Official Hansard
Mr. Speaker, before I begin, I want to send congratulations to my son and daughter-in-law Melody on the birth of their first son and our first grandson. I am happy to report that mom and baby are home and everybody is healthy. I love them lots and look forward to meeting Evan this weekend. Mr. Speaker, over a year ago, the Prime Minister promised that Bill C-5, the one Canadian economy act, and his new Major Projects Office would get projects built at a speed not seen in generations. Liberals are back with a massive bill that amends the Building Canada Act that the government passed last year. Thirteen months after promising projects built at speeds not seen in generations, they are once again telling Canadians that another announcement will finally make the difference. Talk about not seeing something for generations. Canadians have heard this promise before, and Conservatives are waiting on the 500 projects collecting dust while sitting on the Prime Minister’s desk waiting for federal approval. In fact, we have already watched major projects disappear under the last decade of Liberal mismanagement. This includes energy east, northern gateway, Pacific NorthWest LNG and the Frontier oil sands mine, just to name a few of these shelved projects, amounting to hundreds of billions of dollars in value. Although 20 projects have been referred to the Major Projects Office, it is important for the government to understand that a referral is not a shovel in the ground. When the government needs another law to fix its first one from last year, questions need to be asked. While the government keeps announcing new processes, Canadians continue waiting for projects to be approved and construction to begin. Bill C-39 is nearly 250 pages long, and my Conservative colleagues and I are continuing to review whether the legislation cuts delays or creates more bureaucracy and photo ops. Conservatives have consistently called for six-month project decisions because businesses need certainty. It is no secret that lengthy approval processes delay investment and prevent construction, but this is just one part of the problem when it comes to getting things built. Conservatives have also called for a repeal of Liberal antidevelopment laws such as the “no more pipelines” law, Bill C-69. We also called for the repeal of the tanker ban law, Bill C-48, which blocked routes for shipping Canadian resources overseas. Conservatives have advocated for one project, one review system so major projects can face one coordinated federal assessment instead of multiple overlapping reviews and approvals. If this bill gets projects approved faster and gets Canadians’ goods to market sooner, it does deserve credit. However, if it does not, it is another example of the Liberals mistaking a press conference for a project. Bill C-39 is also to be judged by what it means for the cost of living in Canada. The minister has not guaranteed that this bill will not raise the costs of energy bills for Canadians. Our position is simple. Conservatives oppose policies that increase the cost of living on Canadians. We are laser-focused on making life more affordable. If a policy lowers costs, we support it. If it raises costs, we oppose it. The Liberals should also tell Canadians whether they have completed an independent cost-benefit analysis of Bill C-39 and what the bill is expected to mean for businesses across Canada. Before my first election to Parliament, I had served as president of Manitoba’s largest general farm organization, Keystone Agriculture Producers. I am also a lifelong farmer. That is why I was very attentive to the interswitching change proposed in Bill C-39. The concept of interswitching is to have a business use an alternative railway even when only one railway serves the facility directly. The purpose is straightforward. Giving more shippers access to alternative railways can increase competition and more transportation options. Conservatives have supported that approach before. In 2014, the previous Conservative government passed the Fair Rail for Grain Farmers Act, which enabled regulated interswitching to be extended from 30 kilometres to 160 kilometres in Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta. Now, nearly 10 years later, Bill C-39 proposes to bring back a 160-kilometre extended interswitching regime in the same provinces for four years. If extended interswitching helped move commodities to market 10 years ago, why did the Liberal government allow the earlier 160-kilometre expansion to expire, and why bring it back for only four years? Farmers and businesses that transport their goods plan several seasons ahead and invest based on rules they expect to face. They need certainty. Conservatives will watch closely to see whether the Liberals allow this temporary regime to lapse again. Failing to provide certainty and predictability in Canada is not putting Canada first. Canadian farmers and businesses need more than reliable rail access. They also need ports that can move goods efficiently once they reach the coast and send them to customers around the world. Canada has always depended on transportation infrastructure to connect this country. Sir John A. Macdonald’s vision was a national railway that linked British Columbia with the rest of Canada and helped move goods to market. More than 140 years later, Canada still depends on that same connection to move Canadian products on rail, through our ports and out to world markets. That is why the port of Vancouver is relevant to this debate. The port of Vancouver is a critical gateway for prairie grain exports to the world. When one of the most important export gateways performs poorly in part of its operations, that should concern Canadians. The World Bank’s 2025 port performance index ranked Vancouver 375th out of 400 globally. Farmers and businesses need a whole system to work. Better rail access will only go so far if goods then face delays or uncertainty at the port they are extended through. Canada has experienced repeated labour disruptions at ports and railways, which have impacted the ability to move goods to market. Conservatives respect workers’ right to collective bargaining. At the same time, Canadian producers and businesses need reliable access to ports so they can control freight costs and meet commitments to customers around the world. As parliamentarians, it is important that we balance these matters and further study the labour impacts of the legislation before us today. At the beginning of this debate, I quoted the Prime Minister promising to move major projects at a speed “not seen in generations”. Canadians have now heard that promise more than once. Bill C-39 would give the government another chance to prove that those words actually mean something in practice. For Conservatives, the standard is clear: Projects should be approved faster, businesses should face fewer barriers and producers should have more competition to move their goods to market. If this bill helps deliver those results, Canadians will see it. However, if it only adds another layer of process in Ottawa, Canadians will see that too. Speed “not seen in generations” should mean shovels in the ground, goods moving and investments staying in Canada. Results, not promises, should be the standard by which Bill C-39 is judged.
