Bill C-69 (Historical)

An Act to enact the Impact Assessment Act and the Canadian Energy Regulator Act, to amend the Navigation Protection Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts

Part 1 enacts the Impact Assessment Act and repeals the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012. Among other things, the Impact Assessment Act
(a) names the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada as the authority responsible for impact assessments;
(b) provides for a process for assessing the environmental, health, social and economic effects of designated projects with a view to preventing certain adverse effects and fostering sustainability;
(c) prohibits proponents, subject to certain conditions, from carrying out a designated project if the designated project is likely to cause certain environmental, health, social or economic effects, unless the Minister of the Environment or Governor in Council determines that those effects are in the public interest, taking into account the impacts on the rights of the Indigenous peoples of Canada, all effects that may be caused by the carrying out of the project, the extent to which the project contributes to sustainability and other factors;
(d) establishes a planning phase for a possible impact assessment of a designated project, which includes requirements to cooperate with and consult certain persons and entities and requirements with respect to public participation;
(e) authorizes the Minister to refer an impact assessment of a designated project to a review panel if he or she considers it in the public interest to do so, and requires that an impact assessment be referred to a review panel if the designated project includes physical activities that are regulated under the Nuclear Safety and Control Act, the Canadian Energy Regulator Act, the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Resources Accord Implementation Act and the Canada–Newfoundland and Labrador Atlantic Accord Implementation Act;
(f) establishes time limits with respect to the planning phase, to impact assessments and to certain decisions, in order to ensure that impact assessments are conducted in a timely manner;
(g) provides for public participation and for funding to allow the public to participate in a meaningful manner;
(h) sets out the factors to be taken into account in conducting an impact assessment, including the impacts on the rights of the Indigenous peoples of Canada;
(i) provides for cooperation with certain jurisdictions, including Indigenous governing bodies, through the delegation of any part of an impact assessment, the joint establishment of a review panel or the substitution of another process for the impact assessment;
(j) provides for transparency in decision-making by requiring that the scientific and other information taken into account in an impact assessment, as well as the reasons for decisions, be made available to the public through a registry that is accessible via the Internet;
(k) provides that the Minister may set conditions, including with respect to mitigation measures, that must be implemented by the proponent of a designated project;
(l) provides for the assessment of cumulative effects of existing or future activities in a specific region through regional assessments and of federal policies, plans and programs, and of issues, that are relevant to the impact assessment of designated projects through strategic assessments; and
(m) sets out requirements for an assessment of environmental effects of non-designated projects that are on federal lands or that are to be carried out outside Canada.
Part 2 enacts the Canadian Energy Regulator Act, which establishes the Canadian Energy Regulator and sets out its composition, mandate and powers. The role of the Regulator is to regulate the exploitation, development and transportation of energy within Parliament’s jurisdiction.
The Canadian Energy Regulator Act, among other things,
(a) provides for the establishment of a Commission that is responsible for the adjudicative functions of the Regulator;
(b) ensures the safety and security of persons, energy facilities and abandoned facilities and the protection of property and the environment;
(c) provides for the regulation of pipelines, abandoned pipelines, and traffic, tolls and tariffs relating to the transmission of oil or gas through pipelines;
(d) provides for the regulation of international power lines and certain interprovincial power lines;
(e) provides for the regulation of renewable energy projects and power lines in Canada’s offshore;
(f) provides for the regulation of access to lands;
(g) provides for the regulation of the exportation of oil, gas and electricity and the interprovincial oil and gas trade; and
(h) sets out the process the Commission must follow before making, amending or revoking a declaration of a significant discovery or a commercial discovery under the Canada Oil and Gas Operations Act and the process for appealing a decision made by the Chief Conservation Officer or the Chief Safety Officer under that Act.
Part 2 also repeals the National Energy Board Act.
Part 3 amends the Navigation Protection Act to, among other things,
(a) rename it the Canadian Navigable Waters Act;
(b) provide a comprehensive definition of navigable water;
(c) require that, when making a decision under that Act, the Minister must consider any adverse effects that the decision may have on the rights of the Indigenous peoples of Canada;
(d) require that an owner apply for an approval for a major work in any navigable water if the work may interfere with navigation;
(e)  set out the factors that the Minister must consider when deciding whether to issue an approval;
(f) provide a process for addressing navigation-related concerns when an owner proposes to carry out a work in navigable waters that are not listed in the schedule;
(g) provide the Minister with powers to address obstructions in any navigable water;
(h) amend the criteria and process for adding a reference to a navigable water to the schedule;
(i) require that the Minister establish a registry; and
(j) provide for new measures for the administration and enforcement of the Act.
Part 4 makes consequential amendments to Acts of Parliament and regulations.

Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Atlantic Accord Implementation Act

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague from Lakeland is probably the only one in the House who will not be surprised by what I am going to say, which is that Bill C-69 was not in the interests of environmental assessments in Canada. It was so poorly designed. It was all discretionary. There were no timelines.

The only thing that made environmentalists think it was a good bill was that Jason Kenney called it the anti-pipeline act. It could just as easily have been called the pro-pipeline act because it is discretionary and lacks the basics that have been in our environmental assessment law since the mid-1970s through to the early 1990s, when former prime minister Brian Mulroney brought forward a very good environmental assessment act.

My hon. colleague from Lakeland knows that we will disagree on the notion that we want to expand oil and gas demand across the world and that there is any such thing as responsible oil and gas. There are only fossil fuels, and burning them destroys our future.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Madam Speaker, I sure did enjoy our time together on the natural resources committee in my first term.

I spent a lot of time talking about Bill C-49. Aspects of this Bill C-49 are imported from bills such as Bill C-69 and Bill C-55. I talked about them to give context for policymakers, elected representatives in this debate and all Canadians.

I suspect the provinces of Nova Scotia and of Newfoundland and Labrador are supportive of the intent of this bill because they also want to have effective, efficient regulatory frameworks for both petroleum and alternative energy offshore development. A crucial thing that we support in this bill is that this does include the requirements of provincial ministers to be consulted in the case of any of the decision-making around development areas, regulations and the framework for development offshore.

Obviously, those provincial governments should be partners. I suspect that is why they support it. Of course, that does stand in contrast to the provincial governments the Liberals attack on energy when they disagree with them.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is great to be back in the House of Commons on behalf of the people of Lakeland, and Canadians everywhere, who want life to be more affordable, and also want energy and food security, which is the most important economic and geopolitical question facing the free world.

Unfortunately, Bill C-49 is another step in a long line of Liberal laws and policies since 2015 that appears destined to drive investment out of Canada with more uncertainty, red tape and extended and costly timelines.

Hopefully, this time the Liberals will actually listen to cautions and analysis during debate and committee consideration to prevent the rather ridiculous current spectacle they are now caught in, claiming to want to reduce permitting and regulatory timelines even though they have been in government for eight years, and are actually talking about the extra red tape, confusion and potentially endless timelines they themselves imposed through Bill C-69, which Conservatives and then municipalities, indigenous leaders, private sector proponents, and all provinces and territories did warn about at the time. As always, the Liberals figured they knew best, and they sure did create a heck of a broken mess.

Ostensibly, the bill would amend the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board and the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board to become the regulators and add offshore renewables to their mandates, while creating a regulatory regime for offshore, wind and other renewable energy projects that currently exist for offshore petroleum operations.

It is a reasonable and necessary initiative, and Conservatives are glad to see the inclusion of the provincial governments as required partners in final decisions on this joint jurisdiction. I might note that is a principle the Liberals often abandon when it comes to other provincial governments with which they disagree. However, it is both unfortunately and unsurprisingly clear that Bill C-49 would also subject offshore renewable energy to the same web of uncertain regulations, long and costly timelines and political decision-making that has driven hundreds of billions of dollars in private sector energy investment, hundreds of businesses and hundreds of thousands of energy jobs out of Canada and into other jurisdictions around the world.

Bill C-49 also includes provisions that could impose a full shutdown and ban on offshore oil and gas development at any time. That is a direct attack on one of Newfoundland's key industries, risks undermining the rights of indigenous communities and local communities to meaningful consultation, and ignores the work and aspirations of other locally impacted communities and residents.

The Liberals have already threatened offshore activity in Newfoundland and Labrador with a minister saying that the decision on Baie du Nord was the most difficult one they had ever made. Baie du Nord would have provided more than 13,000 jobs overall; $97.6 billion in national GDP; $82 billion in provincial GDP, more than 8,900 jobs, $11 billion in taxes and $12.8 billion in royalty revenues for Newfoundland and Labrador; $7.2 billion in GDP and more than 2,200 jobs for Ontario; $2.6 billion and more than 900 jobs for Quebec; $3.1 billion in GDP and almost 700 jobs for Albertan. Like the usual pattern under the government, the private sector proponent has put that project on hold for three years because of uncertainty.

As written, the bill has many gaps. The Liberals must clarify, sooner than later, a number of practical implications.

For example, will the offshore boards need more resources for technical expertise or personnel, or more funding to fulfill the additional responsibilities? If so, who will pay for it? What is a realistic expectation of when the regulators would be fully ready for the work outside of their current scope? What about the responsibility for health and safety regulations for renewable energy projects at sea, which are currently the job of the respective offshore boards on offshore rigs and under the department of labour on land? These obligations should be clearly defined jurisdictionally in the bill.

What about environmental considerations relating to offshore renewable projects? The boards, the truth is, currently have no experience in activities around wind, tidal and other sea-based energies that may disrupt ecosystems and seaweed growth; harm sea birds, whales, fish stock, lobster stock; or interfere with organisms that live on the sea bed, like anemones, corals, crabs, sea urchins and sponges. What provisions are needed for the regulators to adequately assess risks to key habitat and vulnerable species?

I cannot imagine, nor would I ever suggest, that the NDP-Liberals will add upstream emission requirements as a condition for such approvals, like it did, along with downstream emissions, in a double standard deliberately designed to kill the west to east pipeline that could have created energy self-security and self-sufficiency for Canada, by refining and exporting western resources on the Atlantic Canadian coast for export. European allies and Ukrainians definitely would appreciate that. However, it would certainly be a significant hurdle if they did, given what is really involved in the manufacturing of steel and concrete for offshore renewable projects, which create a lot of hazardous waste on the back end, for example. If the Liberals actually cared about the cumulative impacts, like they always say they do, they would clarify all of that in this bill also.

The Liberals must account for these considerations. At this point, after eight years, Canadians should be skeptical if the government says that it will work out the details later or in regulations after the fact. That has always been a disaster under those guys, no matter the issue.

On top of these unanswered questions, the reality is that the bill would triple the timeline for a final decision on alternative energy projects and would give political decision-makers the ability to extend that timeline potentially indefinitely.

If this all sounds familiar, a lack of details on crucial issues, uncertainty around roles, responsibilities or requirement, and timelines that actually have so many loopholes for interference that no concrete timelines really exist at all, that is because it is. This is what the Liberals did in Bill C-69, which the Conservatives warned would help prevent any major pipeline projects from being approved or even proposed in Canada since it passed in 2019. It has become a gatekeeping roadblock to private sector proponents in all areas of resource development and the pursuit of major projects in Canada.

The reality is that companies will not invest billions in building energy infrastructure in Canada's uncertain fiscal and regulatory framework, where excessive and duplicative red tape means there is no consistency or certainty in the assessment process, no clear rules or a path to completion, and no guaranteed return on investment, which can all be lost at the whim of a government minister's unilateral decision.

As much as the Liberals wish it were true, alternative energy projects are not in a separate magical category from oil and gas, where they are somehow immune from these basic economic and fiscal considerations, except for those publicly funded through subsidies or paid for by utility ratepayers, definitely a significant proportion of renewable and alternative energy to date, especially outside of Alberta, where it is done by the private sector primarily. The fiscal and regulatory framework is a crucial and definitive aspect of what private sector proponents politely call the “lack of a business case” every time a major project is halted or abandoned after years and millions of dollars of working toward it, usually moving their focus and tragically their money, jobs, innovation, initiative, creativity and expertise to other countries. The Liberals have already created these same adverse conditions for wind, solar and tidal as well.

Let us take the Pempa'q tidal energy project in the Bay of Fundy. It would have provided clean, green energy to Nova Scotia's electrical grid and could have generated up to 2,500 megawatts, while bringing in $100 million in investment and significantly reducing emissions. However, after repeated delays, a tide of Liberal red tape and “Five years of insurmountable regulatory challenges” the proponent withdrew, and it folded.

Sustainable Marine was not the only victim of multiple layers of red tape that involved departments. Other renewable projects, like a pulp mill that would have created biodegradable plastics from their waste stream, left Canada because the Liberals told the proponents that the approval phase under their gatekeepers would take 20 years.

The bottom line is that energy companies, like any company, need certainty to invest, whether in the oil sands, natural gas, critical minerals, pipelines, hydrogen, petrochemicals, wind or solar farms or hydroelectricity. Proponents need concrete timelines, consistent, well-defined and predictable regulatory measures. They need to be confident that a government will respect jurisdictional responsibilities, be willing to enforce the rule of law and take action if necessary for projects after approval so proponents can know that if they follow the rules, meet the conditions and act in good faith, they will be successful.

Companies and the regulators also need to account for possible risks posed to local activities, most notably the impacts of offshore wind development and other technologies on the livelihoods of Atlantic fishers and lobstermen.

In this case, all impacted parties need to be involved in the consultation process from the get-go. Unfortunately, the Liberal's Bill C-49 creates the opposite for both alternative energy sources and offshore oil and gas. When it comes to crafting anti-energy legislation, the Liberals, with their NDP power broking coalition, just cannot seem to help themselves. Sections 28 and 137 of this bill give the government the power, as I mentioned before, to completely end any current offshore drilling for oil and gas, as well as any offshore alternative energy development. Obviously, that is an immediate threat to the sector because of the uncertainty, even for existing operations, and it risks any future projects in these provinces by designating prohibited development areas.

Notably, the bill states that any activity may be suspended in those areas. That obviously includes offshore petroleum drilling and exploration, but the language could also include offshore wind and other alternative energy development. One thing that is predictable is this pattern because it is similar to a previous Liberal bill, Bill C-55, which allowed a government minister to unilaterally designate any marine area in Canada as a prohibited development zone.

The Liberals must answer whether their increasing targets and the language in Bill C-49 would cancel and/or prohibit both traditional and renewable energy projects if located in those areas. What are the restrictions? How could developers make investment decisions if the areas where they operate may suddenly be declared prohibited?

The Liberals are so comfortable with their nearly decade-long pattern of piling on layers of anti-energy, anti-development and anti-private sector laws, policies and taxes on Canada's key sectors that they hinder both traditional sources of energy, which they recklessly want to phase out prematurely, and stand in the way of the renewable and new technologies they purport to want.

This discussion cannot be removed from the context of Canada still operating, or rather more accurately not operating, under the rules and red tape the NDP-Liberal government imported into this bill.

Bill C-69 completely erased the concept of having any timelines for approving energy infrastructure, and instead allowed for limitless and indefinite extensions of regulatory timelines, as we warned. Unfortunately, this just creates a swath of potential maybes on project applications because of the potential for suspensions and delays, and the uncertainty about measures for applications and outcomes.

With Bill C-69, as many Canadians said at the time, the Liberals might as well have hung a sign in the window that said, “Canada is closed for business”. What is clear, and should be stunningly and frankly, through this total travesty, clear to all Canadians by now, is that clear timelines and requirements, as well as predictable rules and responsibilities, provide certainty for private sector proponents, which benefits the whole country.

After eight years of the NDP-Liberal government, Canada ranks 31st among peers in the burden of regulations, as of 2018, and is less than half as competitive as the OECD average in administrative burdens on energy project start-ups. Canada is second-last in the OECD for construction permits, only ahead of Slovakia, and 64th in the world for building permits.

The Liberals touted creating certainty and predictability for energy companies with clear rules and regulations to follow, but the actual bill created a massive new web of poorly defined criteria for companies and gave cabinet ministers the power to add any criteria to the list that they wanted at any time. There is no predictability or consistency. Bill C-49 is an extension of that pattern.

Another concerning part is the provisions that specify the regulators in Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia as the parties responsible for indigenous consultation for offshore oil and gas and affordable energy projects. I must say that Conservatives believe in greater authority and autonomy for provinces to govern their own affairs. We want less Ottawa. Conservatives believe in smaller governments and a shift of power to individuals and local communities. The many indigenous communities where I am from, and those from across the country, who are reliant on and depend upon traditional and alternative energy development, all say the same thing.

However, I want to caution the NDP-Liberals that this section may invite court challenges if it is not clarified, which would create even more costly delays in an already drawn-out and unpredictable process. Through years of extensive legal challenges, precedent and judicial decisions on major energy infrastructure, courts have emphasized that it is the Crown's duty to consult indigenous people and that a failure on the part of the government to ensure a two-way dialogue, and that actual decision-makers are at the table during the consultation process, is what has overturned approval decisions.

That was the case with the Liberals' approval of the Trans Mountain expansion under their own process. Indigenous consultation was overturned and the minister had to spend months meeting with indigenous communities to redo it. Of course, they could have also done that with the northern gateway pipeline before that, and they would have saved everyone time and money later on with TMX. Instead, the Prime Minister vetoed northern gateway, blocking exports from the west coast to countries in Asia that desperately need our energy and killing all of the equity and mutual benefit agreements for the 31 indigenous communities along the pipeline that supported it, but I digress.

As currently drafted, this bill explicitly delegates the regulators as responsible for indigenous consultation. It is silent on the Crown's particular duty to consult, and it also shifts the power of final decision-making to federal and provincial government ministers.

On top of the fact that indigenous leaders often consider a federal minister specifically as the appropriate decision-maker to engage with them, if current or future governments rely too much or exclusively on the regulators for all assessments not captured by the Impact Assessment Act's consultation process, as is suggested in this bill, this section risks court challenges to proposed and approved projects in the long run and jeopardizes future offshore renewable and petroleum projects.

The impact of the uncertainty created by the Liberal government cannot be overstated. It takes Canada out of the global competition for energy development, punishing the best in class, and cedes market shares to dictators and regimes with far lower environmental and human rights standards. It costs Canada billions of dollars in investment and hundreds of thousands of jobs, and it robs Canadians and Canada's free and democratic allies of many irreplaceable opportunities, of energy security and of hope for the future.

I believe the impact on provinces such as Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia deserves special attention. Anyone who has worked in Alberta's oil patch has no doubt worked together with many Newfoundlanders and Nova Scotians. Certainly, that is where my own family came from.

My mother was from Newfoundland. My father was from Nova Scotia. My grandmother was the first female mayor of Dartmouth, and I am a first generation Albertan.

My own constituents have been hit hard by the hostile, divisive NDP-Liberal government. Other than the people of Saskatchewan, our neighbours who are often interchangeable citizens based on the free enterprise policies of our respective provincial governments at any given time, the people most concerned about the damage done to Alberta are consistently Atlantic Canadians.

I wish that more of our neighbours could hear directly from Atlantic Canadians, who are always effusive in their reverence for Alberta and our main industries. Atlantic Canadians share with Albertans a feeling of distance and neglect from Ottawa. They are concerned about the exact same consequences of NDP-Liberal policies, and the skyrocketing costs of living, as well as those of fuel and food prices. They are being forced to choose between heating and eating, and they are concerned about a reliance on energy sources, for which there are few affordable or immediate options. They are worried about how to make ends meet and are wanting to hope for the future.

Thousands of people from Atlantic Canada, every year, come to Alberta to support their families and communities through the array of diverse opportunities offered by Alberta's globally renowned energy and renewable energy sectors. Alberta has steady work and high-paying, quality jobs that contribute revenue to all three levels of government for the public services and programs that Canadians rely on.

That impact was unprecedented. In 2014, for example, nine out of every 10 full-time jobs created in Canada were created in Alberta, and every job in the oil sands creates two indirect and three induced jobs at home and in other regions and provinces.

While public enemy number one for the NDP-Liberal anti-energy and anti-private sector policies during the last eight years has been Alberta, the truth is that the costly coalition's approach hurts the whole country, especially Atlantic Canadians.

While Albertans and Atlantic Canadians are inextricably linked and have helped to build each other's provinces, there is always a human cost to having to move away for work. Generations of parents, grandparents and great-grandparents spent a hundred years working hard to build lives, businesses, farms and futures for their kids. Now their children and their grandchildren are being forced to seek out opportunities elsewhere.

Legacies left behind is the very real generational impact of anti-development and anti-resource policies. Conservatives, in conclusion, want to see the same opportunities. We want to see the same high-paying, quality jobs for people in Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia as there are for those in Alberta and for every Canadian.

Conservatives want families to be able to stay together, parents to be able to see their kids, cousins to know each other and people to be able to build upon legacies secured by generations before them.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Madam Speaker, obviously, Conservatives support expanded development of offshore petroleum resources and the development of innovative, green and new technology development. Conservatives have, for years, highlighted concerns around permitting timelines and gatekeeping roadblocks of uncertain conditions.

Could the minister clarify how many of the details around the scope, mandate and requirements of the additional responsibilities of the new boards and regulators will be clarified before this bill passes the Senate? How much of that will be left to regulations such as what was done in Bill C-69, creating the disaster that Canada now finds itself in?

Canadian Environmental Bill of Rights

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

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to speak in the House, especially on a subject is important as the environment and our vision for the future of the planet and our country for our children and grandchildren.

The bill introduced by our NDP colleague deserves our attention. First of all, we feel that the key element of this bill is that it ensures that people can live in a healthy environment. It is a principle we share, of course, and one we shared in Bill S‑5, as the member stated earlier in response to a question from the member for Terrebonne, my Bloc Québécois counterpart. The bill we are currently studying certainly does go much further than Bill S‑5 in protecting the environment and ensuring that people can live in a healthy environment. We recognize that.

As we see it, however, the bill goes too far in the judicial area. This is a delicate issue. Ultimately, we believe that the judiciary must enforce laws, and that elected representatives of the people must make the laws and vote on them. This is a fundamental principle. Based on the wording of the bill, we think that the judiciary will become the legislative authority. This is where our visions differ. Ultimately, we do not believe that the role of judges is to decide how laws are made, but rather, to decide how they should be enforced. It is the role of the legislator, the elected representatives of the people, to establish legal frameworks. This is not to say that the bill should be scrapped. On the contrary, it contains some positive elements that could serve as inspiration for other legislation and other parliaments. These strong elements could be used to create an even more forceful argument in support of the need for people to live in a healthy environment. We recognize and support this principle.

This gives us the opportunity to discuss the environmental issue. We all know that climate change is real and that it directly affects peoples' lives. Humans contributed to climate change, so they have a responsibility to take steps to reduce the impact of climate change and, essentially, reduce pollution. Members will recall that just a few days ago, on Monday afternoon, the deputy House leader of the official opposition and member for Mégantic—L'Érable read a motion that was unfortunately rejected by the Liberal government, a move we vigorously condemn. The motion included all the elements of our vision for the environment. Unfortunately, it was rejected by the Liberals. I will read the motion moved by my colleague from Mégantic—L'Érable:

That the House:

(a) stand in solidarity with and express its support for all those affected by the current forest fires;

(b) acknowledge that climate change is having a direct impact on people's quality of life, and that it is exacerbating the frequency and scale of extreme weather and climate events, such as floods, tornadoes, forest fires and heat waves;

(c) recognize that the federal government must do more to combat climate change, prevent its impacts and support communities affected by natural disasters;

(d) call on the federal government to take concrete action in the fight against climate change, which is at risk of becoming increasingly expensive for both the public and the environment.

That text outlined our vision concerning climate change. It unequivocally stated that we acknowledge that climate change exists, that it has an impact on the extreme weather events that we are experiencing, that it makes them worse and that it is our duty, as parliamentarians, to take concrete steps to address that situation. It is unfortunate that, for the sake of petty partisan politics, the government rejected our motion. The Liberals simply had to say yes. I cannot believe that they had anything against a single word or sentence of that motion. However, they could not acknowledge that we Conservatives are thinking about this issue. I understand them, in a way, because they have nothing to be proud of. After eight years of this government, where does Canada stand on the world environmental stage?

I would remind members that, after being elected in 2015, the Prime Minister was proud as a peacock to stand up at the Paris climate conference and say, “Canada is back”. Eight years later, Canada is way back.

It is not me saying it, it is the UN itself. In November, at COP27 in Egypt, the United Nations tabled a report containing a scathing indictment of this Liberal administration. The report assessed the 63 most industrialized countries and scored each country on effectiveness in fighting climate change. Scientists from around the world who were brought together by the UN gave the following report on the Liberal government that has been in power for eight years. Liberal Canada ranks 58th out of 63 countries in terms of fighting climate change. It is not the Conservatives saying that, it is UN scientists who said it in a report.

Since the UN released that report, I have asked for unanimous consent from the House over a dozen times, if not more, to table that scientific UN document. Once again, the Liberals in power decided that that UN assessment should be swept aside and that they should continue as if nothing were wrong.

The problem is that they talk a good game but cannot deliver. That is also why Equiterre, the group co-founded by the current Minister of Environment and Climate Change that recently marked its 30th anniversary, decided to sue the Minister of Environment and Climate Change, because it feels that the government is good at rhetoric, but not so good at fighting climate change. Once again, it is not the Conservatives saying that, it is Equiterre, the group co-founded by the current Liberal Minister of Environment and Climate Change. On May 6, 2022, he was sued by Equiterre, the group he founded.

The government has chosen to fight climate change with taxes. That is not the road we want to take. The Parliamentary Budget Officer, who I just questioned at the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates, confirmed that the Liberal approach of creating a second carbon tax on clean energy, as they themselves have stated, will have a direct impact on every family in Quebec. Quebec families will need to spend an average of $436 more because of that double carbon tax. In other words, Quebec families will have $436 less in their pockets because of that double carbon tax. People really do not need that when we know that interest rates are rising. We know that everybody is struggling right now. Creating a new tax during a period of inflation when people are struggling is absolutely ridiculous. I would go so far as to say that only the Liberals could come up with such an idea.

Let us talk about the future. Let us talk about hope. We Conservatives want the government to put in place concrete, realistic and responsible measures to tackle climate change. If the Liberals do not, we will. The fundamental principle to consider is the need to reduce pollution. That will take concrete action. What does that mean? It means reaching out to polluters and asking them to cut their pollution as much as possible. It is a bottomless pit, but that is okay.

If we somehow manage to lower our pollution by 20% in one year, I say bravo. However, what is to be done on January 1 to reduce the impact of pollution on our environment? For that, we must rely on research and development, new technologies and tax incentives for businesses to invest in them. Real, concrete measures are needed to reduce pollution.

Then, the green light needs to be given to green energy. In Canada, we have tremendous solar, wind, geothermal and nuclear energy potential. We can develop our green energy potential even further. To do that, however, the government would have to be willing to move forward and not constantly throw up roadblocks every time we come up with an idea.

Under Bill C-69, which was passed in 2019 with the backing of the Bloc Québécois, the federal government gave itself veto power over hydroelectric projects in Quebec. That is crazy. If the Government of Quebec wants to propose a hydroelectric project, it should get every facility to move forward, but the federal government gave itself veto power with the surprising and disappointing backing of the Bloc Québécois.

In addition, our Canadian know-how must be exported. Our natural resources must be exported. It is unfortunate that rare metals like lithium, cobalt and other similar elements are currently being mined in countries where human rights are unfortunately not respected.

We need to promote Canadian potential. The fourth part is more than just a pillar; it is the foundation of our whole vision. It is that all this needs to be done in partnership with first nations, as our leader said at a press conference in Vancouver three months ago.

Budget Implementation Act, 2023, No. 1

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Mr. Speaker, let me address the first and third questions to begin with.

The reason we have so much foreign direct investment is because of LNG Canada. In fact, much of the manufacturing and investments we are seeing in western Canada are related to pipelines and natural gas development. The natural gas development, which was the largest private sector investment in the history of Canada put forward by the Liberal Prime Minister, was exempt from the carbon tax. That is the only reason Liberals built it. It was because they knew that with carbon tax, it did not make economic sense for that project to go ahead. The Prime Minister and the premier of British Columbia decided not to apply the highest carbon tax in our country when that project went forward.

When that project is completed in the next five years, we are going to have an exorbitant number of skilled workers in northern British Columbia who will not have another project to go to because under the government's Bill C-69 from the 2015 Parliament, barely any single natural resource development project has been approved. We have to get more natural resource projects approved to supply Asia with clean LNG from Canada that is going to reduce global emissions and fight climate change.

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, there are several things one could say about my colleague's great question. One is that he knows in British Columbia there were something like 15 LNG projects that could have been built when the Prime Minister came into power, and not one of them has ever been completed. Those dollars could have been used for what natural resources have been used for in this country, and that is to build the coffers of the federal government to make those transfers in education and health care back to the provinces so that we can all have the same level of health care across the whole country.

The other thing is that the profits from those companies are being used to make those transfers, but the member knows full well that the government has stymied the development of those industries with Bill C-69. If we want to talk about percentages of profit increases, we are talking about $40 barrels of oil a number of years ago that are now $80 a barrel. There is a doubling right there. It is very hard to compare percentages when we have a product that has doubled in price over the last five years.

Sitting Resumed

[Gerald Soroka, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Madam Speaker, there is absolutely no reason for the government to buy a pipeline. The only reason it did so was because of its own policies, which created the issue. If this pipeline had been built by the contractor and the company, we would not have seen a $30-billion increase to the project. That is an outstanding amount, which is ridiculous, and no private industry would have ever built this pipeline for that kind of money.

This is, once again, the government's ineptness in getting projects done in Canada. First, they are hugely overrun and probably would have been built by now, but Liberal policies, such as Bill C-69, have stopped pipelines from being built in Canada, and they are intentionally causing the high costs to make sure Canadians think it is ridiculous and a pipeline will never get built again. They are right. If the government owned the pipeline, we will never own it. That is why it should go back to the private sector, where it belongs. The government should never have been involved in the private sector for pipelines.

Opposition Motion—Carbon Tax

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise in the House and especially today for this opposition day motion, which talks about how the first carbon tax would increase the price of gas by 41¢ a litre and how the second, the clean fuel regulations, would add 20¢ more to that when sales tax is included. This will further exacerbate the cost of living issues that people are facing across the country.

What I want to do today in my speech is talk about what the carbon tax will do, talk about what it will not do and talk about what real solutions should be offered.

First of all, what does it actually do? It increases the price of things. It is not just the price of gasoline that is going up, because it is an escalator. For example, if we look at food, it has increased in price, on average, by 12%, but some items of food are up 30% and 40%.

When we are talking about a farmer who is producing the food, they will have to use more diesel and fuel to heat their barns and take care of growing their products and drying them. There is a carbon tax on that. To make it worse, there is a tax on the tax. The Liberals are applying tax on top of that, and it is a substantial amount of money. We are talking about $150,000 for a farmer. That is a real thing that they obviously have to pass on to the consumer.

Then they are shipping the product to a processing facility, and there is a carbon tax on that and a tax on the tax. Then at the processing facility, depending on the type of processing facility, there is a carbon tax on emissions. Then we are talking about shipping it to the grocery store. Again, that is another carbon tax and a tax on the tax. Then we get to the grocery store, and it has to be put in refrigerators. If the Liberal do not buy them, that is another expense, but then they are spending more energy trying to keep the products preserved.

What is happening is this is hurting individuals. Before the pandemic, the data reported said that half of Canadians were within $200 of not being able to pay their bills. Let us think about that. Then fast-forward to where we are now, where we have added a second carbon tax that is estimated, according to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, to cost each individual $538 a year. Half of Canadians were within $200 of not being able to pay their bills every month, and now the Liberals have added $600 more. That is on top of the estimated cost of the already existing carbon tax, which the Parliamentary Budget Officer says, depending on the province we live in, is between $1,500 and $3,000 a person.

By the time all these taxes, carbon taxes and the tax on the tax get to an individual, we are talking about $4,000 per Canadian. That is a substantial amount of money. If we break that down by month, we are talking $300 a month, which puts us way over the 50% of people who could not pay their bills if they had an increase of $200.

The Liberals are going to say that Canadians get back more than they give, but we know that is not true. I have seen my climate action rebate cheque come to me, $128.55 four times a year. Adding that up, it is nowhere near $4,000. It is absolutely a misrepresentation of the facts to say the government is giving Canadians more back. No, it is not.

I am getting calls at my office, continually, from individuals who are saying they cannot afford to pay their bills and are losing their house. I have a lot of seniors in my riding, and some of them have had to go back to work at 74 years of age in order to afford heating, gasoline, groceries, the whole thing. That is what the carbon tax is doing. It is adding to inflationary pressures that we already have from the out-of-control spending happening on the other side. That is what the carbon tax does.

Let us talk a little about what it does not do. It does not reduce emissions. It is a tax plan; it is not an emissions plan. If we look to who has met their Paris targets, our neighbours to the south have met their Paris targets, and they did it through emissions reduction technology and switching to fuels like nuclear, LNG and lower-carbon fuels. These are actual, concrete solutions. They put capital incentives in place so that businesses would put emissions reduction technology in place. That is how they did it, and they did it in four years.

If we look at where we are, we were supposed to reduce our targets by 30% from the 2005 level. The 2005 level was 732 megatonnes and we are now at 670 megatonnes. In 20 years, we have reduced 60 megatonnes, but the target we have to get to is a reduction of 538. We are nowhere near the plan.

In the approach the Liberals have, they talk about tree planting. They are going to plant two billion trees. Do members know how many trees we already have in Canada? We have 318 billion trees in Canada and this is two billion more. More trees are always better, but the reality is that recent reports said the Liberals have planted less than 2% of these in years. It is because the program that was introduced does not work.

I know a great group, Climate Action Sarnia-Lambton, that wants to plant trees. I approached the minister and said that we have lots of volunteers who are willing to come out. They have all the tools. We just need the money to get the trees and get them in the ground. Do members know what I heard? We have to plant 10,000 trees or we cannot get any money. We have to start somewhere with a program that works a little better than that. That is what the carbon tax does not do.

I have heard this a lot in the discussion today during the debate: Well, what about the wildfires and what about the floods? We are seeing severe weather events and we are seeing them at a frequency that we have not seen before. However, Canada is less than 2% of the carbon footprint of the world. We could eliminate the whole thing and we are still going to get all of those wildfires and all of those floods, because we have countries, like China and India, that are building coal plants. China is 34% of the footprint.

What would be better is if we exported Canadian LNG. We could reduce the global footprint by over 10%. We could reduce five times our existing footprint. That is real climate action. Instead, 12 LNG projects have been shut down by the Liberal government.

The Germans approached us. Germany decided to go down the green energy path, and they found out that it was so expensive that they got rid of it and went back onto coal and LNG. They approached us to get a contract with us for $58 billion, which we refused. The Australians used to have a carbon tax. They got rid of it. It made everything more expensive and it did not help them meet their goals.

We have a situation where countries are in need of our fuel. We are the most environmentally responsible producers of LNG in the world, but we cannot get anything built because a Bill C-69 project approval thing was put in place. We have seen the disaster that the government is making with the Trans Mountain project. It was supposed to be $7 billion and is up to $30 billion, and it is not even built yet.

The carbon tax hurts Canadians. It inflates their costs. People cannot afford to live. They are struggling. I know that Liberal MPs are hearing this from their constituents and they need to listen.

What we need to do is have emissions reduction technology, get on lower-carbon fuels, export them to the world and work together to get a better planet. That is what we need to do and that is the vision on this side of the House.

Strengthening Environmental Protection for a Healthier Canada Act

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

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois member began his speech by talking about Quebec's primary jurisdiction over the environment and about how Quebec should have full power over environmental matters within its territory.

My question is this. The Bloc Québécois avoided saying much of anything about independence during the past two election campaigns, but this weekend, it talked about little else. Why did this party, which claims to be more separatist than ever, support an amendment by the Liberals, the New Democrats, the Greens and the independents that is a direct attack on a provincial jurisdiction?

More importantly, how is it that, on June 13, 2019, in the House, this member and other colleagues behind him voted in favour of Bill C-69, which gives the federal government veto power over hydroelectric dam projects in Quebec?

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

Mr. Speaker, as some often suggest, people on opposite sides of the world eventually come together. Perhaps that is why the Greens and the Conservatives will be voting the same way, but obviously for different reasons.

The only thing I would like to add about Bill C-69 is something Alexandre Shields wrote in an article on the subject. He said that the office of the environment minister declined to comment on the matter, because it remains a “hypothetical project”. However, the minister did recall the provisions of the act, which clearly stipulate that a new dam would be subject to the act.

If the Quebec government decides to go ahead with a new hydroelectric dam, Ottawa has no say in the matter.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the Green Party also opposes the bill. The two parties that will be voting against Bill S-5 are the Green Party and the Conservative Party, but they will do so for completely different reasons.

We think this is a bad bill. It runs counter to the goal of modernizing the Canadian Environmental Protection Act.

The hon. member talked about Bill C-69, which, for the Greens, was also a bad bill. I also voted against Bill C-69 because it establishes a system that is entirely at the discretion of a single minister, with no regulations across all federal regulation.

That was more of a comment than a question.

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

Mr. Speaker, as I said a few moments ago, I am very pleased to be participating in this debate.

As members know, since October, I have had the privilege of being the official opposition's shadow minister for climate change and environment. I am honoured by the confidence placed in me by the hon. member for Carleton, the Leader of the Opposition and our future prime minister. Of course, I intend to take this responsibility very seriously. In fact, this is essentially the first bill I have been able to devote 100% of my time to. I participated in almost every stage of the bill.

Climate change is real. Humans have an impact on the creation of climate change, which is why humans must find solutions. That is why we offered our full support to the committee, along with the government and the other political parties, to make sure that the bill can be passed, balanced with the necessary political debate. Let me explain.

This bill seeks to update an act that was adopted nearly 24 years ago, the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999.

It is totally normal and useful to review a bill that was tabled almost a quarter of a century ago, so this what we did in a committee of the House. The Senate also did that job of adapting what was tabled in 1999 to the reality of 2023 and more.

That is why we wanted to strike the appropriate balance between protecting the environment and the future of this planet and taking the Canadian economy and Canadians' lives into account. That is what this bill tries to do.

The bill has received support from environmental groups and the industry, but not unqualified support, not blind support. These two groups often disagree on the common good, but they did agree on one thing, which is that it was time to move forward.

I recall that the bill was tabled in the Senate, and all the people who are interested in environmental issues will say it is time to move forward and act. For sure, it is time to act, but unfortunately the bill, though it may be passed today or tomorrow, will be a year to two too late. This is because this piece of legislation was tabled in the old Parliament, and it was before the Prime Minister decided almost two years ago to call the shots and call an election during the fourth wave of the COVID pandemic. It was an election that cost more than $600 million of taxpayer money for almost exactly the same result we had. This was only because the Prime Minister wanted to move by himself, but for that we lost a full year of parliamentary work on that piece of legislation.

The bill as it stands is essentially the same as the earlier version that was introduced during the previous Parliament. This time, the government has decided, and that is its right, to introduce it in the upper chamber. It was debated in the Senate as Bill S-5. It was then sent to the House of Commons to be debated here. That is interesting, and this is where we have some concerns. I will come back to that.

Essentially, at the heart of the matter, as I said, this bill is a revision of the environmental laws that we have had for almost a quarter of a century. However, there are also new elements. First, we recognize the right of citizens to live in a healthy environment. That is a principle that we Conservatives support. This is obvious. However, it must be precisely defined.

The bill provides for two years of work to be able to define the legal framework, since, as we know all too well in our business, the devil is in the details. We therefore have to be sure that we have a really good law and proper regulations. The profile of populations said to be vulnerable must also defined. When there is mining or natural resource development, this may have a direct impact on people’s lives, just as the construction of a plant or new infrastructure can have a direct impact on a population. This is what we define as vulnerable populations and we need to make sure that all this goes well.

There was an agreement to move forward. That is what we did.

In fact, as the parliamentary secretary said earlier, there have been more than 50 hours of committee work to be sure that we could directly address many aspects. Noting is perfect in this world, but we still worked well together, hand in hand. In addition, it always made me smile to see that we were finally getting along more often than we may have thought with the Minister of Environment and Climate Change. As a resident of Quebec, I have known him for many years, as well as his very active role in defending the environment. Let us remember that 30 years and two weeks ago, he founded the group Equiterre with a few friends. As we know, Equiterre is now suing him for damaging the Canadian environment. Bill S-5 is off to a good start. We have clear objectives and we support them.

However, now in our parliamentary work, something surprising, if not disappointing, has happened. That is what we call a flip flop. A party voted for something during parliamentary committee work and, when it came to the House, changed its mind and voted against it. They have that right. We do not dispute that right. It is just that we were a bit surprised and shocked, particularly since the flip flop was not related to a misplaced dash or comma in the text of Bill S-5, but instead about a fundamental element, respect for provincial jurisdiction. In our view, the amendment adopted by the House, particularly with the support and assistance of the Liberal government, the Bloc Québécois, the NDP, the Green Party and the independents—in short, the Conservatives were the only ones who opposed it, and I will have the opportunity to clearly explain why—is an intrusion into areas of jurisdiction.

The amendment as presented was not in the main bill when it was introduced in the last Parliament and in the Senate a year and a half ago. That element was not in it. It is an amendment that was proposed on June 1 2022, almost a year ago, by the senator from Manitoba, an amendment that essentially seeks to regulate tailing ponds and hydraulic fracturing. Basically, when work on natural resources is being carried out and there is hydraulic fracturing, that leaves tailings. That is why a legal framework was developed for that situation. In our view, this amendment, as proposed and adopted by the Senate, is an intrusion into provincial jurisdiction. That can be challenged, but that is our view.

In fact, our perspective has been so well explained that, when we came before a House of Commons parliamentary committee, the member for Calgary-Centre suggested that these elements of the bill be withdrawn and that this amendment not be adopted. When the member for Calgary-Centre says something, it is because it has merit and is based on facts. There is jurisprudence to support it and relevant documentation. I have learned a lot from the co-operation and work of the member for Calgary-Centre.

He was so convincing that he was able to persuade the government party in the parliamentary committee. All the liberal members, who are not the majority, but the largest parliamentary group in parliamentary committee, decided to support our proposal to set aside Senator McCallum’s amendment presented in June 2022.

Let us review the facts: The bill does not provide for the regulation on hydraulic fracturing. Senator McCallum proposed an amendment to give teeth, depth and political weight to the federal government’s authority over this event. We get to committee and our party says stop, this is an intrusion into provincial jurisdiction, and the Liberals vote with us. It is great, it is perfect, we agree. This is just one of many aspects, and I am focusing on that.

I am being honest, and I am sure that the Liberal MPs will agree with me. It is impossible to fully agree on all of the items.

In fact, I have been known to say that, if someone ever meets a politician who says they are completely in agreement with their leader, their party, all of their colleagues and the election platform, they are looking at a complete liar. It is humanly impossible, and the same is true for everyone. I see the hon. member for Winnipeg North, who I am sure is nodding in agreement with me.

What I am trying to say is that the more than 50 hours of work done in committee was an attempt to achieve consensus. Sometimes we succeeded, sometimes we did not. Sometimes we agreed, sometimes we disagreed. That is the big picture.

We are supportive of the big picture of this bill, but we have some disagreements, as all of the parties have disagreements with some aspects of this bill.

Everything was going well, it was great. We did our work in committee. When we got to the House to make a few speeches and accept the tabled report, three amendments were proposed: two by the Green Party and one by the NDP. The NDP’s amendment is essentially the same as Senator McCallum’s.

That was a surprise and a disappointment, a bitter turn of events. Although we had the support and the agreement of the Liberal Party to make sure there was no interference in provincial jurisdiction, the Liberals switched sides and voted in favour of the NDP’s amendment. I acknowledge that that is their right. Anyone can change their mind. That is called evolution. Sometimes, when we change our minds, we evolve. I will say it that way to be polite.

Some of my colleagues suggested that that is the nature of the coalition. As we know, the government has been working collaboratively with the NDP for a year now, even though they were certainly not given that mandate during the election. Canadians were not asked to vote for a coalition. The NDP said Canadians should vote for them and against the Liberals, and the Liberals said they should vote against the NDP, since they were not the NDP. Now, everyone is perfectly cozy, working together. That is the reality.

The Liberals then flip-flop and support their coalition with the NDP, going against what they did in committee, against protecting provincial jurisdictions, against the fact that a bill should not lead to a constitutional dispute. On the contrary, we need to clarify the situation.

These people crashed the debate and created this situation. What a disappointment. That is why, unfortunately, we will be voting against the bill, which, as amended, creates a legal precedent rife with consequences.

This is why, last week, many of my colleagues from Alberta published a communiqué that says, “Canada's regulatory oversight framework is based upon clear division of responsibilities between the provinces and the federal government, as defined in our Constitution. The continued attempts to muddle this jurisdictional responsibility have led to a convoluted process of project approvals, duplication of costs, and uncertainty amongst investors.”

Basically, what they are saying is that jurisdictional squabbles between the federal and provincial governments slow down projects, slow down the process and create uncertainty. They do not encourage people to move forward. People always hold back a bit. That is unfortunate because Canada is needed now more than ever. The world needs Canada's energy and natural resources more than ever, because we develop those resources responsibly and with respect for human rights in order to ensure they are sustainable. That is what Canada is known for.

When layers of debate are created between the federal and provincial governments, it stalls all of that. Canada deserves better than another squabble between the federal and provincial governments. That is why we do not support this bill. I must also say that I was rather surprised that, both in committee and in the House, the Bloc Québécois voted in favour of this interference in the debates between the federal and provincial governments. We know that the Bloc Québécois always says that it is there to defend the interests of Quebec and that, by so doing, it is also defending the interests of all the provinces on jurisdictional matters, and yet in this case, the Bloc is giving the federal government more power to intervene in an area of provincial jurisdiction, natural resources.

This should come as no surprise. As members will recall, the Bloc Québécois supported Bill C-69. This actually goes back quite some time. It goes back to June 13, 2019, during the first Parliament of this Liberal government. The Bloc Québécois supported this Liberal government's Bill C-69. One could say that this goes way back, and wonder what it has to do with today's subject.

Bill C-69 established a federal authority that supersedes the provincial authority for the development of hydroelectric resources. Everyone knows that Quebec has extraordinary hydroelectric potential, with dams that were all developed in the 1950s. Most were completed in the 1960s. We are very proud of them. Some that come to mind are the Beauharnois power station, which was expanded three times, or the Bersimis-1 and Bersimis-2 power stations, built in 1953 and 1956. There is also the Carillon generating station, which was given the green light in 1958, and the Manic-Outardes complex, which was developed in the 1950s and completed in the 1960s.

Quebec is very strong on hydroelectric production, but Bill C-69 contains a clause that says that the federal authority has the power to order environmental feasibility studies for these projects. This was well explained in an article by Alexandre Shields in Le Devoir. No one can really say that Mr. Shields and Le Devoir are Conservatives. That is the last thing anyone can say.

In an article published on September 29, 2022, Mr. Shields gives a clear description of the situation saying, “That means that a major project...would involve the submission of an impact assessment study [to the federal government]. The federal government would then lead a process including public consultations and the drafting of a report....Then, the federal Minister of Environment would have to publish a ‘decision statement’ to authorize, or not, the construction of the concrete work.”

Bill C‑69 granted the federal government the option to exercise veto power over hydro projects in Quebec, and the Bloc Québécois voted in favour of it. The Bloc Québécois voted for the NDP-Liberal coalition amendment, which allows for federal involvement in provincial jurisdictions. That does not make any sense to us. Natural resources are Canada's resources and we should be proud of that. We should be proud of the women and men who work in this sector. We should be proud of these people who, along with many others, create wealth in our country.

The last thing this industry and these people need is a jurisdictional squabble. That is what the Liberal-NDP-Bloc-Green-Independent amendment does. That is why we are voting against this bill.

In closing, I want to say this: This government prides itself on its fine words, but the results are sorely lacking. Let us recall what it said in 2015:

“Canada is back. Canada is back."?

Canada has far to go. The UN handed down a severe verdict in a report tabled at COP27 in Egypt concluding that Canada ranks 58th out of 63 nations on environmental issues. I am not the one saying this. It is written in black and white on page 11 of the UN’s document. This is unacceptable from people who are constantly lecturing everyone. Need I remind members that the Liberals never managed to achieve their own greenhouse gas emission reduction targets? They will say that is not true, that it has happened. The only time it happened was when the country shut down its economy because of COVID-19. I hope that their plan is not to shut down the economy to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Our plan is based on four basic pillars. First, we want to reduce greenhouse gas emissions through fiscal incentives to invest in new technologies. We need to give green energies the green light so they can be more accessible to Canadians. We need to export Canadian know-how. We should be proud to be Canadians and to develop our natural resource potential because, here at home, in Canada, we do it right.

The fourth pillar is that everything should be done in partnership with the first nations. Together we can meet the challenges of climate change and the environment. Unfortunately, this bill, because of an amendment adopted at the last minute following a reversal by the Liberal Party, with the support of the NDP, the Bloc Québécois, the Green Party and the independent MPs, is going to trigger another federal-provincial dispute.

First Nations Fiscal Management Act

[Jaime Battiste, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations]

Mr. Speaker, I want to start off by thanking the Leader of the Opposition for his critics, who did a wonderful job in terms of making sure that we got this, in a timely manner, in front of us to debate. I agree with you; this is quite good in terms of common-sense legislation.

I would have to just kind of correct the member opposite. I know he does not often get up in the House to speak to indigenous issues, but when you use the term “our first nation” it comes across as possessive. Many first nations across Canada have said they do not want to be considered our possession or the possession of anyone.

The question I have concerns Bill C-69, which you talked about as an important thing. I agree with you when you say that indigenous communities are becoming far better places to do business. A lot of the time, when they are doing that business, indigenous communities are prioritizing what the impacts are on the environment. A lot of the things that we heard during UNDRIP were about communities wanting free, prior and informed consent when it comes to development on their area. That does not mean that they are against development but that they are for sustainable development.

Do you stand with indigenous communities and their free, prior and—

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, as members know, I am running for Prime Minister to put Canadians back in charge of their lives, and nowhere is this more true than when it comes to our first nations, which have suffered for far too long under a paternalistic and overpowering federal government and a so-called “Indian Act”, which seems determined and designed to prevent first nations from making their own decisions and controlling their own lives. That is why Conservatives have long called for empowering first nations governments to take control of their land, resources, money and decisions.

That is why we are so happy that the government has copycatted one of our central proposals to make that happen with regard to infrastructure. The Liberals have included it in their budget, and we are pleased that they have carved it off the budget and allowed it to pass through the House separately, expedited as we asked for, so that we can get it done.

Let us talk about what this bill would do.

I just got off the phone with the great Manny Jules. He is the head of the First Nations Tax Commission. He and his family were among the architects of allowing first nations to collect their own local property tax revenues. He has fought his entire life to allow first nations governments and decision-makers to take control of the money that would otherwise go to Ottawa and to allow the local first nations to decide for themselves, rather than relying on the incompetence of the bureaucracy and politicians in Ottawa.

In other words, he told me that he is tired and first nations are tired of being the fastest turtles in the room, because that is how the system of infrastructure finance, he says, has worked, or failed to work, under the existing rules that we are about to change. In the past, a first nation that wanted to build something would have to apply for financing from Ottawa. Sometimes, it takes as long as 10 years for the bureaucrats to wrap their heads around the most basic infrastructure project that other communities would take for granted.

Many of my constituents ask why it is that our first nations cannot have clean drinking water systems in their communities. The answer is that none of us would have clean drinking water if we had to live under the same impossible and incompetent rules that the federal government imposes on first nations. Having to apply to a government that is 2,000 miles away and to deal with bureaucrats they have never met and do not know, who have never been to their community, to sign off on every single detail of every infrastructure plan, of course, is going to prevent things from getting done.

What we need to do is stop stopping and start starting, and to do that, we need to get Ottawa out of the way. The bill before us would do that.

It is a common-sense proposal. Here is how it would work: If a first nation wants to build something, instead of just asking for permission from the bureaucrats in Ottawa, it can monetize its future revenues to build long-standing assets. Let us say they are building a bridge that will last 40 years; they would be able to amortize the cost over the 40-year period and use their annual revenue streams to pay that cost. Of course, they would issue debentures, or debt, like any other government would normally do, and they could pool their risk with other, similar first nations that have similarly high financial and infrastructure standards. This would allow them to make their own decisions about projects today using the future revenues that they will inevitably bring in, which they can guarantee and certify.

That is how things get built. It would also allow public-private partnerships. This would, of course, send the New Democrats into a panic, because they do not want any private involvement in any aspect of our lives, but it would allow first nations to team up with the pension funds and other major investors to build projects that are both profitable to investors and also extremely effective for local communities. It would allow them to build schools, hospitals, water systems, bridges, roads and training centres. All manner of things that we take for granted in the rest of Canada could be built through this. It would also allow them to own the projects and use the assets for leverage for future investments.

This is the kind of common-sense infrastructure finance that we would expect if we were living in any other part of the country, so we as Conservatives support this. We want it to happen as quickly as possible, but we also want to go further.

We believe that the government's paternalistic, anti-development laws, like Bill C-69, are a major attack on indigenous rights by blocking first nations from developing projects that they support, preventing paycheques and preventing revenues for programs that would lift people out of poverty. We would repeal Bill C-69 and allow first nations to build projects with their resources. We would work with them on a new model so they can keep more of the money that comes from those projects.

This is an exciting time, when first nations entrepreneurs are leading the way. Let me give one example of this. Vancouver has become a city held back by government gatekeepers. It costs $650,000 in red tape for every new housing unit, because the city hall there is run by gatekeepers and the Prime Minister sends more money for gatekeeping. There is no wonder it is the third most expensive housing market on planet Earth. The Squamish people have their own land within the city of Vancouver but, luckily, they do not have to follow the zoning and permitting rules of city hall. They were able to approve, and are now building, 6,000 units of housing on 10 acres of land; that is 600 units per acre. If they were part of the city of Vancouver, they never would have gotten it done.

We can also look at what the Tsuut'ina Nation is doing near Calgary, building incredible business plazas that would still have been tied up in Calgary city hall bureaucracy if it had had to follow the rules in that jurisdiction. What we are seeing across the country is that first nations communities are, increasingly, far better places to do business than the municipal jurisdictions next to them are. We can imagine what they could do if the federal government in Ottawa would get out of the way and let them get things done.

This bill would do that for traditional infrastructure projects that governments normally run and regulate. Let us imagine allowing for the same with private sector and resource development projects. It would mean more business opportunities for first nations to generate revenues to provide Canada with lower-cost goods and more powerful paycheques for all our people. Now let us imagine further, that, instead of all of the revenue coming from those projects going to Ottawa to be gobbled up by bureaucracy, and forcing first nations to ask for it back, the money stayed in those communities in the first place and they could reinvest it to create a virtuous cycle of more and more opportunity. This is the vision we have: by getting rid of the gatekeepers and getting out of the way of first nations, allowing more local autonomy in decisions about resources, construction, jobs and financial management, we believe that, over the next century, first nations can lead the country in prosperity.

That is the empowering vision that we have, but we have to get back to common sense. It is wonderful that we have one bill, just one bill, with some common sense in it from the government, which proves that even a broken clock is right twice a day. The government should listen to Manny Jules more often, listen to our first nations leaders more often and listen to the people on the ground, the people who know what has happened, the people who have the traditional wisdom. If it did that more often, we would get more bills like this, we would have more paycheques for our people, we would get more built for our country and we would all be better off. It is the common sense of the common people, united for our common home. Now, let us bring it home.