Discussion · Government Orders
Dan Albas Conservative
“This bill pretends to speed up projects, but it will not. The government takes credit for projects moving forward when it did not actually approve them. The new transportation office in this bill has no real power and no deadlines.”
“Mr. Speaker, the room did not all jump up at once, but what a great speech that was. The member has really brought some things to mind. I know that the Prime Minister tweeted the other day, “In September last year, we referred LNG Canada Phase 2 in Kitimat, B.C., to the Major Projects Office. Now, it’s moving forward”. This points out what the member has said. This was a final investment decision by the proponent. The Major Projects Office the Prime Minister talks about did not approve or advance the project. It is a form of regulatory Kabuki theatre. In the bill, the Liberals like to talk about creating a transportation project office, saying that this thing would help get projects done. The funny thing is that it would have no authority. It would be completely discretionary and optional for the minister. He could choose not to go ahead with it. Worse than that, unlike part 1 of the bill, which actually says that we would have a timeline, for which, of course, there are exemptions, it does not have any timelines for transportation projects. Does the member feel, as I do, that there is so much regulatory Kabuki theatre going on?”
Mr. Speaker, the room did not all jump up at once, but what a great speech that was. The member has really brought some things to mind. I know that the Prime Minister tweeted the other day, “In September last year, we referred LNG Canada Phase 2 in Kitimat, B.C., to the Major Projects Office. Now, it’s moving forward”. This points out what the member has said. This was a final investment decision by the proponent. The Major Projects Office the Prime Minister talks about did not approve or advance the project. It is a form of regulatory Kabuki theatre. In the bill, the Liberals like to talk about creating a transportation project office, saying that this thing would help get projects done. The funny thing is that it would have no authority. It would be completely discretionary and optional for the minister. He could choose not to go ahead with it. Worse than that, unlike part 1 of the bill, which actually says that we would have a timeline, for which, of course, there are exemptions, it does not have any timelines for transportation projects. Does the member feel, as I do, that there is so much regulatory Kabuki theatre going on?