Thank you, Chair and committee members, for the opportunity to speak to you today. I join you from beautiful Inuvik, Northwest Territories, which has the midnight sun this time of year.
Bill C-5 is a very imperfect bill. It's not where I would start if I was looking to unleash Canadian resources and make Canada into an energy superpower, but I won't make the perfect the enemy of the good. Bill C-5 responds to the urgency of Canada's situation. If implemented well, it could position Canada to grow our economy, diversify our trade and improve our market access. I do not oppose this bill.
Let me start with the good. I am grateful that this government has made building major projects a focus of its first sitting and a hallmark bill. It matters. It signifies a change of priorities and an enthusiasm for building instead of blocking major projects. For 10 years much of the resource sector in the country has been in fight-or-flight mode, but in the past few weeks, I've been hearing optimism and bullishness from prairie premiers and energy CEOs. They believe this government may actually intend to build some infrastructure and position Canada to be an energy superpower. It is refreshing, and it is a relief.
I am grateful Conservatives are working with Liberals to pass this. Eighty-five per cent of Canadians voted for your parties with the expectation that you would meet the moment and turn our economy around and leverage our natural resources to increase Canada's power and prosperity in a time when we badly need both. I am glad Canadian politics have moved back towards the centre, but let me be clear that Bill C-5 is a shortcut and it cannot replace the hard work that will need to be done to fully restore investor confidence, improve regulatory processes and get projects built in this country.
Bill C-5 lets government pick winners and losers. For a handful of projects decided on in collaboration with provinces and territories, this is tolerable, but it's no way to run an economy in the long term. There are hundreds of projects advanced by private proponents in various stages of regulatory processes. Many are languishing. If Bill C-5 gives some projects an easier ride than others, it will disadvantage competitors unfairly.
If regulatory resources are concentrated on a handful of high-profile projects at the expense of the other ones already in line, it will exacerbate our reputation as a hard place to do business. If projects are chosen based on a political calculus rather than our economic returns, we may actually get poorer, not richer, by misallocating capital and effort. The bill is rife with potential for abuse.
It does do a service by highlighting in schedule 2 many of the acts and regulations that make it too difficult to build here in Canada. They must be reformed for all projects and for all proponents, not just a select few. Many more regulations and laws, many of which are likely unconstitutional, remain on the books. That will mute much of what Bill C-5 is trying to accomplish.
What good is a pipeline if the emissions cap means you can't fill it? What good is a railway if the Impact Assessment Act means you can't mine products to ship on it? The business community has not been coy about what needs to be done to really unleash our energy and resource sectors and it goes far beyond Bill C-5.
I will conclude with a short comment on indigenous rights and consultation on resource projects, a topic I care and think deeply about. The duty to consult and accommodate is very well defined in Canadian law, and aboriginal and treaty rights are constitutionally protected. I don't see anything in Bill C-5 that would reduce that obligation of the Crown or proponents to engage meaningfully with indigenous rights holders on projects that impact their rights.
Thank you for your attention. I look forward to questions.