MEMBER OF PARLIAMENT

Glen Motz

Follow by RSS

Motz pushes for faster approvals of nation-building projects, harmonizing skilled-trade credentials across provinces, and public safety legislation, while defending interests in his southern Alberta riding. He weighs ideas out loud and lands on homey verdicts: on the budget, “a pig is still a pig.” He also champions local events like the 2026 Special Olympics Canada summer games in Medicine Hat.Written by AI from their statements. Updated .

Average grade
A
94 / 100 over 9 statements
Signal 84 / 100
Relevance 96 / 100
Respect 100 / 100
Clarity 97 / 100
No habit stands out from the typical statement here. Averaged over the 9 of 12 statements graded so far.

Statements 12

Government Orders ·

Building Canada Strong Act

In response to a question from Sima Acan

“This bill adds another layer of bureaucracy. I do not see how it will help approve projects faster.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, what I am having trouble with, and what I think Canadians are going to have trouble with, is how we can improve the speed to get projects approved if we add a third layer of bureaucracy, because that is exactly what this bill would do. It troubles me that Bill C-5 did not seem to get it done, so let us add another layer in Bill C-39. This is what I believe is happening here. I am hopeful that it will work, but the results are in the pudding, and right now, the pudding is—

In response to a question from Dan Albas

“I do not support this bill. The new council it creates adds more government rules and delays projects instead of speeding them up.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 100 of 100

    Of this reply, 100% addressed the question or point raised.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, what has been troubling in the years I have been here is that the good intentions of any government get bogged down in bureaucracy, and this is a prime example. Look at the national trade corridor council. I do not see any value in this council adding to the speed of projects or getting any projects completed at all. There are mechanisms in place already. How can a council speed things up when it adds another layer to go through and has more questions, delaying projects further? How it is advantageous to our Canadian economy and to getting projects built is beyond me. I think it is a colossal failure, again.

In response to a question from Mario Beaulieu

“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.”
Official Hansard

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.

In response to a question from Marcus Powlowski

“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.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 100 of 100

    Of this reply, 100% addressed the question or point raised.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

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.

“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.”
Official Hansard

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.

PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS ·

National Framework on Skilled Trades and Labour Mobility Act

“I want us to study this bill carefully. Canada needs more skilled tradespeople to build homes and big projects. Right now, it is hard for certified workers to move and work in different provinces because their licences are not recognized everywhere. This bill tries to fix that by getting the provinces together to match up their job credentials. It does not solve everything, but it could help workers go where the jobs are.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise today and speak on behalf of the good people of Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner. I want to remind Canadians that this session, Conservatives will be working to restore Canada’s promise of an affordable, safe and independent Canada. We will work to save Canadians money, unlike the Liberals, who are costing Canadians money. We will save Canadian jobs, keep Canadians safe, fix the immigration system and put Canada first. Today, we are talking about Bill C-266, regarding a national framework on skilled trades and labour mobility, something that we should all give serious consideration to. It is not lost on anyone in this House that Canada faces a crossroads in our relationship with our neighbours, as well as old and emerging trade partners. What cannot be forgotten, however, is the strength that lies within our own borders to meet these challenges head-on. My colleagues on both sides of this chamber must ask themselves the following. In the face of external pressures, will we leverage our immense geography, resources and skills to build a Canada that produces what it needs and controls its own destiny? Bill C-266 is central to that conversation. Skilled trade certification and labour mobility in Canada are largely governed by the provinces and territories. It is a fragmented system that creates differences in credential recognition, standards, licensing and regulatory requirements, and it can make it difficult for trade workers to move between provinces. This legislation would require the federal government to develop a national framework to identify these barriers and explore ways to harmonize and streamline credential recognition, improve labour mobility and promote careers in the skilled trades. The framework would be developed through consultation and reported to Parliament, while respecting provincial and territorial responsibility for certification. Importantly, Bill C-266 would not itself replace provincial certification systems or impose a single national licensing regime. Instead, the act would be designed to require the federal government to bring the provinces, regulatory bodies, industry, employers, unions, apprenticeship organizations, indigenous organizations and educational institutions to the table for months of consultation. The resulting framework would then have to include a complete list of skilled trades across Canada; compare and map equivalencies between provincial standards and credentials; and then identify measures to harmonize standards, reduce duplication and streamline the process of having credentials recognized from one province to another. It would also have to address emerging trades and new technologies and promote greater awareness of the importance of skilled trades. This is about making sure that a Canadian who has earned the skills to do a job can have those skills recognized when opportunity takes them somewhere else in their own country. It is appropriate that this bill is the first order of business after our return to Ottawa. The events of this summer have put an even greater onus on the Prime Minister to make good on his vow to build at speeds not seen in generations, for the housing construction sector and the major infrastructure projects and the economic investments we need to put Canada first. Regrettably, however, the Liberal government has not yet made good on that vow. There has been a lot of talk and not a whole lot of action, and it is completely out of touch. Let us examine housing, for instance. It is the central issue facing an entire generation that has effectively been locked out of the market. Housing is a skilled labour issue. We cannot build the homes Canadians need without the electricians, plumbers, carpenters, equipment operators and other skilled tradespersons needed to build them. Despite 62,000 vacant trades jobs in late 2025, over 127,000 certified tradespeople in Canada were unemployed, according to StatsCan. At the same time, the Canadian Home Builders’ Association reports that 47% of builders say they or their subcontractors have had to lay off workers, rising to 65% in Ontario. That tells us something important. The challenge is not simply a shortage of skilled workers. It is also a failure to connect workers with opportunities where they are needed and where these opportunities exist. The same problem exists when it comes to major projects. The Prime Minister promised to build at speeds not seen in generations, but we need projects to actually get built if skilled workers are going to put their skills to work. There are 500 shovel-ready projects still awaiting approval at the Major Projects Office. Canada cannot afford to train more tradespeople while qualified workers face barriers in moving between provinces and major projects are struggling to get off the ground. Bill C-266 may help address one part of that equation, that is, making it easier for qualified workers to move to where the work is. While the Liberals deserve much of the blame for siphoning the full potential of our workforce, successive governments at both the federal and provincial levels have erected barriers to prevent Canadians from working and doing business freely across their own country. In the words of the Business Council of Canada, “13 different provincial credential recognition regimes” complicate our labour mobility. Not only do these roadblocks increase costs and ultimately leave Canadians paying more for essentials, but they also hold back growth when we should be firing on all cylinders. Shockingly, the International Monetary Fund estimates that impediments to internal trade in Canada are equivalent to a 9% tariff on ourselves and that removing them could increase the size of our economy by a further 7%. There should be no further hesitation by the government in finally and fully realizing the promise of one Canadian economy. Conservatives have always believed in the free trade of goods and labour, and there is no better time than now to trade with ourselves. We need to and would embrace the broad mutual recognition of goods, services and labour across Canada, making restrictions the exception rather than the rule. Bill C-266 is not, by itself, the end of that work, but it could provide a mechanism to identify exactly where the barriers exist and bring every jurisdiction to the table to address them. By mapping provincial credentials and identifying equivalencies, the framework could give provincial regulators the information they need to recognize qualifications more consistently, reduce duplication and make it easier for workers to move. On this side of the House, we are optimistic but have every reason to reserve doubt. While the bill’s sponsor has promoted it as one that would focus on tangible outcomes, it is fair to ask why these problems remain unresolved by the Liberal Party after more than a decade in government. That is why Conservatives will continue to examine the bill carefully. We need to determine whether its framework actually produces the results that Canadian workers and employers need. The stakes are high. These restrictions impact businesses and the people they employ and serve. It is no wonder that Canada’s business community has been sounding the alarm for years. Both the Canadian Chamber of Commerce and the Business Council of Canada have called for unified recognition of skilled trade credentials across Canada, warning that barriers between provinces prevent skilled workers from moving to where they are needed. The numbers are sobering. The chamber has warned that roughly 700,000 skilled trade workers are projected to retire in the next two years, while Canada faces enormous housing and infrastructure demands. Therefore, the chamber has called for a unified framework developed with provincial and territorial governments, industry and regulatory bodies to recognize skilled trade training and credentials across Canada. This is remarkably close to what Bill C-266 asks the federal government to begin doing, which is to bring those same stakeholders together, map out the differences between jurisdictions, identify equivalencies, reduce duplication and report publicly on the progress. The Business Council of Canada has also pointed to Canada’s patchwork of provincial credential recognition regimes as a barrier to labour mobility, while its research has found that shortages of skilled workers can have a significant impact on major projects and investments. Bill C-266 could not only address these challenges; it could create a national process for identifying and addressing some of the barriers the business community has repeatedly identified. It is for these reasons that the Conservatives will continue to carefully examine Bill C-266, not as the solution but as an important stepping stone to a more mobile and productive Canadian workforce. We have Canadians with skills, we have employers with available jobs, and we have communities that desperately need these workers. Bill C-266 may be a good step in identifying the barriers, bringing the people responsible for removing them to the table and requiring Parliament to measure whether progress is actually being made. Canada’s skilled workers should never be held back by borders within their own country.

Statements by Members ·

Special Olympics Canada Summer Games

“Medicine Hat is hosting the 2026 Special Olympics Canada Summer Games. Around 1,700 athletes with intellectual and developmental disabilities will compete. I thank the volunteers and invite Canadians to come watch and cheer them on.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, from August 11 to August 15, the city of Medicine Hat is thrilled to host the 2026 Special Olympics Canada summer games, welcoming 1,700 participants from across the country. These games will showcase the incredible talents and inspiring stories of athletes with intellectual and developmental disabilities through competition, camaraderie, personal bests and unforgettable memories. Athletes will compete in 10 sports, each with their respective disciplines, celebrating inclusive sport excellence and highlighting achievement across this country. I thank the approximately 1,500 volunteers, strong community partnerships and everyone who has worked tirelessly to ensure these games are a success. I encourage the residents of Medicine Hat and area and all Canadians to come and experience this extraordinary event and cheer on these amazing athletes. Unforgettable moments of competition and connection will be created as Canada comes together in celebration of these Special Olympics Games. I wish good luck to all participants.

Government Orders ·

Government Orders

“Our justice system already gives police and prosecutors enough flexibility. This bill lets judges ignore mandatory minimum prison sentences for almost every crime. It allows courts to override decisions made by Parliament. Why is the government doing this?”
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, the Liberals tell us that the judicial safety valve is necessary to ensure flexibility. However, the criminal justice system already has safety valves in it. Police officers exercise discretion and lay charges, and the prosecutor has discretion on how they are going to handle a case and what that will look like for them. To me, the judicial safety valve would create an additional layer of discretion that would allow courts to effectively override Parliament’s decision. However, Parliament is supposed to be the one that makes these decisions. We know that clause 63 in the bill would go much further by allowing judges to completely disregard mandatory minimums, except for treason and murder. Why is that?

Government Orders ·

Business of Supply

“This decision hurts home values in the area. I want the member across the way to tell us how it affects his house-flipping business.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, despite the Liberal rhetoric, we know that the property values in the area impacted by this decision are having a significant impact on the homeowners. I am curious. Can our friend across the way answer how this decision is impacting his house-flipping business?

“The government blames us for spreading false information, but the cabinet told government lawyers what to do in this case. I want the minister to explain why the government will not admit its own directions failed Canadians.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I have sat here and heard for weeks now, since the decision was made, about how the Conservatives are spreading misinformation, yet we know government lawyers do not act on their own. They get direction, and that direction came directly from the cabinet to the government lawyers on principle 14 in this particular decision. Could the minister please clarify for Canadians the misinformation the Liberal Party is now propagating that suggests the misinformation is actually the failure to admit that the direction given to their own lawyers failed Canadians in this particular case?

Oral Questions ·

Finance

“The government's budget adds too much debt, spending, and taxes, which makes life unaffordable. I want the Prime Minister to cut spending and get the deficit under control.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals’ costly credit card budget is more of the same: more debt, more spending, more taxes and higher inflation. The Prime Minister has doubled previous annual deficits. He had still added $54 billion in new spending, costing Canadians now $59 billion in debt interest charges to cover it. His $25-billion sovereign debt fund is just another deception. When will the Prime Minister set aside his illusions and bring his deficit under control so Canadians can afford to live?

“This budget is still bad, no matter how the government tries to make it look good.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, no matter how much lipstick they put on this budget, a pig is still a pig. Liberals’ costly credit— Some hon. members: Oh, oh!