Andréanne Larouche

“Mr. Speaker, it is always an honour to speak in this House on behalf of my constituents of Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay, especially on legislation of such national importance as Bill C-39. I cannot help but feel some déjà vu. One of the first votes I took in this chamber after election last year was on Bill C-5. At that time, the Liberal government presented it because faster approvals for the Canadian economy were getting trapped in the Liberals’ own rules and red tape. In my experience at the local government level, when we heard from builders that a piece of red tape was restricting their ability to get critical infrastructure built, we would do what we could do, and I would do what I could to remove it. However, the Liberal government passed new laws that allow them to ignore the old Liberal laws. Those burdensome regulations, like antidevelopment laws Bills C-69 and C-48, still exist and are still applying to projects that are struggling to get built. If the government would like to introduce legislation to repeal those bills, I would be pleased to help it pass quickly. The Liberals chose to build complicated workarounds that sacrifice clear rules in favour of ministerial influence. In other words, there is a lot of red tape. Nonetheless, I supported Bill C-5 as the only available option to get around that red tape, because I support building the critical infrastructure that is needed to strengthen our economic sovereignty. However, here we are a year and a half later debating another law, Bill C-39, which again seeks to adopt a workaround to bad Liberal laws. What happened to C-5? Is this because 18 months after we passed Bill C-5, zero major projects proposed under it have been built? With Bill C-5, the Liberals promised Canada would soon be building at unimaginable speeds. It has taken a year and a half and I am not seeing those projects. No one is. Instead, we are still stuck in the same delays and bureaucracy they created in their 11 years in office. For these 18 months under the Prime Minister, we have only seen projects stack up on desks around the city of Ottawa. Hundreds of proposed projects are stuck in bureaucratic processes across the many agencies and impact assessment offices we find across government. The government now proposes Bill C-39 as a solution, another Liberal solution to a problem a Liberal bill caused. Too much of what the government claims as success exists only on paper and not in reality. There is no concrete steel rebar we can touch, just signatures on paper and MOUs. Certainly, in my region, as a major centre of the Canadian economy when it comes to lumber, mining and agriculture, infrastructure upgrades are certainly needed but have seen no urgency. One example is that cellular reception remains critically poor in 90% of the communities in my very large riding, something I have raised with the Liberal government several times with no results or announcements. Another example is that infrastructure links are vital in the south Okanagan, a growing region that is seeking to supply Canadian meat, fruit and agriculture products alongside critical minerals and lumber products from the Similkameen and Boundary to our country and the world. Our region is entirely dependent on transporting goods north or south on a two-lane highway, Highway 97, in a region heavily affected by both wildfires, as we heard about in Summerland and Penticton this past summer, and flooding, where there are regular landslides, accidents and the like, and the road is blocked or closed on the one artery we have between the north and south Okanagan. The Minister of Transport has heard and seen the proposals made by myself and my colleague, the member for Okanagan Lake West—South Kelowna, for a partnership of investment between the province and federal government into constructing a permanent secondary route between Kelowna and the south Okanagan to expedite transportation times through the Okanagan in times of crisis. Similarly, the minister is aware of my advocacy for the upgrades needed to the Castlegar airport that services the Selkirk College Ion-source Research Centre, which drives particle acceleration and ion-source technology innovation for global medical, semiconductor, clean energy and research markets. Yet, no concrete action on the upgrades that the Castlegar airport requires have been followed up on. Will these projects be better served under Bill C-39? These are just examples. The bill promises to accelerate the Liberals’ complicated project approvals, but will it? On first reading, it seems it would only create more delays instead of completions. The Liberals opposite have been saying that Bill C-39 would create a one-year approval process, but when does the clock start on that process? It would not be until the subsection 19(4) completeness determination is issued by the responsible authority. What is the timeline or deadline for that assurance? There is none. The bill sets no deadline for making that determination. It is no good saying that we will deliver a pizza in 30 minutes if the pizza shop cannot decide when that 30 minutes starts. A one-year timeline for project approvals is not a finish line if we cannot tell the applicant where and when they start. Those looking to apply need certainty and predictability, especially when we are talking about projects that may cost hundreds of billions of dollars. The government is also promoting that Bill C-39 would create the transportation projects office, another office perhaps for my local regional districts or airport authorities to apply to, which is more red tape. However, nothing in this legislation would provide this office any authority. It seems to be yet another concrete filing cabinet where applications go, but never come back out. This is no different from the current process and the hundreds of proposals stranded in office towers all around this city. Real legislation to open major construction, private investment and industrial development would require eliminating the industrial carbon tax, which increases the cost to build with Canadian-made steel and aluminum. It would also require repealing the Liberals’ antidevelopment law, Bill C-69, which gums up our major infrastructure projects in constant reapprovals to satisfy vague rules. How vague? The legislation states that project applications would still have to consider, “any other matter relevant to the impact assessment that the Agency...requires to be taken into account.” That is about as vague and unhelpful to a private developer or a municipal planner as we are bound to find. Lastly, I want to touch quickly upon the issue of labour and the changes proposed to the Labour Code, which are extensive and merit scrutiny. I have heard from many residents opposed to the bill because of these changes, and I appreciate them sharing their feedback with me and my office. Any time Parliament touches upon workers’ rights in their workplace or in their union, we owe workers an extensive right of response. It is my hope that when the government passes its bill on to the committee stage, workers can have a seat at that committee table to have their voices heard. I will certainly look forward to following the debate as it continues.”