially include every federal permit.⁷ Procedure · 5 wordsThat leaves me with questions.Procedure Positioning · 47 wordsWhich permits are actually delaying projects today? How many would be covered properly by the bill? Which important ones would still remain outside it? If a company gets its impact assessment decision but still waits months for another approval, would we have achieved one project, one decision?Positioning Claims · 21 wordsThe bill also would allow certain construction to start before the final decision where doing so is in the “public interest”.⁸ Reasoning · 48 wordsAnyone who has built something in rural Canada understands why that can matter: If they miss a construction season, a project could lose many months. If construction could happen while the rest of the assessment continues, time could be saved, but companies need to know early what qualifies. Claims · 118 wordsThe nuclear changes would be more substantial. For nuclear projects, the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission would become the lead assessment body.⁹ Environmental review, public participation and indigenous consultation would remain. What would change is who would run that process. Instead of having the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada run one process while the nuclear regulator runs another, Bill C-39 would put the CNSC in the driver’s seat, and the minister would no longer be able to send the project into another separate federal review.¹⁰ Instead, the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission would run the assessment, and once the project is approved, the conditions imposed during that review could simply become part of the nuclear licence the company must follow. Reasoning · 29 wordsIn other words, rather than creating one set of conditions through the environmental review and another through the licensing, the bill would try to bring the two processes together. Claims · 4 wordsThat could reduce duplication, Positioning · 31 wordsbut does the CNSC have enough people and expertise for this new and expanded role? Would projects get decisions faster, or would the bureaucracy simply look cleaner on an organizational charge?Positioning Procedure · 9 wordsChanges for the Canadian Energy Regulator raise similar questions.Procedure Claims · 163 wordsBill C-39 would make the CER the sole assessor for pipelines, designated power lines and offshore renewable energy projects.¹¹ For pipelines, the bill creates two tracks based on how much entirely new corridor has to be built. If a pipeline requires less than 300 kilometres of new right-of-way, the CER would generally make the final decision itself.¹² Today, the regulator can spend up to 450 days reviewing a major pipeline and making a recommendation, only for the file to then go to cabinet for a final decision.¹³ For projects below the new threshold, that extra cabinet step would generally disappear, but for pipelines requiring 300 kilometres or more of new corridor, cabinet would still need to make the final call.¹⁴ The CER would have up to 180 days to complete its review and recommendation, and then cabinet would have another 60 days to decide, followed by another 125 days for the CER to issue the final certificate and conditions.¹⁵ Those are significant changes, Positioning · 65 wordsbut where did these numbers come from? Why is it 300 kilometres? Why should a pipeline requiring 290 kilometres of new corridor be decided by the CER, while one requiring 310 kilometres still has to go through a cabinet approval process? Is that the threshold based on environmental risk or project complexity, or is it simply where the government just decided to draw the line?Positioning Procedure · 7 wordsThe same question applies to the timelines.Procedure Positioning · 33 wordsWhy is it 180 days? Why is it 60? Why is it another 125? Has the CER confirmed that applications can realistically be handled within those periods without stopping the clock more often?Positioning Claims · 15 wordsThe 300-kilometre threshold is also not in reference to the total length of the pipeline.¹⁶ Reasoning · 57 wordsLet us imagine a 500-kilometre pipeline where 350 kilometres follows an existing corridor. If only 150 kilometres requires an entirely new right-of-way, the project would fall below the threshold, even though the pipeline itself is 500 kilometres long. The bill is measuring how much new ground the project must break, not simply how long the pipeline is. Procedure · 7 wordsThen we get to the fine print.Procedure Claims · 38 wordsThese clocks, they are not absolute. Parts of the process can still be excluded. Additional time can, and I fear most likely will, be added. If the CER or government misses deadlines, the project is not automatically approved. Reasoning · 26 wordsWe need to determine whether these timelines will shorten the approval process or whether the clock will simply stop when the difficult parts begin for government. Claims · 137 wordsAnother idea that deserves attention is the creation of the regions of national interest. Cabinet could designate an entire region and identify categories of projects that may qualify within it.¹⁷ This could matter in an area chock full of critical minerals or a major energy corridor. If government has already completed a regional assessment of water, wildlife and cumulative effects, later project reviews should not have to start from zero. This would not create an immediate fast track. Before a region can get such special treatment, the government would first have to complete a broader regional assessment.¹⁸ If the bill were to come into force, if it were to pass, the list of regions that qualify would be empty.¹⁹ The faster process would only become available later, after government has done the groundwork and designated a region. Positioning · 13 wordsWho knows how long that will take, given the Liberal government’s track record.Positioning Reasoning · 9 wordsOnce again, implementation will determine whether this changes anything. Positioning · 34 wordsAfter years of being told that the old system was efficient and predictable, we should not just accept that a new set of promises from the Liberal government is going to be the solution.Positioning The ask · 11 wordsWe need answers because we cannot afford to get this wrong. Positioning · 12 wordsOur country, our future and our prosperous nation are simply too important.Positioning Reasoning · 30 wordsBill C-39 should be judged by a simple standard: Can a company with a project get a clear answer in a reasonable amount of time and then get to work? Procedure · 4 wordsThat is the test.Procedure The ask · 15 wordsBefore Parliament passes this bill, we should be sure this legislation will pass that test.