Bill C-39, Building Canada Strong Act · Second reading · now at committee in the House Where it stands
The bill would set one-year deadlines for impact assessments of major energy projects, including pipelines, power lines, and offshore renewables, once required information is submitted. It would also allow the federal government to designate trade corridors, adjust port governance and rail switching rules, and let electronic documents replace paper records for trade. In addition, the bill would introduce new collective bargaining rules and timelines under the Canada Labour Code, along with changes to environmental reviews and fisheries offsetting fees.
34 statements
“I still have four minutes left to answer questions from Friday.”
“Mr. Speaker, I think I had four minutes left to answer questions from last Friday.”
Mr. Speaker, I think I had four minutes left to answer questions from last Friday.
“This bill raises questions about the right to strike. I want to know if the member agrees that the justice minister should report on whether the bill protects Charter rights.”
“Mr. Speaker, in the member’s last answer, she talked about the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and how she believes in it. The last I checked, the Liberals like to say all the time that they are the party of the charter. Given that the section 107 provision in the Canada Labour Code raises questions around the right to strike, does the member support the Minister of Justice tabling a charter statement so that we can see whether or not the justice department believes the bill has captured and balanced those rights correctly?”
Mr. Speaker, in the member’s last answer, she talked about the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and how she believes in it. The last I checked, the Liberals like to say all the time that they are the party of the charter. Given that the section 107 provision in the Canada Labour Code raises questions around the right to strike, does the member support the Minister of Justice tabling a charter statement so that we can see whether or not the justice department believes the bill has captured and balanced those rights correctly?
“This bill promises faster approvals for major projects, but it will not work. The one-year timeline has too many loopholes and delays. To actually get projects built and keep workers from leaving my province, the government must approve the 500 stalled projects, scrap its bad energy laws, and end the industrial carbon tax. We must also let union workers speak to a committee about the labour changes in this bill.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise in the House, on behalf of the incredible people of Long Range Mountains and as the shadow minister for energy and natural resources, to speak to Bill C-39. I think most Canadians would agree on one thing, which is that we need to get this country building. We need mines, pipelines, LNG facilities, transmission lines, ports and the infrastructure that would allow Canadian resources to get to market. Canada has the resources, workers and expertise the world needs, but for the past 11 years, major projects have been stalled and delayed by an uncertain federal regulatory system, driving investment out of Canada and, in too many cases, leaving projects abandoned altogether. That is really what I want to focus on today, along with another part of this bill, which is the changes to the Canada Labour Code. We have heard promises about faster approvals before. When Bill C-5 was introduced, Canadians were told the federal government was going to speed up major projects and give proponents more certainty. Conservatives supported that goal of getting projects moving, because we have been calling for faster approval for years. The Liberal government then created the Major Projects Office and said it would help coordinate projects and provide proponents with a clearer path through the federal system. More than a year later, we are back here in the House, debating yet another bill that is supposed to make it easier to build. I think the question most Canadians are asking is quite simple: Will this actually help to get major projects built? Given the track record of the Liberal government for the last 11 years, Canadians are certainly not going to measure success by how many offices are created or how many announcements are made. They are going to measure success by whether projects actually move forward, whether investment comes back or stays in Canada, whether shovels are in the ground and whether people actually get hired. This is especially important for resource-rich provinces like mine, Newfoundland and Labrador. I know the importance of responsible resource development and what it means for our communities. It means good jobs and profitable local businesses but, more importantly, it means the ability to live and thrive at home. For generations, too many of our young people have had to leave home to find work somewhere else. Families watch their children finish school and learn a trade or earn a degree, only to leave because the opportunities they are looking for are somewhere else. I know that experience personally, because I had to leave the province I love under those exact circumstances, just as my parents did when I was a young girl. Now I look at my four children and all of the young people in the communities I represent who want the opportunity to stay home. That is why this issue is especially important to me, to the people I represent and to Canadians right across this country. Even small projects can transform communities. A mine, a sawmill expansion, an energy project or a major piece of infrastructure can mean that a young person can stay home, start a small business, build a career, raise a family and stay in the community they grew up in. These projects provide work for local contractors and suppliers and investment in communities that already have the people, the resources and the experience to contribute to Canada’s economy, which is exactly why Conservatives have been calling on the Prime Minister to approve the 500 projects that are caught up in federal review. Population growth and workforce retention are such important issues in my province, where we have a declining population and high levels of out-migration, but those challenges cannot be overcome and opportunities cannot become reality if any project, big or small, spends years sitting in the federal process waiting for approval. Bill C-39 is the government’s newest answer to years of Liberal delays in the federal permitting system. The government is presenting this legislation as a one-year timeline, but let us break that down. The clock would only begin once all of the required information and studies have been provided and accepted. That is not the same thing as saying a project would receive a federal decision one year after it first enters the process. This is simply because there is no limit to the number of things that the bureaucracy would consider and ask for before a project was approved and the time actually starts. In addition, the process could be delayed, extended or suspended; and, if the government misses its timeline, it is only required to give an explanation and a new proposed timeline. A company deciding to invest billions of dollars in Canada needs to know with certainty how long the process will take from start to finish, especially given the track record of the current Liberal government. That certainty matters even more when cabinet retains the ability to extend or suspend the process, not to mention that workers want to know when the projects will begin and communities want to know when the jobs and investment will follow. I want to bring some real-life context to this and explain why this is so important. During one of my commutes back and forth to Ottawa, I spoke to a young man named Justin. Justin is a dad of three and a tradesperson working in Ontario. He told me, “I just want to work close to my family so I can pick up my kids after school and take them to hockey. If we could get some work in Newfoundland, I could do that.” Justin is one of the people I think about when we talk about getting projects moving. Trades NL states that currently the unemployment rate among its members is about 70% and people are looking for work everywhere across the country except in the province. That is why we need these projects now, not when Justin’s kids are grown up and that opportunity no longer exists for him. That is why the timelines in this legislation matter so much. What Canada needs is a system in which proponents know what is expected of them; from the start, the process is clear; and government’s decisions are made within a reasonable time frame. Timelines are only a part of the problem. The government keeps making changes around the edges while refusing to address the root of the problem: the regulatory and tax policies that continue to hold projects and investment back. Conservatives have consistently called for the repeal of antidevelopment laws like Bill C-69 and Bill C-48 because Canada needs a regulatory system that gives investors certainty across the board, not a government deciding project by project which ones get special treatment. We have called to remove the federal industrial carbon tax to make Canada more competitive and bring investment back. There are roughly 500 projects waiting in the federal approval system. Conservatives have called on the Liberal government to approve them, remove the barriers holding back investment and give investors the certainty that they need to put their capital to work in Canada. Newfoundland and Labrador has tremendous offshore energy, hydroelectricity, mining and critical minerals potential. Those resources should be creating well-paying jobs, attracting private investment and giving young people a reason to build their future at home. The same is true across Canada where our energy and natural resources are in demand around the world, but having those resources means very little if the regulatory system makes it unnecessarily difficult to develop them and get them to market. The answer cannot be to leave those laws in place and then have Ottawa decide which individual projects deserve an accelerated path. While much of this bill deals with major projects and approvals, it also would make significant changes to the Canada Labour Code. I recently met with the Newfoundland and Labrador regional representative of the Canadian Labour Congress. We had a good discussion about the issues facing workers in organized labour and their deep concerns with this legislation. One of the things that I took away from that conversation was how important it is that the workers who would be affected by these changes have a meaningful opportunity to come before Parliament and explain their concerns. There would be substantial changes to federal labour law and they should not be rushed through simply because they are part of a much larger bill. Union members should have enough time to appear before a committee and make their case for why they believe the changes being made are a problem. Canada is not short on potential. We have the resources, the skilled workers and the communities ready to build. What Canada needs is the certainty to turn that potential into projects, investment and well-paying jobs. Business managers need certainty about the rules and the timelines, workers need confidence that they will be heard and provincial leaders need to know that their jurisdiction will be respected. Canadians should be able to expect that when Ottawa promises faster approvals, those promises lead to projects moving forward.”
Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise in the House, on behalf of the incredible people of Long Range Mountains and as the shadow minister for energy and natural resources, to speak to Bill C-39. I think most Canadians would agree on one thing, which is that we need to get this country building. We need mines, pipelines, LNG facilities, transmission lines, ports and the infrastructure that would allow Canadian resources to get to market. Canada has the resources, workers and expertise the world needs, but for the past 11 years, major projects have been stalled and delayed by an uncertain federal regulatory system, driving investment out of Canada and, in too many cases, leaving projects abandoned altogether. That is really what I want to focus on today, along with another part of this bill, which is the changes to the Canada Labour Code. We have heard promises about faster approvals before. When Bill C-5 was introduced, Canadians were told the federal government was going to speed up major projects and give proponents more certainty. Conservatives supported that goal of getting projects moving, because we have been calling for faster approval for years. The Liberal government then created the Major Projects Office and said it would help coordinate projects and provide proponents with a clearer path through the federal system. More than a year later, we are back here in the House, debating yet another bill that is supposed to make it easier to build. I think the question most Canadians are asking is quite simple: Will this actually help to get major projects built? Given the track record of the Liberal government for the last 11 years, Canadians are certainly not going to measure success by how many offices are created or how many announcements are made. They are going to measure success by whether projects actually move forward, whether investment comes back or stays in Canada, whether shovels are in the ground and whether people actually get hired. This is especially important for resource-rich provinces like mine, Newfoundland and Labrador. I know the importance of responsible resource development and what it means for our communities. It means good jobs and profitable local businesses but, more importantly, it means the ability to live and thrive at home. For generations, too many of our young people have had to leave home to find work somewhere else. Families watch their children finish school and learn a trade or earn a degree, only to leave because the opportunities they are looking for are somewhere else. I know that experience personally, because I had to leave the province I love under those exact circumstances, just as my parents did when I was a young girl. Now I look at my four children and all of the young people in the communities I represent who want the opportunity to stay home. That is why this issue is especially important to me, to the people I represent and to Canadians right across this country. Even small projects can transform communities. A mine, a sawmill expansion, an energy project or a major piece of infrastructure can mean that a young person can stay home, start a small business, build a career, raise a family and stay in the community they grew up in. These projects provide work for local contractors and suppliers and investment in communities that already have the people, the resources and the experience to contribute to Canada’s economy, which is exactly why Conservatives have been calling on the Prime Minister to approve the 500 projects that are caught up in federal review. Population growth and workforce retention are such important issues in my province, where we have a declining population and high levels of out-migration, but those challenges cannot be overcome and opportunities cannot become reality if any project, big or small, spends years sitting in the federal process waiting for approval. Bill C-39 is the government’s newest answer to years of Liberal delays in the federal permitting system. The government is presenting this legislation as a one-year timeline, but let us break that down. The clock would only begin once all of the required information and studies have been provided and accepted. That is not the same thing as saying a project would receive a federal decision one year after it first enters the process. This is simply because there is no limit to the number of things that the bureaucracy would consider and ask for before a project was approved and the time actually starts. In addition, the process could be delayed, extended or suspended; and, if the government misses its timeline, it is only required to give an explanation and a new proposed timeline. A company deciding to invest billions of dollars in Canada needs to know with certainty how long the process will take from start to finish, especially given the track record of the current Liberal government. That certainty matters even more when cabinet retains the ability to extend or suspend the process, not to mention that workers want to know when the projects will begin and communities want to know when the jobs and investment will follow. I want to bring some real-life context to this and explain why this is so important. During one of my commutes back and forth to Ottawa, I spoke to a young man named Justin. Justin is a dad of three and a tradesperson working in Ontario. He told me, “I just want to work close to my family so I can pick up my kids after school and take them to hockey. If we could get some work in Newfoundland, I could do that.” Justin is one of the people I think about when we talk about getting projects moving. Trades NL states that currently the unemployment rate among its members is about 70% and people are looking for work everywhere across the country except in the province. That is why we need these projects now, not when Justin’s kids are grown up and that opportunity no longer exists for him. That is why the timelines in this legislation matter so much. What Canada needs is a system in which proponents know what is expected of them; from the start, the process is clear; and government’s decisions are made within a reasonable time frame. Timelines are only a part of the problem. The government keeps making changes around the edges while refusing to address the root of the problem: the regulatory and tax policies that continue to hold projects and investment back. Conservatives have consistently called for the repeal of antidevelopment laws like Bill C-69 and Bill C-48 because Canada needs a regulatory system that gives investors certainty across the board, not a government deciding project by project which ones get special treatment. We have called to remove the federal industrial carbon tax to make Canada more competitive and bring investment back. There are roughly 500 projects waiting in the federal approval system. Conservatives have called on the Liberal government to approve them, remove the barriers holding back investment and give investors the certainty that they need to put their capital to work in Canada. Newfoundland and Labrador has tremendous offshore energy, hydroelectricity, mining and critical minerals potential. Those resources should be creating well-paying jobs, attracting private investment and giving young people a reason to build their future at home. The same is true across Canada where our energy and natural resources are in demand around the world, but having those resources means very little if the regulatory system makes it unnecessarily difficult to develop them and get them to market. The answer cannot be to leave those laws in place and then have Ottawa decide which individual projects deserve an accelerated path. While much of this bill deals with major projects and approvals, it also would make significant changes to the Canada Labour Code. I recently met with the Newfoundland and Labrador regional representative of the Canadian Labour Congress. We had a good discussion about the issues facing workers in organized labour and their deep concerns with this legislation. One of the things that I took away from that conversation was how important it is that the workers who would be affected by these changes have a meaningful opportunity to come before Parliament and explain their concerns. There would be substantial changes to federal labour law and they should not be rushed through simply because they are part of a much larger bill. Union members should have enough time to appear before a committee and make their case for why they believe the changes being made are a problem. Canada is not short on potential. We have the resources, the skilled workers and the communities ready to build. What Canada needs is the certainty to turn that potential into projects, investment and well-paying jobs. Business managers need certainty about the rules and the timelines, workers need confidence that they will be heard and provincial leaders need to know that their jurisdiction will be respected. Canadians should be able to expect that when Ottawa promises faster approvals, those promises lead to projects moving forward.
“I want to see projects actually get built, not just studied. The government only promised to study the Churchill Falls expansion, instead of committing to build it. The wind project does not even have a route or a company behind it yet.”
“Mr. Speaker, I thank the member opposite for visiting my beautiful riding. As I alluded to in my speech, I absolutely want to see construction move forward. I am happy that the member talked about Churchill Falls. This sort of gives me the opportunity to break down some of the components of that. This is a large announcement and complex. One of the things the government announced in this large project was the Churchill Falls expansion. We have been talking about the Churchill Falls expansion for a very long time. The government’s commitment is only to study the Churchill Falls expansion. In the previous MOU, there was a commitment on construction. On the wind project, there is no proponent or route proposed. Once again, we need the projects now, not commitments to study, but for construction of the projects.”
Reply to a debate question
Relevance 100 of 100
Of this reply, 100% addressed the question or point raised.
See full analysisMr. Speaker, I thank the member opposite for visiting my beautiful riding. As I alluded to in my speech, I absolutely want to see construction move forward. I am happy that the member talked about Churchill Falls. This sort of gives me the opportunity to break down some of the components of that. This is a large announcement and complex. One of the things the government announced in this large project was the Churchill Falls expansion. We have been talking about the Churchill Falls expansion for a very long time. The government’s commitment is only to study the Churchill Falls expansion. In the previous MOU, there was a commitment on construction. On the wind project, there is no proponent or route proposed. Once again, we need the projects now, not commitments to study, but for construction of the projects.
“We need more time to study this massive bill, especially the changes to labour laws. The government is rushing it through committees, so we cannot properly look at how it will affect people.”
“Mr. Speaker, as I alluded to in my speech, specifically around the changes to labour laws, one of the concerns I certainly heard from constituents in my riding is that this is being put in this massive piece of legislation and being pushed through in majority committees. There will not be time to talk properly about the repercussions for people who will be impacted by this piece of legislation. I would agree with the member that we need to have that time, especially on that piece of legislation.”
Mr. Speaker, as I alluded to in my speech, specifically around the changes to labour laws, one of the concerns I certainly heard from constituents in my riding is that this is being put in this massive piece of legislation and being pushed through in majority committees. There will not be time to talk properly about the repercussions for people who will be impacted by this piece of legislation. I would agree with the member that we need to have that time, especially on that piece of legislation.
“Other countries build natural gas facilities in four to six months, but Canada cannot. The government refused to sell our natural gas to Japan and Germany. I want the government to explain why we cannot build these projects as fast as other countries.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am glad my colleague talked about timelines. A Liberal government member spoke earlier in the debate today and talked about the need for diversification of our trade. I think we would all agree, as I certainly do, we need to do that, but that particular member was part of a government that said no to Japan and Germany that wanted our LNG. That would have been an incredible opportunity to diversify our trade. Germany, in fact, went to Qatar, that built them the intake facility in six and a half months. The Netherlands has built an LNG intake facility in six months. Finland has built an LNG intake facility in four months. Why is it that these countries can build a facility in four to six months and we cannot in Canada? Maybe the member can expand on that. It is probably a lot of talk and no—”
Mr. Speaker, I am glad my colleague talked about timelines. A Liberal government member spoke earlier in the debate today and talked about the need for diversification of our trade. I think we would all agree, as I certainly do, we need to do that, but that particular member was part of a government that said no to Japan and Germany that wanted our LNG. That would have been an incredible opportunity to diversify our trade. Germany, in fact, went to Qatar, that built them the intake facility in six and a half months. The Netherlands has built an LNG intake facility in six months. Finland has built an LNG intake facility in four months. Why is it that these countries can build a facility in four to six months and we cannot in Canada? Maybe the member can expand on that. It is probably a lot of talk and no—
“Canadians need results right now, not more paperwork and government offices. We need the government to actually start building these projects.”
“Mr. Speaker, I absolutely agree with my colleague that the time is now. Canadians need results. We do not need another office and bureaucratic process. What we need is action, commitment to construction, projects moving forward and shovels in the ground. Canadians will hold the government to account based on that.”
Reply to a debate question
Relevance 38 of 100
None of this reply addressed the specific point raised or the topic under debate.
See full analysisReply to a debate question
Signal 37 of 100
Much of this statement went to praise, blame, greetings, routine procedure or general stories rather than reasons, requests or specific points.
See full analysisMr. Speaker, I absolutely agree with my colleague that the time is now. Canadians need results. We do not need another office and bureaucratic process. What we need is action, commitment to construction, projects moving forward and shovels in the ground. Canadians will hold the government to account based on that.
“The member says she wants to protect workers. If that is true, she should want the government to share a report showing how this bill affects workers' Charter rights.”
“Mr. Speaker, the member opposite used the term “workers” several times throughout her speech and also talked about the changes to collective bargaining, particularly the need to have a transparent process. I take it that the member is in favour of Bill C-39 and the changes to the Labour Code, particularly to section 107. Does the member believe that the government should be transparent and submit to the House, through the Minister of Justice, a charter statement outlining the impacts on the charter rights of the workers she says she wants to protect?”
Mr. Speaker, the member opposite used the term “workers” several times throughout her speech and also talked about the changes to collective bargaining, particularly the need to have a transparent process. I take it that the member is in favour of Bill C-39 and the changes to the Labour Code, particularly to section 107. Does the member believe that the government should be transparent and submit to the House, through the Minister of Justice, a charter statement outlining the impacts on the charter rights of the workers she says she wants to protect?
“I oppose the parts of this bill that create habitat credits. The government wants to use these credits to lock up land and water so people cannot fish, hunt, or build energy projects like pipelines. Big global investors will profit while local landowners and conservation groups are pushed aside.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to stand in this place for the first time in the fall session of Parliament to speak to a piece of the government’s legislation, Bill C-39, the building Canada strong act. I spoke to Bill C-5 a year ago, which was the Building Canada Act. I am probably going to speak 12 months from now to the building Canada very strong act, and then 12 months after that, it will be the building Canada very, very strong act, but we will see how this goes. It has taken a year and a half, but we are finally here. We have finally made it to the Prime Minister’s legislative calling card, where he finally plans to deliver on a promise he made a year and a half ago to build Canada strong. Many of my colleagues have now spoken to the bill, pointing out faults and shortcomings, of which there are many. However, over these next 10 minutes, I would like to focus on a very tiny part of the bill that I do not think has gotten a lot of attention. It has big implications on conservation in Canada, primarily through changes made to the Fisheries Act. As the bill reads, division 7 of part 1 would amend the Fisheries Act to do the following: (a) modify the fish habitat bank regime to allow for the use of habitat credits by third parties; Have we ever heard of habitat credits? Have the folks watching at home heard of carbon credits? Have we heard of biodiversity credits? This is what I am going to talk about. The bill continues: (b) authorize the making of regulations respecting the circumstances in which a person who is authorized to carry on a work, undertaking or activity may pay a fee to offset adverse effects on fish and fish habitat and provide for these fees to be credited to the Environmental Damages Fund; and (c) transfer certain regulation-making powers from the Governor in Council to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. I want to be clear that as Conservatives, we totally believe in conservation. We totally believe in protecting our biodiversity. We agree wholeheartedly with these notions and premises of clean air, clean land and clean water for current generations and generations to come, but I want to talk a bit about the new way that I think things will be going in the environmental world. I am going to talk about biodiversity credits, or habitat credits, which is what the government calls them in the legislation. Division 7 would allow the use of habitat credits by third parties. Let us dive into that. Habitat credits, or biodiversity credits, are a market-based approach to conservation. If a landowner or an organization restores, creates, enhances or protects a habitat area, they have effectively created a habitat bank. Under division 7, this would allow the owner to earn credits for the ecological value that the bank creates. These credits could then be sold to others, who must compensate for any number of unrelated environmental impacts elsewhere in Canada. This sounds good. If a bit of activity over here wrecks something, a bit of habitat banking over there would offset it. It sounds good, but the devil is in the details. The idea for this model is that it would allow conservation to be funded up front and would ensure that habitat is protected before impacts occur. I do not disagree with the idea of biodiversity credits as a method of conservation, but given the Prime Minister’s affinity for global asset management groups, I am concerned about who really benefits from these credits. In fact, I do not even know who is going to own some of these credits. Is it the government? It is, after all, the body that appears to provide the credit to the landowner in the first place. Is it the landowners? Are they the owners of the land in which the habitat bank has been licensed and organized? What if a landowner sells that credit? Do the credits transfer from the seller to the buyer? Are there any oversight bodies? Who defines the value of a habitat credit? It is easy to measure a tonne of CO2. How do we measure a credit on biodiversity, and who gets to make that decision? Would it be, perhaps, an asset manager running a global company out of, say, New York City? What happens when the asset manager wants to increase the value of their assets? Does the asset manager have to advocate for zero fishing to make the value of these fish habitat banks worth more? This is happening now. If members do not believe me, they can look it up. In August, the government launched its new expert task force on natural capital accounting and nature financing, which seeks to impact climate regulation and biodiversity conservation. Is this yet another carbon credit system? After all, the last one, with the Net-Zero Banking Alliance, worked out so well, did it not? This task force is made up entirely of big NGOs, corporations and academics. There is no one from Nature Canada, Ducks Unlimited or any type of local conservation group. There are just bureaucrats in Toronto and Ottawa boardrooms dictating how farmers, ranchers and acreage owners need to operate on their own private land. The government is making these decisions, but landowners, frankly, I do not think know much about it at all. Why are government bureaucrats running this agenda while local conservationists, guides and outfitters, salmon enhancement organizations, and conservation authorities are seemingly sidelined and marginalized when it comes to defining how these credits are actually applied? Are the Liberals contracting this work out to the Prime Minister’s global asset management friends at BlackRock and Brookfield, headquartered out of Donald Trump’s New York City? It looks that way. I am not opposed to conservation. I am actually the shadow minister for conservation, but conservation is done best by local groups on the ground that understand the practicality of the environment in which everything lives, not unelected international bureaucrats who are lining their pockets. Conservation needs to be done practically, not ideologically. Ideological decisions bring around the concept of preservation, which is sometimes masked and sold as conservation. Preservation brings sterilization. It is conservation that actually works. It is conservation that we as Conservatives support. There are so many questions introduced in the bill, yet there are few, if any, answers at all, so let us try to find answers on our own. On the 30 by 30 and 50 by 50 agendas and the land sterilization, my suspicion is that the proposed amendments to the Fisheries Act play into the Liberals’ plans. As many members know, in 2022, the Liberals signed Canada onto the 30 by 30 and 50 by 50 initiative at COP15 in Montreal, which seeks to preserve up to half of Canada’s terrestrial and marine environments by 2050. By the way, half of Canada’s land mass is bigger than 187 of the 196 countries in the world. The rationale is to ensure habitat protection to maintain biological diversity. That sounds good. I think everybody wants biodiversity and habitat protection. It is not just a random percentage of Canada. This also applies to each ecological zone. This means mountain areas, Canadian Shield, prairie grasslands where all the farms and ranches are, parkland forest, Arctic tundra and so on. In much of these areas, significant portions of the land are privately owned or privately held property, which is where biodiversity credits in Bill C-39 would come into play. The government needs a mechanism to turn this privately owned land into recognizable conservation land. By the way, 89% of Canada is Crown land. Of the other 11%, 7% is agricultural land and the other 4% is what the rest of us live on. The government needs a mechanism to turn this privately owned land, which is the vast minority of the land in Canada, into recognizable conservation land with rules and all kinds of regulations on it. Amending the Fisheries Act to include biodiversity credits is the mechanism for how they would get that kind of control. It remains a stumbling point because the Liberals just signed Canada onto 30 by 30 and 50 by 50, and the House has never actually voted to approve the agenda that Canada signed onto at COP15. We have not even had the debate in the House of Commons. In the previous Parliament, the minister of environment, who has since resigned due to the MOU signed between Canada and Alberta, tried to table a bill to give the government a mechanism to implement this preservationist agenda, but that bill never passed, and there was no vote. The government simply signed on and has begun implementation without consulting Canadians. Now it would be implementing a biodiversity credit mechanism without consulting landowners. The Liberals would be doing so through the Fisheries Act powers, national park creation and agreements with first nations called indigenous protected and conserved areas. The whole point of this particular speech is this: What would they be doing with the Fisheries Act? The Fisheries Act is one of the most powerful pieces of legislation we have in Canada, the same Fisheries Act that would be amended by this very bill, Bill C-39, to offer biodiversity credit for fish habitat. This would suggest to me that my assertion at the beginning of the speech is correct: The Liberals would use these habitat and biodiversity credits as they relate to fish banking as a way of expediting their global 30 by 30 and 50 by 50 agenda. How would these habitat banks fall into part of the government’s conservation plan? We know that its $3.8 billion nature announcement in March is what it says it is going to take, or require, to get to the 30% preservation target. Are these proposed amendments to the Fisheries Act intended to bring Canada closer to its 50% goal? Why are the Liberals so hell-bent on preserving Canada as a national park? This is not conservation. It is preservation: preservation from hunting, fishing, angling, trapping, guiding, outfitting, recreational sports, hiking, energy development and resource development. Is sterilizing half of Canada’s land and water really considered building Canada strong? I do not think so. These policies would lock up land and water, and throw away the key. It is all about actual control, central control for a central banker, for a government that the Toronto Star has now indicated is all centralized in the Prime Minister’s Office. Last week, the Prime Minister made the west coast pipeline, now Pacific link, a project of national importance. I strongly echo the thoughts and concerns of my leader, who told the National Post last week, “Wake me up when there’s a steel pipe going in the dirt.” Why are Conservatives doubtful? It is because of preservation policies such as this. How can the Liberals build a pipeline when they have sterilized so much of our Crown land and are now offering incentives to sterilize even more of that land and the water? How can we build Canada strong if 50% of Canada’s land and water is cordoned off under conservation easements or a protected status? If we cannot access the land and cannot access the water, then we sure cannot build energy infrastructure on the land or sail ships through the water. The world needs Canadian energy and natural resources. Sterilizing Canada and turning it into a park would mean that these resources would stay in the ground. The Prime Minister said something last week at the Pacific link announcement: “The Canadian taxpayer is going to make a lot of money off this pipeline.” Well, that is good. I want that. Conservatives want that. However, we cannot build a pipeline or a shipping lane, much less a profitable one, if we cordon off our land and water. It is completely unrealistic and irresponsible to say that we can. Are we building Canada, or are we sectioning off? We cannot do both.”
Speech on a bill
Respect 96 of 100
This statement targeted a person rather than their actions or views: “the Prime Minister's affinity for global asset management groups, I am concerned about who really benefits”.
See full analysisMr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to stand in this place for the first time in the fall session of Parliament to speak to a piece of the government’s legislation, Bill C-39, the building Canada strong act. I spoke to Bill C-5 a year ago, which was the Building Canada Act. I am probably going to speak 12 months from now to the building Canada very strong act, and then 12 months after that, it will be the building Canada very, very strong act, but we will see how this goes. It has taken a year and a half, but we are finally here. We have finally made it to the Prime Minister’s legislative calling card, where he finally plans to deliver on a promise he made a year and a half ago to build Canada strong. Many of my colleagues have now spoken to the bill, pointing out faults and shortcomings, of which there are many. However, over these next 10 minutes, I would like to focus on a very tiny part of the bill that I do not think has gotten a lot of attention. It has big implications on conservation in Canada, primarily through changes made to the Fisheries Act. As the bill reads, division 7 of part 1 would amend the Fisheries Act to do the following: (a) modify the fish habitat bank regime to allow for the use of habitat credits by third parties; Have we ever heard of habitat credits? Have the folks watching at home heard of carbon credits? Have we heard of biodiversity credits? This is what I am going to talk about. The bill continues: (b) authorize the making of regulations respecting the circumstances in which a person who is authorized to carry on a work, undertaking or activity may pay a fee to offset adverse effects on fish and fish habitat and provide for these fees to be credited to the Environmental Damages Fund; and (c) transfer certain regulation-making powers from the Governor in Council to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. I want to be clear that as Conservatives, we totally believe in conservation. We totally believe in protecting our biodiversity. We agree wholeheartedly with these notions and premises of clean air, clean land and clean water for current generations and generations to come, but I want to talk a bit about the new way that I think things will be going in the environmental world. I am going to talk about biodiversity credits, or habitat credits, which is what the government calls them in the legislation. Division 7 would allow the use of habitat credits by third parties. Let us dive into that. Habitat credits, or biodiversity credits, are a market-based approach to conservation. If a landowner or an organization restores, creates, enhances or protects a habitat area, they have effectively created a habitat bank. Under division 7, this would allow the owner to earn credits for the ecological value that the bank creates. These credits could then be sold to others, who must compensate for any number of unrelated environmental impacts elsewhere in Canada. This sounds good. If a bit of activity over here wrecks something, a bit of habitat banking over there would offset it. It sounds good, but the devil is in the details. The idea for this model is that it would allow conservation to be funded up front and would ensure that habitat is protected before impacts occur. I do not disagree with the idea of biodiversity credits as a method of conservation, but given the Prime Minister’s affinity for global asset management groups, I am concerned about who really benefits from these credits. In fact, I do not even know who is going to own some of these credits. Is it the government? It is, after all, the body that appears to provide the credit to the landowner in the first place. Is it the landowners? Are they the owners of the land in which the habitat bank has been licensed and organized? What if a landowner sells that credit? Do the credits transfer from the seller to the buyer? Are there any oversight bodies? Who defines the value of a habitat credit? It is easy to measure a tonne of CO2. How do we measure a credit on biodiversity, and who gets to make that decision? Would it be, perhaps, an asset manager running a global company out of, say, New York City? What happens when the asset manager wants to increase the value of their assets? Does the asset manager have to advocate for zero fishing to make the value of these fish habitat banks worth more? This is happening now. If members do not believe me, they can look it up. In August, the government launched its new expert task force on natural capital accounting and nature financing, which seeks to impact climate regulation and biodiversity conservation. Is this yet another carbon credit system? After all, the last one, with the Net-Zero Banking Alliance, worked out so well, did it not? This task force is made up entirely of big NGOs, corporations and academics. There is no one from Nature Canada, Ducks Unlimited or any type of local conservation group. There are just bureaucrats in Toronto and Ottawa boardrooms dictating how farmers, ranchers and acreage owners need to operate on their own private land. The government is making these decisions, but landowners, frankly, I do not think know much about it at all. Why are government bureaucrats running this agenda while local conservationists, guides and outfitters, salmon enhancement organizations, and conservation authorities are seemingly sidelined and marginalized when it comes to defining how these credits are actually applied? Are the Liberals contracting this work out to the Prime Minister’s global asset management friends at BlackRock and Brookfield, headquartered out of Donald Trump’s New York City? It looks that way. I am not opposed to conservation. I am actually the shadow minister for conservation, but conservation is done best by local groups on the ground that understand the practicality of the environment in which everything lives, not unelected international bureaucrats who are lining their pockets. Conservation needs to be done practically, not ideologically. Ideological decisions bring around the concept of preservation, which is sometimes masked and sold as conservation. Preservation brings sterilization. It is conservation that actually works. It is conservation that we as Conservatives support. There are so many questions introduced in the bill, yet there are few, if any, answers at all, so let us try to find answers on our own. On the 30 by 30 and 50 by 50 agendas and the land sterilization, my suspicion is that the proposed amendments to the Fisheries Act play into the Liberals’ plans. As many members know, in 2022, the Liberals signed Canada onto the 30 by 30 and 50 by 50 initiative at COP15 in Montreal, which seeks to preserve up to half of Canada’s terrestrial and marine environments by 2050. By the way, half of Canada’s land mass is bigger than 187 of the 196 countries in the world. The rationale is to ensure habitat protection to maintain biological diversity. That sounds good. I think everybody wants biodiversity and habitat protection. It is not just a random percentage of Canada. This also applies to each ecological zone. This means mountain areas, Canadian Shield, prairie grasslands where all the farms and ranches are, parkland forest, Arctic tundra and so on. In much of these areas, significant portions of the land are privately owned or privately held property, which is where biodiversity credits in Bill C-39 would come into play. The government needs a mechanism to turn this privately owned land into recognizable conservation land. By the way, 89% of Canada is Crown land. Of the other 11%, 7% is agricultural land and the other 4% is what the rest of us live on. The government needs a mechanism to turn this privately owned land, which is the vast minority of the land in Canada, into recognizable conservation land with rules and all kinds of regulations on it. Amending the Fisheries Act to include biodiversity credits is the mechanism for how they would get that kind of control. It remains a stumbling point because the Liberals just signed Canada onto 30 by 30 and 50 by 50, and the House has never actually voted to approve the agenda that Canada signed onto at COP15. We have not even had the debate in the House of Commons. In the previous Parliament, the minister of environment, who has since resigned due to the MOU signed between Canada and Alberta, tried to table a bill to give the government a mechanism to implement this preservationist agenda, but that bill never passed, and there was no vote. The government simply signed on and has begun implementation without consulting Canadians. Now it would be implementing a biodiversity credit mechanism without consulting landowners. The Liberals would be doing so through the Fisheries Act powers, national park creation and agreements with first nations called indigenous protected and conserved areas. The whole point of this particular speech is this: What would they be doing with the Fisheries Act? The Fisheries Act is one of the most powerful pieces of legislation we have in Canada, the same Fisheries Act that would be amended by this very bill, Bill C-39, to offer biodiversity credit for fish habitat. This would suggest to me that my assertion at the beginning of the speech is correct: The Liberals would use these habitat and biodiversity credits as they relate to fish banking as a way of expediting their global 30 by 30 and 50 by 50 agenda. How would these habitat banks fall into part of the government’s conservation plan? We know that its $3.8 billion nature announcement in March is what it says it is going to take, or require, to get to the 30% preservation target. Are these proposed amendments to the Fisheries Act intended to bring Canada closer to its 50% goal? Why are the Liberals so hell-bent on preserving Canada as a national park? This is not conservation. It is preservation: preservation from hunting, fishing, angling, trapping, guiding, outfitting, recreational sports, hiking, energy development and resource development. Is sterilizing half of Canada’s land and water really considered building Canada strong? I do not think so. These policies would lock up land and water, and throw away the key. It is all about actual control, central control for a central banker, for a government that the Toronto Star has now indicated is all centralized in the Prime Minister’s Office. Last week, the Prime Minister made the west coast pipeline, now Pacific link, a project of national importance. I strongly echo the thoughts and concerns of my leader, who told the National Post last week, “Wake me up when there’s a steel pipe going in the dirt.” Why are Conservatives doubtful? It is because of preservation policies such as this. How can the Liberals build a pipeline when they have sterilized so much of our Crown land and are now offering incentives to sterilize even more of that land and the water? How can we build Canada strong if 50% of Canada’s land and water is cordoned off under conservation easements or a protected status? If we cannot access the land and cannot access the water, then we sure cannot build energy infrastructure on the land or sail ships through the water. The world needs Canadian energy and natural resources. Sterilizing Canada and turning it into a park would mean that these resources would stay in the ground. The Prime Minister said something last week at the Pacific link announcement: “The Canadian taxpayer is going to make a lot of money off this pipeline.” Well, that is good. I want that. Conservatives want that. However, we cannot build a pipeline or a shipping lane, much less a profitable one, if we cordon off our land and water. It is completely unrealistic and irresponsible to say that we can. Are we building Canada, or are we sectioning off? We cannot do both.
“The government's environmental plans lock land away instead of managing it wisely. Because of these rules, we could not build fire breaks in Jasper National Park, and homes burned down. The government is to blame for that.”
“Mr. Speaker, there is a big difference between conservation and preservation. If we look at the definitions of what the 30 by 30 agenda and the 50 by 50 agenda are trying to achieve, we see that it is preservation status. That is a national park level of status. It basically eliminates virtually all forms of use except for maybe visiting and taking pictures. If we were able to do the things on the preserved lands and waters that are coming through the legislative steps and the agenda the government currently has, we would have been able to build fire breaks in Jasper National Park to protect that community. Instead, the preservationist philosophy, which the member is masquerading as conservation, required that the Liberals let it sit, go through the natural process and let those houses burn. That is on him.”
Reply to a debate question
Respect 77 of 100
This statement targeted a person rather than their actions or views: “which the member is masquerading as conservation”.
See full analysisMr. Speaker, there is a big difference between conservation and preservation. If we look at the definitions of what the 30 by 30 agenda and the 50 by 50 agenda are trying to achieve, we see that it is preservation status. That is a national park level of status. It basically eliminates virtually all forms of use except for maybe visiting and taking pictures. If we were able to do the things on the preserved lands and waters that are coming through the legislative steps and the agenda the government currently has, we would have been able to build fire breaks in Jasper National Park to protect that community. Instead, the preservationist philosophy, which the member is masquerading as conservation, required that the Liberals let it sit, go through the natural process and let those houses burn. That is on him.
“Alberta creates wealth that helps other provinces, like Quebec. Building big projects brings prosperity, which helps us afford better healthcare, schools, and environmental protections. We cannot scare away investment by locking up land and water in protected zones.”
“Mr. Speaker, I hope I understood the gist of the question from my colleague from Quebec. He should have thanked me, as an MP from Alberta, for all the money that has been transferred that is helping his community and his province. Albertans understand that we can do projects that create wealth and prosperity for Canadians. We are not an unsophisticated society. When we have wealth and prosperity, we can have better environmental outcomes, we can have better health outcomes and we can have better educational outcomes. However, we cannot have a situation where we pretend we are going to build things and tie up the rest of the country and our water areas under protected zones that limit and scare away investment.”
Reply to a debate question
Relevance 34 of 100
None of this reply addressed the specific point raised or the topic under debate.
See full analysisMr. Speaker, I hope I understood the gist of the question from my colleague from Quebec. He should have thanked me, as an MP from Alberta, for all the money that has been transferred that is helping his community and his province. Albertans understand that we can do projects that create wealth and prosperity for Canadians. We are not an unsophisticated society. When we have wealth and prosperity, we can have better environmental outcomes, we can have better health outcomes and we can have better educational outcomes. However, we cannot have a situation where we pretend we are going to build things and tie up the rest of the country and our water areas under protected zones that limit and scare away investment.
“The government promised to stop using huge bills that cover many different laws at once. This bill is one of those huge bills, changing labour rules, conservation rules, and other things. I am asking my colleague if this bill should be split up.”
“Mr. Speaker, the speech by my colleague from Ponoka—Didsbury was excellent. I learned a lot from it. He is a past conservation officer, and I certainly appreciate the points he made. The Liberal government previously stated that there would be no more omnibus bills because they were an undemocratic practice. I am wondering if, considering that the bill is a massive omnibus bill that would change the Labour Code and quite a few other things, including conservation, the colleague thinks that perhaps the bill should be broken out and not delivered to Canadians as an omnibus bill.”
Mr. Speaker, the speech by my colleague from Ponoka—Didsbury was excellent. I learned a lot from it. He is a past conservation officer, and I certainly appreciate the points he made. The Liberal government previously stated that there would be no more omnibus bills because they were an undemocratic practice. I am wondering if, considering that the bill is a massive omnibus bill that would change the Labour Code and quite a few other things, including conservation, the colleague thinks that perhaps the bill should be broken out and not delivered to Canadians as an omnibus bill.
“Conservatives warned the Liberals for ten years that their laws on pipelines, tankers, deficits, and crime would hurt Canada. Everything we warned about happened. Now the Liberals are supporting this bill and running away from their past votes. They are hypocrites who say anything to get votes.”
“Mr. Speaker, for the last 10 years, I have sat in the House and warned the Liberals about everything they were going to do. We as Conservatives all warned them what would happen if they passed the “no more pipelines” bill and they passed the legislation on the tanker ban. We warned them what would happen if they ran continuous deficits. We warned them what would happen if they weakened our justice system. All the things we said would come to pass have come to pass. Now they are eating themselves whole trying to run away from the agenda they were just voting for during three parliaments prior to this one. The hypocrisy is astounding. My colleague from Edmonton West is absolutely right. The same members who are right now arguing in favour of this bill were saying the exact opposite about the very same issues in previous parliaments for 10 years. I think Canadians are waking up to the reality that the government is all talk and no action. The Liberals do not mean the things they say. They will say anything to anyone anywhere as long as they get their votes. That is how the members across the room operate.”
Reply to a debate question
Relevance 37 of 100
None of this reply addressed the specific point raised or the topic under debate.
See full analysisMr. Speaker, for the last 10 years, I have sat in the House and warned the Liberals about everything they were going to do. We as Conservatives all warned them what would happen if they passed the “no more pipelines” bill and they passed the legislation on the tanker ban. We warned them what would happen if they ran continuous deficits. We warned them what would happen if they weakened our justice system. All the things we said would come to pass have come to pass. Now they are eating themselves whole trying to run away from the agenda they were just voting for during three parliaments prior to this one. The hypocrisy is astounding. My colleague from Edmonton West is absolutely right. The same members who are right now arguing in favour of this bill were saying the exact opposite about the very same issues in previous parliaments for 10 years. I think Canadians are waking up to the reality that the government is all talk and no action. The Liberals do not mean the things they say. They will say anything to anyone anywhere as long as they get their votes. That is how the members across the room operate.
“The Prime Minister keeps introducing bills that give ministers too much power without enough details. I want the member to comment on this problem.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am wondering if the member can comment on the fact that the pattern under the Prime Minister has been to introduce bills, not just Bill C-39, that have sweeping powers for ministers. There is not a lot of detail in this bill, and it is undermining many things.”
Mr. Speaker, I am wondering if the member can comment on the fact that the pattern under the Prime Minister has been to introduce bills, not just Bill C-39, that have sweeping powers for ministers. There is not a lot of detail in this bill, and it is undermining many things.
“Conservatives support Alberta and we supported this bill. But out of 500 projects sent to the government office, none have started construction. I want the minister to give an exact date when any of these projects will actually begin.”
“Mr. Speaker, let me just say at the outset that, having lived and worked in Alberta for 10 years in my private sector career prior to this place and my wife being born and raised in southern Alberta, all Conservatives certainly support a strong Alberta within a united Canada, and I thank the member for her comments. We on this side of the House stood and supported Bill C-5. I am on the transport and infrastructure committee. We supported the passage of that bill in an expeditious fashion. However, there have been 500 projects brought forward to the Major Projects Office, and very few have inched along. In fact, there are none where we see any shovels in the ground. I would ask the minister to give an exact date when we will we see a project from the Major Projects Office with a shovel in the ground.”
Mr. Speaker, let me just say at the outset that, having lived and worked in Alberta for 10 years in my private sector career prior to this place and my wife being born and raised in southern Alberta, all Conservatives certainly support a strong Alberta within a united Canada, and I thank the member for her comments. We on this side of the House stood and supported Bill C-5. I am on the transport and infrastructure committee. We supported the passage of that bill in an expeditious fashion. However, there have been 500 projects brought forward to the Major Projects Office, and very few have inched along. In fact, there are none where we see any shovels in the ground. I would ask the minister to give an exact date when we will we see a project from the Major Projects Office with a shovel in the ground.
“The Trans Mountain pipeline went ahead without full agreement from every First Nation. Will the government demand 100% agreement from all First Nations for the Pacific Link pipeline?”
“Mr. Speaker, my focus over the last 15 years has always been about indigenous consultation and the accommodation of aboriginal rights and title. The original Trans Mountain pipeline did not get 100% consent from all participating first nations, but the project still went ahead. For the Pacific link pipeline, will the government be pursuing 100% consent from all participating first nations?”
Mr. Speaker, my focus over the last 15 years has always been about indigenous consultation and the accommodation of aboriginal rights and title. The original Trans Mountain pipeline did not get 100% consent from all participating first nations, but the project still went ahead. For the Pacific link pipeline, will the government be pursuing 100% consent from all participating first nations?
“A report said consultations with Indigenous people for the Pacific Link pipeline will last only two months. That is not enough time to properly respect their rights.”
“Mr. Speaker, in talking about indigenous consultation, there was a story that came out that said that the consultation for the Pacific link pipeline to Vancouver was going to be two months long. Does that reflect meaningful consultation of aboriginal rights and title?”
Mr. Speaker, in talking about indigenous consultation, there was a story that came out that said that the consultation for the Pacific link pipeline to Vancouver was going to be two months long. Does that reflect meaningful consultation of aboriginal rights and title?
“This bill promises to speed up major projects, but it adds too much red tape. Its promise to approve projects within one year is misleading because the government can pause or extend the clock. It also does not scrap the carbon tax or laws that block new pipelines. We need to approve projects faster, not create new government councils.”
“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, 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.
“Our rail lines and ports are backed up, especially in Vancouver. We need better shipping routes for our farmers and manufacturers, but I doubt this government will actually fix the problem.”
“Mr. Speaker, absolutely. We have been saying for years that the trade corridors are critical. The rail lines are backed up. The ports are backed up. Vancouver’s is, especially. Improving access to markets for our producers, farmers and manufacturers is critical. The issue is whether it will happen.”
Reply to a debate question
Relevance 100 of 100
Of this reply, 100% addressed the question or point raised.
See full analysisMr. Speaker, absolutely. We have been saying for years that the trade corridors are critical. The rail lines are backed up. The ports are backed up. Vancouver’s is, especially. Improving access to markets for our producers, farmers and manufacturers is critical. The issue is whether it will happen.
“Environmental reviews are necessary to protect nature now and in the future. But we can do them faster without hurting the environment. The government takes too long to finish them.”
“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, 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.
