Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise in the House today to speak to some of the natural resource development aspects of this bill. However, before I address these points, I know that Canadians want to understand why we are proposing these changes.
Earlier this month, we hosted our country's first-ever investment summit. The world came to Toronto to learn that Canada thinks big, and we gave them the opportunity to build with us. Investors from nearly 30 countries liked what they heard. They understand that we are committed to making Canada the most competitive country in the G7 for new investment. The $500 billion in capital raised in two days is a game-changer. It sends a clear signal to investors around the world that Canada has what the world is looking for. We have clear evidence that the world agrees with us.
Canada did not reach that remarkable position by chance, but through a series of choices that deliver on our commitment to making Canada an energy and natural resource superpower. We implemented many measures to attract those investments, including lowering taxes on income, capital gains and new business investments. We eliminated all federal barriers to internal trade, opened a new Major Projects Office and introduced historic regulatory reforms to streamline the construction of infrastructure that makes us a superpower in clean and conventional energy.
However, we can do more to attract investors while keeping the commitments that are important to Canadians, our commitments and obligations to the environment and indigenous peoples. That is precisely what I will be discussing today. Investors have told us time and time again that they need certainty. Today, we have the opportunity to apply the lessons we learned from the Building Canada Act to all major projects.
The measures I am speaking about today are meant to ensure that two independent federal agencies within the Natural Resources portfolio—the Canada Energy Regulator and the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission—complete assessments for projects under their jurisdiction faster and more conclusively. The best projects will advance quickly, without ever compromising our commitment to identifying and addressing environmental, indigenous and socio-economic concerns pertaining to major projects. In other words, we are making the system work better without lowering our standards.
For greater certainty and to maintain robust oversight, the proposed legislation provides for a number of changes. First, it amends the Canadian Energy Regulator Act and the Impact Assessment Act to assign environmental assessments to expert Canadian regulatory agencies for projects under their jurisdiction. These agencies are the Canada Energy Regulator and the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission. They will also be responsible for coordinating federal permits and Crown consultations, which will promote more constructive dialogue, based on respect for rights. This bill formalizes that coordination role.
The result is a more transparent and predictable process that is easier to understand and that reduces duplication and delays. It is a win-win situation. Investors benefit from greater certainty. Canadians benefit from a transparent and accountable system. Workers benefit from a framework that fosters the creation of thousands of jobs. We are meeting Canadians' expectations with transparency and speed for a specific category of projects overseen by the Canada Energy Regulator, known as the CER.
The overall objective is clear. Once an application is submitted and deemed complete, the CER will conduct an assessment and coordinate permit-related activities, with the goal of reaching a final decision on the environmental assessment and permits within one year. This does not mean cutting any corners. Rather, it is about arriving at a decision more efficiently, after doing the necessary work to identify a project's potential impacts on the environment, indigenous peoples and communities, and to determine whether those impacts can be managed and mitigated appropriately.
To help get to a faster final decision, the legislation would also establish very specific new timelines. For smaller, more routine projects, particularly those that have been designed to run alongside land that has already been developed for provincial or federally regulated infrastructure, these amendments would create shorter assessment deadlines.
For projects requiring new rights-of-way of 40 kilometres or less, the timelines would be reduced from 300 days to 180 days, or from 10 months to six months. For new rights-of-way longer than 40 kilometres and less than 300 kilometres, the timeline for reaching a final decision would be reduced from 450 days to 300 days, meaning that almost 15 months would become 10 months. The legislation for that particular distance would also eliminate an additional administrative step for projects in that category.
Right now, the Canada Energy Regulator's commission passes on their assessment findings to the Governor in Council for a final say, requiring another 90 days for the Governor in Council to make a decision. These amendments propose that the CER's commission itself would be able to make the final determination, eliminating that further three-month delay. Only projects involving new rights-of-way of more than 300 kilometres would continue to require a Governor in Council decision.
To help reduce delays, we are proposing to allow the Governor in Council to make an early public interest determination on a project, followed by the commission determining the conditions for the project to proceed. Any conditions required to address potential impacts would still need to be developed and applied. What would change is not the rigour of the review. What would change is how quickly people get clarity about a project's future. Whether it is a yes or a no, providing a decision sooner would give investors and project proponents greater certainty.
Certainty is not just about timelines. It is also about having the right expertise involved from the beginning. Today, the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, also called the CNSC, is responsible for regulating nuclear and uranium projects under the Nuclear Safety and Control Act. Larger projects require an integrated review panel under the Impact Assessment Act, as well as a licensing decision under the Nuclear Safety and Control Act. Under the proposed change, the CNSC would lead an impact assessment for all larger uranium and nuclear projects under the Impact Assessment Act within one year, followed by a licensing decision under the Nuclear Safety and Control Act within two years.
This approach would provide investors and proponents early confidence that a project will proceed if the impact assessment is positive. Proponents could also choose to align the impact assessment and licensing decisions. These amendments would not only boost investor confidence, but also recognize that the CNSC has decades of technical expertise and experience overseeing these projects throughout their entire life cycle. What would change is that these assessments would be led by a regulator with deep, specialized knowledge of the technology, operation and safety requirements involved.
Members have heard the changes that these amendments are proposing, but let me be equally clear about what the amendments would not change. They would not change environmental assessments and oversight. They would not weaken indigenous rights. They would not remove the Crown's duty to consult indigenous people. In some cases, more time may still be required to understand the impact, fully address concerns, carry out meaningful consultation and respect indigenous rights.
Canada should not have to choose between rigorous assessment and timely decisions. We can do both. We can uphold strong environmental standards. We can respect indigenous rights and carry out meaningful consultation. We can also provide the certainty that workers, communities, indigenous partners and investors are asking for.