Patrick Weiler

In response to a question from Arielle Kayabaga

“I support this bill. It will speed up reviews so we can build homes and other big projects faster. It also lets builders buy credits to protect nature instead of waiting years for individual approvals.”

“Mr. Speaker, this one-year review timeline is critically important. We know we need to build fast and we need to build at scale. I want to give an example of a project in my riding that faced some significant delays. There is a big housing development where just the process of getting the habitat compensation project approved ended up taking three years. This is holding up getting thousands of new homes built. Rather than having to go through a multi-year process for habitat restoration work, this would allow for the purchasing of credits in a bigger habitat compensation project that could make a much bigger difference. This is instead of having to wait years for each individual project. This is one of the many efficiencies that would be created by this legislation that are both good for the environment and good for getting meaningful projects built in all of our communities.”

In response to a question from Ellis Ross

“We have a constitutional duty to consult Indigenous groups when projects affect their rights. In the past, courts stopped projects because governments did not do this properly. This bill creates a better consultation process that starts earlier, which helps us meet our legal duties.”

“Mr. Speaker, what we saw with the Trans Mountain pipeline was the original approval of the pipeline being challenged in court and overturned for the consultations’ not meeting the standard of section 35. What this means in practice is that where a project is going to impact a proven or claimed aboriginal right, there needs to be consultation or accommodation based on the level of impact. That is what the law states and that is what would be appropriate for any other project. It is very important. Some of the changes made here would facilitate consultation, happening both before a project site is chosen and throughout the process, through the new Crown consultation hub. This is critically important. It is not something we can legislate away. This is a constitutional obligation that we have toward first nations. The processes that have been proposed today would very much help produce a better process for that.”

• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 100 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

“I support this bill, but we need to fix some details in committee. It speeds up reviews for major projects by having government departments work together instead of repeating the same steps. To make it work, we must define exactly when the one-year review clock starts, fund public and Indigenous participation, set limits on early construction work, and ensure changes to project rules are transparent. We can build faster without lowering environmental standards.”

“Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to join the debate this evening on the building Canada strong act because Canada, at this moment, needs to build. In the interest of my limited time, I am only going to be talking about one of the three parts in this bill: build Canada now. We need clean energy and transmission. We need critical minerals. We need expanded port, rail and trade corridors. We need the infrastructure that will connect Canadian products to new markets and make our economy more resilient. However, there is an important question we need to ask: Can we build faster without lowering the bar? I believe the answer is yes. I believe the key is to build a better, more coordinated system. Today, projects can involve multiple federal processes, sometimes requiring similar information, with assessments, consultations and permitting decisions occurring at different stages. That creates uncertainty. It can delay investment, increase costs and make it harder for Canada to compete. Duplicative processes do not necessarily lead to better environmental outcomes. Bill C-39 is designed to address that problem by coordinating federal assessment, permitting and consultation processes so they can happen together rather than one after another. We should be finding speed by doing the necessary work at the same time, not by making the same work happen twice. That, in my view, is the most important principle behind this legislation. The same is true for how it approaches indigenous consultation. This bill would establish a more coordinated federal approach to consultation through a Crown consultation hub. Having worked with first nations, I know how some smaller first nations with more limited capacity can be overwhelmed by the number of referrals from government and the private sector. Indigenous communities should be able to engage with the federal government through a coordinated process, rather than having to navigate multiple departments and overlapping requests about the same project. That is a meaningful opportunity to make the system work better. However, getting the coordination right would depend on getting the details of this overall bill right as well. One of the issues I want to highlight is the meaning of a “comprehensive application”. That is important because the one-year timeline for project reviews and decisions under this act would begin once the proponent submits the comprehensive application and the required studies and information. That is important because the one-year period would be intended to cover the federal government’s assessment, consultation, consideration of impacts and mitigation, and final decision-making. If we are going to make that timeline meaningful, proponents and communities need clarity about what is required before this clock starts. If the threshold is too low, the clock begins before the science is ready. Regulators would not have all the information they need. They would be playing catch-up. First nations and the public may lose confidence in the system. If it is vague or impossibly high, years of delay may simply move to the period before the clock begins. The principle here is that predictability should come from clarity about what is required, not on cutting corners on what is required. The second issue I would like to bring up is on public participation. This bill is intended to coordinate federal processes, but coordination also means that more information may be presented to communities at the same time. That can be challenging because large proponents can have teams of consultants, scientists, engineers and lawyers, while smaller communities, local organizations and first nations may not have that same capacity. If we want a more efficient process, we also need to make sure that people have a fair opportunity to participate in it. That could mean making sure that we have adequate participant funding, access to technical expertise, clear and accessible information, properly staffed federal review teams, and meaningful opportunities for public and first nations input at the points where that input can inform decisions. A faster process should be a more coordinated process, not a process where the people affected would have less ability to participate. The third issue I would like to bring up is on preparatory work. This bill would allow the environment minister to permit some preparatory work on a project before a decision on that project has been rendered, where it is found to be in the public interest. There is a very good practical reason to allow certain work to proceed while a broader assessment is under way. Surveys, geotechnical investigations, archaeological work and other preparatory activities can provide information that helps a project move through the review process. However, Parliament should be clear on what work can and cannot be done. It should not be irreversible, it should not prejudge the final decision or replace the assessment itself, and it should continue to respect indigenous consultation and environmental requirements. Another important issue to consider is the authority to change project conditions where the minister determines that doing so is in the public interest. This is another new power that is proposed by this bill. There are very legitimate reasons why conditions may need to evolve over the life of a project. Technology changes, project design changes, better mitigation becomes available or additional consultation identifies a better approach to a project. There is value in having that appropriate flexibility, but that flexibility should also come with transparency. I believe Parliament should look carefully at how that discretion is exercised so we understand the criteria that are going to be looked at and make sure that we have notice when changes are going to be proposed and have transparency about those reasons for those changes. If the government is going to be given this new power to change legally binding conditions, Canadians should have the transparency to understand why those changes are being made. We should also look carefully at economic feasibility, because it is reasonable to ask whether a condition can actually be implemented. In fact, this is already common practice in project reviews, but there is an important distinction between asking how an environmental objective can best be achieved and deciding that the objective is too costly. The economic feasibility should help determine how an environmental obligation is achieved. It should not become a substitute for achieving the environmental outcome. That distinction matters, because building faster and protecting the environment are not competing objectives. They can and should reinforce each other. One of the other areas I see significant opportunity in is regional assessments. Too often, project decisions are considered after a site has already been selected and significant investment has already been made. Regional assessments allow us to take a step back and ask some of the bigger questions, such as where development makes the most sense, where the most sensitive ecosystems are, what the cumulative impacts of multiple projects are, what infrastructure a region needs and what environmental limits need to be respected. This gives us a chance to think about development at the scale of the ecosystem, rather than looking at small projects in isolation. This helps us make better decisions about where and how development makes sense in the first place, which makes good environmental policy and good investment policy. Finally, I want to address fish habitat compensation and third party habitat banking, because I see considerable potential in this approach. A mining company, a road builder or a port authority is not necessarily the organization that is best equipped to design and deliver habitat restoration. Specialized conservation organizations, indigenous organizations and restoration providers may be able to undertake larger and more ecologically coherent restoration projects. Having a system of third party habitat credits would allow that work to happen strategically in advance and get proponents better predictability when compensation is required. We should also recognize an important ecological reality. Restoring habitat is not simply a matter of replacing one hectare with another. Ecosystems are complex, and there is uncertainty in how successfully restored habitat will function over time. This is why compensation should always remain at the end of the mitigation hierarchy. We should avoid impacts first, minimize them where they cannot be avoided, restore where possible and compensate for residual impacts that remain. Where that compensation is required, we should aim for outcomes that are genuinely nature-positive. Overall, I support the direction of this legislation, because Canada needs to demonstrate that we can build, and we need a federal approval system that gives investors, communities and indigenous peoples greater confidence about how those decisions will be made. The speed should come from better coordination, better planning and better execution. It should come from federal processes happening together rather than one after another, from clear information requirements and from properly resourced consultation and participation. It should come from making decisions on time when the evidence is ready. Given that the powers in this bill would be permanent, it is important that where new flexibility or discretion is created, Parliament instills clear and transparent processes. This means getting the definition of comprehensive application right, ensuring that public and indigenous participation remains meaningful, being clear about what preparatory work is, using ministerial discretion transparently, applying economic feasibility appropriately, using regional assessments to understand both development opportunities and ecological limits and ensuring that habitat compensation produces the strongest ecological outcomes possible. Canada should not have to choose between building quickly and building responsibly. We can do both. We can have a project review system that is faster because it is better organized, we can give investors greater certainty without sacrificing rigorous assessment and we can build the infrastructure Canada needs while maintaining the environmental protections and public confidence the projects depend on. This is the opportunity before us with Bill C-39.”

In response to a question from Kevin Lamoureux

“The new benefit gives a family of four up to $1,890 to help pay for food and essentials. At the same time, we are working to lower grocery prices for the long term by increasing competition and helping more local food get to stores.”

“Mr. Speaker, certainly, the groceries and essentials benefit is going to be a major benefit for Canadians. It is up to $1,890 for a family of four. This is going to help with the high price of groceries right now, while we roll out our national food security strategy. This gets to some of the more underlining, foundational things we need to change, like more competition in the sector and giving more resources to the Competition Bureau to allow that, and making sure that we are building up our domestic supply chains to ensure that we can get more local products on the shelves.”

In response to a question from Martin Champoux

“I talked about protecting nature, including spending money to save whales. I hope our committee can study the issue of pesticides and find ways to fix the problems they cause.”

“Mr. Speaker, in my speech, I did indeed say a great deal about nature. I believe my riding is the most beautiful riding in the country. I spoke about the significant investments being made to protect whales and about the measures set out in the nature strategy. I know there are other points my colleague raised regarding pesticides, and I hope that, in committee, we will have the opportunity to investigate this properly to see if there are measures that can help mitigate the difficulties.”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 47 of 100

  None of this reply addressed the specific point raised or the topic under debate.

  See full analysis →

In response to a question from Tamara Jansen

“The opposition complains about government spending, but high costs in Canada are driven by outside events like trade wars. Our spending helps. This bill includes money for apartment construction loans, which will make housing more affordable.”

“Mr. Speaker, oftentimes, we hear concerns from members on the other side about government spending. They seem to forget that many of the factors contributing to the affordability challenges in Canada have to do with external factors, like the trade war we are in right now. I can tell the member that our investments, including the investments in this spring economic update, like the apartment construction loan program, are making a meaningful difference. They are making life more affordable and they are tackling the main issue driving affordability challenges, which is housing.”

• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 100 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

“I want the House to pass this budget bill. It will make life more affordable by cutting fuel taxes, helping people buy homes, and funding new rental housing. It also trains more skilled workers, supports local food production, and protects our oceans and harbours.”

“Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise in the House on behalf of the people of West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country to speak to Bill C-30, the spring economic update implementation act. At a time of global uncertainty, our government is focused on what we can control here at home: building a stronger, more resilient economy, making life more affordable and creating opportunities for the next generation. This is exactly what Bill C-30 would advance. Canada is already emerging as one of the world’s most attractive destinations for investment. Foreign direct investment reached nearly $97 billion last year, which is the highest level in almost two decades. Surveys of global investors are showing that Canada is the most attractive place for infrastructure investment. We will need that investment, as our government understands that Canada cannot be overly dependent on one market. For decades, roughly 70% of our exports have gone to the United States. Bill C-30 is part of a broader effort to strengthen Canada’s economic sovereignty by diversifying trade, supporting domestic industry and investing in Canadian productivity. Since last year alone, non-U.S. exports have increased by more than 40%, while exports to Europe continue to grow significantly. Importantly, this legislation recognizes that economic growth matters only if Canadians can actually feel it in their everyday lives. That begins with housing. Across my riding, housing affordability remains one of the defining issues that people raise with me. Young Canadians are wondering whether they will ever be able to buy a house in the communities they grew up in, while families are struggling with rising rents and housing shortages. The spring economic update responds by providing more than $7 billion in low-cost financing through the apartment construction loan program to accelerate the building of thousands of low-cost rental units across the country. Since 2019, this program has already financed over 300 below-market units in the Sea to Sky region alone. I have heard countless stories of how this has changed people’s lives, from allowing people to live closer to work to allowing low-income workers to save money for their retirement for the first time. The homes and the infrastructure Canada needs do not build themselves. If Canada wants to build the housing, infrastructure, transportation and clean energy projects we talk about so often, we need skilled workers, and many more of them. This is why one of the most important components of the spring economic update is the investment in skilled trades and apprenticeships. The government is launching a nationwide effort to recruit, train and hire up to 100,000 new Red Seal skilled trades workers by 2031 through the team Canada strong program. This creates a direct pathway for young Canadians into rewarding, well-paying careers while helping address labour shortages that are delaying projects across the country. This will support Canadians through the entire process, from discovering the trades to apprenticeship opportunities, completing the technical training and ultimately achieving Red Seal certification. It is also about reducing barriers by simplifying and accelerating the certification pathway so more Canadians can enter this workforce faster. Bill C-30 would also improve labour mobility for tradespeople by increasing the labour mobility deduction from $4,000 to $10,000, lowering the threshold to access it and making it easier for workers to go where their skills are needed most. For workers who spend weeks away from home helping build critical infrastructure and housing, this matters. This legislation also contains targeted affordability measures that would make a meaningful difference for Canadians. Between mortgage payments, rising living costs and uncertainty about the future, many young Canadians are feeling stretched thin even after reaching the major milestone of buying a new home. Measures in Bill C-30 like extending the repayment grace period under the homebuyers’ plan would provide relief to homeowners to ease pressure during those early critical years of home ownership. Bill C-30 would also reduce the CPP contribution rates beginning next year, helping workers and businesses keep more money in their pockets. While individually these changes may seem modest, in combination with recent measures like cutting Canadian income taxes, cutting the GST on new homes for first-time homebuyers and the groceries and essentials benefit, together they would help lower the pressure on Canadians who are already facing high costs. This legislation would also expand support for volunteer tax clinics that help vulnerable Canadians access the benefits they are entitled to. I want to give a special shout-out to Louis and the volunteers behind the local tax clinic on the Sunshine Coast, whose work helps over 3,000 residents each year access benefits and support they might otherwise miss. Their work is a powerful example of community service in action and demonstrates how local volunteers can make a difference in people’s lives. At a time when global instability has contributed to rising fuel prices, Bill C-30 temporarily removes the federal excise tax on gasoline, diesel and aviation fuel until Labour Day. This is already saving Canadian drivers about 10¢ a litre and providing direct relief at the pump for the families and businesses already dealing with many pressures. In places like Sea to Sky and the Sunshine Coast, residents continue to face inexplicably high gas prices. At all times, but especially right now, the Competition Bureau should be keeping a very close eye on anti-competitive behaviour and potential price manipulation in regional fuel markets like this one, because Canadians deserve fairness, transparency and confidence that they are not paying artificially high fuel prices. Bill C-30 would support Canadian brewers by extending the 50% reduction on excise duty rates for the first 15,000 hectolitres of beer brewed in Canada. That is an amount that covers the full production for over 94% of breweries in our country. For small brewers in my riding, like Coast Mountain Brewing, the Persephone Brewing Company and Backcountry Brewing, this provides meaningful savings that can be reinvested into local jobs, equipment, expansion and community events. This legislation recognizes the importance of investing in coastal communities and marine infrastructure. Our government is investing nearly $1 billion in small craft harbours and critical infrastructure that supports fisheries, transportation, tourism and local economies. I have heard first-hand from many harbours, including the Gibsons Landing Harbour Authority, about the growing pressures facing them and the need for upgrades to support increased commercial fish harvesting and future transportation demands. At Gibsons Landing, this includes the planned electric passenger ferry service that could help provide much-needed relief for Sunshine Coast residents. At the same time, economic development must go hand in hand with environmental stewardship. Bill C-30 includes more than $160 million over five years to continue protecting Canada’s whales and marine habitats on all three coasts. This would build on Canada’s broader $3.8-billion nature strategy and the commitment to protect biodiversity and marine ecosystems for future generations. Last month’s announcement of a new marine protected area in British Columbia the size of Prince Edward Island reinforces the importance of stewardship of our oceans while maintaining access to sustainable fish harvesting and tourism opportunities. My constituents understand that protecting marine ecosystems is not separate from economic prosperity, but essential to it, because healthy oceans support fisheries, tourism, recreation and coastal livelihoods. Food security is another key priority addressed in this legislation. As the Prime Minister said in Davos, food security is national security and, “A country that cannot feed itself, fuel itself, or defend itself has few options.” In an increasingly unstable world, shaped by supply chain disruptions, climate pressures and geopolitical instability, Canada must strengthen its domestic food production capacity. Bill C-30 and measures in the spring economic update would support that goal through supporting food production and distribution networks and, importantly, by providing immediate expensing of new greenhouse infrastructure. I have already seen how this is making a difference in my riding. The Líl̓wat Nation broke ground on a greenhouse at one end of it. On the Sunshine Coast, projects like Swiya Farms in Sechelt are focused on building large-scale, sustainable local food systems and supporting community-driven agriculture and long-term food resilience, including a large-scale greenhouse that is being planned. These are measures we are building on with last week’s announcement of Canada’s national food security strategy, which will increase competition to lower grocery prices, boost domestic production year-round and help local products get onto grocery shelves. I also want to highlight the investment in sports and recreation in the spring economic update. In my riding, we know first-hand the lasting impact sport can have on communities. The 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games left a legacy that extends far beyond infrastructure. They inspired participation, strengthened community pride, supported tourism and created opportunities for young athletes right across the region. We have seen world-class athletes emerge from our communities, including Marielle Thompson and Trinity Ellis, but the true legacy of sports goes beyond medals. It inspires young people to get active, build confidence, develop teamwork and resilience and connect with their communities. That is why the spring economic update has a historic $755-million investment in Canadian sport that would strengthen communities and new sports programs to support national sports organizations and athletes, improve safe sport initiatives and help Canada host major sporting events. I can see my time is running short, so I will say Bill C-30 is ultimately about building a more resilient, affordable and self-reliant Canada. It would invest in housing, workers, infrastructure, affordability, coastal communities, food security and environmental stewardship. Together, we can build confidently, deliberately and together.”