Debates of March 18th, 2024

Impact Assessment Act

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

moved that Bill C-375, An Act to amend the Impact Assessment Act (federal-provincial agreements), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, it is always an honour and a privilege to rise in the House to speak. Today is really special, because it is the first time that I have had the opportunity to explain the bill that I introduced with the support of the entire official opposition team. I put this bill together with the help of the House of Commons legislative drafting team and the team that I work with here in Ottawa and in my riding.

This is the first bill that I have introduced in the eight years and five months that I have been a member of the House of Commons. I would like to thank the people of Louis-Saint-Laurent for putting their faith in me in 2015, 2019 and 2021. The decision is in their hands as to what will happen in the future, but I trust their judgment.

Bill C-375 is entitled “An Act to amend the Impact Assessment Act (federal-provincial agreements)”.

I want to talk about the title because, although I was obviously happy and quite moved the first time I saw the bill in print, I also did a bit of a double take. Those who have the French version will notice that it says “fédéro-provinciaux” agreements. I was a little surprised to see that “fédéraux” is spelled with an “o” at the end. Since this was written by legal experts, I approached the table to make sure that this was indeed how it should be spelled. I was told that when it comes to legislation, “fédéraux” is traditionally spelled with an “o”. It is a small detail, but my colleagues know that, when it comes to introducing a bill, we want to make sure that everything is written in proper French, which is clearly the case here.

Climate change is real, as we know. We need to act quickly and decisively to deal with the effects of climate change. Human beings have contributed to climate change and must play a major role in this area. That is why our bill aims to combat climate change more effectively. To put it succintly, I would say that this bill essentially aims to establish a single environmental assessment per project, because, at this time, there is overlap between federal and provincial environmental powers. When a project is under way, an environmental assessment must be carried out. The first province to adopt this system was Alberta.

Why carry out two assessments if one has been done already, especially considering that the need for green projects to address climate change is greater than ever? This bill aims to significantly improve efficiency and optimize the scientific effort involved in assessing environmental projects. It aims to reduce duplication. In essence, it strives for collaboration, not confrontation. We think that provincial scientists are just as capable as federal scientists. Why pit them against each other by having two environmental assessments done when they could work together on just one and achieve the same objectives much more efficiently and pragmatically?

That is the big issue this bill tackles. What is the approach? For years now, our party has been saying that we need to stop doing two assessments every time. Federal and provincial officials need to stop stepping on each other's toes. When we came up with this bill, we looked at two options. We could have gone through every piece of legislation and analyzed every situation in order to amend this or that act, but that would have taken a very long time, and the resulting bill would have been a brick. That would have been cumbersome, so we opted for a pragmatic approach instead. My thanks to the team of legislative drafters we worked with.

This approach creates a mechanism to enter into agreements. Yes, we have no choice but to work together to fight climate change, but, in this case, we do so gladly because that is what needs to be done for the sake of the planet and the environment. That is why we are laying the groundwork for agreements that will enable federal and provincial partners to work together on a single study, rather than competing with each other. There are no good guys or bad guys. Nobody is stricter or more lenient. Science is science. Science has no allegiance, no political stripe. Science is rigorous. Let us put Canadian scientists to work for the environment. That is how we want to do it.

Needless to say, we need green projects now more than ever. As we speak, under the provisions of Bill C-69, which was introduced and passed by this government, the government gave itself veto power over hydroelectric projects. Obviously, as a Quebecker, this affects me, and I was deeply offended when I learned of that. We recognize Quebec's extensive expertise in hydroelectricity. All projects have been carried out in accordance with the environmental assessment process that falls under Quebec jurisdiction. However, this greedy government, which always interferes where it does not belong—in other words, in areas of provincial jurisdiction—has given itself veto power over hydroelectric projects.

If the federal government had had veto power over every hydroelectric project, including the Romaine River, James Bay, Manicouagan River, Outardes River and Betsiamites River projects, where would Quebec be today? If the federal government had given itself veto power in the 1950s, when studies were being done for Bersimis-1 and Bersimis-2, for the two generating stations on the Outardes River and the four generating stations on the Manicouagan River, where would Quebec be today? The green light was given in the 1950s, in 1958 to be precise, and the project was completed in the 1960s, with the magnificent inauguration of Manic-5 in 1968.

The federal government had no business being involved and that is why it was done properly. Why then did it interfere in this provincial jurisdiction by giving itself veto power and the ability to conduct an environmental assessment of hydroelectric projects?

This issue came before the Supreme Court of Canada. In the reference concerning the Impact Assessment Act, the Supreme Court of Canada chided the government for interfering in provincial jurisdictions. Obviously, the government did not take it as an order, but rather as an opinion of the Supreme Court. That is the issue. It is an opinion and it requires a response. Our response to that Supreme Court opinion is that the provinces are going to work hand in hand with the federal government and not against one another. That is how we have to look at environmental issues.

Let us not forget that the government said that it was going to review the situation. We have a suggestion for the government to ensure that the process is much more efficient and that there will be environmental assessments for major projects. There needs to be an environmental assessment for every project, and those will be done perfectly well by our experts.

Right now, there is a battle between the pragmatic approach that we support and the dogmatic approach. What has the government done to protect the environment in the eight years it has been in office? It has made announcements, announcements and more announcements. It has created the new carbon tax, imposed taxes and, obviously, increased the carbon tax. That is the very dogmatic approach that the Liberals are taking.

What exactly has been achieved after eight years of this government? In eight years, this government has never met its targets, except during the pandemic. If the government has to shut down the economy to meet its targets, then that is not exactly the best approach. That is what is so disappointing. The government's approach is all about taxing people. In a few days, on April 1, the government plans to increase the Liberal carbon tax by 23%. That is not the right thing to do. We will have an opportunity to come back to that a little later.

Some people will say that the Conservatives are against everything the government does. Of course, if the government were doing good things, we would be happy. If we were seeing results, we would be happy, but that is not what is happening. The government has yet to meet its targets, and we are not the only ones saying it.

Every year, the UN tables a report that evaluates the effectiveness of environmental measures for more than sixty countries around the world. Scientists from all over the world provide an objective, non-partisan analysis of the efforts being made to combat climate change and their results. I want to make sure I am using the exact wording used by the UN, so I will read this in English: “Climate Change Performance Index 2024 — Rating table”.

This document was recently tabled at COP 29. After eight years of this Liberal government, Canada ranks 62nd out of 67 countries. Not 40th, 50th or 60th, but 62nd.

After eight years of this Liberal government, Canada ranks 62nd on its performance in the fight against climate change, dropping from 58th place last year. Are the Liberals' climate change policies working? No. Canadians are not the only ones who see it, knowing that the Liberal carbon tax is set to rise in a few days. Scientists around the world see it too, and they clearly have no partisan political agenda like we do. Our very office requires us to have a political agenda. It is our duty to serve as the loyal opposition to this government and therefore to identify flaws. Scientists around the world have now confirmed that Canada's performance puts it in 62nd place worldwide.

We need to take action on climate change. We need pragmatic measures. That is why, at last September's Conservative Party convention, our leader outlined our plan to tackle climate change. I want to emphasize the fact that this happened at our national convention; it was not some press release issued at 4:30 p.m. on a Friday. I was a journalist, and I have been in politics for 15 years, so I am well aware that when people send out press releases on Friday evenings or at the end of the day, it is because they do not really want anyone to talk about them. In this case, it was quite the opposite. We had 2,500 grassroots members from across the country, all of them gathered to hear the member for Carleton give his first speech since being elected as leader of the official opposition. In that speech, he laid the foundation for a future government that a whole lot of Canadians want, none more than us, of course.

Our leader laid out and explained the four pillars of our party's potential government action on the environment. First, we have to invest in new technologies, through tax incentives, to fight climate change and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Investing in high tech through tax incentives is a pragmatic solution. The people whose plants or businesses generate greenhouse gases know the reasons why, and they, not Ottawa, are the ones who know how to lower their emissions. With tax incentives, they can take prompt, concrete action and achieve tangible results. The first pillar therefore consists of tax incentives that encourage investments in high-tech solutions for reducing pollution.

The second pillar of the Conservatives' action on climate change is to green-light green projects. We need green energy, hydroelectricity, solar energy, wind energy, geothermal energy and even nuclear energy now more than ever. None of them generate greenhouse gas emissions. These are the avenues that we need to explore, but we have to speed up the process. We need to green-light green projects. This bill aims to speed up the process and develop a game plan for collaboration between the provinces and the federal government. Instead of confrontation, we have to strive for collaboration. The second pillar is therefore to green-light green projects.

The third pillar is the Canadian advantage. Canada has so many natural resources and so many energy sources. Why go abroad for natural resources or energy when we have them right here at home? As long as we need so-called fossil fuels, we will always support Canadian energy and Canadian products because, yes, we do still need them.

The HEC, a Quebec institution, released its annual report about a month ago. What did it find? It found that the consumption of so-called fossil fuels has increased by 7% in Quebec. As long as it is needed, I would rather consume Canadian energy rather than the 48% of American energy that we currently consume. I have nothing against Texas or Louisiana, but the last time I checked, they were not contributing very much—in fact they were not giving one cent—to the principle of equalization.

Finally, the fourth pillar of our environmental action plan is to work hand in hand with first nations. When a project is carried out on ancestral land, we must make first nations communities our partners, rather than handing over a cheque and telling them to leave. On the contrary, we need to work together for the common good.

In short, this bill is about focusing on collaboration and pragmatic measures in order to make progress in the fight against climate change.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, what I see within the legislation is that those in the Conservative Party, in essence, are saying that they want, from a federal perspective, to open up any sort of development without ensuring that there is a process for protecting our environment, which would be off-loaded to provinces and would ultimately allow provinces to make the decision.

The question I have for the member is this: Would he not acknowledge that there is a role when we have these major projects that have an impact that go beyond a provincial boundary?

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this is exactly why I will never be a Liberal. The Liberals think that Ottawa knows best, which is exactly what the member said earlier. He thinks that it is not enough to have the provinces do their job. Yes, the provinces will continue to do their job, but the federal government will do it too.

Instead of saying, “I'm from Ottawa and I know what is best for this or that project,” the government should work hand in hand with the provinces. This is the way to deal in this country. However, this is why we say this is a government with an arrogant attitude. It is saying, “Ottawa knows best”. We should be working together instead of working against each other.

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this seems like a very useful bill. It gives precedence to measures that already exist in the provinces.

For example, if we look at Quebec, its environmental measures are stricter, I believe. There is no reason for the federal government to conduct an environmental impact assessment when the Government of Quebec has already rejected a project following its own environmental assessment. Take the GNL Québec project in Saguenay, for example.

I have a simple question for my colleague. The federal Impact Assessment Act already states that the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada can give a province or an indigenous leader the power to conduct part of the impact assessment. I am wondering what the difference is between what is being proposed and what already exists in the act.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, just because something is set out in the act does not mean that the government enforces it. My Liberal colleague just demonstrated that. The Liberals do not trust the provinces, but we do.

What we want is to establish a mechanism so that, from now on, the federal and provincial governments must work together on every project.

The Bloc Québécois is wondering whether environmental assessments are effective. I must remind them that, when their leader was the environment minister for Quebec, he refused to conduct an environmental assessment for the most polluting project in Quebec's history, McInnis Cement. Now, the Bloc Québécois want to lecture us about the environment. I am sorry, but the leader of the Bloc Québécois will always be the Quebec environment minister who authorized the most polluting project in the history of Quebec.

[Bonita Zarrillo, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the Cons are always on the side of oil giants who are making record profits. Why have the Cons always given space to big polluters, giving them a free ride and refusing to tax the corporate greed to help Canadians?

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, let me remind everybody that when we talk about the future of this country, we are talking about a climate change reality, but as long as we need fossil fuel energy, we will fight for Canadian energy. This is so simple. Maybe some people like to live in a dream world, but the reality is that we need that kind of energy today. As far as I am concerned, why would we support that in other countries? Why would we buy from and send billions of dollars outside of this country to people who are developing their industry, while we have everything here in this country? However, we have to work hand in hand with first nations, provinces and everybody to develop all the potential in energy and natural resources of this great country that is Canada.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am curious as to why, when providing amendments to the Impact Assessment Act, the member did not fix some of the problems, including ensuring that there is proper consultation with first nations.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I wish the hon. member would go back to see what our leader has said many, many times about making first nations our partners for each and every project. Our leader was crystal clear a year ago and repeated that just a month ago. He said that we have to work hand in hand with first nations and make them our partners for the prosperity of Canada.

Unparliamentary Language

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from the New Democratic Party just insinuated that the Conservative Party of Canada are cons. We try very hard to ensure that we use parliamentary language. I would ask the member of the NDP to apologize for that comment and—

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

I thank the hon. member for Foothills for raising this issue. I am going to come back to the hon. member on this matter with some haste.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-375, An Act to amend the Impact Assessment Act (federal-provincial agreements), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Impact Assessment Act

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise to address what I believe is one area in which the Conservative Party of Canada is somewhat vulnerable, and that is the environment. I really believe that Conservatives, under the new leadership, are found wanting in coming up with ideas that are healthy for Canada's environment.

The legislation being proposed today reinforces other attitudes they have in general about the environment. Today, the Conservatives say a province is saying it can handle it with no problem at all, and the federal Conservative Party says it does not need to have any sort of federal involvement. That is, in essence, what the members opposite are proposing. It reminds me of this consistency of policy development that prevents the Conservatives from being concerned about Canada's environment.

We talk about the major projects that are under way and that are being proposed and considered. These projects will have profound impacts on our environment. There is a very clear possibility some of these megaprojects will go beyond any one provincial boundary. There is a need, I suggest, and the Supreme Court of Canada also suggested, for a federal government role in the process. Most Canadians would agree that the federal government should not get away from its important role when it comes to the environment.

When we think of industries having regulations, both at the federal and provincial levels, it enables a certain amount of security and predictability, which then allows for investment. There are so many investment opportunities. I was encouraged when the member opposite used the words “green developments”. He mentioned “green” quite a bit in his comments, and I applaud him on that.

There is the investment, for example, that Volkswagen has made in Canada, in co-operation with the Premier of Ontario and the Government of Canada, and thousands of green jobs that are going to be created as a direct result. Those jobs, in good part, are going to rely on mineral development as Canada is in the position of being a world leader in the development of batteries. Those batteries require rare minerals, and Canada not only has the opportunity to supply internally for potential demand and development of secondary industries that create more jobs for Canadians, but also has the capacity to supply the world in many different ways.

There are companies throughout the world looking at Canada as a place to invest, and investors are looking for regulatory certainty. When we talk about the IAA, we are really talking about recognizing that the federal government does have a role to play. The Supreme Court of Canada has made it very clear. We have indicated it will be under review. We can anticipate that amendments will be brought forward in a very progressive fashion. We are not going to do what the Conservative Party is suggesting through this legislation.

This is the type of legislation I have talked about in the past regarding the Conservative Party and its so-called hidden agenda. While this is very public, there is something within this legislation that Canadians need to be aware of. Once again, we are seeing the Conservative Party stepping back on the environment, and as a national government, we have the responsibility to ensure that there is the proper protection of our environment and that the IAA is the type of legislation that leads to regulations that protect our environment.

This can be done in a manner that is fully compliant with the Supreme Court of Canada, and that is why we are bringing forward these amendments. Unlike the Conservative Party, we recognize the need for co-operative federalism, which is ultimately what we have seen take place with the Liberal government from virtually day one with programs such as the CPP being put in place. We have also seen this with legislation brought forward by the government on environmental impact issues and with the dialogue that constantly takes place, most recently in regard to housing. These are some of the more high profile areas we have worked on.

An advantage Canada has, unlike virtually any other country in the world, is that we are fortunate to have all the minerals that we do. The government has a very important role in ensuring that we have laws and regulations in place at both the national and provincial levels to protect our environment. We also have a responsibility to ensure that indigenous peoples of Canada are not only consulted but also worked with when it comes to protecting our environment well into the future.

I recall when we brought in legislation and tried to improve the process, and the Conservatives were being very difficult, for example, when it came to dealing with bills like Bill C-69. This is because having regulatory uncertainty during Stephen Harper's 10 years did nothing when it came to expanding, for example, pipelines to our coastal tidewaters. Looking at the uncertainties that were caused, I would suggest that administration was not successful.

That is unlike our administration, which has created much greater certainty when it comes to environmental impact assessment studies.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

How many pipelines to tidewaters have been built?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, to answer the question, I can tell the member there are more pipelines to coastal waters than there were with Stephen Harper.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

There are zero.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

No, you're reflecting on Harper. With Harper, it can be measured by inches. For—

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

I am going to interrupt the hon. parliamentary secretary to encourage all members to please wait their turns to take the floor.

We will allow the person who is speaking to have the floor and to continue with their statement.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, we need look at the Supreme Court of Canada's decision. It clearly indicates that the different levels of government have a very important regulatory role to play. For the Conservative Party to deny that fact does a disservice to our environment and to Canadians.

Even though Conservatives might stand and say what they believe is best for Canada's environment, quite frankly their actions speak louder than words. We see that with their flip-flopping on the issue of the price on pollution. Who knows where they will ultimately land on that. They are more concerned about areas that are to the detriment of our environment. I wish they would give more thought to recognizing that climate change is a reality and that having good, sound environment policy is needed from the Conservative Party.

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Mr. Speaker, before I begin my speech, I want to offer my deepest condolences to the entire House of Commons staff and to the loved ones and family of the staff member we lost last week.

I was going to say that I am pleased to debate Bill C‑375. I had planned a speech in good faith to recognize the positive aspects of this bill. However, I think it is a shame that when I asked the bill's sponsor a question earlier, he immediately responded with a partisan attack. I think that is a shame at a time when we are seeing mayors in Quebec stepping down because of the hate they receive from the public. When politicians express hate toward each other, that inspires the public to express hate toward their representatives. I think it is terrible when, instead of being respectful and asking and answering questions reasonably, people in politics here immediately get partisan. I think that is unfortunate, and I just wanted to mention it. I will still deliver the speech I prepared because this is a bill that seems useful to me.

As the member explained, the purpose of this bill is to amend the Impact Assessment Act so that, in certain cases, the federal process will not apply to a designated project. It is not a question of exempting projects from the environmental assessment process, but rather of replacing the federal process for a designated project with a provincial one, within the framework of that province's laws. Of course, certain conditions would have to be met. First, the minister responsible, such as the Minister of Environment, and the provincial government must enter into an agreement about the designated project. In order for the federal act not to apply to a designated project, the provincial process must apply. Moreover, the process must, at the very least, be designed to “determine the effects that are likely to be caused by the carrying out of the projects, including effects within federal jurisdiction” and to “identify mitigation measures for the adverse effects of the projects”. There are other provisions in the bill, notably to establish the conditions for the agreements between the minister and a given province. The agreement must be published in the Canada Gazette. The public may file comments. Within 60 days, the minister must table a report that summarizes how any notices of objection were dealt with and must publish the final agreement.

At first glance, as I was saying, this bill seems useful in that it tries to improve coordination between the provincial and federal governments and promote provincial government autonomy in environmental protection matters. That is a good thing. We therefore support the bill in principle, and we would like it to be studied in committee to ensure that the proposed amendments provide an adequate framework for the non-application of the Impact Assessment Act and that the rights and prerogatives of each level of government are upheld. More specifically, what we would like to study in detail are the differences between the amendments to the existing act and the amendments proposed by Bill C‑375. As I mentioned earlier, the act already provides for an exemption or for part of the impact assessment to be delegated to a provincial government. The Impact Assessment Agency of Canada has the authority to delegate part of the impact assessment to a provincial government or an indigenous governing body.

Obviously, that raises questions. As I asked the member earlier, if this already exists, why introduce a bill about it? The response was that it exists, but the government is not necessarily using it. As I understand it, what we should do is change the wording of the act from “may” to “shall”. It would be as simple as that. In that case, the provincial process would prevail. I really appreciated my NDP colleague's question about why the act was not amended when it was studied a short time ago. The Impact Assessment Act was updated, and an amendment could have been made at that time. I wonder why the Conservative Party did not do that. The committee will be able to ascertain the precise differences between the existing and proposed processes, as well as the relative strengths and weaknesses of one process versus the other.

In addition to these questions, there are three main reasons why the Bloc Québécois supports this bill in principle. First, we are already campaigning to ensure that all projects, including those under federal jurisdiction, comply with Quebec laws and municipal bylaws. Second, insofar as Quebec's environmental assessment processes are more rigorous and better adapted to the public's expectations, it is obvious that the provincial processes, and in this case, Quebec's, should prevail. The environment would simply be better protected, and the social and economic needs and aspirations of Quebeckers would also be better served.

Finally, it is important to avoid the kind of absurd situations where, as I was saying earlier, impact assessments are being carried out under federal law when a project has already been rejected under a provincial decision following a provincial impact assessment. That was the case, as I mentioned, with the GNL Québec project.

Members will recall that, in September 2021, the Bloc Québécois had to demand that Ottawa put an end to the federal environmental assessment for the construction of a gas plant in Saguenay after the Government of Quebec rejected the project. Once the Government of Quebec rejects a project, I do not see the point of the federal government conducting an impact assessment. Quebeckers and the Government of Quebec were clear. They did not want it, so I do not see what interest the federal government had in continuing with the process.

I want to make it clear that, when it comes to the environment, the Bloc Québécois supports the ongoing improvement of laws and policies at all levels of government—federal, provincial and even municipal—that help to better preserve the natural environment. Health and environmental protection are obviously priorities for our party. Every day, in our work as parliamentarians, we defend Quebec's environmental laws from intrusions by the federal government. We propose meaningful action to reduce the environmental impacts of human activity and to properly protect our ecosystems. We also advocate for every level of government to respect each others' powers and jurisdictions, including the ability to legislate to improve environmental governance in the targeted areas of jurisdiction.

Within the confines of its constitutional jurisdictions, the federal government must take responsibility for protecting the environment. The government has two tools it can use: taxation and regulation. The federal government is simply being asked to use those tools. It is being asked to fully assume its responsibilities on environmental protection, but without acting in a way that contravenes the environmental laws and policies of Quebec.

What is more, when it comes to environmental policies, Quebec's laws are often stricter than Canadian laws, especially since Quebec's land belongs to Quebeckers. For the most part, its occupation, use, development and protection are governed by the laws and regulations of Quebec and the municipalities. The same goes for all the Canadian provinces.

However, the federal government often gives itself the right to circumvent Quebec's laws for activities in areas under its jurisdiction. Certain activities and infrastructure are only partly covered by our laws because they fall under federal jurisdiction, for example, wharves, harbours, airports and telecommunications infrastructure. As a result, the Bloc Québécois is calling on the federal government to comply with Quebec's laws when it comes to federal activities and work in the province.

That is in keeping with our work to defend Quebec's environmental sovereignty. We are the only party in the House of Commons that supported the unanimous declaration of the Quebec National Assembly, which adopted a motion in April 2022 affirming the primacy of Quebec's jurisdiction in environmental matters. We are the only party in the House of Commons that supported that motion. Neither the Liberal Party of Canada, the Conservative Party of Canada nor the NDP supported this desire for environmental sovereignty. We saw that during the various votes on environmental measures that were held here in the House.

In general, what we are saying is that, when it comes to advancing environmental justice or strengthening environmental protection in Quebec, it is futile to pin our hopes on the Canadian government. So much the better if this bill seeks to give the provinces and Quebec more autonomy when it comes to environmental protection. We will vote in favour of the principle of the bill so that it can be studied in committee.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to rise today to speak to this important issue. Today Canada is feeling the impacts of the climate crisis. Just a few weeks ago, the Government of Alberta announced that the wildfire season had begun. This was announced in February. Never in my life would I have imagined that wildfires would start in the middle of winter; yet, to anyone who has been paying attention, it is not too much of a surprise. Western Canada has been subject to a multi-year drought because of climbing temperatures. The climate crisis is here.

Since 2019, the Impact Assessment Act has been an important tool for civil society to use to advocate for strong environmental protection. There have been significant gains made through this act. For example, the Vista coal mine expansion in central Alberta was delayed because advocates fought hard to have the project undergo an environmental assessment to address several concerns from citizens. The Ring of Fire in Ontario has received regional assessment for all projects. This is important when we consider the delicate ecosystems that exist in these regions.

There are many benefits of the Impact Assessment Act that cannot be ignored. Despite these benefits, we can also see that the act has many issues. This is why the NDP voted against the Liberals' bill in 2019. One of my greatest concerns about the Impact Assessment Act is that the timelines set by the government regarding public consultations are inadequate. Extraction projects often take place near first nations, Inuit and Métis communities, and they deeply impact these communities in a variety of ways. Some of these impacts can include issues related to access to traditional medicines; effects on the ability to hunt, fish and gather; health impacts from pollution; and social impacts from the demographic changes in the communities from new workers.

Meaningful consultation with impacted communities is an essential piece of implementing reconciliation. As it currently stands, the Impact Assessment Act places timelines on indigenous consultations. To me, this is not in line with the spirit of reconciliation. Indigenous governments and communities should have the time they need to consider the impacts on projects that would affect them. If a nuclear plant or pipeline were built near one's home, would one not want to consider all the different possible impacts it could have before agreeing to support it? How is it fair to demand a short timeline on such things when these projects have such serious consequences for communities?

When the Impact Assessment Act was amended, I believe there was an opportunity to allow for more meaningful consultations with first nations, Inuit and Métis communities, partners and nations. One option would be to amend the Information and Management of Time Limits Regulations to allow the impact Assessment Agency to stop the clock upon indigenous peoples' request and work with indigenous authorities to ensure recognition of their laws and decisions.

Another option could be to prioritize indigenous co-operation regulations that legally recognize the inherent jurisdictional authority of indigenous nations and groups and respect this decision-making authority throughout assessments and decisions. Every level of government owes it to indigenous peoples to provide avenues of meaningful consultation. When projects undergo environmental assessment and threaten indigenous health, culture, heritage and livelihoods, we cannot expect the current timelines to address this, especially when we consider the diverse needs of different nations across the country. We must ensure that there is proper consultation and meaningful collaboration that uplifts communities.

Ultimately, the Liberals failed to prioritize reconciliation with indigenous peoples when they first wrote this piece of legislation. There are amendments that my colleague could have presented to address this important issue. The Liberals like to talk a big game about standing up to oil and gas giants, but when it comes down to it, the legislation they present is littered with loopholes and exceptions for the oil and gas sector. This is like all the legislation they present. At the same time, the Conservatives seem trapped in a totally different reality, unable to acknowledge the fact that we are living in a climate crisis, let alone to create a plan to address it. It is not surprising that, in this debate today, we heard people shouting back and forth, arguing about whether it was the Conservatives or the Liberals who built more pipelines.

When it comes to advocating for strong environmental protection, the truth is that the NDP is the only party willing to take on the biggest polluters head-on. We are the only federal party that has called for a windfall profits tax on the excess profits of the oil and gas industry. During a cost of living crisis, the country's biggest polluters should be paying their fair share, not exploiting people.

We have also called for a more rigorous cap on oil and gas emissions to reach our Paris Agreement targets. We have been pushing the government to move on the sustainable jobs act, so it is implemented as quickly as possible. The transition to a clean economy cannot leave workers behind. By embracing bold and progressive policies that uplift communities instead of catering to the fossil fuel industry, we can create a more sustainable future for all.

The Impact Assessment Act is an important tool for making sure that our air, waters, homes and environments are clean and healthy. The reality is this: The current Conservative leader has said that, if his party were to form government, it would scrap this legislation entirely. Its members believe that oil and gas companies can build projects without environmental assessments. I will remind my colleagues that this is the same industry that knowingly poisoned waters near the Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation and other first nations and Métis communities in northern Alberta, when tailings pond water seeped into the environment at Suncor’s Kearl tailings site. It is despicable and untenable to leave this industry to its own devices.

In addition, we cannot ignore the reality that greenhouse gases do not know provincial boundaries. We must continue to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions, and a key component of the original Impact Assessment Act is acknowledging the impact that greenhouse gases have on our environment. While we consider amending the Impact Assessment Act, we must uphold this important piece of the puzzle. It is crucial that provincial governments and the federal government continue to consider greenhouse gas effects in all projects, not just ones that undergo environmental assessment.

We are in a climate crisis. As policy-makers, we owe it to future generations to continue to drive down greenhouse gas emissions, address pollution and consider this in all environmental assessments. We cannot afford to ignore it.

Increasing global temperatures are having an immense impact on our country, which is felt in our communities and economy. We often hear that fighting climate change is expensive, but it would be even more expensive to ignore it. Fighting wildfires costs the federal government $1 billion every year, with this number expected to increase as wildfire seasons become longer and more intense. This does not even account for the cost of wildfires in terms of our health care system.

The urgency of our cause cannot be overstated. Climate change is not a distant threat but a present reality. We have witnessed the devastating consequences, from wildfires ravaging our forests to heat waves killing hundreds of people in British Columbia. The toll on human life and livelihoods is equally profound, with marginalized groups bearing the brunt of environmental injustices.

Amidst these challenges, we have to find hope by embracing bold, progressive policies, where economic prosperity and environmental stewardship go hand in hand. The time to act is now and the NDP is ready to lead the charge. As we consider amending the Impact Assessment Act, I urge my colleagues to consider the undeniable impacts and costs of the climate crisis, as well as the possibilities that exist for combatting it.

It is important to make sure that we also hold the Liberal government to account, not only for the injustices that it continues to perpetuate on indigenous communities but also for its inaction when it comes to keeping our communities safe.

I want to thank the member for starting this discussion. I urge all my colleagues to hold this piece of legislation responsibly.

Unparliamentary Language—Speaker's Ruling

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

I indicated to the hon. member for Foothills that I would come back to his point of order with due haste. We have reviewed the tapes and have listened to what the hon. member raised.

In the view of the Chair, the language that was used, certainly in English, is not considered to be unparliamentary. However, I said on February 26 and would remind all members of the fact that “insofar as debate can, on occasion, be sharp and tense, even sometimes causing some members to take offence, it can still fall within the realm of an acceptable discourse in the House.”

I would encourage the hon. member for Foothills that if he wishes to pursue this further, he should speak to the hon. member privately. Perhaps they could come to an arrangement which could work for both members.

Resuming debate, I regret to say to the hon. member for Yellowhead that he has six minutes left, as we are going to come to the end of the consideration of Private Members' Business.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-375, An Act to amend the Impact Assessment Act (federal-provincial agreements), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Impact Assessment Act

[Gerald Soroka, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-375, an act to amend the Impact Assessment Act.

We are at a critical juncture where the decisions we make can shape our nation's trajectory towards prosperity and sustainability. Central to our discussion is a vital piece of legislation, common-sense Bill C-375. The bill represents a golden opportunity to streamline how we approach environmental assessments, ensuring that crucial green projects can move forward swiftly and responsibly. It is about cutting through red tape to unleash Canada’s potential for growth while safeguarding our natural environment.

Bill C-375 is not just about amending current legislation; it is also about embracing a smarter, more collaborative way of working together as federal and provincial governments, joining forces to make Canada a better place. If we work together, we can propel our nation into a future where economic development and environmental stewardship go hand in hand.

Over the past eight years, our system has been bogged down by unnecessary bureaucracy, a maze of regulations that, while well-intentioned, often hinder progress rather than facilitate it. The Liberal government's approach, as seen with Bill C-69, better known by many as the “no more pipelines act”, has unfortunately contributed to this stagnation. That piece of legislation, found to be unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, exemplifies an overreach of federal jurisdiction into areas that should rightfully fall within provincial expertise. The result has been delays, confusion and a chilling effect on investment in green and infrastructural projects essential for our nation's future.

The Conservative Party has always championed the principles of efficiency, jurisdictional respect and the reduction of unnecessary governmental interference. Bill C-375 stands as a testament to these values, offering a practical solution to the challenges we face. By allowing for agreements between federal and provincial governments to exempt certain projects from the cumbersome process of repeated environmental assessments, we are proposing a way forward that would respect the expertise of provincial authorities and eliminate redundant federal oversight.

At the heart of our discussion on Bill C-375 lies a multitude of benefits that promise to reshape the landscape of environmental assessments and project development in Canada. The legislative amendment stands not just as a policy shift but also as a signal of progress, highlighting our commitment to efficiency, economic growth and environmental integrity. There are several tangible benefits the bill would bring to the table, ensuring a prosperous future for all Canadians.

The cornerstone of Bill C-375 is its ability to streamline the environmental assessment process. By allowing federal and provincial governments to work closely together, we can eliminate redundant evaluations, ensuring that projects do not get tangled in a web of bureaucratic red tape. This approach would not only speed up the approval process but also conserve valuable resources. It would be a common-sense step toward making government operations leaner and more effective, directly translating into quicker turnarounds for project commencements. This efficiency is critical for maintaining Canada’s competitive edge on the global stage, especially in attracting investments in green technology and infrastructure.

An immediate advantage of streamlined assessments would be the acceleration of project approvals. This benefit cannot be overstated. By reducing the time it takes for projects to clear regulatory hurdles, we would open the door to wider economic opportunities that come with new infrastructure and technology investments. These projects are not just about immediate economic gains; they are also about laying the groundwork for sustainable economic growth. Developers and provinces could move forward with greater confidence, knowing that their initiatives would not be indefinitely delayed by the bureaucratic process. This predictability would be invaluable for planning and executing projects that can significantly contribute to our economy and our environmental goals.

Furthermore, fiscal responsibility is a principle that guides our goals for proper governance, and Bill C-375 is aligned with that aspect. By avoiding duplication in environmental assessments, we would be poised to save significant amounts of public funds. These savings would stem from reduced administrative costs and the more efficient use of resources. While it is challenging to put an exact figure on these savings, the financial implications are clear and substantial. These funds could be redirected to other pressing needs, such as health care, education or further environmental conservation efforts, maximizing the impact of every taxpayer dollar.

Perhaps one of the most profound benefits of Bill C-375 would be the emphasis it places on collaboration and respect for provincial expertise. Canada's provinces and territories are diverse, each with its unique environmental landscape and economic context. This diversity demands a tailored approach to environmental assessments, one that respects the knowledge and capabilities of provincial authorities.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

The time provided for consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired and the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.