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.

[Peter Xotta, Vice-President, Planning and Operations, Vancouver Fraser Port Authority]

Thank you very much for giving us the opportunity to appear.

You'll hear a common theme across the port authorities around the importance of ports to the Canadian economy. I'll be brief about the Vancouver Fraser Port Authority. We're responsible, obviously, for the port of Vancouver. Our mandate under the Canada Marine Act is to ensure that port infrastructure is in place to meet Canada's trade objectives, while protecting the environment and considering the impact of port activity on local communities. That, as you can imagine, is becoming increasingly complex as we, like Victoria and Nanaimo, are experiencing tremendous opportunities for our gateways, and thus the Canadian economy.

Vancouver, of course, is the largest port in Canada by a significant margin. For those familiar with the Lower Mainland, our jurisdiction includes Burrard Inlet, the surrounding lands in downtown Vancouver, and much of the Fraser River, totalling 16,000 hectares of water and 1,000 hectares of land.

Interestingly, and significantly, we also have 16 municipalities that we interact with in terms of trying to facilitate that trade, and of course we intersect with the asserted and established territories of several treaty lands of the Coast Salish first nations.

Ports are important, as I've said. One in three dollars in Canada's trade in goods outside North America goes through the port of Vancouver, as well as significant volumes of regional and North American trade.

Capacity is needed. The port of Vancouver, together with other ports, acts as the gateway to Asia, and trade with Asia is expected to continue to grow, in particular with China and India, but many other nations' trade patterns with Canada are also increasing. In 2017, the port of Vancouver handled 142 million tonnes of cargo, up 5% from the prior year. We anticipate that number to reach 200 million within the next decade.

With forecast growth of 4% a year through the port of Vancouver alone this year, and even with all the planned expansions at west coast terminals, additional capacity in our container sector is also required.

A lot has been done to improve the port and surrounding infrastructure to increase capacity, much of it through various federal funding initiatives. We are thankful to have been successful in securing funding from them. With our partners in terminals and other stakeholders, the port has redirected most of the profits of the port authority back into increasing capacity to enable Canada's trade.

There are a number of barriers we're facing with regard to growth that, if left unresolved, will result in economic loss for Canada.

First and foremost, trade-enabling land needs protecting. We're very concerned about the critical shortage of trade-enabling industrial land in the Lower Mainland. Vancouver has the second-lowest availability rate across North America. It's predicted that Vancouver could run out of industrial land supply in the not-too-distant future.

Road and rail capacity constraints require continued focus. Since 2014, the port has been working with the province, the regional transportation authority through TransLink, and the industry to identify bottlenecks in the roads and railways that serve the port. One of the impacts of this has been the ability to extend hours of operation and reduce impact on commuters.

Key focus areas have been the CP Rail Cascade subdivision, servicing the south shore of Burrard Inlet, and, more recently, the joint link section between New Westminster and Burrard Inlet, which serves the North Vancouver terminal complex and also hosts traffic from CN, VIA, Amtrak and Rocky Mountain Rail Tours.

Together, we've submitted funding applications to the federal government, through the national trade corridors fund, for a number of projects that will support Canada's growing trans-Pacific trade and protect the livability of local communities. In the summer, Minister Garneau announced more than $200 million for these projects. We are anxious to move forward with them, and we are busy doing so.

We're concerned about the impact that Bill C-69 will have on investment in Canada. As a trading nation that aspires to more trade, Canada needs its ports to be ready to manage the increased movement of goods. This, of course, requires increased investment—in our case, usually to develop brownfield sites, to make them more efficient and intensify their operations to handle this emerging trade.

It's critical that environmental reviews of port-related projects be done in a way that protects the environment, first and foremost, but they must also allow for timely development to meet growing trade objectives. One of our concerns is that environmental permitting processes are getting more difficult and certainly more complex and costly, which will make Canada less desirable as a place for investment. As a nation, we need to find a way to protect the environment and make those decisions in a timely way.

Growth continues to put pressure on passenger and freight corridors. We recommend continued investment by Canada to improve road and rail. As commuter passenger numbers increase within the region, we need to look at how we're managing our passenger and cargo rail system. As it stands, we have freight and passenger rail sharing rail lines, which impacts our goods-moving capability and constrains passenger rail opportunities. Because of the growth of the region, both of these things need to be advanced, without prioritizing one over the other.

Turning to efficiency of operations, we recommend that the federal government continue investments made to date through the transportation 2030 program. We have a particular initiative called the supply chain visibility project, which we're working on with Transport Canada. It aims to provide much greater visibility of goods movement from origin to port, to help inform operating decisions, to help collaboration between various stakeholders, and ultimately to identify when bottlenecks require infrastructure investment to be addressed.

We also encourage the federal government to invest in port infrastructure and enable more collaboration with all supply chain partners. The goal is a more efficient and reliable gateway, while reducing the impacts of growing trade on local residents. As I mentioned at the outset, that is becoming more and more complex.

We look forward to your questions this morning, including any questions you have about the port of Vancouver or more generally.

Thank you.

[Blake Richards]

Another question occurred to me when you were talking about the truck driver shortage, and I might have our friends from CAPP comment on the regulatory process as well because I imagine that they would have some concerns here. Is it one of those cases where we have such difficulty with some of the processes and with Bill C-69 that it's just going to get worse, that what happens is you can't get pipelines built and, therefore, rail is being used to ship oil, displacing other products from being on rail?

Now you're saying that there's an issue due to truck driver shortages. Is this one of those things where it kind of cascades down? What are your thoughts on that, Mr. Neuheimer?

[Timothy Egan]

We have, as you noted, a supply picture that's incredibly positive. It just gets more and more positive all the time. The Government of Canada talks about several hundred years of supply. The product is as affordable as it has ever been. I was in Nova Scotia last week, and I had a bill in my hand from 1915. Natural gas is almost one-fourth the commodity cost it was in 1915. You're right. The supply picture is extraordinary.

The single best thing we can do to continue to help on the supply side is to look at the regulatory framework and the regulatory pancaking. I can list a series of provisions that are very onerous for our industry: the clean fuel standard, the methane regulation, the carbon backstop, the energy efficiency standards, the proposal for offset purposes, and Bill C-69. Each of these represents a cost to the end-user and to the producer, so we need to look at how we can lighten that cost. On the distribution side, we need to send a signal that isn't as negative as the signal has been about the prospects of using natural gas.

We're all for electricity. Many of our members are joint. We have a great deal of co-operation, and at the same time, we compete. It's healthy competition. Obviously the electricity industry is going to advance an electrification strategy.

The chairman asked about a smart grid. I'd say we don't need a single smart grid. We need a smart energy delivery system. That can be an electric grid. It can be a natural gas distribution system. It can be one of a variety of choices, and we shouldn't be picking a favourite. We should be giving choice.

Natural Resources

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer—Mountain View, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to speak this evening and to add my voice in support of Canada's oil and gas sector.

The report that we are discussing covered economic drivers, such as oil and gas prices, production costs, export capacity, future demand, investment and competition. The arguments that various witnesses presented dealt with the ways in which we could foster investment and trade opportunities, promote a new era of indigenous engagement and public trust, deal with a price on carbon, invest in technological innovation and establish the right policy framework. The concern that I have about this report, as was agreed upon by the majority on committee, was that on so many fronts, the conclusions did not address the true realities that exist in the industry today.

The unanimous motion to undertake the study on the future of Canada's oil and gas sector, with a focus on innovation, sustainable solutions and economic opportunities, presented an excellent forum to showcase to the world our first-class oil and gas sector. As I read through the report, what became obvious was that it seemed to be an apology piece for a natural resource sector rather than a chance to explain why Canada's resource development should be encouraged and promoted throughout the world.

At the time of the project, energy east, as well as Kinder Morgan, were being recognized as the final pipeline opportunities to have oil exports added to the four major pipelines that the Conservative government had previously overseen. These pipelines have become even more significant after the arbitrary cancellation of the previously approved northern gateway project.

The report also looked at pricing and production costs, which, of course, are indeed considerations that any company must keep in mind when determining where their investment dollars would go. It is too simplistic to say that investors are shying away from Alberta because of those economic factors, unless, of course, one factors in the uncertainty caused by the ever-burdensome red tape for the industry; the assault on all Canadian small businesses, particularly those that supply the oil and gas sector; a bizarre approach to international trade, which makes investors nervous; and the made-in-Canada disaster program that forces a non-competitive carbon tax on all Canadians that has no equal with our global competitors. The Liberal mistruths about Conservative pipeline management were at least exposed during the study, but once that was on the table, the report reverted back to an anti-oil spin to justify the foot-dragging that has been the hallmark of the Liberal government.

There was an acknowledgement that we needed to get moving on LNG pipeline projects, but the reality is that the same global investors that are agitating against our oil pipelines will use their network to stop LNG projects as well. After all, if Canadian resources produced under the strongest environmental standards in the world could ever get to market, who would need or want products from other countries?

In the report, the Canadian Chamber of Commerce warned that certain environmental policies, namely, carbon pricing, could undermine Canada's competitiveness unless it is aligned with trading partners. Its conclusion was that a price on carbon would cause a lack of competitiveness. There was an expression of concern regarding the greenhouse gas emissions levels of oil sands operations and how that might hinder Canada's ability to reduce domestic greenhouse gas emissions as addressed in the report. The irony associated with that discussion has always been the degree to which those calculations and the actual contribution to overall global emissions are portrayed.

In a November 27, 2014, Financial Post report, an energy adviser to some of the world's most developed economies, Fatih Birol, presented his concerns not only about the security of world energy sources but also the impact of fossil fuels on the climate.

What he said was that of all the issues that exist, he would never spend any time worrying about the level of carbon emissions from Canada's oil sands. He was frank about saying that oil sands CO2 emission from the oil sands is extremely low.

When speaking of the expected global requirement, Mr. Birol, chief economist of the Paris-based International Energy Agency, said that the IEA forecasts that in the next 25 years oil sands production in Canada will increase by more than three million barrels per day, “but the emissions of this additional production is equal to only 23 hours of emissions of China—not even one day.” Now, Mr. Birol also did not think a carbon tax was a particularly useful way of managing emissions. However, the sad part is that this carbon pricing scheme remains a major talking point in the report and is punishing one of our most important drivers of Canada's economy.

One cannot help but comment on the frustration industry has had with respect to the pipeline fiasco. The Prime Minister falsely claimed that the energy east project had been cancelled because of market and volume considerations. The major nail in the coffin was the government's intrusion into the pipeline approval process. It would seem as though the Liberals have used the cover of this report as a rationale to launch its disastrous Bill C-69.

In a recent Bloomberg report, former TransCanada CEO Hal Kvisle stated that in assessing the environmental impact in Canada's energy regulations this was “an absolutely devastating piece of legislation.” Mr. Kvisle also said that he did not think any competent pipeline company would submit an application if Bill C-69 came into force.

The key point is that any government needs to review projects early on and quickly send a signal to both the community and the pipeline proponent as to whether or not the Government of Canada supports the project. If pipeline companies are worried about Canadian projects going forward, then one should not be surprised that other investors around the world are no longer looking to Canada as a reliable investment. The sad part of this is that it does not mean oil and gas will not be sold around the world. It will be supplied from countries that truly have much less concern about the environment than we do. This carbon “slippage”, as it is called, will not help the global environment but it will continue to hamstring our economy.

The dissenting opinion presented by Conservative committee members addressed many of the points I have spoken about this evening, so let me put into the record the recommendations we presented.

We strongly encourage the Government of Canada to establish and make publically available strict, clear criteria and a fixed timeline for their assessment and consultation processes for major projects. The timely approval of new energy infrastructure projects would not only reduce Canada's reliance on foreign oil, but would also allow responsible, world-renowned and respected Canadian oil and gas to reach broader international markets.

We strongly encourage the Government of Canada to show confidence in our national regulators by allowing them to make evidence-based decisions independent of government politicization and unnecessary, duplicative interim principles.

We strongly encourage the Government of Canada to publicly and unequivocally support strategic energy infrastructure approved by the national regulators after extensive and thorough evidence-based processes to ensure Canada's competitiveness in the global energy market.

We strongly encourage the Government of Canada to recognize and to promote Canada's world-leading regulatory framework and environmental standards and stewardship by instilling rather than eroding public confidence in our national regulators and Canada's energy developers.

We strongly encourage the government not to impose any additional tax or regulation on the oil and gas sector or the Canadian consumer that our continental trading partners and competitors do not have. This includes measuring the upstream greenhouse emissions from pipelines, as laid out in the five interim principles, given pipelines do not contribute to these emissions in any material way and upstream emissions fall under provincial jurisdiction. Any national carbon pricing initiatives should undergo a thorough economic assessment to ensure balance between economic growth and environmental stewardship and responsibility.

[Linda Lapointe, Liberal, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague.

Bill C-69 will make environmental and energy rules more transparent. This will allow us to make projections. We will accomplish all of this, and this bill will allow us to go further.

I will repeat, because I want my colleagues opposite to understand. The environment and the economy go hand in hand. We must create jobs for the middle class. By working with first nations in Alberta, we will be able to keep the economy going.

[Yasmin Ratansi, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like my colleague to give a brief background as to how Bill C-69 would make environmental assessment more transparent? That is where everyone's questions are coming from and everyone worries about these things. Could she give a little highlight on that?

[Linda Lapointe, Liberal, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak this evening. I will be speaking in English so please forgive me if I make a few mistakes.

The great philosopher Yogi Berra once said, “It's like déjà vu all over again.” He could have been talking about this debate, because it seems we are just going around in circles here, with many of us saying the same thing in different ways.

Our government has already endorsed the House committee's report on the future of Canada's oil and gas sector. Why? It is because the committee was right when it concluded that the future of the industry is tied to innovation, sustainable solutions and new economic opportunities. Who would disagree with that?

However, the critics in the House say, “Yes, but what about the upstream greenhouse gas emissions? Why are we including them in the review of oil and gas projects? What about the uncertainty facing the industry with respect to environmental assessments? What about recognizing that Canada has a world-leading regulatory regime and an internationally renowned track record? What about the United States' transformation from being our main customer to our biggest competitor?”

On each count we say, that is what we have been addressing over the course of our mandate. We have been addressing existing problems and tackling the challenges that continue to emerge. One key way we have been doing that is by bringing forward legislation, Bill C-69, to make environmental assessments and regulatory reviews timelier, more transparent and more predictable. We get it. Investment certainty is critical to the energy sector's future, and Bill C-69 would provide that, with better rules for a better Canada.

However, again, the critics argue, “Yes, but why are you singling out the oil and gas industry by including upstream greenhouse gas emissions for pipeline projects?” We are not. It is just the opposite. Everything we have been doing, from Bill C-69 to the pan-Canadian framework on clean growth and climate change, is aimed at strengthening Canada's economy and creating jobs for the low-carbon future. That includes our oil and gas industry and all the other resource sectors that are the backbone of the Canadian economy.

Here is a fact that is not widely known. Natural resources account for 47% of Canada's merchandise exports. That is almost half our total merchandise exports. There is no getting around it. Our natural resource industries are not just the historic foundation of our economy, they are helping to drive our future prosperity, and in a world increasingly looking for sustainably produced products, Canada is unmatched. We have a huge natural advantage, and our government is determined to build on that competitive edge by making sure that Canada can take on the world in this clean-growth century and win.

However, again, the critics argue, “That is all well and good, but you have to realize that our oil and gas industry is now competing with the United States. You have to do something about that.” Again, we say that they are right, and we are doing something about it. It is right there in the Prime Minister's mandate letter to the Minister of Natural Resources. The Prime Minister asked the minister to identify opportunities to support workers and businesses in the natural resource sectors that are seeking to export their goods to global markets.

The Trans Mountain expansion project is part of that, part of our plan to diversify markets, improve environmental safety and create thousands of good middle-class jobs, including jobs in indigenous communities. That is why the Minister of Natural Resources just announced the first step in our efforts to make sure that any expansion of the Trans Mountain pipeline proceeds in the right way. When 99% of Canada's oil exports are destined for the United States, it just makes sense for us to seek other buyers for our resources. The problem is that there was not a single pipeline built to tidewater in the decade before we formed government. We have to address that, and we are.

Before anyone watching thinks we are doing all of this alone, let me make this clear. Canada's oil and gas industry is working hard investing in innovation, improving its environmental performance, building new partnerships and creating new opportunities. The oil sands are a great example. They are one huge innovation project. Nobody figured out how to get oil out of sand until Canadians created the technology, and that ingenuity continues today through Canada's Oil Sands Innovation Alliance. It is a partnership of Canada's thirteen largest producers, all of them working together to ensure the industry's sensible growth and to accelerate its environmental performance. To date, those 13 companies have invested more than $1.3 billion to develop more than a thousand distinct new technologies and innovations, such as using the latest in artificial intelligence to pinpoint where to inject steam, and how much, to maximize the return of oil, or developing technology that could reduce CO₂ emissions from the steam generation process to almost zero within five years.

Our government is working with them, supporting their efforts through our CanmetEnergy lab in Devon, Alberta, through our oil and gas clean-tech program and through our clean energy innovation program. We do that because our job is to make sure that Canada is developing its resources in the most environmentally responsible ways possible and using them in the most sustainable ways possible. That is exactly what we are doing. We are investing, for example, in the latest carbon capture technologies and are supporting centres of excellence in Alberta and B.C. and coming up with innovative ways to turn carbon dioxide into commercial products, everything from concrete and plastic to fish food and even toothpaste. Members may have recently read about the promising pilot project just north of Vancouver, where they are actually grabbing carbon dioxide out of the air and turning it into a replacement for gasoline.

The bottom line is that the low-carbon economy is not just the challenge of our generation, it is the opportunity of a lifetime. We are seizing this opportunity and making Canada a global leader.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to rise this evening to speak to the motion to concur in the second report of the Standing Committee on Natural Resources, a report on the future of and innovation in Canada's oil and gas sector. I will not comment on the arcane procedures and strategies in this place that see us debating a committee report a full two years after it was tabled in the House, but I am pleased to be able to take it off the shelf, dust it off and see what is in there, especially in light of more recent events.

The New Democrats submitted a supplementary opinion on the report when it was tabled, so I will be referencing that when I discuss some of our concerns. Our first concern was with the scope of the study and the subsequent report. We had hoped that there would have been a good discussion on the opportunities in other parts of the energy sector, a discussion about innovation, job opportunities, investments and particularly the emerging renewable energy industry. Renewable energy offers significant opportunities for the creation of good jobs in every community across Canada and much of what is happening there is the very definition of “innovation”, but, unfortunately, that topic was not included in the study.

During the study, committee members heard a lot about innovation in the oil and gas industry and some of it was truly encouraging. We heard from Canada's Oil Sands Innovation Alliance, COSIA. In the model that COSIA put forward, a group of private companies put aside the usual proprietary nature of research and information to create a true alliance in which all members have access to successful innovations that could result in oil extraction methods that are both more economical and better for the environment. That is really exciting to witness. Unfortunately, we heard that many of these innovations would only be implemented in new projects, projects that are waiting for higher oil prices before they will proceed. I truly hope that the COSIA model will be extended to other industry sectors because of the way it amplifies innovation through quick adoption throughout the sector.

I would also like to echo the sentiments of Gil McGowan, the president of the Alberta Federation of Labour, in that we have to be more than hewers of wood and drawers of water, that we need to develop value-added industries within the oil and gas and other resource sectors. He testified, “we should prioritize value-added development, because these kinds of investments not only create jobs directly in upgrading, refining, and petrochemicals but also create other jobs.” I would add that these investments create jobs that are not as subject to the volatility of global oil prices and create products that will be needed during our transition to a low-carbon economy.

We not only need to be innovative in how we extract and use resources, we need to be innovative in how we regulate the extraction of those resources. I think everyone here would agree that we now have a complete lack of public confidence in our energy regulation process. Nanos Research has published data showing that only 2% of Canadians think we are doing a good job in that regard.

Professor Monica Gattinger of the University of Ottawa testified before committee about her positive energy program, a research group dedicated to studying ways to depolarize the public debate around the oil and gas sector, particularly with regard to pipelines. The supplementary report states:

We believe it is essential that the lack of public confidence in the current environmental assessment process be addressed by permanent, meaningful changes to the National Energy Board process as soon as possible. New Democrats believe that the proposed interim measures introduced by the government are inadequate to address the results of a decade of Conservative dismantling of our environmental protection regime. We share the concern expressed by witness Professor Monica Gattinger that if the process goes ahead without the existing gaps being meaningfully addressed, the end result will further erode public confidence in the entire assessment regime.

The supplementary report goes on to say:

We are disappointed that the majority report fails to recommend a speedy review of the NEB process as this had been a clear electoral commitment of the new government. We are disappointed that the newly announced review panel process contains no timeline for actual legislative changes leaving the Conservatives inadequate process in place and creating uncertainty for all stakeholders. We recommend that the government move faster to make the necessary permanent changes to the NEB assessment process to restore public confidence and ensure that it is fair, neutral, science based and designed to meaningfully engage communities.

Where are we now? Shortly after this report was tabled in the House, the government granted permission for the Trans Mountain expansion pipeline to proceed, and a few weeks ago, the Federal Court of Appeal quashed those approvals. The court cited two significant failures: the government failed to consider the environmental impact of the project on coastal marine environment, and the consultations with first nations were completely inadequate. The government officials who met with first nations groups were mere note-takers who mistakenly believed that neither they nor cabinet had the authority to change the findings of the National Energy Board in the consultation process.

What did they think consultation was about? If they thought it was about noting the concerns of first nations and telling the first nations they had no power to change anything with regard to the pipeline, that is not consultation. Consultation is listening and then acting on concerns, trying to make accommodations.

Here is what our first supplementary report had to say about first nations consultation:

The Government must also act quickly to honour its obligations to a Nation to Nation relationship with Indigenous peoples including proper consultation and accommodation on all energy projects and the protection of Indigenous rights. During testimony, industry representatives were clear about the importance of fixing the consultation process sooner rather than later. The Government of Canada, as representative of the Crown, is responsible for these duties and while proponents of projects should be a part of this process, we believe these responsibilities should not be devolved to proponents to fulfill, as was too often the case under the former Conservative government. The Government must take a much larger, hands-on role in creating the environment in which meaningful consultation can take place.

The supplementary report goes on to support Bill C-262, which would ensure that federal legislation is consistent with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. This bill was brought forward by our colleague in the NDP caucus, the member for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou. While we are happy to report that Bill C-262 has passed through the House of Commons, we were disappointed to see that its spirit was not included in Bill C-69, legislation that would implement changes to environmental assessment and energy regulation in Canada.

Here we are two years after this report was tabled. The NDP was criticized back then for its call to redo the Trans Mountain expansion process under a proper system. Critics said it would take too long, maybe another year or two. Here we are two years later back at square one. The decision of the Federal Court of Appeal is a reminder that we have to put in the effort at the start. There are no shortcuts.

I mentioned Nanos Research earlier that noted the pitifully poor state of Canadians' confidence in our energy regulation system, but it did point out there was a way forward. The polling data demonstrated that if the Canadian government could show it was consulting properly with indigenous communities by asking local communities about these decisions and developing a meaningful consultation process, Canadians would have more confidence in the procedure. There is a way forward.

I just want to read out some of the testimony from a witness representing the Indigenous Health Alliance who criticized the National Energy Board in particular for not engaging indigenous peoples early enough in its regulatory approval processes. He recommended the following measures to improve indigenous community engagement, which come right out of the main body of the report we are discussing tonight:

Early engagement of indigenous communities in the NEB process—by involving indigenous communities in “the problems, solutions and implementation strategies of any resource development project at the earliest reasonable opportunity”;

Acknowledging the multidimensional nature of resource development issues—by recognizing that resource development projects involve broader considerations related to education, health, economic development, the environment, etc. He stated that a consultation process that does not acknowledge and address these issues clearly will ultimately fail to address the real problems;

Including community leadership, namely elders, in the decisionmaking process—by recognizing elders as a stakeholder group that should be directly involved in setting the project agenda;

Acknowledging that indigenous peoples are reasonable and pragmatic about resource development—they are likely to support approval processes that respect their community-based needs;

Involving communication and consultation experts—ones that could accurately interpret and convey community concerns to governments and project developers; and

Recognizing indigenous peoples as a “third level of government” in Canada—which is how they are functionally recognized by the court system.

We have significant natural resources in Canada and they have always been central to our country's wealth. However, we must ensure that these shared resources are managed in the best interests of all Canadians, with a focus on protecting the environment, ensuring meaningful consultation with affected communities and indigenous peoples and maximizing economic benefits.

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer—Mountain View, AB]

Mr. Speaker, with respect to the discussions that were just presented, just reading through the footnotes we recognize that it was in early 2016 that these discussions took place. Recognizing that this report is two years old, there is a lot that has changed in the last two years. We thought we would be working with the U.S. and that carbon taxes would be in place. Keystone had not been approved. These are the kinds of things that are taking place. It is as though the member believes that this is a snapshot of today. What we are talking about is what set the stage for all of the discussions and the concerns, and especially the disastrous Bill C-69 that is being presented. I wonder if the member can bring us back to the mindset there was two years ago, and why some of these thoughts need to be updated.

[Paul Lefebvre, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources, Lib.]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be speaking in today's debate in my new role as Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources.

I am honoured by the trust that the Prime Minister has put in me. I am well aware that I have been entrusted with a critical portfolio. The member for Northumberland—Peterborough South set the bar very high.

I have learned some valuable lessons in my years representing the people of Sudbury. Thanks to them, I have a better understanding of the importance of natural resource development, the importance of doing things right, and the importance of making sure that everyone wins, including proponents, local communities and indigenous peoples, in the spirit of creating jobs while protecting the environment. The House committee came to the same conclusion two years ago in its report entitled “The Future of Canada's Oil and Gas Sector: Innovation, Sustainable Solutions and Economic Opportunities”.

I have always suspected that some people were a bit slow to grasp the importance of harmonizing environmental protection and economic prosperity. All the same, it is astonishing that we are only now debating a report that was released by the House of Commons Standing Committee on Natural Resources a full two years ago.

I want to take a moment to refresh the memories of those who may have forgotten what that report said and remind them of what our government has achieved.

The committee explored the future of Canada's oil and gas sectors by focusing on innovation, sustainable solutions and economic opportunities. After holding seven days of meetings and hearing from 33 witnesses, the committee produced its report, which contained a number of recommendations. Among other things, the report recommended that our government continue to support the viability and competitiveness of Canada's oil and gas sectors, foster investment and trade opportunities, promote a new era of indigenous engagement and public trust, establish a carbon pricing system, invest in technological innovation and establish the right policy framework.

Our government approved that report and we are responding to each of its recommendations.

Through Natural Resources Canada, we are investing in research and the demonstration of innovative technologies, including those aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

Two specific initiatives are worth noting: first, the $50-million oil and gas clean tech program, which is helping to reduce the sector's greenhouse gas emissions; and second, the $25-million clean energy innovation program, which seeks to reduce emissions in a number of areas, including methane and volatile organic compounds in the oil and gas industry. Future work will focus on enhancing the environmental and economic performance by significantly reducing methane emissions.

Through mission innovation, our government has committed to doubling our investment in energy technology research and development. More broadly, NRCan is working with Canada's Oil Sands Innovation Alliance and other partners to maximize the innovative potential for the oil and gas sector.

As I mentioned, the committee report also calls on the government to rebuild public trust in resource development. Our government has done just that, including by restoring many lost environmental protections and introducing modern safeguards to the Fisheries Act and the Navigation Protection Act.

We announced a $1.5-billion oceans protection plan, the largest investment in Canada's coasts and oceans in our history.

We have introduced Bill C-69, the most comprehensive overhaul of the environmental review process in a generation.

The Prime Minister has said many times that no relationship is more important to our government than the one with indigenous peoples. In particular, we recognize that consultation with indigenous communities affected by resource projects is critical to renewing a nation-to-nation relationship. That is why, with respect to the Trans Mountain expansion project, we extended the timeline to allow for deeper, more meaningful engagement.

When concerns were expressed, we responded by committing nearly $65 million to establish an indigenous advisory and monitoring committee that would oversee environmental aspects through the entire life of that project. This was unprecedented. As Chief Ernie Crey of the Cheam First Nation said, “Indigenous people won't be on the outside looking in. We'll be at the table and on site to protect our lands and water.”

That said, we know that when it comes to indigenous engagement, a higher bar must still be met. Our government will be announcing how we intend to meet that bar in the coming days.

Finally, the committee recommended that we establish the right policy framework to ensure a competitive oil and gas industry. We agree, which is why we are continuing to work towards a Canadian energy strategy together with our indigenous, provincial and territorial colleagues. It is why, through the Vancouver declaration, Canada's first ministers committed to working on carbon sinks and other measures under the pan-Canadian framework on clean growth and climate change.

That is why we have done what 42 other countries and 25 subnational jurisdictions have done: put a price on pollution. It is something the United Nations has called a necessary and effective measure to tackle the climate change challenge.

Taken together, our actions constitute an unprecedented level of support for the oil and gas industry, all while demonstrating that economic development and environmental prosperity can indeed go hand in hand.

The opposition issued a dissenting report and I will address it directly.

The report calls, among other things, for clear timelines for assessments. I suggest that members opposite read Bill C-69, which provides predictable timelines and clear expectations. This would allow proponents to better plan and engage earlier, leading to stronger proposals and greater certainty. The opposition's report also recommends that we encourage our national regulators to “make evidence-based decisions independent of government politicization”.

This concern for evidence-based decision-making is a welcome change of pace in Canada.

I can guarantee my opposition colleagues that we truly value science, facts and evidence. I am also pleased to mention that the dissenting report calls on the government “to publicly and unequivocally support strategic energy infrastructure approved by the national regulators”. Of course, that is exactly what we did by approving the Line 3 replacement project.

Finally, the report calls on the government to promote Canada's regulatory framework by instilling “public confidence in our national regulators”. We agree, which is why we built on the work of the National Energy Board to create a modern, world-class regulatory body for the 21st century, an organization that has the independence and accountability needed to oversee a solid, safe and viable energy sector, an organization that includes new public engagement and indigenous reconciliation processes, all while ensuring that good projects get the green light.

I will conclude by saying that I am always happy to talk about everything our government is doing for the oil and gas industry. We know that it is a vital contributor to our economy and an important part of our future. The fact is that the recommendations in this report are already being implemented. Our government will continue to look forward, towards a very bright future for our oil and gas industry and towards the prosperity it will help ensure for all Canadians.

Trans Mountain Pipeline Project Act

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise today to add my comments to this very important debate on S-245. I would like to note the comments of my colleague for Lakeland as she kicked off the debate. She very articulately laid out this project, the time frames and some of the history. I will not redo what she said but I hope to add some new comments to the debate which should be reflected upon.

Even though the landscape has changed since this initial private member's motion in the Senate was introduced, passed and moved to us, it still remains a very important bill for us to pass in the House. Again, the landscape has changed considerably, but we must and should pass it.

I know that in an ideal world we would not have any dependence on fossil fuels. However, we continue to have that dependence. It is not just the gasoline for our car or the jet fuel for the planes that fly us to Ottawa and back home. Over 6,000 products require the use of oil.

In the short and medium term, the world, not just Canada, will continue to rely on oil and its products. I do have a belief that there will be technological advances that will create some solutions.

Dave McKay, the president of RBC, said, “Canadians are polarized about oil and gas when we should be focused on how cleanly we can produce it, how safely we can transport it and how wisely we can consume it.” Those are very important words.

Alberta is working very hard on how to cleanly produce. The discussion we are having today is how we can safely transport and then it is up to every individual to look at how wisely to consume it.

The government has decided to put all its eggs into one basket. The tanker moratorium simply means that people from Lac du Ronge and Eagle Spirit have been cut off, with no consultation on the opportunities they thought might be there for their communities. Of course, that would be a northern route. This bill is currently in the Senate. Again, it cuts off opportunity to get oil to the sea water.

Bill C-69 has been called the “never build another pipeline again” bill. I tend to agree. Changes proposed in Bill C-69 mean that another pipeline will never be built in Canada again. That is a huge problem. We can look at what is happening in the States and across the world. We basically have landlocked resources. In the short and medium term, we will be uncompetitive.

Having a “no pipeline” bill is important. However, what people do not realize is this. Look at the rail traffic. I live on a rail line. I was at a ceremony this week for a change of command for the Rocky Mountain Rangers. Fifteen metres from us was a rail line, which goes straight through Kamloops. Tanker car after tanker car travel right through town and along the Fraser River. It had already come down the Thompson River while salmon were spawning.

When we talk about transportation safety, it is relatively safe. However, it is more safe to transport oil through a pipeline than by tanker cars, which travel right through the middle of town and along the spawning channels. We have had wildfires. We have seen the instability of slopes when rains come. We are having washouts. There is big concern about the enormous increase in the tanker cars that go through our communities.

This does not even address the issue that we hear all the time from our grain farmers and mining folks about the bottleneck on the rail lines. As the rail capacity increases for tanker cars to transport oil, we bottleneck our supply system, our supply chain. This is a huge problem.

Northern gateway and the TMX is really a tale of two pipelines, because it has been largely decision-making by the current government.

Northern gateway went through its process and it was approved by the former government. A court decision came out and it was very clear. The Liberal government received that court decision. It said that some things needed to be done to improve consultation with first nations.

The decision was received by the current Liberal government. Every time those members suggest that they inherited a flawed process, it is quite clear that it was not the process but it was the execution of the process with northern gateway. It became much clearer that they did not learn any lessons after reading that report, in spite of the fact that they said they had. The Liberals completely botched their execution with respect to the duty to consult on the Trans Mountain pipeline.

The first decision said they could not simply be a note-taker. The Liberals had that information. What did they do? They sent someone to take notes. How is that looking at a decision and implementing it?

The minister stood up time after time and said that there was no relationship more important than the government's relationship with first nations. He said they were engaged, that they have had the best process ever, and yet his government did the exact same thing. Someone was sent to take notes and the government did nothing in terms of dealing with the issues at hand.

The Liberals failed. They failed as plaintiffs. Six communities took them to court with respect to the duty to consult. More important, they also failed 43 communities that had benefit agreements and were looking forward to the opportunities that would come with the construction of this pipeline going through their territory.

About one-third of the pipeline goes through the riding that I represent, which includes many communities as well as many first nations communities, the majority of which had signed benefit agreements.

After the decision came down I met with a number of first nations and other communities. One group had to completely redo its budget. It had counted on the benefits from this agreement. This group had to wonder what it could slice and dice out of its budget because it was faced with brand-new circumstances.

I met with another group called Simpcw Resource Group. As construction happened, and in the past, this company had been responsible for returning the disrupted land from the construction of a pipeline back to its natural vegetative state.

Companies are planting trees as we speak, planning on the economic opportunities. Construction camps are being planned. Cooks were looking forward to opportunities. These are real people. These are real jobs.

The fact that the Liberal government could not look at a court decision that came to them in 2016 and do the job properly is absolutely shameful. It failed to execute. When the government says it had a flawed process given to it, it is absolute nonsense. The government was told what it needed to do in order to do it properly. Please, do not ever let them say they were provided with a flawed process. The court decision was absolutely clear that the process was appropriate, it was the execution that was flawed.

This are real consequences to real people. This matters. I hope that when people look at this they will look at it as a benefit for Canada, not for the benefit of a small area only. This would benefit all of Canada.

I encourage all members of the House not to just look at their concerns and interests but to look at the big picture, look at it for the benefit of Canada.

[Randy Boissonnault, Liberal, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today to speak to Bill S-245 at second reading and to do so as a proud Alberta MP. I am very proud of my home province and my city of Edmonton. It is a place that values hard work and entrepreneurship. In fact, if people come to my riding of Edmonton Centre, they will see on one of the buildings there a huge mural that says, “Take a risk”. There is nothing more Edmontonian that anyone could possibly do. It is a place that celebrates inclusion, a place that believes everyone should have the opportunity to succeed. The Edmonton Metropolitan Region has brought innovation and resource development to new levels, once thought impossible.

Members may know that I grew up in Morinviille. Close members of my family and dear friends work and have worked in the oil sands, and I know first-hand the importance of resource development to people's lives and livelihoods. I agree categorically with what I hear at doors every week, the keen and deep interest in getting our resources to market and ending the $15-billion-a-year haircut that our resource products get because we have only one customer, the United States.

These are the same reasons that our government approved the Trans Mountain expansion project in the first place. We know that this project holds the potential to create thousands of good middle-class jobs, to strengthen the Canadian economy and generate billions of dollars in new revenues for all orders of government, and to ensure that we get a fair price for one of our country's most valuable resources. It would also open up new opportunities in indigenous communities across B.C. and Alberta, which support the project. There are also 43 indigenous communities that have signed mutual benefit agreements.

It is for all of these reasons and many more that we believe that the TMX project is in Canada's national interest and why we purchased its assets as a sound investment in Canada's future. The existing line will generate $300 million in earnings every year regardless of the expansion. Therefore, when legislation comes before us suggesting that, “the Trans Mountain Pipeline Project and related works [are declared] to be for the general advantage of Canada”, it is hard to disagree. We have said as much repeatedly in every part of the country, and yet it is not enough that the pipeline project expansion proceed. It must proceed in the right way, and that includes fulfilling our government's commitments to protecting the environment and renewing Canada's relationship with indigenous peoples.

The Trans Mountain expansion project is in the situation it is in today because of the failures of the previous Conservative government. We promised legislation that would move Canada forward and brings more, not less, environmental protection and respect for indigenous rights. Have the Conservatives learned that lesson? No. Despite court ruling after court ruling, they still fail to understand the importance of having strong and meaningful frameworks for pipeline approval in place. Ten years of Conservative failure to get our energy to other markets does not serve the Canadian people and does not serve the energy industry.

With Bill C-69, our government will move Canada's projects forward based on doing things the right way, and without cutting corners the way Conservatives did for a decade. When will the Conservatives learn that Canada cannot legislate its way out of its constitutional obligation to consult indigenous peoples and to protect the environment? Only they know the answer to that. On this side, we know that cutting corners has not worked in the past and will not work now or in the future.

The Federal Court of Appeal found that the government's assessment of the project left room for improvement. Potential environmental effects of marine shipping were not properly considered by the NEB, which was a result of a flawed process created by the Conservatives. It also found that while we had an acceptable framework for indigenous consultation, one that we brought forward in our interim approach to environmental assessments, the Crown did not properly execute that phase of the process.

That is why today the Minister of Natural Resources announced an important step in our path forward. He said that the government has instructed the National Energy Board to reconsider its recommendation, taking into account the effects of marine shipping related to the project. We will be directing the NEB to report within 22 weeks. During this time, the NEB will hear from Canadians and provide participant funding for indigenous and non-indigenous groups. We will present to the NEB recent government actions to protect the southern resident killer whales and to implement the oceans protection plan. We are committed to ensuring that the National Energy Board has the expertise and capacity to deliver the best advice to the government. To that end, we intend to appoint a special marine technical advisor to the National Energy Board.

Our government has been clear about its vision for resource development, a vision built on three key tenets: creating good, middle-class jobs; protecting the environment; and indigenous partnerships.

We see the Trans Mountain expansion project as part of this vision, but the vision is much bigger than that. We are committed to building a long-term energy vision for Canadians, one that transitions Canada to a clean growth economy. Canada is now a global leader in clean tech and we are poised to be a clean energy leader as well.

We have worked across sectors and across the country to build Bill C-69, with industry and environmental groups. The bill moves past the Conservative way of ignoring indigenous peoples and the environment, and proposes a modern, new way to review major resource projects and a new framework to recognize and implement indigenous rights in a spirit of respect, co-operation and collaboration.

Our vision is of more than a single pipeline. It is about creating jobs for Canadians and charting a path for Canada's long-term future, a new course that recognizes that the economy and the environment must go hand in hand.

The Federal Court of Appeal confirmed that we had made a solid start with the interim principles we introduced back in January 2016, but it said there was more work to be done. We understand that. That has been our focus since we formed government in November 2015.

That is why we not only signed the Paris Agreement on climate change, but also helped shape it as an ambitious and balanced plan for ensuring that the environment and economy are equal components of a single engine that will drive enduring prosperity.

That is why we also sat down with the provinces, territories, and indigenous peoples to draft the pan-Canadian framework on clean growth and climate change, a blueprint for reducing emissions, spurring innovation, adapting to climate change and creating good middle-class jobs across the country.

That is why we are making long-term investments in clean technology and green infrastructure. That is why we are providing unprecedented levels of support for science and basic research. That is also why we are making a historic investment to protect Canada's oceans, marine life and coastal communities.

The $1.5-billion oceans protection plan will strengthen the eyes and ears of the Canadian Coast Guard, enhance our response capabilities in the unlikely event of a spill and support innovative marine research. It will also reinforce new important partnerships with indigenous peoples. That includes the joint creation of an indigenous advisory and oversight committee to assess the safety of the TMX project throughout its life cycle.

This is in addition to our efforts to improve indigenous peoples's access to financing for economic development, professional training and business opportunities arising from the pipeline expansion. We recognize the importance of Canada's energy sector and its impact on both Canada's economy and the environment.

The Trans Mountain expansion project is a key element, part of a common-sense approach that includes the diversification of our energy markets, the improvement of environmental safety and the creation of thousands of good jobs for the middle class, including good jobs for indigenous communities.

However, we have to do this properly, by keeping our commitments to reconciliation with indigenous peoples and to environmental protection, and as part of our plan to build a better future and a better Canada for everyone. That is what I am proud to support today.

The Conservative Party can continue to attempt to mystify Canadians with bafflegab, blather and blarney. Our government will do the right thing and be respectful, rigorous and get this done in the right way.

National Defence Act

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Some people are saying he did not. They should talk to their Prime Minister, because he is wrong and the minister is wrong. If they feel that ministers cannot ensure their own policies are being followed then they are abdicating their leadership for our country and they should resign. This is an affront to Canadians.

Constable Campbell wore two uniforms of service. She was a police officer in Nova Scotia and she volunteered as a firefighter. Christopher Garnier did not wear a uniform. He was is an adult and committed a horrendous crime: murder and desecration of the remains.

Having been minister and having spent my entire adult life either in uniform or supporting our troops through a variety of charities, some of which I was helpful in starting, there is no program in Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island for which this person would qualify. Someone pressured the system. Someone made a mistake, and the minister is allowing that to continue. At the same time, we are receiving reports from the department that waiting times are back up. We have a situation.

I would like the member who is heckling me to reflect on this. Their government is having wait times go up for veterans to access PTSD treatment while they are funding, inappropriately and immorally, the treatment of someone who killed someone in uniform.

I hope some of the media are watching this. There are none in the gallery. Had that happened under the last government there would have been 24-hour coverage. The PSAC public sector union would have been outraged and would have been having press conferences. This level of disrespect and incompetence appears to be accepted.

This is from a minister, whom I have tried to work with. I have said good things about him in the House. However, time after time we are disappointed. They are shelving a report on how well service dogs would help our veterans. Then when the minister takes meetings with advocates or talks to the media about it he admits he has not even read the report. He is mailing it in. That is not what our veterans deserve. That is not what we expect when a member of the House is given the honour to join the government as either a parliamentary secretary or a minister. They read the reports. They understand the file. They are not just a TV host trying to make people feel good. They have to understand what they are doing, and I have seen nothing but failure from the minister.

We are talking about the military. These people are recruited out of high school generally, or out of training or college. They serve our country for a number of years, or for a career, and then retire as a veteran. Our country has an obligation from the first time we speak to them about serving until the end of their lives. What I hear from veterans and Veterans Affairs employees in Prince Edward Island, who find this Garnier decision horrendous, is the government will not even acknowledge the profound absurdity of making veterans who are hurt wait behind someone who has PTSD because he killed someone. He has never been in uniform. He is an adult.

I know all the programs at Veterans Affairs and outside. This was a mistake, and it is morally reprehensible. We are going to be here every day talking about this until they do the right thing. The heckling shows just how disconnected the Liberal MPs are from Canadians, from veterans and from Canadians who many not have served but want to make sure they are helping our vets.

There were times when I was minister I said we fell short. We must own it when we have to do better. We must tell them we are listening.

We cannot suggest that privacy concerns means we cannot talk about why we are funding treatment for a murderer. That is an absence of leadership. It is an admission that they do not understand the programs and benefits available. We are speaking about military justice. If someone had been in uniform and committed that crime, that person would not get this treatment.

There are about 10 different ways to show how absurd this is, yet there is an inability to act. The same talking points get pulled out. The Liberals mention Harper a couple of times and think they can move on.

I have never seen such an incompetent government. After three years the only true accomplishment of the Liberal government under the present Prime Minister is marijuana. He made promises about electoral reform and about finances in terms of the budget, deficits and taxation. The only one, and I know it is a personal favourite for him, is marijuana.

The minister in charge of marijuana, when he was police chief in Toronto, spoke to the Scarborough Mirror and suggested even decriminalization was wrong. Now an hon. member, someone I like a great deal, is being forced to come out when doctors, physicians and everyone is upset, and cover that we are going to stumble through the legalization of something that we know causes harm.

Rather than heckling, those members should speak up. We know one who tried to speak up, the hon. member for Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill. She became tired of being ignored, of being one of the 32 sheep from Atlantic Canada. She made a principled decision to come over to a side where we can talk about these things, where we can talk about ways to move the country forward, where we can talk about issues we think are important. We do not have to wait for Mr. Butts to issue us talking points from the Prime Minister's Office.

Many of those members should go home this weekend and go into a coffee shop in their ridings and ask someone sitting there about the Garnier case, ask them if it is right to make veterans wait while inappropriately and immorally serving someone who killed a woman from Nova Scotia who wore the uniform.

Many of those members need to get out of their bubbles and talk to some real people. If next week they put the talking points away and do the right thing, once the minister reads the briefings on what programs are available in this context, they will realize there is no program for a non-dependent adult who has committed a horrendous crime, who has never served a day in uniform.

A mistake was made or inappropriate pressure was applied. If they root that out, correct it, I will stand in the House and thank them for finally doing the right thing.

Perhaps it is appropriate that the heckles from the Liberals took me into this subject. It is justice-related and it is military-related. More important than that, it is government confidence-related. Canadians see that waning.

Canadians see a government approaching the final year of its mandate, a government that is lurching from crisis to crisis, whether it is NAFTA on the rocks largely due to the government's own doing, or whether it is Trans Mountain, where, because of Bill C-69 we lost energy east because the Prime Minister cancelled northern gateway. He breached the duty to consult aboriginal owners of that line, one-third equity ownership with several first nations bands. I have spoken before in the House about several chiefs who were not consulted.

The Prime Minister violated his duty to consult first nations just like he did when he violated his duty to consult the Inuit when in Washington he made changes with respect to land and water in those areas without speaking to first nations leaders and by giving a courtesy call to the premier half an hour before the announcement.

It was crisis to crisis on veterans. The crisis really began in Belleville, Ontario, when the parliamentary secretary on U.S. relations, the Minister of National Defence and the member for Kelowna—Lake Country were standing behind the Prime Minister, wearing their medals, flown in from all over the country. I was veterans minister at the time. I was trying to fix things. I was being honest that we had work to do, but we were making progress.

He flew them in and made two key promises to our veterans, the people who serve and are governed by the National Defence Act and then retire, some with injury, some without. He told them two things at that event. First, that there was going to be a return to lifetime pensions. That was a return to the Pension Act. Why do I know that? Because when I was on the edge of settling the Equitas lawsuit with veterans, the settlement had to be turned into an abeyance agreement. Why? Because they were told the Liberals were going to return to the pension.

I had developed friendships with those veterans by that time, Mark Campbell, Aaron Bedard and many others. They remain friends and always will be. They felt bad when they called me and said that they would not be able to settle, but they wanted to work with me and put the lawsuit on hold.

In that promise made to Equitas veterans was the promise to return to the Pension Act. The pension for life announcement was made a couple of days before Christmas last year. That should have been a sign that Liberals were hiding bad news, announcing it literally on Christmas eve. It was essentially a slightly tweaked version of what I had already announced. There was no return to the Pension Act. The new veterans charter is still in place.

The other promise was to never see veterans in court fighting their government. What upsets me about that is the promise the Liberals made to the Equitas veterans, that they were going to return to the Pension Act, led to an abeyance agreement. However, that abeyance agreement expired when the Liberals were in power. What did they do? They did not renew that abeyance agreement; they let it lapse. Therefore, the court case was back on and they made military veterans go all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada. Again, the Liberals broke their central promises.

I like the minister. I know he has served honourably. I know people from his regiment. I know people who went to staff college with him. He is likeable. He has to start stepping up. I am calling that group of veterans behind him in those photos “the broken promises battalion”. They were called out from across the country for a media event when the Prime Minister had no intention of following through or he did not know the costing and ramifications of his promise, either one of those options, saying something one has no intention of following through on or not understanding the file enough to know the cost or ramifications of implementing a return to the Pension Act. Members should remember that the Pension Act was changed by a Liberal government. Honourable Canadians running for office, none of whom were actually members of Parliament at the time but they were all veterans, and I respect their service, all flanked the Prime Minister, medals on, while the Prime Minister said those two things: a return to lifetime pensions and veterans will never have to face their government in court.

Within two years, both of those promises were broken. Now the minister is not reading reports before meeting with veterans, who are juggling a lot of issues, sometimes injuries, and serious ones. Now we see the waning confidence in the minister fade even more when, as wait times increase. Miraculously to the front of the line for PTSD treatment comes someone who is in a correctional institution for murdering someone who wore not just one but two uniforms for her community and her province.

I want all of those Liberal members to go back to their ridings, speak to veterans, go to the legions, ask them what they think, come back next week and do the right thing.

Natural Resources

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, in response to a question, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources said that the energy east pipeline could rise from the ashes if TransCanada wanted it to.

Worse yet, he said that the government would use exactly the same decision-making process that the Conservatives did. Never mind BAPE, Quebec's environmental protection agency, or Quebec's approval, and there will be no environmental assessment as provided for under Bill C-69.

I will give the government another chance. Can the parliamentary secretary confirm that he will use the same process the Conservatives used and that he has no intention of respecting Quebec's environmental laws?

[Paul Lefebvre, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources, Lib.]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Nanaimo—Ladysmith for her important and timely question.

It is timely because we know that the Federal Court of Appeal recently ruled that the National Energy Board should have included marine transportation in its assessment of the Trans Mountain expansion proposal.

It is important because the issues she raised reflect what we on this side of the House have been saying from the outset: the economy and the environment must go hand in hand, and no relationship is more important to Canada than its relationship with indigenous peoples.

Those core values go to the heart of our government's vision for this clean-growth century. The good news is that our government is committed to ensuring that those values are respected in everything we do, including expansion of the Trans Mountain pipeline. That is why we introduced Bill C-69 to improve the way we review major resource projects.

That is why we are making the single-largest investment ever to protect Canada's oceans, marine life and coastal communities. The $1.5 billion oceans protection plan has been a cornerstone of our agenda and our efforts. The oceans protection plan strengthens the eyes and ears of the Canadian Coast Guard to ensure better communication to vessels, adds new radar sites in strategic locations, puts more enforcement officers on the coast and establishes the national aerial surveillance program to keep a watchful eye on ships and waters under our jurisdiction.

At the same time, the oceans protection plan strengthens our capacity to respond in the unlikely event of a spill, by adding more primary environmental response teams to bolster Coast Guard capacity, investing in new technologies and conducting scientific research to make cleanups more effective, including $80 million for groundbreaking research on the behaviour of diluted bitumen in marine settings. We are using every tool at our government's disposal to remain vigilant in protecting our coasts and marine life. That includes a $170 million action plan to protect the south resident killer whales.

The oceans protection plan is also building meaningful new partnerships with indigenous people in other coastal communities. This includes a Canadian first with the creation of an indigenous advisory and monitoring committee to oversee the safety of the TMX project through its entire life cycle. In addition, we have enhanced indigenous access to federal funding for economic development, job training and other business opportunities that will flow from the pipeline's possible expansion.

Our position is clear: We are committed to creating the prosperity we all want while protecting the planet we all cherish.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

But not for middle-class oil and gas workers, Mr. Speaker. Some 1.2 million barrels a day are flowing through new pipelines approved and built under Conservatives, which will rise to 2 million when Keystone XL is done, with no tax dollars needed. As of today, the Liberals have added zero after three years in government, and they blew $4.5 billion in tax dollars that will go into the U.S.

Every time the Prime Minister points to the past and blames others, he admits that he failed, and the Liberals still have no plan for the future. Their summer of failure is becoming their legacy of failure and it is hurting the whole country. When will he pull his ban-on-pipelines Bill C-69 and give a plan for Trans Mountain?

[Andrew Scheer, Conservative, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals bought it without building it. We will build it without having to buy it. That is the difference between us.

If the Liberals really wanted to develop Canada's energy sector and get our resources to market, they would invite energy east back to the table. They would scrap the carbon tax. They would scrap their plans for Bill C-69, the ban on pipelines bill.

Will the Prime Minister do any of those things to get our men and women in the country back to work?

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, whenever he fails, he just blames others. However, former Toronto Liberal MP and two-time Liberal leadership candidate Martha Hall-Findlay agrees the Liberals are failing. She said that Bill C-69 was “deeply flawed” and “Now is not the time to pass legislation that could make our investment climate even worse.”

The Liberals killed three private sector pipelines. Their failure stole Trans Mountain. One hundred thousand energy workers lost their jobs and hundreds of thousands more are at risk. Billions in investment is leaving Canada.

Will the Prime Minister scrap his no new pipeline Bill C-69 before he completely obliterates the Canadian energy sector?

[Jamie Schmale, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

I do appreciate the comments from my colleagues. I just want to add a few more items here, especially speaking as someone from Ontario who saw the effects of Liberal policies in action, specifically talking about General Electric in the City of Peterborough. That has been a company in the city since the 1800s. It's actually known as the “electric city”. General Electric had a contract to build motors for the energy east pipeline. Now, when the Liberals changed the rules halfway through the process multiple times, causing TransCanada to cancel its project, 300 jobs at General Electric were lost just like that. It was the straw that broke the camel's back for General Electric. Those 300 people are out of work and no longer receiving a paycheque, and there were the ripple effects that happened afterwards. A major factory with well-paid jobs was no longer in the City of Peterborough as a result of the cancellation of the energy east pipeline.

It should be noted that there are three big companies that have applied to build pipelines in this company, and all three are no longer doing so under the Liberal rule. There has been $4.5 billion to build a pipeline, right now, to nationalize the pipeline, and yet it's another failure. They claimed they were going to get it built. They claimed they were going to move forward, and yet we are seeing that money, $4.5 billion taxpayer dollars, going to the United States to build pipelines and other energy projects in the United States, not in Canada.

We are seeing billions leaving this country for projects outside our borders. People are now without jobs, without paycheques, selling off items they own in order to keep a roof over their heads. What do you say to the energy workers who were once making six figures or more and who are now making zero because of the policies of this Liberal government? I'm actually quite shocked—I think “shocked” is the right word—by the fact that we're not even coming back, that we don't have the minister standing in front of us with a plan. You'd think they would be preparing for this result on both sides—a positive court ruling or a negative court ruling—and they would be ready for that, and yet we're sitting here while the members across the way say, “Well, we would like to work on this a little bit more.” Well, that's not really reassuring to the thousands who are waiting to get back to work, people who want to work, who are now without a paycheque and without direction. We can't even get a commitment on when shovels will be back in the ground, to at least say, “Yes, eventually it will, on this date.” We can't get a time or a date from this government. It's like they're running around now trying to figure out what's next, and meanwhile they haven't even taken those thoughts forward, that they should be preparing for that and coming to Parliament, coming to this committee, with a plan to move this forward.

I go back to saying I am shocked that we are not here discussing their solution to the problem they caused. We said, over and over again, right from day one when they approved the Trans Mountain pipeline, that they needed to get in front of this. They needed to talk to the people in British Columbia. They needed to do everything they could to move this forward, because we agreed with their decision to approve that pipeline, and yet they didn't. They just seemed to hope that everything would fall into place by pure magic, and clearly it didn't. It was one problem after another, and repeated calls from the opposition about what their plan was. We threw out ideas, and there was still nothing. They just went back to the same old talking points that it would get built, almost like “We've got this under control”, and there has been one failure after another.

The Prime Minister should have gone out to British Columbia to speak with the new premier when he was sworn in. He avoided that over and over again. These conversations should have happened, but what happened? All sides dug in, and we're in the situation we're in now, with no plan to move forward. People's lives are on the line because they just lost their paycheques. Do they stay in their houses? Is there some light at the end of the tunnel?

I can also tell you, from Bill C-69, and I'll go back to the Ontario route, that even those in northern Ontario in the mining sector are quite concerned with this bill. There is no certainty for major projects in this country anymore. We continue to see investment flee this country under this government. What happens after that happens? We also start to lose major talent from this country because they will go elsewhere, where the jobs and opportunities are.

Again, I was hoping there would be a plan, a path forward, but we just have failure after failure. Think of our position with our issues with Saudi Arabia right now, had energy east been moving forward. Just think of the jobs and opportunities out there if we had been able to get Alberta energy out east, and that was a pipeline with most of it already there. It was just an addition on each end.

I obviously will support Mrs. Stubbs' motion. It's a common-sense motion. Hopefully, we can get some answers for these people who are now without a paycheque.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, all, for being here. I know some of you cut short your summer plans. I know I should be sitting in the dentist's chair right now; I'm concerned about that.

I think this is an important subject. I agree with the Conservatives that we need to talk about this, perhaps for completely different reasons, and I would support the motion.

We're obviously here today in this special meeting because of the recent Federal Court of Appeal decision to quash the federal government's approval of the Trans Mountain expansion project. The court quashed the approval based on two errors made. One was in the environmental assessment part, with regard to the lack of consideration of the marine transport issues. The other error was the inadequate consultation with first nations.

The Conservatives here are of course gleefully blaming the Liberals for this mess. It's true that the Liberals do deserve some of the blame here, but the irony in calling this meeting is that this is a problem that was created by the Conservatives in the previous government. It's doubly ironic, for instance, to hear Jason Kenney complaining about the incompetence of the Liberals in this file when he was at the cabinet table when this mess was created. It's the Liberals who ran on a promise to clean up this mess, to redo the approval process for Trans Mountain with a new system, and they failed to do that. That's why we're here today. It's the Conservatives creating this mess and the Liberals failing to clean it up. I hate to say I told you so, but that's why we're here.

In the rush to get pipeline projects done, the Conservatives got into the Fisheries Act, the Navigable Waters Protection Act, and the environmental assessment process. On their watch, the NEB hearings into the Trans Mountain expansion were widely criticized for being too narrow in scope, and they didn't properly consult with first nations. The courts also quashed the approval of the northern gateway pipeline for much the same reason they cited here. There's kind of a pattern.

Both the Liberals and the NDP, as I said, ran on the promise to redo the Trans Mountain expansion approval process under a new process with more rigorous science and more community input. The Prime Minister repeatedly said this on the campaign trail, but they broke that promise and instead simply had a ministerial panel tour through the region on very short notice to hear from first nations and other communities, businesses, and concerned citizens about the project. Nothing was even officially recorded at these meetings. The panellists simply took their own notes and produced a report at the end of the process. That report posed six questions that they felt the Liberal government had to answer before making its decision on the project. As far as I know, those questions have never been properly answered.

One of the two critical errors the government made, according to the Federal Court of Appeal, was the failure to properly consult with indigenous peoples. The consultation process was simply bureaucrats who were sent out to listen to first nations' concerns and relay those concerns to cabinet. As the court repeatedly stated in the decision, they were simply note-takers. There was no attempt made to actually address these concerns. In fact, the consultation team and the government mistakenly believed they couldn't add any more conditions on Kinder Morgan than the NEB had done, so why bother consulting if you can't make any change? That's what the court found was the critical error.

One example of that failure is the concern of the Coldwater first nation, which wanted the pipeline to take an optional route, the west route, so it avoided crossing their aquifer. That's a big concern, but there is no evidence that actually acting on that concern was ever considered.

I would like to quote a couple of paragraphs from the decision around the consultation process. It starts by saying that good faith is required on both sides in the consultative process:

The common thread on the Crown’s part must be “the intention of substantially addressing [Aboriginal] concerns” as they are raised...through a meaningful process of consultation.

It goes on to state the following:

The controlling question in all situations is what is required to maintain the honour of the Crown and to effect reconciliation between the Crown and the Aboriginal people with respect to the interests at stake.

Those are quotes that the court took from a previous ruling from the Haida Nation case. This is not news. The government knew this before they went into the process.

The decision goes on to make two final points on consultation. First, it says that when the crown knows, or ought to know, that its conduct may adversely affect the indigenous right or title of more than one first nation—we've heard concerns around that—each first nation is entitled to consultation based upon the unique facts and circumstances pertinent to it. So if half the first nations along the route were adequately consulted, or felt they were adequately consulted, and half felt they weren't, it's just not good enough. You have to consult with every first nation.

Second, to again quote from the decision, it's important to understand that the public interest and the duty to consult do not operate in conflict. As a constitutional imperative, the duty to consult “gives rise to a special public interest that supersedes other concerns” commonly considered by tribunals asked to assess the public interest. In the case of the board, a project authorization that breaches the constitutionally protected right of indigenous peoples cannot serve the public interest.

Earlier this year, I put a question on the Order Paper about the six questions that the ministerial panel posed. I want to quote one paragraph from the answer I received from the government that pertains to this consultation. It says:

While there are Indigenous communities opposed to the project, there are others in support of it. The goal of free, prior and informed consent is to ensure a holistic approach to interests, through transparent processes aimed at building consensus. It is the same goal at the heart of the Government's current legislation to modernize Canada's environmental assessments and regulatory reviews.

I could go on, but to me, this shows that the government doesn't get it. They are talking about building consensus within first nations. Each first nation has the right to proper consultation. When they talk about bringing indigenous rights—for instance, the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples—into modern Canadian legislation, they failed to do that in Bill C-69, the bill that updates our environmental assessment process. The government knew the proper way forward and they decided to do something quite different.

I'll just finish my comments on consultation by saying that the government knows what proper consultation is; they should. It's not an impossible task. It's been done before. It just requires more effort and a sincere desire to address the concerns rather than just write them down.

We heard here at this committee some good examples of that. There's the Squamish process regarding Woodfibre LNG. We heard how the Squamish Nation approached that and how that worked. It took some more effort, but it was done properly and they got to the endgame. We heard numerous examples from the mining industry. I think the mining industry has some great examples we can follow on how to properly consult with indigenous peoples and bring them into the benefits of resource extraction.

The other error the court of appeal pointed out was the failure to include concerns about marine transportation in the Trans Mountain expansion approval study. One of the main concerns there is the status of the southern resident population of orcas. That's something we heard a lot about in the news this summer. There were various new items on the plight of that population. The Liberals are relying on their oceans protection plan to cover off those concerns. It's a plan that claims to offer a world-class oil spill response.

This summer I was in Spokane, Washington, and I attended the Pacific NorthWest Economic Region meetings. They bring together legislators from across Oregon, Washington, over to Saskatchewan, and up to Alaska, the Yukon, and the Northwest Territories. I talked to American legislators and other people about the oceans protection plan, and they said one thing repeatedly. The ones who were very apprised of the situation said that Canada calls this a world-class plan, and it's world class only in the sense that it kind of meets basic world standards. It's not world class in the sense of being one of the best.

They pointed out that they have a very modern way of tracking shipping down the Pacific coast that Canada does not have. They want Canada to be part of this system so that we can act proactively when trouble occurs, and Canada has been stonewalling these attempts. They feel they have a real world-class system, and they're concerned about increasing oil tanker traffic off our coast, because they feel we're not putting in that extra effort.

I'll close here by saying that the actions of this government and the previous Conservative government have not only delayed these projects that they feel are so important to Canada but have polarized public opinion on pipelines and resource extraction in general. When people who are concerned about the environment or first nations reconciliation are labelled “foreign-funded radicals”, it makes the wide public choose sides and makes it very difficult to have a reasonable discourse. I think there's a way forward to reduce this polarization. I think it's important that we as a nation travel that path, because right now it's very difficult to have polite discourse on pipelines or on a lot of things, such as climate action, in Canada.

I've been involved in a number of meetings here in Ottawa with a group called Positive Energy out of the University of Ottawa. I'm not sure if anyone else here has gone to those meetings. Their goal is to find ways to bridge that gap, to bring these sides together, so that we can have these important conversations.

I was at one of their meetings and happened to be sitting next to the pollster Nik Nanos. He had done some polling for Positive Energy. That polling found that only 2% of Canadians had high confidence in our energy regulatory system—in the National Energy Board, essentially. I won't go into all the details, but he said that in the polling there was a path forward. The path forward was through more involvement of first nations and local communities to bring those voices into the national discourse and into the regulatory process. That would give people more confidence there. We have to look down that path.

To finish, the NDP was criticized for our call to redo the Trans Mountain expansion process under a proper system. Critics said it would take too long, an extra year or two. Well, here we are, three years later, and we're back at square one. The court decision is a reminder that we have to put in the effort at the start. There are no shortcuts.

We feel it's time for a thorough and critical look at our energy strategy in Canada and time to invest boldly in the clean energy sector to provide good, long-lasting jobs in a sector that is the true future of the world energy market. We feel that purchasing old pipelines is not a proper use of public funds. Let's invest in the future.

Thank you.

Impact Assessment Act

[The Speaker, Geoff Regan]

I declare these elements carried.

The House passed Bill C-69, 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, in its entirety, at third reading.

(Bill read the third time and passed)

[The Speaker, Geoff Regan]

Pursuant to order made on Tuesday, May 29, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded divisions at third reading of Bill C-69.

The question is on part 1 regarding the impact assessment act, part 2 regarding the Canadian energy regulator act, the title, the preamble, the schedule, and all clauses in part 4, except clauses 85, 186, 187, and 195.

The House resumed from June 19 consideration of the motion that Bill C-69, 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, be read the third time and passed.

[Jim Carr, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

We're making very important strides in partnering with indigenous communities. The best example is in my department. We approached the indigenous communities located down the Line 3 replacement and the TMX line with a blank sheet of paper—not with our ideas written on the other side, but a blank sheet. We said to them, let's co-develop a monitoring system so that indigenous communities up and down these two lines are very much a part of ensuring that construction is done safely and the monitoring that throughout its life cycle. This has never been done before. It's a very important development.

By the way, in fairness, not all of these communities want the pipeline. Some of the chiefs had to go back to their communities when they knew that the majority of their residents were opposed to the pipeline for a variety of reasons. But when it came time to working with Canada to co-develop terms of reference and to be involved in monitoring the safe construction, the communities were in. That took great courage from indigenous leaders.

Another set of communities has chosen to sign on to benefit agreements with Kinder Morgan—some 43 of them, 33 of them in British Columbia—creating opportunity for these communities and their young people for employment, skills development, and community benefit. This is good. It's something that we have to understand is part of the future of resource development in Canada. Indigenous partnerships are a part of the reality. You saw that in Bill C-69, where we say right at the very beginning that these consultations have to start at the front end. I think Perry Bellegarde, chief of the Assembly of First Nations, said it best: “You don't build anything until you build relationships”. We have had the pleasure in our department of building relationships over a longer period of time. I think that speaks very well.

On Canada's role in the world, I didn't understand when I was appointed to this job how much time I'd be spending on an airplane—going to Beijing, Delhi, Mexico, Argentina, and Paris—but that's the way it is, because energy is international and pollution knows no boundaries. The reason Canada is such a welcome partner in the international community is the the richness, diversity, and abundance of energy we have and our proven track record as innovators. We are very confident that other countries will be looking to Canada for the way forward. I think we have the capacity to lead. I'm very optimistic about the future, and I think we should all be very proud of the steps we've taken and continue to take.

Aeronautics Act

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

Mr. Speaker, I always welcome the opportunity to comment on private members' bills. As members opposite will know, I am somewhat opinionated on issues that I believe are of national importance. It is not often that I agree with so many comments of my friend from across the way in the Conservative Party. Maybe we can find some commonality among parties inside the chamber, with the possible exception of some Quebec members of Parliament associated with the Bloc. That is why when I posed the question earlier, I made reference to my own heritage.

I am very much a proud Canadian. I think that we live in the best country in the world. I really believe in Canada's diversity and the rich heritage that can be witnessed in all provinces across our country. I am very proud, for example, of the St. Boniface area, with its very large francophone community that is quite possibly the largest in western Canada, as well as St-Pierre-Jolys where my grandparents came from, prior to coming from la belle province of Quebec. I understand the importance of the many different regions and the beauty from within that diversity.

Having said all that, I am very much a nationalist. I believe that we need strong national leadership on a wide number of fronts. It is in all the regions' best interests to have a government that is prepared to demonstrate leadership issues on those important files. That is ultimately, I would suggest, in the nation's best interest. We have witnessed that very recently.

If this bill were to become law, think of the impact it would have on what has been an incredible issue that has been debated and discussed in this chamber for a number of years. It has been fairly well debated even in the last number of days and weeks. That is in regard to the extension of the pipeline, the Trans Mountain expansion, which was deemed to be in Canada's national interest. As a result, we have the national government playing a fairly proactive role in ensuring that the extension takes place. It is sound policy.

My friend across the way talked about the importance of communities and working with communities, provinces, and municipalities. This government takes that very seriously. A good example of that is the Trans Mountain expansion. We have worked closely with not only provinces and municipalities, but as well with indigenous peoples to resolve a very important debate.

When I talked about the Trans Mountain expansion as one of the areas that is in the national interest, I made reference to my home province of Manitoba. I said that Manitoba has been a have-not province in terms of equalization. It is a beautiful province and I am very proud of it. However, in terms of equalization, we have received literally hundreds of millions, going into billions, of dollars on an annual basis.

That is important to note when we take a look at Alberta and the wealth that it has generated, with its contributions to equalization, and the positive impact that it has had on provinces like Quebec, Manitoba, and many others that have received significant amounts of funds through the development of the beautiful resources that we have. In particular, this one here happens to be oil. It has provided for things such as better quality health care, better quality education, and even investments in many environmentally friendly energy or high-tech companies.

I would argue that this legislation, if it were to pass, would prevent the national government from being able to take the actions necessary once it was deemed that this was in the nation's best interests.

In good part, for that reason I cannot support this legislation. I differ from members opposite. There are many federal areas of responsibility. We could talk about airports, parks, and other lands owned and run by the national government and I believe the national government needs to play that leading role. Quite often, leading means working with the different stakeholders.

This is not to take anything away from provincial jurisdiction or municipal responsibilities they carry out. I am very much aware of that. However, I believe Canadians in every region of our country will recognize there is a responsibility of strong leadership coming from Ottawa to protect those ideas and developments in the national interest. An example is transportation corridors, and we can factor into those transportation corridors our airline industries. Check with the municipalities or the City of Montreal on just how economically important, not to mention socially important, the Montreal airport is to the city and the province. This is also the case with other airports throughout our country, even our more rural airports, in terms of the lands and their operations and what sort of impact this legislation could have on them. The federal government has a responsibility to the population as a whole for such issues.

When I look at the national government and the types of things we have seen developed over the years, I see that it does have a role to play in the environment. We have seen very progressive policies, legislation, and commitments through national budgets in the last couple of years. For example, members made reference to Bill C-69.

We have a government that recognizes it has a role to play. Shortly after the Prime Minister was elected, he went to Paris and invited other stakeholders. I do not know if it is the case, but the Premier of Quebec might have been there. However, I believe other stakeholders such as provinces were represented in Paris. Often we find there is a high sense of co-operation between the different levels of government on those important issues, upon their return. Working with Ottawa and provinces, they can come up with good, sound environmental policies. We can learn from provincial jurisdictions. Some provinces are more progressive than others in different areas of development. The federal government has a role to encourage best practices where it can, and to ultimately have that holistic approach in the overall promotion and development of standards across Canada. As well, where necessary, it needs to be more directly involved, as with Trans Mountain.

When we look at the legislation coming before us, what the member is proposing is that Ottawa ultimately transfer its responsibilities to the provinces. Often my concern with members, whether from the Bloc or the separatist element, is that even though part of their motivation on the surface might be to introduce positive legislation, another part of the motivation is to not necessarily do what is in the best interest of the nation as a whole, but for one region of the country.

Ultimately, what is in Canada's best interest is in the best interest of our provinces, both collectively and individually.

We must continue to work with provinces, municipalities, indigenous groups, and others to ensure that we continue to build that consensus so that Canada remains a country of diversity and a country that understands and appreciates the true value of being a federalist state, and so that we ultimately develop our resources.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House to outline my position and the position of the NDP on the bill put forward by my colleague from Repentigny.

I think her bill has many interesting elements with regard to respecting the jurisdictions of Quebec and the other provinces, municipal officials, and certain acts and regulations Quebec or other provinces have passed to protect ecosystems, public health, or local residents. Legal and constitutional matters are being raised. There is also the matter of respecting the Quebec nation, as well as respecting the concept known as social licence. Today, no government of any kind can just barge in like in the old days and try to impose its projects in spite of misgivings or fierce opposition from local, regional, or indigenous communities.

I found it hilarious, but at the same time kind of tragic, to hear the Liberal member say earlier that this bill would undermine her party's efforts to promote co-operative federalism.

That takes some nerve. I do not know whether Kinder Morgan, health transfers, or marijuana mean anything to them in terms of co-operative federalism. That is the type of approach they promised to take during the election, but since they took office, the Liberals have been all about unilateralism, federal imperialism, bulldozing, and charging ahead. I think that is absolutely shameful.

In fact, I would like to point something out to the member for Winnipeg North, the parliamentary secretary. He asked a question earlier and I remembered it. I would simply like to tell him that Quebec is not a region. It is a nation. It was not the National Assembly that said that. That was recognized here in the House of Commons and by the Parliament of Canada. I think the member should do his homework and find out exactly what motions have already been adopted here.

The bill introduced by the member for Repentigny has to do with Quebec, of course, but it also has to do with all of the provinces. It seeks to establish a balanced approach that respects the different jurisdictions of the provinces, the federal government, the municipalities, and first nations.

I would like to remind members of the NPD's approach. A few years ago, we had a leader named Jack Layton. He believed that the recognition of the Quebec nation should have implications and consequences, and he took that very seriously. That resulted in a very interesting document entitled the Sherbrooke declaration, drawn up by Pierre Ducasse. The Sherbrooke declaration, which was historically adopted by the NDP, recognizes the Quebec nation and asymmetrical federalism. For years, we have been accused of being a centralist party, but all of the Canada-wide programs that the NDP has proposed have had a Quebec clause that would allow the province to opt out with financial compensation if it was not interested in the program or if it already had an equivalent program. That is what I mean by asymmetrical federalism.

In terms of co-operative federalism, the bill is a step in the right direction. That is why the NDP will proudly support this bill so that it may be studied in committee. We have questions about the mechanics of the bill and how the courts will interpret the fact that we are restoring balance between various jurisdictions and, if possible, those with the best environmental assessments and the strongest social licence. However, I think that this is worth studying. We agree in principle. Second reading is a vote on the principle. We want to refer the bill to committee to be studied. We have some questions, but we think that the spirit of the bill is consistent with our vision. It is also a step in the right direction toward better understanding, to better protect our communities and the people who want to protect their lakes, rivers, farmland, and simply their peace and quiet. They can protect their creek from one end to the other as well. I am sure that if we can sit down and talk about this we will come to an agreement at some point.

The member for Repentigny introduced a bill that will amend eight federal acts, forcing Ottawa to respect applicable provincial laws and municipal regulations governing land use and development.

That is very important because land development is key here and the government has to do a better job of respecting that. This bill will affect wharves, ports, airports, telecommunications infrastructure, federal properties, interprovincial pipelines, and more.

This bill does not explicitly state how it changes the status quo, and that is what we have questions about. The bill simply says that the exercise of the powers in question must comply with provincial laws.

I believe my colleague from Repentigny mentioned an example to do with the Canada National Parks Act, which already takes certain provincial jurisdictions and regulations into consideration. In many cases, the exercise of powers under federal law is already subordinate to provincial laws, including those that govern land development and environmental protection. We do not see this as an inapplicable precedent or something unprecedented. This is the natural extension of a principle we agree with. Remains to be seen how it will apply in real life.

The bill's purpose is to give the governments of Quebec and the other provinces more power over land development within their borders. The bill would require the federal government to recognize agricultural zoning regulations, for example, and to respect more exacting environmental assessments, such as those carried out by the BAPE, Quebec's environmental assessment agency. We can talk more about that.

As the Green Party leader said, the Liberal government's Bill C-69 does not inspire confidence in the seriousness of the government's new environmental assessment processes. In some ways, this bill is full of holes. We do not even know if it will be enforced or if the Minister of Environment and Climate Change will abide by these recommendations. After all, her discretionary power is absolute.

In accordance with the division of powers under the Constitution, the laws affected by this bill are a matter of federal jurisdiction. According to the Library of Parliament analysis that we requested, it is impossible to determine the legislation's exact scope from its current wording. It is possible that the courts will interpret the provisions of Bill C-392 as an incorporation by reference of provincial laws, meaning that it incorporates, for the purposes of the eight laws amended, the rules set out by the provinces. If it turns out that the courts consider that the provisions of Bill C-392 incorporate by reference the provincial laws related to the eight laws amended, these provincial laws, for the purposes of these eight laws, will be considered to be federal laws. This is a common legislative technique that has a great deal of precedent. However, the real effects remain unknown for the time being. It will be important to examine these points and questions when the bill is studied in committee.

We also consulted David Robitaille, tenured professor in the Faculty of Law at the University of Ottawa. He thinks this bill is interesting and could result in a better division of the responsibilities and decision-making powers between the federal government and provincial governments, or the Government of Quebec in this particular instance.

There are a number of examples in which this could have made a difference if the bill introduced by the member for Repentigny had already been applied. For example, there is the private developer operating near Shawinigan that had the right to operate a small airport on private land or to fly a float plane on a lake, even though it was prohibited by a municipal zoning bylaw or provincial law, such as the Act Respecting the Preservation of Agricultural Land and Agricultural Activities. This is the kind of situation we must stop from happening.

I think it is important to be open, show common sense, and send this bill to committee, so that we can respect Quebec laws, provincial laws, and municipalities.

The current Liberal government violated the rights of indigenous peoples and of British Columbia. It barged in and bought a 65-year-old pipeline for $4.5 billion. It completely disregarded all of the orders from the Government of British Columbia. As a Quebecker, I would be particularly concerned that it might manage to revive a pipeline project like energy east, which had massive opposition throughout Quebec, in Montreal, in the metropolitan area, in towns, and in the regions. Energy east would have crossed 800 rivers in Quebec, including the St. Lawrence. The government needs to understand that it must sit down with Quebec, the provinces, and municipalities to talk things over, like a respectful partner.

[Karen McCrimmon, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today about Bill C-392.

Bill C-392 touches upon several subjects, including intergovernmental relations, federalism, and the paramountcy principle, matters that have been debated in both houses of Parliament in relation to a wide range of subjects. In essence, this bill seeks to allow provincial governments to impose restrictions on environmental protection activities and land use for projects which the federal government undertakes across the country.

I applaud the member for Repentigny's initiative to give more prominent consideration to the environment and land use when projects and activities that fall under federal jurisdiction are being considered.

The government also believes that the environment is worth protecting. Canadians should know that their governments, at all levels, are working together to achieve economic and environmental objectives and are acting in the interests of their safety and security.

Every day millions of Canadians can go about their lives in an orderly and predictable way. They get into their cars that start and stop as they should; drive on roads where people follow the rules; buy groceries that are free from contaminants; land in airplanes at airports that are safe; drink water that is clean; and sleep well at night, knowing that our police, fire departments, paramedics, and military personnel are on guard for our security.

Our society depends on laws and rules to function, and each level of government is responsible for those things that fall into its jurisdiction. Education, building codes and highways, for example, are primarily provincial responsibilities. Matters such as defence, aeronautics, and radio communications, for example, extend beyond provincial borders and impact the country as a whole. In these areas, it falls to the federal government to implement a nationally consistent approach that serves Canada and its people.

As we all know, the division of powers in Canada has been defined in the Constitution Act, but we also know that this division is not black and white. There are many areas and many issues where interests will cross jurisdictional lines, where two or even three levels of government have a stake in an issue, like the environment, like health, like safety, like employment.

The Government of Canada works with the provinces on matters such as education, health, and employment. Likewise, the provinces work with the Government of Canada on matters that fall under federal jurisdiction.

This division of power is essential to maintaining order and predictability in our society. It ensures that we avoid the scenario of too many leaders in one situation or a leadership void when no one else wants to take responsibility in another. In Canada, all jurisdictions must work together on certain issues to promote and protect the interests of all Canadians. Even when we agree to work together, we must still respect jurisdictional boundaries.

Recent Supreme Court decisions on the doctrine of interjurisdictional immunity have stated that provincial and municipal legislation cannot impair core matters of federal jurisdiction over aeronautics or radio communication infrastructure.

While these decisions quite clearly establish federal authority on matters such as aerodromes and cell phone towers, the government does not hide behind interjurisdictional immunity to run roughshod over communities.

In fact, to ensure that local concerns are taken into consideration for activities and projects that fall under federal jurisdiction, the government puts processes in place for consultation and the consideration of environmental laws and land use.

I would like to illustrate this point with a few examples.

First, in January 2017, following a regulatory consultation process, Transport Canada implemented a new regulation called Canadian aviation regulation 307–aerodromes–consultations. The regulation was specifically established to require proponents of certain aerodrome projects to consult with affected stakeholders before starting work so local concerns could be identified and mitigated.

As another example, under the Canada Marine Act, Canada port authorities are charged with the management of federal real property and marine assets as well as navigable waters within the ports. In addition to abiding by all federal legislation and regulations, the Canada Marine Act provides for the incorporation of provincial legislation by reference to address specific issues when the need arises. As a result, British Columbia's liquefied natural gas regulation is being applied to the federal lands being managed by the Prince Rupert Port Authority.

My third and final example is the Canada Infrastructure Bank funding program. The Canada Infrastructure Bank acts as a minority partner in delivering federal support to infrastructure projects, alongside co-investment by private sector and institutional investors and sponsoring governments. Projects supported by the bank must respect all applicable laws in the relevant jurisdiction, including any applicable environmental or labour laws. Project sponsors are required to provide assurance to the bank and other investors that all applicable laws in a province have been respected.

The reason these specific examples were chosen is because these initiatives, all of which require consultation and consideration of local issues related to land use and the environment, are taken from the very acts that the private member's bill seeks to amend. There are countless other examples in the same acts and elsewhere that demonstrate the government's commitment to hearing the concerns of Canadians.

Because the government is not above listening and improving, it is constantly looking for ways to demonstrate this commitment.

Recently, it introduced Bill C-69, 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. Bill C-69 exceeds the amendments proposed in Bill C-392 and would explicitly reflect the consideration of environmental, social, safety, health, socio-economic issues, including gender-based impacts, economics, and impacts on indigenous peoples.

Bill C-69 will also provide the public an opportunity to express their views during review processes.

As we all know, there are many issues that transcend municipal and provincial boundaries, and many others where the federal government may be unaware of local concerns. For this reason, taking a co-operative approach achieves the best possible outcome for all Canadians. With a country as large and diverse as Canada, we must all act in good faith and work together to achieve the best possible results for our economy and the environment and for our citizens.

Co-operation is a fine balance. There have been, and will continue to be, times when differences arise despite our best efforts to work together. Even the strongest relationships will experience disagreements.

Bill C-392 would represent a major shift in federal-provincial dynamics in Canada and would undermine the co-operative relationship that we have worked so hard to establish.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the hon. member from Repentigny on her private member’s bill. I fully support the bill’s objective.

As my colleague mentioned, it is unacceptable that the government is ignoring the will of British Columbians in the matter of the Kinder Morgan pipeline.

With Bill C-69, there will be no credible assessment process for projects such as pipelines at the federal level. We must protect the provinces’ right to conduct more appropriate assessments, such as those conducted by the Bureau d’audiences publiques sur l’environnement.

What does my colleague think about this shortcoming in Bill C-69?

Impact Assessment Act

[The Speaker, Geoff Regan]

It being 3:10 p.m., pursuant to an order made on Tuesday, May 29, 2018, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the previous question at the third reading stage of Bill C-69.

Call in the members.

The House resumed from June 18 consideration of the motion that Bill C-69, 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, be read the third time and passed, and of the motion that this question be now put.

National Security Act, 2017

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

Madam Speaker, I would say this to the hon. member for Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke. I remember the fight we had in the 41st Parliament with respect to Bill C-51, the so-called Anti-terrorism Act, which I believe made Canada much less safe. It is hard for me to actually vote for Bill C-59 now, especially when I hear his very good arguments.

However, I will tell him why I am going to vote for Bill C-59. I am very relieved to see improvements to what I thought were the thought-chill provisions in Bill C-51, the rules against the promotion of unexplained terrorism “in general”. There are big improvements to the no-fly list. However, there are not enough improvements, for my taste, to the ability of CSIS to take kinetic action. The big failure in Bill C-59 in front of us is the information sharing around what Canadians are doing with other governments.

The irony for me is that the Liberals voted for Bill C-51 in the 41st Parliament and voted against the destruction of environmental assessments in Bill C-38. Ironically, I think they have done a better job now of fixing the bill they voted for than of fixing the bill they voted against, at least as far as environmental assessments go. Therefore, I am voting against Bill C-69 on environmental assessments. However, I am voting for Bill C-59. I am influenced a lot by Professors Craig Forcese and Kent Roach, who overall think this is an improvement. I do too, overall. However, it does not fix everything Bill C-51 did to make us less safe.

I appreciate the member's thoughtful analysis, and I am going to vote for it, but with misgivings.

Impact Assessment Act

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague from North Okanagan—Shuswap brings up a great point. I meant to bring it up, but I got so excited about all the other topics.

Bill C-69 and Bill C-68 are fluff pieces that kind of weighed into the 2015 campaign promises to the environmental groups. Fishermen groups have come to my office to tell me that when the Conservatives were in power, they could get in to see a minister, and now they need to go through an environmental group to see a minister. I have also heard that sitting around the table to develop this policy are more environmental groups than the actual stakeholders whom this is going to affect the most. We also know who is calling the shots at the highest level of government. It is Gerald Butts, who was the president and CEO of the World Wildlife Fund prior to coming to his current office and calling the shots.

Bill C-69 represents another fluff piece of legislation that both sides have said does not go far enough. I have said it before: Canadians and industry deserve a champion, and they are going to get one in 2019.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank our colleague from Calgary Midnapore for a very heartfelt intervention. I think I have just scrapped my entire speech because of what our colleague has mentioned.

It brought me back to growing up in the Cariboo and what our thoughts and dreams were as kids. I was one of the those kids who wanted to be a hockey player and to move on. However, the reality was, we were probably going to become a logger or a farmer, because that is what we did, and that is what we do very well in the Cariboo.

Bill C-69 bring us back to yet another failed election promise of the Liberals and to some of what we have mentioned throughout this House over recent days, weeks, and months. When the member for Papineau was campaigning in 2015, he talked about letting debate reign, yet here we sit.

This is the 44th time allocation that has been imposed on this House, meaning that the members of Parliament on the opposition side, and the Canadians who elected them, have not had the full opportunity to present their feelings about what the government is doing, whether it is on Bill C-69, Bill C-59, Bill C-71, or Bill C-68.

Thank goodness that the Standing Orders dictate that private members' bills cannot be time allocated, and our late colleague, Senator Enverga's private member's bill, Bill S-218, has had the full breadth of comments and support.

Bill C-69 seeks to reverse the 2012 changes to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. I will bring us back again to the promise from the member for Papineau, or one of the Liberals, who said that the government would undertake a full review of laws, policies, and operational practices when it comes to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act.

There are a number of people, groups, and organizations that have serious concerns over what Bill C-69 proposes. Our hon. colleague has mentioned, and it has been mentioned before, that most notably the legislation says it intends to decrease the timelines for both major and minor projects. Unfortunately, there are a myriad of ministerial and Governor in Council exemptions that can be exercised to slow down approvals.

What Bill C-69 represents is not a further clarification of the rules and regulations so that project proponents and those who are trying to enforce the act know where they stand, but rather it muddies the waters. What we have heard time and again, what the committee heard time and again, was that it was a wait and see. There was a lot of concern, and indeed those very groups, the environmental groups, that the Liberals campaigned to and got their vote are now saying that it does not meet the standards.

We have seen this over and over again with the government. It likes to say it has consulted with Canadians, and its Liberal members stand with their hand on their heart and talk about how important consultation is. Yet we know, time and again, as it is with the cannabis legislation, the Liberals are rushing legislation through without fully looking at some of the concerns that have been brought forward by the groups, the organizations, and the stakeholders who are going to be most impacted.

Let us talk about the Arctic surf clam in my file. I cannot stand up and do a speech nowadays without bringing up this injustice. The minister was given the authority and the discretion to go in and implement policy, without anybody checking how this would impact the stakeholders, and without the minister consulting about how that policy would impact those on the ground, the stakeholders, whose livelihoods truly depend on the Arctic surf clam fishery. These are some of the concerns that we have.

When the member for Papineau was campaigning, he said that omnibus bills were done for, and yet here we are again debating another 400-page piece of legislation.

He also talked about maybe having a small deficit of $10 billion. We now know that it will not be our children but our grandchildren who will see a balanced budget, because of the Liberal government's spending.

Bill C-69 represents more broken promises, and it does nothing to give confidence to industry. We know at this time that foreign investment is fleeing our nation at record levels. The CEO from Suncor recently spoke to Bill C-69 and said that it had absolutely put a nail in the coffin of Canadian investment in industry.

The government would like everyone to believe that it knows best and that the Ottawa-developed policies have the best intentions for Canadians, yet the Liberals are not listening when Canadians are speaking. They are not allowing members of Parliament to stand and bring the voices of Canadians to Parliament.

It would not be one of my speeches if I did not remind the House and Canadians that the House does not belong to me, and it sure as heck does not belong to those on the government side. It belongs to Canadians. All 338 members of Parliament and the Canadians who elected them deserve to have a say and to have their voices heard. When the government is forcing time allocation on pieces of legislation that fundamentally are going to have an impact on Canadians' lives, Canadians deserve to have a say.

Industry is shaken at the government's lack of consultation and lack of understanding on how we are moving forward. A good friend of mine, the hon. member for North Okanagan—Shuswap, asked our colleague from Calgary Midnapore about the industry's lack of confidence. Is it the carbon tax and the fact that the government refuses to tell Canadians how much it is going to be? Is it Bill C-69, the regulatory environment, that is shaking the confidence of the industry? Is it other legislation that is shaking the confidence of industry, or is it all of the above?

I would offer one more. The Prime Minister, in one of his earliest speeches to the world, spoke about how Canada was going to be known more for its resourcefulness than for its natural resources. The Liberals have waged war against our energy sector from day one. He said he wished the government could phase out the energy sector sooner and apologized for it.

Canadians and the energy sector, our natural resource industry, deserve a champion. The Minister of Natural Resources has said that it is about time our forestry producers and our energy producers got in line with what the world is doing in terms of technology and sustainable harvesting.

Whether it is our softwood lumber producers, our oil and gas producers, our fishermen on the Atlantic and Pacific coasts, or our farmers, Canada has some of the best, if not the best, in terms of technology and harvesting. They are leading the way. They just need a champion. Guess what? They will have that in 2019, when the Conservatives regain the right side of the House.

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Sadly, Mr. Speaker, my colleague from North Okanagan—Shuswap knows that the response is “all of the above”. It is for a multitude of reasons that we are in fear of this piece of legislation, and for all of those reasons, the project approval, the uncertainty in regard to market access, the foreign investment that is in large exodus from Canada. The sad thing is that there are so many other reasons beyond those three, and as they relate specifically to Bill C-69, they are the carbon tax, red tape, taxation structures in general. It is a very unfortunate time for not only the oil and gas sector, but for Canadian industry in general. I am very worried for the future of not only my son, but for all the young inhabitants of Calgary Midnapore.

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time today with the hon. member for Cariboo—Prince George.

The proposed legislation before us is very concerning for me, and I will tell members why.

I am a member of Parliament who is very fortunate to have grown up in my riding of Calgary Midnapore and to represent the place where I grew up. Calgary Midnapore is a beautiful riding in the south-central part of Calgary. It is home to five beautiful lakes. I was very fortunate to have grown up in one of these lake communities, called Lake Bonavista. In addition to Lake Bonavista, there is Lake Midnapore, Lake Chaparral, and Lake Sundance. We are so very fortunate to have come from these communities, which are lovely family environments. People grow up in the summer swimming in these lakes and in the winter skating on them. These communities really are the backbone of the riding.

These communities were built on the back of the energy sector, the oil and gas sector. It is something everyone in the community recognizes. Everyone is very proud that these lovely communities were built with the oil and gas sector. When we went to school in Calgary Midnapore, it was with the hope that one day, we would go on to high school and perhaps the University of Calgary, where we have prestigious business and engineering programs. I am a very proud graduate of the University of Calgary.

When I went to my niece Samantha's grade 4 graduation six years ago, all the students who were moving on to middle school went to the microphone and said what they hoped to do. Outside of many young people there wanting to be hockey players, so many said that they wanted to be accountants or engineers like their moms and go on to work in the oil and gas sector.

This was just part of who we were and our upbringing. We would grow up in these lovely communities and get an education with not only the hope but the confidence that we would have good jobs in the oil and gas sector when we were finished our education. We would get married, raise families, and have confidence that we would be able to provide for our families as a result of the oil and gas sector, which was so relied upon by this community for so long. It was such a backbone of not only Calgary Midnapore but of Calgary itself, Alberta, and beyond. It is similar, perhaps, to how people in our capital might reference the public sector.

In addition to that, there was an appreciation of the National Energy Board. It was seen as an institution in Calgary. It was well understood that the decisions that came out of the National Energy Board had gone through a rigorous process, with proper consideration of all the factors necessary to support a thriving oil and gas sector and a prudent oil and gas sector, one that took into account the many needs and considerations of project approval.

These are two sacred cows in the riding I represent and grew up in: the oil and gas sector, and the confidence within that sector; and the National Energy Board. Unfortunately, with Bill C-69, we are seeing these concepts, these things Calgarians count on, thrown out the window entirely. These things will not exist any longer as we knew them before.

It is because of these considerations that provide so much more uncertainty in this sector, not only for the citizens of Calgary Midnapore, but in Calgary and beyond. Of course, the considerations I am referring to are numerous, but they include health, social issues, gender issues, and indigenous rights.

Therefore, going forward, everything has changed as we know it in the oil and gas sector for my constituents of Calgary Midnapore. We are seeing this take place in a number of ways, and one is in the uncertainty of project approval. I have a quote from the Canadian Energy Pipeline Association.

CEPA is very concerned with the scope of the proposed new Impact Assessment process. From the outset, CEPA has stated that individual project reviews are not the appropriate place to resolve broad policy issues, such as climate change, which should be part of a Pan-Canadian Framework. Including these policy issues adds a new element of subjectivity that could continue to politicize the assessment process.

That is what I said when the NEB review came out last year. I said that the right hon. Prime Minister wrote the report he wanted, and he got the outcomes he wanted in regard to what I believe is essentially destroying the NEB. Everything certainly has changed.

We are hearing a lot of other things in regard to project approvals from industry members themselves, who are very concerned. Here is a quote from a land manager at Cona Resources, a foreign investment company that has left Canada. I will talk a little more about this later, but it is not alone in its exodus. It said, “To a certain extent, Canada will remain a higher cost country because of the social infrastructure that we have in place and our social licence to operate. While there is some opportunity to reduce some of those, the costs are not a net benefit to the country. I don't think that is what is deterring foreign investment. I think if we had greater consistency in both the royalties and taxation structure, people would be more comfortable. The uncertainty is what drives away project approval and foreign investment, and you have to sort of rely on your desire. If the project is a net benefit to Canada as a whole, you have to trust that the federal government will be able to enforce the decisions that were made, and trust that they are making the right decisions.”

Therefore, Bill C-69 is very concerning to industry members as well.

With regard to uncertainty to market access, we have seen that in a number of projects recently. Petronas LNG, a $36-billion project, has left Canada as a result of the uncertainty of project approval, and therefore market access. Keystone, with 830,000 barrels of oil a day, an $8-billion project, is at this time not going forward. Energy east, a $15.7-billion project, was abandoned, squarely on the NEB decision to consider direct and indirect greenhouse emissions. Northern gateway would have provided close to 4,000 jobs.

What else are we seeing? We are seeing foreign investment fleeing, as I mentioned previously. The corporations are too numerous to mention, but I will name a few of them. There is Royal Dutch Shell. It has gone. Growing up in Calgary Midnapore, I remember during the 1988 winter Olympics, people wearing their Shell jackets with pride. There is Statoil, a Norwegian company. We have heard a lot about Norway in our conversations here. Marathon Oil is out the door, as is ConocoPhillips. Investment is simply not attractive in Canada at this time, and we continue to see these investments leaving Canada.

I mentioned previously an event I went to called SelectUSA, where the U.S. consulates network is working very hard to attract even Canadian investment outside of Canada to the States. That is because that environment is providing a more competitive environment and better place for corporations to do business at this time.

In conclusion, I will say for Calgary Midnapore and Canadians that things will never be the same after Bill C-69.

The House resumed from June 12 consideration of the motion that Bill C-69, 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, be read the third time and passed.

Standing Order 69.1—Bill C-59—Speaker's Ruling

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

The Chair is now prepared to rule on the point of order raised June 11, 2018 by the hon. member for Beloeil—Chambly concerning the applicability of Standing Order 69.1 to Bill C-59, an act respecting national security matters.

The Chair would like to thank the hon. member for having raised this question, as well as the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons for his intervention.

The hon. member argued that Bill C-59 is an omnibus bill as he feels it contains several different initiatives which should be voted on separately. On a point of order raised on November 20, 2017, he initially asked the Chair to divide the question on the motion to refer the bill to committee before second reading. As the Speaker ruled on the same day, Standing Order 69.1 clearly indicates that the Chair only has such a power in relation to the motions for second reading and for third reading of a bill. The Speaker invited members to raise their arguments once again in relation to the motion for third reading.

The hon. member for Beloeil—Chambly pointed out that each of the three parts of the bill enacts a new statute. Part 1 enacts the national security and intelligence review agency act, part 2 enacts the intelligence commissioner act, while part 3 enacts the Communications Security Establishment act. He argued that since each of the first two parts establishes a new entity, with details of each entity's mandate and powers, and since the third significantly expands the mandate of the CSE, he felt they should each be voted upon separately. He also argued that each part amends a variety of other acts, though the chair notes that in most cases, these are consequential amendments to change or add the name of the entities in question in other acts.

The hon. member argued that parts 4 and 5 of the bill should be voted on together. They deal with new powers being given to the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, CSIS, relating to metadata collection and threat disruption, as well as with the disclosure of information relating to security matters between government departments.

As part 6 deals with the Secure Air Travel Act and what is commonly referred to as the “no-fly list”, he felt that this was a distinct matter and that it should be voted upon separately.

Finally, the hon. member proposed grouping together parts 7, 8, 9, and 10 for a single vote. Part 7 deals with changes to the Criminal Code relating to terrorism, while part 8 deals with similar concepts in relation to young offenders. Part 9 provides for a statutory review of the entire bill after six years, while part 10 contains the coming into force provisions.

In his intervention on the matter, the hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader indicated that the provisions of the bill are linked by a common thread that represents the enhancement of Canada’s national security, as well as the protection of the fundamental rights and freedoms of Canadians. In order to achieve these objectives, he mentioned that it is necessary for Bill C-59 to touch on a number of acts, and that the bill should be seen as a whole, with several parts that would not be able to achieve the overall objective of the bill on their own. He concluded that Standing Order 69.1 should not apply in this case.

Standing Order 69.1 gives the Speaker the power to divide the question on a bill where there is not a common element connecting all the various provisions or where unrelated matters are linked.

Bill C-59 does clearly contain several different initiatives. It establishes new agencies and mechanisms for oversight of national security agencies and deals with information collection and sharing as well as criminal offences relating to terrorism. That said, one could argue, as the parliamentary secretary did, that since these are all matters related to national security, there is, indeed, a common thread between them. However, the question the Chair must ask itself is whether these specific measures should be subjected to separate votes.

On March 1, 2018, the Speaker delivered a ruling regarding Bill C-69 where he indicated that he believed Standing Order 69.1 could be applied to a bill with multiple initiatives, even if they all related to the same policy field. In this particular case, while the Chair has no trouble agreeing that all of the measures contained in Bill C-59 relate to national security, it is the Chair's view that there are distinct initiatives that are sufficiently unrelated as to warrant dividing the question. Therefore, the Chair is prepared to divide the question on the motion for third reading of the bill.

The hon. member for Beloeil—Chambly has asked for six separate votes, one on each of the first three parts, one on parts 4 and 5, one on part 6, and one on parts 7 to 10. While the Chair understands his reasoning, it does not entirely agree with his conclusions as to how the question should be divided.

As each of the first three parts of the bill does, indeed, enact a new act, the Chair can see why he would like to see each one voted upon separately. However, the Chair's reading of the bill is that these three parts establish an overall framework for oversight and national security activities. For example, the national security and intelligence review agency, which would be created by part 1, has some oversight responsibilities for the Communications Security Establishment provided for in part 3, as does the intelligence commissioner, established in part 2. Furthermore, the intelligence commissioner also has responsibilities related to datasets, provided for in part 4, as does the review agency. Given the multiple references in each of these parts to the entities established by other parts, these four parts will be voted upon together.

Part 5 deals with the disclosure of information between various government institutions in relation to security matters. While the relationship between it and the first four parts is not quite as strong, as the member indicated that he believed that parts 4 and 5 could be grouped together, the Chair is prepared to include part 5 in the vote on parts 1 to 4.

The hon. member for Beloeil—Chambly has not addressed the question of the new part 1.1 added to Bill C-59 by the adoption of an amendment to that effect during clause-by-clause consideration of the bill. Part 1.1 enacts the avoiding complicity in mistreatment by foreign entities act, which deals with information sharing in situations where there is a risk of mistreatment of individuals by foreign entities. Since the national security and intelligence review agency, created by part 1 of the bill, must review all directions prescribed in this new part, it is logical that this part be included in the vote on parts 1 to 5.

The Chair agrees with the hon. member that part 6 dealing with the “no-fly list” is a distinct matter and that it should be voted upon separately. The Chair also agree that parts 7 and 8 can be grouped together for a vote. Both largely deal with criminal matters, one in the Criminal Code and the other in the Youth Criminal Justice Act.

The Chair has wrestled with where to place parts 9 and 10. They are, in the words of the hon. member for Beloeil—Chambly, largely procedural elements, but they apply to the entire act. Part 9 provides for a legislative review of the act, while part 10 contains the coming into force provisions for the entire act. The Chair also must ensure that the title and preamble of the bill are included in one of the groups.

There is an obvious solution for coming into force provisions in part 10. Since clauses 169 to 172 relate to the coming into force of parts 1 to 5 of the bill, they will be voted on with those parts. As clause 173 deals with the coming into force of part 6, it will be included in the vote on that part.

This leaves the title and the preamble as well as the legislative review provided for in part 9, which is clause 168. Though these apply to the entire bill, the Chair has decided to include them in the largest grouping, which contains parts 1 to 5 of the bill.

Therefore, to summarize, there will be three votes in relation to the third reading of Bill C-59. The first vote will deal with parts 1 to 5 of the bill, as well as the title, the preamble, part 9 regarding the legislative review, and clauses 169 to 172 dealing with coming into force provisions. The second vote relates to part 6 of the bill and the coming into force provisions contained in clause 173. The third vote relates to parts 7 and 8 of the bill. The Chair will remind hon. members of these divisions before the voting begins.

I thank all hon. members for their attention.

Business of the House

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister of Small Business and Tourism]

Mr. Speaker, this afternoon, we will finish debating the last opposition day motion in this supply cycle. Then, we will debate the main estimates.

Tomorrow morning, we will begin third reading of Bill C-68 on fisheries.

Next week will be a a busy one. Priority will be given to the following bills: Bill C-45 on cannabis, Bill C-59 on national security, Bill C-64 on abandoned vessels, Bill C-69 on environmental assessments, and Bill C-71 on firearms.

Impact Assessment Act

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

Madam Speaker, I have looked up the mandate letter the Minister of Natural Resources received, dated November 12. It says that in relation to environmental assessment and working with the environment minister, he is to “restore robust oversight and thorough environmental assessments of areas under federal jurisdiction”.

I want to highlight that part, “federal jurisdiction”, because the expert panel the government mandated to look into environmental assessment, at a cost of over $1 million, came back with the clear advice that federal jurisdiction include, “at a minimum, federal lands, federal funding and federal government as proponent, as well as: Species at risk; Fish; Marine plants; Migratory birds; Indigenous Peoples...; Greenhouse gas emissions”, and the list goes on.

However, the government chose to ignore the mandate letter, to ignore its campaign promises, and to deliver in Bill C-69 not reviews of environmental assessments for areas of federal jurisdiction but only for major projects, which will be found on a list we can see later. The government explicitly said it does not include federal funding. It explicitly said that this is not about federal jurisdiction, for instance, for permits issued by the Minister of Transport under the Navigation Protection Act or permits issued by the Minister of Fisheries. Therefore, the undoing, the wrecking of environment assessment law by the previous government, is being entrenched by the current government.

Why did the Minister of Natural Resources ignore his mandate letter?

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Madam Speaker, I want to follow up on the question posed by my colleague, and it has to do with UNDRIP, the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Implicit in that is free, prior, and informed consent. That is an element that we in the Conservative Party have some serious concerns about because of the possibility of it being interpreted as being an absolute veto right.

However, in the last election, the Prime Minister made it very clear that he would incorporate UNDRIP into all legislation in Canada. In fact, earlier this year, there was a vote in the House on Bill C-262, a bill from the NDP, which agreed that UNDRIP would be incorporated into all government legislation.

At the amendment stage of Bill C-69, the NDP and the Green Party brought forward 25 different amendments asking the Liberal government to incorporate UNDRIP in the legislation, as it promised during the election campaign. On 25 different occasions, the Liberal government and the Liberal members of that committee voted no. They opposed the inclusion of UNDRIP.

Why would Liberal members of the committee vote against UNDRIP 25 times, when the Liberal government made such a clear commitment to incorporate it?

[Kim Rudd, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to rise again in the House to speak to a piece of legislation that represents a major turning point in how Canada develops its vast resources.

After listening to the discussions over the past while, it is important that we come back to a sense of reality. This is legislation that strengthens investor confidence, restores public trust, advances indigenous reconciliation, and enhances environmental performance, all while ensuring that good resource projects get built in a timely, transparent, and responsible way. It is legislation that has also been improved by committee review, the input of its witnesses, and the advice of its members.

Today, we have an amended bill that not only reflects, but confirms, our belief that Canada works best when Canadians work together. It is an even better bill that delivers on our government's vision for Canada in this clean growth century, and one that supports our goal of making Canada a leader in the global transition to a low-carbon economy.

This is critical because the world is at a pivotal moment when climate change is one of the greatest challenges of our generation, and when marrying the strength of prosperity with the protection of our environment is the new imperative.

Bill C-69 would do that. It recognizes that Canada was built, in large measure, through investments and innovation in the natural resource sectors. It addresses our need for a new and more effective approach to environmental assessments and regulatory reviews. It helps to ensure Canada capitalizes on a new wave of resource development that could top $500 billion over the next 10 years.

Canadians get that. They told us so through our extensive pre-consultations on Bill C-69, in response to our discussion paper, and again in committee. They also stepped forward in unprecedented numbers to join Generation Energy, our national discussion on Canada's energy future that culminated in a two-day forum in the minister's home city of Winnipeg just last fall.

What did we hear? Hundreds of thousands of Canadians made it clear to us that they want a thriving, low-carbon economy. They want Canada to be a leader in clean technology and innovation. They want an affordable and reliable energy system, one that provides equal opportunities to Canadians without harming the environment. They want smart cities with integrated energy systems, increased energy efficiency, and low-carbon transportation. They want rural and remote communities to have better options than diesel for generating electricity or for heating their homes.

They also told us they want regulatory reform that includes increased transparency and more communication with Canadians to restore public confidence. They want regulatory reform that ensures indigenous peoples are part of the decision-making, and that they benefit from the opportunities that resource development creates. They want regulatory reform that supports a competitive and sustainable resource sector, one that creates good jobs and shared wealth. They want regulatory reform that takes the politics out of decision-making so that science, facts, and evidence carry the day. We agree with all of that.

This is why we created a 14-member Generation Energy council, which came out of the two-day forum, to maintain the momentum and develop recommendations on how best to move forward on everything we had heard. That council is due to report shortly, but much of the optimism of Generation Energy, and many of the ideas from it, have already found their way into Bill C-69.

The amended bill also reflects what committee heard from indigenous peoples, and includes an even clearer commitment to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples by enshrining it in the bill's preamble and by providing greater transparency regarding the way indigenous knowledge is used and protected.

Other amendments respond to issues important to industry, including concerns that the length of a project review could cause uncertainty. The proposed amendments address this by establishing a baseline of 300 days for review panels involving federal regulators, and a timeline of 45 days to appoint panel members; by improving the transition provisions so that there are clear and objective measures to confirm our commitment that no project will go back to the starting line; by providing new incentives to encourage the proponents of existing projects to proceed under the new impact assessment regime; and by clarifying that final decisions on resource projects are based on, and do not just consider, the assessment report and other key factors set out in the legislation, including both positive and negative impacts.

As amended, Bill C-69 would also address concerns raised by environmental groups to strengthen public participation and transparency. These include placing additional emphasis on meaningful participation; ensuring opportunities for public comment are always part of the review process for projects on federal lands; posting a broader range of information online and for longer; fine-tuning the role of federal life cycle regulators on a review panel, while ensuring impact assessments continue to benefit from their expertise; and the list goes on.

The Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development has done excellent work, and its amendments only build on the legislation's strengths. The proposed changes capture the spirit of a bill that will not only improve the way Canada reviews major resource projects, but can ultimately redefine the way projects are even contemplate.

By providing project proponents with clearer rules, greater certainty, and more predictability, we also ensure local communities have more input and indigenous peoples have more opportunities in the resource sectors.

For example, Bill C-69 would help us ensure project proponents and their investors would know what was expected of them from the outset, by introducing an early engagement and planning phase to identify the priorities and concerns of each new project. This would allow resource companies to plan better, engage earlier, and develop smarter, all of which would bolster their competitiveness, enhance performance, and move Canada to the forefront of the clean growth economy.

At the same time, our new approach would rebuild public confidence by introducing greater transparency and stronger protections for the environment, while advancing reconciliation with indigenous peoples and giving Canadians a more meaningful say. Of course, none of this guarantees unanimity. We cannot legislate agreement with every decision a government makes. However, with Bill C-69 and its amendments, Canadians would always know their voices were heard, their evidence was considered, and the process was fair.

For Canadians tuning in for the first time, Bill C-69 would do all of this by taking a more comprehensive approach to resource development, starting with the principle of “one project, one assessment”. To support this, our legislation proposes the creation of a new government agency for impact assessments. The impact assessment agency of Canada would be responsible for a single integrated and consistent process that would include the specialized expertise of federal regulators, which is where our simultaneous creation of a new, modern, and world-class federal energy regulator would come in.

The Canadian energy regulator would replace the National Energy Board and would be given the required independence and proper accountability to oversee a strong, safe, and sustainable Canadian energy sector in this clean growth century, starting with five key changes: more modern and effective governance; increased certainty and timelier decisions for project proponents; enhanced public consultations; greater indigenous engagement and participation; and stronger safety and environmental protections. The amendments support these goals by proposing changes to respond to such things as the evolving landscape for indigenous rights and new technologies that promote greater transparency and broader public engagement.

Before I highlight some of the important ways the amended bill would do these things, it is useful to take a step back and talk about the motivations behind our plans for a new federal energy regulator.

When our government came to office, we started from the very simple premise that while the National Energy Board had served Canadians well, it needed modernization to reflect the fact that its structure, role, and mandate had remained relatively unchanged since the National Energy Board Act was first introduced in 1959.

That is what the Canadian energy regulator act would do. It proposes a new federal energy regulator with clearer responsibilities, greater independence, and more diversity. For example, we would separate the regulator's adjudicative function, which demands a high degree of independence, from its daily operations, where a high degree of accountability is required.

We would do this by creating a board of directors to provide oversight, strategic direction, and advice on operations, while a chief executive officer, separate from the board, would be responsible for day-to-day operations. In addition, there would be a group of independent commissioners responsible for timely, inclusive, and transparent project reviews and decision-making, the very things Canadians have been telling us and that witnesses told the committee.

The amended Bill C-69 also enhances the diversity and expertise of the new regulator's board of directors and commissioners, with a fair and transparent recruitment process to identify the most qualified candidates; a new emphasis on expertise in indigenous knowledge as well as municipal, engineering, and environmental issues; and a requirement for at least one member of the board of directors and one commissioner to be first nations, Métis, or Inuit.

The amended legislation proposes to restore investment certainty by making regulatory reviews more timely and predictable without compromising on public input, indigenous engagement, or environmental protection.

I have already touched on some of the key changes proposed by the committee: establishing a baseline of 300 days for review panels, ensuring panel members are appointed within 45 days, and confirming that no existing projects are sent back to the starting line.

These measures build on the bill's underlying principle of one project, one assessment and the new Impact Assessment Agency of Canada's responsibility for coordinating consultations with indigenous people.

Bill C-69 proposes that all of this work will be carried out in closer collaboration with the new Canadian energy regulator, making its reviews clearer, its powers more defined, and its timelines for decision shorter, more predictable, and better managed, with fewer opportunities to pause the ticking clock.

In addition, the new federal regulator would retain final decision-making authority for minor administrative functions such as certain certificate and licence variances, transfers, and the suspension of certificates or licences. The Canadian energy regulator act would also restore the regulators' pre-2012 decision-making authority to issue a certificate for major projects subject to cabinet approval. This change is important because it removes the federal cabinet's ability to overturn a negative decision from the CER, but maintains cabinet's right to ask commissioners to reconsider their decisions.

Other amendments in the bill would advance our commitments to greater public consultation and indigenous engagement. The CER act already featured more opportunities for Canadians to have their say including the elimination of the NEB's existing test for standing; explicit consideration of environmental, social, safety, health, and socio-economic issues, as well as gender-based impact on any effects on indigenous peoples; expanded participant funding is also extended to new activities; and more opportunities outside of the traditional hearing process for public debates and discussions.

The amendments to the Canadian energy regulatory act offer greater clarity.

On indigenous knowledge, for example, our new protections would be enhanced through a requirement for consultations before any details could be disclosed and the minister would be able to place conditions on their disclosure based on those consultations. The bill would now also require, rather than just provide, options for a committee to provide advice on enhancing indigenous peoples involvement under the Canadian energy regulator act. Other changes would ensure that public and indigenous participation is more meaningful and that Canadians have the information, tools, and capacity to contribute their perspectives and their expertise.

Finally, the amendments on Bill C-69 expand on our efforts to clarify ministerial discretion and ensure stronger safety and environmental protections. For example, through committee's proposed changes to the Canadian energy regulator act, the public decision statements would clearly demonstrate how a report formed the basis for the decision, and how key factors were considered. As well, future exemption orders would only be made to ensure safety and security, or for the protection of property or the environment.

These are in addition to existing provisions in the CER act, such as assigning new powers to federal inspection officers so they can act quickly and, if necessary, place a stop work order on any project that is operating unsafely or falling short of agreed to conditions, requiring that companies increase the protection of their infrastructure, clarifying the regulators oversight role to include enforcing standards related to cybersecurity, and authorizing the federal energy regulator to take action to safely cease the operation of pipelines in cases where the owner is in receivership, insolvent, or bankrupt.

Through Bill C-69 and its amendments, we see legislation designed for the Canada we have today and, indeed, the Canada we want tomorrow. The Canadian energy regulator act is an important piece of that, helping us to diversify Canada's energy markets, expand our energy infrastructure, and drive economic growth through timely decisions that reflect our common values as Canadians.

I hope all members of this House will support this important legislation as we seek to create the shared prosperity we all want, while protecting the planet we all cherish.

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills, ON]

Madam Speaker, Bill C-69, in front of us today, has a lot of different changes to current acts of Parliament, but also introduces new acts of Parliament. While I support one of the principles in the bill, which is the “one project, one assessment” process for major natural resource projects, there are too many problems with this bill for me to support it.

In particular, I want to focus on the new impact assessment act that the bill creates. First and foremost, the bill will not streamline, and make quicker, assessments for projects designated to be included in the project list. While the government says that the proposed impact assessment act would reduce the current legislated timelines for reviewing projects from 365 days to a maximum of 300 days for assessments led by the new review agency, and from 720 days to a maximum of 600 days for assessments led by a review panel, it is failing to acknowledge that while these timelines are shorter, the new legislation also introduces a planning phase ahead of an assessment led by either the review agency or the review panel. That planning phase can last up to 180 days.

In fact, this legislation will actually increase the amount of time that it takes for major natural resource projects to be reviewed under a federal environmental assessment. Furthermore, while the timelines put in place for the actual impact assessment are shorter, the timelines in the current legislation in front of the House can be extended by the Minister of Environment and by the cabinet, repeatedly.

There is nothing in this legislation to suggest that the process by which we review proposed projects will be shorter, in fact it suggests that it is actually going to be longer. The legislation in front of us will not actually lead to more efficient and less costly assessments for companies looking to invest in Canada's natural resource sector. In fact, the evidence in the bill is that it is going to be much more expensive for companies to make these applications, because the government has proposed to substantially expand the number of criteria that the review agency or review panel has to take into consideration when it is assessing a project. It does not just have to take into account environmental factors. It now also has to take into account health, social, and economic impacts, as well as impacts on other issues, and these impacts over the long term.

When we take into account this vastly expanded criteria and that it is vastly expanded over the long term, it is clear that companies are going to have to spend a lot more money preparing for these applications and working through the application process.

Proposed subsection 22 of the impact assessment act lists more than 20 factors that have to be considered in assessing the impact of a designated project. For example, there is a reference to sustainability and to the intersection of sex and gender with other identity factors. These are just some of the added criteria that the government has added to the process, which is just going to increase the cost and complexity for proponents. It is not only going to be a much longer process for proponents to go through; it is also going to be a much costlier process.

This is a big problem, because we have a problem in Canada with attracting, not just domestic but foreign investment for natural resource projects. In fact, Statistics Canada recently, this past spring, highlighted that there has been the biggest drop in foreign direct investment into this country in eight years. Last year saw the deepest plunge in foreign investment in this country since the deep, dark days of 2010, when we were just coming out of the recession of 2009 caused by the global financial crisis of 2008.

We have seen a massive plunge in foreign direct investment, a massive drop in investors willing to invest in Canadian companies. In fact, last year, for the second year in a row, we saw more foreign selling of Canadian companies than purchasing of Canadian companies. This has led to a drop in investments, particularly in the oil sector, with the commensurate drop in jobs and growth.

However, there is another problem with the bill that I want to highlight, which has to do with the designated project list. In other words, there is a problem in how certain projects get designated for an environmental assessment and how other projects do not. It remains to be seen with the proposed legislation whether or not the government will get it right in regulation.

Earlier this year, the government announced that it was going to undertake consultations with a view to help revise the regulations concerning the designated projects list. The Liberals said they would be coming forward with new regulations under the proposed act, and I hope they read the Hansard transcript tonight of the debates here in the House of Commons to ensure that our input is incorporated if the bill does pass in these new regulations.

The problem is one of inequity and unfairness from a whole range of perspectives. If a mine is proposed in western Canada, let us say in Alberta, under both the pre-2012 rules and the current 2012 rules, and potentially under the proposed legislation, it would undergo a federal environmental assessment. However, if that same mine was proposed in southern Ontario, mines that we often call “gravel pits” or “quarries”, it would not undergo a federal environmental assessment.

I will give members an example of this. In 2011, a mega-quarry was proposed in southern Ontario by an American company that had acquired over 2,500 acres of prime farmland in Dufferin County. That American company had acquired the equivalent of 10 square kilometres of land to build an open pit mine. Under the pre-2012 rules and the 2012 rules, and potentially under this proposed legislation, the federal government said that it did not require a federal environmental assessment, yet if that same 10 square kilometre mine was proposed in Alberta, let us say an open pit bitumen mine, a federal environmental assessment most certainly would have been required. This is an example of the unfairness of the current and potentially the proposed system the federal government has.

If one builds a mine to extract iron ore or bitumen in western Canada, one would undergo a federal environmental assessment, but if the same mine is proposed in southern Ontario, then do not worry, the government will turn a blind eye and not have it undergo that federal environmental assessment. Therefore, it is not just treating one sector of the economy different from another, the oil and gas sector, or the iron ore sector compared with the aggregate sector, but it is also treating one region of the country differently from another, and that is not fair. I hope that the government, in undertaking these consultations, takes that into account.

It is also not fair to the environment when a 10 square kilometre open pit mega-quarry is proposed for southern Ontario, which would have plunged 200 feet deep and pumped 600 million litres of fresh water out of the pit each and every day. It should undergo the same federal environmental assessment that a mine of similar size would undergo in western Canada. It should undergo that, because in southern Ontario we have the most dense biosphere in the entire country. There is all the more need to protect this dense biosphere, which is under greater threat than any other part of the country largely due to the growing urban populations we see in the Montreal, Quebec City, Ottawa, Windsor, and Toronto corridor.

I hope the government's yet to be created project list, whether it is based on the current legislation or the proposed legislation, treats all sectors of the economy and all regions of the country fairly, and I hope the department is incorporating this input as it comes forward with new regulations.

There is yet another problem with the proposed legislation before the House, and it plays into a broader pattern of the government, and that is of political interference. As the member for St. Albert—Edmonton just pointed out, the proposed legislation would allow the minister a veto power over natural resource project applications. This is unprecedented in this country. Until the Liberal government came to power, not a single natural resource project had been rejected or approved by the federal cabinet before the federal environmental assessment process had been completed, and not a single federal environmental assessment process had been overruled by federal cabinet.

In other words, up until this government, the federal cabinet accepted every single recommendation coming out of a federal environmental review process over the many decades that it was in place. The current government's rejection of the northern gateway pipeline was the first time the federal cabinet had stopped the process for the review of a major natural resource project before allowing that process to be completed and before allowing the cabinet to accept fully the recommendations of that process.

Here, in this legislation, we see a repeat of that pattern. They are proposing to give the minister a veto power. Before an impact assessment can begin, the minister will have the power not to conduct an assessment if the minister believes the proposed project would cause unacceptable effects. That is so broad a criteria that a person could drive a Mack truck through that. There again we see the politicization of processes that were once arm's length, quasi-judicial, and left to the professional public service.

Another example of this politicization of what was once performed by the professional public service, by quasi-judicial entities is Bill C-49. Bill C-49 gives the Minister of Transport a political veto over a review of joint ventures by an airline. Up to Bill C-49, and for many years, any airline that wanted to enter into a joint venture had to undergo a review by one of the premier law enforcement agencies in the world, the Competition Bureau, to ensure that there were no anti-competitive results from a joint venture. In fact, when Air Canada proposed a joint venture with United Airlines some years ago, the Competition Bureau said no to the original proposal for that joint venture and said they had to pull out of that joint venture a number of cross-border routes because they would be deleterious to competition, and because it would increase prices for consumers and for businesses across Canada.

What the current government has done through Bill C-49, which it rammed through the House and Senate, is it has given the Minister of Transport the ability to veto that process through a broad definition of public interest to bypass the Competition Bureau's review of a joint venture, and to rubber-stamp a joint venture in the interests of the airline and against the competition interests of consumers in this country. With the recent passage of Bill C-49, Air Canada has announced a joint venture with Air China. I do not think that is any coincidence.

Thus, there are just a few examples of how the government is politicizing the process for law enforcement of our competition laws for the review of major natural resource projects that no previous government has ever done.

Finally, I want to critique the Liberal government's general approach to environmental issues. The Liberals have created a climate of uncertainty. On pipeline approvals, they have created uncertainty. That is why Kinder Morgan has announced that it is pulling out of Canada and why it sold its assets to the Government of Canada. They have created a climate of uncertainty in the business community. That is why, as I previously mentioned, Statistics Canada, this spring, reported that foreign investment into Canada plunged last year to its lowest level in eight years. There has been an exodus of capital from the country's oil and gas sector. Statistics Canada reports that capital flows dropped for a second year in a row last year, and are down by more than half since 2015. Net foreign purchases by foreign businesses of Canadian businesses are now less than sales by those foreign businesses, meaning that foreign companies sold more Canadian businesses than they bought.

On climate change, they have created a great deal of uncertainty.

The Liberals came with big fanfare with their price on carbon, but they have only priced it out to $50 per tonne to 2022. They have not announced what happens after 2022. We are four short years away from 2022, and businesses and consumers need the certainty of what happens after 2022.

Furthermore, the Liberals have created uncertainty because $50 per tonne does not get us to our Paris accord targets. In fact, last autumn the Auditor General came forward with a report saying that Canada will not meet its Paris accord targets of a 30% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions from 2005 levels by 2030 with the $50-per-tonne target. He estimated that we are some 45 megatonnes short of the target.

The Liberals have created uncertainty with their climate change policy because they have been inconsistent on climate change policy. They are inconsistent with how they treat one sector of the economy versus another. For example, they demand that projects in the oil and gas sector take into account both upstream and downstream emissions, while not requiring projects in other sectors of the economy to do the same.

They are inconsistent with climate change policy in the way they treat one region of the country versus another. The Auditor General's report from a week ago, report 4, highlights the inconsistency in the way they treat central Canadians versus the way they treat westerners.

For example, the Liberals tell western Canadian oil and gas producers that climate change impacts need to be part of the approval process of any major natural resource project, and yet they turn around and one of the first decisions they make as a government is to waive the tolls on the new federal bridge in Montreal, a $4-billion-plus bridge. The Auditor General reported, in report 4 last week, that waiving the tolls will result in a 20% increase in vehicular traffic over that bridge, from 50 million to 60 million cars and trucks a year, an additional 10 million vehicles crossing that bridge every year, with the attendant greenhouse gases and pollution that this entails.

The Liberals tell companies and Canadians on one side of the country that they have to take into account greenhouse gas emissions when they propose a new project in the oil and gas sector, but when the government builds a brand new federal bridge in Montreal for $4 billion-plus, it is not going to take into account those greenhouse gas emissions. In fact, it will waive the tolls, which is going to lead to a 20% jump in traffic, with the attendant greenhouse gas emissions that this entails.

Finally, the Liberals have created a climate of uncertainty by their failure to realize that our income taxes are too high. The government talks a good game about the environment and the economy, but the facts speak otherwise. They blew a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to reduce corporate and personal income taxes. They failed to seize the opportunity of using the revenues generated by the price of carbon to drive down our high corporate and personal income taxes. They also failed to seize the opportunity to reform our income tax system to reduce its complexity and its distortive nature.

Our system was reformed in 1971 by the government of Pierre Trudeau. It was reformed again in 1986 by the government of Brian Mulroney. It has been over 30 years since we have had any significant income tax reform to our personal income tax system or our corporate income tax system, and the Liberals blew the chance to do it, even though they promised to take a look at tax reform in their very first budget.

The government talks a good game on the environment and the economy, but the facts say otherwise. It is a story of a missed opportunity, and that is why I cannot support this bill.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Madam Speaker, the member brings up very valid points about investment in Canada.

I will read from an article from Bloomberg today, which states, “Unlike portfolio investment, foreign direct investment is considered a stable source of funding that comes with the additional benefits of a transfer of know-how. Instead, an increasing amount of Canada’s funding needs are being met by short-term funds denominated in foreign currencies”, meaning loans, “which makes the country more vulnerable to a sudden loss of interest from foreign investors.” Bloomberg is saying that Canada is relying on debt for growth and not foreign investment.

It notes in this article that the amount that the Government of Canada is giving Kinder Morgan to buy Trans Mountain is greater than the entire investment in Canada in the last quarter of last year. Bill C-69 is only going to pile on the flight of capital from Canada.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Madam Speaker, the Minister of Environment stated that one of the objectives of Bill C-69 is to increase investor confidence. The hon. member for Edmonton West pointed out that under Bill C-69, the Minister of Environment has the discretion to cancel a project at any point, including during the planning stage before any environmental assessment is conducted, before any economic impact is studied, and before any scientific analysis is done. How does that square with increasing public confidence and investor confidence? It seems to me to be some kind of joke.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Madam Speaker, if only the Liberals were as efficient in governing as they are in skullduggery around such issues, Canada would be a much better place.

My colleague brings up some very valuable points. The U.S. treasury department is, right now, investigating Russian interference in its energy industry. Russia views the U.S. and Canada as major energy competitors. Without its energy industry, Russia would be bankrupt, so it is against the interests of the U.S. and Canada to grow their energy industries. Russia is funnelling money, as the U.S. treasury department says, into Tides U.S.A. Tides U.S.A. sends its money to Tides Canada, which then funnels it to Leadnow, which campaigns on behalf of the Liberal government of Canada.

Now the government is introducing Bill C-76 that will open the floodgates for more foreign money coming into Canada and Bill C-69 would also allow equal standing for radical environmentalists from the U.S., Russian activists, and a Canadian appearing before the regulatory regime.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Madam Speaker, I would ask the member for Edmonton West about the issue of standing in Bill C-69. Peeling that back to the last election, we saw an unprecedented assault on Canadian democracy with U.S. money funnelled to third parties that, in turn, backed the Liberal Party. Now we have Bill C-69, which opens standing up to foreign anti-oil sands activists. The government has now introduced Bill C-76, which leaves a major loophole with respect to foreign funding of third parties, which essentially says that it is open season for foreign entities to fund registered third parties if the monies are transferred before June 30.

Does the hon. member for Edmonton West think that this is all a coincidence or is this just a case of the Liberal Party trying to benefit from foreign funding to help it during elections and to advance its activist radical agenda to keep Alberta energy in the ground?

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise tonight at this late hour to speak to Bill C-69, 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, also known as an omnibus bill. I also like to call this bill the let us never build another pipeline or major energy project in Canada bill, or we could call it the labyrinth act, after the David Bowie movie Labyrinth, with its never-ending maze, which is what our regulatory process is going to be.

According to the Liberal government, the main purpose of this bill is to create an environmental assessment process that increases consultation, broadens a number of social economic criteria for approval, and decreases legislative timelines. At a lengthy 350 pages, this bill has so many proposed changes, it is tough to digest them all at once. Here is one clear takeaway. It will ensure the private sector pipelines will never see the light of day in Canada again.

This comes straight from the Canadian Energy Pipeline Association that these introduced amendments or “Regulatory 'poisons' are 'suffocating' oil industry by driving investors away”.

At committee we heard this from a witness, “The impact assessment does not address the pipeline sector's most fundamental concern: a process that is expensive, lengthy, polarizing, and ends with a discretionary political decision.”

Hence, the the labyrinth act.

I was pleased to quote Ozzy Osbourne in an earlier speech today on Bill C-344, which is another act from the Liberals that will create another regulatory burden. I am glad I was able to mention the late David Bowie as well.

We have seen the Trans Mountain pipeline put on life-support worth $4.5 billion because of the Liberals' action and inaction. However, knowing the Liberals' spin machine, they are going to say that this $4.5 billion life-support system is actually a health care investment.

The Liberals want to introduce this bill to ensure that we never see another pipeline built in Canada again. In this bill, we can clearly see that this regulatory process is designed for political influence and intervention. The minister can step in any time she wants and kill any major energy resource project at any time. This even includes the various stages where there is no formal ministerial approval required. It is going to be energy east all over again. It does not clarify or streamline an objective evidence-based process where decisions will be made by experts.

The Liberals can scrap entire pipeline projects for purely political reasons, and there is nothing anyone can do about it. Of course members are sitting there saying that surely the Liberals would not kill something like an energy project, like a billion dollar gas plant for political reasons? I know that it was the Ontario Liberals, but where do people think most of the current Liberal PMO staffers come from? Of course, they come from Queen's Park.

Placing this kind of power in the hands of the minister will reduce transparency and give industry no guarantee that sensible projects will move forward. This planning phase is also concerning because, under the proposed bill, an environmental advocacy group from Sweden has as much right to be heard as a Canadian energy industry advocacy group.

I suppose we should give even more ministerial powers to the Liberals. After all, what could go wrong? We have had ad scam, the sponsorship scandal, the gun registry, Shawinigate, HRDC under the previous Liberal government, and of course the clam scam, where the fisheries minister personally intervened to give a lucrative clam fishing quota to, now get this, a brother of a sitting Liberal MP, a former Liberal MP, and a family member of the current fisheries minister. A Gordie Howe hat trick is described as a hockey game where one gets into a fight, scores a goal, and gets an assist. This is a Gordie Howe hat trick of corruption: a brother of a Liberal MP, a former Liberal MP, and to top it off, a family member of the deciding and interfering Liberal minister.

I could mention more Liberal scandals, but I should not talk about that if I want to finish by midnight. However, if people at home who are watching on CPAC are bored and want a more fulsome understanding of some of the Liberal scandals, they should take a look at https://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums/topic/4466-199-liberal-scandals.

I will return back to the bill. Steve Williams, the CEO of Canada's leading integrated oil and gas company, Suncor Energy, said that this legislation will effectively end his corporation's ability to invest in major Canadian projects. Suncor is worried about Canada's lack of competitiveness because, as he said, “other jurisdictions are doing much more to attract business”. The Liberal government just gave $4.5 billion of taxpayers' money to Kinder Morgan to invest back in the U.S. No offence to Mr. Williams and his comment, but he is incorrect. With the current government, other jurisdictions do not have to do more to attract business, because it will give money to companies to invest in other jurisdictions.

Canada's largest developer in the oil industry says it will not be able to invest in Canada, will not be able to create jobs in Canada, will not be able to pay more taxes in Canada, or create more wealth for Canadians. Suncor is a valued employer in Alberta, and provides thousands of well-paying jobs to indigenous people, youth, and new Canadians. Maybe if we change the name to Suncorbardier, then the Liberals would not try to phase out Suncor and our oil sands, but here we are.

We are talking about billions of dollars in investment going straight to the U.S. and other energy producing jurisdictions. This combined with higher taxes and more government uncertainty makes Canada a more difficult place to invest capital.

Bill C-69 completely fails to improve our ability to compete. In fact, it is only going to make matters worse. GMP FirstEnergy has also criticized Bill C-69 because it has “increased complexity, subjectivity and open-ended timelines”. The company sees “nothing in these proposed changes that will attract incremental energy investment to Canada.”

These statements do not exactly sound like a ringing endorsement for Bill C-69. We have some of the strongest and most stringent environmental regulations and standards in the entire world, so why are we introducing even more regulations when our system is world renowned?

We have seasoned experts telling us that over the years the ability of these major resource projects to get completed has become exceedingly difficult and is now almost impossible, and the Liberals want to introduce even more regulations to effectively put these projects six feet under.

Unfortunately, six feet under will refer to Alberta's economy and not the placement of a pipeline. Of course, the Liberals believe that adding increasingly complex legal frameworks and indeterminate regulatory methods will somehow expedite the process. The environment minister says we need a process with no surprises and no drama. I think what she meant to say is that she wants a process with no surprises, no drama, and no development, and perhaps no future for the young workers in Alberta.

I am sure members have heard this many times before. The Liberals love to talk about how the environment and the economy go hand in hand. However, Bill C-69 does not even live up to their own shaky standards in this regard. This policy puts red tape and the interests of foreigners first and the economy, jobs, and prosperity of Canadians dead last.

Energy development is crucial to jobs and economic opportunity in this country and Bill C-69 will only make it more difficult for private companies to receive approval for critical infrastructure projects.

I will remind the Prime Minister that many Albertans are still struggling to find work and pay their bills. His policies will only cause further harm to them and kick them while they are down.

Former premier Frank McKenna announced in mid-February that Canada has lost $117 billion due to pipeline woes. How does this legislation address that issue? I will answer that question: it does not. It does absolutely nothing. I would argue that the $117-billion loss is only going to climb higher in the future.

Bill C-69 will decrease Canada's economic competitiveness, without resulting in any meaningful environmental protection. While the United States scraps excessive regulations and cuts taxes for its citizens, the Liberal government has chosen to impose more unnecessary red tape, longer project timelines, and higher taxes for middle-class families. Bill C-69 will make it increasingly difficult to compete with countries around the world and grow our economy. The approval process will become even longer, more tedious, and completely unappealing to the private sector.

Seriously, what company wants to come forward and invest billions in Canada when they see the government actively kills energy projects and their only hope to get something done after the Liberal action is to nationalize it?

Venezuela is a mess right now because of nationalizing its oil industry. Experts are saying the way for Venezuela to get out of the hellhole it has created is to un-nationalize its oil industry. What are we doing? We are nationalizing our pipeline. We cannot afford to add uncertainty for companies who want to invest in Canada.

The Liberal government has managed to consistently decrease investor confidence with each and every passing day. It should be more cautious with its legislation. Liberals continuously outdo themselves and are setting the bar for failure as a government. We already have $20 billion in deficits every year, so what could possibly go wrong as investor confidence reaches new lows?

I cannot support a bill that would kill jobs in Edmonton, that would kill jobs in Alberta, and that would chase away energy investment at the same time as doing nothing for the environment.

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

Madam Speaker, in the past I practised environmental law for a while and I have worked in the environmental field for a long time and I am quite familiar with laws in other countries. It is unlikely that the hon. member will take my word for it, but Canada does not have the best environmental assessment process, the toughest regulations, and the best endangered species law at all. That was the case even before Bill C-38 in the spring of 2012. After the changes to environmental assessment by the Harper government in Bill C-38, we had one of the worst, weakest, and most inconsistent and incoherent environmental assessment processes in the industrialized world. Sadly, tragically, Bill C-69 would not restore the consistent, predictable process we had that ensured that anything within federal jurisdiction would be reviewed.

Just so the hon. member knows what countries to which I refer, anything in the European Union is stronger, the United States is much stronger, and New Zealand is much stronger in their anticipatory environmental assessments, which is why it is such a tragedy that Canada, which knows how to do this better, is failing to do so now.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to stand this evening to debate Bill C-69. I would like to say a number of things at the outset. The most obvious one is that the Liberals broke their promise with the bill. It has nothing to do with the wording of the bill and everything to do with the size of it.

First, the government said it would not have omnibus legislation and, as my colleagues mentioned earlier this evening, this is a 370-page bill. It cannot be put in any other context than it is an omnibus bill.

The second broken promise is that the bill is not very environmentally supportive by its very voluminous weight. It could have helped, in spite of its size, if it really would improve our environment, but this bill fails to do that.

A number of things have been said about the bill this evening and I will come back to those. However, a whole host of events has taken place around the rhetoric the government has put in this bill. The Liberals talk about trying to improve the environment, to create more jobs, and to improve those jobs, but they have ended up killing two pipelines already. One was the northern gateway pipeline across northern British Columbia to get oil in Alberta over to the west coast. The other one was the eastern access line to move oil to the New Brunswick area for refining purposes in that part of Canada.

Before I elaborate on that, I should inform the House that I will be sharing my time with my colleague from Edmonton West. I know he will have much to say about the situation taking place in Alberta.

My perspective comes from the small amount of oil in southwest Manitoba, which happens to all be in my constituency. This is a very important issue to the communities, maybe not to Winnipeg as much, though it is impacted because a lot of income comes out of that area from this oil, and to the people who live in those communities and on the farms in that region as well. A great deal of work is being done by the oil industry in the southwest region, from trucking to the building of lines to the building of batteries to the moving oil from the wells to the batteries to the tracks to the loading facilities. We also have a major pipeline running right through the middle of my constituency, which moves the oil east and down through the United States.

There are thousands of jobs in my little southwest corner of Manitoba because of this industry. That is why it is so important to have certainty in this industry. It impacts the lives of individuals on farms as well. I went through the downturn in the farm economy, particularly BSE in 2003, droughts in 2003, and flooding in 2005, 2011, and 2014. Therefore, off-farm jobs in the oil industry have been a stabilizing factor in many of the family operations in southwest Manitoba.

It is pretty important to ensure there are sound rules so investors in the economy, not just in my area but more particularly in Alberta, Saskatchewan and, to a certain extent in Newfoundland, have the assurance they can make investments and know they will get returns from those investments.

I will refer to my colleague from Carleton when this debate started. He had a good economics lesson, I thought it was Economics 101, about whether the government learned anything from the lesson he was trying to teach about how important it was to have a sound investment process. We know that comes with great difficulty in Canada right now, and there is a lot of concern about it. As he pointed out, and as we all know, the country's debt is three times higher than it was supposed to be this year.

One thing I did not know, and it is worth repeating, is there are overpayments in Ontario's hydro of $176 billion over the last 30 years. That is a tremendous amount of money, when we consider that is a quarter of Canada's debt. The other number we need to bear in mind is that we have already lost $88 billion worth of investment in our oil industry. It has moved out of the country. It has gone south, as my colleague from Calgary Shepard just indicated. Thousands of jobs have gone south, 101,000 jobs in Alberta alone.

There is a little more drilling going on right now in our area of southwest Manitoba, but the bill would not help that economy survive. Bill C-69, this omnibus legislation, and the amount of regulations in it would not make it easier to grow our economy, which puts people to work.

I was the environment critic for seven of the 14 years I was in the Manitoba legislature. I want to put a few things into perspective. When we look at a situation where infrastructure and investment is required, the government always talks about how we can have both, the economy and the environment. That is not new. It is certainly not foreign to anybody in the House or to any Canadian for that matter.

This is about ensuring that Canadians know that the environment and the economy have gone hand in hand probably since oil was found in Canada in the late 1940s, early 1950s. Anyone who does not abide by those rules of trying to ensure the environment is kept as pristine as we possibly can is not paying attention. My colleagues have already stated tonight that we have the cleanest rules for dealing with environmental packages of anywhere in the world, particularly in our oil industry.

Rules have been brought, and not just in Bill C-69 or Bill C-68, the Fisheries Act. We know full that the efforts in Bill C-69 will not help the economy in any way. They certainly will not make jobs.

As I said, I was asked to become the environment shadow minister in Manitoba when I was first elected in 1999. It was either conservation or the environment. As the representative for Arthur-Virden, the constituency receives water from all of eastern Saskatchewan, southeastern Saskatchewan as well as northeastern Saskatchewan, and all of it comes into the Souris River, coming down the Assiniboine, and even through the Qu'Appelle in central Saskatchewan.

We know the impacts of what the environment can do to our province. The current provincial government is spending its infrastructure dollars rather responsibly. It is using them to protect cities like Brandon and Winnipeg particularly, Portage la Prairie, and the shorelines of Lake Manitoba and Lake Winnipeg. This is responsible management. Why? It is because the provincial government is spending the money on infrastructure to prevent flooding, instead of paying billions out after the fact in flood damages and devastation.

The Liberals need to heed that example and respect investments, instead of killing investment opportunities like the eastern access and northern gateway. These are important issues.

I could go on about a lot of other shortfalls in the bill. Changes to the National Energy Board is just one of them. It may have needed tweaking, but the government decided it knew best and threw out the baby with the bathwater.

My colleague, the member for Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, certainly has more experience, having a master's in biology, and he has certainly hit the nail on the head with respect to the Fisheries Act and Bill C-68. I have spoken to him about this bill as well.

I just want to wrap up by saying that I will not be supporting Bill C-69 for a number of reasons outlined, particularly by my colleague from Abbotsford today, as well—

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

Mr. Speaker, I suppose we agree that the bill is flawed, but I want to correct a few things.

There were at least two opposition amendments accepted. I still cannot vote for Bill C-69, but I want to make sure that people know that, on the recommendation of Professor Martin Olszynski, who was referenced in my friend's speech, we amended proposed subsection 6(3) to say, “The Government...must, in the administration of this Act, exercise their powers in a manner that adheres to the principles of scientific integrity, honesty, objectivity, thoroughness and accuracy.”

I would rather see more about science in the bill. I would rather see less ministerial discretion. However, this debate, repeatedly, for weeks now, has singled out large oil companies leaving Alberta, as if the only reason these large oil companies have left has something to do with pipelines. The reality is global.

Globally, to give some context, investment in fossil fuels is shrinking. Globally, investment in renewables is growing like Topsy. In fact, in 2017, solar investment alone eclipsed investment in coal, nuclear, and all the renewables. The price of solar has been plummeting. Globally, greenhouse gases fell last year in the U.S., Russia, Brazil, China, throughout the EU, and, of course, in the U.K. They dropped infinitesimally in Canada. It was a 1.4% drop.

We are part of a global transition right now, which is why large companies like Statoil, from Norway, Royal Dutch Shell, France's Total, and ConocoPhillips, when they left the oil sands, said that they were leaving because they did not want stranded assets. In the words of Mark Carney, current president of the Bank of England, they did not want “unburnable carbon”, because there are assets in oil and gas that will be left in the ground, which represent a financial liability.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be rejoining the debate on Bill C-69. I have a tough job. I am following the member for Lakeland, who has probably contributed more in this House, in the last two and a half to almost three years, to defending Alberta and Canada's energy industry than any other member of the House. In fact, she has a very long history of defending Canada's energy sector and Alberta's energy workers in her private sector experience before.

She provided us with an overview of the damage that Bill C-69 would do to Canada's economic sector related to the energy industry, and the depth of how much damage would be caused to the energy workers in Alberta, Saskatchewan, and British Columbia.

I cannot match those numbers, but I have seven points I want to go through with respect to Bill C-69, and the different parts of the bill that I think will be very damaging to investments and the future jobs in the energy sector, and to Canada's GDP growth and how much it will be reduced by.

One of the things we often hear about in the House is how strong Canada's growth is. It is often said that we are leading the G7. In fact, that is not even true. We are not leading the G7. The projections by the OECD, and in the PBO's own economic update, has us in the middle, at number four, especially for 2018, with a 1.9% growth. We are actually behind the United States, and we know why. It is because it does not have a carbon tax, which will damage Canada's economy with up to 0.4% less GDP growth.

When I was at the finance committee and I asked the parliamentary budget office officials if ever they had seen a government policy that was intentionally damaging to Canada's economy the way the carbon tax is going to be, they had no answer for me. They could not come up with a response to it because there simply is not one. It is a damaging policy that is being introduced and forced down the throats of provinces that do not want it, including the electorate of Ontario, which last week rejected the damaging policies of the federal Liberal government.

We also know that the natural resource sector in 2016 accounted for 16% of Canada's economic activity. Therefore, 16% of Canada's economic engine is related to the natural resources, and 38% of non-residential capital investment is related to this one sector.

We also know, because the member for Lakeland did a good job of itemizing it, how much foreign investment has fled the country. Again, we know why. It is because we are not as competitive with our main trading partner, the United States, as we used to be. It has introduced drastic tax changes and reforms to its system that make its companies much more competitive. I cannot tell members how many of my constituents, friends, and supporters have moved down to Texas, which I often call “Alberta south”, to work in its energy sector. We know that next year the state of Texas will become the number one producer of oil in the world. It is going to exceed even large producers, such as Saudi Arabia, Nigeria, and Venezuela. It will be producing more oil than any one of them. This is just one state in the United States of America.

We also know that Texas, for instance, does not have a personal income tax system. It has a sales tax instead. However, the offering it provides to workers and to companies is that it will get out of the way. It provides a simple to understand regulatory system that typically does not change from government to government. It provides stability, whereas the current Liberal government is providing more instability.

These are the seven points that I want to raise, and they are in no particular order: moving away from science-based decision-making; the timelines for a final decision will be changed; there are self-processes that will be stopping the clock; we will have open questions about what constitutes a major or minor project; the concentration of power in this legislation; the restoring of the public trust concept, which is highly politically charged; and finally, a question that I asked previously to one of the parliamentary secretaries with respect who would have standing to appear before the renamed NEB regulator to have their voices and their issues heard. Those are the seven points I want to raise in my intervention tonight on this issue.

This legislation has been referred to in the National Post, and this is how it was described. It said, “This new process repeats the mistake in believing that those groups dedicated to the destruction of our oil industry can be reasoned with”.

I, like many other Albertans, did not work directly in the energy industry but was related to it in ways. I worked in human resources. I was a registrar for a profession, and many members worked for organizations that participated in providing HR advice, recruitment, benefits, pension plans. Therefore, it was not directly related to it, but they worked in companies but also provided ancillary services to them. They believed that there is simply no way to satisfy those who are ardently opposed to large-scale industrial energy development of any kind. We can never create a system that will satisfy any of them. No matter how complex the labyrinth becomes, it will never satisfy those who are opposed to development, period.

Social licence does not exist. There is no way to reach the end point where there is broad consensus. In fact, one of the reasons the carbon tax was introduced in Alberta was so that we could get a pipeline built of some sort. Since then we have lost northern gateway. Since then we have lost energy east. Since then LNG projects have been cancelled all over British Columbia. Oftentimes this would have been an outlet for a lot of the natural gas production in Alberta and in British Columbia to world markets. We often do not talk about those, but they are just as important as oil pipelines.

Now Trans Mountain finds itself in the hands of the Liberal government. The Liberals truly have the ability to follow through on the dream of the Prime Minister's father, and I think of many supporters of the Liberal Party today, to phase out the oil sands, to phase out Alberta's energy industry. Twice that has been said by the Prime Minister. The first time he apologized and we all believed that he had misspoken, but the second time he said it at the National Assembly in Paris, France.

Many Albertans, even those who are not directly in the energy industry simply do not believe the Liberal government when it says it will get this pipeline built, because there is no plan going forward. Liberals have not itemized how they are going to get it done. They have simply talked about a very specific purchase agreement that they have successfully negotiated with Kinder Morgan, because it is looking to flee. It is fleeing because of things like Bill C-69, which add more complexity and do not make it simpler to go from a project application to a project completion.

I do not mean the application process being finished. I mean construction actually being completed on the ground. That should be the measure of success and the very minimum expected by the House. If we are going to spend $4.5 billion of taxpayer funds, a contract should be provided to the House so that we can judge the quality of it, who is getting and receiving payment, but also a plan attached to it that has an itemized detailed timeline of when construction will begin, when construction will be finished on particular components of it, and when it will be operating. Again, something we will not see anytime soon, at least not in my mind.

In terms of the moving away from science-based decision-making in this piece of legislation, the Liberals are adding in a lot more qualitative factors over quantitative factors. It has been said by the GMP FirstEnergy Research team:

The qualitative factors look to be nearly impossible to measure or assess. Additionally, certain quantitative measures such as gender-based analysis may be almost impossible to implement in practice.

This has a huge implication for a company with a large-scale industrial project when it is preparing to apply at the beginning. Just as with any application there will be a bunch of boxes to fill in and information to provide. If companies do not know how to meet the test, if the multiple choice question does not have any multiple choices to pick, how are they supposed to satisfy the government on what it is trying to get? This is where the complexity increases. This is where a lot of energy companies will struggle to satisfy the government's want for more information.

Second, on the timelines for a final decision a lot has been said in the House by members that in fact the supposed timelines provided for Bill C-69 are not true timelines. What will happen instead is that there are ample opportunities for it to be blocked and ample opportunities for it to be deviated.

Third, the sub-processes are stopping the clock. Again, GMP FirstEnergy noted that included allowing for additional studies and submissions by interested parties and “other delaying tactics such as the Governor in Council having an unlimited ability to extend a pending decision by the minister for as long as desired and suspending the time limit under which the notice of the commencement of assessment begins.” These are issues itemized by researchers who work for energy companies, who advise energy companies on how to comply with regulatory complexity, which is increasing under Bill C-69.

If the goal was never to have another major industrial project be built in Canada, then the Liberal government has achieved its goal, but I just do not think that was the goal.

We have the CEO of Suncor Energy who has said that no new major industrial projects will come forward. We have the CEO of Sierra Energy, a smaller player in the field, but still a very important one, saying that under this legislation, no new large-scale industrial projects will be proposed to the regulator. I can understand why. It will become way more complex to get anything done.

I mentioned the problem identifying what is a major or a minor project. That is not clarified in this piece of legislation. It would still be difficult to determine that, and again, researchers said that this was a problem.

There would be an immense concentration of power, which many members have issues with, especially on the Conservative side. We have itemized our concern that the minister is getting too involved in the decision-making around projects. There are paths projects could be redirected to that would add to the complexity and add to the burden on the company to try to prove things with information and criteria that might be difficult to collect.

This would not help energy workers in any way. This would not help us get to the “yes” side. This would not help us get to a project being completed and Canada yielding additional prosperity with wealth generated.

At the end of the day, I am convinced that the government wants more revenue. The government wants people to generate income. It wants projects to be undertaken and built. It wants to see that to have an opportunity to levy income tax and sales tax. That cannot be done without having wealth generated.

If the CEO of Suncor Energy is saying that no new major industrial project is going to go ahead, we have serious issues.

The concept of restoring public trust is highly politically charged. It is a manufactured narrative that before there was no trust, but now there is trust. That is interesting. Perhaps that should be told directly to those who are protesting the Trans Mountain pipeline. Maybe that should have been told to those protesting the energy east pipeline, when it was still on the table before the Liberal government killed it off by introducing new regulatory rules.

In its news release at the time, Trans Canada said that it was the decision to introduce new regulatory rules that led to its cancellation. This false concept about restoring the public trust is not helpful in any way. It somehow speaks again to this idea of social licence, which again does not exist. It has been proven over the past few years that nothing will satisfy those who are opposed to energy development of any sort.

Finally, who can be involved in NEB hearings? That was a question I asked before. Subclause 183(3) would eliminate the NEB standing test, which is very important to narrow the scope of the determination of who could appear before the NEB to make the case that they are impacted, beneficially or not, and could make the case that the project should be modified in a certain way to meet their personal or local community needs. Now there would be the opportunity for international groups to appear before the regulator and make a case that they would be somehow impacted directly.

If communities are the ones that can say yes, then it can only be the local community directly related to the project that should have a role in saying how it would be impacted. It should be individuals in those communities who should have the greatest role. It should not be spokespeople who are self-appointed saying that they speak on behalf of a certain group. It should be people locally who can go before the NEB to make their case, as they were able to do before. Now there would be the potential situation where foreigners or people from different parts of Canada, totally unrelated to the project, would make submissions and appearances, slowing down the process and adding more complexity and further delays to the regulatory process to try to meet their demands and their goals.

There are some in the legal community who have offered their opinions, such as Jean Piette, an environmental lawyer at Norton Rose Fulbright, in The Lawyer's Daily, on February 9, 2018. This was very early on, before some of the amendments were made. He said, “I think there are going to be delays inherent to this new process which are going to be of concern to proponents.”

Martin Ignasiak, national co-chair of Osler's regulatory, environmental, Aboriginal and land group, again in The Lawyer's Daily, on February 9, 2018, said, “there is nothing in these legislative proposals that suggests future assessments...will be in any way streamlined, more efficient, or more effective.” In fact, they will not be.

We know that to be true. We know that to be a fact, having seen the final bill that was jammed through the natural resources committee without even a single amendment from the Conservative side accepted as reasonable being added to the docket.

I often hear members of the government caucus say that the committee worked collaboratively. “Collaboratively” gives the false impression that somehow it was a multi-party process, where amendments from each side were considered and included in the final version of the bill that was reported back to the House of Commons. In fact, we know that not to be true. Not a single Conservative amendment was approved on this particular piece of legislation, and often on other pieces of legislation. I hope this will not be a trend that will continue from now until election time, but it speaks to the type of work that is being done on committees. There is a lot of talk and a lot of rhetoric, but the reality is that very few, if any, Conservative amendments are given their full due so that we can consider them in amending government legislation. It does happen, but it is a rare occurrence.

I know I do this quite often, but I want to end on a couple of points, because I know certain points are made by government caucus members about the record of the previous government and how many pipelines were approved and the concept of the economy and the environment going hand in hand. The Yiddish proverb I would like to use on this one is “One cross word brings on a quarrel.” I want to start a quarrel, not directly, but maybe verbally in the House. My quarrel is that we talk about the environment and the economy going hand in hand, but too often, the rhetoric I hear is as if one unit of the economy has to be lost for a unit of the environment to be gained. That is not the case. Why is it that every time the Liberals talk about the environment and the economy going hand in hand, what they mean is that taxpayers pay more and more every single time? They pay more in carbon taxes and more in CPP premiums and payroll taxes and a higher tax on the goods they purchase. On and on it goes. Every single time, small businesses are paying more because of tax changes the Liberals are introducing, despite lowering the small business tax after they rediscovered their promise. It goes on an on.

The second point I want to make is on the record of the previous government. There were countless pipelines, both oil and gas, that were approved: the Melita to Cromer oil pipeline capacity expansion, the TMX-Anchor Loop oil pipeline, the Cochin oil pipeline, the Keystone oil pipeline, the Alberta Clipper oil pipeline expansion—Line 67, the Bakken oil pipeline, the Line 9B oil pipeline to Edmonton, the Hardisty oil pipeline, the Deep Panuke offshore natural gas pipeline, and the South Peace pipeline, and it goes on and on.

There was an immense record of success in the previous system that existed to approve large-scale projects. These pipelines I mentioned are operational today. We know that the government has overseen the cancellation of the most kilometres of pipeline of any government in recent memory. Thousands of kilometres of pipeline have been cancelled or not approved under its watch. I do not see very many new projects going ahead, aside from Trans Mountain, and being put before the regulator for consideration, that would have a meaningful impact on either the differential or on bringing our natural gas to new markets and ensuring that they reach different parts of the United States and international markets.

This is my concern. The rhetoric does not match the reality. The president and CEO of Suncor and other major energy companies, such as Sierra Energy, are right. There will be no new major industrial energy projects proposed under Bill C-69. It is a flawed piece of legislation. It does not address the underlying need to ensure that the rule of law is respected in Canada. That is the fault and defect in the current Liberal government. It is refusing to apply the Constitution. It is refusing to apply the rule of law and to ensure that the permit that was provided in the case of Trans Mountain is actually followed through on. A permit from a regulator is not worth the paper it is written on if it is not backed up by the rule of law, with the courts ensuring that those who continue to obstruct a project illegally face the judicial system. That is the way it should be done. It should also have clear support from the government that does not involve nationalizing a pipeline in the name of trying, in vain, to get it built, when in fact, it is simply bringing it under the control of the government so it can set the timelines on what happens in the future.

Albertans do not trust the government. Alberta energy workers do not trust it controlling the Trans Mountain pipeline, and because of that, I will be voting against the bill.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with my colleague that we likely approach the legislation from different world views and ideological perspectives. Regardless of that, I was dismayed to see the Liberals reject the vast majority of the 400 amendments put forward in good faith, after the hard work done in an almost impossible committee situation created by the Liberals.

From our different perspectives and on behalf of the diverse constituents we represent, we wanted to improve the legislation and participate meaningfully in this omnibus bills, which will have a serious impact on the entire Canadian economy and on our future as a country.

I agree completely with the member about her concerns with respect to the multiple areas in which either the minister or commissioners are granted wide discretion, from deciding what a completed application looks like; to when a project gets into the assessment process; to whether more information is required, which enables the minister and the commissioner to stop and start the timeline; and to suspend the timeline for review as many times as they want and indefinitely.

This is reflective of a key thing about the Liberals. They so often say one thing and then do another. Their key argument is that they are in favour of objective, independent science and expert-based decision-making. However, it is clear, with Bill C-69, that they have allowed multiple political influences, and the influence of non-Canadians, on Canadian resource projects that are important to every community in the country.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of Lakeland, I oppose Bill C-69, which would have wide-ranging, significant impacts on Canada's oil and gas, nuclear, and mining sectors, and by extension on every other sector in the country.

Bill C-69 does not involve minor tweaks. It is a major overhaul of multiple laws and regulations related to Canada's assessment processes, and it would damage Canada's capacity to attract investment that benefits everyone. Canada is a resource-based economy and is a world leader on responsible resource development.

Those facts are among Canada's greatest strengths and contributions to the world. Canada's exploration and mining sector is a major driver of the economy. In 2016, it contributed $60.3 billion directly to Canada's GDP, 19% of Canada's total domestic exports worth $92 billion, and the employment of nearly 600,000 Canadians. As a sector, it is the largest private employer of indigenous people in Canada, often where jobs and opportunities are scarce, in remote and northern regions.

At the end of 2015, the value of Canadian mining assets at home and abroad totalled $171 billion across 102 countries. From remote and indigenous communities to large cities across Canada, and the Toronto Stock Exchange, the mining sector generates significant economic and social benefits for Canadians. Of course, the oil and gas sector is also a key generator of middle-class jobs and Canada's high standard of living.

The International Energy Agency projects global oil demand will continue to grow, with oil maintaining the largest share of any energy fuel source in the global energy market for decades. The average energy demand is predicted to increase approximately 30% by 2040. For context, that is the equivalent of adding another China or India, the most populous countries in the world, to the current level of global energy consumption.

Canada is home to the third largest oil reserves in the world, with recoverable reserves of 171 billion barrels. Canada is the fifth largest producer of natural gas and has the 19th largest proven natural gas reserves in the world, enough to supply consumers with natural gas for more than 300 years.

The Canadian Energy Research Institute says that every job in Canadian upstream oil and gas creates two indirect and three induced jobs in other sectors across the country. Scholar Kevin Milligan notes that without income derived from the resource boom, Canadian inequality and the well-being of Canada's middle class would be much worse.

The Liberals talk a big game about making life better for middle-class Canadians, but, in fact, the Prime Minister has turned his back on the hard-working men and women who have given so much to our country through responsible resource development. Last year, the Prime Minister talked about phasing out the oil sands, and a couple of months ago, he told the world he regrets that Canada cannot get off oil “tomorrow”. The cumulative impacts of the Liberal-caused uncertainty and their imposition of layers of cost and red tape are driving investment out of Canada.

The Liberals have imposed a carbon tax on everything, which is something that major oil and gas producers are not imposing on themselves around the world, and the anti-energy legislation and policies like removing the tax credit for new exploratory oil and gas drilling last year was at a time when more than 100,000 energy workers had lost their jobs after the Prime Minister chased more energy investment out of Canada than in any other two-year period in 70 years, more than half a century.

The Liberals killed the nation-building energy east pipeline with last-minute rule changes and a double standard of upstream and downstream emissions assessments that they would now formally be imposing on all pipeline reviews with Bill C-69. The Liberals outright vetoed the already approved northern gateway pipeline. Both of those were the only actual new stand-alone proposals for exports to markets other than the U.S. in recent history. They are forcing a tanker ban on B.C.'s northern coast, which is really just a ban on the oil sands and on pipelines, and they have imposed an offshore drilling ban in the north.

Even before Bill C-69 has been implemented, the Montreal Economic Institute says that “The message being conveyed to investors is: ‘Don’t come here to do business. Even if you fulfill all regulatory requirements, you’ll still face many obstacles.” That is exactly what happened to the Trans Mountain expansion because of the Liberals' failures and the Prime Minister's response was to pay $14.5 billion tax dollars for Kinder Morgan to take its $7.4-billion private investment plans out of Canada. It is clear, the Prime Minister's anti-energy policies are chasing energy investment away at historic rates.

Now, the Liberals would pile on even more regulatory uncertainty for investors in Bill C-69. The Canadian Energy Pipeline Association said that “If the goal is curtail oil and gas production, and to have no more pipelines built, this legislation may have hit the mark.”

In a recent letter to Alberta MLA, Prasad Panda, several associations directly impacted by Bill C-69 outlined the following criteria essential to attract investment to Canada: “Certainty in regulations, in order to plan capital investments of large magnitudes and reach final investment decisions in Canada's favour. Permanence, because if programs or policies are temporary or have an expiry date, they will be deemed too high risk to factor into capital planning life cycles, which span approximately 6-8 years. Certainty in the form of timelines. Performance-based policies, ensuring benefits to communities by tying incentives to performance-based measures such as job creation, research and development, innovation and capital investment.”

These criteria were hallmarks of Canada's regulatory framework for decades, with the most rigorous assessment, comprehensive consultation, highest standards, and strongest environmental protections in the world.

A 2016 WorleyParsons study echoes conclusions of the 2014 benchmark analysis of Canada against the top major oil and gas producing jurisdictions in the world. It confirmed: “Canada is a global leader in environment, Aboriginal relations, and governance of resource use, with state of the art processes, practices, and legislation. Canada is recognized internationally as a nation that has contributed significantly to the development and advancement of regional and strategic environmental assessment since the introduction of the Canadian Directive in 1990 requiring federal departments and agencies to consider environmental concerns at the strategic level of policies, plans, and programs.”

However, every time the Liberals attack the last 10 years of Canada's energy and environmental assessment and evaluation for politics, trying to keep the NDP and Green voters who helped them win in 2015, they empower foreign and domestic anti-Canadian energy activists who are fighting to shut down Canadian resources. It is becoming a crisis, and this debate is a critical policy question for the future of our country. Canada must be able to compete.

Of the top 10 most attractive jurisdictions for oil and gas investment, six U.S. states rank at the top 10 global jurisdictions: Texas, Okalahoma, North Dakota, West Virginia, Kansas, and Wyoming. According to a 2017 World Bank report, Canada ranked 34 out of 35 OECD countries in the time required to obtain a permit for a new general construction project. There are real impacts of falling behind in competitiveness.

In committee, the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers representative said:

Canada is attracting more uncertainty, not more capital, and we will continue to lose investment and jobs if we do not have a system of clear rules and decisions that are final and can be relied upon.

...Unfortunately, CAPP and the investment community today see very little in Bill C-69 that will improve that status.

Suncor said, “The competitiveness improvements that we're achieving as an industry through ongoing innovation are being largely negated by the continuously increasing cost of new regulations.”

Paul Tepsich, founder of High Rock Capital Management Inc., said, “I'm not crazy about Canada. We've got taxes going up and regulations going up.”

In committee, the president and CEO of the Mining Association of Canada said, “Proponents making billion-dollar investments need to know what the rules are and how they will be implemented. You can't have this certainty knowing that the rules may change midstream in some way.”

The Liberals have already caused a regulatory vacuum for major resource developers since January 2016, and they have exacerbated uncertainty for investors and for workers. With Bill C-69, the Liberals might as well hang a sign in the window that says, “Canada is not open for business”.

Clear timelines and requirements, and predictable rules and responsibilities provide certainty. The Liberals claim Bill C-69 would implement short and clear timelines for reviews, but that is not true. The planning phase, during which the impact assessment agency would determine whether a project is in the public interest, for which Bill C-69 sets some guidelines but leaves wide arbitrary discretion for the minister to define, would add an extra 180 days, which could be extended by 90 days at the request of the minister or Governor in Council. That is before a project can even get approved to start an impact assessment. Bill C-69 also does not establish criteria that a project must meet, or what constitutes a complete application for it to be granted an assessment in the first place.

The bill has been amended so the minister would no longer have the power to veto a project before it can move on to the impact assessment stage, which I support. However, under proposed paragraph 17(1), the minister could still interject opinions about the potential environmental impacts of a project that may or may not influence the impact assessment agency's decision to review. So much for objective, independent, expert-based decisions. Even after the Liberals pass Bill C-69, the parameters of the project list would not even be revealed to the public until fall, and regulations would not be fully implemented until 2019.

When the Liberals ram through this legislation, there will still be ongoing uncertainty for potential proponents of long-term, capital-intensive, multi-billion dollar, major resource projects, following almost three years of the same.

If a project is granted an assessment, there are still no concrete timelines in Bill C-69. Proposed subsection 37(6) states, “The Minister may suspend the time limit within which the review panel must submit the report until any activity that is prescribed by regulations made under paragraph 112(c) is completed.” Bill C-69 would allow the assessment to be stopped and started, and for timelines to be extended indefinitely. Obviously, there would be yet more uncertainty for potential proponents and investors.

In committee, the director of environmental services at Nova Scotia Power, Terry Toner, stated, “while the timelines in the bill provide some guidance for project proponents, the government's goal of process predictability is significantly diluted by provisions in the acts that permit limitless extensions and suspensions.”

Time is of critical value, and it can make the difference between a project built and a project abandoned. We accept that there must be some flexibility, but there must also be discipline and transparency in order to ensure investor confidence in Canadian infrastructure projects.

In committee, the president and CEO of the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission stated, “It is important that we all know, from the get-go, the length of time to get project approval. From our experience, industry can accept a quick 'yes' or 'no' decision. What is unreasonable is to get a 'maybe'.”

Unfortunately, Bill C-69 is ripe for a swath of “maybes” on project applications, because of the potential for suspensions, delays, and uncertainty about measures for applications and outcomes. Clearly, Bill C-69 will not deliver on discipline and transparency in all aspects of the assessment of major resource projects.

According to proposed subsection 183(5) in part 2 of the bill, the regulator may exclude any period of time from the time limit calculations so long as reasons are provided. If resource development proponents have a choice between multiple “maybes” over years of review in Canada and a timely “yes” south of the border, where do the Liberals think their investments will go? Unfortunately, the answer is already obvious in the flight of investment capital from Canada, with U.S. investment in Canada falling by nearly half and Canadian investment in the U.S. going up two-thirds.

While the Liberals claim that Bill C-69 would streamline and clarify the approval of major federal resource projects, its requirements create confusion and unanswered questions. For example, Bill C-69 mandates that proponents must demonstrate “health, social and economic effects, including with respect to the intersection of sex and gender with other identity factors”.

Obviously, job creation, research and development, innovation, and capital investment from resource development reduce poverty, benefit the economy, and provide revenue for governments and public services such as health, education, and social services, as well as funds for academic and charitable organizations, but I think proponents can be forgiven for uncertainty around how their investments and initiatives relate to identity factors.

It is rich for the Liberals to argue that Bill C-69 would enhance scientific evidence in reviews, beyond what has already been done in Canada's regulatory system. In fact, during committee, Mr. Martin Olszynski of the University of Calgary pointed out that the terms “science” and “scientific” are mentioned only five times in all the 400 pages of this major omnibus bill that the Liberals are using all procedural tools to push through, while rejecting the vast majority of the over 400 amendments submitted by opposition members.

In the process of issuing certificates, the Canadian energy regulator is tasked with establishing a commission and undertaking public consultation. At committee, one of my amendments was adopted, which requires the commissions to make public any reasons for holding a hearing about the consideration of issuing a certificate. However, there still remains uncertainty around the assessment, and Bill C-69 would open the door to foreign influence in these public hearings.

Bill C-69 would enable increased foreign influence on Canadian resource development decisions because of the removal of the previous standing test, which ensured that intervenors in the process either were impacted directly by the project under review, or had specific knowledge or expertise that would contribute to the assessment.

Some claim that foreign groups have always been allowed to participate in Canada's environmental assessment processes, but that is just not true. This has only rightfully been the case for projects that cross international borders. Canada has never permitted foreign interference in the environmental assessment process for interprovincial pipelines or other resource projects in federal jurisdiction that do not cross international borders. However, the removal of the standing test now opens up this process to groups that are either directly or indirectly backed by foreign dollars or by Canada's competitors.

The Canadian Energy Pipeline Association warned that “[t]here are recent examples in Canada where the absence of a standing requirement has led to highly inappropriate participation that had no probative value with respect to the issues to be decided in the review” and that the elimination of the standing requirement could “be used to clog the hearing process in an attempt to delay projects to the point that they are abandoned”.

Foreign interference in Canadian resources is already growing, to the detriment of all of Canada. Millions in foreign money is funding opposition to the Trans Mountain expansion. It was used to challenge Canadian LNG development opportunities, too, and it is growing as a barrier to Canadian mining.

The Financial Post recently revealed that “Tides has granted $40 million to 100 Canadian anti-pipeline organizations”, which, in return, fight to stop Canadian energy development and access to export markets, disadvantaging Canada against the U.S., its most significant energy competitor and primary energy customer.

Foreign funds are interfering in and influencing electoral outcomes in Canada, too. A report to Elections Canada and Senator Frum has highlighted foreign funding funnelled to third party groups, such as the Dogwood initiative and Leadnow, to defeat incumbent Conservative MPs in certain ridings in the 2015 election, and to fight Canadian resource development.

I support Senator Frum's bill, Bill S-239, which would define foreign contributors, add classifications of foreign contributions, and make it an offence for any third party to accept foreign dollars “for any purposes related to an election”.

However, the Prime Minister defends using Canadian tax dollars to fund jobs specifically for activists to stop the approved Trans Mountain expansion, and he is resisting Conservatives' calls to ban foreign funding in Canada's elections, too, which makes the case that he seems to welcome foreign influences to deliver on his stated objective of phasing out Canadian energy.

Bill C-69 would put Canada's economic future at risk.

The Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers warns that Bill C-69 would harm Canada's reputation as a transparent, stable, predictable, and fair place to do business, and this would risk Canada's ability to be a supplier of choice for world demand of responsible energy in the future.

Suncor's CEO warns that “Canada needs to up its game” to attract investment and to compete with the United States. Instead of upping its game, Bill C-69 is the equivalent of the Liberals folding Canada's hand.

The Canadian Energy Pipeline Association warns that Bill C-69 would damage Canada's reputation as a priority choice for energy investment. It says:

[I]t is difficult to imagine that a new major pipeline could be built in Canada under the impact assessment act, much less attract energy investment to Canada.

Investment in oil and gas is projected to drop 12% this year from 2017, and the Bank of Canada already says that there will be no new energy investment in Canada after next year, 2019. In the last two years, at least seven multinational companies have divested from Canada's energy sector completely, and many more have frozen existing operations or shelved future plans.

CEPA's CEO says:

Currently there is profound uncertainty in advancing new major pipeline projects. We now have a significant problem as a sector and as a country in accessing new markets for our products around the world. The development of new projects is grinding to a halt. CEPA member companies that have material assets in other countries are actively pursuing those opportunities because of the uncertainty and potential implications of further potentially seismic regulatory changes that will directly impact the pipeline sector. Our sector is suffocating because of it.

It is clear that Liberal red tape and uncertainty are already forcing investors and developers to seek out other markets, causing hundreds of thousands of Canadians to lose their jobs. Bill C-69 would make it worse. The Prime Minister must stop sacrificing Canada's interests to the rest of the world. Canada already has the highest environmental standards in the world and the most responsibly produced oil and gas.

Canada will continue to do so long into the future, if only governments would allow energy, and all responsible resource development, to continue to fuel Canada's economy and contribute public revenue for all levels of government.

Resource jobs are middle-class jobs, so if the Prime Minister truly cares about the middle class, he will stop increasing red tape and imposing policies that drive out investment and the hundreds of thousands of middle-class jobs in every corner of the country that go with it.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Mr. Speaker, as I listened to the parliamentary secretary's speech, she talked mostly about the navigable waters act, but I want to bring it back to the standing test the NEB used to have. It will be eliminated in this act. Section 183(3), specifically deals with the standing test. The practice of the NEB had been, and I think it was the right one, that persons directly affected by a project that ran through a community should be the ones before the National Energy Board in order to present their views on any proposed project and how it would impact them directly.

I think it was said by the Prime Minister that only communities could give consent, so why not allow those people most locally affected by it to have a direct say in it?

This bill will eliminate that test, and that is actually two steps backwards. As an example, during the Enbridge Line 9B reversal and the Line 9 capacity expansion, the NEB received 177 applications to participate, of which 158 were granted, 11 received an opportunity for a written submission, and only eight were denied. The reason those were denied because they were not directly affected by it.

However, under the model proposed in Bill C-69, even international individuals can come before the new regulator and basically say that they are affected by it directly and therefore permission should not be granted. I think in a great deal of cases Canadians will support local projects because of the jobs and the shared prosperity they benefit from it directly. Therefore, this is two steps backwards.

Does the parliamentary secretary agree with me?

[Karen McCrimmon, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, I would first and foremost like to thank the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development for its careful study of Bill C-69. I would also like to thank the witnesses and those who have made written submissions for having taken the time to make their views heard. This work has strengthened the bill and has been an important step in getting us to where we are today.

I would like to speak particularly about part 3 of Bill C-69, which would create a new Canadian navigable waters act.

Our country is bordered by three oceans, giving us the world’s longest coastline, and we are internally connected by thousands of rivers and countless lakes and canals.

Canadians rely on our navigable waters. They are vital to our economy and to our way of life. We have a profound relationship with our waters. That relationship is part of what it means to be Canadian.

We need to protect navigation on these waters for our use and enjoyment today, and for the benefit of generations to come.

When the previous government introduced the Navigation Protection Act, many Canadians were concerned that most of Canada's navigable waters were left unprotected. In response to these concerns, the minister was asked to review the changes made by the previous government to restore lost protections and incorporate modern safeguards.

In June 2016, the review of the Navigation Protection Act was launched. As a first step in this process, the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities examined the act. The committee reported its findings and recommendations in March 2017.

I would like to take this opportunity to also thank this standing committee, the witnesses and those who made written submissions for their early input. This input provided the foundation for the new Canadian navigable waters act that was eventually tabled as part of Bill C-69.

During its first year of review, the work of the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities was complemented by consultations with recreational boaters, as well as other levels of government, indigenous groups, industry, and environmental organizations. What did they tell us? Many of them told us they wanted all navigable waters protected, and that is what we are doing.

Under the existing legislation, the minister has the power to review new projects and deal with obstruction to navigation only if they are on the navigable waters listed in the schedule. However, we believe that all navigable waters should be protected. We promised to restore lost protections, and we are delivering on that promise.

What would this legislation do? The act would include, for the first time, a comprehensive definition of navigable waters. It would provide oversight for all works on those navigable waters in Canada, whether those works are minor, requiring approval, or are subject to the new resolution process.

It would give communities and recreational waterway users more chances to have their say on infrastructure and resource projects that could affect their right to navigation. It would deliver a new level of transparency by creating a new online registry that would make information about projects easily accessible. It would extend the powers to address obstructions to all navigable waters in Canada, not just those waters listed on a schedule.

Finally, the act would advance reconciliation with indigenous peoples, consider their rights and knowledge, and give them the opportunity to partner with the government to manage the navigable waters that would be important to them.

Let me discuss some of these improvements in more detail. As I said, this legislation would include a comprehensive definition of “navigable water”.

The new definition includes bodies of water with public access or multiple shoreline owners that are used for transport or travel for commercial or recreational purposes or by indigenous groups to exercise their constitutionally protected rights.

This new definition strikes the right balance: it is not so broad as to capture any ditch or irrigation canal that could float a canoe, nor is it so narrow as to exclude bodies of water that are important to Canadians.

All works in navigable waters in Canada will be under the oversight of the new act, regardless of whether the navigable water is listed on a schedule or not. Someone building a minor work, such as a cottage dock or a boat ramp, in a navigable water could proceed, provided they build and maintain the work in accordance with the requirements set out in the minor works order.

There will also be some works that will always require approval because of their potential impact on navigation. These are major works on any navigable waters in Canada as well as works on scheduled waters.

I strongly believe users of navigable waters and local communities have a right to express their views about projects that may impact navigation. The proposed act meets a new standard of transparency by requiring owners to notify the public of their project and to seek feedback before beginning construction on any navigable water. In some circumstances, owners could be required to post notice of their project in community centres, marinas, local newspapers, or other appropriate places.

Further, the new Canadian navigable waters act will require the creation of a new online public registry that will make project information more accessible than ever before. For millennia, the indigenous people of Canada have used navigable waters to fish, hunt, trade, and travel, and they continue to do so today. Indigenous peoples played an active role of the review of the Navigation Protection Act.

Transport Canada participated in more than 90 meetings with indigenous groups and received close to 150 submissions. What did we hear from indigenous peoples? We heard that they wanted a say in what happened within their traditional territories.

This past February, the Prime Minister announced his commitment to reconciliation through the recognition and implementation of rights framework. The Government of Canada recognizes that reconciliation is a long-term undertaking. Rebuilding relationships will require sustained government-wide action.

A strengthened crown-indigenous relationship is at the heart of the proposed approach. This new relationship with indigenous peoples is based on respect, cooperation, and partnership.

The act would also provide new opportunities for indigenous peoples to partner with the Government of Canada to protect navigation in their traditional territories. Indigenous peoples have helped to shape the proposed legislation, and I am very proud of the work we have done together.

Whether they are tourists on a river cruise, or cottagers taking the boat out to do some fishing, or kayakers exploring secluded bays, Canadians get a lot of pleasure out of our waterways. However, under the existing legislation, these navigable waters may not be protected for recreational purposes.

Under the new Canadian navigable waters act, a more inclusive schedule will provide a greater level of oversight for navigable waters that are important to Canadians and that are vulnerable to development. The new act proposes a process for adding navigable waters to the schedule that will take into consideration recreational uses, not just commercial ones.

The proposed changes to the navigation legislation will offer better navigation protections for recreational boaters on every navigable water in Canada.

Bill C-69 would not only restore navigation protection for every navigable water in Canada, but it would also position the new Canadian navigable waters act to play an important role in the proposed new impact assessment system.

Bill C-69 would establish the impact assessment agency of Canada to lead all federal reviews of designated projects. The impact assessment agency would work with other bodies, such as the new Canadian energy regulator, the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, and off shore boards, and in co-operation with the provinces and territories, and indigenous jurisdictions.

The impact assessment agency of Canada would identify the types of projects and areas of federal jurisdiction that could pose major risks to the environment, and would therefore require a review.

A whole range of potential impacts would be considered, not just the project's impact on the environment, but also the impact on communities, health, indigenous peoples, jobs, and the economy in general.

We are finding better ways to measure the potential impact of designated projects to make sure only good ones go forward.

The new Canadian navigable waters act will be transformational. It will restore protection for navigation on all navigable waters in Canada, and it will create a new standard of transparency. It will restore public confidence and it will provide new opportunities for indigenous peoples to partner with the Government of Canada to protect navigation in their traditional territories.

As I wrap up, I move:

That this question be now put.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his concern for the member for Edmonton Strathcona.

She accomplished a massive amount of work. She is very knowledgeable, thorough, and detail-oriented, and she truly cares about working with other parliamentarians to improve bills that are important to the future, like Bill C-69. She went to committee in good faith and listened to experts and people familiar with the topic. She worked in this field for years. She is familiar with it. She wanted to make this bill as good as possible.

Unfortunately, she was told that they did not want to hear from her. The Liberal government does not listen to the opposition parties. I think the leader of the Green Party had the same experience. Very few of her amendments were adopted. This is quite unfortunate, because we are trying to do a good job, but, once again, the government is not listening.

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Mr. Speaker, one of the consequences of the process of Bill C-69 going through the committee was the unfortunate loss of the member for Edmonton Strathcona. She became frustrated with the process because of what she saw as the top-down approach of the PMO and a lot of the committee members having their strings pulled.

I wonder if the hon. colleague could comment on the frustration felt by the member for Edmonton Strathcona as we went through the committee process.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, again, I am pleased to rise to speak to Bill C-69 on a new impact assessment and environmental assessment process.

I must begin by saying a few words about the approach to adopting this new process. Cloaked in righteousness, the Liberal government set to defending democratic institutions. It sought to give MPs their power and their voice back, respect the work of Parliament, and break from the Conservatives' despicable practice of cutting debates short. The Liberals said they wanted to give MPs time to do their work in order to represent their constituents well.

However, bad habits die hard, and closure has been imposed more than 40 times already. These are what we call time allocation motions that seek to limit the time for debate.

It seems that this bill is important to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change. However, the Liberals imposed closure at every stage. At first reading, at report stage, and now at third reading, they gave parliamentarians a maximum of four or five hours before closing debate. We were promised, hand on heart, that a Liberal government would never do such despicable, undemocratic things. It has now become routine.

My Conservative colleague, who is a member of the Standing Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development, said that the government was bragging about having collaborated, studied amendments in committee, and listened to the opposition. It also brags about the fact that about 100 amendments were adopted in committee to improve the bill. Congratulations. I just want to point out that 99% of the amendments adopted were Liberal amendments. I have no doubt that that makes things easier.

It is mind-boggling to think that the bill was so poorly drafted and cobbled together, right from the start, that the Liberals were forced to present about 100 amendments in committee to try to patch it up and repair the damage. The bill lacked clarity and was poorly crafted, so it needed a lot of clarifications. That gives you an idea of the process, since government members are almost never required to fix a lousy job from the minister's office.

I would now like to talk about timeframes. It took the government 28 months to come up with a bill for a new environmental impact assessment process. During the campaign, the Liberals said that it was a priority because Canadians lost confidence in the process when it was destroyed and dismantled in the previous Parliament. They claimed that the Conservatives' process turned away from science and that we urgently needed to restore a transparent, valid, and scientific process that people could rely on. It took 28 months to come up with this bill.

During these 28 months, the government continued to sit back and to use the previous Parliament's process, a process that was supposed to be terrible.

What did the government do in the meantime? For one thing, it authorized the expansion of the Trans Mountain pipeline, which was Kinder Morgan's priority. How convenient that is for the government. When it wants a project to go ahead, it holds off on establishing a more serious, more credible, more scientific, and more rigorous process. The government used the tool left behind by the Conservatives, a means of fast-tracking and rubber-stamping projects, and was thus able to approve everything and anything.

The Liberals go through the motions of sticking a few bandaids on so it appears different, but they are not fooling anyone. Once again, the government used what it once criticized. This is more proof of the Liberals' hypocrisy.

The Trans Mountain expansion was approved in November 2016. It is now June 2018, and we are once again discussing the new environmental assessment process. Halfway through their mandate, the Liberals still have not passed a bill because they keep dragging their feet, citing consultations. The Liberals had no problem speeding some things through; a more rigorous process would have gotten in their way.

They broke their promise to assess the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion under a new environmental assessment process. While in British Columbia during the election campaign, the Prime Minister swore that the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion would never be assessed under the Conservatives' rules, yet that is exactly what happened. He also promised to change the voting system and institute democratic reform. It seems to be a bad habit of his. When he solemnly swears something, look out because he is about to flip-flop.

We have a new agency that is based on the old environmental assessment agency, but with more powers and a bigger role. It will be above certain commissions, like the National Energy Board, which will become a commission. That is a step in the right direction we had been waiting for, but we are still concerned about the fact that two organizations we have heard little about, which will exist alongside the new impact assessment agency of Canada, will be getting much more authority and a bigger role. I am referring to the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board and the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board.

These two boards are separate, independent assessment committees that are responsible for assessing any drilling that may occur in marine environments, in the oceans, in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, potentially, or off the coast of Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador. That troubles us, because the mission of these two boards is to promote offshore oil and gas development. Their job is not to protect the environment, the seabed, ecosystems, or endangered species. It is to promote oil and gas development off the coast of certain provinces.

This flies in the face of everything the government says about how much it cares about the environment and its claims that it is here to protect our oceans, our natural resources, and our ecosystems. In itself, that is a total contradiction. We in the NDP find this really troubling, and I doubt we are the only ones, judging by the spontaneous reaction of the Green Party leader, who is just behind me.

When you tell a story, there is a beginning, a middle, and an end. It is not complicated. That is what kids learn in school. I want to talk about those three stages in the context of Bill C-69. In the beginning, a decision has to be made as to which projects will be submitted to the new agency for assessment, because all of this has to be good for something. If it is decided that the project will not be assessed because it is not worth it, everything in Bill C-69 and everything that was said about public consultations, indigenous consultations, and considering reports from climate change experts—all of that goes out the window.

As things now stand, and the minister confirmed it in her speech, Bill C-69 does not establish a list of projects. It also does not set out any clear, definitive, and verifiable criteria that would allow us to determine which projects require an environmental assessment. There is nothing about that at all.

From the start, there has been a very serious grey area. The agency can arbitrarily decide for itself what it considers to be important or unimportant.

It is all well and good to have a good process, which as we will see is not as good as all that, but if that process is never used, then it does not do anything more to protect us as Canadians, as people who are concerned about the environment, ecosystems, and global warming.

Take the following oddity, for example. The bill states that if the project is deemed to be a major project, it will fall under the responsibility of the new assessment agency. If it is deemed minor, then it can be reviewed by a commission, such as the National Energy Board. What is the difference between major and minor? There is nothing in the bill about that, so we do not know.

There are things like the steam-based oil sands development technology called “in situ”, which has been completely left out of the scope of the bill and any new environmental assessment. The government says it will not look at it even though it is an increasingly common technology that could have serious impacts. Those impacts could be relatively minor, but for the people living in the indigenous community or the town involved, it does not necessarily take a thousand-litre spill or a huge amount of pollution to jeopardize their health, pollute their environment, or cause a public health issue.

There is no clear explanation for why in situ bitumen extraction was excluded. Knowing what gets assessed and what does not is just the beginning. There are a lot of vague and arbitrary elements. There is very little clarity, and that is what worries us. That is the first problem.

The second problem is with the middle part, the public consultations, the dialogue with indigenous communities, and the appointment of review panels to do the scientific environmental assessment.

Consultations are another novelty of the Liberal process, and on that topic, assessment timeframes are being shortened. Depending on the size of the project, they will drop from 365 days to 300 days. That means that we will lose 65 assessment days. For major projects, the process will drop from 720 days to 600 days, for a loss of 120 days. This Liberal decision was taken in direct response to the demands from investors and private companies.

The decision worried many environmental, indigenous, and citizen groups. They do not understand, if we want a credible, serious process we can trust, why the government is adopting an attitude where it seems to want to expedite things as quickly as possible and satisfy the desires and needs of the industry first and foremost.

The Liberal government is also saying that first nations will have a greater role to play in the assessment process. Connect the dots to what I just said. If we greatly shorten the timeframes of a project and process, it is rather unlikely that there will be enough time to conduct extensive consultations with first nations. Again, they say one thing, but in fact there is a good chance that nothing will come of it or that the process will be flawed or absolutely incomplete.

That is what we know about the duration, the timeframe of the process.

The second aspect is the appointment of these experts we have been talking about to the panels that will carry out these ostensibly scientific, environmental impact assessments. There are many groups, including the Quebec Environmental Law Centre, that are concerned about the fact that the Liberal plan has no mechanisms to ensure that these will not be partisan appointments, that Liberals will not appoint their cronies, and that panel members will not be prone to making recommendations or a report that merely reflects what the government wanted from the start.

It is a simple process that is already in place in other jurisdictions. I am thinking of BAPE in Quebec, which is well regarded and credible, and has this type of mechanism. Here, we get the feeling that the Liberal government would allow the appointment of people who will not really care or who will listen to what the government says and wants.

It is really not that surprising. If I have time, I will come back to Kinder Morgan and the absolutely ridiculous purchase made recently.

While public consultations were being held on the Trans Mountain expansion, while first nations were being told that they were being listened to, that it was important, that they really wanted to hear their perspective, it became apparent that a decision had already been made. The government was already looking for excuses and reasons to legally say that the decision was made and that it would be approved.

Phony consultations were held very recently, and I believe that people should be concerned about the possibility of these partisan appointments to the expert panel.

After the beginning and the middle, we get to the end. Let us say the project has been assessed. Let us say the consultations lasted long enough and were sufficiently credible, although perhaps a bit limited. Let us say the experts really were independent, they did their job diligently, and they prepared a report with recommendations based on science, social licence, the impact on climate change, our ecosystems, and so on. After all that, it is completely up to the minister if he or she wants to dismiss all the recommendations of the impact assessment agency. All of that good work, even if it is perfect—and we already have some misgivings about that—could very well be taken and tossed into the trash, and the project could be deemed in the national interest and approved.

The national interest is being tossed around a lot these days. It can be made to mean pretty much anything. A majority government can simply declare something to be in the national interest since it knows that it can force it through the House either way, and everyone else will have to deal with it. I think it would be in the national interest to listen to experts, scientists, Canadians, and first nations. When the minister of the day has all of this discretionary power, the process can become arbitrary. Say that you like the current Liberal government, and that you trust its environment minister. That is fine, and I am sure there are people out there who feel that way, but once a bill passes, it will not change with every cabinet shuffle, with every federal election, or with every change in government. Things could turn pretty quickly under someone who has a different style or vision of development. I am really being very kind to the sitting minister, who has the instincts of an industry minister rather than those of an environment and climate change minister. Incidentally, anyone claiming to champion environmental protection and the fight against climate change should not go out and buy a 65-year-old pipeline that is already leaking everywhere.

I would like our Liberal colleagues to take out their 2015 electoral platform and show me the part where they told voters they wanted a pipeline so badly that they were prepared to spend billions of taxpayer dollars to buy one if necessary and that Canadians would have to assume all the risks associated with such a project. Let us be clear, Kinder Morgan deemed the project was too high risk. The current Prime Minister even acknowledged that no private company wanted to take on these risks because legal challenges have been filed by British Columbia and many of its first nations.

There are difficulties and challenges with respect to our international commitments under the Paris Agreement and our greenhouse gas reduction targets. The project simply does not make sense. We will be spending at least $12 billion on infrastructure that might be worthless in 25 or 30 years. On top of taking a huge financial hit, we will have invested in the energy source and jobs of the past, when we could have been investing in renewable energy. Those types of investments create six to eight times more jobs. The Prime Minister would have become a leader with a vision for the environment and for sustainable development. Sadly, that will never happen.

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Mr. Speaker, notwithstanding a minor hiccup at the end there, Canadians saw in the hon. member for Abbotsford's passion and heard tonight in his speech the truth about Bill C-69 and not the platitudes, rhetoric, and buzzwords used by the Minister of Environment and Climate Change.

He spoke about the committee. I was there. I actually saw this sham of a committee meeting go on, where every single amendment that the Liberal members of the committee tried to put through was adopted. When the Conservative side tried to move amendments forward to make this bill better, and even when the NDP member for Edmonton Centre tried to move amendments to make this bill better, all of them were lost. They were not accepted by the Liberal members of the committee.

The one thing that is really disturbing about this bill, and I mentioned this when the Minister of Environment and Climate Change was here, is the fact that this consolidates power. It actually would bring the decision-making into the minister and into the cabinet, which effectively means that the potential exists that no further projects would occur in this country. I wonder if the member shares that same assessment.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as I articulated in my speech, the minister certainly would have the power under this legislation, in Bill C-69, to do pretty well anything she pleases because she would have broad discretionary powers to suspend, extend, and then veto projects, which is the exact opposite of what industry expected the current government to do. People in industry expected there would be more certainty in the process, the process would be science-based, and instead it is something quite different.

To the member's earlier comment on amendments, as I mentioned, every single amendment of the over 100 amendments that the Liberal members of the committee brought forward was passed. None of the Conservative amendments were passed because the committee was not interested in getting this legislation right. It was interested in ramming through legislation that the minister wanted to have through.

By the way, I move, seconded by the member for Barrie—Innisfil, that the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word “that”, and substituting the following: Bill C-69, 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, be not now read a third time but be referred back to the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development for the purpose of reconsidering all of its clauses.

Mr. Speaker, you will understand why we are doing this. It is because of the sham of a process that the Liberal government undertook to address amendments that were brought forward in good faith by my Green friends in the corner, by the NDP, and by our Conservative members of the committee, most of which were disregarded and treated in a very cavalier manner. This is intended to rectify that and give the House another opportunity to get this bill right.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, all I can say is poppycock. He talks about consultation with the public, but he left out the members of the House, who Canadians have elected to review this kind of legislation. A government can have all the consultation it wants across Canada, but if it does not provide the elected members of Parliament the opportunity to do their work, that is a scandal. That is why Bill C-69 is a scandal of a process. It has been short-circuited.

The member refers to the process by which the former government introduced bills, which is very similar to the process we have here, where the Prime Minister introduces omnibus bills and he then invokes closure and cuts off debate in the House. Where were the 14 months of consultations and work that the House could do on this bill? Where were they? We were cut short here. Is that the kind of government the Prime Minister leads?

If one were to review the mandate letter that the Minister of Environment received, one would see that there are numerous references to raising the bar on the relationship between the minister and the committees that review her legislation, and on how she relates to the members of the House. None of those mandate requirements were complied with in this case. Again, it is a true shock and scandal to the House.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, here we are again speaking to Bill C-69. The minister pretends the bill is going to wonderfully restore trust in Canada's impact assessment program. That is a myth. In fact, she spent a lot of time talking about the process we needed to establish that would restore this trust.

Let us talk about the process that the minister embarked upon to get the bill through the House of Commons. Rather than consulting broadly, rather than allowing the committee and the House to do its work in the time required to do it well, she and her government invoked closure in the House again and again.

The Liberals introduced a bill they claimed they would never introduce, an omnibus bill. It is a bill that touches on a whole raft of different pieces of legislation, including the Environmental Assessment Act, the National Energy Board Act, and the Navigation Protection Act. Before they were in government, the Liberals said they would never use omnibus bills. Then they present us with one, try to ram this through the committee, and ram it through the House, invoking closure.

I sit on that committee as vice-chair. I know the minister spoke well of the committee. That is because she got her way. The majority of the members on that committee are Liberals. They rushed the bill through. It got so bad that hundreds of witnesses wanted to appear on the bill because it was important to their industries or their environmental movement.

We had heard about 24 witnesses out of the hundreds that wanted to appear, and suddenly, the Liberals on the committee introduced what is called a programming motion. Basically, the programming motion gives a set number of days to hear witnesses, review all the amendments, pass the legislation and send it back to the House. That programming motion was so inadequate. It did not provide anywhere close to the amount of time required to actually evaluate the legislation. It is very serious legislation and it is absolutely critical to Canada's national prosperity and our ability to get Canada's resources to world markets. They could not even spend the appropriate time doing the review.

Over 400 amendments came forward at committee, and over 100 amendments were Liberal amendments. This is the Liberal government bringing forward legislation. It rushes it forward, saying, it has to get this done, that it needs to restore trust, that it will ram it through, but it will introduce some of its own amendments because it got it wrong and it wants its Liberal members to fix the mistakes. One hundred Liberal amendments were introduced, so that was 100 mistakes in the legislation.

That is symptomatic of a failed Liberal government. Of course every Liberal amendment passed. How many Conservative amendments passed? Not one. These were common sense amendments that improved the legislation, to the degree it could be improved because it is deeply flawed legislation.

Here is something else, and I think Canadians need to hear this. It is the hypocrisy of the Liberal government. The government has said that it supports the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, and has said it will implement that in Canadian law. Members of the NDP and Green Party who were at committee brought forward 25 different amendments where UNDRIP would be incorporated into the legislation, the way the Prime Minister promised when he ran for government.

How many times do members think the Liberals on a committee voted in favour of UNDRIP being incorporated into the legislation? Zero. Is that hypocrisy? I think we can all agree that he spoke out of both sides of his mouth. That is the whip coming from Gerald Butts and his team, who were sitting behind the Liberals telling them exactly how they should vote at committee.

This was the process that was supposed to restore trust in our impact assessment review process. This legislation went through a process that was a sham. The stakeholders across Canada who expected to be heard on it were not heard. We, as members of the committee, were not allowed to speak and debate many of the amendments that were brought forward, because we were cut off by this programming motion.

That is just the context of Bill C-69, the supposed efforts by the government to introduce Bill C-69, which was to restore trust in our environmental review process. It has done nothing of the sort.

Let me talk about the bill itself. We have talked about the flawed process that was followed to actually get this bill through. I am assuming the same rushed process will be imposed in the Senate. This bill has three main parts. It addresses the environmental assessment approval process. It also creates a new Canadian energy regulator to replace the former National Energy Board, and it also fixes what the government believes are flaws in the Navigable Waters Protection Act.

Let me talk about the last one first. In 2012, the former Conservative government identified that the Navigable Waters Protection Act had not been reviewed or amended for 150 years, basically going back to the time of Confederation. This was legislation that was so antiquated. Now the environmental movement had taken the Navigable Waters Protection Act and had treated it as an environmental piece of legislation. They would always trot it out and say the Navigable Waters Protection Act prevents one from doing this and this, and this. “We are protecting the environment.”

However, the Navigable Waters Protection Act had nothing to do with the environment. It was all about transportation on Canadian waters, and making sure that navigation was free and open across Canada. Think about going back 150 years and how transportation has changed. Think about that. This legislation had not been changed.

Therefore, the Conservative government went about modernizing that legislation and it was excellent legislation. It improved the process in which we address navigation issues, especially as they relate to areas of our country that are subject to farming, and farmers, who could not get work done on their lands because of antiquated navigation laws.

However, there is a second piece. That was the Canadian energy regulator. Think about this. This is what the Liberals do. This characterizes the Liberals. They took the National Energy Board, one of the most competent and capable boards of its kind in the world, in fact noted around the world, and sought out for its expertise in the world, and created a whole new Canadian national energy regulator. Imagine that. Was it necessary? Of course not. It is another make-work project for the Liberal government, more costs, hundreds of millions of dollars of additional costs to create this new organization to implement a new environmental review process. Who pays for that? It is the taxpayers.

The government promised that this legislation, Bill C-69, was going to shorten the timelines in which resource projects would be reviewed and approved. Okay. People took them at their word. What came out of the sausage maker? Wow, what a mess, just like sausages look like quite a mess as they are being made. This legislation was the same.

The government said that these new timelines shortened the actual environmental review process, the assessment. However, it tacked on 180 days at the beginning called the “planning phase”, which of course has extended the time frames involved far beyond what people expected.

Beyond that, within the legislation itself, the government incorporated numerous opportunities for the minister to exercise her discretion to extend or suspend a timeline. Therefore, throughout this process that a proponent goes through there are opportunities for the minister to say, “I want to suspend the process right now because I have some concerns about that and that”, and the proponent has no power to prevent that. The minister also has a right to say, “I'm going to extend the timelines. Notwithstanding our government's promise that it was going to be a shorter assessment process, I'm going to extend it. I have the power in this new legislation to do that.” Therefore, the time frames are actually longer, and the certainty is much less because of the amount of discretion given to the minister in this legislation, contrary to what the government had promised.

At the end of this process, the planning phase and the environmental review process, one would think that decisions would be based on science, and that would be it, we have moved to a fully science-based process. No. The government has reserved unto the minister the right to veto a project at any point along the line, including at the end of the environmental review process, again undermining certainty for the investment community, which is shopping its money and investments around the world saying, “Where is there a warm and welcoming environment in which we can do business, where we drive prosperity for the people of that nation, and we are able to build critical resource projects and infrastructure that gets those resources to market?”

This bill does not live up to its billing at all. The timelines are longer and the discretion is greater, as is the uncertainty for the people who want to move forward with resource projects.

It gets worse. Do members remember the minister saying that the government wants this process to be more streamlined, more welcoming, and with certainty for proponents of research projects in Canada? Bill C-69 includes a host of new criteria that will now be applied to those who want to get projects approved, including upstream and downstream impacts of things such as pipelines.

It gets worse. On top of that, the government has included a provision that says that every project must take into account the impact that project will have on Canada's greenhouse gas emission targets under the Paris Agreement. If we were thinking of sending a message to the world that we are open for business again, this would be the wrong way of doing it. Bill C-69 does not do that in any way. We have heard some of my colleagues quote organizations in Canada that are focused on resource projects and that have lamented the fact that Bill C-69 is a huge step backward, and that no further pipelines will ever be approved in Canada based on the legislation as it is.

We tried to improve the legislation at committee. It is not like we sat on our hands and said that it was a fait accompli. We worked very hard. We brought forward about 100 amendments that would have improved this legislation, made it more timely, made it more certain, and made it a vehicle that would attract investment to Canada. What did our Liberal friends across the table do? They voted against every single one of those amendments. That is what we are dealing with, with the Liberal Party.

It gets worse. Let us talk about the precautionary principle, which is also incorporated into this legislation. A lot of people do not understand what the precautionary principle is. Effectively, what it is saying is better safe than sorry.

In other words, if there is anybody, whether it is the minister or someone on the minister's staff or someone in industry or someone in the environmental movement, who says that they think this project, before it has ever been assessed based on the science, it could be a danger to Canadians' health or the environment, the precautionary principle would dictate that the project would not go ahead.

The minister has the power to use the precautionary principle to simply say, “I am not allowing this project to go ahead.” The proponent could say, “Well, Madam Minister, we have all this evidence, scientific evidence that we have paid millions and millions of dollars to secure. This scientific information will prove to you that this project can be built and operated in an environmentally sustainable way.” The minister could say, “No. Precautionary principle. Better safe than sorry. Bye, bye.” That is what is included here.

Members may recall that there was a lot of complaining by the Liberals during the last election that somehow the environmental review process did not allow for enough people to become engaged in the process. What did the Liberal government do? It changed what is called the “standing test”. The standing test is very simply the rules under which Canadians and others are entitled to appear as intervenors before an impact assessment review.

Members can imagine what this would be like, if we had no control over who could be an intervenor. If any Tom, Dick, or Harry in the world wants to appear before an environmental review process but has no direct nexus to the project, or cannot prove that they have an interest in that project, why would we allow that individual to line up in this queue of people wanting to intervene?

What the Liberals have said is, “We are going to open this wide up. We don't care how many people come to be intervenors. If special interest groups use large numbers of intervenors to basically slow down the process, drag it out, and discourage investment, so be it.” That is what we are left with now in Bill C-69, a deeply flawed piece of legislation that has introduced numerous new opportunities for special interest groups to delay and obstruct projects that are of a national interest.

Let us talk about projects of a national interest. The government says that this legislation is going to attract all kinds of investment. We know industry is saying, “Absolutely not. There will not be one more pipeline built in Canada.” Now we have a pipeline, the TMX pipeline, the Kinder Morgan pipeline, which was approved in Canada, which was ready to be built, but, as usual, there are special interest groups that say, “Notwithstanding that there is a process, like Bill C-69, a process that is supposed to be legal, supposed to be fair, we will disagree with the decision, and we are going to fight this all the way. We are going to protest, lay our bodies down in front of the bulldozers.” On and on it goes. That is what we have with Kinder Morgan.

We have a Prime Minister who does have some options. He is, after all, the Prime Minister and has constitutional powers. One of those is the declaratory power under the Constitution. He has the ability to state that a project is in the national interest, and that supersedes provincial powers. Under the BNA Act, interprovincial pipelines are considered federal projects. The federal government has a right to intervene and promote. Rather than doing that, our Prime Minister says, “I am not going to exercise my constitutional powers. I am going to see if somebody else out there in the world will buy this pipeline, because TMX wants to sell it, wants to get out of it.”

Did he find any takers? None. What he says to taxpayers is, “I want you to pay this bill. I am going to pay $4.5 billion for this pipeline, even though its book value is only $2.5 billion.”

The cost is $2 billion more than the book value of that pipeline. That is what Canadians now have from the government. We have bought ourselves a pipeline, where all of the risk now falls on the shoulders of Canadian taxpayers.

This is awful legislation and we were never given the time to properly assess, review, and amend it. That should be a shame on this Liberal government.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for her speech. Sometimes I have trouble following the Liberals' logic. The minister just reminded us that previous Conservative governments gutted the environmental assessment process, that they broke the trust of Canadians, and that they removed science from the process. Then, all of a sudden, as soon as they took office the Liberals used the very environmental assessment process they are criticizing to approve the Trans Mountain expansion.

The Liberals will say that they tried to fix it up, but no one believes them. It was the same thing. Bill C-69 was introduced a year and a half later, after the Trans Mountain project was approved using the Conservative approach that the Liberals are criticizing. That makes no sense whatsoever.

The question I would like to ask the minister is this. Let's say I give the Liberals the benefit of the doubt and that the process really is better than it was before, even though we have our doubts. How is it that Bill C-69 does not include a list of projects that will be assessed and does not contain any clear and definitive criteria for determining which projects will be assessed? Why do we not know how that will be decided?

It is all well and good to have a good process, but if no projects are ever assessed, then it is useless.

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Mr. Speaker, if there is anything Bill C-69 speaks of, it is another broken promise by the Liberals, given the fact this is again another omnibus bill. However, it really does fulfill a prophecy that has been stated widely by the Prime Minister. He said it in Peterborough and Paris about moving to an alternate based economy. In fact, his inside operatives, the de facto prime minister in the country, Gerald Butts, has said that it is not about alternative pipelines; it is about an alternative economy.

What is most disturbing in the bill is the consolidation of power, a consolidation that would give power to the environment minister and to cabinet to basically destroy any project that comes forward. It gives them unilateral control of this.

Will the Minister of Environment and Climate Change stand in the House and finally admit that it is your intent to destroy the oil and gas industry in the country and not to protect it?

[Catherine McKenna, Liberal, Minister of Environment and Climate Change]

moved that Bill C-69, 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, be read the third time and passed.

Madam Speaker, before I begin, I wish to acknowledge that we are on the traditional territory of the Algonquin and Anishinabe peoples.

I am very pleased to once again address the House in support of Bill C-69. This is a key priority of our government. With the bill, we are keeping our promise to put in place better rules to protect our environment and build a stronger economy. It reflects our view that the economy and the environment must go hand in hand and that Canada works best when Canadians work together.

I am going to speak about why our government introduced the bill, and why there is a clear need for better rules to protect our environment and govern how decisions about resource development are made. I will talk about how the bill's balanced approach addresses the priorities of indigenous peoples, stakeholders, and Canadians from coast to coast to coast, and how it delivers what Canadians expect.

I will also describe how our better rules will benefit all Canadians, how they will lead to a cleaner environment for our children, more investment as good projects go ahead, and more jobs and economic opportunities for the middle class and those working hard to join it.

We made a commitment when we formed government to regain public trust and help get Canada's resources to market. We committed to put in place new, fair processes that would ensure major project approvals are based on science and indigenous knowledge, that serve the public interest, and that allow good projects to proceed.

Why is this so important? Madam Speaker, $500 billion in major resource projects are being planned across Canada over the next decade. We need rules and processes in place that will allow these projects to move forward. Under the previous system, people lost confidence in Canada's environmental assessment processes.

Since participation in the review of major projects was limited, some Canadians were not able to contribute their knowledge and expertise.

The decision-making process was opaque, and Canadians began to fear that decisions on projects were being made based on political considerations, not on science and evidence.

Furthermore, after amendments were made to the Fisheries Act and Navigable Waters Protection Act, Canadians discovered that major protections had been lost, leaving Canada's fish, waterways, and communities at risk.

The changes made by the previous government eroded public trust and without public trust, it became very difficult for good projects to move forward. Weaker rules hurt both our environment and our economy.

All these changes eroded public trust, and without public trust, it became very difficult for good projects to move forward. Weaker rules hurt both our environment and our economy. If Canada wants to capitalize on the next wave of resource development, we need better rules that reflect Canadians' priorities and concerns, provide certainty, and foster the competitiveness of proponents operating in Canada, while respecting our responsibility to protect the environment.

Knowing this, we introduced interim principles in 2016 to guide our government in reviewing major projects until we could put the better rules in place.

To rebuild trust in the environmental assessment process, our government launched a 14-month review involving two expert panels and two parliamentary committees. Input from provinces and territories, indigenous peoples, companies, environmental groups, and Canadians from across the country informed a discussion paper released in June 2017 and, ultimately, helped shape the approach set out in this bill. What we heard through those panels and committees is that Canadians want a modern environmental assessment and regulatory system that protects the environment, supports reconciliation with indigenous peoples, attracts investment, and ensures that good projects go ahead in a timely way to create new jobs and economic opportunities for the middle class. We have also heard from industry about the importance of a clear and predictable process.

Bill C-69 would put in place the better rules that Canadians and companies expect. Thanks to indigenous peoples, stakeholders, and Canadians who contributed their knowledge and perspectives, this bill would help rebuild public trust through key improvements that include decisions that are transparent and guided by robust science and indigenous knowledge; project reviews that consider a wide range of positive and negative impacts on the economy, health, indigenous rights, and communities, in addition to the environment; more timely and predictable review processes; measures to advance reconciliation and partnership with indigenous peoples; reduced duplication and red tape through a one project-one review approach; and through amendments to the current Navigation Protection Act, restored protection for every navigable waterway in Canada. It also complements Bill C-68, which proposes changes to the Fisheries Act to ensure it provides strong and meaningful protection for our fish and waters.

As I said, we made a commitment to restore public trust in Canada's environmental assessment system, to restore the protections that were lost, and to make sure that Canadians can trust the review process and its results.

It is essential that we ensure that all decisions are transparent and serve the public interest in order to restore trust. That is exactly what Bill C-69 would accomplish.

Under the previous system, Canadians had no idea how decisions were made. Under our new rules, Canadians can rest assured that all major project reviews are done fairly and based on evidence, that all decisions serve the public interest, and that good projects will go ahead.

Bill C-69 would clarify that project approval would be based on the impact assessment report. Decisions would also have to fully consider the factors that informed the review, as well as key public interest factors, including the project's contribution to sustainability and impacts on indigenous rights. That means all final decisions would need to have a clear basis in facts and evidence.

That alone is a major advance over the previous system, but even this important step is not enough to restore trust if Canadians are not informed about how final decisions have been made. To build that trust whenever a final decision is made on a project, a public statement of the rationale for that decision would be issued. That statement would clearly demonstrate to Canadians how the assessment report formed the basis for the decision and how factors like sustainability were taken into account.

To make good decisions, we need good processes that take into account a broad range of considerations. Bill C-69 provides clarity on the factors that would guide project reviews. We know that the impacts of major projects go beyond the environment alone. Projects also affect Canada's economy, our health, and our communities. They can also affect indigenous peoples and their rights.

Our government also recognizes that not all effects of major projects are negative. They also have positive impacts, like creating well-paying jobs for local communities. That is why under our new rules, both positive and negative consequences, economic, environmental, social, and health, would be taken into account. At the same time, tailored guidelines for project reviews would ensure they focus on factors relevant to the specific project.

These improvements will help improve the decision-making process and enhance public trust. Indigenous people, businesses, and the general public will know ahead of time what factors will guide project reviews. These reviews and the resulting assessment reports will the provide the basis for the final decisions.

Public decision statements will provide Canadians with the assurance that key factors were properly taken into consideration and that all decisions serve the public interest.

Without the support and partnership of indigenous peoples, there is no way to move forward with major resource projects. This is not optional. It is integral to ensuring that indigenous peoples, and all Canadians, can benefit from increased jobs and investment.

That is why Bill C-69 fully reflects our government's commitment to a renewed relationship with indigenous peoples based on recognition of rights, respect, co-operation, and partnership. This has been a focus of our government from the very beginning. We have taken important steps to put that commitment into action.

For example, we announced our full support for the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People, we are working in partnership with indigenous peoples to develop a new recognition and implementation of rights framework, and we are making major new investments in education, health, infrastructure, and indigenous communities.

This bill puts our commitment to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People at the forefront, in the preambles of impact assessment act and the Canadian energy regulator act.

It also states that, when exercising their powers under the impact assessment act, the government, the minister, the agency, and federal authorities must respect the government’s commitments with regard to the rights of the indigenous peoples of Canada.

The new Canadian energy regulator's mandate will specify that it is to exercise its powers and perform its duties in the same manner.

Indigenous peoples, as well as stakeholders and the public, would have meaningful opportunities to participate in project reviews from the start and throughout the process. Recognizing the important contributions that indigenous knowledge makes to project reviews, our bill would make it mandatory to consider this knowledge alongside science and other evidence in every assessment, and would require transparency about how it was taken into account and used. At the same time, it would provide strong protection for the confidentiality of indigenous knowledge across all parts of the bill.

I have said that our better rules are designed to help good projects move forward to get Canada's resources to market. Companies have told us what they need to make sure that happens: clear, timely, and predictable processes that provide certainty at every stage.

Under our proposed legislation, one agency, the proposed impact assessment agency of Canada, would be the federal lead for all major project reviews. This would mean more consistent, more predictable reviews for all projects. At the same time, the agency would work closely with regulatory bodies so that their valuable expertise could continue to inform assessments.

A revised project list would provide clarity for companies, indigenous communities, environmental groups, municipalities, and all citizens on how our new rules would apply. We have consulted with Canadians on the criteria that would guide that revised list, and we will be consulting again in the fall on the proposed list itself.

Our bill would require a new early planning and engagement phase before an impact assessment could begin. This new phase would help companies identify and address issues early on. It would result in a clear set of products to guide the impact assessment. These would include tailored impact statement guidelines that are scoped to reflect the scale and complexity of the project, a co-operation plan, an indigenous engagement and partnership plan, a public participation plan, and a permitting plan.

While a broad set of factors would be considered in early planning, the tailored guidelines would reflect only those that are relevant to the specific project. Following early planning, proponents would be notified if a project is likely to have unacceptable impacts. This would not stop the process. Instead, it would allow the company to make an informed decision about whether, or how, to go forward with the project in the impact assessment process.

As I have said, companies would have a clear understanding of what would be taken into account in the review itself, including positive and negative effects on the environment, the economy, health, and communities. Companies could also be certain about how final decisions are made. They would be based on the assessment report, and on consideration of key public interest factors, including the project's contribution to sustainability. This would be clearly demonstrated through public decision statements.

To provide the timely decisions and reviews companies expect, Bill C-69 sets out clear time limits for each stage of the process, including the new early planning phase. That includes 300 days for reviews carried out by a review panel with input from a life cycle regulator. When justified, more complex projects may take up to 600 days. This is a major improvement over the 2012 Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, the CEAA, which allowed up to 120 days for all reviews carried out by review panels.

This bill will also reduce red tape and prevent duplication through opportunities to collaborate with the provinces. It provides for joint assessments in which a single assessment process can meet the requirements of several levels of government. The bill also provides for substitution should a process carried out by another level of government satisfy the federal government's requirements.

Bill C-69 will facilitate a smooth transition toward the new impact assessment system. The bill would set objective criteria to determine which projects will continue to be reviewed under the 2012 CEAA, give companies the option to go through the new process, and confirm that nobody will ever be sent back to square one.

This bill would also provide certainty and help restore public trust by providing opportunities for public participation at every stage of the review process.

When it comes to resource development, public trust and support are essential for projects to move forward. That will not happen if Canadians are not able to take part in project reviews. Bill C-69 would remove the “standing test” imposed by CEAA 2012, so that a broader range of Canadians could contribute their knowledge and perspectives.

With the new early planning and engagement phase, Canadians would be able to make their voices heard from the beginning.

Bill C-69 would provide for the public and for indigenous peoples to participate in a meaningful manner, and would ensure that they have the information and tools they need and the ability to share their thoughts and expertise.

The bill would strike a balance between allowing for meaningful participation and the need for assessments to be completed in a timely manner.

Canadians want projects to be approved based on scientific facts and indigenous knowledge. Our government is committed to adopting policies based on evidence, and Bill C-69 is proof of that.

This bill includes a clear commitment to implementing the act in a way that respects the principles of scientific integrity, honesty, objectivity, rigour, and accuracy. This is perfectly in line with our strong commitment to science and shows that we intend to implement this act.

Bill C-69 also provides for regional and strategic assessments. These studies would inform project reviews by looking at crosscutting issues and cumulative impacts, those that go beyond any one project. To ensure they can play an important role in our impact assessment system, these reviews would benefit from the best available advice and fully take into account indigenous knowledge. We are committed to moving forward with these assessments, beginning with a strategic assessment on climate change.

As we transition to the new system, we will invest up to just over $1 billion over five years to support the proposed new impact assessment regime and Canadian energy regulator; increased scientific capacity in federal departments and agencies; changes required to protect water, fish and navigation; and increased indigenous and public participation.

I am extremely proud of our government's work on this bill. It is the result of extensive public engagement and fulfills the commitment we made when we formed government: to rebuild public trust and get Canada's resources to market sustainably.

I want to acknowledge that many people have contributed to the development of this bill. Of course, I want to recognize the indigenous peoples, stakeholders, and Canadians who participated in our 14-month review process, as well as those who have continued to engage after we introduced the bill.

I also want to recognize the members of this House who have contributed to debate on Bill C-69 and its further development. In particular I want to express my appreciation for the members of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development. Their efforts in hearing from witnesses and amending the bill have resulted in important changes that have strengthened the legislation.

Throughout this process, the government and the standing committee worked on adopting a balanced approach that addresses the priorities of indigenous peoples, the industry, environmental groups, and other stakeholders. I think that, together, we succeeded.

Through this balanced approach, our better rules will protect Canada's environment, help good projects move forward, and recognize and uphold the rights of indigenous peoples. I think all of us in the House can support that.

Fisheries Act

[Robert Sopuck, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

Madam Speaker, that, quite simply, has nothing to do with the topic at hand. The issue at hand is how the current government is weakening fish habitat protection, hurting Canada's fisheries, and will be layering its new fisheries act on top of Bill C-69. It will drive industry and investment away from this country, and it is especially going to harm rural communities, the kind that I represent.

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is no secret that foreign investment has been fleeing and will continue to flee Canada at an alarming rate. I have seen this first-hand in my dear hometown of Calgary, Alberta, where we have seen the exit of organizations and of corporations such as Murphy Oil, ConocoPhillips, Royal Dutch Shell, and I can go on and on with respect to the foreign investment that has fled. That is even prior to the installation and royal assent of such damaging legislation such as Bill C-68, which we are discussing today, and Bill C-69. The government has to take responsibility for the investment that is fleeing Canada and ruining the lives of Canadians.

[Robert Sopuck, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

Madam Speaker, I was on the fisheries committee back in 2012 when the changes were made. I helped author them. I was also on the fisheries committee when the Liberal government tore apart extremely good legislation. I have also had the honour of being in the environment field for over 35 years and did pipeline assessments. My colleague is exactly right about how carefully pipelines are made these days.

Just as an aside, I would recommend my colleague get on the fisheries committee, she is so competent in this field.

I was also on the environment committee recently when we looked at Bill C-69, and the horror stories from industry are legendary. Chris Bloomer from the Canadian Energy Pipeline Association said that Canada had a toxic regulatory environment. He talked about pancaking regulation on top of regulation. It is an environmental lawyer's dream. The lawyers are the ones who will to get rich.

Could my colleague talk about the effect of this and other acts on Canada's investment climate?

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Madam Speaker, tonight I would like to focus my attention on the detrimental effects Bill C-68 would have on development. Before I do so, I want to point out to those listening at home that the government has once again moved time allocation.

When the Liberals were in opposition, they absolutely railed at the thought. They used every tactic in the book to disrupt and to stall debate. Now, however, it seems that every time the Liberal government House leader has a chance, she moves time allocation in an effort to limit our free speech.

This bill is completely unnecessary and, as the House has heard from my colleagues, this matter was studied in depth at the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans. In fact, it was the minister himself, in 2016, who asked the committee to examine the lost protections in the Fisheries Act.

After months of debate, do members know how many witnesses testified on lost protections? It was none. Zero. Not a single one. Now the Liberals have brought forward this unnecessary legislation, which is already expected to cost close to $300 million to implement. I want to clarify that as part of our previous government's economic action plan of 2012 and in support of the responsible resource development plan, changes to the Fisheries Act were introduced and received royal assent in November of 2013.

The legislative changes we, on this side of the House, made to the fisheries protection provisions of the act supported a shift from managing impacts to all fish habitats to focusing on the act's regulatory regime on managing threats to the sustainability and ongoing productivity of Canada's commercial, recreational, and aboriginal fisheries.

Prior to these sensible amendments, all fish, and consequently all potential fish habitat, regardless of economic or social value, were covered under the Fisheries Act. This created a system that was impossible to manage, and created impediments to the most minor work on ditches, flood prevention etc. This creates an incredible amount of red tape for towns and municipalities, and means completely unnecessary hardship for Canadians trying to simply go about their business, and protect their property, a fundamental Canadian right.

The Liberals' approach to the legislative, regulatory, and policy framework governing infrastructure projects would cause a competitive disadvantage for all Canadian companies and would be felt by local governments across the country. I would also like to point out that the Liberal strategy of layering broad policy considerations into environmental regulations, such as Bill C-68 and Bill C-69, would lead to a marked decrease in investment and competitiveness for Canada's energy sector, as though it could possibly get any worse. This threatens the sector's sustainability and its contribution to Canada's future social, economic, and development objectives.

What the Liberals have done is put forward a piece of legislation with a bunch of “fill in the blanks” or “to be considered” slots, and asked Canadians to trust them. Unfortunately for business, this approach does not work and only serves to undermine industry.

In relation to the authorizations pursuant to the Fisheries Act, it is uncertain as to the types of projects that would require approval and potentially trigger an impact assessment pursuant to Bill C-69. Depending on forthcoming codes of practices and regulations, there could also be the need for additional approvals for low-impact activities, and the result would be a longer process with no different outcome than is achieved under the current legislation.

The unknown of the project specifics that would trigger approvals pursuant to the Fisheries Act is most concerning since it has a strong likelihood to impact all project development, not just those projects requiring assessment by the proposed impact assessment agency.

Former Liberal cabinet minister, the Hon. Sergio Marchi, who is now the president and CEO of the Canadian Electricity Association, has made it clear that he sees Bill C-68 as a missed opportunity. In its press release, the CEA stated:

...Bill C-68 represents one step forward but two steps back.

CEA is particularly concerned that the government has chosen to return to pre-2012 provisions of the Fisheries Act that address ‘activity other than fishing that results in the death of fish, and the harmful alteration, disruption or destruction (HADD) of fish habitat’. In practical terms, this means that virtually any action, without prior authorization, could be construed as being in contravention of this Act. Consequently, the reinstatement of these measures will result in greater uncertainties for existing and new facilities, and unduly delay and/or discourage investment in energy projects that directly support Canada’s clean growth agenda and realize its climate change objectives.

Bill C-68 is a missed opportunity for the federal government to anchor the Fisheries Act on a reasonable, population-based approach rather than focusing on individual fish, and to clearly define fisheries management objectives.

Regarding criteria for project designation, the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans heard from the Pembina Pipeline Corporation and were told of a number of alternative measures that could be used to lessen any environmental impact. Unfortunately, it seems any suggestions fell on deaf ears as the committee refused all 20 amendments put forward by my colleagues.

Pembina is a Calgary-based pipeline corporation that has provided transportation and midstream services to North America's industry for over 60 years. Sixty years is not a small amount of time in the span of Canadian history. In fact, it has one of the best integrated pipeline systems in the entire world and transport hydrocarbon liquids, natural gas, and natural gas products all over Alberta.

In its brief to the committee, it highlighted that pipeline associated watercourse crossing construction practices and technology had in fact come a long way over the last few decades. These processes are state-of-the-art, and horizontal directional drilling is a perfect example of a technology that is widely used and eliminates environmental impacts of a pipeline crossing waterways.

I will not go into the complete detail on the briefing submitted by Pembina, but I will say that this bill is unnecessary. It would create more bureaucratic red tape and would only serve to hinder development. In fact, the legislation is so very ambiguous that Pembina cautions that the Liberal government is virtually ensuring future conflict among indigenous communities because it has not considered the complexity of overlapping traditional territories.

On this side of the House, we support the protection of our oceans and fisheries. Our previous changes to the Fisheries Act were enacted to support transparency in the decision-making process and provide a level of certainty to those invested in the act.

The Liberals have done the exact opposite with Bill C-68. As usual, what they say is not actually what they do. They have said that they are restoring harmful alteration or disruption or the destruction of fish habitat. However, they sidestep any obligation to uphold the HADD regulations in the legislation by providing the minister with the ability to exempt certain provisions.

I want to reiterate also that Bill C-68 seems to undermine transparency and due process by allowing the minister to withhold critical information from interested proponents, and this goes against the Prime Minister's commitment to openness and transparency.

There is no way the Conservative Party of Canada will support this burdensome bill that serves no purpose other than to check off an election promise from the Liberals' 2015 red book.

Department of Public Works and Government Services Act

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

Madam Speaker, I am thankful for the opportunity to speak to Bill C-344, an act to amend the Department of Public Works and Government Services Act regarding community benefit. While this bill has commendable intentions, it is my great concern that it will actually have a negative impact on our communities and the small and medium-sized construction businesses that employ so many Canadians. In my opinion, this private member's bill continues the Liberals' assault on SMEs by adding another layer of red tape to federal government contracts.

Just last week, I spoke on Bill C-69 and the Liberals' changes to the Navigation Protection Act contained within that bill. Like Bill C-344, the changes to the NPA would add more red tape and cost for project proponents and the construction companies that do the work. While this private member's bill may be smaller in scope and thereby seen as less problematic for small and medium-sized businesses than the government's omnibus bill, Bill C-69, it still reflects a worrying trend by the government.

The Liberals' mentality seems to be that they can add any amount of new taxes on businesses and that it will have no effect on their bottom line or the price they charge their customers or, on this occasion, that they can attach any amount of red tape on businesses' activities and they will happily absorb the administrative burden. This is not the case. There are consequences every time a government does this, just as there are benefits every time a government reduces taxes or cuts red tape for job-creating small and medium-sized businesses. If passed, this bill would pertain to those projects and the subsequent contracts awarded by the federal Minister of Public Services and Procurement.

I will talk about the substance of narrow scope of the bill in a minute, but for the moment, I will speculate about why the Liberals, through this private member's bill, have limited the application of the bill in such a way. It could be that the Liberals actually know that applying these principles more broadly would generate a larger backlash among the construction industry and the many partners that often work with the federal government to fund projects. It could be that Liberals want to use this private member's bill as a virtue-signalling talking point in order to win over a certain segment of the population. It could also be that some Liberals actually realize that slapping this requirement onto all federally funded projects would have a negative impact on the construction industry, as I have already identified, and as a result, they have decided to limit the damage to a more narrowly defined category of projects.

As I mentioned earlier, this private member's bill covers a limited number of projects and contracts of which the federal government is a partner. This private member's bill would amend the Department of Public Works and Government Services Act and would not apply to the projects that the federal government supports through the department of infrastructure. Still, the government's support of this bill is something that the construction industry and the federal government's partners should be aware of and concerned about.

Looking at the substance of the bill in a bit more detail, I find the level of ambiguity contained in Bill C-344 troubling. In clause 1 of the bill, the section creating new subclause 20.1(2) states, “The Minister may, before awarding a contract for the construction, maintenance or repair of public works, federal real property or federal immovables, require bidders on the proposal to provide information on the community benefits to be derived from the project.” First, this clause says, “The Minister may”. “May” is a small word, but it sure has huge implications. Right there, we have uncertainty. This rule will not be constant. How will bidders know if this requirement will be applied?

Next, the new subclause 20.1(3) states, “A contracting party shall, upon request by the Minister, provide the Minister with an assessment as to whether community benefits have derived from the project.” Here we have more ambiguity, particularly in the needlessly vague and nebulous term “community benefit”. How is a bidder to determine what constitutes “community benefit”?

As we heard from the question I asked the sponsor of this bill, he could provide no definition. How is a bidder to know whether said benefit will meet whatever subjective criterion the minister choses to employ? When the bill states, “upon request by the Minister”, there is no certainty for the bidders or ultimately the successful bidder. This means that if this bill were to pass, people bidding on a contract will have to price into their bid the risk of being required to do or produce what the minister wants without knowing what that may be.

As I said at the beginning of my speech, I think the intent behind Bill C-344 is commendable. However, it leaves me wondering how the Liberals feel about charity and social responsibility, and whether they have considered the law of unintended consequences.

I would like to quote from Michael Atkinson, President of the Canadian Construction Association, who appeared before the transport, infrastructure and communities committee when this bill was being studied.

Regarding corporate social responsibility, Mr. Atkinson stated:

Corporate social responsibility is becoming something that we are looking at very earnestly in our industry. It's a very important part of doing business today. We have a how-to guide coming out for our contracting members in the industry, but CSR is not social procurement. CSR is a voluntary program that a corporate entity takes on to ensure that what it does as a company meets environmental sensibilities, good HR practices, etc. Social procurement is a government coming out and saying, “If you want to do business with us, then you have to have a CSR policy.” I think that's a very important difference.

Mr. Atkinson highlights a very important distinction. Businesses in general, and many companies in the construction industry, already make investments in their local communities as part of their commitment to corporate social responsibility. I believe that it is important that in this conversation about community benefit, we do not minimize the benefit that communities are already receiving from businesses of all sizes. The picture painted by those in the Liberal Party and the NDP is that corporate Canada simply takes. Nothing could be further from the truth. Corporations, big and small, give back to their communities. They provide jobs to families in the communities in which they operate. However, beside this very basic economic support, small, medium and large businesses sponsor community events, support local infrastructure, and provide support to non-profit community groups like sports teams. They do this not out of obligation or necessity but out of an appreciation for the community they work and operate in, and sometimes live in, because they know they are part of the community. They do not need to be told how to be good corporate citizens. Most already are.

Of the reasons that I will not be supporting Bill C-344, the most notable are that I believe it minimizes the support and benefits that already accrue to communities when a project is undertaken in their backyard, that it is needlessly ambiguous, and that it fails to consider the unintended consequences that may arise from its implementation.

Opposition Motion—Leadership on Climate Change and Clean Energy

[Robert-Falcon Ouellette, Liberal, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, a lot of the environmental programs we see do not have to be a windmill or solar power panels we see outside buildings. In fact, they can actually be about energy efficiency and the things we do on a day-to-day level to ensure that we actually save energy and use the good types of energy.

For instance, our government is ensuring that we are a model for sustainability by greening our government. We are on track to reduce the government's own greenhouse gas emissions by 40% by 2030 and by 80% by 2050. Even when I was in the Canadian Armed Forces, there were many times, 20 years ago, when someone would leave the door open. We would be heating the outdoors, because someone thought it was too hot, and we were not able to actually turn down the heat. The government today is actually reviewing a lot of the policies on how we conduct ourselves in our day-to-day operations to see if there are energy savings. It is listening to people on the ground, asking civil servants, and even our military personnel, what we can do to ensure that we can meet that target. That takes a lot of effort, because it is going to be an effort by all Canadians to ensure that we actually get there.

I am proud of our government. Not only are we committed to those agreements but we are intent on actually trying to achieve those targets. It is not simply empty rhetoric. It is actually something we hold in our hearts to be true that we will get there if we work day in and day out, and we are doing that.

We are passing a number of bills that are repairing the damage from the decade of darkness. We are engaging with our international counterparts to ensure that we are going to be meeting those targets. For instance, we are changing legislation through Bill C-69 and Bill C-68. We have also introduced Bill C-74, and the list goes on.

Opposition Motion—Global Climate Change and Clean Energy Leadership

[Jonathan Wilkinson, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Edmonton Mill Woods.

I am very pleased to stand in the House today to discuss the motion of my colleague, the hon. member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie.

I appreciate the call for Canada to be a global climate change leader. I agree, and Canada is. However, this motion fails in a number of areas, including its failure to recognize the actions the government has taken in ensuring that the environment and the economy go together as we build a clean energy economy. Our government has been steadfast in its belief that a strong economy and a clean environment go hand in hand. The NDP motion completely ignores the historic investments that the government has made through successive federal budgets that specifically address Canada's environment, coastlines, waterways, and wildlife, as well as the introduction of government legislation such as Bill C-69, Bill C-68, Bill C-57, and Bill C-74, which would further strengthen our ability to protect the environment and grow the economy in sustainable ways.

Today, I will highlight the global market for clean technologies and the enormous opportunity Canadians are already taking advantage of that is estimated to be in the trillions of dollars, with demand only increasing, and at an incredibly rapid pace.

This is an area I personally know very well, having spent the past almost 20 years as a chief executive officer and senior executive in the clean technology and renewable sector. The clean technology industry presents significant opportunities for Canadian businesses from all sectors of the economy. That is why investing in clean technology is a key component of our government's approach to promoting sustainable growth and to addressing key environmental challenges.

Our government also recognizes that clean technology is a source of good, well-paying jobs for Canadians. Therefore, when it comes to clean technology, Canada has the opportunity to be a true global leader, creating good, well-paying jobs for Canadians, while helping to meet our climate change and other important environmental goals.

Clean technologies are central to Canada’s low-carbon, globally competitive economy that provides high-quality jobs and opportunities for our middle class and those working hard to join it.

Clean technologies are by definition innovative technologies. Our government understands that innovation is a key driver of economic success. That is why we developed an innovation skills plan that will assist in making Canada a world-leading centre for innovation.

Today, clean technology already employs over 170,000 Canadians, and we sell about $26 billion annually in goods and services. Of that $26 billion, about $8 billion is exported.

Clearly, there is a strong appetite for Canadian innovation, but we have only just scratched the surface and there is so much more room to grow. That is why our government set aside more than $2.3 billion for clean technology in budget 2017. For the record, that is Canada's largest-ever public investment in this field. Prior to making this historic investment, we worked closely with industry to develop a comprehensive strategy that will successfully accelerate the development of the sector.

This $2.3 billion will support clean technology research, development, demonstration, and adoption and the scaling up of our businesses.

We know that access to financing fuels the growth of companies and provides the capital needed to hire new staff, develop products, and support sales at home and abroad, which is why we have set aside $1.4 billion in new financing for clean-tech providers. This is in addition to the $21.9 billion investment in green infrastructure, which will create jobs and position Canada for the low-carbon economy of the future.

We have also allocated $400 million to recapitalize Sustainable Development Technology Canada. This fund is helping our Canadian businesses develop world-class expertise in clean technology engineering, design, marketing, and management. To date, the fund has invested $989 million in 381 Canadian companies, supporting projects across the entire country. The funding has helped these companies develop and demonstrate new clean technologies that promote sustainable development, including those that address environmental issues, such as climate change, air quality, clean water, and clean soil.

There is also the Business Development Bank of Canada with its $700 million commitment to help clean technology producers scale up and expand globally. Since mid-January, I am pleased to say that four investments worth $40 million have been made. Through our participation in mission innovation, the Government of Canada will work with the international community to double federal investment in clean energy research and development over five years.

These are very significant and substantive investments, and we will drive for strong results. The government will carefully monitor the results of its investments both in terms of economic growth and jobs, as well as the environment.

Through a new clean-tech growth hub within Innovation Canada, the government will streamline client services, improve federal program coordination, enable tracking and reporting of clean technology results across government, and connect stakeholders to international markets. The clean growth hub is the government's focal point for all federal government supporting clean technology. Since launching in mid-January, the hub has served over 450 companies. This one-stop shop is a major innovative win for government that industry is already recognizing as a key step forward.

The 2017 Global Cleantech Innovation Index, which investigates where entrepreneurial companies are most likely to emerge over the next 10 years, ranked Canada fourth, up from seventh in 2014. Further, in January of this year, the Cleantech Group released a Global Cleantech 100 list. The list recognizes the clean-tech companies that are most likely to have significant market impact over the next five to 10 years.

Under the Harper government, Canada's share of the global clean-tech market shrunk by half. In partnership with the clean-tech industry, we have successfully turned this around. This year, a record 13 Canadian clean technology firms comprised the top 100. All the winning companies are clients of the Canadian trade commissioner service, and seven of the 13 companies are Export Development Canada customers.

We know that is only a small sampling of the innovative clean technology companies that are doing amazing work every day across the country to create economic growth, and solve our most pressing environmental challenges.

For example, in Montreal, GHGSat has developed the technology to monitor industrial greenhouse gas emissions using satellite technology. They launched their first satellite in 2016. In my own province of British Columbia, Carbon Engineering is developing a process to turn carbon dioxide in the air into a clean fuel. I could go on and on, speaking about all of the fantastic and innovative clean technology companies working across the country in so many industries and sectors of the Canadian economy.

In order to ensure their continued success, we will continue to collaborate with all stakeholders and jurisdictions across Canada to meet our climate change commitments and bring innovative and competitive clean technologies to market.

We have developed strong international linkages that promote Canadian technology as solutions to global challenges and attract private sector investment. This government is focused on scaling our great Canadian clean technology success stories, and in the process, helping to solve the world's most pressing environmental challenges.

As we move forward, the Government of Canada will continue to be a strong partner for clean technology producers. Our government is incredibly proud and impressed by the innovative work being done by the entrepreneurial women and men working in this sphere and we will continue to support them and their work, and with their success, generate future wealth for Canadians, while safeguarding the environment for future generations.

[Kim Rudd, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie for his motion. In many ways, I thought he did a great job in his opening comments and in his motion of summarizing our government's record to date, as well as our vision for Canada's future in this clean growth century.

Among other things, his motion acknowledges our commitment to making Canada a global climate change leader, and rightly so. After all, we did not just sign the Paris accord on climate change; we helped to shape it.

Then we took a leadership role in the creation of Mission Innovation, a new global partnership that is accelerating clean energy solutions like never before.

We sat down with the provinces and territories. We engaged with indigenous peoples. We consulted with Canadians on how best to reach our climate change targets. The result was the pan-Canadian framework on clean growth and climate change, which lays out a path to the clean growth, low carbon economy, a blueprint for reducing emissions, spurring innovation, adapting to climate change, and creating good, sustainable jobs across the country, the very things the hon. member opposite prescribes in his motion. However, we have not stopped there.

We continue to make generational investments in clean technology and innovation as well as foundational science and research. We are making similar unprecedented investments in the green infrastructure that supports clean growth. At the same time, we are putting a price on carbon and accelerating the phase out of coal. All of this leads me to think the hon. member opposite wrote his motion by taking a page out of our policy book. That will become even clearer as this debate proceeds.

Over the course of today, a number of my colleagues will speak to specific elements of the motion, including our comprehensive efforts to combat climate change, such as our record investments develop clean and renewable sources of energy, our focus on promoting energy efficiency, and our plan to protect Canada's oceans and coastal communities.

I would like to begin as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources by setting the scene, explaining how the many moving parts fit together, and how Canada's abundant natural resources, including our vast supply of energy, are a key piece of the clean tech puzzle.

The world is in the midst of something that has only happened a few times in history, a fundamental shift in the types of energy that power our societies. The page of that transition may vary from country to country, but it is under way and it is irreversible.

Climate change is forcing all of us to think differently about how we power our factories, heat our homes, and fuel our vehicles, and about the importance of using both traditional and renewable energy more efficiently.

This is not just another issue. We are not talking about tinkering with a particular government policy or deciding whether to build a road somewhere. We are talking about the future of our planet. We are talking about creating an entirely new direction for our economy, redefining how we see our connectiveness to other nations, and about the importance of global action.

That is why our government is taking action. This year alone we have invested in smart electricity grids, electric and alternative fuel for charging stations, more energy efficient homes, and help for northern communities to move off diesel. Each of these takes us a step closer to the future we want, a country driven by clean technology and defined by innovation.

We are also reimagining carbon by turning otherwise harmful carbon dioxide emissions into valuable products, such as building materials, alternative fuels, and consumer goods.

Just last week we heard exciting news reports about a company on the west coast that had found a way to pull carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere and turn it into a low carbon fuel for vehicles at an economical price of less than U.S. $100 per tonne. That is where Canadians are taking us with their ingenuity and their imagination. This is the kind of innovation that will transform our economy and create great green jobs for years to come.

Then there is energy efficiency, an area that is too often overlooked. According to the International Energy Agency, improving energy efficiency could get us almost halfway to our Paris commitments. Just think of that: halfway. Thus is why we have proposed new building codes that will require our homes and offices to do more with less and transform the use of energy in the country for generations.

Canadians are helping to lead the way with innovative and novel ways to reduce our energy consumption. Our government is investing in those opportunities but there is still plenty of work to be done, which is why we continue to invest in our traditional sources of energy, and why we continue to develop our vast oil and gas reserves as a bridge to tomorrow's low-carbon economy.

There are two reasons for that. First, as the IEA also tells us, global demand for energy will increase by 30% by 2040. That is like adding another China in terms of energy demand. Even under the most optimistic scenarios for renewable energy, and even with our best efforts at enhancing energy efficiency, much of that increased demand identified by the IEA will have to be met by fossil fuels. The fact is the world will continue to rely on oil and gas for some time, meaning that our conventional energy is not “increasingly obsolete”, as the hon. member opposite would have us believe.

The second reason for developing our oil and gas resources is so Canada can leverage the revenues it generates to invest in our low-carbon future. I will have more to say on that in a moment, but first I would like us to return to the motion before us.

I presume the hon. member opposite's reference to fossil fuel infrastructure is a thinly veiled reference to our government's decision last month to secure the Trans Mountain pipeline and its expansion. Even on that score, I would argue that the hon. member is playing catch-up to our government. Let me explain.

As all members of this House know, our government approved the Trans Mountain expansion and Line 3 replacement pipelines based on the best science, the widest possible consultations, and Canada's national interest. Those decisions were made as part of a sensible policy that includes diversifying our energy markets, improving environmental safety, and creating thousands of good middle-class jobs, including in indigenous communities.

However, what the member opposite may have forgotten is that we made two other key decisions at the same time. First, we rejected the northern gateway project because the Great Bear Rainforest is no place for an oil pipeline. Second, we placed a moratorium on tanker traffic along the northern B.C. coastline, including around the Dixon Entrance, the Hecate Strait, and the Queen Charlotte Sound.

All of those decisions reflected balance, and our belief that economic prosperity and environmental protection can, and indeed must, go hand in hand, and that there must be a balance. The Trans Mountain expansion pipeline is part of that balance. It is part of the plan that I described earlier using this time of transition to Canada's advantage by building the infrastructure we need to get our resources to global markets and then using the revenues they generate to invest in cleaner forms of energy. By moving more of our energy to tidewater, our producers will have greater access to global markets and world prices, which according to analysts at Scotiabank and others, could add about $15 billion annually to the value of our oil exports.

In addition, the construction and operation of the pipeline is expected to generate as much as $4.5 billion in new federal and provincial government revenues. Those are new tax dollars to pay for our hospitals and schools, to build new roads and bridges, to fund our cherished social programs, and yes, to invest in clean technology and renewable energy.

The TMX pipeline will operate within Alberta's own 100-megatonne cap on greenhouse gas emissions, making the project consistent with Canada's climate plan. For all those reasons it was essential that our government take the necessary steps to protect the project from the political uncertainty caused by the Government of British Columbia. However, as the Minister of Finance has said, our plan is not to be the long-term owner of the TMX pipeline. We know that the TMX pipeline has real economic value and we fully expect that investors will want to be part of the project's future. In fact, we are already seeing that. A number of investors, including indigenous groups, have expressed interest in taking an ownership position.

This is all part of a well-begun journey to our clean energy future, a journey that started as soon as we formed government and set about restoring public confidence in the way major resource projects, such as the TMX pipeline, are reviewed.

One of the first ways we did that was by adopting an interim approach for major projects already in the queue. These principles include assessing direct and upstream greenhouse gas emissions associated with the project, expanding public consultations and indigenous engagement, and recognizing the importance of indigenous knowledge, all the while ensuring that no project proponent would have to return to the starting line.

This new approach led to a number of significant breakthroughs. For example, we led the single deepest indigenous engagement ever for a Canadian resource project in Canada, and we responded to what we heard from those consultations by co-developing an indigenous advisory and monitoring committee to oversee the lifespan of the TMX pipeline, as well as an economic pathways partnership to enable indigenous workers to reap the benefits of the projects. Both are Canadian firsts. Our government also appointed a special ministerial panel to hear from Canadians whose views may not have been considered when the National Energy Board concluded its review of the TMX project.

In the end, we approved the project and accepted the NEB's 157 binding conditions as part of our larger plan for clean growth. It is a plan that combats climate change, protects our oceans, invests in clean technology and energy, restores investor and public confidence, and advances indigenous reconciliation.

We introduced legislation, Bill C-69, as a permanent fix to the way environmental assessments and regulatory reviews are carried out in Canada. We have also launched a historic process to recognize and implement inherent indigenous rights, a new approach that will renew Canada's relationship with indigenous peoples, rebuild indigenous nations, and set a real path to indigenous self-determination based on mutual respect and partnership. We have tabled budget after budget that promotes clean growth, improves opportunities for indigenous communities, and supports fundamental science. Our budget this year builds on its predecessors by encouraging businesses to invest in clean energy and use more energy-efficient equipment. It also invests in cybersecurity for critical infrastructure, such as energy grids and information networks.

Budget 2018 recognizes that Canada will not get ahead if half of its population is held back, that investing in women is not just the right thing to do, it is the smart thing to do.

Our government has matched its words with actions, investing to build exactly the kind of future that the hon. member opposite envisions, one where science, curiosity, and innovation spur economic growth. All of these things I have talked about today are part of a solid plan, a balanced practical plan, one with many elements but a single goal: making Canada a leader in the global transition to a low-carbon future by creating the prosperity we all want while protecting the planet we all cherish.

I know the hon. member opposite shares those same goals. His motion speaks to our vision, and I hope he will continue to support our efforts.

Report Stage

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to rise and speak on Bill C-68 tonight. The comment that was made earlier this evening from one of my colleagues across the floor was that he was happy that a member from the west coast or a coastal riding was getting up and speaking about this. I am not picking on him for any reason, but I think it highlights one of the issues we are having with this bill. There seems to be a lack of knowledge or scope when it comes to our friends in the Liberal government not understanding the ramifications and implications that the decisions they are making with this bill will have on every region of the country. That is why we are seeing many of the rural members of Parliament from the Conservative side getting up to speak to this bill, because it will have very real and profound consequences on our rural communities.

I want to back things up prior to 2012, when these changes to the Navigable Waters Act and the Fisheries Act were made by the previous Conservative government. I recall I was a journalist at that time in a small community newspaper throughout southern Alberta. I remember covering numerous council and town hall meetings hosted by rural municipalities that were having significant issues when when it came to dealing with culverts, small bridges, drainage ditches, seasonal waterways, and irrigation canals, and the hoops, bureaucracy, and red tape they had to go through to try to complete some of those projects.

Prior to 2012, municipalities had to go through labour-intensive regulatory requirements when it came to areas of what was then called “navigable waters”. They were forced to endure lengthy delays, because the Department of Fisheries and Oceans was inundated with thousands of applications from municipalities that were waiting for it to come and make decisions on their projects, not to mention the length of those delays. It proved extremely costly to these municipalities that were having to endure these very long wait times. I would think many of us who have rural municipalities in our ridings understand that many of these municipalities are extremely small. They simply do not have the financial or staffing resources to be able to handle the workload and amount of paperwork that comes along with a Department of Fisheries and Oceans assessment. Therefore, our rural municipalities were coming to the previous Conservative government with these problems and issues with respect to managing their own lands. That is when the previous Conservative government came up with these changes to try to reduce some of that regulatory burden. We wanted to turn the focus to ensuring that the protections in that legislation focused on the most critical fish and fish habitat in navigable waters. At the same time, we wanted to take some of that regulatory burden off some of the waterways that probably never had fish habitat and would never have fish habitat, but were still under the same regime and regulatory layers of bureaucracy that any river, stream, ocean, or lake would come under, when we were just talking about drainage ditches and irrigation canals, for example.

When we talk about some of the changes that were made, I think we need to highlight that the act maintained a very strong regulatory regime and protected very important fish habitat, but it had more of a practical scope. It reduced that administrative burden on not only municipalities, but also the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. It had now freed up a lot of its time and resources to focus on the most important cases and waterways without having to deal with very minor projects for municipalities. However, it also empowered municipalities to be the environmental stewards of their own waterways. When it comes to those types of projects and waterways, who would be better to be the stewards of those lands than the municipalities, the councils, and their staff, who are on the ground each and every day? They know the history. They have that local knowledge. They know whether it is fish habitat. They know if it is a seasonal waterway. Certainly, they know that better than a bureaucrat in Ottawa. Therefore, I think it was a win-win situation for the municipalities, as well as the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.

Now we are faced with these changes in Bill C-68, which would expand the definition of fish habitat, expanding it even wider and more broad than it was prior to 2012. That is very disconcerting in the fact that it was burdensome and difficult to deal with and almost impossible to enforce prior to 2012. How difficult will this be when not only we restore it to the previous definition, but have even expanded that definition to a much wider scope. It has re-engaged a lot of those same regulations, but it also introduces something that is new, which is designated projects. This will include any projects within a category that could impact any waterway, whether it has a specific impact on a known fish habitat or not.

What is even more concerning for our stakeholders, municipalities, farmers, and ranchers is the fact that there is no definition on what a designated project is. This is really a larger narrative that we have seen from the Liberal government. It rushed through this legislation without doing all the homework and all the background work first so that it tabled a complete document that everyone could understand exactly where they stood. The legislation is very clear. The rules and regulations are very clear. There are still some very large holes in it with which stakeholders are very concerned.

The other issue, which is a large narrative with some of the Liberal legislation we have seen, is the minister would have more expanded and broader powers. This is very similar to what we have seen with Bill C-69.

We now have proponents in the energy sector that are divesting themselves of the energy sector because they do not feel there is a clear path to success. If they do apply for a project, whether it is pipeline, a mine, a forestry initiative, LNG, they could go through the regulatory process, through every environmental review, could pass all of those things, but at several steps during the process, the Minister of Environment and Climate Change would have the authority to step in and tell them to go back to the beginning. The minister could cut it off right there and tell them the project was not in the public interest or it was not something that could be supported. That would be the end of that project.

There is no clear definition of how to reach success or if there is a definitive pathway that people would know their projects would not succeed. We cannot have those types of projects at the whim of one person. That is very similar to what we see in Bill C-68 where the minister would have similar powers.

This is a crippling burden for municipalities that do not have the resources or the infrastructure to deal with these things. Imagine the burden and the impact it will have on farmers and ranchers who absolutely do not have the wherewithal to handle some of these issues.

Prior to 2012, a farmer in northern Alberta explained to me that he had a spring run-off area that went through his field. He would put a couple of 2x4s down during the spring so he could drive his machinery over it when he sprayed or seeded. However, Fisheries and Oceans came to him before 2012 and said that it was a waterway because it could float a canoe or a kayak. Certainly it could for about two weeks in the spring, but the rest of the time it was dry. He had to build a bridge over that seasonal spring runoff area. We are not talking about a river for the last pirate of Saskatchewan to float down the plain. This was simply a spring run-off. He was very concerned that he would have to go back to this. This will very burdensome to him.

Again, this goes back to the narrative that the Liberal government implements knee-jerk legislation, without doing the due diligence, without having an idea of what the ramifications will be and the unintended consequences, or doing the economic impact analysis of these decisions and what they will have on other sectors.

This is again another attack on rural Canadians. It is not science-based, front of package labelling, food guide, carbon tax. These changes will impact our rural communities, farmers, and ranchers who are struggling just to stay in business. Now there is a potential trade war with the United States.

For farmers and ranchers in rural municipalities, their livelihoods depend on healthy waterways, lakes, rivers, streams, aquifers. No one would take better care of these waterways than those who are on the ground, rural Canadians, farmers, and ranchers.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Madam Speaker, this is a very interesting discussion and there have been some good speeches this evening.

I will start by saying there are two pieces of federal legislation aimed at protecting the quality of Canada's fresh water. These laws implement Ottawa's clearly stated constitutional jurisdiction and responsibility in two specific areas: navigation and the fishery. I am speaking of the Navigation Protection Act, formerly the Navigable Waters Protection Act and soon to be renamed the Canadian navigable waters act by virtue of Bill C-69, which passed at report stage today and is on its way to passing at third reading. The second piece of legislation, of course, is the Fisheries Act. These two laws are really the basis of federal water policy. Often water policy comes more out of provincial jurisdiction, but the federal government has something to say about water policy, and it is through those two main pieces of legislation.

Navigation and fishing were key aspects of life at the time of Confederation and remain significant today in our diversified modern economy. This is no doubt the reason that jurisdiction for both navigation and the fishery were given to the central government, this plus the fact that, as Pierre Trudeau famously said, “Fish swim,” which means they cross provincial boundaries, as do marine vessels for that matter.

Based on the speeches I have heard here and on what I know to be the Conservative narrative, it is fair to say the Conservative opposition does not see these two laws broadly as environmental laws. This is despite the fact that both laws govern and protect the aquatic environments on which vessels traverse and in which fish live. The Navigation Protection Act and the Fisheries Act are part of a grouping of four federal laws that are the basis of federal environmental policy in Canada, a grouping that includes the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, which is being renamed the impact assessment act under Bill C-69, and the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, which has just gone through its five-year legislative review at the environment committee under the very able stewardship of the member for King—Vaughan.

It was the Navigable Waters Protection Act and the Fisheries Act that the Harper government targeted for revamping in order to restrict their scope and significance for the environment. The Harper government amended the Navigable Waters Protection Act twice, including at one point changing its name to the Navigation Protection Act. The first time it restricted the act's scope was in a 2009 omnibus budget bill, and the second time in a 2012 omnibus budget bill.

I know members find it hard to believe that the Conservative government would ever do that, but yes it did use omnibus budget bills and they were not necessarily encompassing only financial matters. The 2012 omnibus budget bill by the Conservative government removed broad Fisheries Act protections for all fish habitats, stipulating that the act would from then on only prohibit “serious harm to fish that are part of a commercial, recreational or Aboriginal fishery, or that support such a fishery”.

Incidentally, Prime Minister Harper and the Conservative government used the 2009 omnibus budget bill, if I am not mistaken, to also weaken the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, which is why the government had to bring in Bill C-69 to strengthen environmental assessment in Canada and to regain the trust of Canadians regarding the federal government's commitment to protecting the environment.

I know the Conservatives are unhappy with government budget bills when they have too many pages, and call them omnibus bills, but there is no comparison—Madam Speaker, you will recall, you were in the House—to the blatant manner in which the previous government stretched the meaning of budget bill to effectively cover everything from banks to canoes and sailboats to trout, shellfish, and crustaceans. That is what the Liberal platform objected to: the Harper government's semantic elasticity with regard to the notion of a budget bill.

Bill C-68 rolls back the changes the Harper government made to the Fisheries Act. As has been mentioned by others, the bill protects all fish and fish habitat. The definition of “serious harm to fish” is also being removed.

Those carrying out projects would be generally responsible for avoiding harmful alteration, disruption, and destruction of fish habitat. However, when proponents are unable to completely avoid harm to fish, an authorization permit with conditions may be issued by the minister to allow a project to proceed without contravening the act. I wonder if the opposition is critical of this ministerial discretion, given its criticism of ministerial decision-making power in Bill C-69.

It is important to note the distinction in Bill C-68 between designated projects and routine projects. I have not heard that distinction mentioned on the other side. Designated projects would always require ministerial approval. These are of course expected to be large-scale projects. Currently, under the bill the previous Conservative government was responsible for, projects requiring authorization are determined on a case-by-case basis, which adds complexity and uncertainty for business.

As for routine smaller projects, published codes of practice would provide advice to proponents on how to avoid project impacts on fish or fish habitat. Although the regulations defining designated projects have not been created, I imagine irrigation canals or flood canals on farms would not be considered major, large-scale projects, like dams. I believe they would be considered routine projects, and farmers could just avail themselves of a guide of best practice and do the best job they possibly could. There is a bit of fearmongering on the other side about what the impact of the bill would be on farmers, who are indeed very much the backbone of a large part of the Canadian economy.

Laws are all well and good, but enforcement is always the key. The government will invest $384.2 million to ensure the capacity to enforce the Fisheries Act. Among other things, this money would go toward increasing the number of front-line fishery habitat officers.

Also worth mentioning, Bill C-68 would empower cabinet to make regulations for the rebuilding of fish stocks. It would also empower the minister to make regulations for the purposes of the conservation and protection of marine biodiversity. Again, I am curious to know whether the opposition objects to ministerial discretion in these cases.

Significantly, the bill requires that the government consider the rights of indigenous peoples and traditional knowledge when making decisions about fish habitats. This supports the government's priority on reconciliation with Canada's indigenous peoples.

Finally, Bill C-68 would ban the capturing of whales, dolphins, and porpoises for the purpose of keeping them in captivity. This should be welcomed by those who hold to the protection of marine wildlife. They are people like the beluga specialist, Dr. Pierre Béland, who is the world's most well-known expert on the beluga whale, and who was actually involved in an aqua-hacking conference in Toronto this past weekend. Aqua hacking is a process by which we look for solutions to problems, like pollution affecting our waterways.

Lastly, it is worth noting that extensive consultation was undertaken to arrive at the measures we are debating today. There have been two rounds of online public consultations, and over 100 meetings with partners, stakeholders, and indigenous groups. In 2016, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans asked the House of Commons Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans to review the previous government's changes to the act. This review resulted in 32 recommendations, which helped shape Bill C-68. This is on top of all the debate that took place in 2012 around changes to the act undertaken within the context of a rather egregious so-called budget omnibus bill.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to speak tonight to Bill C-68, the new Fisheries Act. Although I grew up, and still live, far from the coast, my family has deep history in coastal fisheries. My mother's family, the Munns, once controlled the cod fishery of Labrador. My great uncle William Azariah Munn was what one might call a cod liver oil baron. Luckily, my mother hated the stuff so much that she did not force it on me and my siblings.

Getting back to the bill, the bill comes from a Liberal promise in the last election campaign when both the NDP and Liberals ran on platforms that included the repealing of Conservative legislation that gutted all of the environmental protections of federal legislation. We are very happy the Liberals have finally acted on this, although I am not sure why it took so long.

The bill would finally restore protection for all fish across Canada. When I say all fish, I would like to point out that under the previous Conservative legislation, all fish were not created equal. Only those fish that were part of a commercial or indigenous fishery were protected, and they were not protected as strongly as they were in the past. I am happy that some of our rarest and most vulnerable fish species, like the speckled dace of the Kettle River, are now protected in this manner once again.

In the past, the Fisheries Act was the strongest piece of legislation that actually protected habitat in Canada. As many here know, I was a biologist in my past life, and I spent a long time working on ecosystem recovery plans and species at risk. Time and again, my colleagues would point out that the only legislation, federal or provincial, that effectively protected habitat, was the Fisheries Act. As a biologist who worked on land, I was always a bit jealous of my fisheries colleagues since there was little or nothing that had the same power of protection for terrestrial habitats.

This habitat protection was at the core of earlier versions of the Fisheries Act. The Conservatives took this habitat protection out in 2012 through Bill C-38, one of their omnibus budget bills. This action resulted in a huge public outcry, and among the voices were four former fisheries ministers, including one of my constituents, Tom Siddon, a former Conservative fisheries minister. He wrote an open letter to the government, urging it to keep habitat protections in the act.

This new act is still deficient in a few ways regarding habitat. For instance, while it talks about the water in rivers and lakes as fish habitat, it does not discuss the amount of that water. That is clearly important. Increasingly, low water levels in our rivers and lakes are causing difficulties for fish. Many of our fish require good quantities of clean, cool water, and more and more often they are faced in late summer with low levels of warm water that can be lethal to fish, especially to salmonids.

This act also does not address the habitat conflict between wild salmon stocks and the practice of open-net salmon farms. We should be moving in an orderly fashion toward closed containment farms to isolate fish health issues caused by the farms that impact wild salmon stocks under the open-net regime.

Bill C-68 empowers the fisheries and oceans minister to make management orders prohibiting or limiting fishing to address a threat to the conservation and protection of fish. Of course, I am fully in favour of this power, but I wonder how often it would be used, despite the fact that it would likely be recommended on a regular basis by scientists.

Fish are consistently treated differently from terrestrial species in conservation actions. As an example, of all the fish species assessed as threatened or endangered in recent years by the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada, less than half have actually been placed on the Species at Risk Act schedules. If a terrestrial species is in trouble, it is generally added to the list as a matter of course. However, but if a fish is in trouble, it is out of luck. This attitude has to change.

As well, the bill would give a lot of discretion to the minister to make decisions based on opinion rather than on scientific evidence. This practice must be limited and only used in exceptional circumstances. I am always concerned when it is enshrined in legislation and seemingly encouraged, as it is here and in other recent legislation, such as Bill C-69 on environmental impact assessments.

I am happy there is a provision in this act to give the DFO more resources for enforcement. I hope some of those resources can be used to rebuild the DFO staff that used to be found throughout the British Columbia interior to promote fish habitat restoration and rebuilding fish stocks.

There are no DFO staff left at all in the Okanagan and Kootenay regions now, despite the fact that there are numerous aquatic stewardship societies across my riding that used to have a great relationship with DFO and its work, and which benefited from that work. Volunteer groups that are devoted to aquatic habitats on the Arrow Lakes, the Slocan Valley, Christina Lake, the Kettle River watershed, Osoyoos Lake, and Vaseux Lake would all benefit through a renewal of those staffing levels. They talk to me regularly about that, and that they miss that help.

I would like to close with a good-news story that shows what can happen when Canadians take fish conservation into their own hands, identify the problems and solutions, and then work hard to make good things happen. That story is the restoration of salmon populations in the Okanagan. This story involves many players and funding from the United States as well as Canada, but it is mainly a story of the Okanagan Nation Alliance, ONA, the first nations of the Okanagan, who came together to bring salmon back to the valley.

Salmon, or n’titxw, is one of the four food chiefs of the Okanagan peoples, and is central to their cultural and trade traditions. When I was a kid in the Okanagan, salmon were in very low numbers. The Okanagan is part of the Columbia system, and those fish had to climb over 11 dams to get back to the spawning grounds. Most of the Columbia River salmon runs died out, but a few sockeye came back to the Okanagan every year, though maybe a only a couple of thousand in some years. However, after years of work by the ONA and other groups, we often see runs of over 100,000 fish. The Okanagan River is once again red with sockeye in the autumn. The ONA has taken an ecosystem-collaborative restoration approach that combines cultural ceremonies and salmon feasts with technical restoration. They work collaboratively with provincial and federal authorities, and everyone in the region has benefited, with recreational fishery openings, an increase in licence revenues, and local salmon to the public. I enjoy the sockeye out of Osoyoos Lake every year now.

This approach has enabled the ONA to grow to one of the largest inland first nations fisheries organizations in Canada. It has 45 full-time staff, which is probably 10 times the staffing level of DFO in the interior of B.C. It has its own hatchery, biology lab, habitat restoration course, and courses that are even taken by DFO staff.

However, even though they have been working collaboratively with DFO, they have still identified some serious issues to me.

First, there is a need for a harvest sharing agreement between Canada and the U.S. There is no agreement in place to ensure minimum food fishery requirements for first nations, and there is no other place in the Pacific region where there is up to 150,000 salmon harvested between Canada and the U.S. that does not have such an agreement in place.

Second, ONA has asked for support for the Columbia River Treaty renewal and the importance of Canadian salmon. Okanagan salmon are the only Columbia River salmon returning to Canada, and they are directly affected by how Canada stores water in its treaty dams.

Third, it points out the need for support for ONA's salmon restoration in the upper Columbia, which is in the Kootenay region. There are no salmon there now. ONA submitted a proposal to DFO and asked the minister back in September 2017, but it has received no response.

Fourth, the ONA regrets to see the overall exclusion of first nations at the Columbia River Treaty table, which is something that is very important to them.

To conclude, we will be supporting Bill C-68, but there is clearly still a lot of work to be done to protect our fish and our fisheries.

[Darrell Samson, Liberal, Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, NS]

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise in the House today to speak to Bill C-68 following the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans' review and analysis of this bill.

We thank the committee members for their careful study of this legislation and their thoughtful amendments. During this review of Bill C-68, my colleagues in committee heard from many different witnesses and experts. I would like to take this time to talk about what they heard. I would also like to share the concrete steps proposed to make improvements and move forward with this legislation.

From the environmental NGO community and members across the aisle in the Green Party and the NDP, the committee heard about the importance of water flow for fish habitat. The government supported the associated amendments put forward in committee.

The committee also heard from industry groups seeking amendments to the rules proposed for the processing of applications for habitat authorization during the transition from the current to the new legislation. In response, the committee adopted the amendment to provide clearer transition provisions.

The committee also heard about strengthening the federal government's legal obligations when major fish stocks are in trouble. This is why the committee proposed the inclusion of requirements, under the legislation, that the minister sustainably manage or rebuild fish stocks that are prescribed in regulation. However, the legislation would require that when such cases arose, Canadians would be informed and provided with a rationale. Our aim is to sustainably manage fisheries resources for the long-term benefit of Canadians.

As members know, in 2012, the previous government decided to change habitat protection without the support of or consultation with indigenous peoples, fishers, scientists, conservation groups, coastal communities, and the Canadian public. In contrast, our government has worked with all Canadians and has encouraged everyone to be part of this process. The proposed amendments to Bill C-68 are part of our government's broader review of environmental and regulatory processes under Bill C-69, 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, which was reviewed by the committee.

The Standing Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development also adopted some important amendments, which have been reflected in Bill C-68. These include better protections for indigenous knowledge and clearer transition provisions that would ensure better business continuity.

The changes proposed in Bill C-68 would support several government priorities, such as partnering with indigenous peoples; supporting planning and integrated management; enhancing regulation and enforcement; improving partnership and collaboration; and, finally, monitoring and reporting back to Canadians. This is transparency.

This bill would include the reintroduction of the prohibition against the harmful alteration, disruption, or destruction of fish habitat as well as the prohibition against causing the death of fish by means other than fishing. There are measures to allow for better management of large and small projects that may be harmful to fish and fish habitat through a new permitting scheme, for big projects, and codes of practice, for smaller ones.

The amendments would enable the regulatory authorities that would allow for establishing a list of designated projects, comprising works, undertakings, and activities for which a permit would always be required. We have been, and will continue to be, engaged with indigenous peoples, provinces and territories, stakeholders, and others to capture the right kinds of projects on the designated project list.

Habitat loss and degradation and changes to fish passage and water flow are all contributing to the decline of freshwater and marine fish habitat in Canada. It is imperative that Canada restore degraded fish habitat. That is why we proposed changes to the Fisheries Act that would include the consideration of restoration as part of project decision-making.

The bill is motivated by the need to restore the public's trust in government, which was lost following decisions made in 2012.

In order to re-establish the trust of Canadians in government, access to information on the government's activities related to the protection of fish and fish habitat, as well as protecting information and decisions, is essential. We listened and we proposed, through Bill C-68, measures to establish the public registry, which will enable transparency and access. This registry will allow Canadians to see whether the government is meeting its obligations and allow them to hold the government accountable for decision-making with regard to fish and fish habitat.

The addition of new purpose and consideration provisions will more clearly guide the responsibility of the Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard when making decisions and provide a framework for the proper management and control of fisheries, and for the conservation and protection of fish and fish habitat, including by preventing pollution.

Fisheries' resources and aquatic habitats have important social, cultural, and economic significance for many indigenous peoples. Respect for the rights of the indigenous peoples of Canada, taking into account their unique interests and aspirations in fisheries-related economic opportunities and the protection of fish and fish habitat, is one way we are showing our commitment to renewing our relationship with indigenous peoples.

We listened to Canadians on the need for modern safeguards. That is why we have proposed changes to the Fisheries Act that provide a new fisheries management order power to establish targeted fisheries management measures for 45-day increments where there is a threat to the proper management and control of fisheries or to the conservation and protection of fish. This will help to address time-sensitive emerging issues when a fishery is under way and targeted measures are required.

Proposed changes to the Fisheries Act include a new ministerial authority to make regulations to establish long-term spatial restrictions to fishing activities under the act, specifically for the purpose of conserving and protecting marine biodiversity. This will support our international commitment to protect at least 10% of our marine and coastal areas by 2020. Proposed changes also include authority to make regulations respecting the rebuilding of fish stocks.

As I mentioned earlier, our government reached out to Canadians to help put the bill forward. We listened to the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development and the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans and provided direction for the restoration and recovery of fish habitat and stocks. We were pleased with the amendments of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans during its clause-by-clause review. We listened to environmental groups, and the committee proposed provisions aimed at implementing measures to promote the sustainability of the major fish stocks.

In addition, in keeping with modernizing the act in line with other federal environmental law, changes are being proposed to the Fisheries Act to authorize the use of alternative measures agreements.

Through Bill C-68, the Government of Canada is honouring its promise to Canadians. By restoring the lost protections and providing these modern safeguards, the government is delivering on its promise as set out in the mandate letter from the Prime Minister to the Minister of Fisheries.

Since introducing this bill, we have heard support from a broad range of Canadians for these amendments that will return Canada back to the forefront when speaking about fish for generations to come.

I urge all hon. members on both sides of the House to join me in supporting this bill, which is so important.

[Jamie Schmale, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to speak to Bill C-68, an act to amend the Fisheries Act and other acts in consequence. I would like to start by stating that the official opposition supports the protection of our oceans and fisheries. Our previous changes to the Fisheries Act in 2012 were enacted to support transparency in the decision-making process and to provide a level of certainty to those invested in that act. Unfortunately, the Liberal government is proposing amendments through Bill C-68 that add additional layers of regulatory uncertainty.

The hon. Sergio Marchi, president and CEO of the Canadian Electricity Association stated that while Canada's electricity sector remains committed to protecting and conserving our natural resources, Bill C-68 “represents one step forward but two steps back”. The Canadian Electricity Association's concerns centre on the government's shortsightedness in choosing to return to pre-2012 provisions of the Fisheries Act that address “activity other than fishing that results in the death of fish” and “the harmful alteration, disruption or destruction”, otherwise known as HADD, “of fish habitat”.

While the Liberals say they are restoring HADD they sidestep any obligation to uphold the HADD regulations in the legislation by providing the minister with the ability to exempt certain provisions. The CEA points out, and rightly so, that virtually any action without prior authorization could be construed as being in contravention of Bill C-68.

The Canadian nuclear agency shares these concerns. In its testimony before the House of Commons Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans it stated that the definition of fish habitat has been changed so that the term now means “water frequented by fish”, while retaining the “directly or indirectly” terminology. The Canadian Nuclear Association warned that this has the potential to include waters not designated to support fish, like tailing ponds, or drainage ditches, or waters not intended to be fish habitats, or where no fish are present at any time of the year. As such, it called on the government to revise the term “fish habitat” to exclude these structures.

The Canadian Electricity Association echoed the same sentiment, seeking amendments to provide greater certainty around the definition of fish and fish habitat, focusing on fish population conservation.

Ontario Power Generation agrees. In its written statement to the standing committee it recommended that exceptions, including intake canals and other structures that were constructed for the purpose of facility operations and not intended to be frequented by fish, should also be considered.

All of this is falling on deaf ears. Bill C-68 would also result in greater uncertainties for existing and new facilities and discourage yet more investment opportunities in energy projects, something the government seems to be quite good at.

The Canadian Nuclear Association in its submission to the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans stated, “the concept of 'cumulative impact' is not only a key issue with respect to the environment, but also with respect to sustained investment in Canadian energy projects”.

The Canadian Nuclear Association's testimony continued, highlighting the plight of Canada's energy sector, advising that, “Right now, investment in Canada is facing significant challenges - including uncertainty caused by a suite of changes to federal and provincial regulatory policies, trade restrictions, corporate and individual tax rates”. This regulatory uncertainty is shared throughout industry.

The Canadian Electricity Association recommends that the minister be required to consult with any jurisdiction also exercising potentially duplicative, overlapping, or conflicting orders. Regulations are important. No one in any industry in Canada would refute the need for regulations. However, it makes no sense that a company has to go through the same regulatory conditions at every level of government simply to satisfy duplicate regulatory conditions. This costs time and money, and ultimately it costs investment opportunities.

This is at a time when the U.S. President's tariff action against Canadian steel and aluminum remains unfair and a serious threat to workers across the country who rely on this industry to put food on the table for their families, at a time when, according to Statistics Canada, the total foreign direct investment in Canadian oil and gas extraction slumped 7.4% in 2017, down to $162.2 billion.

That is due to a hasty retreat by international oil producers last year, including massive divestment by Royal Dutch Shell, about $9.3 billion, and ConocoPhillips, about $17.7 billion, totalling nearly $30 billion.

The government's carbon-tax scheme threatens to increase the cost of living for every Canadian, emphasized by the new report recently released by the Parliamentary Budget Officer. It found that the Liberal carbon tax will take $10 billion out of the Canadian economy by 2022, while other estimates argue that it could be as much as $35 billion per year, hurting jobs, workers, and families.

The current Liberal government is compelled to introduce bills like Bill C-68, which would add layers of regulatory ambiguity, adding massive uncertainty in an already turbulent investment climate. When will the government realize that investment opportunities are highly perishable prospects?

Bill C-68, like other bills, such as Bill C-69, appears to undermine transparency and due process by allowing the minister to withhold critical information from interested proponents, which runs contrary to the Prime Minister's promise of a more open and transparent government.

The act would require the minister to take into account indigenous knowledge and expertise when it was provided, and all decisions would have to take into account the possible impact on indigenous rights. However, that knowledge would be protected from being revealed publicly, or even to a project's proponents, without explicit permission from the indigenous community or the people who provided it.

The government has announced $284 million in new money to implement and enforce the new law through the hiring of new fisheries officers to enforce the act and educate people about it. There are, however, no timelines or details on when and how many officers would be hired. This bill would allow for the establishment of advisory panels and for members to be remunerated. However, there is no guidance or limitation on their use.

Bill C-68 would expand the reach of a prohibition against anything that alters or impacts fish habitat to all waters where fish exist. As the member for Cariboo—Prince George indicated earlier, the goal of the Fisheries Act is and should remain to protect and enhance Canada's fish stocks while avoiding any unnecessary negative economic impacts on industries that rely on access to Canadian land and water. In 2012, the Conservative government improved fisheries conservation, prioritized fish productivity, protected significant fisheries, and streamlined an overly bureaucratic process. The current government, though, through Bill C-68, would revert to rules that caused confusion, were difficult to enforce, and that negatively impacted farmers, communities, and resource development. The only real winners here would be regulatory lawyers, who would reap the rewards of Bill C-68.

I have no doubt that my colleagues across the way will question our commitment to the preservation of fish habitat. I have said before that we clearly support the protection of our fisheries and oceans. What the current government fails to understand is that they can protect the environment and have responsible resource development. It only makes sense to protect fish habitat if they want a robust fisheries economy, and that is what the current Fisheries Act does.

It is my hope that the government will continue consulting with industry on fish-habitat restoration plans moving forward. The government's knowledge and appreciation for the protection of fisheries is essential. We will continue to work closely with fishers, farmers, industry groups, and communities to ensure that their questions are heard.

I would rather be having a longer debate instead of being under time allocation, but this is the situation we are in. I look forward to questions from my hon. colleagues.

Impact Assessment Act

[Catherine McKenna, Liberal, Minister of Environment and Climate Change]

moved that Bill C-69, 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, as amended, be concurred in.

[The Speaker, Geoff Regan]

It being 3:12 p.m., pursuant to order made on Tuesday, May 29, 2018, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motions at report stage of Bill C-69.

The question is on Motion No. 1. A vote on this motion also applies to Motions Nos. 15 to 23, 28 to 61, 100 to 103, 105 to 147, 149 to 205, 208 to 214, and 216.

A negative vote on Motion No. 1 requires the question to be put on Motions Nos. 3, 4, 5, and 11.

The House resumed from June 7 consideration of Bill C-69, 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, and of the motions in Group No. 1.

[Nick Whalen, Liberal, St. John's East, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his comments. I was in the middle of preparing my remarks on Bill C-59 and I am planning on speaking to Bill C-69 next week. I will have a chance to talk about it at third reading. I may have lost it, I am not sure. I have already said half of what I intended to say on the matter.

At the same time, I know that our sitting hours have been extended because we cannot fit all the members who want to speak into the limited time that the House has to implement all of our legislation and amendments. It is a shame we do not have thousands of hours to speak in the House. These are the hours we have, and we have only four years to fulfill all our election promises.

Now, we are working on fulfilling our promises, and I think I will get a chance to speak on Bill C-69 next week and Bill C-59 a few minutes from now.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we have just very clearly seen that members on this side of the House want to talk about bills. We want to talk about Bill C-59. We want to talk about Bill C-69. All the parliamentarians on this side of the House want to express their views. Unfortunately, the Liberals have cut parliamentarians' speaking time so much that some members have to talk about two bills at once.

I would like my colleague who spoke about both Bill C-59 and Bill C-69 in the same speech to tell me whether he sometimes feels forgotten by the government because he sits on this side of the House. The Conservatives, the NDP, the Bloc Québécois, and the Green Party all represent our constituents here in the House, and they want to hear us speak about all of these bills.

I commend my colleague over here for wanting to speak about two bills, because he knows that we will not have time to talk about all of these things and that the members on the other side of the House often prevent us from speaking. I would like to hear what my colleague has to say about that.

[Nick Whalen, Liberal, St. John's East, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to talk about Bill C-69. It is an important piece of legislation.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Anthony Rota]

Is the member speaking to Bill C-69?

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Mr. Speaker, as much as I am interested in the member's speech right now, I think we are still talking about Bill C-69. I believe the member is referring to Bill C-59 in his statement, which is not germane to the discussion we are having in the House.

[Cheryl Hardcastle, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague to expand on the concept in Bill C-69 with regard to a minister's arbitrary powers. We saw a little of that when the Conservatives changed the process. I would like to know if there are concerns now with respect to some of the explicit powers which will not be based on science.

[Celina Caesar-Chavannes, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Development]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member spoke about the Stephen Harper government and how it was accused of fearmongering and sowing doubt. The Conservatives are still doing that.

The hon. member spoke about the economy and jobs and how the ministers needed to be accountable. Under this government, we have had the fastest growth in the G7. Over 600,000 jobs have been created by Canadians. We have a robust oceans protection plan. We have Bill C-69. We have a $1.3 billion investment in biodiversity and conservation.

What would the hon. colleague across the way say to his constituents, who have benefited from the fact that our government has taken the growth of the economy and the environment hand in hand?

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very proud to rise in response to Bill C-69, the government's environmental and regulatory bill, one that is supposed to be revolutionary. This just brings us to another long list of broken promises that the Prime Minister made when he campaigned in 2015 as the member for Papineau at the time. He made some great promises to Canadians.

We heard a lot about sowing the seeds of fear, that Canadians had lost confidence in some things like our environmental assessment plan. The groups that were promoting that had a sole purpose. There was a lot of talk about foreign-funded groups and how they had influenced elections, both on this side of the border as well as the other side of the border recently.

We know very well that during the 2015 election, and I know because I was one of the candidates who was targeted, groups were targeting Conservative members of Parliament. They were talking about how damaging Mr. Harper was to our environment. We heard people say how we were fearmongering with respect to Bill C-59. If we looked at it and followed where the dollar started, these groups started in other jurisdictions, and perhaps not in Canada.

What would be the sole purpose for those groups to sow the seed of fear or perhaps put doubt in the minds of Canadians in the industry or in the government of the day. It would be to really shake up the economy. Why would they do that? Probably because the money they get comes from big oil or big energy groups in the U.S. This is the fact. We know this. To some extent, the Prime Minister, the Liberals, and perhaps the NDP have bought into those groups. I know about the NDP candidate who I ran against in my region, the one who had probably the best photography team I have ever seen. Again, my riding was one of those targeted because ridings they thought they would win, but I proved them wrong.

Let us talk about the growing list of broken promises, and this is so relevant to Bill C-69.

The Prime Minister talked about a small deficit of $10 billion at that time, and the budget would be balanced. There is a record and a history with this. He also said that under his government, the Liberals would be the most open and transparent government in Canadian history. There is a smattering of applause on the other side, but we know it is not true. When he created the mandate letters, he said that the ministers would be more accountable and more open to Canadians. He also said that he would let the debate reign, yet today we are in the 41st closure of debate.

During the campaign, the member for Papineau said that under his government the Harper government's way of doing omnibus bills would be in the past, that it would never happen again. Today, we are speaking to a 400-page bill.

We know the Prime Minister is not really very happy. He is not a very strong champion of our energy sector. We know this from one of his very first speeches to the world, when he said that under his government Canada would be known more for our resourcefulness rather than our resources. We know he has gotten himself into a little trouble for some of the comments he made on the world stage, when he said that he wished the energy sector could be phased out a little faster. We also know he got himself into trouble when he went into Alberta, during a time when we were facing some terrible issues, to speak to the out-of-work oil workers. There is that famous clip where a gentleman asked “What am I going to do? I'm out of work. I don't know whether I'm going to have a home. I don't know how I'm going to feed my children”. What was his comment? “Hang in there”.

The Liberals hated our Navigable Protection Act. The reason I bring this up is because the fisheries, oceans and Canadian Coast Guard committee, FOPO, studies some of the changes to legislation brought forward by government. The Liberals said that Prime Minister Harper had a war on the environment, and the changes he made to the Navigable Waters Protection Act were because the Conservatives did not care.

The Liberals like to bring in academics, NGOs, and environmental groups. Witness after witness, when asked to provide proof if any of the changes from 2012 to the Fisheries Act and Navigable Waters Protection Act would cause any harmful death or damage to our waterway, not one witness could provide proof. In fact, one of our hon. colleagues was part of the group that wrote the changes to the legislation. He talked about why some of these navigable waterway regulations were changed. He said that it was because of our farmers. If farmers had a drainage ditch that had been washout and repairs had to be made, whether to accommodate their livestock or their crops, it took a lot of time, waiting to get that done. Also, if a municipality was isolated because a road had been washed out, there were a lot of challenges in getting the repairs done.

I could go on and on.

The Prime Minister and all of his ministers like to stand and with their hands on their hearts, they pledge they will consult with Canadians from coast to coast to coast. They tell us that every Canadian will have a say. We know the consultations are not true. In fact, they are shutting down debate.

As I like to do every chance I get, I want to remind folks on the other side, and all Canadians, that the House is theirs. Shutting down debate means the 338 members of Parliament who were elected to be the voices of all Canadians do not have their say. They are not able to bring their constituents' voices to Ottawa. The Prime Minister, his cabinet, the other Liberals want to bring the voice of Ottawa to those communities. We know that the only voice that seems to matter is the Prime Minister's voice.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member both for his question and his appreciation of Yiddish proverbs. We sometimes share them in the lobby.

Some ministerial accountability for the decisions Liberals make and the activities of the department should be expected by the House of Commons. It should be an expectation. Excessive amounts of ministerial oversight, such as an ability to overrule or redirect decisions and impose one's own personal political views on a process or individual projects, is the wrong way to go. The balance between having just enough regulatory and ministerial oversight and too much burdensome regulation with ministerial discretion is the balance that we are trying to find, and it is not in Bill C-69.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his speech, and especially for his Yiddish proverb. We all wait for that with bated breath each time he rises.

We have heard a lot of concern from the Conservatives about the excessive powers the minister would have to intervene at any stage of the impact assessment process and to put a stop to it, or create an extra process.

I am wondering if the member could comment on the fact that it was the Conservatives who initially gave the minister and cabinet that power with the National Energy Board. Previously, National Energy Board decisions were final, but the previous Conservative government gave that final say to cabinet, and now those members are concerned that the Liberals have run with this and made it rampant throughout Bill C-69 and will put it into law. Could he comment on that?

The House resumed consideration of Bill C-69, 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, as reported (with amendment) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Anthony Rota]

The hon. member will have approximately two minutes and 10 seconds when we return to Bill C-69.

It being 5:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's Order Paper.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to add my voice to this debate, obviously in opposition to the bill before us.

I will begin as I always do, because I want to get it in early, with a Yiddish proverb: “Misfortune binds together.” That is how a lot of Calgarians feel, especially in my riding.

Bill C-69 is simply more misfortune piled on other ill-advised decisions by the government that have hurt constituents and energy workers in my riding. They have spent a lifetime getting experience, an education, and then pursuing a career they were hoping would last their entire lifetime. This is something they were passionate about, producing energy in a responsible and ethical way, which they will now not be able to do.

I have been told repeatedly by executives, industry, and energy workers, including a constituent of mine, Evan, a few days ago, that when Bill C-69 passes Parliament, it will put an end to all future major energy infrastructure projects. No company will put forward major projects again, because the process will be much too complex, involve too many criteria, and will be too complicated, with too much political risk associated with satisfying a minister in order to reach the completion date of just the permitting process. The CEO of Suncor has said publicly that this will put an end to investment in the energy industry. The CEO of Sierra Energy has said exactly the same thing. Therefore, misfortune binds together.

I will explain other things that bind together as a result of this particular piece of proposed legislation, which that would damage the opportunity of energy workers and their families to continue working in this very successful sector.

We should be very proud of this sector of the economy, because we have been exporting the R and D, innovation, commercialized products and services from it for a long time, alongside the product that we export to our friends down south. Even though we have had difficulties negotiating a successful NAFTA renewal, they are still our friends, and we are still trying to make them understand that at the end of the day, our success is their success.

We often hear government members say that the environment and the economy go hand in hand. The Liberals are making it seem like it is a zero-sum game: one unit of the environment gained is one unit of the economy lost. It is zero-sum, and there are no two ways around it. When we look at Bill C-69, that is evident. The Liberals are trying to gain many more units of environment, and we are going to be losing out on the economic side, based on commentary by both energy workers and executives, who are simply saying that there is no way that they can invest in the Canadian economy, hire energy workers in Canada, in Calgary and Alberta, with these types of rules in place.

On the misfortunes I talked about, there is the carbon tax, for instance. Often in this chamber, I hear members say things like, “We should refine it and upgrade it where we mine it, where we extract it out of the ground”. Well, the highest carbon taxes are paid by refineries and upgraders. It is a GHG-intensive industry.

Do we say the same thing to farmers who produce wheat, that we should upgrade it and refine it here? Do we say that to the farmer who produces canola? Do we say that to the farmer who produces big lentils? Maybe we should force all farmers to produce soup. They should not be allowed to export lentils outside Canada. The same idea, the same drive that says we should never export any type of bitumen or oil out of the country until it is refined and upgraded to the highest level product, could be applied to our agricultural sector.

I have heard repeatedly from energy workers that the tanker ban off the B.C. coast is damaging, because it sends a signal that there is a tanker ban now. Actually, it is just a pretend ban because it just moves tankers 100 kilometres farther off the coast to an area where there already is tanker traffic, which is going to continue as long as it does not stop in a Canadian port. However, it sends a signal that those types of workers and that sector of the economy are not wanted anymore by the government.

On the misfortune, there is a close electoral alliance between radical environmentalists, their foreign financiers, and the future electoral prospects of the Liberal government. That is the case. We know it to be true. The Liberals' success in the 2015 election was closely linked to their making promises on the environment that they absolutely could not keep. They made those promises fully knowing they would never be able to keep them. The misfortune continues.

Twice already, the Prime Minister has said he would like to phase out the oil sands. Every single time the Prime Minister says that, the first thing I get by email and phone from Albertans in my riding is, “He has done it again. He said it again.” The last time he said it was at the Assemblee Nationale in Paris.

Many workers question the sincerity of the Prime Minister when he says that he wants this sector to succeed, which is supposedly why he expropriated Kinder Morgan and purchased its pipeline for $4.5 billion. Workers do not trust him. They do not believe him when he says it. They think he is speaking from both sides of his mouth. He is saying one thing to one crowd and something completely different to another crowd. They do not trust him. However, it is their misfortune that he is the Prime Minister right now.

Bill C-69 increases the number of criteria that will be considered during the regulatory process. What logically happens is that before a company even puts in an application to consider a major new energy infrastructure project, they will do their research and due diligence. That will add months and years to the pre-regulatory process. Before even applying, one has to have more information to prove to the regulator that one meets all of the new criteria. Embedded in Bill C-69 is the opportunity for the minister to say “no” at multiple stages of the process.

I have heard Liberal caucus members say how great the bill is and that shortened timelines give certainty. The bill does no such thing because it will increase the number of criteria and datasets that one needs to collect to prove one's case.

This is exactly where I am going to come to my last point of why energy east was cancelled. Energy east and the company's executives and energy workers said they had no way of meeting the new requirements of downstream and upstream emissions. To collect that vast sum of information and provide it to the government was impossible. The company made the only wise decision on behalf of its shareholders and abandoned the permitting regulatory process. There was no other choice. However, that was a political decision by the government. The government is responsible for that and nobody else. The business decision that drove driving Kinder Morgan out of the country, which led to the government expropriating the company and purchasing the pipeline, was the same type of decision-making process Trans Canada had to use on energy east. Those decisions are deeply connected.

Obviously, I will be voting against this bill. The last point of data I want to provide is that under the government, we have seen thousands of kilometres of pipeline cancelled, whereas under in the previous government, we had thousands of kilometres of pipeline finished.

[Cheryl Hardcastle, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly cannot argue with the fact there is much distorting of the truth here. I really want to talk to the hon. member about the last Parliament, when the Conservative government did remove or gut the environmental assessment process. It also removed almost all of the protections of our waterways. That is a fact that can be looked up.

Then the Liberal government promised that it was going to restore those things. As we see with Bill C-69, it has really fallen short of the mark. Bill C-69 has done nothing. It does nothing to reverse these changes, which the Liberals promised they would do.

Do the Conservatives still believe that waterways and lakes do not need any protection? Is that what I am hearing—that we do not need any protections for water?

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I agree. I am very concerned. The Liberals campaigned on being science based, open, and transparent. They were going to make decisions based on those criteria, but Bill C-69 shows very clearly that they are going to make decisions that are not science based. We have seen that in a larger narrative within the government. Let us look at the food guide and front-of-package labelling. All these things that are going to have a significant impact on our industries and constituents are not based on science whatsoever. In fact, we have heard from stakeholders and constituents that they are actually going in the complete opposite direction of what science would tell them to do.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I find it a little ironic that the member is asking what we would like to put forward. The Liberals should give us a chance to have a fulsome debate and discussion on these bills, rather than ramming them through with time allocation.

Are they listening? I do not believe they are. Conservatives put forward amendments on Bill C-69 that they refused, as well as on every other bill. I have just one piece of advice on how to strengthen Bill C-69: scrap it.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately it is not an honour for me to rise to speak to Bill C-69, which would create some burdensome regulation and red tape and add additional uncertainty to our natural resource sector.

Over the last few months, we have seen the impact the policies of the Liberal government on this industry and the jobs that go with it.

Bill C-69 has not even gone through the House yet, has not been given third reading, but we have already seen the ramifications of it. The private sector has seen the writing on the wall and is divesting itself of their interests in Canada: Statoil, Shell, BP, and certainly Kinder Morgan, which has made a substantial profit from the Canadian taxpayers of $4.5 billion on the purchase of an existing pipeline. As part of those companies divesting themselves of their interests in Canada, they have also taken $86 billion in new investment and new opportunities to other jurisdictions.

Let us be clear: these companies are not going to stop investing in the energy sectors, but they are going to stop investing in the Canadian energy sector. They are taking those dollars to other jurisdictions. They are going to be investing in places like Kazakhstan, Texas, and the Middle East, not in Canada. Unfortunately, we will suffer the consequences when it comes to our economic opportunities.

I want to take an opportunity to clarify something we heard again in question period today. The Liberals keep touting themselves as somehow building a pipeline to tidewater. All this $4.5 billion has done is purchased an existing pipeline. It does not remove any of the obstacles to the building of the Trans Mountain expansion. In fact, the Liberal purchase of this pipeline, which we heard is closer to $2 billion in market value than $4.5 billion, does not build one inch of new pipeline to tidewater. They should be very clear that this purchase does nothing. It removes none of the obstacles that the provincial Government of B.C. has put forward. It does not remove any of the protesters who will be blocking the construction of the pipeline. It does not remove any of the judicial challenges that opponents of the pipeline have put forward.

When the Liberal Prime Minister had opportunity to show some leadership, stand with Canada's energy sector, and use section 92 of the British North America Act, the constitutional tools he had to ensure the project was done, he did none of those things. This will cost our economy thousands of jobs.

I want to make another thing very clear, and I think my colleagues across the floor do not quite understand this. These jobs are not for wrench monkeys and roughnecks, which are also extremely important, as they are the backbone of our energy sector, but they are for highly skilled individuals. They are engineers, geophysicists, and geologists. I have spoken to many of them in western Canada. Some of them have been without jobs for more than two years. These are highly skilled individuals who will go to other areas of the world to find work, and they will not come back. It will be very hard to attract these highly skilled individuals back to Canada.

I have spoken about the impact this has had on western Canada. I have certainly spoken to many of these unemployed energy sector workers in Saskatchewan, Alberta, and B.C. However, the Liberal government also needs to understand that the implications of its decisions on the energy sector ripple right across the country. I would like to talk about just one example.

A General Electric plant in Peterborough, Ontario, made turbines for the pipelines across Canada. General Electric had announced plans to expand that facility should energy east, Trans Mountain, or northern gateway be approved and move forward. However, when energy east was killed on a political decision by the Liberal government, and after the foot-dragging and mismanagement of the Trans Mountain decision, General Electric announced it would close its plant in Peterborough, costing 350 jobs.

Therefore, the ramifications of the Liberal decisions, lack of action on Canada's energy sector, and the Prime Minister saying we are going to phase out the oil sands have real consequences across the country. These 350 jobs in Peterborough, Ontario, are now gone because of the Liberal decision on the energy sector. These families in Peterborough are now going to have to find new work.

I do not think our colleagues across the floor really do understand that. In fact, the Liberal member of Parliament for Peterborough—Kawartha supported killing energy east and supported Bill C-69. She is not fighting for her own constituents. She is not fighting for the jobs of those families in her own riding. The Liberals are making an ideological decision to listen to the vocal minority of activists.

Even today, my colleague from Hamilton East—Stoney Creek talked about how great things were in Hamilton because it was building all these grain cars. I am not too sure how all these new grain cars help the energy sector. They will not be hauling oil in grain cars because we do not have a pipeline. Maybe he is anticipating that the hundreds of thousands of Canadians who have lost their jobs in the energy sector are all of a sudden going to start farming. I do not think that is a real solution.

The solution is standing behind our energy sector, championing it and the jobs it creates and the social infrastructure it supports. That is the direction we should be supporting, not trying to find new jobs for those who have lost their positions. These are very well-paying middle-class jobs across the country, jobs that have now been lost in places like Fort McMurray, Calgary, Leduc, and certainly in Peterborough, Ontario, because of these ideological decisions. Bill C-69 would simply make matters worse.

We have heard from stakeholders and employees in the energy sector. They say that one of the most important drivers of investment in Canada has been that confidence, that reliability, and that regulatory certainty in Canada. Bill C-69 would do everything it possibly could to dismantle that certainty in our regulatory process.

The process is being politicized. The Minister of Environment and Climate Change would have the sole responsibility to decide whether a project would be for the greater good or in the national interest. One person, one minister, would have that decision.

Let us say an investor or a large energy company has an opportunity to apply for a project in Canada. It goes through all the regulatory processes and does all of its environmental assessment studies and financial assessments. However, as part of Bill C-69, the Minister of Environment and Climate Change will have the authority to say no even before it has its foot in the door. Even if it has passed all those environmental assessments, even if it has the support of first nations and communities along the way, even if it is proven to be in the national interest, the Minister of Environment and Climate Change has the authority to say that it is not something the government supports. That is what happened with energy east. The government put so many double standard burdens upon that project that there was no way the stakeholder would go ahead with it. That is what we are seeing as part of this process.

I spoke earlier about the ramifications this had on the sector and how we saw a government make ideological decisions, not decisions made on consultation with Canadians, not decisions based on science, not decisions that are fiscally based, and certainly not decisions based on economics. For example, let us look at agriculture.

This week or last week the Minister of Agriculture said that the vast majority of Canadian farmers supported the carbon tax. That was patently false, and we have heard that it is false. The Liberals are making decisions contrary to what Canadians are asking them to do. That is where this becomes extremely frustrating.

Farmers have reduced their use of diesel fuel by 200 million litres a year. Our energy sector now takes a third of the carbon footprint to produce one barrel of oil than it took 10 years ago. Members are going ask why the government is not investing in renewable energy and fossil fuels. Who do they think has been doing all the investing in renewable resources? It is our fossil fuel companies. Those are the ones which have the funds to invest, and they have been doing it for decades.

Why does the taxpayer have to be doing this when the private sector has already been doing it, and doing it successfully for decades? What the sector is asking for is for the government to get out of its way. It wants the government to let it do what it has been doing successfully, better than anybody in the world for generations. It just wants to do its job and get back to work.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is good to hear my colleague's very passionate speech about the environment.

In the previous government, the Conservatives took away the final say in the decision-making process on these projects from the regulator, the National Energy Board, and gave it to cabinet. Bill C-69 would entrench that in law, and would expand it. The minister would have tremendous discretion, throughout this document, at every step of the regulatory process. Does he agree with that decision to give the minister so much discretion?

[Joël Godin, Conservative, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this is a first for me. I am using my tablet to deliver my speech. We all need to row in the same direction, and every Canadian must be part of the effort to protect our planet. Today I am pleased to rise to debate Bill C-69, 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.

We believe in taking action and building on what we have already done to ensure that Canada remains an environmental leader. Those of us on this side of the House believe that. As I often say, the Liberal Party likes labelling the Conservative Party as anti-environment. Nothing could be further from the truth. I will keep saying that as long as the Liberals keep slapping a label on us that in no way reflects how hard Conservative men and women are working for the environment.

My Green Party colleague called this bill incredibly weak earlier today. This, from a party whose primary focus is the environment. I find this surprising coming from that member, but I completely agree with her. I agree that this massive bill is weak and unacceptable, and it does not meet the objective of protecting the environment for our children and grandchildren.

I am a member of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development, and I want to work. This committee has good intentions, and we would like to implement measures to improve the environment. However, I would guess that this government probably forced the chair, who is from the governing party, to pressure the committee to introduce a bill quickly. This is irresponsible.

It is irresponsible because the environment is important to all Canadians and to the members of the Conservative Party of Canada. These kinds of actions are unacceptable.

I will explain what happened in committee. We received 150 briefs totalling 2,250 pages within a month and a half. Fifty organizations appeared before the committee, 100 were not able to appear but submitted briefs, and 400 amendments were moved, including about 100 by the Liberal Party of Canada.

I would like to point out that, just like all Canadians, all MPs are human beings. If we want to do a good job, we need time to do research and to read, so that we are not saying just anything. We have to be rigorous and conscientious. If this government really intended to put together something to protect the environment, it would not have acted this way.

On another matter, in the 2015 election campaign, the Liberal Party of Canada had this to say on page 39 of its platform:

Canadians want a government they can trust to protect the environment and grow the economy. Stephen Harper has done neither. Our plan will deliver the economic growth and jobs Canadians need, and leave to our children and grandchildren a country even more beautiful, more sustainable, and more prosperous than the one we have now.

It seems important to them to talk about Stephen Harper, who was our prime minister and someone I am very proud of. What was our economy like when the Liberal government took over? It was doing very well. We introduced a balanced budget in 2015, and we left the Liberals with the tools they needed to keep it going, but this spendthrift government managed to create a structural deficit.

The 2019 election cannot come soon enough. This government is going to run a deficit of over $80 billion during its term, so let us hurry up and put the Conservatives back in power so that we can provide sound economic management.

With regard to the previous Conservative government's supposed failure, as I mentioned, here are some of the practical measures that it put in place. The Liberals like to say that we are anti-environment, but that is completely false. I will set out the facts and give concrete examples.

We created the clean air regulatory agenda. We established new standards to reduce car and light truck emissions. We established new standards to reduce emissions from heavy-duty vehicles and their engines. We proposed regulations to align ourselves with the U.S. Working Group III standards for vehicle emissions and sulphur in gasoline. We sought to limit HFCs, black carbon, and methane. We established new rules to reduce emissions from carbon-based electricity generation. We implemented measures to support the development of carbon capture technologies. We implemented measures to support the development of alternative energy sources. We enhanced the government's annual report on the main environmental indicators, including greenhouse gases. We, the big bad conservatives, even abolished tax breaks for the oil sands. In 2007, we invested $1.5 billion in the ecotrust program. It was not a centralist program like the Liberals tend to introduce. Rather, it was a program that worked well with the provinces.

Do you know who sang our praises? Greenpeace, that is who. Wow. We must not be as bad as all that when it comes to the environment. Maybe someday the Liberals will realize that we Conservatives are not here to destroy the planet.

I would like to point out that I, a Conservative MP, established a circular economy committee in my riding of Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier. Why would I waste time doing that if I were anti-environment? That is real action. In my view, and in the view of all the witnesses I had the privilege of hearing at the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development, Bill C-69 is unacceptable. The witnesses told me and the rest of the committee that this bill is nothing but the usual Liberal window dressing.

I am obliged to say that I personally, along with the other members of the Conservative Party, cannot accept this bill. We want to move things forward, but the government across the aisle does not.

We are willing and able to contribute and help the people across the aisle implement proactive, productive, efficient, and rigorous measures. However, it takes time to do that. Let us give ourselves the tools we need to respect the environment instead of defiling it. Let us implement a process that will protect the environment.

In their electoral platform, the Liberals said they wanted to leave a legacy for our children and grandchildren. First of all, environmentally speaking, this bill accomplishes nothing. Secondly, financially speaking, we are going to mortgage the lives of our children and grandchildren. That is unacceptable.

On that note, I know my time is running out. I am now ready to take questions from my colleagues here in the wonderful House of Commons.

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

Mr. Speaker, as much as I want to join in the conversation and keep discussing climate, in looking at Bill C-69 I really want to make a point and ask the hon. member for his commentary.

We had an expert panel on EA. The government spent over $1 million to get its advice, and that advice was very clear: the projects subject to review must include much more than the large controversial projects, and we must ensure that all areas of federal jurisdiction are covered. Smaller projects can do serious environmental damage. I want to ask my hon. colleague from South Okanagan—West Kootenay about this, as he has an extensive scientific background. Smaller projects are not going to be caught at all by Bill C-69.

This is about the review of a couple of dozen projects a year, all big ones. That is a fatal mistake for a federal government to make. It will be fatal to our environment. Smaller projects can destroy a species and wipe out a key ecosystem, and we will never even know about it. That is what I would like to ask my hon. colleague to comment on.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to rise here today to speak to Bill C-69, one of the most important attempts to modernize our environmental protection laws in Canada.

In large part, I think it was meant to deal with some of the actions of the Conservative government, which gutted a lot of our environmental protection laws in the previous Parliament through changes to the Navigable Waters Protection Act, the Fisheries Act, et cetera. We dealt with fisheries in Bill C-68, but Bill C-69 is an answer to try to fix some of the other acts that were radically changed by the previous government.

I have to say, off the top, how disappointed I am that the government not only brought in this bill as an omnibus bill, a huge bill, well over 300 pages long, but it moved time allocation in the first debate after only two hours. It moved time allocation on the bill yesterday as well. This is a bill that really should get fulsome debate. I am disappointed that not only did the government move time allocation, but it took so long to bring in this bill.

The NDP originally asked the Speaker to rule this an omnibus bill so that we could deal with it separately. The government agreed that we could vote on the navigable waters section separately. We also asked that the bill be split up for committee study. The first section, on the impact assessment, is ideally suited for study by the environment committee. The central part, which deals with the National Energy Board and the Canadian energy regulator, belongs with the natural resources committee. The navigation protection section, obviously, should have gone to the transport committee.

That division of labour would have provided for a thorough and efficient study. Instead, the whole bill was thrust onto the environment committee, where, with impossible deadlines, many important witnesses could not testify. I was contacted early on by a consortium of Canadian scientists who had studied this and wanted to present evidence before the committee. This was not a single scientist; these were a lot of the important environment scientists in Canada. They were denied access to the committee simply because, I imagine, there were too many witnesses trying to testify before the committee in those tight timelines.

At committee, the NDP submitted over 100 amendments, none of which were accepted. Tellingly, the government submitted over 100 amendments of its own. This tells me that the legislation was clearly rushed into the House and should have been written with more care.

The Liberals are hashtagging this bill #BetterRules, but the Canadian Environmental Law Association, the legal experts who arguably know more about this subject than most Canadians and most politicians, has said that this legislation in neither better, nor rules.

I will quote from a briefing note prepared by Richard Lindgren of the Canadian Environmental Law Association:

[T]he IAA is not demonstrably “better” than CEAA 2012. To the contrary, the IAA replicates many of the same significant flaws and weaknesses found within the widely discredited CEAA 2012....

[T]he IAA does not establish a concise rules-based regime that provides clarity, consistency, and accountability during the information-gathering and decision-making process established under the Act. Instead, the key stages of the proposed impact assessment process are subject to considerable (if not excessive) discretion enjoyed by various decision-makers under the IAA.

At the most fundamental level, for example, it currently remains unclear which projects will actually be subject to the IAA.... [It] contains no benchmarks or criteria to provide direction on the type, scale, or potential effects of projects that should be designated under the new law.

I would like to spend a little while speaking more to the second part of the bill, the energy regulator section.

This section disbands the National Energy Board and creates a new but rather similar body called the Canadian energy regulator. The section opens with a preamble and a statement of purpose. Surprisingly, in this day and age of a brave new world of energy, neither makes reference to linkages between energy and climate. In fact, there is no mention at all of climate in this entire section.

Much of the public work of the old NEB was about regulating pipelines. One could easily come to the conclusion that this is a case of closing the barn door after the horses have left, since it seems unlikely that the new regulator will ever have to review an application for a major new oil pipeline.

The Minister of Natural Resources has risen countless times in this place declaring that the government has restored confidence in the energy regulation system, and that is why the Kinder Morgan pipeline can be built. Unfortunately, he is deeply misinformed.

A couple of months ago, I met with Dr. Monica Gattinger of the Positive Energy group at the University of Ottawa, who studies this very issue of public confidence in energy issues, and Nik Nanos, whose polling firm had asked Canadians about that confidence. Perhaps not surprisingly, Mr. Nanos found that public confidence in the Canadian energy regulation system was at an all-time low. If we thought it was low during the Harper government, it has continued to decline, and now only 2% of Canadians have strong confidence in the energy regulation system. That lack of confidence is shared by members of the public on both sides of the issue: it is lowest in both Alberta and British Columbia. It results in situations like the Kinder Morgan impasse. I should mention that the last time I heard the minister speak on this subject, he did admit that confidence was suddenly a problem in this area.

The Liberals promised during the last election to put the Kinder Morgan proposal through a new, stronger review system, but instead sent a three-member ministerial panel on a quick tour along the pipeline route, giving communities, first nations, governments, and the concerned public almost no advance warning to prepare their presentations. No record was made of the proceedings.

Despite the serious shortcomings of this process, the panel came up with six questions that it said the government would have to answer before making its decision about Kinder Morgan. I will mention only the first three.

First, can the construction of the Trans Mountain expansion be reconciled with Canada's climate commitments?

Second, how can pipeline projects be properly assessed in the absence of a comprehensive national energy strategy?

Third, how can the review of this pipeline project be squared with the government's commitment to the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples?

I would suggest that none of these questions was answered, even in part, before the government made its decision to approve the Kinder Morgan expansion, and none of them were answered before the government bought the pipeline, which was actually the old pipeline. This leaves a lot of questions about how the government is to regulate itself in getting that pipeline built.

Amazingly, none of those questions are properly answered in the legislation before us, which comes two years after the Kinder Morgan decision. After the government has accepted Bill C-262, which calls for government legislation to be consistent with the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, there is no mention of this in the body of Bill C-69. Only after much pressure did the government agree to put it in the preamble, where it would have no legal effect.

We need to restore the confidence of Canadians in our energy regulatory system and in our environmental impact processes. Without that confidence, it will be increasingly difficult for Canadian companies to develop our natural resources, which are at the heart of our national economy.

The Liberals continue to pretend they are doing good, but they are all talk and no action, or as we say in the west, all hat and no cattle. We need bold action to build a new regulatory system that gives voice to all concerned Canadians.

[David Yurdiga, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to debate Bill C-69.

It is obvious that Bill C-69 would ensure that major private sector pipelines will never see the light of day. This Liberal Bill C-69 will forever be known as a black death to the oil and gas sector, killing jobs from coast to coast to coast. The Liberal government has enacted a series of anti-resource policies and has sent signals that discourage economic growth. The hikes in tax rates, increased capital gains taxes, which entrepreneurs are averse to, and the carbon tax all affect investment in Canada. We have witnessed that Liberal policies and lack of action on the energy file have chased over $80 billion out of our country, taking with them hundreds of thousands of jobs.

When I was first elected, anyone across the country who was willing to work could find a job in Alberta. Those willing to work hard, often more than 40 hours a week, could support their families, send their kids for post-secondary education, and still save for the future. Small businesses across Alberta were also booming from the economic activity that the industry brought into almost every town and community in the province. That is not the case today. An oil crash later, a provincial government change, and a federal government change have all Albertans concerned for their future.

The global price of oil will always fluctuate, but what many Canadians do not know is that we do not receive the price per barrel that is commonly reported. The price reported is the North American benchmark, West Texas Intermediate. Our oil is traded as Western Canadian Select. The difference between the two prices is about $34 a barrel, on average. The good news is that pipelines can help to close that gap in prices. The more access we have to markets other than the United States, the better the deal we can obtain.

Instead of supporting the building of these pipelines, the Liberal government has introduced regulation after regulation to cripple the industry and deter investment. Today we are talking about the unpopular move that the Liberal government has struck against the west and our oil industry by robbing the National Energy Board of most of its powers through the creation of the Canadian energy regulator.

The National Energy Board has served as a world-class regulator for the natural resource sector since its creation in 1959. Since then, it has reviewed and approved major energy projects across Canada. Over the last decade, the NEB has approved the pipelines Alberta desperately needs, which made it a target for political interference. When the Liberal government took power, the natural resource minister's mandate letter called on him to “Modernize the National Energy Board to ensure that its composition reflects regional views and has sufficient expertise in fields such as environmental science, community development, and Indigenous traditional knowledge.”

While the government believes Bill C-69 would complete this mandate, I would like to cover how this bill would drive investment out of Canada.

One of the changes the bill would bring in is the establishment of timelines. The government claims that there will be timelines of 450 days for major projects and 300 days for minor projects, respectively, pursuant to subclauses 183(4) and 214(4). While many Conservatives are in favour of timelines for projects, the devil is in the details, and unfortunately we did not have time or enough witnesses at our round tables to go over these details. The application process can be dragged out, and that will not be considered in the timelines. The lead commissioner will be given the ability to exclude time. Lastly and most importantly, the minister can approve or deny an application before it even gets to the assessment phase. We only have to look at the cancelled northern gateway pipeline to see that the government has no problem putting national interests on hold and dismissing a pipeline for political reasons.

I am also concerned about the changes to the NEB standing test. Currently, individuals and organizations directly affected by the project or capable of providing valuable knowledge are heard by the National Energy Board. The new rules would allow anyone to participate and be heard. This would ensure that groups who oppose all energy projects across Canada will be given a bigger voice. Groups outside of Canada will be given a voice as well, and they do not have our best interests at heart.

I can only imagine what our global competitors think of this legislation. It would give them the opportunity to fund groups that will oppose every project that has the ability to threaten their market share. To think that this will not occur in the future is foolish and short-sighted.

Briefly, I would like to bring your attention to the projects that have died under the Liberals' watch.

The Prime Minister imposed offshore drilling bans in the Northwest Territories without notice to the territorial governments, which killed exploration and future development, and the Petronas-backed NorthWest LNG megaproject on the west coast was cancelled. The Liberal government has ever-changing policies and roadblocks, which led to the cancellation of energy east. The Liberals also cancelled the Conservative-approved pipeline project known as the northern gateway, which would have brought our oil to tidewater. They legislated the northern B.C. coastline tanker ban, which will ensure projects like the northern gateway and Eagle Spirit will never be possible.

In addition, many Canadians and experts are concerned over the purchase of a 65-year-old pipeline at twice its book value, but the biggest concern is the current condition of the pipeline.

Some of the questions I have are these: What is the life expectancy of the 65-year-old pipeline? What is the projected cost of the maintenance and upgrade of the 65-year-old infrastructure? Will the newly created crown corporation be self-sufficient or end up like the CBC, dependent on taxpayer handouts? Will the construction of the twinning of the pipeline be subject to Bill C-69? Did the government assume all liability from Kinder Morgan, including liabilities from the past?

We should all recognize that the natural resource sector has brought tremendous wealth to my riding, all of Alberta, and Canada. The oil sands alone have brought $7.4 billion to the Canadian economy outside of Alberta: $3.9 billion to Ontario, $1.3 billion to British Columbia, $1.2 billion to Quebec, $333 million to Newfoundland, $143 million to Manitoba, $142 million to Saskatchewan, $96.7 million to Nova Scotia, $50.8 million to New Brunswick, $11.4 million to the Northwest Territories, $6.3 million to Prince Edward Island, $1.6 million to Yukon, and the list goes on. These figures include everything from especially made overalls to high technology for reducing global emissions.

Members need to consider that if we keep our resources in the ground, as environmentalist David Suzuki wants us to do, we are not saving the environment; we are just moving resource development to countries around the world that have lower safety standards and lower environmental protections. I believe that if resources are needed, it is better that they come from here and not from human rights abusers and dictators.

I know that many members of Parliament have voted for regulations of every type and will continue to do so. What they need to consider before voting on this bill is that we are part of a global market. Right now we are competing with countries across the world to sell our goods and attract investment.

We only need to look across the border to see a government intent on bringing in billions of dollars of investments and the jobs that come with them. Since taking office, the Trump administration has given the energy industry a tremendous amount of confidence to invest by cutting regulations and taxes. Future natural resource jobs in my riding, in Alberta, and across Canada are at stake if this bill passes, and that is why my Conservative colleagues and I stand against this bill.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I have great respect for my colleague. We work very well together on the agriculture committee. He touched on something when he pointed out that although we are talking about Bill C-69, this really is about a larger narrative.

The government is making making significant decisions that will impact almost every aspect of our economy, whether it is energy, farming, ranching, or small business. As we have seen over the last few days, and certainly over the last couple of weeks, the Liberals are trying to ram these decisions through with little to no consultation either from members or from Canadians who are going to be impacted by this decision.

I would like my colleague to talk about some of the things he is hearing in his constituency about the impact, or about the frustration from his residents as a result of the decisions being made by the Liberal government with no consultation with Canadians.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to have this opportunity to join the debate on Bill C-69. It is an opportunity that unfortunately many colleagues in the House will not be able to have. We are currently debating it under time allocation, so we have a limit of five hours to debate it.

I want to walk the House through a little history lesson.

If we go back to the 2015 election, the Liberals, particularly the Prime Minister, made a lot of promises during that campaign. One of them was a repeated promise that if the Liberals were elected, they would immediately restore a strengthened federal environmental assessment process. They made a commitment that they would not approve any projects without first enacting that strengthened assessment process to ensure decisions were based on science, facts, and evidence, and that they would serve the public interest.

In fact, the Prime Minister made a visit to British Columbia. He came to Vancouver Island to the community of Esquimalt on August 20, 2015. People will know Esquimalt, because that is the home of the main Pacific naval base for Canada. He was asked specifically about the promise in the context of Kinder Morgan. He said, quite clearly, that the Kinder Morgan pipeline review process would have to be redone under stronger and more credible rules.

However, what we have before us today, with Bill C-69, is a gargantuan bill, clocking in at 364 pages. It is too little too late, because we are now debating a bill after the government has approved Kinder Morgan and after it has announced the purchase of the pipeline.

The bill comes to us roughly 28 months since the Liberals were elected. I have heard other members of Parliament express in this place that the bill should have gone to three separate committees. It should have gone to the transport committee, the natural resources committee, and the environment committee so each of those collective bodies, with the experience and knowledge that members attain while working on them, could have studied the constituent parts and called forth the appropriate witnesses.

Instead, one committee was entrusted to this monumental task, this herculean task. I know the efforts of the member for Edmonton Strathcona in listening to the evidence and in trying to put forward amendments to see that the bill lived up to the promises the Liberal government had made. Unfortunately, due to the time constraints and the Liberal members on the committee not really listening to her, most of those amendments were defeated, and here we are at the report stage of the bill.

I also want to go back to the time before Bill C-69 was introduced. The Liberals keep on saying that Kinder Morgan did go through a renewed review process. Well, let us just examine what they in fact set up.

The Liberals had set up what was known as a “ministerial review panel”. In fact, that panel admitted that it lacked the time, the technical expertise, and the resources to fill the gaps in the National Energy Board process. It ended up with little more than questions that remained unanswered. They kept no public records of hearings, admitted that the meetings were hastily organized, and confirmed that they had a serious lack of public confidence in the National Energy Board and its recommendations.

I attended one of those meetings when it came to Victoria. I remember the room unanimously coming out against Kinder Morgan. It was kind of a slapdash piece of work.

Despite all of the setbacks of the ministerial review panel, its members still came out and acknowledged that Kinder Morgan's Trans Mountain pipeline proposals could not proceed without a serious reassessment of its impacts on climate change commitments, indigenous rights, and marine mammal safety. Therefore, they, in a sense, were acknowledging the huge problems that existed with this project.

The Liberals keep on openly wondering why there is such passionate opposition to this project, specifically in British Columbia where the risks are very much concentrated. It is because people did not have faith in the previous process. Many of them were lured to vote Liberal. They had hoped that the new Liberal government would actually live up to its promises.

Instead what they got was a ministerial review panel, judgment passed by the Liberal government before the facts, and now this bill, Bill C-69, which still has many problematic elements. One of the big ones is that the Minister of Environment will still have an arbitrary right to monitor environmental projects. It leaves them open to political influences instead of scientific evidence.

Governments come and go. We may have an environment minister in one government whom the public can trust and know that the person's heart is in the right place, but if a new government comes in that has completely different leanings and gives that kind of power to ministers, it can sway its decisions according to which way the political winds blow. That is not the way to enact strong, scientific, consensus-based decision-making.

I want to start framing this debate a bit more in the context of Kinder Morgan and the very fact that the government has made promises to get rid of subsidies to the oil and gas sector, that we are now last in the G7, and that the government has tried to strive to a 2025 goal.

The Liberals have paid $4.5 billion for a 65-year-old pipeline, one that exports diluted bitumen, and this is just the cost of the existing infrastructure and not of anything that will come from it. I hear members from all sides talking about a national energy strategy, but this pipeline serves foreign interests. It is not accumulating the best value for our product.

Diluted bitumen is the lowest grade of crude we can export. That is why it fetches the lowest prices. Expanding Kinder Morgan's capacity will not change the price. I see no incentive and I have seen no evidence that customers will be willing to pay more for the same product just because we can ship more volume. The existing pipeline exports 99% of it to California, so I would like to see evidence of all the buyers from Asia lining up at the door. They are currently not buying what Kinder Morgan is exporting today.

The Liberals like to use a favourite phrase that the environment and the economy go hand in hand. There are a few things that are wrong with this. It supposes that the environment and the economy are equal partners. That is not the case. I would argue that there is a relationship, but the economy is very much the junior partner. When we start affecting our environment, when we start polluting the waterways, and we see the effects of climate change, the economic ravages that can have far outweigh any of the benefits we can get.

There are economic opportunities in keeping in line with our environmental goals if we start to make the right investments into renewable energy. We have to see the way the world is going. This is 2018, and there is a trend. I want our country to take advantage of the economic opportunities of the 21st century economy, not invest in something that rightfully belongs in the 20th century.

Along the way, we have to be speaking to current energy workers. We have to ensure they come along with us. Everyone acknowledges that the oil sands will not stop production tomorrow, but we need to have a plan where we talk about the just transition of those workers to bring them with us into the new energy economy, so Canada is best placed for the 21st century.

I also want to talk about the Liberals' vote for Bill C-262 last week and how little those commitments mean this week.

The member for Edmonton Strathcona tried repeatedly, both at committee and now at report stage, to insert language into Bill C-69 that would live up to what Bill C-262 would do. Bill C-262 seeks to bring the laws of Canada into harmony with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. If we look at all the report stage motions, we can see that the member for Edmonton Strathcona has tried to insert language in there that acknowledges the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and acknowledges the Constitution Act, 1982 and all of our commitments. I have been questioning Liberals repeatedly on this. Will they at least have some consistency and vote in support of those amendments, following their support for Bill C-262?

This bill is too little too late. There are gaps in it that we could drive a bus through. While we appreciate some elements of the bill, we have to look at the whole thing.

When it is this large, there are just far too many negatives. They outweigh the positives. That is why the NDP is going to withhold its support for the bill. We were hoping for a lot more, and frankly, so were the Canadian people.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I have heard from many farmers and ranchers in rural Canada about the changes in Bill C-69 and the impact they will have, especially when it comes to working on their own land. When they are working in spring runoff areas, little waterways and ditches, they will be forced to work with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, even if someone cannot even get a raft or a balloon down that waterway. They are going to be treated like the last pirate of Saskatchewan is going to be sailing down the plain in his ship. It is going to cause a lot of burden and red tape for these farmers when they are trying to produce food and work on their land.

Could my colleague talk about the impact the changes in Bill C-69 will have on the agriculture sector?

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

Mr. Speaker, I heard my friend's comments loud and clear with respect to the Navigable Waters Protection Act. Canada had the legislation since 1867, originally under our first prime minister. It remained virtually unchanged until the very significant changes in 2012.

My friend and I will disagree. The omnibus budget bill, Bill C-45 in the fall of 2012, really did damage to our ability to protect navigable waters across Canada. This version in Bill C-69 represents a real improvement. The tragedy is that although the Minister of Transport has done a really good job in repairing that damage, because the impact assessment law does not create a requirement for a review of permits being given by the Minister of Transport, the whole system remains rather shattered, as it was by the budget bill and Bill C-38.

Has she looked at the definition and not recognized that this new definition in Bill C-69 does in fact take into account that waterways that can be used only part of the year and are not actually used for human navigation will not trigger any governmental involvement in navigable waters?

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

Mr. Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to speak to Bill C-69, 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. My remarks this afternoon will focus on part 3 of this misguided bill.

Part 3 is the section of the bill that makes amendments to the Navigation Protection Act. This section of the bill continues the Prime Minister and the Liberals' assault on common sense laws and regulations that promote jobs and economic growth. The only people calling for the changes proposed in the bill are those opposed to resource projects that create economic development and jobs. They are representatives of the same people who have been protesting the Trans Mountain pipeline, the pipeline the Liberals recently purchased for $4.5 billion in taxpayers' money.

It is rather ironic that the Liberals are burning the bridge, so to speak, with the very voter pool they had hoped to pacify with the bill.

Bill C-69 proposes to change the name of the Navigation Protection Act to the Canadian navigable waters act. While seemingly cosmetic, this change reflects a substantial refocusing of the act on the protection of waters rather than the protection of navigation.

Canada is a large country, the second largest in the world. In the 1800s, waterways were often the primary means of transporting goods across our vast geography. The legislative forerunners of the Navigation Protection Act were designed to protect the navigability of waterways for the sake of our economy.

With the advent of Canada's rail and road systems, as well as our transportation system, Canada's transportation system has become less reliant on water navigation. However, that said, waterways remain an important element of our transportation system in many regions of the country.

As I said a moment ago, the changes in Bill C-69, including changing the act's name, demonstrate the Liberals' complete disregard for the original intent of the Navigation Protection Act, and instead reflect their misguided attempt to virtue signal in order to obtain the obscure idea of social licence. Without definition or boundaries, social licence is no more real than a pot of gold at the end of a rainbow.

The Liberals' fixation on this abstract idea is costing Canadians dearly. Again, just consider the $4.5 billion, and counting, that the Liberals have spent to buy the old Trans Mountain pipeline. Now consider the substantial changes to the Navigation Protection Act contained within this bill.

The current Navigation Protection Act includes a schedule of waters to which the act applies. This schedule was created by the previous Conservative government because we realized that not every seasonal creek, tiny river, or stream was used for the purpose of commercial navigation. We also realized that these seasonal creeks or tiny rivers were already protected by other environmental legislation and that when economic development was planned on or near them, it was duplicative and redundant to make these projects subject to the NPA when in fact these small bodies of water were not used for navigation.

Our changes were strongly supported by a broad range of stakeholders and organizations across Canada. They ranged from the construction industry, to the resource development industry, to municipalities and their associations. These organizations recognized that Canada needed prudent, careful environmental laws and regulations, but not duplicative ones. They realized that applying the NPA to projects where navigation was not a consideration was a waste of time and money and led to increased project costs.

On this point, the opposition by municipal organizations and the construction industry was highlighted to parliamentarians at the Standing Committee on Transportation, Infrastructure and Communities when we undertook a study in 2016 of the former Conservative government's changes to the NPA. The genesis of that study by the committee was very interesting and should be noted.

What prompted the committee's study of the NPA was twofold. First, I believe there was a misguided eagerness on the part of Liberal and NDP MPs to do the bidding of the Prime Minister, rather than focusing on the real issues, which would have had a more meaningful and positive impact on Canadians and our economy. The committee's study of the NPA was a case of the legislative branch taking its marching orders from the executive branch.

Second, and connected to my first point, the transport, infrastructure and communities committee undertook the study of the NPA as a result of an inadvisable letter from the Minister of Transport, co-authored by the Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard, which was sent to the chair of the transportation committee. In this letter, the Minister of Transport, in effect, directed the committee to undertake this study to provide political cover for introducing changes to the previous Conservative government's legislation. Add to that the fact that the instructions contained within the Minister of Transport's ministerial mandate letter directed him to reverse the changes that were made when the NPA became law.

By directing the committee to undertake the study, the minister was foisting upon a parliamentary committee an instruction that he, himself, had been given. It is no wonder, then, that the conclusions of the committee study were pre-determined. To this day, I find this invasion by the executive branch into the workings of a committee of the legislative body to be a very egregious act on the part of the Minister of Transport and this Prime Minister.

Getting back to Bill C-69 and the new provisions it contains, if passed, the bill will maintain the schedule of waters to be covered by the bill, but it will change the rules and regulations for any work on any navigable water listed in the schedule. Additionally, the bill will create new rules and regulations that will apply to all navigable waters, not just those listed in the schedule.

When I say “navigable water”, it is important to note that this term is code for any body of water or seasonal stream that can float a petroleum-produced canoe or kayak. These new rules include providing an opportunity for the public to express concerns over a work's impact on navigation.

While noble in concept, we all know that this new provision has the potential to be abused by individuals and organizations ideologically opposed to certain projects. This bill is about undoing the good work of our previous Conservative government for spite, rather than implementing policy for the good of the country.

In conclusion, I believe that Bill C-69 is a bad bill and completely unnecessary. While I have only touched on a small part of this bill, I know that its other elements, which my colleague, the member for Abbotsford and others have articulated, will have an equally damaging effect on the Canadian economy and the investment environment in Canada as a whole. This damaging bill is just another piece of bad policy that is causing investment and job creators to look at other countries and/or leave Canada.

It is my sincere hope that the Liberals will reconsider what they are doing to Canada's economy and reputation with misguided pieces of legislation like this one.

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

Madam Speaker, we are debating Bill C-69, which is an omnibus bill that affects the new Canadian energy regulator, which was the National Energy Board; the Impact Assessment Act, which was the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act; and the navigable waters act. Having practised environmental law for most of my life, I do not suppose she will believe me when I tell her, but I will try to tell her, that this bill is incredibly weak and does nothing to make development more difficult. It cannot possibly drive away investors unless they only want to put their money in countries where environmental assessment meets the minimum standards of rigour that Canada used to have between the early 1970s and 2012.

I do not suppose she is reassured, but I am voting against Bill C-69 because it is absolutely weak. I wonder if she has read it in detail and recognizes that it keeps in place most of what the previous government had done.

[Rosemarie Falk, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to rise again today to finish my remarks. I started them at five minutes to midnight last night, so I am glad that I have this opportunity to continue.

I want to remind my colleagues that Kinder Morgan never asked for a single dollar of taxpayers' money. It asked the government to provide certainty that its pipeline could be built. Even though the Liberals approved the expansion of the Kinder Morgan pipeline, they sat on their hands and did not champion it. Kinder Morgan was not given the certainty it had asked for. Instead, it got delay after delay. That failure led to the nationalization of the pipeline, and as I have said, it has come at a significant cost to Canadian taxpayers.

Of the bailout, Aaron Wudrick, the federal director of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, said it is “both a colossal failure of the [Prime Minister's] government to enforce the law of the land, and a massive, unnecessary financial burden on Canadian taxpayers.”

Pipeline projects can be built without taxpayer money. The former Conservative government approved 4,500 kilometres of new pipeline through four major pipeline projects.

The role of the government should be to ensure that projects that are scientifically determined to be safe for the environment, and in the interests of Canadians, receive approval. Through low taxes and a clear and less burdensome regulatory system, the government could achieve some success. More than halfway through their mandate, the Liberals have not learned that lesson. That is why Trans Canada pulled out of the energy east pipeline project.

That was not the only energy sector loss. The Liberals' poor management of our energy sector has chased away over $80 billion of investment. As I am sure every member in this place will remember, just recently the Liberal government passed the oil tanker moratorium act through the House. This legislation, when enacted, will prevent an entire region from accessing economic opportunities in the oil and gas sector.

Chris Bloomer, president and CEO of the Canadian Energy Pipeline Association, said, “Projects require clarity and predictability, and once approved should not be subject to costly delay tactics that thwart Canada's economic and social prosperity.” It is really quite a simple ask from Canada's energy industry. It wants to know the rules, know that they are fair, and know that they will not change erratically.

Bill C-69 would not provide that assurance to those working in the energy sector. First, it would provide a slew of ministerial and Governor in Council exemptions that could be used to slow down the approval process. It would also add a planning phase to the process, a brand new process that would be an added 180 days.

The legislation we have in front of us does not provide me with any measure of confidence that it would decrease project timelines or improve certainty for investors. Rather, it would do just the opposite. This legislation would not make investment in Canada more appealing. Rather, it would make it more complicated and more uncertain.

Bill C-69 proposes increased consultation and would expand the criteria to be considered in the assessment of a project. It would seek social license, but it would not increase scientific analysis of the project.

Let us not forget the fact that the minister would have a veto right at the end of the planning phase. This would certainly not instill confidence in investors. It would tell potential investors that decisions on the approval of a project could be decided on a political whim.

We have to also remember that this is happening while the United States is cutting regulations and lowering its taxes. Canada has lost significant business investment. We cannot afford the cost of increased regulation and increased uncertainty. This legislation would not strike the appropriate balance between protecting the environment and growing our economy.

This legislation, like the Liberal government's policies, is flawed. It would propose new regulatory burdens that, when combined with other measures the Liberals have introduced, such as the carbon tax, would drive investment away from Canada.

If Canada wants to compete globally, we need to lower taxes and streamline the regulation system. We need a government that works with Canadians and not against them.

Bill C-69 would result in a loss of jobs, a loss of economic growth, and a loss in global competitiveness. I cannot support the Liberal government's continued efforts to undermine Canada's long-term prosperity.

The House resumed from June 6 consideration of Bill C-69, 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, as reported (with amendment) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.

Business of the House

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister of Small Business and Tourism]

Mr. Speaker, this afternoon, we will continue with the report stage debate on Bill C-69, the environmental assessment act.

Following this, we will turn to Bill C-75, the justice modernization act, and Bill C-59, the national security act.

If time permits, we shall start debate at report stage of Bill C-68, the fisheries act, and Bill C-64 on derelict vessels.

Tomorrow morning, we will begin third reading of Bill C-47 on the Arms Trade Treaty. Next Monday, Tuesday, and Thursday are allotted days. Also, pursuant to the Standing Orders, we will be voting on the main estimates Thursday evening.

Next week, priority will be given to the following bills: Bill C-21, an act to amend the Customs Act; Bill C-59, an act respecting national security matters; Bill C-64, the wrecked, abandoned or hazardous vessels act; Bill C-68 on fisheries; and Bill C-69 on environmental assessments.

We also know, however, that the other place should soon be voting on Bill C-45, the cannabis act. If a message is received notifying us of amendments, that will be given priority.

Impact Assessment Act

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Anthony Rota]

The hon. member will have five minutes and 45 seconds the next time Bill C-69 comes up for debate.

[Rosemarie Falk, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening, and almost tomorrow, to speak to Bill C-69, 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.

I appreciate this opportunity to speak to this legislation, as the measures proposed in it would have a significant impact on the constituents in my riding. The energy sector is a central industry in my riding of Battlefords—Lloydminster, and ensuring the industry's viability and growth going forward is crucial to my constituents. While the responsible development of our natural resources is important to my riding, it is equally as important to all Canadians.

Our country owes a lot of its prosperity to our natural resources, a fact that even the Prime Minister has admitted. In his mandate letter to the Minister of Natural Resources, he wrote, “Throughout Canada’s history, our prosperity has been built on our natural resources.” It is a fact that he cannot and should not forget. Our development of natural resources creates jobs in Canada and economic development, and through taxes, it contributes significant revenues to the government.

The energy sector is a key natural resource sector in Canada. It creates over 800,000 Canadian jobs and represents nearly 10% of Canada's nominal GDP. Those figures are nothing to scoff at. Unfortunately, despite the Prime Minister's acknowledgement of the importance of our natural resources, both his actions and inactions have come with a tremendous price tag.

The Liberal government has a terrible record when it comes to Canada's energy sector. While the members across the aisle may want to claim that this legislation is a positive step for the future of our energy sector, that is just not the case, and the Liberals simply cannot be trusted on this file.

This legislation proposes a one project, one review system for approving proposed projects. In principle this looks very positive, but a closer look at this bill quickly reveals that it is full of measures that could be taken to slow down the approval process. In actuality, the process that has been outlined is lengthier.

This perhaps comes as no surprise to many, as we have repeatedly seen the Prime Minister make promises to Canadians and then fail to deliver on them. In fact, since forming government, the Prime Minister has repeatedly failed our energy sector. The recent taxpayer purchase of the Kinder Morgan pipeline is a great example of the Prime Minister's failure, a failure with a $4.5-billion price tag and one that puts Canadian taxpayers on the hook for billions more in costs.

I remind my colleagues that Kinder Morgan never asked for a single dollar of taxpayer money. All it asked for was that the government provide certainty that a pipeline could be built. Even though the Liberals approved the expansion of the Kinder Morgan pipeline, they sat on their hands and did not champion it. Kinder Morgan was not given the certainty it asked for. Instead, it saw delay after delay after delay.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

The Conservatives can heckle whatever they want. The reality is that they did not build one inch of pipeline to tidewater. They failed. There were 10 years of failure on that front. What they asked for was to see a pipeline built, because they could not do it.

Now we have a government that is actually making it happen. One would think the Conservatives would be happy to see that, but no. Now they are asking why the government is buying a pipeline. Do I need to remind them that it was Harper who bought automobile shares to protect an industry? Imagine the thousands of jobs that were saved because of the Harper decision to invest in the automobile industry. That money was ultimately returned. Need I remind them they cashed out a billion dollars on it in the last budget they presented? Why are they saying no to Alberta, and to Canada as a whole? That is the challenge I put to my Conservative friends, because it just does not make any sense.

What does Bill C-69 do? It protects our environment, fish, and waterways. This is good stuff. We are re-establishing public confidence in the environment and in economic development because they can go hand in hand. We are also respecting indigenous rights.

If I go back to my New Democratic friends, they will point out that there is a group that is in opposition to it. The logic of the NDP, which at times can be a challenge, is that if we do not get 100% buy-in, then we should kill the project, no matter what the project is. That seems to be the New Democrats' approach to economic development. I think they owe it to Canadians to be a little more clear and transparent.

I believe we have seen political parties on all sides recognize exactly what we have been able to accomplish with regard to the Trans Mountain expansion project. It is something the Conservatives could not accomplish. Whenever you have a major project, there are divisions, even within the NDP ranks. Take a look at the premier of Alberta. What does she have to say? She is very encouraging and very positive that we finally have a national government able to get the job done. On the other hand, we have the NDP in British Columbia who are determined to kill the project, and now we have the national party, whose position is a little harder to peg, but I think in the last week or so it has become very clear that it does not see the value of pipelines.

I will tell members why it is in Canada's national best interest from the narrow perspective of my province of Manitoba. We can talk about the thousands of jobs that will be created and the endless opportunities for indigenous people and communities in all regions of our country. We will all benefit from it. However, I want to focus on something that does not get talked about very often, which is that the Province of Manitoba will spend roughly $6 billion on health care, and probably quite a bit more than that. It has been awhile since I was a member of the Manitoba legislature, but we are very dependent on equalization payments, transfer payments, and so forth. A province like Alberta, for example, contributes billions of dollars towards equalization. If Manitoba did not receive that kind of funding, we would be unable to provide the type of services we do in health care, education, and many of the social programs that are so very important and part of what I believe Manitobans and all Canadians would like to see.

When I first learned that we were acquiring the Trans Mountain expansion project, I felt very good about it. I thought this is what it means to be in government, which is to have a vision that would ultimately see Canada continuing to grow. Our middle class today will be healthier tomorrow as a direct result of this acquisition. At the end of the day, that was a commitment we made to voters back in 2015. We committed to looking at ways to build Canada's middle class and those aspiring to be a part of it, and to look at ways to strengthen our economy.

However, those naysayers, the New Democrats, do not understand or appreciate the importance of energy and getting our commodities to market, and would rather say no to anything and everything. The Conservatives do not appreciate the importance of our environment and respecting indigenous rights.

On this side of the House, this Prime Minister and this caucus understand the value of a government that is prepared to make tough decisions that will have a profoundly positive impact in many different ways in every region of the country. I am so proud to be part of a government that does not shy away from acting in the national best interest. That, to me, is one reason we should all be getting behind the Trans Mountain project and, specifically, this proposed legislation.

This proposed legislation would reinforce that trust by having, for example, the Canadian energy regulator ensure that on the issues the agencies are addressing, the required conditions are in fact being met. That would be a good thing. There would be more efficiency. At the end of the day, we will be better off with the passage of this legislation.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it would be speculation indeed, because it does not seem to make a lot of sense to have commissioned that work, have it done, and then largely ignore it.

We saw something similar with the Special Committee on Electoral Reform. There was a budget for that committee too. It did a lot of travel, heard from a number of witnesses, and produced a really great report. Everybody put a bit of water in their wine to clear the path for the government to move forward and make good on its election commitment. Without really even taking time to consider that report, the government decided to throw it in the wastepaper bin. It is a theme, but the motivation behind that theme is not exactly clear.

On the issue of electoral reform, by way of analogy to Bill C-69, one could imagine the government creating a really good proportional representation voting system that actually satisfied Canadians who voted for change, but putting in a caveat in the bill that the government of the day could decide in advance of an election whether it would use that process or the old process. I do not think anybody would say that made sense. Right?

Effectively, the ministerial discretion to decide whether to apply this framework to a project and then to ignore it afterwards would be a further caveat. We would be saying, “If we had the election and we do not like the results, we will actually just rescind it and then will redo the election under the old process”. Nobody would think that was a good idea and effectively that is what is happening here.

There may be virtues in the change to the process, but the real problem is whether the process will be applied and whether it has to be respected once it is seen through.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the problem is that notwithstanding any virtues of the process proposed in Bill C-69, if the minister is the one who will decide whether the process will be applied to a project or not, because the process itself is not mandatory, and if at the end of it the minister is able to simply ignore the outcomes of the process, then no, we would not have a process that is fundamentally better than the one the Harper government had, because the government could ignore it at will.

The major problem with the Harper process as far as I am concerned is that at the end of the day, the government, for whatever reason, could simply ignore the science and the evidence. That fundamentally has not changed.

Incidentally, members looking to the National Post to validate whether or not their policies are progressive are probably barking up the wrong tree.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to read a quote about Bill C-69 from the National Post. It reads:

Bill C-69 outlines a number of factors that the minister must consider before approving a project including sustainability and impacts on indigenous groups and on Canada's ability to meet its climate change commitments. That's an improvement over the existing system where the government's reasons for project approvals are often 'mysterious' according to Jamie Mean, spokesperson for Mining Watch Canada.

I would just like the member's comments on that quote. Could he say whether or not he feels this quote reflects the fact that we have a bill that is an improvement on the existing process brought in by the Conservatives?

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to Bill C-69. I want to take a moment to talk specifically about some of the deficiencies of the bill. Then I would like to talk a bit more about a general pattern of behaviour that the bill fits into, which is problematic in and of itself.

With respect to the bill, Canadians were upset with the previous government and its approach to environmental assessment, if we can call it that. The previous government really gutted the existing environmental assessment process. The key feature of that gutting in my opinion and the opinion of many Canadians across the country was that the Harper government essentially made the final approval of large natural resource projects a political decision at the cabinet table. It became a decision that was not inherently tied to evidence, to science, to predictable impacts with respect to the effect of these projects on the climate. It was not tied to the rights of indigenous peoples to have a say over what happens on their own land. It was simply a political decision to be taken by cabinet. Therefore, one would think that a party that ran against the Harper Conservatives, in part because the latter had gutted environmental assessments and the Liberals committed to Canadians in the election that they would fix that, would have to address the issue of that approval becoming essentially just a prerogative of the government to make according to its own reasons.

The problem with Bill C-69 is that after waiting well over two years for the government to present its fix to the Harper approach to approving these projects, the bill does not in fact do that. It maintains the absolute prerogative of the government to plow ahead, irrespective of the facts, the science on a particular project, or the views of many first nations that may be affected by a particular project. To me, that is a clear and obvious deficiency in the legislation. It does not meet the commitment the Liberals made in the last election to Canadians who are really concerned about this issue. One of the clearest and most obvious things those Canadians wanted was to try to depoliticize the approval process for many of these projects and to have decisions based on science and evidence. It was not to allow the government a choice as to whether or not to go along with the science and the evidence, but to bake it into the process so that the government would not have a choice other than make decisions based on that evidence, or to have an independent body make that decision based on that evidence and science. That is a clear deficiency with the bill, and one that is very disappointing.

With regard to the rights of indigenous people being respected in the approval of these kinds of projects, my colleague, the member for Edmonton Strathcona, presented a number of amendments that would not have put that commitment in the preamble alone, which is what the government ultimately decided to do. The government's decision to put that commitment in the preamble gives us a measure of how strong its commitment to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples really is, because the preamble is non-binding. That, of course, is the kind of commitment that Liberals seem to prefer, the non-binding ones. That was evidenced in their rejection of a number of amendments that would have given UNDRIP real force and effect in the environmental review process. Putting that commitment in the preamble does not give UNDRIP real effect. They are nice words, but they do not get the job done when we have a government that is not interested in respecting the rights of indigenous people. What indigenous people needed was something with the force of law that they could take to court when the government trampled on their rights. The Liberals opted not to do that, and it really does not do it a service to say that it was a missed opportunity.

It is wrong for them not to have done that. It is wrong in principle, but it is also wrong in light of the commitment they just made in voting in support of Bill C-262 last week, which is essentially all about trying to implement UNDRIP within Canadian law. It is wrong, according to the claims of the Prime Minister, who often says that the nation-to-nation relationship is one of the most important relationships.

In light of all those things, it was clearly wrong for the government to do that.

It is part of a theme on a number of files within the government, where the attitude is that we should just trust the government. The government admits there is a lot of discretion, but it says discretion allows it to do the right thing, and it wants to do the right thing. It does not think it has to put the right thing in law or require itself to do the right thing, because it really wants to do it, so we should just take its word for it. That is what is happening with Bill C-69. That is what it means to maintain ministerial prerogative to decide on a project regardless of the evidence.

We heard the minister say something to that effect in the debate on time allocation earlier, when she said that the government cares about science and evidence and therefore it does not need to put a requirement in the law to make decisions based on science and evidence. She said that if we wait and look at the decisions the government makes, we will see, in hindsight, that they were based on science and evidence.

I do not think that this is what Canadians were asking for when they elected a government that said it was going to create a new process based on science and evidence. It is a bad way of making law. It means that a future government that comes in will not be required to do that, just as the current government is not.

Frankly, I do not think the Liberals are really committed, in many cases, to evidence-based decision-making. They would not have bought a 65-year-old leaky pipeline for far more than it is worth if they were actually serious about making information-based decisions. We could go down that road, but even if we do not, it is very clear that if one's commitment is to build a good process, this process should not rely on the goodwill of the government of the day. It should be a process that requires the government of the day to do the right thing, notwithstanding who is in power. This bill obviously fails that test.

We saw something similar with Bill C-49 with respect to voice and video recording devices in locomotives. The government said that we need not worry because it has no interest in invading the privacy rights of workers, and that it would look after it, but without putting it into law; it would just put it in regulations. The government asked us, when voting on the legislation, to trust that it would do the right thing later in regulation.

Never mind the fact that even if the current government does the right thing, and we have not seen that yet, it is still up to some future government to simply change the regulations by order in council without coming to Parliament, because it is not in the law. I do not think the government has done any great favour to workers in that industry by setting up a law that could be so easily abused.

We have seen a similar thing from the government when it comes to approving funding for all its new budget initiatives for 2018-19. It is asking for approval of over $7 billion up front. Department officials and ministers have been very clear in committee that they do not actually have a plan for the money yet. They do not know what they are going to do with that money yet. They have not designed the program, and it has not been to the Treasury Board. They do not know how many people they are going to hire. They do not know whether they will build a building, rent an office, or use existing space. They do not know if they will be travelling across the country. The government does not know what it is going to be spending the money on, but its answer is clear: We should just trust it that things are going to work out and that everything will be okay.

Canadians are looking to the government for leadership on a number of issues, whether it be fiscal responsibility, or being open and accountable, or the very important issues that Bill C-69 is at least nominally meant to address. I have given some indication that I am not convinced it actually addresses those issues.

Regardless of the issue, when Canadians are looking for leadership, they are looking for legislation that holds the government to account. If the government of the day is sincere in giving its word, it should not mind being held to a higher standard, allowing Canadians to test that in court if they have to. Hopefully it will not come to that and the government will keep its word, which remains to be seen.

Canadians deserve to have the tools to hold the government to its word. They also deserve to have future governments bound by those things. At the very least, if a future government wants to change that, it should have to come to Parliament to make the case to Canada's elected representatives, instead of being able to do it fly-by-night through regulation. That is the problem with Bill C-69.

[Dan Ruimy, Liberal, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to thank my parliamentary colleagues for their careful review and analysis of our navigation protection legislation.

Many Canadians told us they were unhappy that the previous government's changes were made without an opportunity for them to participate and voice their concerns about the changes. My parliamentary colleagues changed that. They heard from Canadians and responded with recommendations and legislation that would protect Canadians' right to travel on all navigable waters in Canada.

This journey started almost two years ago when the government launched a broader review of environmental and regulatory processes. The broader review included the review of environmental assessment processes, the modernization of the National Energy Board, and the restoration of lost protections for the Fisheries Act and Canada's navigation protection legislation.

Reviewing the Navigation Protection Act is important to parliamentarians, so important that the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities carried its own study of the act. The committee tabled its report in March 2017, taking into the account the views of witnesses and the many submissions received from interested Canadians. The committee's reported findings and recommendations helped supplement our review.

Consultations have been at the heart of this review. I would like to take this opportunity to also thank Canadians who contributed to the committee's study.

The committee's work opened the dialogue on the protections Canadians wanted to see for navigation in Canada. What did we hear? We heard that Canadians wanted to see protections for all waterways in Canada, including those left unprotected by the current law. We also heard that Canadians wanted a smarter way of protecting navigation, one that would put resources where they were needed most.

In June 2017, the government responded to the committee's report, accepting all of its recommendations. Shortly thereafter, the government released a discussion paper, setting out proposals for all four components of the broader review. This kicked off a second phase of consultations.

Consultations were held with other levels of government, indigenous peoples, voters, environmental non-governmental organizations, and industry. What we heard through the summer and early fall of 2017 helped us shape the proposed Canadian navigable waters act introduced in Parliament in February of this year as part of Bill C-69.

I would like to take this opportunity to recognize the work done by the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development. I would also like to thank the committee, the witnesses, and those who made written submissions for their time spent studying the new Canadian navigable waters act and providing their views.

Bill C-69 delivers on the government's commitment to restore lost protections by providing oversight for all works on all navigable waters in Canada. The Canadian navigable waters act in Bill C-69 would keep the minor works order. This order allows works with minor interference to navigation to be built, provided they meet the terms and conditions set out in the order.

The bill also introduces a new major works order. This order would require anyone building a major work with significant interference to navigation to apply to Transport Canada for an approval before building on any navigable water in Canada. Similarly, the bill would also require anyone building works, except minor works, on waters listed on the schedule to apply to Transport Canada for approval.

Works under the new Canadian navigable waters act not covered above would be subject to the new dispute resolution processes set out in the act. This process would require builders to notify the public before starting construction and to resolve any navigation related concerns. If these concerns are not resolved, the builder may be required to apply to Transport Canada for an approval. This process would allow local communities to have a say in the projects that could have an impact on their navigation. This is a good step forward.

I am pleased to see the committee has made important improvements to the new Canadian navigable waters act, including clarifications to the provisions related to indigenous knowledge, the sale of obstructions, and the regulatory power that allows the Governor in Council to exclude small bodies of water from the definition of navigable waters.

Perhaps the most important amendment is the one that makes it clear that changes to water levels and water flows will be considered when assessing the interference that works will have on navigation. Clearly navigation cannot continue if water levels are too low. The impact of works on water levels or water flows will be considered when works are assessed, and conditions can be put in place to mitigate these impacts.

I come from the riding of Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge. We are a watershed community. When I was elected, one of the first things I did was gather a diverse group of people in the community who cared about the environment, who were interested in what was going on, and I listened to them. As a result, we spent almost two years talking to local stream keepers, talking to the municipality, talking to folks who care about the salmon and the connected waters. Through that we were able to put together a report on the Fisheries Act and on making amendments to it.

The one thing I kept hearing over and over again from everyone in my community was that the previous government had gutted not only the Fisheries Act but a lot of acts as well that were supposed to protect our environment. These steps that we are taking now are to restore those lost protections.

I would like to conclude by highlighting the extensive consultations that led us to this bill. Canadians truly had a say in restoring lost protections.

We have built on the foundation of the initial review by the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities and the recent review by the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development with what Canadians told us they would like to see in navigation protection. Both committees have provided a key forum for ensuring that the views of Canadians are heard, and the bill responds to these concerns.

I cannot stress enough that I keep hearing from the opposition members that there was nothing wrong with their act, that everything was fine, everything was great, yet that is not what my community was telling me. That is not what I saw in my community. It is not what I see today when I see the challenges we face with fish and fish habitats and our waterways.

Before summer it is possible to canoe on the Katzie Slough with no problems whatsoever, but then halfway through the summer invasive species of plant life take over the entire slough, and people cannot even canoe over it. Those are real problems. They are not problems made up in the House. That is what is happening in our communities right now.

[Churence Rogers, Liberal, Bonavista—Burin—Trinity, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join today's debate on Bill C-69. The proposed changes are important, because they build on and strengthen the legislation that has been described as historic, groundbreaking, and a major turning point for resource development in Canada.

There is a good reason for all these superlatives, because Bill C-69, even more so now that it has been amended, is a potential game changer in the way Canada reviews new major resource projects by creating greater investment certainty; restoring public confidence; advancing indigenous reconciliation; strengthening protections for our environment, fish, and waterways; and establishing better rules for co-operation among the various levels of government and federal regulatory agencies.

For example, there is a proposed early engagement and planning phase that would bring the proponents of new projects together with local communities and indigenous peoples to identify priorities and concerns. This would have two immediate benefits. First, project proponents and their investors would get a clearer lay of the land before they spent a lot of money advancing their proposals. Second, by identifying the key issues early, the project reviews would be shorter and more focused.

These kinds of results would be transformational for Canada's resource industries. They would enhance our competitiveness at the same time that we are ensuring sustainability, demonstrating yet again that economic prosperity and environmental protection are not competing interests but equal components in a single engine that will drive clean growth.

Bill C-69 features many other innovative measures that are equally significant. I am pleased to see that the amendments proposed at committee are consistent with the spirit and intent of the legislation. They include amendments that would further advance the recognition of indigenous rights, amendments that would enhance public participation and transparency, amendments to improve timelines and predictability, and amendments to clarify both ministerial discretion and the factors to be considered during impact assessments and regulatory reviews.

Many of these amendments extend across all acts within the bill, but I would like to focus my time on how the proposed changes would reinforce the goals of the Canadian energy regulator act.

For those who may be watching at home and are new to Bill C-69, the proposed new Canadian energy regulator would replace the National Energy Board. Our aim is to create a more modern federal regulator, with the required independence and the proper accountability to oversee a strong, safe, and sustainable Canadian energy sector in this clean-growth century.

The Canadian energy regulator act proposes to do this in these five key areas: more modern and effective governance; greater certainty and timelier decisions for project proponents; better public consultations; greater indigenous participation; and stronger safety and environmental protections. The amendments before us would move the yardsticks in each of these areas.

For example, we have a proposal from committee to clarify the factors to be considered by the Canadian energy regulator to ensure that climate change is considered when the regulator is making decisions about non-designated projects, such as pipelines, powerlines, and offshore projects.

I am disappointed in the opposition for how it has treated this historic piece of legislation. During the committee review, opposition members attempted to completely remove the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board from the review panel process. This was quite shocking, as it was proposed despite massive objections from Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, as well as the experts.

In fact, the biggest single criticism of the 2012 changes by the previous government in Newfoundland and Labrador was that it left the CNLOPB out of the entire process. It is clear that the opinion of the Conservatives has not changed. I am proud that Bill C-69 incorporates the critical role of the CNLOPB.

In its appearance before the environment committee, the CNLOPB said that Bill C-69 would provide for improvements over the current process and would allow it to work more closely and more collaboratively with federal agencies and regulators. It also said that regional assessments allowed for in Bill C-69 would strengthen the process.

Other amendments propose ways to enhance the new energy regulator's transparency and to provide for more meaningful opportunities for Canadians to participate in the regulatory process. This includes a requirement for processes and funding to support indigenous and public engagement. Further, there is an important amendment stipulating that whenever a project proponent issues a notice, which means that it has submitted information to the Canadian energy regulator, that the regulator would be required to put that notice on its website. This is an important step to inform the public about projects.

As for discretionary powers, the only exemption orders that would now be allowed under the Canadian energy regulator act would be to ensure safety and security or for the protection of property or the environment.

Other proposed changes build on the principle of one project, one review. For example, we see an amendment proposing that integrated review panels be allowed to include other jurisdictions, thereby ensuring a single impact assessment that still meets all requirements.

Also, other amendments that would provide greater certainty about the transition to a new review process. This includes adding objective criteria to determine which projects would continue to be reviewed under CEAA 2012, as well as a provision to encourage proponents to opt in to Bill C-69's new process. Of course, there are further clarifications that no project proponent will be asked to return to the starting line.

These are all good amendments that our government welcomes.

These changes will help to create an even better Canadian energy regulator. They will ensure good energy projects go ahead with timely and transparent decisions reflecting common values and shared benefits. They would lead to smarter resources, more effective reviews, and better results.

Taken together, Bill C-69 and its amendments are appropriately ambitious and historic. They reflect the adage that one has to swing for the fences if one wants to hit a home run. Bill C-69, as amended, does that.

I hope all members will support Bill C-69 and its changes so we can get on with the business of building an even better Canada, one where the way we manage and develop our natural resources truly reflects who we are as Canadians and the values we cherish most.

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

Mr. Speaker, with all due respect, I do not think the hon. member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke is interested in the bill we have before us, Bill C-69. Bill C-69 does not include anything about carbon taxes. The bill actually does not apply in any way to the issues she has raised about Ontario's policies for energy.

Personally, I cannot vote for Bill C-69, because it is so terribly weak and fatally flawed because of the persistence of the philosophy that is now embedded in the Government of Canada, left behind by the previous Harper government. Therefore, while I suppose I share the way I will vote with her, I cannot share anything else.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the $475 million payout for the solar panel company he was with was even more astounding when we consider the fact that most of the power electricity consumers are forced to pay for from that contract is sold at a loss to American border states.

People gaming the system could have been avoided. However, this is what happens when a regulatory body is stacked with partisan political appointees, which is what Bill C-69 would do.

Consumer watchdog Brady Yauch said this was a big mistake and that the OPA was ignoring the issue of aggregators. How many billions of dollars the greed energy policy actually ends up costing us remains to be seen.

The email said:

It's one thing to keep...government in the loop with changes and issues. But it's another thing to take direction from government—especially on very detailed programs.

These are technical issues that the government does not fully understand

Mr. MacDougall said,

Like I said, I no longer know where the lines are between [the Ontario Power Authority] and government.

I think the government didn't trust the OPA to launch and roll out this program as aggressively as they wanted us to.

When we would give advice they would consider it, but they would make their own decisions and largely ignore some of the key policy recommendations that we were trying to put into place.

The Global News article continued, “The government refused to answer specific questions about whether the policy advice was being ignored.”

If government members want to understand why Kathleen Wynne conceded the election to Doug Ford last weekend, they should heed the Global News story I have been quoting from. The parallel is the pipeline debacle that is unfolding as I speak. There is real anger in Ontario over the mismanagement of Ontario—

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

Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a point of order. I know the member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke is very entertaining, and I hate to interrupt the flow of the narrative, but it has nothing to do with Bill C-69.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as the member of Parliament for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, I am pleased to be given this opportunity, on the eve of the Ontario provincial election, to deliver a warning to voters about Bill C-69 about why they need to elect a majority Doug Ford Conservative government.

While there are many aspects of this government legislation that I find objectionable, the greatest cause for concern is the politicization of the Canadian energy board. The decision to move from a fact-based, scientific decision-making process to one based on greed is a regressive move that Ontario electricity ratepayers are all too familiar with.

Whereas under the previous Conservative government Canadians had an environmental and regulatory system that commanded the confidence of all Canadians, the Liberal strategy to invoke a culture war to deflect from the true fallacy of what is being proposed can only end badly for all Canadians.

Under the Conservatives, the National Energy Board was an arm's-length regulatory agency in the way the Ontario Energy Board used to be. The decision by the Toronto Liberal Party to stack the Ontario Energy Board with political appointees, which is similar to what is being proposed federally in Bill C-69, has resulted in the highest electricity prices in North America. Energy poverty in this province has become the new normal, particularly among seniors, anyone on a fixed income, and the working poor.

What is so very unfortunate is the support given by the NDP for these same failed energy policies, failed policies that are being repeated at the federal level in misguided legislation like Bill C-69, which we are discussing today.

Let me be clear: There is a direct link between the failed policies of Kathleen Wynne and the NDP, which supports those same policies. The direct link is Gerald Butts, the Prime Minister's principal assistant. He is the most powerful unelected, unaccountable, technocrat in Ottawa today. He is in the same position he held in Toronto when he set up the greedy policies that have resulted in Ontario being the most indebted subnational government in the world today.

As for the green hustle, anytime anyone questioned the “Greed” Energy Act, the environment was used as an excuse, with zero facts to back up the claim.

For the benefit of all Canadians watching this debate, I encourage voters in Ontario to go to the Global News website for stories from June 1, and watch its investigative story exposing the corruption that has reduced Ontario to a have-not province.

Global News obtained 4,000 pages of internal emails and documents from the now-defunct Ontario Power Authority showing billions of dollars in unnecessary spending that could have been avoided had the government followed the early advice of the Ontario Power Authority, which was tasked with designing many of Ontario's energy policies. In fact, according to Global News, when it comes to the FIT and microFIT programs, which are a key component of the province's greed energy act, documents show that decisions made by the Liberal government in 2009 and 2010, when Liberal Party insider Gerald Butts was in Toronto, as well as design flaws in the programs themselves, put Ontario on a collision course with rising electricity costs.

Brady Yauch, an economist and executive director at the Consumer Policy Institute, independently reviewed all 4,000 pages of documents and shared his views with Global News. According to the director of the Consumer Policy Institute, “The province hijacked the [FIT and Micro-FIT] programs from the very expert agencies it established to handle these types of technical, complicated energy policies. Worse still, [the Liberal Party ignored]...concerns of those experts [about] overpaying [electricity] generators.” Mr. Yauch observed, “That’s very concerning, because now you have a political electricity system, as opposed to one that’s based on economics or cost-effectiveness.”

This is what Bill C-69, the federal legislation we have before us now, will do at the federal level.

Further quoting Global News, the man responsible for designing the FIT and microFIT programs, Jim MacDougall, also said that the government “ignored” expert advice that could have saved Ontarians billions of dollars in greed energy spending. So much for fact-based, scientific decision-making. The Liberal Party refused to answer specific questions about the FIT and microFIT programs in relation to the Global story.

As Global News reported, “Independent Electricity System Operator (IESO), which merged with the Ontario Power Authority in 2015, also refused to answer specific questions about design and implementation of” the failed programs. “Instead, it provided a written statement to [Global News] saying the OPA 'worked closely'” with its political masters “to make sure that the programs met the government's 'broader economic and environmental policy objectives.'”

On October 1, 2009, the OPA started receiving applications through the renewable energy programs it was directed to create. Unlike the main program, designed for large-scale commercial projects, such as big solar farms, industrial wind turbine installations, and hydroelectric dams, the microFIT program was supposedly “created so homeowners could put a solar panel on their roofs to 'offset' electricity use and lower hydro bills.”

The Global News report continues:

What ended up happening, however, is the [Ontario Power Authority] was quickly overwhelmed by the number of Micro-FIT applications it received.

Electricity bills started to skyrocket.

By mid-November, about six weeks after the program was launched, emails show the [Ontario Power Authority] was worried some applicants were “gaming” the system—meaning that people were submitting multiple applications for small solar projects on the same property, which, though technically not against the rules, violated the “spirit” of the program.

“Aggregators”, as they became known, submitted hundreds of Micro-FIT applications with plans to set up solar panels on “vacant lots” or on farmers' fields. This was a problem, because Micro-FIT contracts were to pay nearly double what large solar projects received.

And because the cost of building larger projects was significantly lower than what a homeowner might pay to put a solar panel on a roof, aggregators received higher government payouts than the...OPA initially intended.

One of the worst abusers of the greed energy program was the Ontario president of the Liberal Party of Canada, Mike Crawley. His company received a contract that guaranteed $66,000 a day for 20 years, or $475 million over the life of the contract. During the bidding process, he even had the nerve to send out an email encouraging various other parties to attend an infamous pay-to-play soirée, at $5,000 a pop. Liberal Party—

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, one of the realities in my riding of North Island—Powell River is just how much people care about the environment. We live in an amazing and beautiful area and need to know that the environment will be protected, because it means jobs and the well-being of indigenous communities, families, and people in the community.

One of the concerns I heard again and again, and continue to hear, is that there is a lack of trust and faith in the process. During the election campaign, the Liberal platform stated, “We will end the practice of having federal Ministers interfere in the environmental assessment process.” However, we know that in clause 17 of Bill C-69, we see the very opposite.

I would like the member to explain to me why the environment minister will still have a lot of power to make decisions. If we looking at a process that is going to meet the scientific evidence, and that is how decisions are going to be made, why is it that the minister will still have this incredible power and how will that allow communities to trust the process? When I talk to people in my riding, this just raises the concern again.

[Deb Schulte, Liberal, King—Vaughan, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today in support of Bill C-69. As chair of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development, I found it a privilege to be able to study this bill and report it back to the House with important amendments. These amendments were developed after listening to over 55 witnesses and receiving over 150 briefs from NGOs, indigenous peoples, unions, experts, and industry representatives. The amendments adopted were to bring more predictability, transparent decision-making, clarity on expectations, and timely reviews.

Our government is committed to regaining public trust in the review of projects and to getting Canada's resources to market. That is what this bill will do.

Since 2012, we have seen that weaker rules have hurt Canada's economy and our environment. Without public trust and support, projects cannot move forward and investment is put at risk. This bill would result in better rules to govern major project reviews, helping ensure that Canadians can benefit from over $500 billion in major resource projects planned over the next decade. It would provide predictable, timely project reviews to encourage investment. At the same time, it would ensure that our environment is protected and that we can meet our commitments to reduce carbon pollution and transition to a clean-growth economy.

Engagement with industry as well as with indigenous peoples, provinces and territories, stakeholders, and Canadians has been instrumental in the development of this bill. Over 14 months leading up to its introduction, the government heard from companies about what they need to keep good projects moving forward. Since then, the government has continued to stay engaged with companies, indigenous peoples, and stakeholders. Consistently, companies have told us that they need certainty about the process, about what is required and when, and about how decisions on project approvals are made. Bill C-69 would provide that certainty.

To begin with, one agency, the new impact assessment agency of Canada, would act as a federal lead for all major project reviews. This will result in reviews that are more consistent and more predictable. We have consulted with Canadians on the criteria that will form the basis for a revised project list, which will provide clarity on how our new rules will apply.

Through a new early planning and engagement phase, companies would be able to identify and address issues early on, before an impact assessment begins. The bill provides clarity on the scope and outputs of this new phase. It would result in tailored impact statement guidelines that reflect factors and requirements relevant to the project, as well as a co-operation plan, an indigenous engagement and partnership plan, a public participation plan, and, if required, a permitting plan.

Details on these products will be set out in regulations, which the government is consulting on now, and which would come into force at the same time as the impact assessment act. The early planning stage would define requirements and clarify expectations so that companies would know what was expected of them, and when. It would help them design and plan their projects and more effectively engage indigenous peoples, stakeholders, and local communities.

The minister would also be able to inform companies early on if a project is likely to have negative impacts, without stopping the process. This would give companies an earlier opportunity to decide whether to continue with an impact assessment.

Bill C-69 would ensure that companies know in advance what would be considered in a project review and in decision-making. Reviews would take into account not just environmental impacts, but also social, economic, and health effects, as well as impacts on indigenous peoples and their rights.

This bill would also provide strong transparency measures so that proponents are informed about key decisions, as well as the reasons behind them. That includes, for example, decisions to extend the timeline for a review or to refer a final decision on a project to cabinet.

When final decisions are made on whether a project will go ahead, the proponent would be informed of the reasons for the decision and would be assured that all key factors were appropriately considered.

Bill C-69 would also respond to what we have heard from industry by providing more timely assessments. Our better rules would include stricter timeline management, with shorter timelines for assessments. Specifically, timelines for agency-led reviews would be reduced from 365 to 300 days; panel reviews would be shortened from 720 days to a maximum of 600 days; and, in addition, panel reviews for designated projects reviewed in collaboration with a federal life-cycle regulator would be shortened to 300 days, with the option to allow the minister to set the timeline up to a maximum of 600 days if warranted, based on the project's complexity. As well, timelines for non-designated projects reviewed by life-cycle regulators would be shortened from 450 to 300 days.

Regulations would require clear rules around when timelines could be paused. When there is a decision to extend a timeline, the proponent would need to be informed about the reasons why.

I would like to briefly mention how Bill C-69 would support one project, one review, and how this would contribute to our goal of getting our resources to market. The bill would provide for joint reviews and substitution, in which a review process led by another jurisdiction would fulfill the requirement for a federal review. Those provisions would help promote cooperation with provinces and territories, reduce red tape, and prevent duplication. We are also increasing opportunities for partnership with indigenous peoples and for indigenous governing bodies to take on key responsibilities. That could include taking the lead on assessments through the bill's substitution provisions.

Our government has heard from industry how important it is for Bill C-69 to provide a smooth transition between the current assessment regime and the new regime. Transition provisions must be clear and predictable to encourage investment and keep good projects moving forward. Bill C-69 would provide that clarity by setting out objective criteria to identify projects that would continue to be reviewed under CEAA 2012, giving companies the option to opt into the new process, and confirming that no one would go back to the starting line.

I would just like to emphasize that as a result of the committee's work, Bill C-69 now includes stronger transparency provisions that would benefit proponents and provide more certainty and consistency across the legislation. For example, assessment reports would be required to incorporate a broader range of information, including a summary of comments received, recommendations on mitigation measures and follow-up, and the agency's rationale and conclusions. Public comments would have to be made available on the Internet, and information posted online would need to be maintained so that it could be accessed over time.

The standing committee also addressed feedback from industry that some smaller projects with federal life-cycle regulators, such as offshore renewable energy projects, could face longer reviews than they do now. The amendments address this by establishing a new timeline of 300 days for reviews of projects with a life-cycle regulator, with the possibility of setting the timeline to a maximum of 600 days, if warranted.

Complementing the existing provisions to support timeliness, the amended bill would set a clear 45-day timeline for establishing a review panel. The committee's amendments would clarify that public comments must be provided during a time period specified by the agency, so that meaningful participation would be ensured and balanced with the need for timely assessments.

The standing committee further advanced the objective of one project, one review. As a result of the committee's amendments, integrated review panels involving federal regulators would also be able to include other jurisdictions, making it possible to have just one assessment that meets all of the requirements. Finally, the standing committee responded to feedback from companies by making the bill's transitional provisions even clearer.

To conclude, the bill responds to what we have heard from companies, providing clarity on expectations and requirements, predictable timely reviews, and transparent decision-making. By rebuilding public trust, it would encourage investment and help create new jobs and opportunities for Canadians.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Lévis—Lotbinière.

I am confused because my colleague is talking about a bill that does not exist. We are deliberating Bill C-69 today. It is a very weak bill that includes the same principles as under the Conservative government. It does not contain any measures that will actually strengthen the environmental assessment process or protect our bodies of water.

I am astonished to hear that he opposes this bill, because it contains the same principles as under the Conservative government.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, during the last Parliament, the Conservative government gutted the environmental assessment process, removing protections of almost all of Canada's lakes and rivers. Bill C-69 does very little or nothing to reverse those changes.

Do the Conservatives still believe Canada's lakes and rivers should remain unprotected?

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lévis—Lotbinière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-69, 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, introduced by the Liberal government.

As members no doubt know, this bill would create a new impact assessment agency of Canada to replace the Canadian Environmental Protection Agency. This agency will be responsible for all federal reviews of major projects and will have to collaborate with other agencies, like the new Canadian energy regulator, currently known as the National Energy Board, the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, and offshore offices.

As a citizen and as member of Parliament for Lévis—Lotbinière, I have always taken an interest in protecting our waterways and keeping them safe. The prestigious St. Lawrence runs not too far from my home, and all of these issues are close to my heart. This is one of the reasons our Conservative government amended the Canadian Environmental Protection Act in 2012.

I obviously have many concerns about Bill C-69, in particular about the merits of these amendments and the Liberal government's flexible ethics. The government claims to be accountable and transparent. In reality, the Liberals keep showing that all they care about is helping Liberal cronies and promoting Liberal partisanship by filling their party's coffers, from coast to coast, under some guise or other.

On the surface, this bill has the noble goal of ensuring that all projects will be assessed on the basis of their impact on the environment and health, and on social issues. However, we may need to cry foul on the practices of these good old Liberals, masters of all that is crooked and scandalous. Take, for example, the Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard and fishery allocations for a highly valued shellfish.

Where things go downhill with the Liberal government is that it puts forward these bills that give ministers more discretionary power, and then issues around the economy and so-called gender and indigenous rights take a back seat to the financial interests of the highest bidders and people with Liberal connections.

The government loves nothing more than a taxpayer-funded spending spree and thinks it can reinvent the wheel. This bill lays out its plan to spend up to $1 billion over five years on the new regime, on necessary changes, and, ostensibly, on increasing the participation of indigenous peoples and the general public.

Let me once again point out that these objectives look very similar to those of the Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard, who we hope will soon be under investigation.

We all know that the former Conservative government knew how to make things better without raising Canadians' taxes. Canada's Conservatives understand how important certainty, predictability, and regulatory clarity are to ensuring the viability of major energy projects.

We know that these projects create tens of thousands of jobs and benefit communities across Canada, without any political favouritism. With the Conservatives, solid economic policies do not come at the expense of solid environmental policies, or vice versa.

Greater prosperity and better environmental performance always go hand in hand, but all the Liberal government sees are enticing opportunities to dole out goodies to friends and family members.

Bill C-69 will create two new regulatory burdens that, combined with the pointless federal carbon tax, will hurt Canada's global competitiveness even more without improving environmental protection in any way. This is scandalous.

These fresh repercussions are troubling, as are so many others we have suffered since this perpetually failing Liberal government took office.

The Liberals have a very long way to go before the next election if they want to start defending Canada's natural resource industry properly, instead of throwing up one roadblock after another.

Fortunately, in accordance with our values and commitments, we, Canada's Conservatives, will continue to oppose costly regulations that hurt jobs, economic growth, and global competitiveness.

Bill C-69 does not in any way meet the Conservative Party's objective of always striking a balance between protecting the environment and growing the economy.

When we look at what is happening with our neighbours, it is appalling to see that, while the American administration is relaxing regulations, lowering taxes, and encouraging energy production from natural gas or coal, Canada is regressing.

We cannot hamper our competitiveness by tightening regulations and creating uncertainty around the environmental assessment process. We need to stand up against and do away with any bill like this one that would harm Canada's economic competitiveness.

On this side of the House, we firmly believe that, in order to be effective, economic and environmental policies must not contradict each other, undermine each other, or cancel each other out. All the empirical evidence shows that prosperity brings with it a better environmental record. It is one thing for the Prime Minister to embarrass us and lose all credibility in our eyes and the eyes of the world, as he did on his trip to India, for example; it is quite another, however, for him to put Canada at a political disadvantage and jeopardize our position in the global economy. We will not allow him to do that.

We have repeatedly seen his picture in every situation and costume imaginable, but what we are interested in and concerned about on this side of the House is not Superman, it is Canada's image, its role, its prosperity, and the well-being of all Canadian families.

I am worried about how this bill will be used to determine whether a project should undergo an assessment by the agency or a panel. Beyond the process that has been set out, the answer is very easy and predictable. The assessment process will remain very political because it is the minister who will determine whether it is in the public interest for a project to be submitted to a panel instead of the agency's shorter impact assessment.

I am also concerned about why the government is saying that the bill will shorten the assessment process for resource projects. The government is misleading Canadians by saying that project assessments will be shorter. The planning phase adds 180 days to the process, even if the impact assessment is a bit shorter.

What is more, Bill C-69 provides for broad ministerial discretion to extend or suspend the process. In the Consultation Paper on Information Requirements and Time Management Regulations, a proposed impact assessment system, the Liberal government recognizes that in some cases, the proposed time limits in the legislation will not be met. In light of this discretionary power that will undoubtedly be abused, there is very little we can support in this legislative measure.

We support in principle the process providing for one assessment per project, as well as the commitment on the time limits proposed under the legislation. However, the bill puts up regulatory barriers and additional criteria that will invariably lengthen the assessment period.

We oppose Bill C-69 for many reasons, including the fact that it establishes a number of new criteria for impact assessment, in particular the impact that the project will have on Canada's climate change commitments. From now on we will have to consider the environmental impact upstream and downstream. The bill also substantially increases the number of people that could intervene in a review even if they do not have specific expertise. Finally, at the end of the planning phase and at the end of the impact assessment, the minister or the cabinet will make the final decision. The process remains political in nature, which creates ongoing uncertainty for investors.

There is nothing in today's announcement that would increase investor confidence or attract new investment to Canada's resource sector. We know that Canadian companies are already facing stiff competition even as the United States implements its plan to reduce regulations, cut taxes, and invest in coal-fired and natural-gas-fired electricity in order to cut energy costs.

Canadian businesses deserve a government that works with them, not against them. Canada's approach to fighting climate change must be realistic and strike the right balance between protecting the environment and growing the economy. The Conservatives support regulation, investment in clean technologies, and the mitigation of climate change if these initiatives produce concrete and measurable results for businesses and the environment.

We do not see any guarantees here.

[John Aldag, Liberal, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague his comments about Bill C-262 and how that will be reflected in Bill C-69.

As I stated in my comments today, we are dedicated to the idea of reconciliation, and not just the idea but actions of reconciliation. Through the amendments that were made, we have been able to reflect a commitment in the preamble to the legislation that the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples is a key principle that needs to guide the legislation and how it is implemented.

Many pieces of the legislation deal with how indigenous knowledge will be used, how we will consult in a meaningful way with indigenous peoples. This really moves the principles and ideas of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples forward in a meaningful manner. I am quite happy that this is reflected here.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I do not doubt at all the commitment of my fellow British Columbian across the way to indigenous rights. I have spoken to him privately about this.

What I am worried about, though, is the commitment of his government. I acknowledge that the Liberals did vote in favour of Bill C-262 last week, and I commend them for doing that.

Now we have an opportunity before us to put that vote into action with Bill C-69. The member will know that the member for Edmonton Strathcona has several report stage amendments on the bill. I will specifically reference Motions Nos. 12 and 13, which would insert language into Bill C-69 to recognize indigenous rights, and make specific reference to the Constitution of Canada and to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

Will the member be consistent with his vote last week and vote in support of these report stage amendments so we can make the bill come into compliance, as per the instructions of Bill C-262, that the laws of Canada be brought into harmony with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples? I would like to see the member's commitment, right here and now, to support these amendments.

[John Aldag, Liberal, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I truly value the work my hon. colleague from across the way does on the environment committee.

On Bill C-69, I would like to go back. One of the issues that was the driver behind it was that Canadians had lost trust in the process. We heard that clearly during the 2015 election campaign. That was why it was part of our campaign platform. I am pleased with the changes that our government has made in Bill C-69 to the legislation that we saw prior to it.

To the member's question on process, this was a very robust consultation process that our government employed in coming up with the legislation. Consultations were held across the country, from province to territory, indigenous organizations to industry. It was a very robust set of consultations.

When it came to committee, we had opportunities to discuss it, to bring in witnesses. On many occasions, the opposition members did speak to the need to have more time to hear from witnesses. The public record will show, time after time, that our side said we would add days and hours, and that we would come in during constituency week. There was a very robust process at the committee stage, as we moved to report stage, looking at amendments and the testimony, and reflecting those changes in a very meaningful way in the legislation before us today.

[Joël Godin, Conservative, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Cloverdale—Langley City, with whom I have the privilege of serving on the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development.

I like to remind the House every chance I get that Conservative Party members do not wake up every morning looking for ways to destroy the planet. On the contrary, we took very meaningful action when we were in power, and we are proud to work hard every day to make the environment a priority.

As I mentioned at the outset, I have the privilege of serving with my colleague on the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development, and we have been under tremendous pressure from the government to fast-track the study of Bill C-69.

I must say that we have received a great deal of written evidence because we did not have time to hear from witnesses in committee. We even heard a presentation from a Quebec organization, and the representative told us she was the only person from her province who was able to testify. A number of Quebec organizations would have liked to take part in the debate. Their participation was important to us.

I would like to ask my colleague whether the Liberal government's process for Bill C-69 is adequate and whether we have done everything we possibly can to improve Bill C-69 so as to replace the 2012 legislation.

[John Aldag, Liberal, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak tonight in support of Bill C-69. Before I begin, I would like to acknowledge that we are on the traditional territory of the Algonquin and Anishinaabe peoples.

This bill provides the framework for a modern assessment process that would protect the environment, attract investment, and ensure that good projects go ahead in a timely way to create new jobs and economic opportunities.

Today, I am going to focus specifically on how it supports our government's commitment to reconciliation and a renewed relationship with indigenous peoples. Meeting this commitment is challenging, but it is also necessary. I will discuss how Bill C-69 would advance reconciliation and partnership with indigenous peoples. I will also describe what the government has heard from indigenous peoples in recent months, and how their input has helped strengthen this bill.

From the very beginning, our government has been clear that no relationship is more important to Canada than its relationship with its indigenous peoples. We committed to a renewed relationship based on the recognition of rights, respect, co-operation, and partnership as the foundation for transformative change, and we have taken important steps to fulfill that commitment.

In 2016, Canada announced its full support of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples without qualification, with a commitment to its full and effective implementation. This February, the Prime Minister announced that we will work in partnership with indigenous peoples to develop a new recognition and implementation of rights framework to realign the relationship between the Government of Canada and indigenous peoples based on the UN declaration.

Development of the framework builds on steps we have already taken along this path. That includes launching a review of laws and policies to ensure that the crown is meeting its constitutional obligations with respect to aboriginal and treaty rights, guided by 10 principles rooted in section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, guided by the UN declaration, and informed by the report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples and the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's calls to action.

We have begun to make institutional changes to support the renewed relationship. In particular, we have announced the dissolution of Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada and the creation of two new departments: Indigenous Services Canada and Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs. This will accelerate work already begun to renew the relationship with indigenous peoples and better enable them to build capacity that supports the implementation of their vision of self-determination.

We have announced our support for Bill C-262, the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples act, as a strong first step in the process of implementation. More legislation will be needed in order to fully implement the declaration in Canada. Our government has also made historic investments in indigenous education, health, infrastructure, and communities, including to improve primary and secondary education on reserve, improve health facilities, build housing, and ensure access to clean and safe drinking water.

Finally, recognizing that indigenous peoples have long been stewards of the environment and have knowledge of the land that spans generations, we continue to work closely with them as we take action to protect and enhance Canada's environment and respond to the threat of climate change.

Meaningful participation of indigenous peoples informed the development of the pan-Canadian framework on clean growth and climate change, and our government is working in partnership with the Assembly of First Nations, Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami, and the Métis National Council to implement it. Given the indigenous coastal communities' deep ties to Canada's oceans, we are partnering with them to implement our $1.5-billion oceans protection plan, for example in developing training programs to increase the participation of indigenous community members and women in marine safety jobs.

Finally, the bill before us today is built on a foundation of engagement with indigenous peoples, along with industry, stakeholders, and a broad range of Canadians from coast to coast to coast.

This bill is an important step, which would advance reconciliation and produce better project decisions by recognizing indigenous rights and working in partnership from the start. It would make it mandatory to consider indigenous knowledge alongside science and other evidence, including when the assessment is led by another jurisdiction.

Under the new impact assessment act, indigenous jurisdictions would also have more opportunities to exercise powers and duties, including taking the lead on impact assessments through substitution. Through measures such as the new early planning and engagement phase, the bill would ensure that indigenous peoples have opportunities to participate from the very beginning and throughout the assessment process.

Finally, it would place consideration of impacts on indigenous peoples and their rights at the centre of the decision-making process by including this as one of the key factors that must be taken into account when making a decision following an impact assessment.

Going forward, we are committed to working with indigenous peoples to define processes aimed at securing consent and collaborating with them as we develop regulations under this legislation.

Since the introduction of Bill C-69, our government has continued to engage with indigenous peoples at every opportunity. The Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development also heard testimony from a number of indigenous peoples and organizations during the study of the bill. In response to that testimony, the committee made several key amendments that enhanced the bill's potential to advance reconciliation and a renewed relationship.

Indigenous peoples have said that it is important that the bill fully reflect our government's commitment to implement the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Through amendments, the standing committee has ensured this commitment is at the forefront of the bill and will guide its implementation.

The bill now references the UN declaration in the preamble to both the impact assessment act and the Canadian energy regulator act. The purposes clause of the IAA now specifies that the government, the minister, the agency, and federal authorities will need to exercise their powers in a manner that respects the government's commitments with respect to the rights of indigenous peoples. Similarly, the mandate of the Canadian energy regulator would include exercising its powers in performing its duties and functions in the same way.

We have heard about the importance of taking a distinctions-based approach, one of the 10 key principles guiding our review of laws and policies. This is needed to ensure that the unique rights, interests, and circumstances of first nations, Metis, and Inuit peoples are acknowledged, affirmed, and implemented. In response to this feedback, the committee has amended the bill to ensure that membership of key committees under the legislation reflect a distinctions-based approach.

Indigenous peoples have told us that considering indigenous knowledge in impact assessments is critical. At the same time, they have called for better protection of this knowledge. The standing committee's amendments would strengthen both its use and protection of indigenous knowledge.

The bill would now require that assessment reports clearly show how indigenous knowledge has been taken into account. It also provides more safeguards across all acts to ensure appropriate protection for indigenous knowledge, while also recognizing that proponents may, at times, need to have access to it. Consultation would be required before indigenous knowledge could be disclosed, and ministers would then be able to place conditions on the disclosure of this information in light of those consultations.

In line with feedback from indigenous organizations, the committee has also clarified that indigenous knowledge would be considered, that this would not be limited to “traditional” knowledge of indigenous peoples.

Finally, throughout the bill, the committee has taken steps to further emphasize the commitment to meaningful participation in assessment processes for indigenous peoples as well as the public.

I am pleased to see that many of the amendments made by the standing committee directly respond to issues raised by indigenous peoples and will further ensure the bill can support reconciliation.

As I have described, our government is committed to advancing reconciliation and a renewed relationship in all of our actions, including this bill.

I want to recognize the contributions made to Bill C-69 by indigenous peoples and organizations across Canada. It is truly a privilege to work with indigenous peoples and to hear their perspectives and priorities. Our government looks forward to working collaboratively with indigenous peoples to implement the legislation.

I would once again like to recognize the committee for listening and responding to the testimony of indigenous peoples and organizations. This is a challenging process but, ultimately, a rewarding one as we work together to protect the environment, create economic opportunities, and advance reconciliation.

On a personal note, I would like to mention that I am a member of the environment and sustainable development committee. It was a great honour to be part of the considerations and the amendments on this legislation.

[For continuation of proceedings, see Part B]

[Continuation of proceedings from Part A]

The House resumed from June 5 consideration of Bill C-69, 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, as reported (with amendments) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.

Bill C-59—Time Allocation Motion

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

Mr. Speaker, as I was unable to rise earlier tonight on time allocation on Bill C-69, I will say, parenthetically, that I find that time allocation even more offensive than this one, because we were time allocated in committee as well. I had clause-by-clause amendments on Bill C-69, and I had clause-by-clause amendments on Bill C-59. At least, to the credit of the Bill C-59 time management, we were allowed to debate all the amendments on Bill C-59, on public security, but we were stopped from debating two full bills' worth of amendments on omnibus Bill C-69.

Why is it required at this point, on a bill that has much that is good in it, to stop this place from being able to have a full debate? It is anti-democratic.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, from the 41st Parliament, we have reams of quotes from Liberals regarding the use of time allocation by the then Conservative government. The quotes we have from the member for Winnipeg North would fill several pages.

What we have seen over the last couple of weeks is the government's use of time allocation and using the bare minimum, allocating five hours for debate on this legislation, on Bill C-69, which was done just before this, on Bill C-75, and on Bill C-76. The list goes on.

I have a simple question for the Minister of Public Safety. Given his party's record when it was the third party in the 41st Parliament, does he not feel the slightest bit of shame and contrition over the complete reversal of his position, now that he occupies that side of the House?

Bill C-69—Time Allocation Motion

[Catherine McKenna, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased the member opposite cares so greatly about climate change. It is really unfortunate that the Conservative members of the environment committee voted to remove the consideration of the impact to our climate from Bill C-69. That might have been an oversight or a mistake. However, we know that unfortunately the Conservatives do not have a plan to tackle climate change. I do not know whether they all believe climate change is a problem or real. Nor do I think they understand the huge economic opportunity.

We understand that. We understand we need to be ensure we do right by our planet, that we tackle our emissions, but that we also have a plan to get our resources to market in a sustainable way. That is exactly what we are doing with Bill C-69. We certainly hope all parties will support it.

[Kerry Diotte, Conservative, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Energy Pipeline Association says that if Bill C-69 passes, no other major pipeline project will ever be built in Canada.

Now that we are the proud owners of a 65-year-old pipeline and that we would like to build another pipeline, how will the environment minister manage to get that built given this assessment?

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, for the minister's recollection, I want to read a summary from Bill C-262, an act to ensure that the laws of Canada are in harmony with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Notice that it does not say anything about a preamble.

The minister previously mentioned that the Liberals accepted an amendment to the preamble, which, as every member in the House knows, is non-binding. I again ask the Minister of Environment, given that the Liberals rejected every single amendment by the member for Edmonton Strathcona at committee to make sure that Bill C-69 would be in harmony with UNDRIP, will she revisit her position and at least be consistent with her vote last week and accept the member for Edmonton Strathcona's amendments to Bill C-69? I am talking about the bill before us now. Will she be consistent? Will all of the Liberals be consistent with the way they voted last week?

The first nations of Canada are watching the government.

[Catherine McKenna, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I was really pleased that the committee had time to do a thorough review of Bill C-69 and to make many thoughtful amendments. There were more than 80 witnesses and more than 100 submissions over a two-month review, and the quality of the amendments actually speaks to the rigour with which they were received. I am proud to say that our government supports the amendments.

We believe that this process is better for farmers. We believe the process is better for industry. We believe the process is better for indigenous peoples. We believe the process is better for folks who believe in science and making decisions based on evidence and facts. We believe, overall, that it will be a better process that will not only rebuild trust, but also ensure that good projects go ahead in a timely way.

[Catherine McKenna, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my parliamentary secretary for all the hard work he has done in rebuilding public trust and restoring transparency.

The amendments and Bill C-69 would provide additional clarity and safeguards so that Canadians can have confidence in reviews of major projects. When we look at transparency, the bill requires assessment reports to incorporate a broader range of information, including a summary of comments received, recommendations on mitigation measures and follow-up, and the agency's rationale and conclusions. It requires that public comments provided during a project's reviews be made available online and that the information posted online be maintained so that it can be accessed over time. It is critically important that Canadians have an opportunity to provide input, that they have an opportunity to see what folks have said about environmental assessment, and that people understand how a decision was made.

[Catherine McKenna, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned at committee yesterday, unsurprisingly the Conservatives are once again engaging in delay tactics by moving to delete every single clause of the act with not one substantive amendment. This has happened every step of the way, including at second reading. At committee, the opposition repeatedly refused additional meetings within the timeline established, and Conservative MPs delayed consideration of clause-by-clause.

Despite these actions, our government will ensure that we restore public trust, that we protect the environment, that we introduce modern safeguards, that we advance reconciliation with indigenous peoples and, of course, that we ensure that good projects go ahead and we get our resources to market. That is why we are taking appropriate steps to ensure that Bill C-69 moves forward.

[Kevin Sorenson, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my New Democratic colleague said best when he said “Well, here we go again.”

In the last election, the Liberals said that they would never move time allocation, that they would not move closure, that they would not shut down debate. However, this is the 40th time that they have done it.

The bill before us would have a massive effect on my constituency. I would say that from about 2000 to 2007, when I met with my rural municipalities, without exception the number one concern they had was the navigable waters act. They understood that if they were to replace a culvert or if they were to do any type of construction, they would have to call the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, or what they called the “fish cops”. It meant massive red tape and it took forever to happen. This was their number one frustration.

To all those municipalities out there, the Navigable Waters Protection Act would be brought back under Bill C-69. There is not a rural municipality that will like it. Again, the Liberals are doing it, and they are shutting down debate. They are limiting us in being able to represent our constituents, and that is the shame.

[John Aldag, Liberal, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would first like to commend the minister for the excellent job she has done. She appeared before committee on Bill C-69 twice and then returned for the main estimates this past week. There has been unparalleled access to the minister as we have discussed this bill, and there have been many fantastic amendments put forward. The bill itself strongly addresses the many concerns that arose. The reason we lost trust in the environmental assessment process arose from the previous government's actions in meddling in CEAA 2012.

One of the areas the committee looked at, which the House will see with the changes coming forward at report stage, deals with timelines. I would ask the minister to speak to the significant improvements in timelines that will be dealt with through Bill C-69. Canadians and the House would benefit from those comments.

[Catherine McKenna, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to talk about Bill C-69. While we might not always agree on every point, it is important to note that the committee passed a number of opposition amendments and there were a significant number that received unanimous support. I would like to highlight some of those.

There was a key amendment proposed by the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands that was supported by committee members. It clearly reflected the government's strong commitment to science, and it was clearly very important. Liberal members also took into account NDP amendments in drafting the amendments. The member opposite spoke about reflecting the importance of the UNDRIP. That was really key.

Many amendments in relation to indigenous peoples were passed. This bills clarifies that indigenous knowledge would be considered and would not be limited to traditional knowledge of indigenous peoples. A number of amendments would strengthen the protection of indigenous knowledge. We know this is very important to indigenous peoples.

There were many other amendments that I am sure I will have the chance to talk about.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, here we go again with time allocation.

Now that I have the minister in the House, I have a question for her. Last week the minister and her government voted in support of Bill C-262, an act to ensure that the laws of Canada are in harmony with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. The member for Edmonton Strathcona moved roughly 25 amendments at committee to make sure that this bill actually lives up to what the Liberals did last week, and every single amendment was voted down by the Liberals. She now has several motions at report stage that seek to bring this bill in harmony with the UNDRIP.

Will the minister be consistent with her vote last week and support these amendments to make sure that Bill C-69 lives up to the provisions of what she voted for in voting in favour of Bill C-262, yes or no?

[Catherine McKenna, Liberal, Minister of Environment and Climate Change]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member and all members of the committee for their very thorough review of Bill C-69 and the many thoughtful amendments.

The committee heard from over 80 witnesses and reviewed over 150 submissions over two months, and the quality and scope of the amendments speak to the rigour with which they reviewed the bill. I am very pleased to say our government is supporting these amendments.

We need to do better. Canadians elected us because they wanted to make sure we demonstrated that the environment and the economy go hand in hand. With Bill C-69, we knew we needed to rebuild trust that was sorely lacking because of the Conservatives' actions in gutting our environmental assessment process, so I am very pleased that we have come together and are going to be able to rebuild trust, because it is so critical that we get good projects going ahead after a thorough environmental assessment.

[Robert Sopuck, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

Mr. Speaker, as a member of the environment committee who has been involved in the discussion and debate on Bill C-69, I have never been so appalled in my entire life at how bad this particular bill is.

For example, Chris Bloomer, the president of the Canadian Energy Pipeline Association, likened Canada's regulatory environment to a toxic regulatory environment.

Recently Don Lowry, past president and CEO of Epcor Utilities, wrote a piece in the Edmonton Journal on June 5:

Investor flight from energy sector is a national embarrassment

Over the last few years, a thicket of regulatory approvals and processes, both provincial and federal, have crept into place, effectively suffocating through delay and denial anything getting timely approval.

As someone with an environmental background who has worked in pipeline assessments, I can assure the minister that every single pipeline in Canada is built to the highest environmental standards.

Why is the minister piling unnecessary regulations on the Canadian energy sector and denying Canadians the economic opportunity that they need to build this country?

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister of Small Business and Tourism]

moved:

That in relation to Bill C-69, 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, not more than five further hours shall be allotted to the consideration of the report stage and five hours shall be allotted to the consideration at third reading stage of the said bill; and

That, at the expiry of the five hours provided for the consideration of report stage and at the expiry of the five hours provided for the consideration of the third reading stage of the said Bill, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required for the purpose of this Order, and in turn every question necessary for the disposal of the said stage of the Bill then under consideration shall be put forthwith and successively without further debate or amendment.

Criminal Code

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

Madam Speaker, I wonder if there is any sign from the government that the bill will receive due consideration and will not be rushed through committee. I heard the hon. member for Mount Royal say a moment ago that there was an invitation to encourage people to be witnesses.

Recently, and particularly on the omnibus bill, Bill C-69, we went through rushed hearings during which we could not hear from many witnesses and we could not debate all the amendments during clause-by-clause consideration.

I will not go through the many examples of that, but could the member assure the House that the bill will be thoroughly studied? We are at second reading. I think we can all agree that it does some good things, but it needs a lot of work. Is that possible at this point? I thank the member for any light he can shine on that process question.

Bill C-69—Notice of time allocation motion

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister of Small Business and Tourism]

Mr. Speaker, an agreement could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Orders 78(1) or 78(2) with respect to the report stage and third reading stage of Bill C-69, 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.

Under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), I give notice that a minister of the crown will propose at the next sitting a motion to allot a specific number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of proceedings at the said stage.

Motions in Amendment

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that is exactly what I have been saying from the start. When businesses want to innovate, when they have to innovate, when they want to take concrete steps toward reducing greenhouse gas emissions and helping us meet our greenhouse gas reduction targets, the government needs to step up and help them. The government needs to take regulatory obstacles out of their way. It needs to get rid of the notorious carbon tax, which might deter people from ever investing in Canada because they are going to figure out pretty quickly that they can make more money investing where there is less regulation, where it is easier, and where there are lower taxes, by which I mean in the United States. I really do not see how Bill C-69 offers any incentive to businesses or makes it attractive to invest in Canada. The people we have been consulting and talking to about Bill C-69 all say that it will make the process take longer and increase the regulatory burden. That will make it harder to accomplish projects like the one my Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-food colleague just talked about.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to bring the discussion back to Bill C-69. It is great to work together with my friend, the member for Mégantic—L'Érable, on the agriculture committee, but today we are talking about energy.

This morning, I met with Electra and the City of Guelph to discuss a technology and smart grid opportunity that can help us move toward our goal of having 90% renewable energy generated by 2030. However, we have to coordinate with the Department of Environment and Climate Change, with Natural Resources Canada, and with Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada. Therefore, an integrated all-of-government approach needs to be taken, such as what is being proposed in the legislation.

Could the hon. member comment on how this legislation could help bring forward clean technology projects with a complex basis, connecting different departments, versus the omnibus legislative rhetoric we have been hearing from the other side?

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to go back to that brief exchange about including the Navigation Protection Act in Bill C-69 and changes made to the act.

During a previous term here in the House of Commons, I had the opportunity to be a member of the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, where we discussed the Navigation Protection Act and the waterways that were protected by the previous government's bill to amend the Navigation Protection Act. At the time, nobody complained or called for changed. The government decided to make changes in response to pressure from groups that thought the law was lacking, but it was not actually lacking.

There were no complaints, no requests to add new waterways to the list that had been authorized and announced in the Navigation Protection Act. Sometimes, people want to make changes for reasons other than protecting waterways. They might be trying to please certain lobby groups. That is what happened at the time, and we need to remember that.

Bill C-69 is an omnibus bill that enacts the Impact Assessment Act and the Canadian Energy Regulator Act, amends the Navigation Protection Act and makes amendments to several other acts. It is another major bill, because it has a considerable impact on how large projects will be environmentally assessed in Canada.

Despite the government's promises of openness and transparency, Bill C-69 is one of the 38 bills for which the government decided to cut short discussions, muzzle the opposition and refuse to hear each of the members of the opposition express his or her intentions. We reached the pinnacle this week but, last week, in the House, in just three days, the government introduced three motions to cut debate short by gagging members who had something to say and wanted to represent their fellow citizens.

A similar thing happened in the committee that studied Bill C-69. They refused to discuss the opposition's amendments, then rejected them and proposed almost identical amendments so that they could say that they were the government's idea and not that of the opposition. If that is not arrogance, I do not know what arrogance is. We see it all the time in the House, and it is only getting worse.

I remind the House that the opposition was gagged 38 times, including 5 times in three days last week. If the trend continues, the same thing will happen in the coming weeks, even if there are only a few weeks left in this session. The government is simply incapable of working together with the opposition parties to pass its bills.

Consequently, it is left to support Bill C-69 all by itself. The Conservatives, the NDP and the Green Party are all against the bill—not for the same reasons, but they are all against it. Once again, everything is about optics with this government. Despite its promises of openness and transparency, it refuses to hear the recommendations of elected members on this side of the House, and it is alone in passing a bill that will have a major impact on the economy.

I would like to remind my colleagues that, on this side of the House, even if we make up less than half of all elected members, we represent more than half of the country's electorate, so when the government constantly breaks its promises, it is disrespecting all of those Canadians we represent as members of the opposition. It can say whatever it wants to make itself look good, but when it comes time to do the work, it fails across the board.

The words fade away and the Liberals' true nature emerges. The Liberals' promise to run small deficits: gone; the Liberals' promise to bring in electoral reform and change the voting system: gone; the Liberals' promise to increase transparency: gone; the Liberals' promise to no longer muzzle the opposition: gone; and the Liberals' promise not to concede one more litre of milk to the Americans through NAFTA: gone.

We learned about this on the weekend. In a speech on NBC, which has a large American audience, the Prime Minister, perhaps thinking that we would not see the show, declared that the Canadian government was prepared to be more flexible, to give Americans access to Canada's milk market. Unfortunately, some Canadians watch NBC and heard the Prime Minister make this promise. It was rather shocking, because Liberals on the other side of the House have been repeating, over and over, since 2015 and even earlier that they will fully protect supply management.

The Liberals will protect supply management, since they created it. The Prime Minister said that they would unanimously protect supply management. I am not sure what “unanimously” means, but the Prime Minister is the one who said it. Meanwhile, when he thinks that Canadians are not listening, he says the opposite.

After all that, the government is asking for our trust with respect to Bill C-69. Since this morning, the Liberals have repeated their talking points so many times that, in my opinion, they do not see the real consequences of the bill. They are too busy repeating their talking points to dig deeper and identify what is wrong with Bill C-69.

The first big problem is that the Liberals are creating new regulatory burdens for project proponents and adding a carbon tax, which makes Canada less and less competitive when it comes to attracting investment. None of this has improved environmental protection one bit. We know that $100 billion in planned investments have already left Canada. I will repeat today, in this chamber, that the Conservatives will continue to oppose costly regulations that negatively impact Canada's jobs, economic growth, and international competitiveness.

There is nothing in Bill C-69 to help increase investors' confidence or to attract new investment to Canada, especially in the resource sector. We know that Canadian firms are already facing significant challenges, whereas the United States is moving forward with its plan to reduce regulations, cut taxes, and invest in coal-fired and natural-gas-fired electricity in order to cut energy costs.

Canadian businesses deserve a government that works with them, not against them. Canadian businesses deserve a government that will work with them to protect the environment, and not against them by ensuring that there are no projects. The government would not have to worry about the environment if there were no projects. That is the reality.

The government's approach to fighting climate change needs to be realistic. It needs to restore a balance between protecting the environment and growing the economy.

Another source of concern is the fact that cabinet is giving itself life-and-death powers over major projects, such as the power to appoint people and the power to say yes or no to projects throughout the process. We know what the Liberals can do when they manage a project, or rather, when they mismanage one. I am referring to Kinder Morgan. The project was approved 18 months ago, but the Liberals sat on their hands all that time instead of putting it in motion.

The Liberal government has known for 11 months that British Columbia is opposed to this project. However, the Prime Minister only dropped by briefly on his way to England, probably so his jet could fill up on fuel for the rest of the trip.

He took advantage of his layover to meet with two premiers. What was the result? Diddly-squat. This government's solution was to nationalize Kinder Morgan, making all Canadians joint owners of a pipeline for which they paid $4.5 billion.

Does this mean that the project will go ahead? No, because we have only bought some pipes. We have bought $4.5 billion in pipes. The company's executives were so proud of what they pulled off that they received $1.5 million each for the fast one they pulled on the Government of Canada, and I could have used a different word. This means that we will have to invest even more in order for the project to go ahead, if it ever does.

I believe it is clear that something crucial was overlooked in Bill C-69. Yes, we have to protect the environment. Yes, we have to ensure that projects go ahead while respecting our environment so that our young people will have an environment in the future that they can enjoy and will benefit from our natural resources. However, the bill should not thwart further investment in Canada by ensuring environmental protection while doing absolutely nothing else.

[William Amos, Liberal, Pontiac, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the issue of incorporating the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples into Bill C-69 was an important one. We had lengthy discussions during the committee proceedings. We on this side of the House most certainly feel that incorporating indigenous rights and ensuring they are respected and that the constitutional protections afforded to indigenous rights are given pride of place in this legislation is of absolutely fundamental importance. That is exactly what we achieved.

Many amendments were brought to Bill C-69 in relation to indigenous rights, including but not limited to UNDRIP, and I mentioned others related to traditional knowledge. Members on this side of the House are extremely proud of how that was achieved.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Pontiac mentioned that the committee had agreed to make an amendment to Bill C-69 with regards to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People. It amended the preamble, but that preamble is non-binding, so it was a meaningless gesture by the government.

I will bring to the attention of all members that the member for Edmonton Strathcona has brought forward report stage amendments, notably, Motions Nos. 4, 7, 9, 10, 12, and 13. Given that the member across the way voted last week in support of Bill C-262, which strives to bring the laws of Canada into harmony with UNDRIP, will he be consistent this week and support those amendments and live up to what he did last week?

[William Amos, Liberal, Pontiac, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to work with the member opposite who represents Abbotsford. I have enjoyed many positive moments on our standing committee and have great respect for the work he does.

With all due respect, I would refer the member to an opinion editorial that I had published in The Globe and Mail in 2012, where I laid out the critique of the previous government's changes to navigation law in Canada. When the changes were made, Canadians' ability to navigate was still protected by the common law, but most of their statutory rights previously protected by Transport Canada were stripped away. The statutory protections for navigation were stripped away, leaving the public with common law protections only.

I take the point that there is a distinction to be drawn between navigation protections and environmental protections. That is an absolutely valid point to make. However there is no doubt that in past, environmental assessment laws, which Canadian waters were subject to prior to the previous government, the required navigational permitting triggered an environmental assessment. That is how it used to work. The Conservative government stripped all of that away, so we needed to find a new way to bring back navigation protections and a robust impact assessment regime. That is what Bill C-69 seeks to achieve.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, that member is an invaluable member of our environment committee, and I enjoy working with him.

He did mention the navigable waters piece in Bill C-69. We need to make it very clear in the House that navigable waters is about navigation. It has nothing to do with the environment.

The previous government made those changes to the navigable waters act because government officials with sidearms were accosting farmers in fields who had dug a ditch that was classified as a waterway. They told our farmers not to touch or clean that ditch because they would be breaking the law. Imagine how farmers reacted. In my City of Abbotsford, the community I represent, farmers were livid about how the government approached this.

Another reason we moved forward with changes to the navigable waters legislation was because it was about navigation, not about the environment. The Liberal government seems to conflate those and has taken the navigable waters legislation and thrown it in the middle of Bill C-69, which is essentially an environmental piece of legislation. Does the member not understand that navigable waters is about protecting navigation? It should not cover minor waterways.

Why is his government so intent on changing and trying to remediate a piece of legislation that was actually working very well for those impacted by it?

[William Amos, Liberal, Pontiac, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-69, which is very important.

Following the debate on the previous government's reform of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, I was very pleased to see that we are moving forward with this bill, which is the product of extensive consultation over the past two years.

I would like to recognize the hard work that the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development did on this file. The committee heard from more than 50 witnesses and received 150 briefs. Several hundred amendments were proposed, 130 of which were adopted. It is therefore clear that this was a very robust process, and I would like to commend my colleagues for the work they did in committee. I was very impressed by their willingness to consider possible improvements.

I would like to focus a bit on that aspect in particular. I note our chair and vice-chair are sitting opposite having a discussion, likely on topics related to the committee's work. This committee was charged with an important assignment, which was to ensure democracy functioned in the context of reviewing complex legislation.

If we rewind to 2012, the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012 was incorporated into the previous Conservative government's budget bill. It was an entire replacement of the previous Environmental Assessment Act. It was brought through the omnibus budget bill and there were no hearings specifically on the bill to reform the environmental assessment rules. That was criticized across the country, from indigenous communities to environmental groups. Even municipal actors were literally appalled at the anti-democratic approach taken to amend that law.

Therefore, the pendulum swings back a bit. We knew and committed in the previous campaign to reforming that legislation. Thankfully, pursuant to many months of consultation, a better starting point, which was Bill C-69, was achieved. However, when it went to committee, to the committee's great credit, all sorts of analysis was brought to bear from members opposite , from the New Democratic Party, the Green Party, and the Conservative Party. Every party that participated, with the possible exception of the Bloc, independent Bloc, and the CCF, brought forward an amendment that was voted upon and approved, which is a remarkable achievement.

It is also important to note that the government, in particular the Minister of Environment, the Minister of Transport, and the Minister of Natural Resources have commented positively on the amendments brought forward by the committee, on which we will subsequently be voting.

One hundred and fifty amendments were made. The government is responding positively to the fact that these changes are being brought in to ensure openness and transparency, improve public participation, better engage indigenous communities, and to provide greater predictability and certainty for our businesses and those who wish to bring good projects forward. The fact that agreement could be reached on 150 amendments is a tremendous statement and says a lot about the state of democracy right now. That is a really important thing.

I would like to first look at some of the amendments, particularly those related to reconciliation and navigable waters.

With regard to reconciliation, I was very proud to work with my colleagues, including opposition members, to propose amendments that would incorporate the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples into the bill. That is very important and our government supports enshrining the declaration in law through Bill C-262, which will soon become law.

I would like to congratulate those who worked on Bill C-69, because including the declaration in future impact assessments across the country will be very good for reconciliation and for the development of nation-to-nation relationships.

I would also like to mention how the bill now provides for calling on indigenous peoples' knowledge and expertise when impact assessments are conducted. That will help to improve future project analyses. We need to improve our way of working with indigenous peoples on impact assessments.

Protection of waterways is another very important aspect, and we all know the former government scrapped several provisions protecting navigable waters. Since 2015, the government has been working very hard to improve those protections because waterways and navigation rights are protected not only by statute but also under common law.

The protections for navigable waters are of crucial importance to Canadians, and certainly to the constituents I represent in the Pontiac.

With respect to navigation, very important changes were brought by the committee to ensure water flows would be protected. That is a really crucial piece of the puzzle. Why? Because many Canadian communities, indigenous groups, and paddling groups were concerned that projects might move forward and would not receive the necessary scrutiny, that the law would not necessarily enable protection of the flows of water that would go down various waterways, whether that is the Ottawa River, the Gatineau River, the St. Lawrence Seaway, or other major waterways. That is a key point, and I am very proud our committee brought forward those amendments.

Overall, I would like to conclude by suggesting that beyond the hyperbole, beyond all of the easy, partisan criticism that has been lobbed from the other side, at the end of the day, Canadians are looking for a stronger process that builds trust when good projects come forward and ensures the independence of decision-makers in the context of evaluating projects. We need the public to not only know that a good analysis is being done, but that this analysis is being done independently, on the basis of solid, hard evidence, and on the basis of the engagement of Canada's indigenous peoples.

I am really proud of the work our government has done. Bill C-69 is a good starting point. The committee worked very hard to achieve improvements on it. I commend the government for its positive reaction to the changes brought forward by the standing committee.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague has highlighted many of the challenges Bill C-69 presents. We also have concerns with Bill C-69, but they are concerns that investment in Canada is fleeing. In fact, over the last two years, we have seen the most dramatic drop in foreign investment the country has ever seen. We have seen it drop in half. That is because the investment environment in Canada is one that is no longer attractive and welcoming to the people who want to invest, especially in our resource industry.

Recently, the Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain was purchased by the government, which shocked all of us. The last time that happened was under the Prime Minister's father, who was prime minister at the time. We know how that played out. Eventually Petro-Canada was returned to the private sector. It always should have been in private hands.

The member clearly is not a big supporter of the Kinder Morgan pipeline, yet we still have a robust oil industry in Canada. Canada has the third-largest oil reserves in the world. The world still is beating a path to our doorstep, wanting to buy our oil. Therefore, if the member is not supportive of the Kinder Morgan pipeline, does he then propose that we continue to use and increase the use of rail to transport oil? His own province has had a big problem at Lac-Mégantic with oil being transported by rail. Is that his solution to the way we get oil to markets outside of Canada?

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Trois-Rivières for his question.

I share his concern and his apprehension, because this government has said one thing and done the opposite all too often. Therefore, yes, this might look good on paper, but when we consider the decisions this government has actually made, it simply does not pass a reality check. It is constantly contradicting itself.

It is troubling, because if we do not have a mechanism in place to ensure that expert panels really are free of all political influence, it means that the government could easily ignore the lofty principles set out in Bill C-69, just as it is now ignoring the principle of informed, clear, and transparent consultation with indigenous peoples regarding the Trans Mountain pipeline, which the government just bought with our money.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to Bill C-69 at report stage. It has been a long time coming, since it was one of the major promises the Liberal Party made to Canadians during the last election.

In 2012, the environmental assessment process was scrapped, which undermined Quebeckers’ and other Canadians’ confidence in an independent, transparent, fair, balanced and scientific process based on facts. It was absolutely necessary that we change course and repair the damage done, but, unfortunately, the attempt is a bit late and, once again, half-hearted.

The parliamentary secretary said that the delay was in large part due to the consultations the Liberal government conducted and the fact that it created expert committees that made their own recommendations. I might believe that if the government had listened to the recommendations made by the experts and by the citizens of Canada. Unfortunately, that is not the case. It received a number of good suggestions and recommendations from the panels it created, but it rejected practically all of the suggestions from the environmental and scientific communities.

Despite the Liberals’ rhetoric and their boasting about having collaborated, they rejected 99% of all amendments proposed by the opposition parties in committee in an effort to improve the bill. Almost all of the 33 amendments that were accepted in committee were proposed by Liberal members. I wanted to set the record straight.

We in the NDP believe that the Liberals took their time because they were actually pleased to be able to use the old Conservative system to quickly and quietly pass certain projects that they did not want people to look at too closely. I am thinking in particular of Kinder Morgan’s Trans Mountain pipeline project. As luck would have it, it is too late for the project to be assessed under the new system.

They tried to tinker with the existing process by adding criteria, some of which are not being met. Contrary to the clear promise made by the Prime Minister in British Columbia during the election campaign that no new pipeline projects would be accepted under Stephen Harper’s environmental assessment process, the Liberals were far from thorough. Astonishingly, once again, they broke their promise and approved the project under an obsolete system that they criticized and said they did not trust.

Today, we are wondering how we can trust the government’s decision. I do not even want to talk about the fact that we are spending who knows how many billions of dollars to purchase a pipeline that no one will want in 30 or 40 years because it will be worthless.

If we are in trouble up to our necks today because of the Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain pipeline scandal, it is in large part because, from the get-go, the Liberals did not fulfill their promise, did not do their job, and rushed the project through without the people’s consent. They did not respect the first nations’ territories, and the first nations are challenging the legitimacy of the pipeline in court and complaining that they are not getting their due respect and that no one is listening to them.

Last week, everyone, Liberal and New Democrat alike, was pleased with the support for my colleague’s bill making the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples law in Canada. Just five days later, however, the Liberal government was already breaking its commitment by refusing to incorporate the declaration's principles into the Trans Mountain pipeline project. That is a betrayal. I have never seen a government flip-flop in such a way in under a week.

To get back to Bill C-69, we believe that there are three key issues. The first concerns how we determine which projects will be assessed.

The second is how we choose the expert panels to do the assessment, and whether they are truly independent. The third involves the minister’s discretion when it comes to accepting or refusing the experts’ recommendations and the results of the environmental assessment. We have a problem with these three issues.

First, and this is critical, there is no definition or criteria for determining which economic or energy development project will be subject to the new environmental assessment process. Astonishingly, the parliamentary secretary just conceded the point to me. If a project is not assessed, we can have the best process in the world, but it will not do us any good. If I buy a new computer and I leave it in the box in the corner of my office, I will not derive any benefit from it. We now fear the worst. The absence of clear criteria, commitments or a list of projects means that projects that will have an impact on territories and communities might very well not be subject to the new Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency process.

This discretion, this willingness to select projects as it sees fit in a seemingly random fashion is a huge problem for us as environmentalists, and for people who want to do serious work.

Second, there are many in the community who have serious doubts about the political independence of the panels that will be appointed to consult scientists, indigenous peoples and Canadians in general. Will these experts not simply be political hacks that will become complacent or shut their eyes to certain issues instead of doing their job?

We have seen the credibility of the National Energy Board suffer because of this type of cronyism. The Centre québécois du droit de l’environnement shares our concern; it made two statements that I would like to share. The first is, and I quote, “In order to restore confidence, project assessment panels must be truly independent from both industry and the government”, and the second, “Bill [C-69] contains no mechanism for ensuring independence from political interference or avoiding partisan appointments or complacency in assessment panels, on whose recommendations the government now bases its final decisions”.

We are not the only ones to say so. There is a fundamental problem with the fact that there is no guarantee, no structure for preventing politics and partisanship from affecting the assessments. There could be a considerable loss of credibility. That would be a shame, because it is really an institution based on trust. Here is a good example: the BAPE is a respected institution in Québec, and Quebeckers have confidence in it. We would like to see that model used, and we do not understand why, in its bill, the federal government did not include anything about accepting environmental assessment processes carried out in some of the provinces, including Québec, since the BAPE is recognized by all of the stakeholders and groups at the table.

The third issue involves the end of the process. Decisions are made regarding which projects will be assessed, experts are appointed to engage in consultations, scientists and local populations are listened to, the general mood is gauged and the indigenous peoples involved are given a chance to express themselves but, at the end of the day, the sitting minister is not bound by the assessment panel’s recommendation. An assessment panel could say that there are too many dangers, too many risks, that the project is not acceptable to the population and that it is dangerous for the environment but, in the end, the minister could order that the project go ahead anyway.

Today, we have a Minister of Environment who says she is concerned about the environment. In my opinion, sometimes she is, sometimes she is not. However, this legislative provision will remain on the books for many Parliaments down the road. We think that this is extremely dangerous, because in the past we have seen a minister dismiss indigenous peoples, scientists and Canadians in general and opt for projects that pose a danger to our environment, our ecosystems and public health.

[Jonathan Wilkinson, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the focus of the conversation today is Bill C-69. I do not think the hon. member was actually speaking to the bill.

The focus is really very much on enhancing the integrity and transparency of the process, and restoring the public trust that was destroyed in 2012 by the Harper government when it introduced significant changes to the environmental assessment process, the Fisheries Act, and the Navigable Waters Act. This government is very focused on ensuring that we are in a position to address legitimate environmental concerns so that good projects can move forward in an expedited way to ensure that we are creating good middle-class jobs for Canadians.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the parliamentary secretary for his speech.

The NDP deplores that the Liberal government waited so long to propose a new environmental assessment process. What worries me about this new version is that the government did not explicitly state which projects must be assessed by the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency. Furthermore, Bill C-69 does not set out the criteria that will be used to determine whether an assessment is required. It is like buying a Ferrari that can only get up to second gear. What a shame.

Why did the government decide to do this?

[Jonathan Wilkinson, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

Mr. Speaker, obviously, it is important to restore public trust in the processes so that projects can move forward. That was the primary focus of all the work that was done on Bill C-69.

One very important measure that has been introduced is related to the early planning phase. It is something that many resource-based organizations have called for to try to set the parameters and scope of when the environmental assessment would take place so that we can flag issues that need to be addressed early on and not flag them far down the road when they are much more difficult to address. Therefore, I would suggest that the hon. member may want to reflect that comment back to some of the natural resource organizations that asked for this.

With respect to the timelines, there are specific timelines that will provide certainty for proponents going forward. One of the amendments that the member has perhaps not seen is the lowering of the 600-day limit to 300 days. However, the focus is very much on providing timelines that will give certainty to proponents as to how this will proceed in a timely way.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is clear that the Liberal government is out to destroy our natural resources sector, not only with this bill but with the introduction of carbon taxes.

In terms of looking at advancements in how we process these things, Bill C-69 proposes a 180-day planning phase, which can be extended by 90 days by the minister or indefinitely by cabinet. There is actually no timeline for establishing the panel. Once it is finally established, the panel has to submit its report within 600 days, and that, again, can be extended by the minister for 90 days or indefinitely by cabinet.

How can my colleague stand in this place and actually imply that the bill would enhance the capability of bringing projects online?

[Jonathan Wilkinson, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise today to speak in support of Bill C-69. The bill fulfills a core commitment our government made to rebuild public trust in the environmental assessment system. It is based on 14 months of consultation with provinces and territories, indigenous peoples, companies, environmental groups, and Canadians from coast to coast to coast.

Today, I will start by outlining why we created this bill and what it will accomplish. I will then discuss how our government and the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development have engaged in dialogue with indigenous communities and other partners throughout this process. I will also speak about what we heard.

Finally, I will describe how the standing committee's hard work in studying and amending the bill responds to the comments that have been received, and how it supports our government's commitment to a clean environment and a strong economy.

Before I begin, I would like to congratulate the standing committee and recognize what has been accomplished. Consideration of such a complex and significant bill is a challenging task. I commend the committee for its openness in hearing diverse witness testimony and for making thoughtful amendments that address important issues and significantly strengthen the original bill.

I would like to start my comments by providing some background about Bill C-69: why it is before us today and why it is so important for the future of Canada's economy and environment.

Public trust was eroded as a result of changes made by the Harper government in 2012. Canadians lost confidence in how decisions about major resource projects were made. Bill C-69 aims to restore that trust, put in place better rules to protect our environment, and build a stronger economy. It reflects our conviction that a clean environment and a strong economy can and must go hand in hand in the modern world, something that has guided all of our actions since forming government. It takes a balanced approach: providing certainty for industry while upholding the rights of indigenous peoples, protecting our environment, and facilitating the generation of economic benefits for all Canadians.

I would like to thank indigenous peoples, stakeholders, and Canadians who contributed their knowledge and perspectives. The proposed legislation provides many important improvements. Decisions would be transparent and guided by robust science and indigenous knowledge. Project reviews would consider a wide range of impacts on the economy, health, indigenous rights, and the community, not simply the environment. Reviews would be more timely and more predicable. Measures are included to advance reconciliation and partnership with indigenous peoples. Duplication and red tape would be reduced through a “one project, one review” approach.

As I was saying, during months of consultation, indigenous peoples, stakeholders, and Canadians across the country helped us develop Bill C-69. Since the bill was introduced, our government has continued to ensure that they participate fully in the process at every opportunity.

Hearing from Canadians directly was also central to the standing committee's consideration of the bill. In recent months, the committee heard from more than 80 witnesses with diverse perspectives and expertise. I would like to share some of the valuable input that we heard from stakeholders during this process.

First, indigenous peoples and organizations have said that Bill C-69 must fully support our government's goal of advancing reconciliation and a renewed relationship based on the recognition of rights, respect, co-operation, and partnership, as well as our commitment to implement the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. This is critically important.

As the Prime Minister said, no relationship is more important to Canada than the one with indigenous peoples.

Environmental organizations have stressed the importance of public participation and accessible, transparent information. In particular, they told us that the bill must ensure not just participation, but meaningful participation that has an influence on project reviews and decision-making. From industry and other stakeholders, we heard that the legislation must provide certainty and clarity about what would be considered in project reviews and in decision-making.

The project proponent and other participants should feel confident that the decisions are evidence-based and are made in the public interest.

I am pleased that the standing committee has made a number of amendments to the bill that respond to many of the comments and concerns highlighted by stakeholders and indigenous peoples. Finding appropriate ways to address these issues is not easy, and I want to recognize the committee for its dedication and its collaborative approach.

I would now like to mention some amendments made by the committee and explain how they support our goals for a sound environment and a strong economy.

As a result of the committee's work and feedback from indigenous peoples, the bill now clearly states our government's commitment to the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. The declaration would now be reflected in the preamble to both the proposed impact assessment act and the proposed Canadian energy regulator act. The government, the minister, the agency, the Canadian energy regulator, and other federal authorities would also need to exercise their powers under the impact assessment act and the Canadian energy regulator act in a manner that respects the government's commitments with respect to the rights of indigenous peoples.

The amendments also add to the existing provisions, to ensure that indigenous knowledge is taken into account along with the science when projects are being assessed. The bill will now require more transparency in how the indigenous knowledge is used and will implement strong measures to protect this knowledge.

The standing committee has strengthened the public participation and transparency provisions across the legislation. The bill now clarifies that Canadians would have opportunities for meaningful participation throughout assessments. To support meaningful participation, a broad range of project information would need to be posted online, and there would be a requirement to maintain this information so that it stays accessible over time.

Furthermore, in response to reactions from environmental organizations, amendments would establish new safeguards so that Canadians can have confidence that the process is fair. For example, the bill clarifies that the project would be based on the impact assessment report and that decisions would also have to consider the main factors of public interest, including the project's contribution to sustainability.

The committee has also responded to industry's calls for more certainty. Amendments have been made to clarify that the government's public interest decision will be based on the assessment report and the consideration of specific factors, including positive and negative consequences. Other amendments include clarifying that comments must be provided during a time period specified by the impact assessment agency of Canada so that meaningful participation is ensured and balanced with a need for timely assessments. They would also enable the Minister of Environment and Climate Change to inform companies early on if a project is likely to have negative impacts, giving proponents an earlier opportunity to decide whether to continue with an impact assessment. Finally, the committee's amendments would improve the transition provisions set out in the bill.

The committee has strengthened Bill C-69 with these changes and others. By maintaining a balanced approach, the bill will further support environmental protection and reconciliation, and will also help increase investor confidence.

I am very proud of our government's work on this bill.

Bill C-69 addresses a key commitment we made during the 2015 election campaign. Our best rules adopt a balanced approach that takes into account the interests of people across Canada.

Once again, I want to recognize the essential contributions made by the standing committee, as well as the many Canadians who participated in consultations and made their voices heard. Thanks to their passion and commitment, I am confident that this bill will support the goals that I believe all of my colleagues share: a clean environment for our children, and a strong and growing economy.

I hope that all members of the House will join me in supporting this bill.

[William Amos, Liberal, Pontiac, QC]

I believe Deputy Minister Lucas was with NRCan in a senior position at the time. Perhaps he recalls. If not, I would accept a written response to that question, because I think it is in the public interest. We've had significant discussions with our counterparts opposite on the apparent democratic sham of a process around Bill C-69. I would like to make sure that the record is clear as to what process is involved with Bill C-69 and what the process was involving the budget bill—I believe it was Bill C-38 at the time.

[Karen Vecchio, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I first want to address the comment made to the member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke. It is not fearmongering and it is not hysteria; it is the fact that the constituents of her riding believe in her, because they know she is going to fight for what they believe in. The fact that she comes to this chamber with such passion is something we can all learn from, because she listens to her constituents and brings their voices to the chamber.

There was a comment made regarding the member for Edmonton Strathcona having a voice at the table. I adore the member for Edmonton Strathcona. Although we are from different parties, she brings so much to the House because of her background. When I sat down with her and we talked, she let me know she felt almost demoralized. That is not her word, but she felt she could not bring anything to the committee because Liberals were not listening. She had so much to bring to that committee, and those voices were not heard. People can say, “We let you sit at the table; we just told you to shut up”, and that is basically what happened here. That is very concerning.

UNDRIP is another thing, and I will allow the NDP members to talk about UNDRIP in this bill. The government says it will vote for something one week, and then the next week it does a total 180°.

I will now speak on Bill C-69, 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. I must agree that with that title, we can recognize how large this act is and how many different committees should have been looking at this bill, but instead Liberals sent it to the environment committee, where it got shut down in debate.

There are many concerns being highlighted by the Conservative caucus, informing Canadians about concerns for Canada's economy and the decreased competitiveness in Canada on a number of issues, including reduced taxes on corporations in the U.S. and the $25-a-barrel discount on our oil.

I want to discuss this issue to highlight how it impacts our constituents. I am from the riding of Elgin—Middlesex—London. I am not from a riding that is oceanside and there are not a lot of pipes going through my community, but this bill will impact my community of Elgin—Middlesex—London, so I want to discuss two key items.

In late spring, a bridge collapsed in the village of Port Bruce. This bridge connected the village of Port Bruce to the rest of Aylmer on Highway 73. The first issue was how to rebuild the bridge. We had to look at so many different things, including where we were going to get the money and what we were going to do. There are great people in the municipalities and the country working on this. When the bridge collapsed, one of the first things that came to mind, other than the money, was what the government was going to do with regard to environmental impacts and what kinds of delays the community and council were going to have to deal with.

Having worked with a former MP, I recalled some work I had done with the municipality of Thames Centre back in 2010 on species at risk. We have to understand that there are going to be obstacles, and there was about a 10-month delay in the municipality of Thames Centre because of this. I am very concerned that we will see delays like this when this new legislation proposed by the Liberal government passes. Maybe some things will work and maybe some things are better, but we will never know, because we never got the chance to debate it.

The bridge that collapsed is near the mouth of Catfish Creek and connects the waterways from Catfish Creek to the Great Lakes, specifically Lake Erie. Although I agree with the necessity of environmental assessments, I am concerned that the reconstruction of the bridge will be hampered because of increased bureaucracy, specifically with the passage of Bill C-69. This small community needs support from all levels of government, including the Government of Canada. What will these new timelines do to the government's response and what will the government's involvement be in this project?

Although the government states that what is in the bill would reduce the timelines, we have seen the government's track record and the raft of broken promises. I just do not have it in me to believe that this proposed legislation would create anything but obstacles for our economy and the people who live in Canada. The new planning phase would add an additional 180 days, followed by a 30-day assessment by the minister. There are so many opportunities for both major and minor projects to be slowed down because of this hierarchy and the ministerial and Governor in Council exemptions.

The village of Port Bruce will need a plan. I have reached out to all of the ministers of the government who could impact the reconstruction of this bridge. To date, all of the responses that I have received are basically a bunch of Liberal talking points. I am not seeing assistance. I am not seeing help. Rather, I see the government telling me what it is doing and patting itself on the back and saying that maybe we can go after the gas tax fund. Those are not the kinds of things that we need from the government. I do not really know if people in government understand how smaller municipalities need to work together with all levels of government and how they have to be part of this. They cannot just give us platitudes.

Whether the township and county decide to go with a temporary bridge or go directly toward reconstructing this bridge, I fear that the government will slow things down. The village is a tourist destination and is currently being greatly impacted by the inability of people to take a direct route. We also must be concerned over the inability of the township to adequately provide emergency services. One of the biggest challenges that this community has had is that Highway 73 does not even go there, so we have had neighbouring municipalities get on board to provide those emergency services.

However, we must move forward on our project, and I am totally concerned about what is going to happen in our next phase. Once it decides what it will do, what is the government going to be doing with new red tape approaches, both to the county and to the municipalities?

My second point also focuses on the farmers in my riding and the change to the navigational waters act. For years, I have heard from local farmers about some of the restrictions regarding ditches and things of that sort. We all have different ways of looking at it, but the fact is that we do not have a way of discussing this issue because when we are at committee, debate gets shut down.

For years farmers have been strongly speaking about the restrictions that they have been under, and when in 2012 there were some changes, they applauded the government because they felt that they were not going to be restricted as much. That is positive. When we are trying to work on the economy, we want to make sure that we are working with the stewards of our land and not always against them. I am always concerned with how we are going to make sure we are working forward. I believe in our farmers and I have watched them use responsible methods to improve their applications.

What will this legislation do to impact our local farmers, as well as reconstruction of the bridge? Well, I wish I could tell members more about that, but this bill was rammed through the committee and amendments proposed by all opposition parties were ignored. The government says it is allowing people's voices to be heard, but we know that the moment nine o'clock strikes at committee, committee members can not debate anything further.

We know that the Liberal government put in over 100 of their own recommendations when it came to amendments. Are the Liberals saying that this bill does not need amendments? By having to amend their own bill that many times, I think they have proven to the entire committee and to all Canadians that the bill is flawed.

We may not agree on everything, but the government cut debate. Although we may not agree on everything, the most important part is to listen. As the chair of the status of women committee, I have seen some co-operation when we are talking about amendments and when we are talking about recommendations. When we are all sitting at the table and really trying to do what is best for Canadians, everyone is actually listening. There are opportunities for us to merge. When we are putting in a recommendation, we may take something from the NDP or we may take something from the Liberals and the Conservative Party and merge those thoughts together so that we can all be heard, but Canadian voices have been shut down at committee and in this House when debating this bill.

How are Canadians supposed to know that their voices are being heard when time allocation is being imposed not only on their representatives in this House but also in the committees? How do we know that we are getting what is best for Canadians when the Liberals seem to be listening only to themselves and not listening to some of these amendments?

I agree that Liberals may have some good suggestions but do not think that the Conservatives, the NDP, the Green Party, and the Bloc all have good suggestions. We need to work together.

I see that part of my role as a parliamentarian is to listen. I urge the government to start to listen again. We have seen a lot of problems, but if the government can get off its talking points, maybe we can all do better. I think that is part of the issue: the questions that are being asked are taken back to government talking points. We are not talking about how it is going to impact people. We are not talking how it is going to impact the Trans Mountain pipeline. We are not talking about those things. We are talking about spending $4.5 billion without even seeing how we will get a pipeline built. We know that the government was the obstacle for Kinder Morgan, and now how is it not going to be the obstacle for itself, unless it turns 180° once again?

The government's role is to create a positive atmosphere for businesses to succeed. New taxes, government red tape, and truly poor opportunities for Canadians to speak on legislative changes that engage Canadians are here with this government. I heard the leader of the Greens say that we can do better. With discussions and amendments actually being heard, we can do better. I urge the Liberals to start consulting with all parties.

[Mike Bossio, Liberal, Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I was also on the indigenous committee that studied Bill C-262. I am a very strong supporter of UNDRIP.

I am proud to say that we are the government that for the first time has embedded UNDRIP into a bill, even before UNDRIP was put into effect in this House, by introducing it into Bill C-69 through amendments that the Liberal members of the committee had put forward. I strove to ensure that UNDRIP was included in Bill C-69 even before Bill C-262 has fully passed in this House.

I am very proud of what our government is doing in moving forward with Bill C-262 and I have tremendous respect for the member for the James Bay region and his work on that bill.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, one of the gaps in Bill C-69 is that it only requires a consideration of indigenous knowledge in going ahead with these assessments.

The member for Edmonton Strathcona has moved some report stage amendments, specifically Motions Nos. 4, 7, 9, 10, 12, and 13, which seek to bring this bill in harmony with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. I checked the vote last week on May 30, and the member for Hastings—Lennox and Addington did vote in support of Bill C-262, which seeks to bring Canadian laws in harmony with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

Will the member be consistent with his vote last week and vote in support of these amendments when they come before the House?

[John Aldag, Liberal, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

It's wonderful to hear you'll be there at the meeting. I have also met personally with a number of colleagues at the provincial and territorial level. They felt that it was very important to have the minister responsible for built heritage at those meetings. I'm delighted that you'll be attending.

Mr. Hallman, I'd like to turn to you for a moment.

We have Bill C-69 working its way through the House. Could you provide a comment or two on the impact that Bill C-69 may have on the required spending authorities of the agency that you're responsible for in 2018-19. Are you poised to move forward?

[Mike Bossio, Liberal, Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to rise today to speak in support of Bill C-69. With this bill, our government is meeting our commitment to rebuild public trust and help get Canada's resources to market. In developing Bill C-69, we heard from provinces, territories, indigenous peoples, businesses, environmental groups, and Canadians from coast to coast to coast.

Overwhelmingly, they told us that they want a modern environmental and regulatory system that protects the environment, supports reconciliation with indigenous peoples, attracts investment, and ensures that good projects can go ahead. That is exactly what our government has delivered in introducing this bill.

Through better rules, Bill C-69 would support the responsible development of Canada's natural resources, create good middle-class jobs, and help grow our economy. Measures in this bill would provide more timely and predictable reviews, more certainty for businesses, and more opportunities for partnerships with indigenous peoples.

Today I would like to take a step back. I want to look more closely at the question of public trust. I am going to discuss what it means to rebuild that trust, how this bill would accomplish that, and how the hard work of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development has contributed through its careful study of the bill and its thoughtful amendments.

Where there is public trust, proponents, indigenous peoples, stakeholders, and all Canadians can have confidence that major project reviews are based on evidence, including robust science, and indigenous knowledge. It also means that when final decisions are made, Canadians can be assured that those decisions have fully considered the evidence and that they serve the public interest. That is what has been lost under the current rules, and it is what Bill C-69 would restore.

It would do that in a few ways, which I will go on to discuss in more detail. It would do so by clearly setting out in legislation which factors would be considered in reviews of major projects; by ensuring that decisions were made in the public interest, and the reasons for them were communicated; and by ensuring that panels established to conduct project reviews were balanced and included the right people with the right expertise.

I will begin with the factors that would guide major project reviews. Compared with CEAA 2012, Bill C-69 sets out a more comprehensive and complete set of factors for consideration in reviews. While it would provide strong protection for the environment, the bill would expand the scope of reviews beyond the environment alone. Assessments would take a broader view based on sustainability, taking into account a wide range of impacts on the economy, health, indigenous rights, and the community.

Crucially, Bill C-69 would require consideration of a project's impact on indigenous peoples and their rights. In the words of the Prime Minister, “No relationship is more important to Canada than the relationship with Indigenous Peoples.” Considering the rights of indigenous peoples in every review fully aligns with our commitment to achieve reconciliation through a renewed relationship based on the recognition of rights, respect, co-operation, and partnership.

Finally, the bill reflects our government's commitment to effective action on climate change. It would ensure that reviews considered the effects of major projects on Canada's ability to meet our climate change commitments as well as our obligations related to environmental challenges like air quality and biodiversity. That supports our actions to fight carbon pollution, such as working with partners to put a price on pollution that will cut 80 million to 90 million tonnes of GHG emissions by 2022.

That is where we began when our government introduced Bill C-69 in this House in February. Since then, the standing committee has strengthened the bill by adding even more clarity on factors to consider in project reviews and by improving consistency across the legislation.

To highlight just a few of the changes, the committee clarified that both positive and negative impacts must be considered, recognizing that not all effects of major resource projects will be negative. It amended the proposed Canadian energy regulator act to ensure that climate change is considered when making decisions about non-designated projects, including pipelines, power lines, and offshore projects. It improved consistency by requiring that the same set of factors guide the agency's decision on what information and studies are required for a project review, the review itself, and inform the impact assessment report. All these measures would support more predictable reviews, more certainty for industry, and public trust.

Over and over we have heard that a good process means nothing if the decision at the end is opaque and is based on politics, not evidence. When that happens, there can be no public trust. Bill C-69 would do the opposite. It would set up safeguards to ensure that science, indigenous knowledge, and other evidence formed the basis for important decisions on whether major projects would go ahead.

Specifically, following amendments by the standing committee, the bill would require decisions to be based on the assessment report prepared by the impact assessment agency of Canada. Decisions would also need to consider key factors, including the project's contribution to sustainability, meaning its ability to protect the environment and contribute to the social and economic well-being of the people of Canada and preserve their health in a way that benefits present and future generations.

To provide certainty and build trust, public decision statements would need to clearly demonstrate how the assessment report formed the basis for the decision and how those factors were considered. This clarity would benefit all parties: proponents, indigenous peoples, and stakeholders. Through transparency and accountability, it would help ensure that the decisions on projects were made in the public trust.

In terms of further amendments that would improve transparency and help restore trust, the bill would now require that the minister consider any feedback provided by the proponent when deciding whether a decision statement for a project would expire or whether the timeline would be extended. The comments would have to be provided during a time period specified by the impact assessment agency of Canada so that meaningful public participation was assured and balanced with the need for timely assessments.

Last, I want to talk about the safeguards Bill C-69 would provide so that panels set up to review major projects with life-cycle regulators would strike the right balance in their membership. Our government and the standing committee heard from some groups that this is a critical step toward restoring public trust. We recognize that these regulators have long-standing specialized expertise and knowledge. Their participation is essential to ensuring that Canada's resources are developed in a way that protects the environment and grows the economy. We put forward amendments in committee to strike a balance to ensure that review panels also included other voices and perspectives. The bill would require that federal regulators not constitute a majority on the panel. At the same time, regulators would continue to serve on panels and contribute their expertise.

We cannot get Canada's resources to market without public trust. With this bill, we would rebuild that trust by introducing new, fairer processes for project reviews. Bill C-69 would define the needed safeguards so that Canadians could again have confidence that processes were fair and evidence-based, that decisions served the public interest, and that the right projects went forward. As I have described, these measures would include clearly setting out in advance the key factors that would guide major project reviews; requiring evidence-based decision-making; being transparent when final decisions were made so that Canadians would know that the process was being followed, and they could have confidence in the outcome; and ensuring balanced review panels that would bring together diverse expertise and multiple perspectives.

I would like to conclude by once again recognizing the work of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development. As a result of its members' insight and dedication, the committee's work has produced an amended bill that would respond to the priorities of indigenous peoples, stakeholders, and Canadians and would further contribute to our goal of restoring the public trust.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask my Conservative colleague a question specifically in the context of the vote we had last week on Bill C-262. I know that the Conservatives did not vote for it, but the important fact is that the Liberals did.

My colleague, the member for Edmonton Strathcona, moved a series of amendments at report stage that seek to bring Bill C-69 in harmony with what the Liberals supported last week on Bill C-262. Does the member have a reasonable expectation that the Liberals would at least remain consistent and support those amendments from the member for Edmonton Strathcona, or are we going to see a flip-flop, where they say one thing and do something completely opposite?

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Mr. Speaker, members will hear from this side of the House just how tragic and pathetic this piece of proposed legislation really is.

It is interesting, because the Liberals think they have found a balance. The NDP oppose it for some reasons and we oppose it for others, but typically the reason for the opposition is that it just gives way too much power to the minister, and has way too little transparency and accountability. Not only is this proposed legislation dangerous, and I use that word deliberately, but it is also going to have a very real impact on a large number of people across this country, particularly those who live in areas dependent on resource development.

The Liberals had an opportunity to smooth out the environmental assessment process with this bill, but instead they chose to do the complete opposite. I think there is an intent here to destroy the credibility of the existing EA process in Canada, because the Liberals do not actually want to see resource development carried out. Our Prime Minister will say one thing in Alberta, and as we saw earlier this spring, go to France two days later and apologize for not getting rid of the energy industry soon enough. Therefore, I believe there is an agenda here to complicate this process and to make it basically unmanageable. Then the reality will be that it will not be possible to put in place resource projects across this country. Investors are already basically laughing at Canada and walking away. We saw an article yesterday saying that investors no longer even bother considering Canada as an option to invest in. Therefore, the Liberals are getting their way. The NDP members are getting their way.

The problem with these big government initiatives and socialism, and those of us who live in Saskatchewan understand it, is that it takes a while for the pain to actually begin. It does not happen right away. It is not immediate, but it is profound and long-lasting. The bill before us will have a profoundly long-lasting and negative impact on Canada and our economy.

The bill before us, Bill C-69, is called 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. The main thing it would do is to set up a new impact assessment agency of Canada, replacing some other agencies. That agency will then be the lead on all federal reviews of major projects and would be expected, I guess, to work with other bodies on that.

However, realistically, what will happen here, because of the many things that are being thrown into this mix of what will be called an environmental assessment reality, is that these projects will just not get done. It is interesting, because the bill would add a number of things that need to be considered in an environmental assessment, and things that go far beyond the environment, but it would basically give anyone who has an objection to a project the right to claim there would be some impact on them and that they have a legitimate reason to have the project stopped.

I will talk a little about the process that would take place, because I think when Canadians see it, they will start to understand how disingenuous the government has been with this bill.

If we want to apply for a project, we need to go through an environmental assessment on most things. The Liberals have set up the proposed legislation so that, supposedly, there will be a planning phase of up to a maximum 180 days. This could then go in a couple of directions. It could go to a joint panel, or it could go back to the assessment agency, and there would be some timelines. However, there are a variety of tracks available for it to follow. It could end up at a review panel. The agency itself would oversee the smaller projects and then would have a full review of the larger projects. After a while, when that is done, the agency or panel would submit a recommendation and the minister would have 30 days to approve or reject it.

Well, that sounds pretty straightforward, until we start to look at the actual processes involved in this, and I want to go through three possible tracks. I will probably use most of my time doing this, but it would just point out to Canadians how bizarre this gets and how much interference the minister can play, as the NDP just pointed that out with their last questions.

The minister basically has authority at all levels over these things. The minister can make things go ahead or stop dead, and they can stay stopped if the minister and cabinet decide to do that.

First of all, I will talk about a decision that does not require a joint panel. It does not even require approval by cabinet. Under this proposed legislation, there would be a 180-day planning phase. This is something brand new that the government has thrown in here, which would already put a six-month delay or kind of stop on a project moving ahead. This could be extended by 90 days or it could be extended indefinitely by the minister if someone demanded that. There is no clarity around what that means.

Then there is a 300-day time limit for the impact assessment itself, almost a year, and no surprise, this can be extended by 90 days or indefinitely by cabinet. Timelines are thrown completely out. There is no certainty at all. Why would investors bother getting involved with something like this? And this is the simplest process of the few that are there.

Then there is a 30-day time limit after the minister and cabinet have already been involved at two different levels. It then comes to the minister and cabinet to make the decision. What kind of industry organization or business is going to come forward and put themselves through this when there is absolutely no certainty?

No surprise, that 30-day time limit can be extended by 90 days or it can be extended indefinitely. That is the simplest. A joint panel is not required. Approval by cabinet is not required. At all three levels of planning and working through the process, cabinet has authority to extend the deadline indefinitely or to whatever it chooses to extend it to. A joint panel is not required, and approval by cabinet is not required. Under Bill C-69 the total time should be about 570 days, almost a year and a half, but again, there are several opportunities to extend it.

It starts out again with that 180-day planning phase, which can be extended by 90 days or indefinitely by the minister or cabinet. Then there is a 300-day time limit for the impact assessment itself. The proponent has to get this all done in 300 days, considering all of the different factors that the government has thrown into Bill C-69, and this can be extended by 90 days or indefinitely by the minister or cabinet. Then there is a 90-day limit for cabinet to make a decision and again, this can be extended by 90 days or indefinitely by cabinet.

Those are two tracks.

The third one is a decision that requires a joint panel with a cabinet decision. The time frame on this one is set at 835 days, well over two years, with at least one opportunity to extend it. There are 10 days to start a 45-day screening process, once the decision has been made that this has to go through a joint panel. Then there is 60 days from notice to referring the assessment to the panel. Then there is 24 months from the referral when a decision statement must be issued. This can be extended 90 days by the minister, or indefinitely by cabinet. That actually was the case in the past under the CEAA 2012 method, but under Bill C-69 it would go from that 800 days to 915 days, and there are six opportunities in the bill to extend it.

So there is a 180-day planning phase and a 45-day window for the minister to refer an assessment to a panel, and there is no timeline for establishing a panel at all. The panel has to submit a report to the minister within 600 days, another two years down the road, and this can be extended by the minister until anything the panel prescribes is completed, or by 90 days. Cabinet an extend it indefinitely again, and then there is another 90-day timeline for cabinet.

This assessment process that the government has thrown into the bill is basically a game. It is a game that cabinet can play with anybody who wants to apply for a project in Canada.

It is no surprise as I mentioned before that people are looking at other places to invest. They are investing in other countries. The Americans right now are making it very clear that they want to become the world's largest energy producer and exporter. They are eating our lunch right now. They are doing things: they are lowering taxes; they are easing the regulatory burden on people; and they are not imposing a massive carbon tax that will raise the price of everything. It is no surprise that money is moving out of Canada and into the United States.

The latest version of that is the Liberal government's decision to pay $5 billion to a Texas-based company to buy a used pipeline, which is going to take another $8 billion to $10 billion at least, and probably more knowing this government is involved. That money will be given to this project when the proponent initially did not ask for any money.

It is unfortunate that the Liberals do not keep their promises. This is one more that has been broken. They have not fulfilled their commitments. This entire piece of legislation is just meant to hamper the industry's capacity to be able to do resource development in this country. I am sorry it has even come forward. I wish it were set aside. If this legislation is passed, it will not be a good thing for this country.

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his remarks. I will admit that I share some of the views he put forward in his speech. However, I think he overlooked the biggest snag, and that is what I would like to hear him talk about in the next few minutes.

Even though the bill allows BAPE to conduct a certain number of environmental assessments and make use of its expertise, the biggest snag in Bill C-69 is the fact that the minister ultimately gets to decide, with the stroke of a pen, whether to proceed, or not proceed, with the recommendations made to her, regardless of who made them.

Would my colleague not agree that the major snag in Bill C-69 is the enormous powers it gives to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change?

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my intention in bringing up cell towers was to give an example of a case where the federal government is disregarding both provincial laws and municipal bylaws. Urban planning is a municipal responsibility, and cities should be able to decide where towers should be installed. There is an important question in all this with regard to urban development and landscape integration. However, that goes beyond Bill C-69. In my opinion, the important thing is for the bill to respect areas of provincial jurisdiction and comply with municipal bylaws. The example of cell towers illustrates the federal government's tendency to disregard municipal bylaws and provincial laws. If we want good collaboration and well-run projects in the future, it is essential that the federal government get in the habit of complying with these provincial laws, since they are perfectly valid, having been passed by elected officials like us. These laws were passed for the benefit of the people. Furthermore, provincial elected representatives are often closer to their constituents than their federal counterparts, since Ottawa is quite far away for many people.

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak to Bill C-69. I also thank my colleague for sharing her time with me and allowing me to have a few minutes to speak about this important bill today.

This is an important bill that will have a significant impact on Quebec. This is not just a bill about the environment; it is also a bill that creates a problem as to how it will be enforced by provincial jurisdictions. I am particularly concerned about the Quebec government's jurisdiction, and that is the main point I want to make in my speech today.

Nothing at the core of Bill C-69 says that the agency has the power to enter into agreements with the provinces to delegate environmental assessments to the provinces. In Quebec, we already have the Bureau d'audiences publiques en environnement, or BAPE, which has considerable expertise and has never been contradicted. There have never been any scandals surrounding its independence or its reports, unlike various federal institutions, such as the NEB, where there have been many problems recently,especially regarding the independence of the board members. Doubt surrounding the independence of the board members can cast doubt on the findings, if there is not a proper process is in place.

Unlike the federal process, so far the process in Quebec has virtually always been respected and considered valid and credible. I think it is important to rely on credible institutions whenever possible, especially in Quebec.

It is obvious to me that Bill C-69 should let the agency delegate its environmental assessment authority to institutions under provincial jurisdiction. These institutions are often much more knowledgeable about their territory. We know that, in Quebec, BAPE conducts such assessments. Its employees have acquired a certain expertise over the years.

This bill will create a new institution with new people and with practices that have yet to be established. A new culture and new expertise will have to be developed, even though that already exists within the Quebec government. It is important to build on a solid foundation, and to rely on the people already in place and their knowledge of the area, because they are closer to the people of Quebec.

There is a major element in C-69 that is problematic. It allows the federal government to disregard provincial jurisdictions and to make decisions about what it wants, how it wants it, and when it wants it. Provincial legislation and municipal bylaws are not important. They are not taken into consideration.

This creates some big problems. Take, for example, how technology has evolved in our ridings. That may not be directly related to the environment, but there is an interesting parallel. Cell towers are being put up in our ridings, for Internet and all kinds of data transmissions that fall under federal jurisdiction. In many municipalities, these towers are being put up anywhere, in the middle of public parks, and sometimes in front of houses. This destroys the landscape, sometimes in heritage areas, even. The federal government does not work with the communities at all. Take the much-discussed issue of mailboxes, for example. Members will recall when Montreal mayor Denis Coderre infamously destroyed a mailbox. I am not condoning his actions, but I think it was an important symbolic gesture showing the federal government's failure to listen to the provinces and municipalities. When the federal government itself does not need to comply with our laws and regulations, it is even easier to completely ignore them.

Obviously, respect for the Government of Quebec's areas of jurisdiction, including on environmental matters, should be incorporated into Bill C-69. The Government of Quebec already has jurisdiction over the environment and that must be enforced. The Government of Quebec has to be able to enforce its own laws, its own rules, and be master within its own jurisdiction. If the federal government interferes all the time, it indirectly prevents Quebec from doing its job.

Bill C-69 has a lot of room for improvement in that regard. This is such a fundamental issue that the government should act in good faith, allow these changes, and abide by them. I hope all other members of the House will support us on this. Many individuals and environmental groups in Quebec share this vision.

We have seen instances of the provinces' rights not being respected, and we are about to see it again with the government imposing the Kinder Morgan pipeline on British Columbia in violation of the province's jurisdiction and the rights of the people who live along the pipeline route. When the government does not listen to the people, they see that as an injustice. A government that inflicts such an injustice loses legitimacy in their eyes, and that makes people cynical.

A government that wants to avoid cynicism must respect our institutions. There is not just one institution that matters. The government has to listen to other legitimate governments' institutions, which are just as important. To forestall intergovernmental strife, the feds must at the very least respect those institutions, but that is something the federal government does not often do.

That is one of the reasons why we in the Bloc Québécois believe that Quebec should be a country. This habit is so ingrained in this government that it can barely even function because of its arrogance and attitude of superiority. Ottawa knows best. It is always Ottawa that decides what happens and, at the end of the day, our laws and our interests are trampled on. This has to change. By amending Bill C-69, Ottawa could reach out to the provinces and try to come up with an agreement that is a little better, despite the circumstances. In short, Ottawa must respect Quebec's laws and the Bureau d'audiences publiques sur l'environnement, which is pretty important.

In addition, the bill provides no guarantee that any public hearings will be held on major projects. Public hearings are important, because they give members of the public a chance to have their say on a project. When the public does not have a chance to do so, it is much harder to adapt the project and determine what the public really wants. It is much harder to sell a project when you do not seek public opinion, even if that opinion is positive. Public consultations are fundamental to any major project and, once again, they are not even mentioned in this bill.

There are no parameters for appointing the commissioners. That is a major problem because it is the Minister of the Environment who has the power to appoint the commissioners of the future agency. We end up with the same problem that we had with the National Energy Board where the government appoints agency employees who are accountable to the person who appointed them and who sometimes have special interests.

The current bill still does not address the possibility of appointing people from industry. Obviously appointing a pipeline promoter to assess a pipeline will not work because he clearly wants the pipeline built. That is his job. Similarly, if we ask a real estate agent whether the housing market is overheated, he will always say it is not, because he wants to sell houses and get a better commission. I think this leaves room for conflicts of interest and conflicts of vision.

It is therefore important to regulate the process for appointing commissioners and appointing independent commissioners rather than having commissioners appointed by the minister who are accountable to her. We know this creates major problems with regard to perception and independence, which results in a process that does not work.

For all those reasons, we will oppose Bill C-69. It is also important to consult first nations since they too have a right of oversight and should have their say.

[Kim Rudd, Liberal, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member's question allows me to say that as we are speaking right now, the Prime Minister is in B.C. speaking to the Indigenous Advisory and Monitoring Committee, which the member may remember is the first of its kind in Canada. This is a monitoring committee for the life cycle of the TMX project, with $64 million to support it through that process. In response to the question of the member opposite, it is really important to remember that when we look at the scope of projects that are going through Bill C-69, the indigenous engagement piece and consideration of indigenous and traditional knowledge are a key element of this bill.

[Churence Rogers, Liberal, Bonavista—Burin—Trinity, NL]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you again, Minister, for being here. We appreciate the fact that you are able to sit in front of our committee and take questions. I know you have a busy schedule, so I'll get to a couple of points I want to make and then ask you a couple of questions.

We know the Conservatives don't care for opinions that are different from theirs. That's why they refused to hold committee meetings on the 2012 changes to the environmental assessment process. Indeed, they even tried to remove the important role of the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board from the review panel process in the Bill C-69 review. This was attempted despite massive objections from Newfoundlanders and Labradorians and the experts. It was quite shocking to people involved in the oil and gas industry in Newfoundland and Labrador.

We also know that prior to tabling Bill C-69, unlike the Conservatives with the 2012 changes, you engaged with stakeholders from a variety of sectors and perspectives for over a year. We know that you were engaged thoroughly with industry throughout the entire process, and the same can be said for our other environmental initiatives. Can you comment on the robust consultation processes that went into designing Bill C-69 and how they've been designed in consultation with industry?

Could you also comment on how the competitiveness of Canadian industry goes into designing the programs and initiatives under your purview?

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Madam Speaker, multiple times in the member's speech she used the phrases “predictable, timely project reviews” and “provide certainty” as to how projects can proceed. However, in Bill C-69, the entire approval process could take 915 days, plus there are six opportunities to extend that. There would be a 180-day planning phase, which could be extended by 90 days by the minister or indefinitely by cabinet. There would be a 45-day window for the minister to refer assessment to a panel, and this could be suspended indefinitely. There is no timeline for establishing a panel, and the panel would have to submit a report to the minister within 600 days of the establishment of the panel. This could be extended by the minister until the prescribed activities are completed, and, again, it could be extended indefinitely by cabinet. There would also be a 90-day timeline for cabinet to make a decision, and this could be extended by 90 days by the minister or indefinitely by cabinet.

My question is simple. Multiple times the member used the terms “predictability”, “timely project reviews”, and “provides certainty”. How can that be possible with the extended timelines I just referred to?

[Kim Rudd, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak today in support of Bill C-69.

Our government recognizes that national resource sectors are a vital part of Canada's economy. Over $500 billion in major resource projects are planned across Canada over the next decade. Those projects have the potential to create tens of thousands of well-paying jobs to support our communities and to contribute to our economy as a whole.

We have committed to regain public trust and get Canada's resources to market and to ensure those resources are developed in a responsible and sustainable way. Bill C-69 would put in place better rules that would provide predictable, timely project reviews and encourage investments. At the same time, it would ensure our environment would be protected and we could meet our commitments to reduce carbon emissions and transition to a clean growth economy.

Today, I will speak about how Bill C-69 would provide certainty for proponents and would help ensure good projects could go ahead, specifically, how it would contribute to more timely reviews and clearer requirements for companies; how it would reduce duplication and red tape by achieving our goal of one project, one review; and how it would provide a clear process and rules for transitioning to the new impact assessment system.

Throughout our extensive engagement with companies and industry groups across Canada, we heard they needed predictable, timely review processes to develop resources and get them to market. We listened, and that is exactly what the bill would provide.

Under the proposed legislation, one agency, the new impact assessment agency of Canada, will lead all major projects reviews, working closely with regulatory bodies. With one agency as the federal lead, reviews will be more consistent and indeed more predictable. A revised project list will define the types of projects that will be subject to impact assessments, providing the certainty that companies need and expect.

Our government is consulting with Canadians now to ensure the project list is robust and includes effective criteria such as environmental objectives and standards for clean air, water, and climate change. Through a new early planning and engagement phase, companies will be able to identify and address issues early in the process before an impact assessment begins. Early planning will result in tailored impact statement guidelines, a co-operation plan, an indigenous engagement and partnership plan, public participation plan, and, if required, a permitting plan.

The details of these early planning products will be further articulated in the information requirements and time management regulations. We are consulting on these now and they will come into force concurrently with the IAA. This early planning stage will define requirements and clarify expectations so companies know what is expected of them and when.

This new phase will help them design and plan their projects and more effectively engage indigenous peoples, stakeholders, and local communities. Amendments proposed by the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development will also enable the Minister of Environment and Climate Change to inform companies early on if a project is likely to have negative impacts, giving proponents an earlier opportunity to decide to continue with an impact assessment.

Bill C-69 would also put in place stricter timeline management for impact assessments, with fewer stops of the clock. Specifically, timelines for agency-led reviews would be reduced from 365 days to 300 days. Panel reviews would be shortened from 720 days to a maximum of 600 days. In addition, panel reviews for designated projects reviewed in collaboration with a federal life cycle regulator would be shortened to 300 days, with the option to allow the minister to set the timeline up to a maximum of 600 days if warranted based on the project's complexity. Timelines for non-designated projects reviewed by life cycle regulators would be shortened from 450 days to 300 days.

The regulations I mentioned earlier would also establish clear rules around when timelines could be paused. In addition, proposed amendments provide for a 45-day timeline for establishing a review panel. Together, these measures will result in more timely decisions and more certainty for proponents.

Companies will also know in advance what will be considered during reviews and what factors will guide decision-making. Reviews will take into account not just environmental impacts, but social, economic, and health effects, along with impacts on indigenous peoples and their rights.

Recognizing that not all project effects are negative, the bill would ensure that both positive and negative impacts would be considered. Amendments clarify that the government's public interest decision will be based on the assessment report and the consideration of specific factors.

The bill would also provide strong transparency measures so proponents would be informed about key decisions, as well as the reasons behind them. That includes, for example, decisions to extend the timeline for a review or to refer a final decision on a project to cabinet. Also, when final decisions are made on whether a project will go ahead, the proponent will be informed of the reasons why and will be assured that all factors were appropriately considered.

I want to note that in considering Bill C-69, the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development heard testimony from a number of companies and industry groups. There were suggestions for improving the bill, and I want to recognize the committee for listening to that feedback and responding.

As reported back to the House, Bill C-69 now includes stronger transparency provisions that would benefit proponents and provide more certainty and consistency across the legislation. Amendments would improve transparency by requiring assessment reports to incorporate a broader range of information, including a summary of comments received, recommendations on mitigation measures and follow-up, and the agency's rationale and conclusions. It would also require that public comments provided during the public reviews would be made available online. That information posted online would also need to be maintained so it could be accessed over time.

I would like to talk now about how Bill C-69 would achieve our government's goal of one project, one review. By providing for joint reviews and substitution, where a process led by another jurisdiction fulfills the requirement for a federal review, it would promote co-operation with provinces and territories, reduce red tape, and prevent duplication. In addition, we would be increasing opportunities for partnership with indigenous peoples and for indigenous governing bodies to take on key responsibilities, including taking the lead on projects.

I commend the standing committee for further advancing our objective of one project, one review. As a result of its work, integrated review panels with federal regulators can now include other jurisdictions, making it possible to have just one assessment that meets all requirements. This is important for investor certainty. This change responds directly to testimony made before the committee and what our government has heard from industry stakeholders. It supports our goal of certainty and timelines in review processes.

Finally, we have also heard how important it is for Bill C-69 to support a smooth transition between the current assessment regime and the new regime. Our government recognizes that this transition needs to be clear and predictable to encourage investment and keep good projects moving forward. We have also committed that no project will have to return to the beginning of the process. This legislation fulfills that promise. Under Bill C-69, projects would continue under the current rules where the assessment would already be under way.

Thanks to the work of the standing committee, the transition process in now even clearer. Amendments would increase predictability by confirming how the transition to the new review process would work, with objective criteria to identify projects that would continue to be reviewed un CEAA 2012, giving companies the option to opt in to the new process and confirming that no one would go back to the starting line.

We know that many companies are already adopting best practices that are in line with this legislation. Should they choose to opt in, we will provide advice and support to help them transition smoothly to the new requirement.

Bill C-69 is designed to help good projects move forward, not stop them. Our government is committed to developing Canada's natural resources in a sustainable and environmentally supportive way.

[Catherine McKenna, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Argentina has extended this invitation, which we are in the process of reviewing.

I think it's important for everyone to work together, because it's not an easy file. We have taken the leadership. We do more than just consult, as we saw with the Bill C-69: we listen to people, and we move bills forward.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, I share the initial comments of my colleague for Saanich—Gulf Islands. We have both been involved in trying to strengthen federal, provincial, territorial, and international environmental law for many decades.

The very reason I ran for office was because of my fear that the Harper government would do exactly what it eventually did when it got a majority government, and that was to shred all federal environmental law that I had worked with many other Canadians to strengthen during my 40 years as an environmental lawyer, both within the federal government and in a non-governmental organization. I was very instrumental in achieving the famous Supreme Court of Canada case, Friends of the Oldman, where the court ruled that the environment was shared federal-provincial jurisdiction, and as a result of that, we got strengthened enforcement of federal environmental laws through co-operation between both orders of government.

As my colleague just said, in the 2015 election, the Prime Minister campaigned repeatedly with promises that if elected, he would immediately restore a strengthened federal environmental assessment process. He made the commitment that he would not approve any projects without first enacting that strengthened assessment process to ensure that decisions were based on science, facts, and evidence, and would serve the public interest. The Liberal election platform promised robust oversight and that any involvement of political interference in approving projects would be removed. The Liberals also promised to ensure that the rights of indigenous peoples would be upheld, and to review and restore protections lost under the previous Conservative government, including clear rights of the public to fully participate in reviews.

Canadians actually believed the promises they were given that the previous strong federal environmental assessment and protection laws would be restored immediately if there was a Liberal government. Many voted based on those promises.

The government also promised an open, transparent, and participatory government. As my colleague from the Conservative Party mentioned, so much for that promise of participation in the review of this omnibus bill.

How well would Bill C-69 deliver on these Liberal promises? Well, we have two main concerns: one is over the process by which the bill has come before the government and been reviewed, and the second is in what the bill offers.

Our foremost concern has been the perverse and undemocratic process that the Liberals imposed for the review of the bill, and the delay in enacting this law. As the parliamentary secretary just reminded us, Bill C-69 was long overdue. For Canadians who had great anticipation, finally—finally—the government has delivered on its promise, almost into the third year of its mandate.

The government continues to approve resource projects by relying on the Harper-eviscerated review process. Examples include the Kinder Morgan pipeline, the Petronas LNG facility, and the Site C dam. We were advised at committee by the assessment agency that there are many projects in the hopper that will continue under the eviscerated Harper assessment law, even if and when the bill before us is passed, so that legacy will last for some time because of the delay in bringing forward this legislation.

Where are we at with the enactment of a strengthened impact assessment process and the reinvention of the National Energy Board?

The government expended millions of dollars on two expert panels on these two subjects. Despite broad efforts at consultation, many of the key findings and recommendations have been discarded by this government.

This year, the government tabled Bill C-69, an omnibus bill of over 800 clauses, encompassing changes to three critical laws: the federal assessment of projects, establishing a new energy regulator, and a revised law on navigable waters. After waiting two and a half years, the Liberals finally tabled this law. They then imposed time allocation on debate of this massive omnibus bill. They refused our very sensible request to divide the bill and send the three parts to three separate committees. As my colleague for Saanich—Gulf Islands noted, logically the bill would have been divided into three parts and gone to the appropriate committees.

The transport committee had already reviewed the navigable waters law and made a number of recommendations. My colleague provided a very wise dissenting report to in fact deliver the strengths and protections the Liberals had promised. That could have allowed a timely and focused review of each part of the bill by the three respective committees, but no—the Liberals chose to send it all to one committee, our environment committee. Then they imposed a timeline for the review of this massive bill. Of course, it is a Liberal majority committee, so it agreed to this time restriction.

The committee then refused my request to travel to at least Alberta and B.C., over a two-day period, to hear from those communities and industries that would be most impacted by this bill. The committee said it was too expensive, that committees never travel to review bills, and it rejected that idea.

The committee severely reduced the witness list. As mentioned, we had two expert panels that travelled extensively. We had a list of the people who wanted to be consulted and who all wanted to be heard on this bill. The committee said we did not have time to hear from those people and substantially reduced that list.

It then said that people could submit a brief, but guess what? We were required to submit any amendments to this bill before we even received those briefs. Over 100 briefs recommending amendments to this bill were received after the deadline to submit amendments.

I still managed to submit over 100 amendments. I could have submitted more. They were all based on what indigenous Canadians, industry, municipalities, lawyers, and the expert panels had recommended. Over 300 were submitted by the opposition. Every last one of my amendments was voted down, regardless of where they came from and regardless of the strong recommendations from even the government's expert panel.

The government itself tabled more than 100 amendments. Is that maybe an indication that the bill was drafted in haste?

Only very few of the opposition amendments were accepted. One amendment on scientific integrity that both my colleague from Saanich—Gulf Islands and I had tabled was accepted. The Liberals reluctantly agreed to include a change to the bill to require scientific integrity, not by the proponent, but at least by the government.

Madam Speaker, as you are aware, because you read all the amendments today in this place, we tabled additional amendments at report stage to strengthen the bill and to make it reflect what Canadians have called for. We are ever hopeful that the government will accept some of those amendments.

What about the substance of the bill? Were substantive changes made to deliver on the promises by the government to restore credibility for federal assessment? Given the way the law is drafted, it is very difficult to say. Why is that? It is because it is rife with discretion. One of the intervenors listed endless lists of discretionary triggers. We have not even seen the project list, so no one, including potential proponents, has any idea what this bill will apply to. The government could simply defer to provinces and let them do the review. There is no prescribed duty to extend rights to the public to fully participate—to table evidence, to cross-examine, and so forth. That was one of the big issues of contention on the Kinder Morgan pipeline and energy east. This bill does not extend clear rights.

A big one was that the Liberals refused to prescribe the UNDRIP, yet in this place they voted for the bill brought forward by my colleague to incorporate the UNDRIP. The Minister of Justice has promised that, going forward, every federal law will incorporate those rights accorded under the UNDRIP. However, they did not do that, so there we are: not respecting the UNDRIP, not extending clear rights to the public to participate, with no real demand for sound science, not even a specific reference to the 2030 sustainable development goals, and the problems go on and on. We just voted in this place on a bill that does not even address those measures.

In closing, I regrettably would have to say that it is impossible for me to support this bill. We had great hope. There were huge promises that the government would restore a strong environmental law assessment process. However, it failed, which is very sad.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his comment. I wholeheartedly agree with him.

It is clear that this part of omnibus Bill C-69 gives more discretionary powers to the environment minister. The proposed amendments make improvements in that they seek to guide the minister's decisions, but the fact remains that this bill gives the minister more powers and does not reinstate the regulations or the transparent process that were in place before Mr. Harper's changes.

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Saanich—Gulf Islands for her remarks, which are always relevant. She summarized a lot of history in 10 minutes, and that was greatly appreciated.

I was wondering whether she saw another similarity between the previous Conservative government and the Liberals, specifically their habit of giving more and more power to ministers in their bills. That is what Liberals are doing in Bill C-69, which already proposes an inadequate solution that the environment minister can get out of when she sees fit.

[Joël Godin, Conservative, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

This is the first time I've been in a committee meeting with so much partisanship from the minister and the members of the Liberal Party.

I find it very unfortunate to hear the minister say that the Conservatives did nothing, that they wasted their time, and that they acted in bad faith. I do not accept this comment. Furthermore, since the minister had a number of problems managing her schedule, we had to run after her and insist that she come to testify. She has wasted our time.

It is completely false to say that the Conservatives wake up every morning looking for ways to destroy the planet. The Liberals and the Minister of Environment and Climate Change are constantly telling us that we did nothing. That's completely false, and here's the proof: We set the greenhouse gas reduction targets, and the Liberals used them thereafter. They presented these targets in Paris. Where is the government's consistency? This isn't reassuring, Madam Chair.

It's World Environment Day today, and I'm glad about it. Let's work together for the environment. That is what the members of this committee have always done.

Since we're on the topic of Bill C-69, I will say this: The Liberal Party has tabled 100 amendments. You think you've done your job well, but I feel that the committee has done its work rigorously. As for your work, that's another story.

You say that pollution costs $5 billion per year. In my opinion, it's important for us to meet with you and ask you questions on the budget. So, my question is the following: Environment and Climate Change Canada got $528.6 million more in the budget. Is this amount enough for you to reach your objectives?

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

Madam Speaker, I rise this morning to speak of a really terrible tragedy, which is the destruction of environmental law in this country, how it was done in 2012, and how the current government, despite promises, has failed to repair the damage. I do not enjoy watching a government make mistakes, even if they cost them it in the next election. I do not enjoy saying that the Prime Minister made a promise and now has broken another promise.

It is tragic because we could do better and we used to do better. I will briefly cover the history of environmental assessment in this country and why this bill is not acceptable as it currently stands. It could be made acceptable by accepting a lot of the amendments, particularly those put forward by the member for Edmonton Strathcona and by me. This bill is an omnibus bill that attempts to repair the damage, but first let us look at what was damaged.

Starting back in the early 1970s, the federal Government of Canada embarked on a commitment to environmental assessment. We were late, later than the U.S. government under Richard Nixon, which brought in something called the National Environmental Policy Act, which remains to this day far superior to Canadian law on environmental review.

By fluke, I actually participated in the very first panel review of environmental assessment in Canada in 1976. When I walked into the high school gym in Baddeck, Nova Scotia, I had no idea that it was the first time there had been a public panel review of a project, but the Wreck Cove hydroelectric plant on Cape Breton Island was the first. I participated in environmental reviews thereafter as a senior policy adviser to the federal minister of environment from 1986 to 1988.

I worked with the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency and its then head, the late Ray Robinson, on getting permission to take the guidelines order, which was a cabinet order for environmental review, and to strengthen it by creating an environmental law, the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, which was brought in under former prime minister Brian Mulroney and received royal assent under former prime minister Jean Chrétien.

That bill made it very clear, as did the previous guidelines order from 1973 onwards, that any time federal jurisdiction was affected, the government had an obligation to do an environmental review. Since the early guidelines order of the 1970s, federal jurisdiction was described as federal money, federal land. Any time federal jurisdiction, which over time was narrowed down to decisions made by federal ministers under certain bills, or any of those triggers were set off, there had to be at least a cursory screening of the projects. That was the state of environmental law, with many improvements, from the early 1970s until 2012.

The previous government, under Stephen Harper, brought in amendments in 2010. I certainly know that the committee heard from industry witnesses, the Mining Association of Canada in particular, that it thought everything was just about perfect in 2010. There was an attempt to avoid duplication, there was one project one assessment, early screening, and comprehensive study. Everybody knew what was happening.

Then in the spring of 2012, the previous government brought in Bill C-38. It was an omnibus bill. It changed 70 different laws in over 430 pages. When the Conservatives complain of lack of consultation on this one, they are right. However, they are in a glass house, and anyone who fought Bill C-38 has a huge pile of stones, because there was no consultation. We did not have briefings and the government did not accept a single amendment between first reading and royal assent. That bill repealed the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act brought in under former prime minister Brian Mulroney, and it devastated the prospect of any environmental review in this country when federal jurisdiction was impacted, unless it was a big project on a short list. That is the easiest way for me to explain what happened.

The Conservatives changed the triggers by eliminating federal land, federal money, and federal jurisdiction. They just said that if it were a big project, and this is their short list, then they would do a review, but would exclude most of the public and keep the review fast. This was a Harper invention, and it was really diabolical to say that when it were an environmental assessment of a pipeline, the Environmental Assessment Agency would not run it, but the National Energy Board; that when it were an environmental assessment of a nuclear project, it would be run by the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission; and that if it were an environmental assessment of drilling on the offshore in Atlantic Canada and off Newfoundland, it would be the Canada-Newfoundland Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board, and if it were off Nova Scotia, it would be the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board. This collective, which I will now refer to as the “energy regulators”, had never played a role in environmental assessment before. They are part of what was broken in Bill C-38.

My hon. friend from Lakeland wants to know why the Kinder Morgan mess is such a mess. It goes back to that assessment being handed to an agency not competent to do it, and giving it very short timelines, which forced Kinder Morgan to say that it could no longer respect procedural fairness even for the few intervenors it let in the door because of the timeline. The attitude was that we have cut out cross-examination of expert witnesses; we have to move this thing fast; we are just going to barrel through and ignore most of the evidence because of the short timeline. The mess that this country is in right now over Kinder Morgan can be layed directly at the door of Bill C-38 in the spring of 2012.

This legislation should have repaired all of that damage. That was a promise in the Liberal platform and the commitment in the mandate letter to ministers. What do we have now? We have an omnibus bill that deals with the impact assessment piece, that deals with the National Energy Board, to be renamed the Canadian energy regulator, and deals with the disaster that happened in Bill C-45 in the fall of 2012 when the government of the day gutted the Navigable Waters Protection Act.

These three pieces of legislation are fundamental to environmental law in this country and to energy policy, and they all need fixing, but should not be fixed in one omnibus bill.

I completely agree with the member for Lakeland that this legislation was forced through committee, but it was forced through the wrong committee. The environmental assessment piece should have gone to the environment committee. The NEB/Canadian energy regulator piece should have gone to natural resources committee. The Navigable Waters Protection Act piece should have gone to transport committee.

The omnibus bill in front of us, Bill C-69, has been inadequately studied despite heroic efforts by the chair of the environment and sustainable development committee. She did a great job. The government committee members worked really hard to improve the bill, but no members had enough time. We had a deadline. A hammer fell at 9 o'clock at night on the last chance to look at it. By 12:30 in the morning, most of the amendments that were accepted were never debated at committee, much less adequately studied. It is a tragedy.

Here is how “Harper-think” has survived and owns Bill C-69 in terms of environmental assessment. We have not restored the triggers. Federal funding of a project no longer triggers an environmental review, full stop. Federal lands still do, but federal jurisdiction decisions made by the Minister of Fisheries on the Fisheries Act do not trigger an environmental assessment. Decisions made by the Minister of Transport under the Navigable Waters Act do not trigger an environmental assessment. It will again be on the short list of big projects that we have still not seen because it is under consultation. The triggers are inadequate.

The scope of the reviews will move from there being about 4,000 to 5,000 projects a year being at least given a cursory review in the pre-2012 period to the current situation bequeathed to us by former prime minister Stephen Harper of a couple of dozen a year.

I should mention that there were two expert panels, one on the NEB and one on environmental assessment. Huge consultations were carried out. The speeches by the Liberals will probably reference the enormous level of consultation that took place before this legislation came out. It needs to be said on the record that the advice of the expert panels was ignored in both cases.

In terms of environmental assessment, what was ignored was the call to go back to the same triggers we have had since 1974: federal land, federal money, federal jurisdiction. The Liberals did not pay attention to that recommendation. They claim to have taken into account the recommendation that it be a single agency, but the bill says that when the impact assessment agency sets out a panel review in the case of a pipeline, the members of the Canadian energy regulator, which was the NEB, have to be on that panel.

More egregiously, despite the amendments accepted in committee, the government has rejected the one that says if it is the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board or the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum, board member of the panel can also sit as chairs. Only in those two instances were the amendments accepted at committee rejected by the government, and those boards were created by statute with the mandate to expand offshore oil and gas.

This bill is so bad that after decades of fighting for environmental assessment, I have to vote against it. That is why it is tragic. I would like to break down right now and weep for the loss of decades of experience. We know better than this.

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

Madam Speaker, when I make an overall assessment of the bill, Bill C-69 is long overdue. It makes a lot of positive changes. The best way I could summarize this legislation, which the official opposition has put forward so many amendments for, is to say that we should be looking at what it would really do. It would protect our environment, fish, and waterways; it would rebuild public trust and respect for indigenous rights; and it would strengthen our economy.

We need to recognize that the environment and the economy go hand in hand. This is something that the former Harper government failed to do, but we are doing. The best example of that is the pipeline that will go through. For 10 years, Harper failed with that. This government is moving forward with protecting our environment, consulting with indigenous people and others, and advancing the economy with thousands of jobs. Why does the Conservative Party continue to believe that when it comes to development in Canada, it has to be one-sided?

[Catherine McKenna, Liberal, Minister of Environment and Climate Change]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Committee members, dear colleagues, I am happy to be with you this morning to talk about the 2018-2019 Main Estimates for Environment and Climate Change Canada, for the Parks Canada Agency, and for the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency.

I believe that this is my sixth appearance before this committee since I became minister, and my third appearance in the last 11 weeks. It's a pleasure to be back.

Today, as we have heard from the chair, I am joined by Jonathan Wilkinson, my amazing Parliamentary Secretary; Dr. Stephen Lucas, Deputy Minister of Environment and Climate Change Canada; Daniel Watson, Chief Executive Officer of Parks Canada Agency; and Ron Hallman, President of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency.

I want to start by recognizing that we're on the traditional territory of the Algonquin and Anishinabe peoples.

As you all know, we're celebrating World Environment Day today.

Happy World Environment Day.

It's also Canadian Environment Week. So this really is the ideal day to be here. I'm glad I am, despite some scheduling conflicts.

This year, the theme of World Environment Day and Canadian Environment Week is the fight against plastic pollution. This year's events and activities are inspired by the issues that will be discussed during the G7 summit, on June 8 and 9, in the Charlevoix region, in Quebec.

I would also note that I was very pleased to see Bill C-57 pass third reading with the unanimous vote in the House of Commons yesterday, despite the Conservative attempt to delay the passage of the bill by deleting a clause at report stage that Mr. Fast had already convinced the committee to amend. That said, I am glad to see it moving forward, as it was based on the unanimous recommendations of this committee.

I would also like to congratulate the committee on its in-depth study of Bill C-69 and on the many thoughtful amendments passed by the members of this committee. You heard from 80 witnesses and reviewed more than 150 submissions over a period of two months. The quality and scope of your amendments demonstrate the rigour of your study of the bill, and I am happy to be able to say that our government will support these amendments.

We are now beginning report stage debate, and unsurprisingly, the Conservatives are once again engaging in delay tactics by moving to delete every clause of the act, with not one substantive amendment.

Despite these actions, our government will continue to ensure that we restore public trust, protect the environment, introduce modern safeguards, advance reconciliation with indigenous peoples, and ensure that good projects go ahead and resources get to market, because that's what Canadians expect.

On April 16, the president of the Treasury Board tabled the 2018-2019 estimates and departmental plans. The tabling of these documents is an important step taken by our government in the reform of the estimates.

The estimates include 100% of the measures announced in the budget, and provide parliamentarians with key information to ensure better government accountability.

Speaking of accountability, I trust that the Conservative members at this table will take some time to explain to Canadians why only 11 short weeks ago they attempted to gut the funding of this portfolio in estimates votes for this fiscal year by reducing the budget by over $625 million—in fact, $627,365,749. This included a cut of over $320 million to Environment and Climate Change Canada, a cut of over $15 million to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, and a cut of close to $320 million to Parks Canada. This would have meant layoffs for public servants and the closure of our national parks. It was the height of irresponsibility, and I want to note it for the record at this meeting on the estimates today. Budget votes are not a game and Conservative members should know better. Decisions made in this place have real impacts on people's lives, our country, and our environment.

With that, for Environment and Climate Change Canada, the main estimates include $1.5 billion in planned spending. That's an increase of $528.6 million, or a 54% increase over last year's main estimates. They also include a new central vote under the Treasury Board Secretariat for budget implementation. For Environment and Climate Change Canada, that central vote totals $71.4 million.

With respect to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, for 2018-19, the main estimates provide total funding of $33.6 million.

With respect to Parks Canada, funding of over $1.4 billion is expected through the 2018-19 main estimates, an increase of $83 million, or 6%, over last year's main estimates. For the Parks Canada Agency, the central vote includes two items: $23.6 million for protecting Canada's nature, parks, and wild spaces; and $1.25 million for supporting indigenous history and heritage.

As minister, my key priority continues to be ensuring that our government provides leadership to take action on climate change. We're 100% committed to reaching our 2030 climate target and we're taking action, including accelerating the phase-out of coal, historic investments in cleaner infrastructure, and putting in place a price on pollution to grow the economy in cleaner ways.

Canadians know that pollution incurs costs, related to droughts, floods and extreme weather events, as well as effects on our health.

We're expecting that climate change will cost our economy $5 billion per year by 2020. Doing nothing is not an option.

We have a plan that will reduce pollution and allow us to meet our objectives, all while growing our economy and creating good jobs for the middle class.

The Conservatives don't have a climate plan. They don't seem to believe that climate change is a problem—or real, in some cases—and they're missing the boat on the trillions of dollars of economic opportunity in green growth around the world. According to the World Bank, the Paris Agreement will help open up nearly $23 trillion in new opportunities—let me repeat, $23 trillion in new opportunities—for climate-smart investments in emerging markets between now and 2030. Our climate plan is positioning Canada among the leaders in seizing those opportunities.

Canada's clean-tech sector is now ranked fourth in the world, and first in the G20. That's testimony to Canadian ingenuity, but it also reflects choices our government has made, such as putting a price on pollution and making smart support for clean innovation. The Conservatives, sadly, have no plan to support this essential part of our economy.

This December, we'll seize the opportunity to advance the implementation of the Paris Agreement at the Conference of the Parties, COP24. COP24 will be pivotal for sustaining momentum on climate action created by Paris. Why? If this year's COP can, and should, land the Paris rule book, rules about reporting, transparency, markets, and more that help translate ambition into action, it will guard parties' efforts to implement the Paris Agreement and will support enhanced ambition in years and decades ahead.

We will continue to protect Canadians and the environment from harmful substances by carrying out environmental assessments on the latter, by developing and implementing control measures, such as regulations, and by carrying out continual assessments on the reform of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, including the recommendations made by this committee.

We'll be tabling our recommendation-by-recommendation response to this committee's report on CEPA later this month. We'll also be implementing the regulations to ban asbestos in Canada, limit toxic emissions for refineries and petrochemical plants, and reduce contaminants in effluent from mining. Our government is also committed to protecting and conserving nature and wildlife. After a decade of Conservative inaction, we're making real progress by listening to scientists and moving quickly to help species recover. We're showing leadership by investing a historic $1.3 billion in budget 2018 for nature and conservation.

Canada is committed to conserving at least 17% of its land and inland waters by 2020, and we're making real progress. At this time, about 10.5% of Canada's land and fresh water, and almost 8% of marine and coastal areas, are under some form of protection in all 10 provinces, three territories, and three oceans. In support of this commitment, we're continuing to advance work on creating new national parks and national marine conservation areas, including the proposed Thaidene Nëné national park reserve in the Northwest Territories, the proposed national park reserve in the South Okanagan-Similkameen in British Columbia, and Tallurutiup Imanga national marine conservation area in Lancaster Sound, Nunavut.

To ensure that this progress continues, the budget implementation vote includes $52.9 million to protect Canada's wildlife, parks and spaces. This funding will support us as the federal government moves forward with the protection and recovery of species at risk. We are focusing on the priority areas, species and sectors to obtain lasting results for a number of species.

I am delighted that the nature fund will supplement the funding given to the partners, businesses, provincial and territorial non-profit organizations, as well as to other entities to protect more private lands, and to support the provincial and territorial efforts that aim to protect species and enhance indigenous peoples' ability to conserve the lands and the species.

Together, the main estimates and new spending in budget 2018 will help create the clean-growth economy necessary for the collective health, prosperity, and security of this generation of Canadians and the next.

Thank you for your time today on World Environment Day. I look forward to your questions.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

moved:

Motion No. 149

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 129.

Motion No. 150

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 130.

Motion No. 151

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 131.

Motion No. 152

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 132.

Motion No. 153

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 133.

Motion No. 154

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 134.

Motion No. 155

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 135.

Motion No. 156

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 136.

Motion No. 157

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 137.

Motion No. 158

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 138.

Motion No. 159

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 139.

Motion No. 160

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 140.

Motion No. 161

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 141.

Motion No. 162

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 142.

Motion No. 163

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 143.

Motion No. 164

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 144.

Motion No. 165

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 145.

Motion No. 166

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 146.

Motion No. 167

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 147.

Motion No. 168

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 148.

Motion No. 169

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 149.

Motion No. 170

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 150.

Motion No. 171

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 151.

Motion No. 172

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 152.

Motion No. 173

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 153.

Motion No. 174

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 154.

Motion No. 175

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 155.

Motion No. 176

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 156.

Motion No. 177

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 157.

Motion No. 178

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 158.

Motion No. 179

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 159.

Motion No. 180

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 160.

Motion No. 181

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 161.

Motion No. 182

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 162.

Motion No. 183

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 163.

Motion No. 184

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 164.

Motion No. 185

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 165.

Motion No. 186

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 166.

Motion No. 187

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 167.

Motion No. 188

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 168.

Motion No. 189

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 169.

Motion No. 190

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 170.

Motion No. 191

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 171.

Motion No. 192

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 172.

Motion No. 193

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 173.

Motion No. 194

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 174.

Motion No. 195

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 175.

Motion No. 196

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 176.

Motion No. 197

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 177.

Motion No. 198

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 178.

Motion No. 199

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 179.

Motion No. 200

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 180.

Motion No. 201

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 181.

Motion No. 202

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 182.

Motion No. 203

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 183.

Motion No. 204

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 184.

Motion No. 205

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 185.

Motion No. 206

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 186.

Motion No. 207

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 187.

Motion No. 208

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 188.

Motion No. 209

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 189.

Motion No. 210

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 190.

Motion No. 211

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 191.

Motion No. 212

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 192.

Motion No. 213

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 193.

Motion No. 214

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 194.

Motion No. 215

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 195.

Motion No. 216

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 196.

Madam Speaker, on behalf of Lakeland and communities in every corner of Canada, I strongly oppose Bill C-69, which would radically overhaul Canada's regulatory system, and by extension, hurt Canada's responsible natural resources development.

It is rich for the Liberals to talk about transparency and for their mandate letters to instruct meaningful engagement with opposition members while they ram through legislation with this magnitude of impact on the Canadian economy. The Liberals refused to split this massive omnibus bill, which involves three big ministries; denied all but a handful of the literally hundreds of amendments proposed by members of all opposition parties; introduced 120 of their own amendments at the last minute; did not provide timely briefings or supplementary material to MPs; and ultimately ignored all the recommendations in the two expert panel reports, from months and months of consultation, rumoured to cost a million dollars each. They shut down debate in committee and are pushing the bill through the last stages with procedural tools.

Bill C-69 would make it even harder for Canada to compete globally. More than $100 billion in energy investment has already left Canada under the Liberals. Foreign capital is leaving Canada across all sectors.

The government should focus on market access, on streamlining regulations, and on cutting red tape and taxes in Canada, especially because the U.S. is Canada's biggest energy competitor and customer. However, the Liberals are layering on additional regulatory burdens and costs that make it more difficult for Canada's private sector to compete. The Liberals are damaging certainty and confidence in Canada, putting our own country at a disadvantage.

Bill C-69, without a doubt, compounds red tape and costs in natural resources development. During testimony, the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers said:

Unfortunately, today Canada is attracting more uncertainty, not more capital, and we will continue to lose investment and jobs if we do not have a system of clear rules and decisions that are final and can be relied upon.

Unfortunately, CAPP and the investment community today see very little in Bill C-69 that would improve that status.

CAPP went on:

We see substantial risk that all the work undertaken today could be deemed incomplete. Therefore, they may have to restart and follow an entirely different process, which would add more time and more uncertainty for our investment community.

That issue was addressed in committee by amendments giving proponents the option for reassessment. What I worry about is that the Liberals have now given anti-energy activists the opportunity to demand that all projects go back through that new process, because they have spent years denigrating Canada's regulatory reputation. It has already begun. The Liberals have created years of a regulatory vacuum, destabilizing the framework for Canada's responsible resource development, and have added hurdles during an already challenging time, the worst time, for prices, costs, and competitiveness. That has caused the biggest decline in Canadian oil and gas investment of any other two-year period since 1947, and hundreds of thousands of Canadians losing their jobs. This year alone, during three-year price highs, Canadian oil and gas investment is projected to drop 47% from 2016 levels. The Bank of Canada says that there will be zero new energy investment in Canada after next year.

In committee, the Canadian Energy Pipeline Association said:

In the two years leading up to this bill, you can pick your poison: policies, including a tanker moratorium...; proposed methane emission regulation reductions; clean fuel standards; provincial GHG emission regulation; B.C.'s restrictions on transporting bitumen; a lack of clarity regarding the government's position on the implementation of UNDRIP and FPIC; and the fierce competition from energy-supportive policies in the United States, etc. The cumulative effect of these policies has significantly weakened investor confidence in Canada. It is seriously challenging the energy sector's ability to be competitive.

Nancy Southern, the CEO of ATCO said “our competitive edge is slipping away from us. ...it's layer upon layer [of regulatory burden]. It's increasing regulatory requirement, it's compliance, new labour laws, it's taxes—carbon tax”.

She called it “heartbreaking”.

What is really galling is that it makes neither economic nor environmental sense to harm Canada's ability to produce oil and gas. The IEA says that 69% of the world's oil demand growth was in the Asia-Pacific in the past five years, and global demand will grow exponentially for decades to come. Therefore, the world will keep needing oil and gas, and other countries will keep producing it, but of course, to no where near the environmental or social standards of Canadian energy.

Right now, Canada has more oil supply that it does pipeline capacity, but if Canada had more pipelines, to both the United States and other international markets, Canada could capitalize on its almost limitless potential to be a global supplier of the most responsible oil to the world.

Building new pipelines makes sense, but as if the Liberals have not already done enough damage, Bill C-69 would make it even harder for new major energy infrastructure to be approved. It is based more on ideology and politics than on science, evidence, and economic analysis.

The Canadian Energy Pipeline Association said:

...it is preposterous to expect that a pipeline proponent would spend upwards of a billion dollars only to be denied approval because the project must account for emissions from production of the product to consumption in another part of the world. If the goal is to curtail oil and gas production and to have no more pipelines built, this legislation has hit the mark.

Oil and gas proponents are seeing clearly that Bill C-69 would ensure that no future major energy projects will be built in Canada.

The Liberals claim that this bill would enhance indigenous participation. In fact, it actually would make no substantive changes to indigenous rights or duties in the approval process. Indigenous people and communities and all directly impacted communities must be consulted on major energy projects. That is the crown's duty. However, this bill plays right into the hands of anti-energy activists. It would allow distant, unaffected communities, even non-Canadians, to interfere in the review process by removing the standing test and would allow anti-energy groups to subvert the aspirations of indigenous communities that want energy and economic development.

A hallmark of both Canada's regulatory system and Canadian oil and gas developers has long been world-leading best practices for indigenous consultation and the incorporation of traditional knowledge. Canada's energy sector is more committed to partnerships, mutual benefit agreements, and ownership with indigenous people than anywhere else in the world, so shutting down Canadian oil and gas will hurt them, too. However, the Liberals say one thing and do another when it comes to indigenous people and energy development. The tanker ban was imposed without any meaningful consultation whatsoever with directly impacted communities, such as the Lax Kw'alaams Band, which is taking the government to court over it.

The tanker ban is also the main obstacle to the Eagle Spirit pipeline, which would run from Bruderheim in Lakeland to northern B.C., carrying oil for export. After five years of work, this $16-billion project has been called the biggest indigenous-owned endeavour in the world. Thirty-five first nations, every single one along the route, support it. The Prime Minister ordered the tanker ban less than a month after the last election, with no consultation or comprehensive economic, environmental, or safety analysis and no consultation with indigenous communities impacted by it. Just like the northern gateway pipeline, 31 first nations supported it, and indigenous partners had equity worth $2 billion. The Prime Minister could have ordered added scope and time for more consultation, but he vetoed it entirely, so both dozens of indigenous agreements and the only already-approved, new, stand-alone pipeline to export Canadian oil to the Asia Pacific are gone.

The Prime Minister did the same thing to the Northwest Territories when he unilaterally imposed a five-year offshore drilling ban, with no notice to the territorial government, despite intergovernmental discussions. Northwest Territories Premier Bob McLeod said, “I think for a lot of people, the prime minister took away hope from ever being able to make a long-term healthy living in the North”. This bill is part of the Liberals' pattern of enabling themselves to make political decisions about energy development in Canada.

This bill is bad for investor confidence in Canada, it is bad for the energy sector, it is bad for the economy, and it is bad for the country as a whole. On top of ideologically driven political decisions, it would not establish timelines for certainty either, despite Liberal claims. There are multiple ways either ministers or the commissioner could stop and extend the process as long as they wanted, as many times as they wanted.

This bill would not harm only Canadian oil and gas. The Prospectors & Developers Association of Canada said, “the Canadian mineral industry faces fierce global competition for investment. In fact, Canada is starting to fall behind its competitors in a number of areas, indicating its decline in attractiveness as a destination for mineral investment.”

That is a major problem for Canada too, as Australia and South Africa compete directly as destinations of choice for mineral investment, exploration, and mining. Like oil and gas, Canadian mining is a world leader on all measures. The sector is the biggest employer of indigenous people. It is often the only opportunity for jobs in remote and northern regions. Any additional hurdles or costs will tip the scale in favour of other countries.

The Liberals' decisions have provoked even former Liberal MP and premier of Quebec Jean Charest to say, “Canada is a country that can't get its big projects done. That's the impression that is out there in the world right now”.

Although the Liberals should put Canada first, they jeopardize Canada's ability to compete, forcing Canada into a position where natural resources development, the main driver of middle-class jobs and Canada's high standard of living, is at serious risk.

The Liberals should champion Canada's expertise, innovation, and regulatory know-how. They should be proud of Canada's track record instead of constantly attacking Canada's regulatory reputation and imposing policies and laws like Bill C-69, which would damage the future of Canada's responsible natural resources development and put very real limits on Canada's whole economy and opportunities for future generations.

Speaker’s Ruling

[The Speaker, Geoff Regan]

There are 216 motions in amendment standing on the Notice Paper for the report stage of Bill C-69.

Motions Nos. 2, 6, 7, and 80 will not be selected by the Chair, since they could have been submitted to the committee for its consideration. Motions Nos. 14, 24, and 65 will not be selected by the Chair, since they were defeated in committee.

All remaining motions have been examined, and the Chair is satisfied that they meet the guidelines expressed in the note to Standing Order 76.1(5) regarding the selection of motions in amendment at report stage.

Motions Nos. 1, 3 to 5, 8 to 13, 15 to 23, 25 to 64, 66 to 79, and 81 to 216 will be grouped for debate and voted upon according to the voting pattern available at the table.

I will now put Motions Nos. 1, 3 to 5, 8 to 13, 15 to 23, 25 to 64, 66 to 79, and 81 to 216 to the House.

The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-69, 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, as reported (with amendments) from the committee.

Instruction to Committee on Bill C-71

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, this evening, we were hoping to debate Bill C-69. It is on the government's agenda. Why does my colleague and friend across believe that the Conservative Party voted for a number of hours today and then brought in a motion of this nature? It seems to me they do not want to debate Bill C-69. Do they support the bill or not?

Opposition Motion — United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples

[Sheila Malcolmson, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Madam Speaker, while the government breaks promises at an increasing rate of speed, the whiplash is extreme. A week ago, the government agreed with my colleague, the member for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, and now the parliamentary secretary has said that the government is not going to support the motion.

A solemn promise was made on Vancouver Island during the election campaign that the Prime Minister was going to redo the review for the Kinder Morgan pipeline project. I heard that a lot of people voted for him on that basis. The Prime Minister did not do that, but instead he added a ministerial panel. Whenever we ask about this in question period, the minister tells us that the ministerial panel, a process that had no recorded minutes, no translation, was badly organized, and where most of the content was about how bad the NEB review was, made recommendations. The question it asked back to the Prime Minister was, “How might Cabinet square approval of the Trans Mountain Pipeline with its commitment to reconciliation with First Nations and to the UNDRIP principle of “free, prior, and informed consent?”

Can the parliamentary secretary give any evidence that the advice has been taken? Why on earth, if she so believes in UNDRIP, has she not built it into Bill C-69, the Canadian energy regulator—

[Kim Rudd, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources]

Madam Speaker, the sanctimony of the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley is quite something.

Before I begin my remarks today and speak to the motion by the hon. member for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, I want to take a moment to congratulate him on the passage of his private member's bill in the House last week. Bill C-262 is a fitting tribute to, and a crowning achievement in, his lifetime of work promoting and defending the rights of indigenous peoples. It is a bill inspired in part by what he endured as a former student in the Indian residential school system, and by his determination to reconcile with those who had, as he says, put him away for 10 years. It is a bill that speaks to those without a voice, and it is a bill that reflects his own remarkable courage, perseverance, and selfless public service.

I know that the member opposite often says he was not alone in his pursuit of justice, but there is also no denying that his decades long journey exacted a heavy toll on him, not just in terms of his endless and exhausting hours of work, but in the personal sacrifices too, including precious time lost with loved ones. We are forever indebted to him for this, and all members on this side of the House are honoured to have supported his bill. In fact, our only regret about Bill C-262 is that it did not pass in the House unanimously. History will almost certainly question the bill's opponents harshly, but I will leave it to them to explain their position to Canadians.

Today, the hon. member opposite asked for our support again with a motion that builds on Bill C-262, a motion that among other things asks all members to reaffirm their support for the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, and to advance a nation-to-nation approach that respects the right of indigenous peoples to self-determination. Our government is readily willing to do both, as we have many times before. We share much in common with the hon. member, more perhaps than he may even realize, but I will get to more of that later.

Where we differ is on the Trans Mountain expansion pipeline. Our government's decision to approve the $7.4-billion project, as well as our announcement last week to secure the existing pipeline and ensure that its expansion proceeds, has never, ever been about choosing sides or putting one province ahead of another, or one indigenous community before another. Instead, it has always been about Canada's interest. That includes the rights of all Canadians and the rights of indigenous peoples. It is our responsibility and within our jurisdiction to work in close partnerships with provinces and indigenous peoples, to consult and engage as the crown, and to act in the national interest to ensure the stability and growth of the Canadians economy, and to get our resources to market sustainably and competitively.

The TMX pipeline is part of that. It is in Canada's national interest as a result of the most in-depth indigenous consultations ever done in this country on a project; as a result of a significant number of letters and submissions from the Canadian public; and also because of the thousands of good, well-paying jobs it will create, the better prices it will ensure for Canadian oil, and the increased government revenues at all levels that will follow. All the while, our government is making unprecedented investments to enhance environmental protection and support indigenous participation.

To understand all of this and how we have arrived at where we are today, it is helpful to look back at where we started. From the moment our government was sworn into office, we made it clear that there is no relationship more important to Canada than the one with indigenous peoples. We have heard the Prime Minister say that many times in the House and elsewhere. He wrote it in the mandate letters of every federal cabinet minister, and he made it a central pillar of our government's vision for this clean growth century, starting with the Speech from the Throne, which was delivered exactly two and a half years ago today.

I want to read an excerpt from the throne speech so that Canadians can appreciate how it has guided our every action over the past 30 months. It reads:

Because it is both the right thing to do and a certain path to economic growth, the Government will undertake to renew, nation-to-nation, the relationship between Canada and Indigenous peoples, one based on recognition of rights, respect, co-operation and partnership.

It is because of that perspective that we fully endorse the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, and why we are acting on the calls to action of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, and why the Prime Minister appointed a working group of ministers last year to review all laws, policies, and operational practices related to indigenous peoples.

In short, our government's efforts are cut from the same cloth as the hon. member's Bill C-262, and they go even further in ensuring that the crown is meeting its constitutional obligations regarding aboriginal and treaty rights. We are adhering to international human rights standards, including the UN declaration. We are supporting the implementation of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's calls to action and we are doing all of these things in collaboration with indigenous peoples.

The result is that this past February the Prime Minister announced a historic new approach for renewing the relationships between Canada and first nations, Inuit, and Métis people, one that underscores that true reconciliation must start with the recognition and implementation of indigenous rights. Our government is doing this by developing a new recognition and implementation of rights framework, a framework that is being co-developed through national engagement to rebuild indigenous governments and nations and to support a path toward self-determination.

One of our government's earliest expressions of this new approach was the introduction of Bill C-69, which transforms the way Canada reviews major new resource projects by co-developing with indigenous partners a direct and permanent role in impact assessment and regulatory process from beginning to end, which brings me back to the Trans Mountain expansion project.

One of the first things our government did in coming to office was to launch a new interim approach to environmental assessments and regulatory reviews in Canada, an approach based on five guiding principles that included more meaningful consultation with indigenous peoples and explicit inclusion of indigenous knowledge. Then, to enable even more voices to be heard, the Minister of Natural Resources appointed a special ministerial panel to travel up and down the length of the proposed pipeline's route, holding additional hearings beyond the National Energy Board's own regulatory review.

We heard through our engagements with indigenous peoples and non-indigenous Canadians in Alberta and British Columbia and across Canada that the project is in the national interest, that the jobs and revenue are needed, and that the risks can be mitigated. However, we also heard that we needed to manage the risks of the project very closely, which is another reason why we launched our country's single largest investment to protect Canada's oceans, marine life, and coastal communities, a $1.5 billion investment that will strengthen the eyes and ears of our coastlines, the longest in the world.

It will enhance our response capabilities in the unlikely event of a spill and ensure that coastal and indigenous communities are at the forefront of development and implementation of the plan.

It is also why we invested in and co-developed an indigenous advisory monitoring committee for the TMX pipeline, the first committee of its kind in Canada to help oversee the safety of a major energy project through its entire life cycle. Indigenous participation in this advisory and monitoring committee includes representatives that both support and oppose the project. This partnership and diversity of views is essential to advance our shared goals of safety and protection of the environment. As a result of these efforts, indigenous voices will be at the forefront, their counsel sought, their knowledge valued, and their rights protected. It is the beginning of a new way of managing resources.

As Chief Ernie Crey of the Cheam First Nation has said of the advisory and monitoring committee: “Indigenous people won't be on the outside looking in. We'll be at the table and on site, to protect our land and our water.” He is right.

The Prime Minister has said that the true measure of any relationship is not whether we all agree, but how we move forward when we do not agree. That is where our focus is.

When our government approved the TMX pipeline, we knew there would be Canadians who would disagree vocally and sometimes vehemently. That is the nature of a healthy and fully functioning democracy. Major energy projects can be controversial. They can divide political parties, as we have witnessed with the Alberta and British Columbia provincial governments who share the same political stripe. These projects can also divide indigenous communities that hold aboriginal and treaty rights protected under our Constitution. Look at those who support and those who oppose this project. There are Canadians who feel so deeply about these things that they will protest in the street and get themselves arrested, as two members of Parliament already have. This right to protest is a cherished Canadian liberty. We live under the rule of law.

I will now return to where I began in my remarks. I opened by commending the hon. member opposite for the passage of his bill, Bill C-262, and I suggested that he shares more common ground with our government than he may realize. There is a very good reason for believing that. It is because of something he said in February when he appeared before the Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs to discuss his private member's bill. At that time, the member for Pontiac asked the hon. member opposite if he could articulate any distinction between free, prior, and informed consent, and a veto. I will quote the hon member for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou at length because, as a lawyer, he displayed his great grasp of the law. The hon. member said:

I think the distinction is an important one and we need to understand that in this country. The right to free, prior, and informed consent, like all human rights, not just the human rights of indigenous peoples, is a relative right. You need to balance that right with the rights and interests of others, which veto does not do. Veto is an absolute thing, and I don't think our court system, constitutional or otherwise, would ever take that kind of view. That's not how our Canadian legal system works and that's not how the international law system works either.

The member's explanation is one of the best I have every heard. It is also consistent with one of the most frequently cited interpretations of what free, prior, and informed consent means, as developed by the former UN Special Rapporteur, James Anaya. Mr. Anaya said that consent “should not be regarded as according indigenous peoples a general 'veto power' over decisions that my affect them”. Instead, the overarching objective of free, prior, and informed consent is that all parties work together in good faith to make every effort toward mutually acceptable arrangements, thereby allowing indigenous people to “genuinely influence the decision-making process.”

This is the approach our government took in reaching its decision to approve the Trans Mountain expansion pipeline.

The member opposite is correct in noting that there are indigenous communities that oppose the project, including six indigenous groups that are exercising their rights in court. There are also 43 rights-bearing indigenous communities along the length of the proposed expansion route who have signed mutual benefit agreements that will create real opportunities in those communities, 32 of which have submitted letters of support. These signified partnership agreements reached between the company and communities go beyond the government's consultation and beyond the 157 conditions of the project that must be in place before operation.

In addition, the Minister of Finance has noted that since we announced our decision to purchase the existing Trans Mountain pipeline and proceed with its expansion, many investors have already expressed interest in the project, including indigenous groups.

Overriding the consent of those indigenous peoples who support the project or the majority of Canadians who are also in favour of its proceeding is not the solution here, but the contrary. It would go against the intent and spirit of the hon. member's motion.

The goal of free, prior, and informed consent is to ensure a holistic approach to interests through transparent processes aimed at building consensus.

It is the same goal at the heart of our current legislation to modernize Canada's environmental assessments and regulatory reviews. It highlights the importance of everyone in this House to support developing a recognition and implementation of indigenous rights framework that makes enshrining the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples real and meaningful, and that will fully support indigenous peoples in their path to self-determination.

How we manage and develop our national resources speaks to who we are as Canadians and the values that define us. Decisions like these are not always easy, popular, or indeed straightforward. I know the member opposite understands that as well as anyone. He has dedicated his life to advancing reconciliation through inclusive and sustainable resource development. We share similar visions; we have the same goals.

While I cannot support the member's motion as it is worded today, I believe we are all well begun with better rules to build a better Canada, one that our children can inherit with pride and build with confidence.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, my colleague brought forward Bill C-262, which was passed by the majority in this place. My colleague's bill would now require that the government reflect the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples in all federal government legislation. I would welcome my colleague's comments on this.

On two occasions, I have brought forward amendments for the government to include in new legislation coming forward, including Bill C-57, which would amend the Sustainable Development Act; and Bill C-69, which would transform our entire major project review process. The Liberal government turned down more than a dozen proposals to include the UNDRIP in that legislation. I wonder if the member could also speak to this.

The government seems to want to give the illusion that it supports all the TRC calls to action. It is giving the illusion that it now supports the UNDRIP, but in its actions, it does not seem to be delivering on that promise, also as pointed out recently by the Auditor General of Canada.

Indigenous Affairs

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, the Auditor General has chastised the government for failing to address matters of significance to first nations, in particular those living on reserves. In assessing well-being, he reports that the government failed to consider health, environment, language, and culture, coupled with failed meaningful engagement. These are basic rights accorded under the UNDRIP and the UN sustainable development goals that the government professes to endorse.

Why then did the Liberals oppose our amendments to Bill C-57 and Bill C-69 intended to extend those very rights and duties?

Business of the House

[Marc Garneau, Liberal, Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, I would encourage the opposition House leader to speak to the government House leader on the questions that she has just raised.

In the meantime, this afternoon we will continue with report stage of Bill C-74, the Budget Implementation Act, 2018, No. 1.

Following this debate, we will turn to Bill C-47, the arms trade treaty, also at report stage.

Tomorrow morning, we will begin third reading of Bill C-57, an act to amend the Federal Sustainable Development Act. Monday and Wednesday shall be allotted days. Next week, priority will be given to the following bills: Bill-C-74, budget implementation act, 2018, No. 1; Bill C-69 on environmental assessments; Bill C-75 on modernizing the justice system; and Bill C-47 on the Arms Trade Treaty.

Report Stage

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Mr. Speaker, there are a series of policy decisions the government has taken, some legislative, some regulatory. We could talk about the tanker ban off the west coast. It was totally a political decision, not based on very much of any science. It hurt the prospective investment decisions that companies were going to make in Canada. We could talk about the carbon tax, which seriously hurt the cost of living for all Canadians, because we are all paying higher taxes now.

We could also talk about decisions, such as Bill C-69, which did immense damage to the regulatory process. In fact, if I remember correctly, a very senior official at Suncor, I believe it was the CEO, said that no new project would be built under that model because it gave the Minister of Environment and Climate Change so much power to cancel projects.

What company could be blamed for not wanting to take on an immense amount of risk? At the end of the day, the board of directors and executive teams are responsible to the shareholders who invested in it. I would not invest in Canada either if I were being told by the members opposite that I would have to jump through as many hoops and they would decide afterward if I did it well enough.

Extension of Sitting Hours

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Yes, Bill C-69. Thank you.

As we were going through all of these amendments, with each one it was funny to see the rep from the Prime Minister's Office running up behind the Liberals and telling them how they should be voting, telling them how they should be dealing with the issue. They had been told that with 100 amendments yet to be considered and debated at committee, they were going to cut off debate and vote on those amendments without any further debate. It was to be just up-and-down votes on each one, without our being able to share our views on them.

I would throw that back to the member, whom I do respect and who has had a taste of the environment committee. How can he say that there has been this tremendous reform of our committee system when nothing could be further from the truth?

[An hon. member]

It was Bill C-69.

United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act

[Romeo Saganash, NDP, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, on my colleague's first point, Bill C-262 would confirm that the UN declaration is a human rights instrument that has application in Canadian law. It would confirm that the declaration already applies in Canadian law. It is important to remind members of that fact. Bill C-262 only confirms its application in Canadian law already.

That being said, a lot of what we do in this place in terms of legislation must be consistent with a lot of things. It must be consistent with the Constitution, and section 35 in particular. It must be consistent with the rulings of the Supreme Court that have been handed down since 1982. Every piece of legislation needs to be consistent with the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

One of the pieces of legislation, I believe it was Bill C-69 my colleague mentioned, references the UN declaration, but only in the preamble. It belongs in the text of the legislation as well. It is important to do that.

If we claim that we have adopted and implemented the UN declaration, we need to be consistent in that claim, absolutely.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it was over a year ago that the current Liberal government proclaimed at the UN that it would implement the UN declaration. I have a two-part question for my colleague from Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou.

The fact that Bill C-262 has not passed has not constrained the government from acting. Would my colleague say that Bill C-69, the decision on excluding first nations from being part of the Columbia River Treaty negotiations, and the decision today on Kinder Morgan are consistent with what the Liberals committed to on the UN declaration a year and a half ago, or are these actions inconsistent with what they stated they would be doing?

Motion that debate be not further adjourned

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am privileged to stand up in the House again to respond to the government House leader.

Members may recall that when the Liberals were elected, their leader, the Prime Minister, promised that he was going to “usher in a new era of openness and transparency”. Do members remember that promise? It was one of hundreds of promises he made that he has now broken.

Now we see this playing out at committee. The government House leader tried to suggest that somehow we move motions at committee to improve legislation, to make it better for Canadians, and then, when that legislation comes to the House, we vote it down.

Here is what happens. The Liberals will cherry-pick one of our motions to improve legislation at the committee and vote in favour of it, but there are many others that are required to improve the legislation to a point where the opposition in the House can actually approve it.

What do the Liberals do? They slam the door shut. They cut down debate at committee. With over 100 amendments left to go on Bill C-69, they said, “That is it. We are simply going to vote on them without any debate or any input from government officials.” That is the way the government conducts its business.

It is a sham. It is a farce.

Environment and Sustainable Development

[Deb Schulte, Liberal, King—Vaughan, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 15th report of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development in relation to Bill C-69, 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. The committee has studied the bill and is pleased to report the bill back to the House with amendments.

I want to thank the many organizations and individuals who provided information and recommendations for consideration. Many have been incorporated in the amendments adopted.

[Jamie Schmale, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON]

Another point on that would be the price point they are paying, and if they are able to afford such a technology, but I guess with mass production, the more it's available, the more there is competition, the lower the price will be—that type of thing.

Thank you so much. I appreciate that.

Chair, I do apologize to you and to our witnesses. Given what has developed in the news today, I'd like to move my motion, Chair, as follows:

That, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the Standing Committee on Natural Resources, in light of the potential cancellation of the Trans Mountain Expansion on May 31, 2018 and the flight of investment in oil and gas leaving Canada, immediately invite Mr. Brian Porter, the CEO of ScotiaBank, to appear before the committee to inform the members of how Trans Mountain’s cancellation may affect future investment in Canada’s oil and gas sector, its supply chain and other resource markets; that the meeting take place no later than May 31, 2018; that the meeting be televised; and that the committee report its findings to the House.

If anyone needs a copy of that motion, I have many in my possession.

You're probably asking why this is so important. I think we all know the deadline that is coming forward very quickly from Kinder Morgan, which is of concern to many, and for those who weren't paying attention to the news this morning, a deal has been announced. The headline from the Financial Post says, “Canada said likely to buy Kinder Morgan's Trans Mountain pipeline as deadline looms”. It came out about 15 to 20 minutes ago. The article says:

Canada is likely to buy Kinder Morgan Canada Ltd.'s Trans Mountain oil pipeline and its controversial expansion project in a bid to ensure it gets built amid fierce opposition, according to a person familiar with the talks.

Buying the pipeline outright has become increasingly likely and is now the most probable option for the Canadian government, the person said...because the discussions are private.

It went on to say that the deal, a value for which hasn't been publicly reported—but I think this has been updated since; I believe it's $4 billion—will be announced very shortly.

Here we have, Chair, a private company that did not ask for a single penny of taxpayer dollars being bailed out by a government which, since it approved this project, has been asked by the official opposition hundreds of times over a year and a half to come up with a plan to outline the path forward for the Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain pipeline, a pipeline that has been in existence since the 1950s—it would be an expansion of what is there—a project that required private investment only.

Now we get to the point, because we heard for a year and a half that legislation was coming, that there was a plan in place. No matter how many times we asked for a plan, the blame game started, and that's all we heard, over and over again. Frankly, for the opposition, it was quite tiring to hear from a party on the other side that had complained time after time when they were in opposition that they didn't like the answers they were getting, and in the election they promised Canadians they would be different. You heard that over and over again, that it would be different. And thank you to the NDP, which pointed out that they're actually worse than the previous government, and that is actually quite disgusting for those who voted for real change.

We have this project, a $7-billion project, thousands upon thousands of jobs, and the government bungled the file so badly that now we have to nationalize the project in order to push it through. I think that is quite shameful, and I just cannot believe that we are at the point where all sides in this debate have dug in so hard that Canadian taxpayers are now on the hook for this project.

Who are they going to get to build this pipeline? I would like to know. Are they going to get Enbridge? They're probably not too happy, because their last project was cancelled. Are they going to get TransCanada? No—energy east. Petronas? No, they're probably not going to do it. Petronas thought Canada was the next area to invest in. Their number one area outside Malaysia was Canada, where they saw opportunity and hope, environmental standards and regulations that are the envy of the world, and an energy environment that had access, or so they thought, to many markets. We watched how that fell apart.

How many tens of thousands of jobs and how many good-paying jobs have been lost because of these decisions? I've talked about this many times in question period. I've talked about it many times in this committee.

Even next to my riding, in Peterborough, we had General Electric, where there were 300 jobs lost and there are 300 families without a paycheque. They had a contract to build the motors for the energy east project. That project was cancelled because the government continued to change the rules. Why would TransCanada continue to put good money after bad when they knew that there was no light at the end of the tunnel?

That project got cancelled, and General Electric, which has been in Peterborough since the 1800s—it's known as “Electric City”—closed. Now, that wasn't the main reason that it closed, but it was the straw that broke the camel's back. As you can imagine, the ridiculous price of electricity in Ontario right now is not helping matters much, along with the increased taxes and regulation. On and on, the pile continues to grow.

Now we have this pipeline needing to be nationalized. In this day and age, nationalized: I cannot believe it. This is why we need Brian Porter here. What does this mean for investment in general in Canada? What does it mean for somebody like my friend Marc? What does it mean in his riding for someone with the mining sector? Do they expand? Is there certainty at the end of this tunnel?

For those of us in Ontario, there's the Ring of Fire with its huge resources in the ground. What does that mean? Does any company think that it might be a good idea nowadays with Bill C-69 and many others, and with what's going on here, to dump some good money and convince their investors that, yes, Canada is a place to do business? You never know; you probably won't get your project built, but if it is approved, well, chances are that the government is going to have to bail it out because you can't get it finished anyway.

I just cannot believe this in a country such as Canada, where we had a regulatory process that is the envy of the world, with years and years of consultations upon consultations and environmental standards that are the highest anywhere, and this is how.... This is just incredible.

These are good-paying jobs that do not require taxpayer dollars. They require private investment that companies secure. Mining companies, oil and gas, you name it: they can secure that financing, and then the taxes they pay on that revenue fund our valuable social programs here in Canada, programs that we all love.

Yet now we have to bail out a project that the government approved, all because the Prime Minister did not go to meet with Premier Horgan when he was sworn in and work out the path forward. That is an unbelievable failure.

That is an unbelievable failure on this file. I feel bad for the tens of thousands of Albertans and anyone else employed in the energy sector who have had to wonder if they will get a job. Well, for the longest time it was, will my job ever come back?

I will read this from the Financial Post—

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

—from what it was a generation ago in terms of the ability.... People used to look for Sears catalogues and library cards. The data sources were limited. We had door-knocking and phone banks. Now, any time someone clicks a survey on Facebook, we've learned that they might be trolled or exposed, and their data might be sold to political actors, to third parties or registered parties—it doesn't matter to me—and suddenly they're getting only this kind of information.... I think it's only going to get worse, so I wonder why, in a generational change, we're not doing more about it, Mr. Chair.

We're of course going to come to it with amendments. We just went through Bill C-69. We put 300 amendments on the table, and one was accepted, so you'll forgive me if I'm a bit skeptical about how open the government is. We'll see if it's any different on this omnibus bill. It's open, but not accepting.

The Environment

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, earlier this week, Liberal members of the environment committee rammed through Bill C-69, a badly flawed environmental law. In fact, they passed over 200 amendments without any debate. Imagine that. They did this despite over 7,000 Canadians emailing them to ask for more time to review the bill. What happened to the Prime Minister's promise of raising the bar on openness and transparency? Remember that?

Why are the Liberals shutting down debate on important bills like this one?

Business of the House

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister of Small Business and Tourism]

Mr. Speaker, this afternoon, we will begin debate on Bill C-75, the justice modernization act. This evening the House will consider, in committee of the whole, the votes in the main estimates for the Department of Citizenship and Immigration.

Tomorrow morning, we will debate the motion to extend the sitting hours. After question period, we will begin debate at report stage and third reading of Bill C-47 on the Arms Trade Treaty. We will resume that debate on Monday.

On Tuesday, we will resume debate at second reading of Bill C-75, the justice modernization act. On Wednesday, we will begin debate at report stage and third reading of Bill C-64, the abandoned vessels act.

Finally, should Bill C-74, the budget bill, or Bill C-69, the environmental assessment act, be reported back to the House, they shall take priority in the calendar.

Motions in amendment

[Deb Schulte, Liberal, King—Vaughan, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I find it very interesting how the member was weaving work that was done at committee on Bill C-69 into what we are discussing today in the House.

I just want to make a point to answer the question that was raised. All the committee members from all sides of the House brought many amendments. That was really to try to strengthen the bill. The work of a committee is to try to strengthen a bill of the government.

I am very proud of the fact that all the members who were working on the committee, plus those outside the committee, took the time to look at the bill and bring forward recommendations to strengthen it. We did consider all of those recommendations. We voted on all of them. We did. We heard from 50 witnesses. We had over 150 briefs. We considered every single one of those amendments and voted on them.

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for King—Vaughan for her presentation today, but there are a few things that trouble me. I believe the hon. member's words were that sustainable development is not something one department can work on on its own. I would interject that I do not believe it is anything any department is going to be able to work on now because of the way Bill C-69 was pushed through the House two days ago. I believe there were about 600 pages of amendments. For the last half of those amendments, we could not even have officials in the room to advise the members that were debating the bill. In fact, we were not even able to debate the last half of those amendments.

I will say that there were over 126 amendments from the Liberal Party on their own Liberal government bill. Obviously, the bill came out half-baked, half-finished. As well, we have heard members of the resource sector and some from the energy sector saying that it is the “never do anything again” bill.

How can the hon. member say that all departments are going to have to work together, when the committee she chaired rammed through a bill that is basically going to stop any development of any significant type in Canada in the future?

[Joël Godin, Conservative, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Montmagny—L’Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, who has done excellent work. I will be adopting his hairstyle on June 9. I will become his disciple. It suits him, but we will see what it does for me.

As my colleague mentioned, we have our doubts. We do not have the information and the government is hiding information. We do not even know what effect the carbon tax will have on greenhouse gas emissions. We cannot say how much money will be taken out of Canadian families' pockets. That is not very reassuring. Of course, we must protect the environment and take steps to introduce new technologies, but this government is not taking action. It is only trying to look good. Once again, with Bill C-69 it is making it look as though it is implementing additional controls and enhancing the regulations, but, in the end, the government has the last word. It is the minister who has the power.

If we reread Bill C-69, we see that this government does not have confidence in the people. It wants to keep the power for itself and is acting like the Liberals did in the past. Members will recall the Gomery commission.

[Joël Godin, Conservative, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the member who just spoke said that the economy and the environment go hand in hand. The official opposition, the Conservatives, completely agree. Contrary to popular belief, Conservatives do not wake up every morning plotting to destroy the planet. We did a lot for the environment in the past.

The principles of Bill C-57, an act to amend the Federal Sustainable Development Act, are commendable. Nobody can argue with the bill's intentions. However, now that we know how this government operates, we have serious doubts about its intention to respect our environment, set clear benchmarks, and make Canada more attractive to foreign investors so we can grow the economy while respecting the environment. I would point out that Canada has some of the strictest environmental standards. The previous government, under Mr. Harper, did a lot for the environment.

As I was saying, the bill's principles are commendable, but we have some serious concerns. The Liberals have been kind of inconsistent and seem to have trouble keeping their promises. People are losing confidence in the government, especially when it comes to the environment. To substantiate that claim, I would refer to the commissioner of the environment, who, in her recent reports, commented that she is very disappointed in the results but congratulated the former Conservative government on its actions. That reflects well on us. People should stop saying that Conservatives wake up every morning looking for ways to destroy the planet because that is totally false.

I would like to come back to the minister's mandate letter, which reads, and I quote:

Canadians sent a clear message in this election, and our platform offered a new, ambitious plan for a strong and growing middle class. Canadians expect us to fulfill our commitments...

We can already see that the government has fallen short, just from that section of the environment minister's mandate letter. It goes on to say, and I quote:

If we are to tackle the real challenges we face as a country—from a struggling middle class to the threat of climate change—Canadians need to have faith in their government’s honesty and willingness to listen.

If members read the news and keep up with current events, they will see that Canadians are losing confidence in this government, particularly when it comes to the environment. Fine words are all well and good, but the government also needs to be clear and consistent. It needs to keep its promises. However, the government is not doing what it said it would in the environment minister's mandate letter and in the mandate letters of many other government ministers. The ministers are not keeping their promises and they are not necessarily being honest in their actions. They want to look good, but when it comes right down to it, they are not keeping their word.

The mandate letter also says, and I quote:

It is important that we acknowledge mistakes when we make them.

The Liberals have a lot of trouble doing that and they wait a long time to own up to their mistakes. The opposition is forced to draw attention to those mistakes day after day until the government realizes that it needs to reconsider. The Liberals are not even following the instructions they gave their ministers in their mandate letters. The letter goes on to say, and I quote:

Canadians do not expect us to be perfect...

We do not pretend to be perfect, either, but it is important to aim for perfection, and that is not what the people on the other side are doing. The letter continues:

...they expect us to be honest, open, and sincere in our efforts to serve the public interest.

Speaking of honesty and sincerity, let us talk about the marathon study of Bill C-69 that we just finished. I have the privilege to sit on the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development, which came under pressure to hurry up. All the members of the House were pressured to hurry up, preventing us from doing our work properly. Even the Liberals presented over 100 amendments. We were inundated with more than 30 briefs a day for a month.

Let us do the math. Is it humanly possible for an MP to do their work properly under such conditions? Furthermore, all of the witnesses who appeared before the committee were also hurried along. Very few of them got selected. The number of witnesses was capped. Many witnesses were disappointed not to speak. The avalanche of briefs we got shows how important this issue is to all the witnesses from across Canada. The problem with this process is that we are being made to rush just to get it over with. My personal impression is that the Liberals are following a political agenda. They are not really trying to protect the environment with Bill C-69.

They rushed us, they bulldozed through the process, and they made an omnibus bill. It is more than 650 pages long. I do not claim to be an expert, but most, if not all, of the experts who testified before the committee said they were deeply disappointed with this bill. The committee even heard from a university professor who suggested scrapping the bill and starting fresh. That says it all. That suggestion did not come from the member for Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier. It came from a specialist who studies the environment on a daily basis.

I come back to the mandate letter for the Minister of Environment, whom I respect greatly, but who is guided by political agendas and opportunities. Unfortunately, she has no control over what happens in her department.

In partnership with provinces and territories, establish national emissions-reduction targets, ensuring that the provinces and territories have targeted federal funding and the flexibility to design their own policies to meet these commitments, including their own carbon pricing policies.

That is not what the Liberals did. They imposed the carbon tax and then left it up to the people to figure it out and do what they wanted. They cannot even tell us how this is going to reduce greenhouse gases. Take Australia, for example. That country implemented a carbon tax, but that tax no longer exists in Australia because it was ineffective.

Let us look at British Columbia and see whether greenhouse gases are on the rise or on the decline. That province has a carbon tax.

I am committed to leading an open, honest government that is accountable to Canadians, lives up to the highest ethical standards, brings our country together, and applies the utmost care and prudence in the handling of public funds.

Considering what I said earlier, I do not think I need to comment. My colleagues can draw their own conclusions. We have serious doubts.

In her report, the environment commissioner emphasized that the Liberal government has not succeeded, I repeat, has not succeeded in reducing greenhouse gas emissions or adapting to the effects of climate change. I am not the one saying this. This is not partisanship, it is the environment commissioner who said so. I have much more respect for her than for our friends across the aisle. The commissioner clearly indicated that the Liberals have made no progress in honouring Canada’s commitment to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. She confirmed that there was a lack of leadership in adapting to the effects of climate change. We should not be surprised.

In the last Parliament, we, the Conservative members of the House, implemented important measures that enabled us to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. We cut them by 15%. That is something. We did such a good job that the Liberals used our targets when they went to Paris to negotiate the Paris Agreement. They submitted the targets the Conservative government set when it was in power, and they applied them. They spent their time criticizing our work, but they used our tools.

I could say considerably more, but I will allow my colleagues to ask me questions.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Madam Speaker, the evidence shows otherwise. In fact, it was under our previous Conservative government that greenhouse gas emissions actually went down for the first time in Canadian history. We were the only government under which that happened.

My colleague suggests that somehow the Liberal government has this wonderful relationship with stakeholders and a wonderful relationship with indigenous communities, while his relationship with the provinces and territories is completely falling apart. The government is in a fight with Saskatchewan on the carbon tax and in a fight with Alberta and British Columbia on the Kinder Morgan pipeline.

When it comes to indigenous communities, at our environment committee we just finalized voting on all the amendments to Bill C-69 that were brought forward, which I referenced earlier. Members may recall that the Prime Minister promised that he was going to implement the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, so members will be surprised to hear what happened at committee: our Liberal friends over here, every time someone brought forward an amendment to include UNDRIP within that legislation, voted against it on at least 25 occasions. They were speaking out of both sides of their mouth.

The Prime Minister is all over the country pretending he is one thing in one area and another when he is in a different region of the country. It is hypocrisy at its very worst.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

moved:

That Bill C-57 be amended by deleting Clause 5.

Mr. Speaker, I am thankful for the opportunity to speak to Bill C-57 again. This bill, effectively, would amend the current Federal Sustainable Development Act. Members may recall that in a previous Parliament, it was John Baird and the Conservative Party that strongly supported the original legislation, brought forward under a private member's bill, to establish the Federal Sustainable Development Act. That act requires that all government decision-making be reviewed through an environmental, economic, and social lens in the appropriate balance. That is the rub, “in the appropriate balance”.

The bill before us today aims to make decision-making related to sustainable development more transparent, first; more certain, second; and subject to greater accountability, third, especially within government. This bill would require more departments and agencies of government—in other words, additional departments and agencies—to contribute to the federal sustainable development strategy, bringing the total to more than 90 departments and agencies from the current 26. The bill would also require these departments and agencies to prepare specific strategies to ensure sustainability and to table progress reports on their implementation.

Bill C-57 would also increase from three to six the number of indigenous representatives sitting on the Sustainable Development Advisory Council. Government, of course, relies heavily on these advisory councils to provide it with strategic advice on the implementation of that legislation. The bill would expand the council's mandate and provide that representatives appointed to the council may be compensated for expenses. We just heard the Speaker mention that a motion was being tabled that addresses the issue of remuneration. It has been my party's position that although the members of this advisory council should be compensated and reimbursed for out-of-pocket expenses such as travel and lodging, they should not be remunerated. This should not be a job they do, but their contribution to society in making sure that Canada has an effective sustainable development plan.

The act would be subject to a mandatory review every five years. It has already been studied at the environment committee, on which I sit, where the Conservative members strongly supported it, subject to the amendments that have been brought forward this morning. We strongly believe that any decision government makes should always be reviewed through the lens of sustainability and should ensure that social, environmental, and economic factors are in the appropriate balance. This act also supports a whole-of-government approach to sustainable development.

As I mentioned earlier, the challenge, the real rub, is finding the appropriate balance among those three: social, environmental, and economic considerations, especially the balance between the environment and the economy. Our friends in the Liberal Party are fond of saying that the environment and the economy go hand in hand, which is a nice platitude, but the implementation of that intent is a different matter altogether. We see major failures in the Liberal Party's efforts to implement sustainability in Canada. Despite the fact that the Liberals brought forward this legislation, which is supposed to strengthen sustainability in Canada, their performance reflects quite a different approach. It is one that pits Canadian against Canadian, province against province, and the federal government against province and territory. While in government, the Liberals have not found it as easy as it may seem to implement sustainability.

I will begin by highlighting the relationship among the provinces, the territories, and the federal government. Members may recall that the Prime Minister, when running for election in 2015, made a host of promises, most of which have been broken.

One promise the Prime Minister made, which is now broken, was to usher in a new era of co-operative federalism. Nobody understood exactly what he meant, but everybody took him at his word. They assumed he was a man of his word and had every intention of doing this. In fact, he then began to interpret sustainability as having one's cake and eating it too.

When the Prime Minister was in British Columbia, he would pretend he was the champion of the environment. He would talk about the oceans protection plan and how we have to move off fossil fuels. However, when the Prime Minister was in Alberta to appease the residents there, whose livelihoods depend on our oil and gas, our resource sector, he would claim he was the great champion of the energy sector, again wanting to have his cake and eat it too and trying to be all things to all people. Those of us who have been involved in business, who have had to pay salaries and make important decisions within our businesses, know that we cannot be all things to all people. Tough decisions have to be made that serve the greater interests of Canadians.

There was our Prime Minister travelling across the country and pretending to be all things to all people, and suddenly the Trans Mountain pipeline comes along. He tells our friends in Alberta that if they implement a massive carbon tax, Albertans will win the social licence to be able to build the Trans Mountain pipeline to get their crude oil to foreign markets, get their crude oil to tidewater, where ships can then take that oil to foreign markets where it will fetch the highest price.

Trusting the Prime Minister, the Government of Alberta moves ahead with this massive carbon tax, which is hurting Albertans right across that province. I know some of my colleagues will share the pain being suffered by Albertans.

Now the Trans Mountain pipeline wants to move forward. Kinder Morgan wants to start building that project, but British Columbia steps up and says it opposes a pipeline coming through British Columbia. Even though there is an existing one there and all we are doing is twinning it, British Columbia is opposed. Now we have a war between the provinces of British Columbia and Alberta, a fight between the provinces and the federal government, and there is an appalling lack of leadership on the part of the Prime Minister, who had made a promise that if Alberta implemented this heavy-handed carbon tax, at least it would get a social licence out of it. Now it turns out there is no social licence. In fact, there never will be a social licence.

Canadians have been misled by the Prime Minister, but it gets worse. We are talking about sustainability, finding the appropriate balance for our economic prosperity as a country, using our resources wisely, getting the maximum dollar for them, getting them to markets, and then a report comes out from the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development. Actually, it emanates out of the Auditor General's office. In this report, dated March of 2018, we read that in Canada greenhouse gas emissions in 2020, which the government committed to reduce, are expected to be nearly 20% above target. This whole report from the commissioner is riddled with criticism of the government's performance on the environment file.

Then we have Bill C-69, which is the impact assessment act revisions, which were intended to shorten timelines and provide more predictability and certainty for approvals of resource projects and pipelines. In fact, we are now hearing from industry that these timelines are much longer than they were before and that there are many additional criteria that are going to make it even more difficult for resource projects to be approved in Canada. As a result, what we are finding is that on the economic side, we are losing out.

We have a Prime Minister who pretends he is the defender of our economy, but who in fact is completely pandering to the environmental movement and those who are on the extreme left.

I would suggest that this legislation, although it does reflect the consensus of the parties within this House, has not been implemented by the Liberals in their actions and in their legislation.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

It's another amendment brought forward by Ms. Stubbs from Lakeland. It's that Bill C-69, in clause 10, be amended by adding after line 10 on page 121 the following:

(78.1) Despite section 78, the Minister must not enter into any arrangement under section 77 devolving any powers, duties or functions given to the Minister or the Governor in Council in respect of any final decision or order.

I think you all know where I'm going with this. It clarifies that, regardless of the regulations set by the Governor in Council in regard to the ability of the minister to enter into arrangements with indigenous governing bodies, and to authorize those indigenous governing bodies to exercise power under this act, the minister does not devolve any powers in respect of any final decisions. I want to make sure that's clear.

The bill, as currently written, provides that the minister may enter into arrangements with these indigenous governing bodies for the purpose of carrying out this act, may authorize those bodies to exercise powers or perform duties and functions under this act in accordance with regulations governing these arrangements.

This simply limits the ability of the minister to delegate her final decision-making powers. I think that's reasonable.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

This is another amendment put forward by my colleague Ms. Stubbs from Lakeland. She proposes that Bill C-69 in clause 10 be amended by replacing line 18 on page 120 with the following:

241(3). The participant funding program may also be used to facilitate the participation of the Indigenous peoples of Canada and Indigenous organizations in any steps leading up to those hearings.

The purpose is effectively to ensure that the participant program, which a regulator may establish, can only fund the participation of Indigenous people and Indigenous groups in the steps leading up to the public hearing played out in the act. As C-69 is currently written, the regulator may establish a participant funding program to help facilitate the participation of both the general public and Indigenous peoples in the public hearings and in the steps leading up to public hearings.

Just to be very clear, we support the funding of both public and Indigenous people's participation in public hearings. We also support funding Indigenous participation in the steps leading up to those hearings. However, allowing the participant funding program to fund all public participation in such a broadly defined portion of this regulatory process is irresponsible.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

This is another amendment brought forward by my colleague from Lakeland, Ms. Stubbs. The amendment is that Bill C-69 in clause 10 be amended by replacing line 25 on page 113 with the following:

ferred to in that subsection must be disclosed if

Let me tell you what the intent is. It clarifies that if any traditional knowledge of indigenous peoples of Canada is provided to the regulator in confidence, it is publicly available, or if disclosure of that knowledge is necessary for procedural fairness, natural justice, use in legal proceedings, or is authorized to be disclosed under the regulations set by Governor in Council, that information must be disclosed. Again, it's not optional. It's mandatory that it be disclosed under those conditions.

As Bill C-69 is currently written, any traditional knowledge that is provided to the regulator in confidence that is publicly available or necessary to be disclosed for the reasons I articulated earlier—

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

It's in the same section that was just referenced by my colleague, under the “Apportionment of work”. BIll C-69 says that the CEO is responsible for apportioning among designated officers certain amounts of work. I would insert, following that, in proposed subsection 55.1(1), that “the Commission must consider the public interest and, in particular,” and then that's broken down into proposed paragraphs that would deal with issues of the implementation of mitigation measures, the extent to which the effects of the designated project help or hinder our climate objectives, considerations of the public interest, considerations of sustainability, as well as our obligations and international commitments, particularly for climate.

That is amendment PV-101. Thank you, Madam Chair.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

This is another amendment proposed by my colleague, Ms. Stubbs from Lakeland. It is that Bill C-69 and clause 10 be amended by replacing line 8 on page 112 with the following words:

appropriate to do so and shall make public its reasons for holding the hearing.

The purpose of the amendment is that it requires the commission to make public any reasons for holding a hearing in respect of any other matter that the commission considers appropriate to hold a hearing for. As Bill C-69 is currently written, the commission may hold public hearing in respect of any other matter that the commission considers appropriate.

The section, as currently worded, is vague and gives the commission the power to hold a public hearing on virtually anything. There should be a requirement for the commission to make public their reasons for holding a hearing in respect of any other matter, as is defined in this act.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

CPC-11 is an amendment brought forward by my colleague, Ms. Stubbs from Lakeland. She's proposing that the bill be amended in clause 10 by replacing line 30 on page 108 with the following:

must give instructions to the commissioners authorized to

My rationale is that it is intended to clarify that the lead commissioner must give instructions to the commission to ensure that an application before the commission is dealt with in a timely manner.

As Bill C-69 is currently written, the lead commissioner “may” give instructions to the commission to ensure that an application before the commission is dealt with in a timely manner. You may recall that when this legislation was first tabled, the minister praised it as being a much more efficient way of moving forward. She praised the transparency—or what she felt was transparency—in this legislation.

If we want to make sure that there's timeliness, which is another thing she committed to, the lead commissioner must be compelled to give instructions to the commission to ensure that applications are dealt with in a timely manner.

In the interest of giving proponents certainty regarding timelines, the commission should always be operating with timeliness and efficiency in mind, as promised by the government. It should not be overlooked, as this plays a part in how investors view Canada.

I would dispense with a quote from the minister that actually reflects exactly what I just said she articulated when the legislation was tabled.

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

Madam Chair, this relates to issues around the consultation with indigenous peoples. In the past, what we used to call—and I guess we still call it this until this act receives royal assent—the National Energy Board was found under various court decisions to have had significant lapses in its consultative process. Some examples are the Supreme Court decisions on the Clyde River case and on the Chippewas of the Thames First Nation case dealing with Enbridge. Of course, there is also the Enbridge decision in the Federal Court of Appeal related to the pipeline that was to have a terminal at Kitimat.

This amendment would reinforce the consideration of indigenous rights as a guiding principle throughout this proposed act, which is currently part 2 of Bill C-69, but will eventually, of course, be the Canadian energy regulator act. It's very consistent with the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's action item 92, which is to ensure that UNDRIP is part of the reconciliation framework.

It's in that spirit that I submit PV-87.

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

Mr. Chair, I was required to be here due to a motion passed by this committee. Many members may have forgotten about that. Identical motions were passed in every committee. I had a moment to explain to the chair that, whereas in the normal parliamentary rules I would have the right to present amendments that were substantive at report stage, this committee passed a motion which says I can't do that because I have an opportunity to present the motions and amendments at clause-by-clause consideration in every committee.

While report stage can only happen once a day for any particular bill, clause-by-clause can happen simultaneously in many places. Today, I find myself called before the committees to deal with Bill C-68 in the fisheries committee, Bill C-69 in the environment committee, as well as Bill C-74 in the finance committee, all at the same time, all in the same day, so I have to apologize that I've been in and out.

I need to plead with individual members to consider that if you're asked to pass a similar motion—for those of us who are re-elected in the next election—this motion imposes an extremely arduous and unfair process on members of smaller parties. While I would have liked to speak to this to support the evidence of the Canadian Labour Congress that the way the bill is functioning will unfairly reduce the Canadian worker benefit entitlement, I accept the chair's ruling that it's out of order for the reasons the chair has stated.

I did want to put on the record that I may not be here for one of my subsequent amendments because of the pressures of clause-by-clause in a simultaneous committee.

I hope this process of putting members through this through the motions passed by every committee will be reconsidered, because it's extremely unfair.

Thank you.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

This is an amendment to effect change provisions dealing with projects regulated by the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, specifically to permit designated projects related to uranium mines and mills to access the agency assessment provisions of the act, including the suite of provisions related to co-operation with provinces and indigenous governing bodies.

This amendment does this by adding an exception to the decision statement, considered to be part of licence under the Nuclear Safety and Control Act section of the decision statement portion of the act, for uranium mines and mills from the power of the minister to designate conditions in relation to a project that includes activities regulated under the Nuclear Safety and Control Act through a decision statement.

As Bill C-69 is currently written, in the proposed “Limitation” subsection of the agreement to establish a review panel, the minister must not enter into an agreement with any jurisdiction that has powers and duties in relation to environmentally assessing a designated project if that designated project includes physical activities that are regulated under the Nuclear Safety and Control Act or the Canadian energy regulator act.

This amendment makes a language change to clarify that in the proposed “Obligation to refer” section of the act, the minister must refer physical activities at a nuclear facility that are regulated under the act or the Canadian energy regulator act to a review panel. It also adds an exception to the proposed “Obligation to refer” section of the act, stating that physical activities at a uranium mine or mill are not included in the minister’s obligation to refer physical activities at a nuclear facility that are regulated under the Nuclear Safety and Control Act or the Canadian energy regulator act to a review panel.

Finally, the rationale is that uranium mines and mills, like all mines and mills, are subject to provincial regulatory and permitting frameworks, but they’re also regulated by the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission. Bill C-69 would preclude co-operation and preclude agency assessment for all designated projects that are regulated by the CNSC, treating all such projects as exclusively in federal jurisdiction. There is no justification for this differential treatment as the complexity and impacts of uranium mines and mills are not in any different category from those of other mines and mills, and co-operative approaches are just as valuable.

[William Amos, Liberal, Pontiac, QC]

I would be pleased to speak to the two proposed amendments.

Having worked for a decade with the Centre québécois du droit de l'environnement and as an accredited environmental lawyer in Quebec for many years, I am very familiar with the BAPE system in Quebec. This process is not perfect, and neither was the federal environmental assessment process in the past.

What is important is that Quebec's jurisdiction be respected. This bill will respect the jurisdiction. It provides for everything required in terms of overlapping responsibilities. Environmental protection is an area where responsibilities overlap. It is imperative that the proposed legislation provide a mechanism for the different levels of government to work in partnership. I am fully convinced that the legislation will enable and encourage this collaboration. In my opinion, to suggest that Bill C-69 will not have that effect is tantamount to playing politics and trying to pit Quebeckers against the rest of Canada.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

The proposal is that Bill C-69, in clause 1, be amended:

(a) by deleting lines 25 and 26 on page 39.

(b) by deleting lines 39 to 42 on page 39.

The justification for this is the government needs to clearly define each of these concepts and the criteria that must be met. Since they have not, we are suggesting to remove paragraphs (a) and (b) from proposed section 63.

The sustainability and climate change tests in the assessment portion of the impact assessment process represent risk to proponents as they add uncertainty. The whole goal of this legislation was to improve certainty and this is going in the wrong direction. Policy issues like climate change and sustainability should be deliberated on during the early planning phase and measured against any relevant and available strategic and/or regional assessments to ensure the broad policy issues do not impact the scientific and fact-based review.

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

This amendment was proposed in the evidence of the Canadian Environmental Law Association.

The existing proposed subsection 59(1) talks about the assessment by a review agency, and continues on with the effects in the report. The report sets out what are, in the agency's opinion, the effects of the designated project.

This adds new proposed subsections 59.1(1), (2), and (3), which break out what the minister says must be done with the report. There's an independent review of their operation to be undertaken. Then the minister must cause a report to be laid before the House within two years after the day on which this section comes into force. As well, if an act of Parliament amends it based on a review, the next report is to be tabled within two years.

The effect of all this, Madam Chair, is to enact the recommendation of the expert panel on environmental assessment and to establish the agency as the single quasi-judicial authority that conducts the assessments and makes decisions under the act on behalf of the federal government.

I appreciate the creativity of the Canadian Environmental Law Association in coming up with this. It's an extremely elegant way of ensuring that Bill C-69 meets the aspirations of the thousands of people, as well as the expert panel, who worked so hard on preparing the expert panel on the impact assessment report to the federal government.

This is an extremely important amendment.

[The Chair (Mrs. Deborah Schulte (King—Vaughan, Lib.)), Liberal, Deb Schulte]

Good morning, everyone. Welcome back.

We are again doing clause-by-clause on Bill C-69, 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.

We have assisting us today, from the Department of Natural Resources, Jeff Labonté, Assistant Deputy Minister, Major Projects Management Office; and Terence Hubbard, Director General, Petroleum Resources Branch.

From the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, we have Christine Loth-Bown, Vice-President, Policy Development Sector; and Brent Parker, Director, Legislative and Regulatory Affairs Division. Welcome.

From the Department of Transport, we have Nancy Harris, Executive Director, Regulatory Stewardship and Aboriginal Affairs.

Thank you very much for being with us today.

Mr. Rochon, thank you very much for being with us from the Department of Justice.

As I had mentioned to committee members, in my zeal on Thursday to assist with amendments and subamendments I had stepped out of bounds and had moved to clause 6. We moved a LIB-76 amendment. I would like to ask the committee's agreement to reverse that decision. I should not be moving on anything outside of the clause we're studying right now, which is clause 1. If we could reverse the decision on the LIB-76 subamendment and the LIB-76 amendment as amended, I would very much appreciate that.

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

Madam Chair, as this is my last amendment, I just want to take a moment to commend the permanent members of this committee on the wonderful way in which you work together, and the expeditious and fair way you've approached clause-by-clause on Bill C-68.

I will apologize that due to the motions I mentioned earlier—the ones I don't like, and you'll remember them—today I have to be at clause-by-clause for Bill C-68, Bill C-69, and Bill C-74, and Bill C-69 and Bill C-74 are happening at the same time, so I'll be leaving very shortly.

I just want to say that my amendment, PV-17, is to provide a requirement. It's great that this bill has included a five-year review process. I think that's appropriate, but what my amendment would do—not to go through every detail of it—would be to ensure that when that five-year review comes up, whatever committee is mandated to review the Fisheries Act as it has been amended by Bill C-68 would have reports from the minister that cover really significant bits of information that would allow a committee to make a good assessment. The minister would give them the report on the assessment of the state of our fisheries and the state of the fisheries stock, a review of what's been done under provisions of this act relating to the undertakings for which there were exemptions, and a list of all fish habitat where there have been no net loss and other offset measures.

I won't give you all the details, but that's the intent of this amendment, to have the Minister of Fisheries have an affirmative duty to prepare a series of reports for the use of the committee that reviews this bill in five years' time.

[Churence Rogers, Liberal, Bonavista—Burin—Trinity, NL]

Madam Chair, we're suggesting the removal of paragraph (e). Other than that, we move the amendment as presented. This is in keeping with amendments that we put forward for Bill C-69.

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Again, this just harmonizes with Bill C-69.

I would note, Madam Chair, that the usage we're gravitating to is indigenous knowledge as opposed to traditional knowledge. I will make the comment that in addition to the indigenous communities, there are non-indigenous communities up and down our coasts. I'm going to be going back looking for community knowledge, or perhaps we can use the term “traditional knowledge” to apply to the non-indigenous people, but I think that has to be reflected in here somewhere. I would ask staff if, in fact, non-indigenous knowledge by non-indigenous people is factored into the decision-making process.

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Madam Chair, let me again ask staff, would this not have happened in the past and would it not happen in the future in any event?

One of the complications, I suppose, is that the new environmental process in Bill C-69 may be setting up some new regimes that I can't say I'm aware of. I guess the question is, will there be other agencies of government that would be able to unilaterally take the actions contemplated here, or in fact, is it pretty much standard fare that they would in any event, regardless of their authorities, consult with the minister?

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

This simply harmonizes the language with Bill C-69.

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

This simply brings the language into harmony with Bill C-69. It would use the same language. It's just the term. It's meant to apply to both pieces of legislation.

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

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

Madam Chair, good morning and forgive me but I need to put on the record that if I want to exercise a right I would ordinarily have at report stage, that right was removed by the motion this committee passed which requires me to be here at clause-by-clause if I want to put forward amendments. I don't move the amendments, so it's a difference from the original sketching out of the rules. I'm in a very different position in that all my amendments are deemed to have been moved. I can't withdraw them; I can't do anything about them. I get to speak to them. These are the terms of the motion, and it's identical in every committee, which has the effect of restricting my rights, and it increases my workload—that's just a side complaint—because I also have Bill C-69 for the rest of today.

Let me put this forward very quickly, because I do believe this is a good bill and I hope we'll pass it expeditiously, but it can be improved.

My amendment PV-1 is to respond to a number of witnesses who we heard at committee, particularly West Coast Environmental Law, whose brief looks at the importance of the concept of environmental flows and water flows, and expands our understanding of what “habitat” means by replacing, under the purposes of the act, subsection 2(2) with the following:

For the purposes of this Act, the quantity, timing and quality of the water flow that are necessary to sustain the freshwater or estuarine ecosystems of a fish habitat are deemed to be a fish habitat.

I note, Madam Chair, that my friend, Mr. Donnelly, has a similar amendment, but either one of them would be great.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

We are on the schedule.

(Schedule agreed to: yeas 6; nays 3)

We're now on the preamble. We have PV-144.

(Amendment negatived: nays 8; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Shall NDP-99 carry?

(Amendment negatived: nays 8; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Shall LIB-131 carry?

(Amendment agreed to: yeas 6; nays 3 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Shall CPC-47 carry?

(Amendment negatived: nays 7; yeas 2 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Preamble as amended agreed to: yeas 6; nays 3)

Now we're on the title.

(Title agreed to: yeas 6; nays 3)

Shall the bill as amended carry?

(Bill C-69 as amended agreed to: yeas 5; nays 4)

Shall the chair report the bill as amended to the House?

(Reporting of the bill to the House agreed to: yeas 6; nays 3)

Shall the committee order a reprint of the bill as amended for the use of the House at report stage?

(Reprinting of the bill agreed to: yeas 6; nays 3)

Thank you very much. We have completed the bill.

Before I hit the gavel, I just want to thank all the staff up here at the front who have been helping to keep me organized, and all the staff in the back, who have been doing all the work for the MPs. Thank you very much to all of you, and to all of those in the back who are hanging in there to help us.

Also, thank you to the MPs. I know it's been a very gruelling process, but we have gotten through it, a lot of hard work was done, and we have definitely improved the bill significantly.

The meeting is adjourned.

[The Chair (Mrs. Deborah Schulte (King—Vaughan, Lib.)), Liberal, Deb Schulte]

I'd like to get the meeting started. Thank you very much. Everyone who should not be here needs to go, but it is open.

We're back today and doing our clause-by-clause of Bill C-69. Before we get started where we left off, at amendment PV-29, I again want to bring to everybody's attention the motion that we're operating under. That motion tells us that “the Chair may limit debate on each clause to a maximum of five minutes per party, per clause”.

We have spent two days on clause 1. I've been very generous with people. I will continue to be reasonable, but to make sure that we continue on with a very large number of amendments, I'm going to ask those presenting their amendments to limit that to two minutes maximum.

I've heard from those around the table that they could not sit later in the day because they needed the time in the evening to be able to prepare, to do their research, and to understand each of these amendments. We did get the amendments last Friday. We really shouldn't need any debate on these. We've had lots of time to consider them and see where they fit in and what they mean. However, a subamendment to the amendment will need time, and I will give time for people to ask the necessary questions to understand a subamendment.

Given that this is the way I'd like to proceed, we will start with PV-29.

Ms. May, the floor is yours for two minutes.

(On clause 1)

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

We're going back to page 16. We're back into that section we spent a lot of time on, entitled “Decisions regarding impact assessments”. These are the sections that guide the agency's decisions. As far as I recall, we haven't accepted any amendments to this process, although we've had a number of amendments go around it. I would be adding a new proposed subsection 16(2.1), so after the factors that the agency must take into account, there would be a new mandatory establishment that there would be an assessment, either very preliminary—the agency could decide what kind of assessment, obviously....

To make it really clear, this is re-establishing the law list that was repealed in the omnibus budget bill, Bill C-38, in the spring of 2012. We have had federal laws triggering environmental assessments from 1976 until 2012. There are only three federal statutes, only three kinds of decisions by three different ministers, that would trigger an environmental assessment or an impact assessment.

The first would be a decision by the Minister of Fisheries under the Fisheries Act to permit any temporary or permanent alteration to or destruction of fish habitat. We had this before, for decades. It was killed by the previous government. It was a very good protection for fish habitat and for review of projects.

Then (b) would be a decision of the Minister of Transport, under what's now renamed the Canadian navigable waters act, to issue a permit pertaining to navigable waters, whether or not these are listed in the schedule. This is basically the form of what we had before 2012, acknowledging that we now have a schedule. Under the new version of the navigable waters act within Bill C-69 we have two kinds of navigable waters: those that are covered by the definition and those that are in the schedule. This would require that any decision by the Minister of Transport related to a permit pertaining to navigable waters, whether in the schedule or not, would trigger an EA.

Last would be a decision by the Minister of Environment under the Species at Risk Act to permit activities that pose a threat to a listed species.

The granting of those specific three kinds of permits only under those specific sections of those stated laws would trigger an impact assessment, if you accept my amendment, which is, as you can see, a very critical rebuilding of trust in the impact assessment process.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Chair, this amendment specifically comes from the Grand Council of the Crees, who provided a brief and also appeared before us. They presented the opinion that, as with the Mackenzie basin agreement, the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement should similarly be referenced.

Why do they argue that? Well, their agreement, the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement, is a modern treaty, and therefore it is binding and it takes precedence over any potentially incompatible legislation. I'm advised that, pursuant to that agreement, Canada is required to develop, in close co-operation with the Cree representatives, the required agreements and regulations contemplated under parts 1 and 2 of Bill C-69. They provide specific factors where federal impact assessment must be triggered for any project that is on, or partly on, their territory. That's in the treaty. Treaty members must be appointed to all federal and provincial assessment and review processes as per the treaty, and it must be led by the environmental and social impact review committee under the treaty. Any modifications to the provisions of the treaty must have the consent of the signatories.

I don't think I need to read it into the record, unless you'd like me to do so.

[Richard Sexton]

Yes, we are aware of the bill. As Claude correctly identified, it's our understanding that it's still being drafted. As many are aware, we have three environmental impact assessments—that is we in the CNL—that are under review by the CNSC. It's my understanding those will proceed as is and will not be subject to Bill C-69 at this point. In the future we do recognize, both CNL and AECL, that if there are other significant changes to the facilities of the plant that require a full environmental impact assessment, we will have to engage in that process.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

How will Bill C-69 impact AECL's decision-making process?

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

Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm aware of how much work we have ahead of us and how little time. Forgive me, but I have to put on the record that I'm here only because of a motion passed by this committee. I would rather you hadn't passed that motion, because it restricts my rights. I could otherwise bring my motions to the floor of the House at report stage, but required as I am by your decision as a committee, I'm bringing forward 150 amendments to Bill C-69. I hope we can have proper debate on all of them. I sympathize with the situation in which you all find yourselves.

My amendment here is to improve the bill with the full recognition of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. If you go to page 2, line 35, I'm leaving in the language “to fostering reconciliation and working in partnership with them;”. That language doesn't go, but after the recognition of section 35 of the Constitution, I insert the language:

and by the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples

I'll make a quick note to let you know that when we get to amendment PV-2, in that section, I have a definitions section so that anytime we use the words “Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples”, it refers specifically to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

I feel that my first amendment, PV-1, corresponds exactly to the will of the Government of Canada.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

We're looking at the preamble of Bill C-69.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Yes. In the package that we have of proposed amendments, we have a proposal, CPC-47, which addresses the preamble in Bill C-69.

[The Chair (Mrs. Deborah Schulte (King—Vaughan, Lib.)), Liberal, Deb Schulte]

Good morning. Thank you very much, everybody. We are starting clause-by-clause of Bill C-69, 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.

Welcome to those who have joined us at the table. There are also some people in the back, so there's a lot of support with us today should we need it.

I'll introduce them. We have from the Department of the Environment, Mary Taylor, Executive Director, Environmental Assessment, Environmental Protection Operations. We have from the Department of Natural Resources, Jeff Labonté, Assistant Deputy Minister, Major Projects Management Office; and Terence Hubbard, Director General, Petroleum Resources Branch. We have from the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, Christine Loth-Bown, Vice-President, Policy development sector; and Brent Parker, Director, Legislative and Regulatory Affairs Division. From the Department of Transport, we have Catherine Higgens, Assistant Deputy Minister, Programs; and Nancy Harris, Executive Director, Regulatory Stewardship and Aboriginal Affairs. Welcome back to some of you.

They're here with us today, should we have any questions.

We also have others in the back who may come up should they need to. We have Nicola Contini, Counsel, Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency Legal Services; Barbara Winters, Counsel, Natural Resources Canada Legal Services; François-René Dussault, Counsel, Transport Canada Legal Services; Martha Green, Senior Counsel, Transport Canada Legal Services; Yves Leboeuf, Senior Counsel, Environment and Climate Change Canada Legal Services; and Jean Sébastien Rochon, Senior Counsel, Department of Justice, Resource Development Coordination Unit.

Thank you.

If we are all ready—

[William Amos, Liberal, Pontiac, QC]

Thank you to all of our witnesses today.

It is a treat to have you here. I will disclose to Professor Borrows that I've been a huge fan of his for many years, and this is a great moment to be able to ask you some questions about this bill. I'd like to extend my line of questioning and jump between Bill C-262 and Bill C-69, because there's a very live debate around the incorporation of UNDRIP in that context, and I'm sitting on that standing committee as we consider that bill.

My first question is directed to Professor Turpel-Lafond and Professor Borrows. Bill C-69 has been subject to some criticism for not sufficiently incorporating both UNDRIP and its principles. I will be bringing forward amendments to do just that in the days to come.

I don't presume that you have expertise or knowledge of Bill C-69, but I'm hoping that you do have some understanding. If you take it for granted that we're looking at an impact assessment regime, how should Bill C-262, if enacted, be properly reflected in a bill such as Bill C-69?

I put that to you both, please.

[Sylvie Boucher, Conservative, Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d’Orléans—Charlevoix, QC]

Hi. I will ask my questions in French, which is my first language.

Good morning, and thank you, everyone.

I would first like to say that I'm replacing a colleague today. I am interested in the topic we're discussing today, but it is outside of my comfort zone. I normally sit on the Standing Committee on Official Languages, where members work hand in hand, and where we have the right to ask any questions we may have.

I was left wanting more, and I'll tell you why. It concerns the agency's impact assessment. Paragraph 22(1)(s) of the proposed bill mentions “the intersection of sex and gender with other identity factors”. Both you and the minister talked a lot about indigenous peoples.

Do you take gender-based analysis into account when drafting such a major bill?

If so, what impact will this bill have on women and children? We talked a lot about indigenous peoples.

I also have another question. I'll ask both of my questions, and then the witnesses can answer them however they want.

Could Bill C-69 be an obstacle to the economic development of certain remote areas, for example, regions that aren't populated by indigenous peoples, given all the analyses you will conduct? In my region, there are few indigenous communities, if any.

[Mike Bossio, Liberal, Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you all very much for being here once again on this very important bill.

As I've mentioned a number of times, I have been through environmental assessments and terms of reference at the provincial level with the Province of Ontario. It was my experience in going through those that the proponent has an incredible amount of power, in a sense, on defining what evidence or science is going to be used. I want to follow up on where Mr. Fisher was going earlier.

It's very much proponent driven. In the mining experience, they decide how it will be studied, what will be reported, how reports are presented, or whether they're even presented at all. Once again, if they don't like the findings, nobody knew the report was even done.

How does Bill C-69 ensure that this is not going to be a purely proponent-driven process when it comes to the science and evidence?

[Christine Loth-Bown, Vice-President, Policy Development Sector, Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency]

I can start, and then my colleagues can chime in.

As the minister noted in her remarks, Bill C-69 is premised on ensuring that decisions that are taken under the legislation are evidence-based. Throughout the assessment process, we have a number of different factors and opportunities to ensure that takes place. In proposed section 22 we outline all the factors that need to be assessed in an impact assessment, and through early planning, we'll work with a proponent to develop impact statement guidelines. Those would be the guidelines that would outline the scientific studies and the issues that they need to address through the impact statement.

Throughout that early planning process we also have the opportunity to engage with others—the public stakeholders and indigenous groups—to ensure that those impact statement guidelines are comprehensive and tailored to the specific project. Then, within the legislation and the proposed amendments there's also the opportunity to do peer review of science on a case-by-case basis, should that be warranted—that may be for some projects but not for others—so that there could be a peer review of the science and evidence. Then of course there's the transparency of all the decisions and the rationale for those decisions.

[Darren Fisher, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Thanks, Madam Chair.

Thanks, folks, for being here today. I will ask you some of the questions that I had organized for the minister. With Bill C-69,—and I'm talking about science—the proponents are in charge of doing their own science. What checks and balances will we have in place through the bill to ensure that we're working with actual, good science?

I'm looking at nobody in particular, just whoever feels they want to take that on.

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

Madam Minister, as you know, I'm disappointed by C-69, but I have hopes, and all the hopes I have for the bill being repaired have to do with the degree.... You prefaced your remarks often by saying what we heard in consultations before the bill for first reading, but I hope that you've heard a lot of the witnesses who have come before this committee with really big concerns that this bill will not rebuild trust. It's not all about transparency and consultation. It's often about whether the bill will work. I just want to focus on one piece, because I hope you heard from the expert panel that was convened that did really great work.

One of the things they mentioned was that environmental assessment—or impact assessment, if we will—of projects under federal jurisdiction is not just about major projects. Smaller projects can have really negative environmental impacts not caught by provincial EAs. I could mention a couple of projects. I will mention one right now. It was a shocker. It was the jet fuel line built in the Vancouver International Airport that Minister Garneau didn't know about that got signed off by the port authority, which wasn't the sort of thing that we might have thought of in a project review.

A project-by-project list can miss things. The only way to make sure we don't miss things is to cast the net wider, as we used to, and then make sure we're not wasting a lot of time on deep-dive reviews of things that don't need them. Small projects, though, can have a big impact.

I'm wondering if you're open to amendments that will allow us to have environmental assessment legislation, impact assessment legislation, that really rebuilds trust by going back to the pre-Harper days, which we had from 1976 until 2012, of assessing every project under federal jurisdiction.

[Mike Bossio, Liberal, Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON]

Thank you.

Also, Minister, the environmental appeals tribunal process in Ontario was a crucial tool for my community to oppose the mega-dump expansion. I know first-hand how important this additional body can be to ensuring we get things right.

This week I put forward an amendment to Bill C-69 to establish a Canadian assessment appeal tribunal. Is this something that you would support, and can you please give me your rationale?

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

I'm taking that as a no.

In terms of Bill C-69—and this is regrettable—my party did make the request that the bill be split. We note there are two representatives of the natural resources committee here. We don't have that option, because we have only one member on the committee. We had hoped that the navigation would go to the transport committee, that the new CER would go to natural resources, and the assessment bill here. But you are responsible, as I understand, for the full bill.

Right now the bill exempts the CER commissioners who would join a review panel from considering climate impacts. Are you willing to consider amending the bill so that those members will also have to consider climate impacts when they're reviewing a project?

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

I'm ruling the question out of order. I'm on the record that this question does not relate directly to what we're studying, which is Bill C-69.

I will move on to another member, although I don't want to do that. Do you have another question before I move on?

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

Just hold on a minute, if you don't mind. I am the chair. I was generous, but I also want the questions to be specific to Bill C-69, and I made that point clear at the beginning of the meeting.

I was asked by a colleague to give the minister a chance to answer it. I'm actually still ruling it out of order because it is not specific to Bill C-69. It's specific to the pan-Canadian framework, and that's not what we're discussing here today.

[Catherine McKenna, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Obviously, your question isn't directly on point to Bill C-69. However, I want to then commend—

[James Maloney, Liberal, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

Thank you, Chair. Thank you for allowing me to be here and for giving me time.

I'm sharing my time with Mr. Fraser, so I'll try to get right to the point.

Minister, thank you again for being here today. As the chair has pointed out, I'm here as chair of natural resources because of the importance that the proposed changes in Bill C-69 have to stakeholders.

In my capacity sitting on that committee, we hear from stakeholders on a regular basis. I meet with them regularly. These are stakeholders, NGOs, organizations, and one of the issues that comes up time and time again is this issue of restoring trust and certainty, which you talked about. Timelines, predictability, and schedules on these projects have been major stumbling blocks, and have led to a lack of confidence. They are very interested in Bill C-69 for that reason.

I know you have consulted with the stakeholders along the way. We've heard from many of them after the bill came out in this committee.

I am wondering if you could shed some more light on the background and how you see Bill C-69 addressing these concerns and restoring that trust.

[Catherine McKenna, Liberal, Minister of Environment and Climate Change]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I would also like to thank the members of the committee.

Thank you to our amazing chair and also to the members of the committee. I really do appreciate all the hard work you do on this committee.

Of course I'm thrilled to be here with Jonathan Wilkinson, who, as you all know, is my parliamentary secretary; Stephen Lucas, who is the deputy minister of Environment and Climate Change; and Ron Hallman, president of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency.

I want to thank you again for the invitation to return to talk about Bill C-69. I know we all care greatly about how we do environmental assessments and about making sure we rebuild trust in them.

Before I start, I want to recognize that we're on the traditional territory of the Algonquin and Anishinabe peoples. In my job, it is extremely important that we partner with indigenous peoples—our first nations, our Métis, and Inuit peoples—who care greatly about our land, our waters, and our air. I think you will see that reflected in Bill C-69.

First of all, I really appreciate the hard work of all the committee members.

Reviewing a bill that is of interest to so many Canadians is not a small undertaking. I also want to reiterate the values that guided our work in getting to this point and share with you some perspectives from Canadians since my last appearance.

The legislation we introduced earlier this year aims to restore public trust in how the federal government makes decisions about major projects, like mines, pipelines, and hydro dams.

These better rules are designed to protect our environment, improve investor confidence, strengthen our economy, and create good middle-class jobs. They will also make the Canadian energy and resource sectors more competitive. With these better rules, we are working to build on Canada's strong economic growth and historic job numbers.

The Government of Canada is committed to ensuring that Canada's major projects are developed in a way that is informed by rigorous science, evidence, and indigenous knowledge. They must also be consistent with Canada's climate plan, protect our rich natural environment, respect the rights of indigenous peoples, and support our economy.

Our priority remains to effectively advance both Canada's economic progress and our environmental responsibilities. These values are at the core of Bill C-69.

Ultimately, we want to restore the trust of Canadians in how major projects are reviewed. There will not always be unanimous views on the outcome of a project decision, but if the process and foundation on which those decisions are made is stronger, trust in the outcomes will be as well.

Bill C-69 was informed by the views and inputs of Canadians. For over 14 months we heard from Canadians from coast to coast to coast on the best ways to improve current environmental and regulatory processes.

I'm very proud of the balanced perspective we were able to achieve in the bill. I'm hoping that this balance also guides you in your work as you review the many submissions you've received and the testimony of witnesses who have appeared before you, each with a different perspective on what will work and where improvements are needed.

Since the bill was introduced in February I've also continued engaging with stakeholders, provinces, indigenous peoples, environmental groups, and citizens from across the country at every opportunity. I wanted to hear the views of those of you directly affected by the bill and explain how the new process would work.

As you know, not all elements of the new system are detailed in legislation. Regulations and policies are required to support and operationalize the legislation. We are currently consulting Canadians on the project list and information and time management regulations. I encourage all Canadians, from indigenous peoples to industry to environmental groups, to provide their input to inform these regulations.

I'd now like to share some of the views I have heard.

Overwhelmingly, Canadians want us to restore public trust in the way the federal government makes decisions about major projects such as mines, pipelines, and hydro dams. When it comes to resource development, you can't get very far if people don't trust the rules and the way governments make decisions. The same goes for companies. They need to know what's expected of them from the start and that the process will be predictable, timely, and evidence-based.

That's why our top priority, with the changes we're proposing, is to increase transparency and rebuild trust.

To rebuild this trust, we are creating better rules. The bill incorporates a number of transparency measures, from making more information available to the public to specifying factors to be considered in decision-making to clearly communicating the reasons behind decisions. Canadians and stakeholders have noted the importance of public participation and accessible, transparent information. This bill helps everyone understand and participate more fully in the process.

Stakeholders have told us that rebuilding trust requires clarity about what will be considered in assessments and in making decisions.

Bill C-69 restores robust oversight and thorough impact assessments that take into consideration not only the negative environmental effects of a project, but also the environmental, economic, health and social impacts.

Impact assessments will also consider how projects are consistent with our environmental obligations and climate change commitments, including with the Paris Agreement. A big part of this is better understanding the broader environment outside of individual project reviews. Some stakeholders were wondering if the government will ever conduct strategic or regional assessments, given this is possible under current legislation.

We will soon launch a public engagement process on our first-ever strategic assessment on climate change, which will provide guidance on how to consider greenhouse gas emissions in individual project reviews.

We also heard from companies that they are looking for more clarity and certainty about the process.

The proposed legislation provides a clear, timely process so that project proponents know what's expected of them and when. A predictable and timely process is key to getting good projects built and encouraging investment in Canada.

I also heard that companies need to know how the transition to the new system will work. Industry associations and companies with projects in the system would like clear rules and indications of which assessments currently under way would continue under former legislation and which would be subject to the new impact assessment act.

Legislated timelines will also provide regulatory certainty and ensure that the process is both faster and more efficient. We've heard from industry, indigenous peoples, and environmental groups that it's important that there is enough time to carefully consider science, evidence, and indigenous traditional knowledge. That's why this bill provides a predictable, time-bound process, from early planning through to the decision, to ensure that companies know what to expect and when, and that they are not held up in an impact assessment process.

With a goal of one project, one review, we will coordinate with provinces, territories, and indigenous jurisdictions to reduce red tape for companies and avoid duplication of efforts in reviewing proposed projects. The new impact assessment agency of Canada will work with other bodies, such as the Canadian energy regulator, the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, and the offshore boards to conduct reviews that will integrate both the impact assessment process and regulatory review requirements.

The new legislation also provides the offshore boards with a greater role in project reviews, which is consistent with other life-cycle regulators.

I also heard from many indigenous organizations that it is important that their rights are recognized and respected, and that we work in partnership from the outset.

This is exactly what Bill C-69 will accomplish.

I want to highlight that the bill makes it mandatory to consider indigenous knowledge, when provided, alongside science and other evidence. It also provides protection of that knowledge to build the trust needed to share such information. We will also increase the funding available to support indigenous participation and capacity development related to assessing and monitoring the impacts of projects.

Another significant advancement under this bill will be that indigenous jurisdictions will have greater opportunities to exercise powers and duties under the new impact assessment act. My discussions with indigenous peoples have confirmed to me how important this is, as is our commitment to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

I look forward to the end result of this committee's work to consider ways to strengthen the bill even further. Better rules will restore confidence that good projects can move forward in a responsible, timely and transparent way, while also protecting our environment and building a stronger economy for Canadians.

Thank you again for inviting me, and for the important work you are doing.

[The Chair (Mrs. Deborah Schulte (King—Vaughan, Lib.)), Liberal, Deb Schulte]

I'm going to bring the meeting to order, if I could, please.

Before I introduce the minister and her panel, I just want to let the committee know that I'm very appreciative that the minister has come back. This will be the second time she is in front of the committee on this bill, Bill C-69, and that's unusual. She's being generous.

I want to make sure the committee appreciates that it is unusual for a minister to come back on one bill. The reason she is back in front of us is that there were issues raised about the need to ask her specific questions relevant to the testimony we heard over the last couple of weeks on Bill C-69, and possibly some amendments may be brought forward. We have seen many. I think we have several hundred to look at.

I usually am very generous, but today I'm going to be very strict. I want to make sure we stay on target with the questions on Bill C-69, because that's what she's here for.

To get started, I'd like to introduce, obviously, the minister.

Thank you very much for coming back in front of us.

We have Jonathan Wilkinson, MP, North Vancouver, and the parliamentary secretary. We have Ron Hallman, president, Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency; and Stephen Lucas, deputy minister, Department of the Environment.

I welcome you, and I give you the floor.

Thank you.

[Chris Bloomer, President and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Energy Pipeline Association]

Good morning, everyone.

Thank you for the opportunity to provide additional comments on this bill. I represent the Canadian Energy Pipeline Association.

I have some quick comments. Over the last two years, CEPA has committed fully to participating in consultations, discussions, and round tables on the government's review of the Fisheries Act, CEAA 2012, NEB modernization, and the Navigation Protection Act. CEPA provided over 200 pages of submissions and practical recommendations that were intended to help to achieve clarity and certainty and restore trust in the regulatory system for all stakeholders.

Throughout the process we have advocated for legislation that would be founded on science and fact-based decision-making, and we have leveraged the considerable and established expertise of the National Energy Board. We sought legislation that would achieve clarity, certainty, and predictability, while avoiding duplication.

Before I speak to Bill C-68, CEPA would like to reaffirm that we remain extremely concerned about the changes put forward in the impact assessment act, Bill C-69,, and we emphasized our concerns at the standing committee studying that bill. We have recently provided the government with detailed recommendations on amendments to the bill and we hope that changes will be made.

With respect to Bill C-68, our concerns are less profound and mostly related to details that are simply unknown at this point. We recognize that the proposed amendments in Bill C-68 are essentially a return to the pre-2013 approach to fisheries regulation, with added elements such as gender analysis, indigenous traditional knowledge, and community knowledge.

The effect of these potential changes is to increase regulatory burden, complexity, and uncertainty. The impact will very much depend on the approach to implementation. To put it another way, the mischief is in the details. Numerous regulations need to be developed, including the designated project list, timelines, habitat banking, and how authorizations or permits may be amended, suspended, or cancelled. These regulations will require significant consultation with stakeholders and at this point the details are unclear. We need to understand how Bill C-68 will be implemented. This includes an understanding of how advisory panels will work, the public registry, cost recovery, time limits for authorizations, habitat banking, and how gender analysis works within the context of the Fisheries Act.

We need to understand what groups and organizations could be considered an indigenous governing body, and we need to understand under what circumstances equivalency provisions will apply. We don't know how indigenous traditional knowledge will be considered and weighted. We simply do not have any clarity on any of these issues.

Although we have many questions, I would like to use the remaining time to focus our comments on four areas of concern that are of the highest priority to the pipeline sector.

First, there is the designated project list. Bill C-68 contemplates different processes for major projects than for smaller, routine projects. This, in and of itself, can be positive, allowing for more streamlined procedures for routine projects that have minimal impacts and known mitigation practices and upon which there is a large body of best practices that have been employed. However, we do not know what will be on that list or how it will be developed. Therefore, we strongly suggest that this legislation should not be passed in Parliament without the understanding of what the designated project list regulation will look like.

Second, we are concerned about how standards and codes of practice will be implemented. Proposed section 34.2 of Bill C-68 allows the minister to establish standards and codes of practice that may provide formal guidance for small routine projects. We consider this to be positive, if implemented in a practical manner. For more than 60 years, CEPA member companies have operated pipelines across the country, currently operating approximately 119,000 kilometres of pipelines, and they have constructed thousands of watercourse crossings. Because of this history, the environmental and socio-economic effects of building pipelines are well understood, and over the years best practices and standard mitigation methods have been developed and implemented. Having standards and codes of practice are of utmost importance to our industry. We require certainty and predictability during the permitting process. The codes of practice can provide that. Without codes of practice, our industry could be buried in time-consuming, uncertain approvals being needed for low-impact activities.

We are encouraged by the recent work done in collaboration with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and scientists to prepare watercourse-crossing guidelines for pipelines. The guidelines, known as the fish and fish habitat impact assessment tool, could be one of the first standards referenced under the new legislation. In addition to input from DFO, the science underlying this guideline was reviewed by the Canadian science advisory secretariat using the highest, most rigorous scientific standards. The model used to prepare this guideline could be used by other industries.

Third, in terms of amending, cancelling, and suspending authorizations, a third area of concern is related to section 43. This section enables regulations to be developed whereby the minister or any other member of the public may request an amendment, suspension, or cancellation of an authorization or permit at any time. The rationale for this provision is unclear, and it creates uncertainty where there should be certainty. CEPA strongly suggests that this provision be removed from the legislation.

My fourth point relates to the National Energy Board, or the future Canadian energy regulator, and the role that the new CER will play in Fisheries Act authorizations.

In 2013, DFO and NEB signed an MOU, and that gave the NEB responsibility for initial review of Fisheries Act authorizations for NEB-regulated pipelines. Under the MOU, the NEB will assess the potential impacts on fish and fish habitat for pipeline watercourse crossings, and determine whether mitigation strategies are needed. If there are serious impacts, the NEB informs DFO and DFO will then review and be responsible for any authorizations, just like any other application. However, the NEB does the initial work to determine whether there are impacts. If there are none, the project applicant does not have to make a separate application to DFO.

Essentially the process triggered by the MOU avoids having two departments perform the same assessment. It avoids the duplication that drives more costly processes with long timelines. We are encouraged that Bill C-68 enables the sort of MOU that is currently in place with the NEB and DFO. To this end, CEPA recommends that the current MOU between the NEB and DFO be maintained.

In conclusion, CEPA recognizes that keeping water bodies and fish habitat protected is of utmost importance to Canadians, including pipeline operators, but we must also maintain a regulatory framework that provides clarity and certainty, avoids duplication, and further builds on the wealth of technical knowledge and best practices already in place to achieve our desired outcomes and ensure Canada's competitiveness.

Thank you very much. I look forward to questions.

[Professor Martin Olszynski, Assistant Professor, Faculty of Law, University of Calgary, As an Individual]

Good afternoon, Madam Chair, and committee members.

Before I get started, I also want to express my condolences on the passing of Gord Brown.

As some members may recall, I had the privilege of speaking to this committee when this process of reviewing and restoring the Fisheries Act began almost two years ago, and I am pleased to be with you here again at the tail end to discuss Bill C-68. I will begin by briefly describing the positive aspects of Bill C-68 before diving into the areas that still need work.

To be clear, although the Fisheries Act amendments appear to have received the most praise out of the suite of legislation introduced in February, we're not there yet. There is still considerable room for improvement.

Among the positives, first and foremost is the restoration of the prohibition against “the harmful alteration, disruption or destruction of destruction of fish habitat”, applicable to all fish and fish habitat, as recommended by this committee. The second is the establishment of a public registry, also recommended by this committee, which should go a long way towards enabling transparency and accountability in the management of Canada's fishery resources. Third is the explicit inclusion of cumulative effects and the traditional knowledge of Canada's indigenous peoples as mandatory factors for consideration when authorizing impacts to fish and fish habitat.

There are other good things about this legislation, but recognizing that my time is short I want to move on to those things that still need work. Also, having listened for the past hour, I want to say that I think nothing I'm about to say contradicts the previous witnesses' testimony.

The first issue is the treatment of works undertaken in activities that pose a low—but not zero—risk to fish habitat. Bill C-68 risks perpetuating the current fiction that low-risk projects are no-risk projects and that DFO does not need to monitor them, which is to say, to at least know when and where they occur. Either these will be deemed as avoiding impacts when carried out in accordance with guidelines and codes of practice, such that no notification will be required, or, where no standards exist, DFO will continue to rely on its letters of advice, where, once again, no notification appears to be contemplated.

One of my colleagues here at the University of Calgary, who used to work at the CESD in Ottawa and so knows a thing or two about regulatory effectiveness, is fond of saying, “If you don't measure it, you can't manage it.” This is definitely true about the thousands of so-called low-risk projects that cumulatively are having a detrimental effect on Canada's watershed and fisheries resources.

What is required of DFO, perhaps in collaboration with some of Canada's expert fisheries biologists—and there are several of them—is to do the hard work of identifying which projects truly do avoid impacts on fish habitat and which ones do not or are likely to result in some impact, and for the act to require notification for those latter projects—nothing more, but nothing less. If there are concerns about privacy, as the previous witnesses expressed, those can and should be addressed.

Before moving on from this issue, I want to make it clear that there's no question that DFO has the authority to require such notification. Any suggestion to the contrary is based on a misreading or misunderstanding of the relevant case law.

Issue number two is that there's still too much discretion in the act. Probably the most glaring example is in proposed section 2.5, which lists a series of factors that the minister “may” consider when making decisions under the act. To see why this is a problem, you need only replace “may” with “may not”, a trick suggested to me by a freshwater biologist here in Alberta. For example, the minister may not consider the sustainability of fisheries; he or she may not consider scientific information; and he or she may not consider the traditional knowledge of indigenous peoples. I think it's pretty clear when you read it this way that there is a problem with this wording, and I can see no reason why the minister would not be bound to some of these factors, except for a reflexive bureaucratic instinct towards discretionary powers and duties.

Third, there should be much clearer parliamentary direction to the minister with respect to his or her annual reports, which, I pause to note, DFO appears to have stopped providing to Parliament since about 2015. There needs to be a clear requirement for the minister to report on the state of fish habitat in Canada, and at a minimum, how much habitat was impacted and how much was restored on an annual basis.

Fourth, with respect to habitat banking, as currently drafted, the banking provisions are unduly narrow, in that they do not permit third party banking. As drafted, the banking provisions will allow only large institutional proponents to create banks for their own use in the future. If the government thinks that banking can be more effective and efficient than the current ad hoc approach to offsetting, as I do, then it needs to be given the conditions to thrive, which includes allowing third party banking.

Fifth, with respect to environmental flows, this is an issue that is consistently neglected under the Fisheries Act, so I'm pleased to see that it got some attention from the minister and in previous hearings of this committee. Bill C-68 amends the fish passage and flow provisions of the act, which will be at proposed subsection 34.3(1). As clearly written, this provision is triggered where the “Minister considers that doing so is necessary to ensure the free passage of fish or the protection of fish or fish habitat”.

Bill C-68 could be improved by adding a requesting provision to this power similar to the request provisions found in part 1 of Bill C-69 with respect to regional and strategic assessments, which is a provision that allows a person to request that the minister consider the issue of flows and/or fish passage at a particular area or location, and provide his or her response upon having done that analysis.

On the sixth issue, which I've raised before, I can't understand why almost 10 years after the previous Conservative government introduced them to so many of Environment Canada's environmental laws, the Fisheries Act is still without an administrative monetary penalty, or AMP, regime. As noted by Environment Canada, an AMP is a financial penalty for non-compliance that may be issued by a regulator without court proceedings for the violation of designated legislative requirements, thereby supplementing existing enforcement measures. Bearing in mind DFO's current track record in terms of charges laid, I think it's reasonable to suggest that it needs an additional, less costly tool than regulatory prosecutions.

Those are my prepared remarks this morning. I was prepared to answer many questions, but I understand the situation.

[Bridget Doyle]

We provided specific wording for proposed section 2.1. We added proposed paragraph 2.1(d), and this wording is also consistent with the wording we've provided for Bill C-69, so that the two acts are consistent with including UNDRIP.

[Matt Thomas]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Good afternoon, committee members. Thank you for the invitation to present to you today on the important matter of Bill C-68, an Act to amend the Fisheries Act and other acts in consequence. We are here today to specifically address the Fisheries Act.

My name is Matt Thomas. I am a Tsleil-Waututh member and acting director of the Tsleil-Waututh Nation's economic development department. From here on in, I will refer to Tsleil-Waututh Nation as TWN. I have an extensive history of working on fisheries and fisheries-related files in various roles with the nation. I continue to play an active role in managing TWN food, social, ceremonial, and commercial fisheries. I am joined by Bridget Doyle, natural resources planner for TWN, and Michael George, cultural and technical adviser for TWN.

Today, I will speak to our priorities that reflect how we, as first nations that hold rights under section 35 of the Canadian Constitution, will be impacted through legislation, regulation, and policy. I urge you to refer to our written submission for more details and priority topic areas.

I would like to begin with a brief introduction to the TWN so that you understand a bit more about who we are and the perspective that we have. TWN are the People of the Inlet, and we have used and occupied the lands and waters of Burrard Inlet since time out of mind. The TWN community is located on the north shore of the Burrard Inlet in North Vancouver, British Columbia. We hold a sacred obligation and responsibility to steward our lands and waters for our ancestors, for our generation, and for those to come. TWN does this through actively asserting and exercising our stewardship and governance rights. This includes participating in consultations with the crown over the hundreds of development projects proposed within our territory every year, many of which relate to authorizations under the Fisheries Act. We are also heavily engaged in proactive initiatives that assert TWN stewardship and governance rights to monitor, protect, and restore ecological integrity and functioning. This includes the protection, restoration, and management of fish and fish habitat.

Arguably, no Canadian legislation other than the Indian Act, 1985, has imposed the same level of determination over first nations physical, cultural, spiritual, and economic health and well-being as the Fisheries Act. In our view, the revision and modernization of the Fisheries Act provides a much-needed systemic shift in how Canada engages with the indigenous groups to manage fish, fish habitat, and fisheries. The proposed amendments contained within Bill C-68 offer a significant improvement over the existing Fisheries Act. Most notably, TWN applauds the Government of Canada for repealing the definition of commercial, recreational, and aboriginal fisheries. We also applaud the reinstating of broader protections under the harmful alteration, disruption, or destruction of the fish habitat provision.

However, we have remaining concerns that specifically affect TWN as a rights-holder. We believe the purpose section needs to be strengthened and broadened to reflect modern fisheries governance and management issues in Canada as well as the outcomes the law is intended to deliver. For managing fish and fish habitat, this must include the purpose of restoration. Due to adverse cumulative effects, TWN is in the position of having to restore fish and fish habitat within our territory before being able to access and exercise our constitutionally protected aboriginal rights.

Restoration is a key piece of everything we do, and many indigenous communities across Canada are in this same position. Providing clarity that restoration is one of the overall purposes of the Fisheries Act would help to empower the required actions from our governments.

It is also critical that the Government of Canada clearly state that one purpose of the Fisheries Act is reconciliation with indigenous peoples. The legislated respect for the existing rights of indigenous peoples of Canada, as recognized and affirmed under section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, would be a strong starting point to add to the purpose of the act.

As you are aware, Canada has stated its support for the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and its intent to implement UNDRIP. However, we see no mention whatsoever of UNDRIP in the act. Including these amendments in the purpose of the act would make them obligatory considerations in ministerial decision-making.

It would be irresponsible to future generations to ignore the issue of climate change in the revision of the Fisheries Act. Climate change must be considered in all aspects of fish and fish habitat protection, conservation, restoration, biodiversity, cumulative effects assessments, and fisheries management.

According to a study by Weatherdon et al. from 2016, as a result of climate change, it is anticipated that marine fish on the west coast of North America will shift their ranges poleward at a median rate of 10.3 kilometres per decade by 2050, relative to the year 2000. In British Columbia, first nation salmon catches are projected to decrease by 30%, and first nation herring catches will experience a 49% decline.

Without making provisions for climate change in the Fisheries Act, the Government of Canada is setting itself up for legal uncertainty with respect to constitutionally protected aboriginal rights. As currently implemented through policy, the burden is placed on indigenous groups to prove their traditional use and access to a fishery to receive food, and social and ceremonial licence to a particular species or fishing area. This policy has always been, and continues to be, a significant challenge to indigenous groups fully participating in fisheries and reinforces current adversarial challenges between the Government of Canada and indigenous groups.

In an era of rapid environmental change, shifts in species migration patterns, and biodiversity loss, the burden of proof of traditional use and access can no longer limit indigenous fishing opportunities. As our ancestors did, we continue to adapt and access all available resources within our territory that are not restricted by conservation concerns. Accessing new fisheries opportunities like, for example, fisheries migrating from warmer, southern waters, may become a critical climate change resiliency strategy for TWN to protect and maintain the physical, cultural, and economic foundation of our community.

The arbitrary requirement for proof of traditional use or access is outdated in a coastal system affected by climate-change-related impacts, and has no place in a modernized Fisheries Act.

In conclusion, again, I urge the committee to refer to TWN’s written submission for more detail and for priority areas of interest. I regrettably did not have time to discuss our views on governance structures, environmental flows, or the rebuilding of fish stocks.

However, I want to remind the committee that to facilitate effective decisions, assessments, and implementation under the Fisheries Act, a concerted effort is required by the Government of Canada to cross-reference and coordinate final legislative drafting between Bill C-68 and Bill C-69. These laws do not exist in complete isolation and must be revised as cohesive and significant pieces of Canada’s environmental legal landscape.

We request that the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans refer the specific legal language proposed by TWN on Bill C-69 to the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development with regard to indigenous jurisdiction and agreements, decision-making, and dispute resolution processes as they relate to the Fisheries Act.

TWN also supports the submissions on Bill C-68 by the FNFC-LFFA coalition and West Coast Environmental Law. We hope that you give their brief special consideration.

Thank you again for the opportunity to provide oral testimony before the committee today. We look forward to further conversations with you or your delegates regarding some of these issues, many of which require further consultation with indigenous groups as you finalize the legislation.

Natural Resources

[Serge Cormier, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Calgary Midnapore for her question.

My colleague spoke about the importance of leadership and action in her speech, and I completely agree with her on that. This is why I am proud of our government and, in particular, of the Prime Minister's leadership in making the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion a reality.

The Prime Minister has been clear, all across the country, about how urgent it is that this project move forward, since it is in the national interest and reflects our profound belief that economic prosperity and environmental protection can go hand in hand. This has not always been the case in Canada's recent history.

For instance, not a single pipeline was built along the coast in 10 years, and in fact, environmental protections were weakened considerably. Obviously, our government did not want to repeat the mistakes of the past. That is why one of the first things we did when we took office was to introduce an interim set of guiding principles for reviews of major resource development projects already in the works. This was a new approach intended to maintain investors' confidence. We also increased public consultation and the participation of indigenous peoples considerably.

Just a few months later, in June 2016, we launched a comprehensive review to come up with a permanent solution for conducting environmental assessments and regulatory reviews in Canada. The result is Bill C-69, which provides for stricter rules for carrying out major projects and getting our energy resources to global markets. It includes plans for a new Canadian energy regulator to replace the National Energy Board, which has not been modified since the National Energy Board Act came into effect in 1959.

Our objective is clear: to develop the vital infrastructure that is critical to our capacity to get Canadian resources to global markets, while also protecting our environment, which includes protecting our coastlines and combatting climate change.

The Trans Mountain pipeline expansion is part of that. It is part of a sensible approach that includes diversifying our energy markets, improving environmental safety, and creating thousands of good jobs for the middle class, including good jobs for first nations communities. The Prime Minister has been very clear and consistent on this. He said that the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion project is a vital strategic interest to Canada and insisted that it be built.

That is why he also asked the Minister of Finance to engage in formal financial discussions with the pipeline proponent. We are also looking at legislative options to clearly assert the Government of Canada's jurisdiction over this project in order to see it come to fruition.

That is what I call leadership. We were not just posturing. We made a commitment.

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Mr. Speaker, when Kinder Morgan announced that it would stop all non-essential work on the Trans Mountain extension project until it received assurances that there would be no more government delays, I do not think anyone was surprised. They were concerned, yes; angered, sure; saddened and disappointed, of course; but not surprised. That is because the Liberal government has failed time and again to support the Canadian energy sector. It has changed the rules, vetoed projects that were already independently approved, imposed burdensome regulations, and spoken publicly about phasing out the Canadian energy sector.

I am not surprised, because I know that actions have consequences, and the consequence of the Liberal government's failure to support the energy sector is that investors no longer have confidence in our business environment. On its own, the Prime Minister's failure to show leadership to get the Trans Mountain pipeline built would be detrimental to the energy sector. However, when it is combined with the cancellation of the energy east pipeline and the veto of the northern gateway pipeline, it is clear that there is a pattern.

The Liberal government's actions are making it increasingly difficult for the natural resources industry to access any global markets whatsoever. If Bill C-69 is passed in its current form, I question whether we will ever see another major energy project approved. This raises the stakes of the Trans Mountain extension. It is essential that the Liberal government ensure that this project goes forward.

Over the last two years, we have witnessed the flight of foreign investment from the Canadian energy sector, and I fear that this will only increase as investors watch this development in the Trans Mountain project and question whether to invest in projects without dependable access to global markets, not to mention the burdensome regulations.

This phenomenon has very real implications for the families and communities that depend on the energy sector for their livelihoods. More than 110,000 energy workers have lost their jobs, thanks to the Prime Minister's policies and the resulting decline in energy investment.

While knocking on doors in my riding of Calgary Midnapore, I have spoken with countless men and women who have lost their jobs in the energy sector over the past two years and who are now struggling to make ends meet. The Liberal government needs to show that it cares about the energy sector and the hard-working Canadians whose livelihoods depend on it.

The stakes are incredibly high for this industry, and the Trans Mountain extension must be built. What concrete steps is the Liberal government taking to make sure that this happens?

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

I'm very glad to hear that.

Thank you very much to all of you for being here today and answering our questions.

I want to remind the committee that we're back on Bill C-69 on Thursday with the minister and the departments.

The meeting is adjourned.

[Susanna Fuller, Oceans North Canada]

Thank you.

Thank you for inviting me to present today in my new role at Oceans North Canada.

Having been involved in previous attempts to amend and modify the Fisheries Act in 2006 and 2007, I want to commend the current government and the work of this committee for finally bringing us, on the 150th anniversary of Canada's Fisheries Act, to the point where significant amendments have been proposed, the majority leading to an improvement and a modernization of Canada's Fisheries Act.

Given the importance of fish and fish habitat to coastal communities, indigenous peoples, and Canadians in general, we do need a Fisheries Act for the 21st century and an act that we can take with pride to Canada's presidency of the G7, particularly with the priority given to oceans.

My comments are based on my history as part of the national fish habitat coordinating committee, which, together with DFO, was a member of several advisory committees for commercial fisheries in the belief that there's an urgent need to ensure that Canada's laws are consistent with the need to reconcile our history with indigenous peoples. They are also based on the belief that the management of a public resource must have a strong legal and policy framework to ensure that its sustainability is part of diversity, valuable ecosystem services, support for independent fishermen, and the future of coastal communities.

As you may know, the initial response to Bill C-68 was very positive, and this is reflective of the broad, though swift, consultative process that was undertaken. There are several elements of Bill C-68 that are significant improvements. I want to take note of these before I get to the few key areas where I believe amendments are needed to ensure that the act adequately provides for fisheries management and protection, conservation of fish and fish habitat, and access to fishing resources for adjacent communities.

The improvements that I think are good are the addition of a purpose section; expansion of factors to be considered in decision-making; measures for protection of independent fishing fleets; restoration of HADD; inclusion of a rebuilding clause for the first time; establishing permanency for fisheries closures, particularly those that are to count towards marine protection targets; creation of advisory panels that can ensure there's an increased use of expertise and public engagement in the implementation of the act; and finally, the five-year review of the act, which will ensure that regular updating is done when needed.

However, on closer examination, and after taking the time to think through how the new act would begin to address existing and long-standing problems with fish and fish habitat, there are a few key areas that, if left as now written, will undermine the achievement of the proposed purpose over time. It's generally accepted that fish populations decline primarily through two key factors: we harvest too many of them, or we destroy too much of their habitat. That's notwithstanding natural mortality and climate change, but without strong legal measures in place, there's no way to ensure that we are managing the harvest properly or able to mitigate and avoid habitat destruction. It is with this view that recommendations for improvements are made.

As you're likely aware, the environmental and conservation communities have been working closely together so that we are concise and aligned in our recommendations for amendments. I've also reached out to the fishing industry to better understand their concerns for areas of support for Bill C-68. The recommendations below are consistent with those put forward by West Coast Environmental Law, Ecojustice, Oceana Canada, and others. I align largely with comments made this morning by Keith Sullivan and Ecotrust Canada. It's interesting to note that the Mining Association of Canada is also aligned with some of the comments from Ecojustice. I think that's actually a unique situation, where we have such a broad constituency acquiescing in so many of the same things.

I will expand upon my six recommendations in a written submission with specific language, but the first one is to strengthen the purpose of the act. It's great that there's a purpose—it's much needed since 1996—but I believe it should be aligned with international agreements and conventions. I suggest that at a minimum we should add long-term conservation and sustainable use of the fishery to the purpose of the act.

Second, there is no mention of section 35 of the Canadian Constitution, and I note that in Bill C-69 it is included. To enshrine indigenous rights in this legislation and have consistency across Canadian legislation, I think section 35 should be added. I am mentioning this for the first time. My colleague Josh Laughren and those at Oceana give lots of reasons for why we need to rebuild the Fisheries Act. I feel strongly that this does need to be in the act and does need to be strong.

In Atlantic Canada, there are 17 species of marine fish that are either targeted by commercial fisheries or impacted by them, and these species are considered threatened or endangered by COSEWIC, the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada, which advises on the Species at Risk Act. Marine fish do not tend to get listed under the Species at Risk Act, mainly for socio-economic reasons, many of which I have some sympathy with. However, I believe that if we had a strong Fisheries Act that required the rebuilding of fish populations we might not find ourselves in such dire straits, with so many species considered endangered, some of which are vital to our coastal communities.

Strengthening the current rebuilding provisions means there is a legal backstop to the Species at Risk Act, which I would think the fishing industry would support. It gives us another tool to rebuild fish stocks without their being listed under the Species at Risk Act, although in some cases that may be the best tool. The Fisheries Act should require that rebuilding plans be in place and that they take into account ecosystem considerations, including climate change, with regard to timelines and targets. Failing to do this with Canada well behind other fishing nations and their legislation—many examples were given by Oceana—also fails to align us, again, with the international agreements to which Canada is a party or a signatory.

Fourth is on reporting to Parliament and to Canadians. Reporting on the status of fish habitats and the status of population rebuilding should be done on an annual basis. Currently, Environment and Climate Change Canada reports on the fisheries checklist from DFO. It seems a bit misplaced. I think DFO should have to report on its own goals, including fish habitats and the fish stocks and rebuilding. There are excellent examples of how this is done that are easily communicated to the public, and one of those is done by NOAA to the U.S. Congress. It's very readable. It's an infographic. It's not difficult to do. I would recommend adding reporting on rebuilding in proposed section 42.1

Finally, with regard to cumulative effects, we need to broaden the requirement of what's included in the public registry, proposed section 42.3. The public registry for projects is much needed. The NGO community has been advocating this for a very long time, and we're glad to see it in there. However, it's important that all projects where a fish habitat is impacted, whether through a letter of advice or through a departmental authorization, are included. Organizations on the ground, including DFO, through a pilot project in the gulf region, have already mapped areas where fish passage is blocked or a habitat has been altered. In practice, this is happening. It shouldn't be so difficult to add it to a public registry that is geospatially referenced. Without low-risk projects being included, planning and mitigation on a watershed level will be impossible, and I think colleagues at the Canadian Mining Association made reference to that as well.

In closing, a very strong constituency in Canada is interested in helping to implement a new Fisheries Act. This is a unique situation where thousands of volunteers through stewardship organizations and indigenous communities are working to identify barriers to fish passage and damage to fish habitat, to work on restoration. Increasingly, there is more transparency and multi-stakeholder engagement at fisheries advisory committees with regard to commercial fisheries where common ground can and is being found and actions can be agreed upon that help protect fish habitat and rebuild fish populations.

We can also use new tools to implement a new Fisheries Act, including mapping and GIS, electronic monitoring, just as examples, that can make data collection and data analysis easier. In the past attempts to upgrade the act, we didn't have those tools and now we do. They can make implementation much simpler.

In closing, as you consider and review Bill C-68, I hope you will be as ambitious as possible in this historic moment. It is the 150th anniversary of the Fisheries Act, the second act after the British North America Act, and this current act, Bill C-68, gets us up to about the 1970 level. We need to bump ourselves up to this century and give us a Fisheries Act for the future. We're very close. This act is and will continue to be foundational to who we are in Canada.

Thank you, and I'm happy to take any questions.

[Pierre Gratton, President and Chief Executive Officer, Mining Association of Canada]

Thank you, members of the committee. On behalf of the Mining Association of Canada, Justyna and I thank you for this opportunity to appear before you today.

As some of you may know, when I spoke to your colleagues on the environment committee about Bill C-69, I said I was mad, mad because in the same bill, the transition provisions for mining projects under CEAA were not the same as those for NEB projects.

In the latter, the government ensured that all projects undergoing an assessment begun by the NEB under CEAA 2012 would remain under the NEB, but not so for mining, which faces the uncertainty of switching acts midstream.

Guess what. I'm mad about Bill C-68 for a very similar reason. In our appearance before this committee on November 14, 2016, we stressed the importance of adequate departmental capacity for implementing the act and managing transition. We described the significant challenges we encountered with the transition resulting from the amendments introduced in 2012. Over and over we emphasized to the department that they had to do a better job of managing the transition this time around.

We appreciated your recommendations, particularly 21, 22, and 25, that advocated for investments in hiring field personnel and meaningfully resourcing the monitoring, compliance, and enforcement components of the department. We are pleased that the government has materially increased funding for DFO.

However, here with Bill C-68, we find once again a failure to address the problem of transition. While the provisions proposed in subclause 53(1) provide an orderly transition for authorization applications that have been deemed complete, they do not recognize directions given to proponents by DFO in response to a request for review or to guide an application for authorization.

What does this mean exactly? I'll explain.

Determining whether a large and complex mining project will impact fish habitat, gathering information on potentially impacted fish habitat, and examining mitigation or avoidance options takes time. Field studies take time, and must account for seasonal constraints. If an authorization under the Fisheries Act is required, additional time is needed to gather all necessary information, assess offset options, seek input from affected communities, particularly indigenous communities, and otherwise conform to the applications for authorization under paragraph 35(2)(b) of the Fisheries Act regulations. The cost of the complete authorization application package can range from hundreds of thousands of dollars for small projects to millions of dollars in the case of large projects, and can take several years.

Thus, requesting a review and preparing an application is not a trivial or a quick undertaking. Mining projects are also subject to federal and provincial environmental assessment processes. These can take three or more years, and application for an authorization under the Fisheries Act cannot be submitted until these assessments are completed. The case of one MAC member is particularly troubling, and exemplifies the importance of our request for amendment.

The project entered federal environment assessment in 2012, and the proponent had to completely revise its original Fisheries Act-related plans when the new Fisheries Act amendments came into force in late 2013. In the case of this project, it is unlikely that the environmental assessment will be completed in time to allow an application for authorization to be submitted before this bill, Bill C-68, and its amendments, come into force. This proponent would then be required to revise its application all over again, because the extensive direction given by departmental officials over the past six years would suddenly be deemed invalid.

I'm sorry, but we find this simply unacceptable. We therefore urge you to amend subclause 53(1) as suggested in our brief to you, to prevent responsible proponents from being forced to redo field studies, project design, offset design, and application development.

I should emphasize we have met with the department on this matter, and we believe we've been heard, but again, we strongly encourage this committee to consider our proposed amendment seriously, because, members of the committee, our sector has practised due diligence. Unlike other sectors that believe their activities were no longer regulated by the Fisheries Act, over the past six years we have fully complied and engaged with departmental officials to understand the requirements of the 2012 amendments to the Fisheries Act.

Indeed, officials, by their own admission, confirm that most authorizations today are for only the mining sector. Few others, removed from the scrutiny of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act and, thus, removed from the scrutiny of DFO, have bothered to seek authorizations even though their activities can, and do, harm fish.

Yet we find it is the mining sector that, by following the directions received, now may be penalized for our due diligence and engagement with the department if the directions received are invalidated through inadequate transition provisions, and duplication of effort is required to re-engage following the coming into force of new amendments.

The change we are requesting is not wholesale grandfathering. In fact, we believe the number of projects that would be affected by the proposed change is small. Morever, the requested change to the transition provisions would not affect the health of Canada's fish habitat. We do not believe there has been a deterioration in the protection from inadequate stringency of reviews and authorization applications for mining projects—and I believe the department could confirm that, as well. If there has been a deterioration, it is due to the lack of scrutiny of the activities of others. We are asking for relief from unnecessary administrative burdens on responsible project proponents and DFO regional staff.

Let me now turn to a second issue, which relates to cumulative effects.

When addressing the environment committee on Bill C-69, I spoke about how CEAA 2012 has penalized the mining sector by making us responsible for the cumulative effects of others not subject to CEAA. With Bill C-68 we face a similar situation with the requirement in proposed paragraph 34.1(1)(d) that the minister consider cumulative effects before recommending regulations or exercising any power.

Consideration of cumulative effects is necessary in making decisions that may impact aquatic ecosystem health. Fisheries are under federal jurisdiction, and the Fisheries Act contains a comprehensive range of regulatory tools for the discharge of that jurisdiction. DFO, thus, has the tools for monitoring, assessing, and managing cumulative effects.

However, based on our experience with CEAA 2012, the department may default to erroneously and unfairly place the burden of managing cumulative effects on a few mining projects rather than taking the steps necessary to address the root causes of cumulative fish habitat deterioration.

You recently heard from Margot Venton of Ecojustice Canada, who said:

...fish habitat is degraded not only by major projects, but also through the impact of smaller-scale works, undertakings, and activities. To stem the tide of incremental loss of habitat, DFO needs to do a better job of considering and addressing this cumulative loss of habitat....

Yes—guess what—I'm agreeing with Ecojustice, and not just with them.

The recently published “Watershed Reports: A national assessment of Canada's freshwater”, by the World Wildlife Fund, highlights the complexity and diversity of stresses on Canada's watersheds. It supports our concern that these stresses cannot be addressed by focusing the department's attention on a few mining projects. Activities affecting fish and fish habitat must be fully assessed by the party that caused the effect. Mining projects should be responsible only for project-related effects, as our industry has no control over effects related to non-mining activities, such as forestry, agriculture, hydro, and municipal works. In short, the act must be applied consistently for all works, undertakings, or activities.

Project proponents should not be held accountable for the cumulative effects of non-regulated activities, as contemplated in proposed subsection 34.1(1). As the legislation is drafted, a project proponent could be required to avoid, mitigate, or create offsets for fish habitat to compensate for the harm to fish habitat caused by other industries.

These concerns could be partly addressed by amending proposed paragraph 34.1(1)(d) as spelled out in our brief.

To conclude, if the transition provisions in subclause 53(1) are amended as requested, and if you help balance the responsibility for cumulative effects, the impacts of the revised Fisheries Act proposed by Bill C-68 on the mining sector are expected to be manageable. Of course this is contingent on how these are interpreted and implemented by DFO.

Thank you very much. I look forward to your questions.

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Fine.

Thank you, Minister.

My second question is about direct foreign investment. Back home in Calgary, we have unfortunately lost several companies following bad results. There were a lot of issues related to policies of the Department of Foreign Affairs. I'm thinking of NAFTA in particular; up till now, Canada has not been able to secure a satisfactory agreement.

With Bill C-69, it will be almost impossible to obtain authorization for future energy projects. I'm thinking also of the Trans Mountain Expansion Project. If you think that women deserve to occupy good positions, why don't you do more to keep direct foreign investment in Canada?

Oil Tanker Moratorium Act

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have been looking forward to the opportunity to engage in this debate.

I am going to frame this discussion in terms of Canada's competitiveness and our future, what our future will look like for the coming generations if we continue to go along the path of sending terrible signals to the global investment community. My comments will actually focus on how Bill C-48 is poorly thought out and really does not reflect the reality of Canada's resource economy.

I am a proud Canadian, but I am also a very proud British Columbian. Unlike many of my colleagues in this House, I have had the chance to hike many of the different remote wilderness areas of British Columbia. I have had the chance to hike the Chilkoot Trail, where one hikes out of the coastal rainforest in Alaska into the drier interior area of British Columbia and follow the trail the early gold miners took to the Yukon gold fields. I have had a chance to hike the Bowron Lakes. In fact, we canoed the Bowron Lakes, 12 lakes connected with portages, where one is almost guaranteed to see moose and bear along the way. I have had a chance to climb the Rockwall and Skyline trails in the Rocky Mountains. I have had a chance to hike in the Cathedral Lakes area outside of Keremeos, British Columbia. Also, in the northeast corner of British Columbia, there is the Muskwa watershed, Gathto Creek, and Pine River. British Columbia is an awesomely beautiful province, a place we as Canadians can be very proud of. It is a legacy that has been left to us.

Anything that would threaten our coastal areas, any threat to the marine life in our oceans, is something I take very seriously. We know oil tankers have been plying our coastal waters for many, many years. Over those years, how many crude oil spills have actually happened in British Columbia waters? Does anybody want to guess? Zero. There have been zero crude oil spills as far back as we want to go. Why? Because we have superior pilotage, and we have tankers today that are double-hulled as opposed to single-hulled to make sure if they strike something, that object does not penetrate the hull. We now have a world-class marine oil spill response, and we love the government for doing that. That is good. We want to protect our coastal areas.

What we do not want to do is undermine Canada's prosperity as we do this, so we have to be careful how we implement policy. We have to ask ourselves what the Prime Minister's motive is behind imposing a moratorium on tanker traffic off our west coast. By imposing a moratorium, we are preventing Canada from getting its oil and gas products to foreign markets where they fetch the best price. What is the motive? Well, we could just follow the Prime Minister around the world on his global travels from costume to costume, leader to leader. Guess what? We found him in France, where he thought he was safe and he started badmouthing Canada's resource sector. More specifically, he badmouthed Canada's oil sands and lamented the fact that he had not been able to phase out the oil sands by now.

There is the hidden agenda. We have a Liberal government that wants to phase out our oil industry. It wants to put all kinds of impediments in the way of our resource sector to make sure Canadians do not get the maximum dollar that they should for their products.

The Prime Minister goes so far as to pretend he is one thing in British Columbia, where of course he is the champion of the environment whenever he visits, but when he travels to Alberta of course he suddenly becomes the champion of the energy sector.

In fact, what he did in Alberta was to say, “If you impose a massive carbon price on your residents, you'll be able to get the social licence to get the Trans Mountain pipeline built.” What happened? Alberta followed suit. It trusted the Prime Minister, which is something I think Canadians are now very wary of. Premier Notley trusted the Prime Minister when he said, “Hey, a carbon tax and you'll get your pipeline to tidewater”. Well, do we have a pipeline to tidewater? Today we have protesters, no leadership from the Prime Minister, and court challenges. What happened to the social licence? It is bogus.

Along the way, this moratorium on tanker traffic off our Pacific coast is just one more nail in the coffin of completely undermining Canada's competitiveness within the global marketplace. Every day that goes by, Canada becomes less and less competitive, especially vis-à-vis our partner to the south, the United States. I will mention a few things that this government has already done. If imposed, a moratorium on offshore drilling in the north undermines prosperity, because we leave resources in the ground that could have fetched good dollars, but we leave them there.

On the massive carbon tax that Canadians are now being expected pay, members can imagine how that undermines our competitiveness as we layer tax upon tax. Foreign investors wonder why they would invest in Canada and not go to the United States where the corporate tax rate was dropped from 35% to 21% and it got rid of all the red tape. The Liberal government funds a Canada summer jobs grant to an organization that is actually organizing and protesting against the Trans Mountain pipeline. The Prime Minister publicly says that it is going to build, but then gives cash to oppose it. That is our Liberal government.

Then, of course, there is Bill C-69, the new regulations that the Prime Minister would impose on resource projects. The bill would add more discretionary powers to the minister to extend and suspend timelines. There would be longer time frames. There would be new criteria added, including upstream and downstream impacts. This is how crazy it gets. The government would impose criteria, conditions, upon our own oil and gas producers that we do not impose on those who ship gas from foreign jurisdictions like Nigeria, Saudi Arabia, Kazakhstan, and Venezuela. The oil that comes from those countries into Canada right now does not have to comply with any of those criteria, but our own homegrown producers of that product, which is the cleanest in the world, and is subject to the toughest conditions in the world, have to comply with those criteria. We wonder why we have lost 100,000 jobs in our economy. It is because of policies like that. Over 87 billion dollars' worth of capital has fled Canada because of the poorly thought out policies of the Liberal government.

As Conservatives, and the word “conservative” implies conservation, we believe that the highest environmental standards have to be complied with. When we extract our resources in Canada, whether it is mining, oil, or gas, Canadians expect that it be done to the highest environmental standards. Canadians also understand that those resources that lie in the ground represent huge opportunities for economic growth in our country, for jobs, for long-term prosperity, and for funding the programs that governments want to provide to Canadians. It is absolutely critical that moratoria, like the one the Prime Minister is trying to impose on our west coast, not proceed, because at the end of the day, Canadians will pay a very significant price for that. Quite frankly, if in fact the Prime Minister cannot get the job done, he should step aside and let the adults take over. Let someone else take over, someone who really understands the economy, someone who understands the environment, and the appropriate balance between the two.

The Environment

[Catherine McKenna, Liberal, Minister of Environment and Climate Change]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the member opposite for his long advocacy for parks in protected areas. We are absolutely committed to ensuring that the ecological integrity of our parks is a top priority. I am looking forward to announcing soon the findings of the minister's round table, wherein this is emphasized.

In terms of Bill C-69, we understand that the environment and the economy go together and that we have to rebuild trust in environmental assessments. That is exactly what we are doing.

[Wayne Stetski, NDP, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Madam Speaker, even after UNESCO has threatened to add the Wood Buffalo National Park to the list of world heritage sites in danger, the government has failed to require environmental assessments for all proposed developments within our national parks. This week, Melody Lepine of the Mikisew Cree told the environment committee that even though industrial activities are putting a national park at huge risk, there may never be another federal assessment as Bill C-69 is currently drafted.

Will the government commit to ensuring environmental assessments for all developments as a part of protecting Canada's national parks in the future?

[Mike Bossio, Liberal, Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON]

Mr. Amos and I are on the environment committee and right now we're studying Bill C-69, the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. This, of course, is a key discussion as part of that act, what amendments need to occur to bring about that meaningful participation, that collaborative consent type of approach, and how we can put that within the act so it recognizes UNDRIP, and starts to work toward a rights framework.

In going forward with Bill C- 262, I would assume you would agree that we need to ensure that, as we are going through these other acts, we develop a consistent approach across legislation so we can arrive at the place you're discussing right now.

[Churence Rogers, Liberal, Bonavista—Burin—Trinity, NL]

Thank you, Madam Chair, and thanks to the panellists for appearing today.

I have a question for Brock. With my municipal background, of course, I want to talk to you a little bit about municipalities. FCM is the umbrella organization for all municipal governments across the country, big and small, some pretty tiny, some large.

How does the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, overall, view this new proposed legislation, Bill C-69? In your opinion, does it improve or hinder the future work that municipalities will have to undertake under this proposed legislation?

[Robert Sopuck, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

Thank you.

Mr. Carlton, I appreciate your comments on the Navigable Waters Protection Act. I have 36 municipalities in my constituency.

I have just a quick, little anecdote here. Spring pressure tore out a culvert. This ravine had water in it for perhaps a month a year. Well, the bureaucracy told the municipality that they had to put a bridge there because it was considered a navigable water, which is clearly ridiculous. What made it even more ridiculous was that the estimated cost of the bridge was $750,000, and the total budget of the municipality was $1 million. So we changed the stupid law that did stupid things, like I have just described. I will stand by the changes we made to the Navigable Waters Protection Act any day. It's all about the definition of what a navigable water is.

Also, on municipalities advocating for economic development and resource development, three of us here think that's a good thing, so keep up the good work in that regard.

I would like to direct my next questions to Teck Resources. Pierre Gratton, the head of the mining association, was before us a while ago, and he made the point that, in spite of the fact that commodity prices are increasing around the world, investment in mining and natural resource development in Canada is going down. It's fleeing this country.

You alluded to it, Ms. Risbud, but I think your point was far too mild. The Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers talked about how Canada is losing investments, and they see very little in Bill C-69 that will improve that. Chris Bloomer from the Canadian Energy Pipeline Association made the point that Canada has a toxic regulatory environment. He used the word “toxic” in his testimony, and he said that, if the job is to kill oil and gas production and pipelines, this bill will do a very good job. I noticed on your website.... I know you're not in the pipeline business, but you're in the steelmaking and coal business, so when pipelines are not built, your company and your employees are directly affected.

Can you comment on why investment in Canada is declining? It's in the billions of dollars, 56%, at a time when commodity prices around the world are increasing.

[Darren Fisher, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

It's 3,000. Well, that's because we have a new convention centre now.

Brock, because we have multiple levels of government, that poses unique challenges for impact assessment. Every order of government is only able to regulate the matters within its own jurisdiction. We know that co-operation is imperative. We have to have co-operation.

Notwithstanding your comments and the recommendations in your testimony about explicitly listing municipalities—and I do think there are changes to this legislation from 2012 that take municipalities and some of your recommendations into play—maybe you can expand a bit on what you notice in Bill C-69 that ensures co-operation and input from all levels of government, especially from the early planning phase.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Let me ask you a more direct question on that then.

Is Bill C-69 going to speed up the review process, or is it going to slow it down?

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

That is a good preface to my question to Mr. Carlton.

Back in 2012, our previous Conservative government made a number of changes to the Navigable Waters Protection Act, and we made a distinction between minor and major projects to make sure that the minor projects weren't caught up in the incredible red tape that a full impact assessment would require.

You've now had a chance to review this Bill C-69. If the amendments that you have suggested here at the table today are not made, do you believe that Bill C-69 will make it more difficult for local projects to be approved?

[Karine Péloffy]

Some of these limits were addressed in the modernization of the Quebec Environment Quality Act. I would draw a parallel with the preamble of Bill C-69 which indicates that the public will now be consulted on the content of the impact study guideline, at the very beginning of the process, which should be useful once the project is before the BAPE.

The appointment process has also been changed. The BAPE has more mechanisms at its disposal. There are now targeted consultations, although mediation is still possible. There are several public participation mechanisms that are possible.

Indeed, in Quebec, the decision remains political. Apparently, what justified the use of that model in the beginning was the idea that the Quebec nation is so small that a rigorous, credible report that had the public's trust could have enough influence and create sufficient political pressure that the proper decision would be made.

Canada's case is different and it is important that decisions be surrounded by a much stronger framework. We must not only consider certain factors or reports; the decisions really have to be based on that. We must also have the opportunity of appealing those decisions. I think that that is the great weakness of the Quebec system, which we would not like to see repeated here.

[Matt DeMille, Manager, Fish and Wildlife Services, Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters]

Thank you.

Good morning, Madam Chair and members of the committee.

On behalf of the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters, our 100,000 members, supporters, and subscribers, and our 740 clubs across Ontario, thank you for inviting us here today to talk about elements of Bill C-69 that are critically important to our organization.

Our primary interest in the bill is the Canadian navigable waters act. Although our organization has a very keen interest in the environmental considerations for projects that occur in and around water, our knowledge and experience in Ontario are related mostly to the Fisheries Act and provincial statutes and regulatory processes, such as Ontario's Environmental Assessment Act. Therefore, we will focus our comments today on the angler, hunter, and trapper perspectives on navigation protection.

From the time of the fur trade, and well before for indigenous peoples, navigable waters have been critical for accessing resources in Canada. Water-based navigation remains woven into the cultural fabric and social identity of many indigenous and non-indigenous Canadians. Approximately one-quarter of Canadians fish, hunt, and trap, and they contribute $15.2 billion to the Canadian economy every year. Fishing, hunting, and trapping are very relevant in Canada today, and the right to navigation is important to the Canadians who enjoy those activities.

The idea of a public right to navigation is almost as old as the country itself, with navigation legislation having origins dating back to the late 1800s. Although societal demand for water-based transportation has changed dramatically over time, there remains a demand for safe and accessible navigable waters. To achieve this requires strong legislative oversight by the federal government.

First, we must know what navigability means to Canadians—what are we trying to protect? The most obvious connection to navigability for some Canadians will be lake freighters on the Great Lakes or cabin cruisers on the Rideau Canal or the Trent-Severn Waterway—big waters and big boats.

When our members think about navigability, however, a high volume of traffic is the last thing they want to see. They are more interested in the navigable backwaters of Canada. Small rivers, streams, creeks, marshes, and other smaller watercourses are important gateways to fishing, hunting, and trapping opportunities. The definition of “navigable waters” in the proposed Canadian navigable waters act has been enhanced and now provides more detail, with specific recognition for recreational use. This is a positive amendment that better reflects our idea of navigability.

It is our position that navigation legislation is not intended to be environmental legislation. Are there opportunities for navigation protection to provide a checkpoint to ensure that environmental legislation and regulatory processes are happening as they should? Definitely. The projects occurring in and around water should be considered from both a navigation and an environmental perspective. But if we are relying on this act—past, present, or future forms of it—to be a significant line of defence for environmental protection, then we have to question the effectiveness of our primary environmental statutes, such as the Fisheries Act and the impact assessment act.

From our perspective, protecting navigability is not about adding red tape for proponents or slowing down development. Large-scale proponent-driven projects are already scrutinized under other legislation and often across multiple jurisdictions. These projects should absolutely be subject to navigability legislation, but the regulatory process must be done in conjunction with other federal approval processes to make it as efficient as possible for the proponent's and the agency's benefit. The proposed amendments to have the prohibition apply to major works in any navigable water is a step in the right direction, but more about that later.

We are concerned that regulatory processes tend to focus on these proponent-driven medium- and large-scale projects, for which prohibitions as well as permitting and approval requirements are well established in the development cycle. It is the smaller-scale obstructions that do not have the same proponent-agency relationship, because the responsible party is more likely to be a private landowner who won't be disclosing their intent to erect a fence, a wire, a rope, or other obstruction across a navigable water. In most cases, the individual is unaware that they are breaking the law or even that navigation legislation exists. These obstructions won't be flagged, but they will impede public navigation and create significant safety concerns.

For obstructions—and it is important to differentiate obstructions from works or projects—the presence of a legal deterrent and subsequent government recourse to address contraventions can be as important for protecting navigability as the regulatory and permitting process is for traditional proponent-led projects. We want to prevent obstructions to navigability to the greatest degree possible, because the average Canadian can't and won't fight these issues in the courts. When navigability concerns do arise, Canadians expect and rely on the federal government to protect navigability. For this reason, we are pleased to see that the amended act proposes to prohibit obstructions in any navigable water. In our minds, this is a very important change.

In addition to the legislative measures, navigation protection requires strong education and outreach to increase awareness among Canadians. This should accompany the implementation of the Canadian navigable waters act, particularly as it relates to obstructions that cause serious navigability and public safety concerns.

To maintain safe and accessible waters in Canada, we need strong legislation with clear and comprehensive provisions that outline where, when, and how the government will protect navigation. The following are a few more specific comments on the amended navigation legislation proposed in Bill C-69.

There has been much discussion about the 2009 and 2012 amendments to the navigation legislation. Much of what I have read so far has been negative, but that isn't entirely fair. The limitation of the legislation to a scheduled list of water bodies was considered a major setback for navigation protection; however, the 2009 amendments established a foundation for classifying different works or projects. This has been maintained in the Canadian navigable waters act and expanded with the inclusion of major works.

We believe a classification system that enables prioritization of projects being reviewed for navigation protection is necessary. First, there are differences in the level of scrutiny required for different types of projects. Think of the differences between a dock and a dam. In a perfect world, we would want all works, regardless of type, to be assessed and authorized by a regulatory agency. This may have been possible under the broad nature of the Navigable Waters Protection Act prior to 2009. However, we must acknowledge the fiscal realities of the navigation protection program and the fact that the administrative burden in reviewing all minor works may not be worth the added value to navigation protection. A regulatory triage is now commonly used by agencies to implement regulatory programs.

As always, the devil is in the details, and the amended legislation only tells part of the story. We can likely make relatively safe assumptions about what will be defined as minor works because of the existing minor works order under the Navigation Protection Act, but we do not know what types of projects will be included as major works. To achieve a complete and effective major works order, the minister will need to establish a transparent public consultation process. Only when we know what types of projects are classified as minor and major will we know what is left in between, in other words, what projects won't be subject to navigation protection in unlisted, or 99%, of Canadian waters.

We are still not convinced that special classification of waters in a schedule is necessary or appropriate. If the government can get the classes of works right, then classes of waters shouldn't be necessary.

I hope we have been able to illustrate a different perspective on the proposals to amend navigation legislation and have offered the committee value-added feedback that will contribute to your study and ultimately bring meaningful change to the bill and its implementation.

Thank you again, Madam Chair and members of the committee, for the invitation and for your attention today. I look forward to the questions.

[Brock Carlton, Chief Executive Officer, Federation of Canadian Municipalities]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

Thank you for receiving us today.

I look around the room and I see friends and colleagues whom I've worked with over many years. It's nice to see you, nice to engage in this conversation. It's so important.

FCM certainly welcomes this opportunity to bring Canada's municipal voice to your review of Bill C-69. As environmental and economic leaders, municipalities understand and support federal efforts to improve environmental assessment processes. Municipalities are uniquely impacted by these processes, sometime as proponents, sometimes as interested participants, but always as a level of government protecting the interests of our communities.

Municipalities are regular participants in environmental assessment where outcomes have a local impact on areas of municipal responsibility, such as environmental sustainability, emergency response planning, land use planning, and the construction and maintenance of municipal infrastructure.

At the same time, many projects, including those within the resource development sector, are important to economic prosperity and the quality of life in local communities. In addition to these, as participants, municipal governments are also project proponents directly affected by federal environmental assessments when municipal infrastructure projects are subject to federal approval.

Each of the expert panel and House standing committee reports, which inform the changes proposed in Bill C-69, noted the unique and growing role of municipalities within environmental assessment processes.

FCM has filed nine submissions over the last year with recommendations to improve environmental and regulatory review processes. Our recommendations reflect the views of the diverse membership of more than 2,000 municipalities representing over 90% of the Canadian population. With responsibility for 60% of the country's public infrastructure, municipalities help drive Canada's economic prosperity, environmental sustainability, and quality of life.

To address Bill C-69 I would like to walk the committee through each of the acts that are being changed, starting with the Navigation Protection Act. FCM has consistently recommended aligning the legislation with current transportation demands, which depend more on the construction of bridges and roads than expanding water navigation. In 2009, the former Navigable Waters Protection Act's scope was refined with input from municipalities to include an exemption for minor works and waters with little impact on navigation. Several amendments in 2012 brought aspects of the legislation closer to Canada's modern realities. These changes addressed municipal concerns about project delays and expenses caused by federal reviews triggered by small-scale projects.

FCM recognizes and shares concerns about the large number of lakes and rivers that no longer have oversight under the Navigation Protection Act. However, the proposed Canadian navigable waters act includes changes that FCM did not call for and will have significant impacts on municipalities. These include a new requirement that project proponents notify and consult on proposed works on all navigable waters, including both scheduled and non-scheduled water bodies, and a new resolution process that would allow the Minister of Transport to review navigation concerns on non-scheduled water bodies.

FCM expects these changes will result in significantly more municipal infrastructure projects falling under federal review, and we are concerned about the expansion of the scope of the legislation to include, effectively, a new class of works that will fall outside of the existing minor works and existing major works categories. These in-between works are likely to include municipal infrastructure projects that are critical to public safety, transportation, and commerce—for example, bridges, water control structures, and flood mitigation structures. We're not advocating that all bridges, water control structures, etc., be exempt, but we believe there is a consideration for the scale of a project and scale of the waterway that needs to be taken into account.

To address these, we recommend, first, that Transport Canada conduct a review of the existing minor works order, to assess whether more types of works need to be added. Second, we recommend that Transport Canada create a standardized mechanism for project proponents who notify the public in order to meet new requirements under the act. Third, we highlight the importance of enforcing the timelines for public notification and consultation outlined in proposed subsections 10(3), 10.1(1), and 10.1(3) as a means of reducing untimely delays. We recommend that these timelines are reviewed and amended as provided for in regulation, if they are deemed ineffective.

The second part of Bill C-69 that FCM is focused on is changes to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. FCM supports the proposed approach of having designated projects jointly reviewed by the proposed impact assessment agency of Canada and the relevant federal life-cycle regulators. We also support broadening the scope of assessments to include economic, social, and health impacts, and the “one project, one review” objective that Bill C-69 strives to achieve.

Still, we believe that Bill C-69 does not go far enough in recognizing the important role municipalities play in relation to designated projects. For that reason, we are proposing the following amendments: that proposed section 11 of the impact assessment act be expanded to expressly include consultation with municipal governments; that this phrase, “comments from a municipal government impacted by the designated project”, be added to the factors that must be considered by the impact assessment agency of Canada under proposed subsection 22(1) of the impact assessment act; and that, as a result of the above amendments, “consultation with municipalities” be added to the preamble of the impact assessment act, making it clear that this is an objective of the legislation.

FCM strongly believes that early engagement with municipalities leads to better outcomes. Therefore, we are also calling for consultation with municipalities to be a required component of the initial project description, which proponents must file with the impact assessment agency of Canada.

Finally, I'd like to turn to the National Energy Board Act. Municipalities interact daily with the existing network of NEB-regulated pipelines and power transmission lines. Communities of all sizes benefit from economic activity associated with resource development and energy transportation infrastructure. Municipal governments are directly impacted by pipelines through emergency response planning, land use planning, and construction. There are several changes the government is proposing that are in line with FCM's recommendations, but I'd like to address a few of the recommendations made by FCM that are not clearly addressed. Notably, FCM called for the NEB Act to be amended to recognize municipal bylaws and require pipeline companies and the NEB to abide by them, within the limits of the Constitution. We also said that the NEB Act should be amended to provide municipalities with a direct role in deciding the local route that proposed pipeline projects take.

While the proposed changes go a long way to improving the public consultation process, they do not go far enough. Codifying the requirement to consult with municipalities in the legislation will go further to address municipal concerns that have arisen during recent NEB hearings.

In addition, FCM is recommending that the impact assessment agency of Canada and the Canadian energy regulator be granted greater flexibility in determining the maximum time limits for conducting an impact assessment of a proposed pipeline. While FCM supports timelines for environmental and regulatory reviews, we recommend that these be determined on a project-by-project basis.

In conclusion, we want to stress that it will be necessary for the federal government to actively engage and consult municipal governments as regulations for these acts are created. As environmental and economic leaders, municipalities understand the need to balance economic activity and environmental protection as complementary priorities. We believe our recommendations help to achieve this balance.

We thank you again, and we look forward to your questions when they arise.

[Sheila Risbud, Director, Government Affairs, Teck Resources Limited]

Good morning, Madam Chair, members of the committee, and fellow witnesses.

It is an honour for me today to be here to present Teck's recommendations on Bill C-69.

My name is Sheila Risbud and I'm the Director of Government Affairs for Teck Resources. Previous to Teck, I worked for the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency and for Environment and Climate Change Canada where I was directly involved in federal impact assessments. I am accompanied here today by my colleague Mark Freberg, who also has extensive environmental assessment experience in both Canada and Chile. We'd be happy to answer your questions after our presentation.

Proudly Canadian, Teck is a diversified natural resource company.

We are proud to employ over 8,000 people in Canada.

In Canada, we have six steelmaking coal operations, the country's largest open-pit copper mine, a zinc and lead smelting complex, and have interests in several mining development and oil sands projects. We also own or have interest in mines in Chile, Peru, and the United States. In all jurisdictions where we operate, we focus on building strong relationships with communities, indigenous people, and other stakeholders.

We have significant business arrangements in place with Chinese customers and investors, and from our headquarters in Vancouver, we compete with many of the world's largest mining companies. Many of our activities require environmental assessments, and as a project proponent in Canada, we believe that the design and implementation of this legislation is critical. It matters to ensuring the ongoing protection of the environment and it matters as well to the long-term competitiveness of our business and the jobs that depend on our success.

We support the government's effort to strengthen public confidence in the environmental assessment processes and to enhance indigenous people's participation and decision-making. For Teck, the intentions in the government's legislation align with core business values. In many instances, they describe our existing approach to managing our relationship with the environment and the community at large.

New rules that result in greater public confidence in environmental protections will help support and attract investment in this country. However, this represents one part of the challenge as we see it. Project proponents need to know that approval processes will not only be rigorous but can be counted on and result in clear, timely decisions. We're encouraged by many elements within Bill C-69, but we would like to see more emphasis on a predictable process that delivers regulatory certainty for all parties.

This is specially important now, at a time when Canada has seen its share of global mining investments decrease significantly in recent years.

Getting this right can help turn the situation around.

Teck supports the amendments that the Mining Association of Canada highlighted in its presentation to this committee on March 29. Today, we'd like to briefly highlight areas of the legislation that we believe could benefit from additional clarity. I'll focus my remarks on the proposed early planning phase, enhanced indigenous peoples' participation and decision-making, and competitiveness in cost-recovery restructures.

First, let me say that we support the inclusion of an early planning phase. This reflect's Teck's existing approach to engaging early with stakeholders and indigenous peoples, and we believe it should be considered a best practice internationally. However, we're concerned that as currently written, the proposed early planning phase does not identify clear milestones within the 180-day period.

Defining milestones with clear timelines for the various steps would provide certainty and transparency for all parties involved in the assessment. Proponents need to understand what is expected of them in order to adequately meet early planning requirements. Without this clarity, the early planning phase could continue indefinitely.

For example, we recommend that the agency be given set times to deliver the summary of issues document. This is the document that describes the issues that the agency has heard to date and the decision on whether an impact assessment is required. We also recommend that the early planning phase contain a mechanism to incorporate information already collected by a proponent or another jurisdiction prior to the 180-day period.

Incorporating existing information could significantly streamline the process and incent proponents to conduct even earlier positive engagement with potentially impacted communities and indigenous peoples.

I also recommend that sufficient resources be allocated to the new impact assessment agency to manage this early planning phase well, ensuring it has the capacity to meet its expanded consultation obligations as well as to review scientific data and indigenous knowledge.

So, to summarize, while Teck supports early planning, clear and predictable milestones and sufficient resources are required in order to successfully meat this phase's intent of greater transparency and predictability.

Another aspect of this bill that we support is the early and inclusive engagement and participation of indigenous peoples at every stage of the impact assessment process. Teck has very positive experiences from early engagement with indigenous peoples, and we have formalized early, inclusive dialogue into our corporate-wide indigenous peoples policy. We believe this approach contributes to reconciliation while supporting the shared benefits of resource development.

However, this legislation needs to result in clear, consistent practices that governments, indigenous peoples, and proponents can rely on. We hope you will agree that for too long, there has been a positive discussion about the need to do better, but perhaps too little by way of clearly defining how we can make this work.

Teck supports the government's commitment to the adoption and implementation of the UN Declaration on Indigenous Peoples. Currently, however, it is not clear how Bill C-69 will be coordinated with the government's plans to implement the UN declaration, particularly with regard to free, prior, and informed consent. We recommend that the government engage with industry, provinces, territories, and indigenous governments to develop a process for the implementation of the UN declaration, with a focus on achieving complete clarity around what is expected when it comes to the terms “free, prior, and informed consent”.

Teck is also pleased to see crown consultation begin earlier in the impact assessment process. For this process to be successful, however, we recommend that there be clarity on the scope of consultation and the division or coordination of consultation efforts between the crown and the proponent.

Once again, we support the government's intent to meaningfully involve indigenous peoples in impact assessment but seek clarity on how this will be carried out.

We recommend that clear criteria be established that outline when and how the minister will delegate impact assessment responsibilities.

The last aspect of Bill C-69 we would like to comment on is the structure of cost recovery under proposed sections 76 through 80 of the legislation. We recognize that reasonable cost recovery is a standard practice in regulatory and permitting processes, and we have experience with cost recovery regimes. We believe that federal cost calculations must consider integration with provincial fees related to the same project. This would be consistent with the federal government's commitment to coordination with provinces to support the one project, one assessment principle.

We also believe that federal cost recovery should consider any other fees for mining projects under other federal legislation such as the Fisheries Act. Doing so would remove costly duplication and support greater cost competitiveness in Canada. One place to coordinate this would be in the proposed impact assessment coordination plan.

We therefore recommend that the agency should be mandated to coordinate cost recovery with other jurisdictions and other federal departments when costs are included under other legislation.

In conclusion, we want to reiterate Teck's overall support for this government's intent to improve environmental and regulatory processes.

We support the government's efforts in this regard. We are pleased to see that some of our recommendations are being considered in this bill.

We appreciate this opportunity to appear before you today and to highlight further recommendations that we believe provide clarity in Bill C-69. We want to see Canada succeed, becoming a greater destination for global mining investment and a leader in responsible project development, while protecting the environment, advancing reconciliation with indigenous peoples, and creating economic opportunities for all Canadians.

Thank you. I will be pleased to answer your questions.

[Karine Péloffy, Managing Director, Québec Environmental Law Centre]

Good morning, Madam Chair.

I want to thank the committee for the invitation. It is an honour for me to testify on behalf of the Quebec Environment Law Centre, the QELC.

This bill will apply to an enormous territory and three oceans. This is an extremely important moment in our history. As regards climate and biodiversity, it has never been as urgent to act as it is at this time.

The QELC is the only independent organization that provides expertise in environmental law in Quebec, and it has done so since 1989. Over the past years, we have been involved in several legal cases regarding the now-dismantled Stephen Harper era legal regime, particularly cases related to the Energy East pipeline project, the protection of the beluga in Cacouna, the protection of the rights of francophones in the National Energy Board assessment process, as well as the application of provincial law to projects, and more specifically, to its public participation processes. These cases reflect the tenor of our recommendations.

In addition, since 2016, I have been a member of the multilateral advisory committee of the Minister of Environment and Climate Change, entrusted, among other things, with studying the reform of environmental assessment. I am actively involved in that process. I listened to most of the testimony from the English Canada environmental groups, as well as from indigenous groups. The QELC supports their proposals overall, including those made by Mr. Doelle.

I will focus my remarks on aspects specific to Quebec, for several reasons.

First, Quebec has had a unique experience. It began to hold public consultations to assess three dimensions of environmental projects—ecological, social and economic—in 1978, that is to say a good 10 years or so before the federal government introduced an environmental assessment act.

Second, the general framework of Quebec's environmental protection was greatly modernized in the past year, and there were breakthroughs on several fundamental issues discussed in Bill C-69; it could be useful to examine that in the course of your study.

Third, the structure of Bill C-69 is very similar to the structure of the Quebec regime; however, we have some major concerns. The document I provided to you summarizes the basic features that have allowed the Quebec regime to have some success. If some of those basic elements are absent from its federal counterpart, it may not work. I am referring particularly to public participation and the independence of the committees that will examine the projects.

I often refer to the model of the Bureau d'audiences publiques sur l'environnement du Québec, the BAPE, which will be 40 years old this year. It provides basic guarantees on public participation, and the public trusts it and has participated actively over those 40 years in the study of close to 350 projects.

I seem to be the only Quebec representative to testify before this federal committee, with the exception of a few Cree, Algonquin and Inuit representatives, although Quebec represents 22% of the Canadian population, and Quebeckers were very involved in the assessment of controversial projects under the dismantled 2012 federal regime. Moreover, in our area, we have a multitude of experts who could have come to inform the committee on some fundamental issues, and more importantly, suggest concrete solutions on the basis of what works in Quebec. I deplore the absence of those experts at the committee, and I invite you once again to invite them to appear before you.

I am going to present the QELC position. We have provided a bilingual summary in case our more complete brief has not yet been translated. Some detailed amendments will follow by next Monday. I will also refer to the brief submitted to the committee by Louis-Gilles Francoeur, the former vice-president of BAPE, particularly with regard to the BAPE procedure.

I will then briefly present collective recommendations of lawyers and scholars on considerations of climate in the two acts. Also, it will be my pleasure to take questions in English.

First, it's very important to respect the rights and laws of provinces and indigenous jurisdictions, including the right to assess and approve projects on their territory. When those projects must also be assessed by the federal government, the favoured process should be collaborative. Subsection 39(2) of the Impact Assessment Act forbidding this collaboration for pipelines, nuclear energy and offshore oil and gas must be removed. The second process to be favoured after collaboration would be duplication. That is constitutionally valid, but it is ineffective and does not lead to the best decisions. Finally, you could resort to substitution, but if it comes to that, it should be done according to the highest standards, in keeping with the expert committee's recommendations in that respect, and especially according to objective criteria. I am going to anticipate a question here and specify that the existence of an emissions limit in a province is not an objective criteria that justifies exemption from federal assessment.

The second important point is full participation in assessments. That is really at the heart of the success of the Quebec regime. The organization that performs the assessments in Quebec is called the Bureau d'audiences publiques sur l'environnement; the public's participation is thus the foundation of the exercise, rather than a public opinion survey to attempt to obtain so-called social licence.

According to Louis-Gilles Francoeur, public hearings result from the evolution of civilization. The BAPE model is inspired from direct participation mechanisms that were created after the American Revolution. The idea was that by forcing economic and technocratic elites to come and explain themselves before these direct democracy institutions, the public hearings would, according to Alexis de Tocqueville, neutralize the social forces that have the same frames of reference, the same cultures and sometimes similar interests, but rarely have to be accountable.

The real strength of the BAPE process is its first part, which is collecting information. I will describe it briefly. It is based on an investigative model where the commission and citizens play the role of attorneys, rather than the quasi-judicial adversarial model which seems to be in effect in the rest of Canada.

In the first phase, the public addresses its questions directly to the promoter. The public literally acts as counsel of the review commission. The commission then repeats the public's questions and puts them to the promoter. Afterwards, those questions have all of the weight of the commission's questions, and the promoter is obliged to answer them. It's a type of symbiosis between the work of the commission and the public's participation.

In addition to its active participation, the public sees the dossier being substantiated before it. It is a collective method of getting to know and owning the file that guarantees the briefs, that in turn guarantee the quality, the political power and the credibility of the report that will be issued at the end. In Quebec, we humbly believe that this type of public participation should be the preferred mode, because it is a better way of informing the public without the rigid constraints of a quasi-judicial process.

This power to compel all of the key actors to provide answers and documents, including the promoter and other parties, is really central to the BAPE commission hearings in Quebec. I have some concerns about the current bill, more precisely regarding subsection 53(6), where the power to compel is not strong enough. We will see this in the detailed amendments, but generally speaking, if you must go before a court in order to have one of the commission's orders applied, you have just basically completely abolished its power.

Another important point is that assessment commissions and the energy board should really be independent from the industry and the government. The bill maintains minimal numbers of appointees on review panels from the pipelines, nuclear energy and offshore oil and gas regulators, which in our opinion is unacceptable. In order to restore public trust, there has to be a new independent assessment institution for all of projects from all of the industries.

Personally, I have absolutely nothing against regulatory organizations, but they are not institutionally impartial, because their work depends on their being able to continue to regulate an industry. This implies that they will always agree to have projects going forward. It's one of the reasons why we can't trust them. Those individuals have no place being on a commission, but they can play a role as experts.

Since I have very little time left, I will quickly speak to the method of appointing commissioners. That process absolutely has to be depoliticized, either by creating a list of commissioners who are capable of acting as such, or by designating specific commissioners for a review commission. The minister is not the one who should do that. There should be a more independent process. It could be a committee made up of two-thirds of parliamentarians, a multipartite committee with the Auditor General or the Commissioner of the Environment.

Do I still have some time?

[Dr. Meinhard Doelle, Professor, Schulich School of Law, Dalhousie University, As an Individual]

Thank you.

Madam Chair, members of the committee, thank you for the invitation to speak to you about the impact assessment portion of Bill C-69. To ensure efficient use of my time, I will read from a prepared statement.

Very briefly, my background in EA goes back to work on CEAA in 1992 as a policy adviser to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency. Since then, I've offered legal advice to proponents, panel members, and intervenors involved in EAs. I served as a panel member on the Lower Churchill joint review panel, and have designed and shared strategic assessments on tidal energy and aquaculture in Nova Scotia.

Of course, I cannot cover the range of issues that arise from the proposed impact assessment act in 10 minutes. Impact assessment legislation is by its nature complex, and Bill C-69 is no exception. In the interest of time, I therefore refer you to my written submission and to a number of blog posts that I have published with colleagues, some before and some after the release of Bill C-69. I have recently added some specific proposals for amendments to my blog. You will find a link in my written submission. In the time remaining, I'd like to highlight a few key issues and invite members of the committee to follow up during Q and A.

When CEAA was drafted in the 1990s, we had limited experience to draw on. As a result, it's not surprising that the original act was largely enabling, with broad discretion to make decisions on the key aspects of the process, from the scope of the project, the scope of assessment, public engagement, process options, and the final project decision up to follow-up. We now have 25 years of experience with a legislated federal EA process to draw on, and we need to implement lessons from that experience in the new act.

What have we learned? First, we have learned that broad discretion without direction in law over time leads to bad decisions. This is the case in spite of good intentions at the time that legislation is passed, and is at least partly a reflection of the fact that the purpose of the assessment process is to push decision-makers out of their comfort zone to look beyond the obvious short-term benefits of proposed projects to the full range of often less obvious longer-term impacts, benefits, risks, and uncertainties. This is hard, and the more discretion is built into the process, the greater the risk that the more obvious short-term benefits will win out over the long-term impacts.

The second thing that we've learned is that we can now offer strong statutory and regulatory direction to those tasked with making key decisions in the assessment process to better guide those decisions. If we draw properly on the experience, we can establish an appropriate mix of statutory and regulatory criteria to properly guide the exercise of discretion while leaving appropriate discretion where it is needed.

We also have to make good choices about when decisions should be made by ministers, when they should be made by cabinet, by the agency, and when by an independent tribunal or the courts. We need to build into the process opportunities for refining the statutory direction, and particularly regulatory direction over time. An appeal process to a specialized tribunal tasked with reviewing key decisions throughout the assessment process could ensure the quality of those decisions. Such a tribunal, by the way, could also serve to recommend improvements to regulatory direction over time.

Let me start with a general observation about Bill C-69. My overall reaction is that the bill generally provides the powers needed to implement a good assessment process, but too much of that power is left to the discretion of decision-makers—discretion without adequate direction. What Bill C-69 needs is a general rethink, away from merely empowering decision-makers, to instead properly directing decision-makers toward an effective, efficient, and fair process, and a good outcome. We need the process to demonstrably and adequately inform decisions, not justify decisions already made.

To achieve this, broad criteria for decision-making should be set out in the statute itself. Proposed sections 22 and 63 are a step in the right direction in this regard, but they need to be strengthened, in two ways, in particular by replacing considering with “based on”, and by requiring them to be refined through regulations. The criteria need to be refined through the regulations.

Similar statutory criteria are warranted in other areas, such as triggering, key process decisions, and follow-up. Beyond those broad criteria that should be in the statute, there needs to be more detailed principles, criteria, and guidance set out in regulations. That will require adjustment over time, which is why they should be in regulations.

Such criteria should be mandated in the statute but set out in regulations. This guarantees that we will have the benefit of the criteria while allowing the flexibility that regulations provide in making adjustments over time. Key steps in the assessment process that are largely discretionary and need this kind of direction include the following: when federal project assessments, strategic assessments, or regional assessments are to be carried out; determining the scope of the project or proposal to be assessed; determining the scope of the assessment; process decisions; project decisions; and follow-up decisions.

To be very clear, it is not enough to have the power to pass regulations in these areas. These regulations must be required in the statute. My plea to you during the clause-by-clause review is to do three things. Number one, identify these discretionary provisions throughout the bill and add general statutory criteria where possible. Number two, include clear language wherever there is discretion in the statute to require the discretion to be exercised in line with direction to be set out in regulations. Number three, include mandatory language—I would suggest in proposed section 112—to develop regulations to guide the exercise of discretion in each of these areas.

Finally, in the time remaining, let me briefly highlight three of the more specific topics I addressed in my written submission, starting with panel reviews. I think when we design the panel review process under this new act, we have to keep in mind that this is the highest level of assessment and is preserved for major projects. Projects assessed by panel review tend to involve billions of dollars in investments, and Canadians will be stuck with the consequences of the outcomes for decades. I'd be happy to talk about the Lower Churchill assessment as an example of that. Whatever compromises we make to other process options, we cannot compromise on the quality of the assessment for panel reviews. I would suggest five specific things in that regard.

First, we should replace the generic 600-day timeline with a requirement to set project-specific timelines at the conclusion of the planning phase. In some cases, that may be shorter. In other cases, it may be longer. Second, we need to ensure that panels get appointed earlier and are involved in the scope determinations and information-gathering decisions. Third, we need to ensure that panels have the budget and the power to hire experts and analysts. That is particularly important now with a broader scope. Fourth, we need to ensure that panel reports include conclusions and recommendations that properly inform determinations under proposed section 63 and the public interest finding. They can't just summarize the findings on the factors in proposed section 22. Finally, we need to ensure that transparency and accountability for decisions that do not follow the recommendations of review panels. The discretion should be there in my view, but there needs to be transparency and accountability when recommendations are not followed.

The second area is follow-up. In the interest of time, I will just say that this has been one of the most neglected parts of the assessment process over the last 25 years, and I think we're paying the price for this. We need a process that is transparent at the follow-up stage, and we need to make sure that we gather the information necessary to learn from follow-up in terms of ensuring compliance, adapting conditions for approval, and learning for future assessment. Again, I'm happy to talk more about that.

The final point I will make is with respect to strategic and regional assessments. There's been agreement among all major non-governmental stakeholders for at least 15 years now—since the 2003 review—that strategic and regional assessments are critical to improving the effectiveness, efficiency, and fairness of federal project assessments, but we can't seem to make meaningful steps forward in spite of this consensus. I think the act as currently proposed needs more clarity on when these higher level assessments will be required, on the process, and on how the results will be used.

I will end here. I thank you very much and look forward to your questions.

[The Chair (Mrs. Deborah Schulte (King—Vaughan, Lib.)), Liberal, Deb Schulte]

Thank you very much.

I will just remind everyone that we're on television. Welcome, everyone. Today we will be continuing our study on Bill C-69.

I want to welcome our guests today. We have Meinhard Doelle from the Schulich School of Law from Dalhousie University. We have, from the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, Brock Carlton, Chief Executive Officer, and Matt Gemmel, Acting Manager, Policy and Research. We have, from the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters, Matt DeMille, Manager, Fish and Wildlife Services. We have, from the Quebec Environmental Law Centre, Karine Péloffy, Managing Director. We have from Teck Resources Limited, Sheila Risbud, Director, Government Affairs, and Mark Freberg, Director, Permitting and Closure.

Thank you all very much for being here today.

You each have 10 minutes and then we'll move into questioning. We'll hear from all of you and then we'll go to questions. Who would like to start?

Mr. Doelle, go ahead.

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

I'm very grateful for that. Thank you to the government side.

Margot, it's Elizabeth May here, your MP. I want to be very concise because this time has been given to me.

The mandate around what Dominic LeBlanc is doing is under the rubric of restoring lost protections. I don't want to take us out of Bill C-68 too far, but we know that we lost those protections in Bill C-38, which also took out one of the critical triggers that I think came to mind when you were speaking of how you look at small project, what you look at, the incremental, and whether we can look at the cumulative.

I don't know if you want to speculate about this, but if the committee studying Bill C-69, the impact assessment piece, were to restore the trigger that used to be there in section 35, would that address concerns that you're trying to amend through Bill C-68 or not?

Did that question make sense?

[Chief Harold St-Denis]

I would like to discuss strengthening the protection over our traditional waterways within Bill C-69. Wolf Lake First Nation is a non-reserve community and, like many first nations communities, assigns great importance to the protection of our waterways.

The 2012 amendments to the Navigable Waters Protection Act affected first nations from coast to coast to coast. As I mentioned earlier, the free and unencumbered use of the waterways on our territories is critical to our culture and ability to exercise a range of section 35 rights, and for other important economic purposes like running our tourism businesses.

Recently, in your parliamentary standing committee hearings, Kelly Block asked the honourable Transport Minister Garneau to provide an example post-2013 where navigation was negatively impacted due to the Navigation Protection Act being in place, and said that not one witness throughout the regulatory review hearings in 2016-17 was able to make a comment.

What Ms. Block outlined in our view was the failure in consultation and setting adequate timelines for the legislative process. Both Kebaowek First Nation and Wolf Lake First Nation were not aware of the hearing opportunity, but did describe, in our written comments on reforms to CEAA 2012 and the Navigation Protection Act, how navigation was impeded on not one, but two, locations on our territory since 2013.

These cases were not on unprotected waterways, but even worse, were on an actual scheduled waterway under the new Navigation Protection Act, namely the Ottawa River, the main highway of our nation.

The following examples demonstrate that this new idea of scheduling waterways really provides no protection for navigation under the act.

Our first example is a three-metre chain-link fence installation on the historic La Cave portage by Ontario Power Generation, while they conducted minor maintenance activities at the Otto Holden Generating Station. Here, the OPG took the liberty to install a permanently locked fence installation on our historic portage. This was without consultation or notice, and was followed by OPG's subsequent refusal to grant continued access for our community members or our canoe business clients navigation without the presentation of a third party insurance. The gate remains in place, and the issue is unresolved.

The second incident was at the Public Works Timiskaming Dam Complex replacement project on the upper Ottawa River at Long Sault Islands where Wolf Lake First Nation operates a branch of our Algonquin Canoe Company outfitting business. Here, in 2013, without the federal government acting as it should have on a major project's interprovincial project designation provisions within the legislation, and the Minister of Environment at the time refusing our request for project designation, the Public Works real property branch refused to engage in a framework for consultation and accommodation to guide decision-making regarding this development. Subsequently, all access to the lower river was impeded for portage for Algonquins and non-Algonquins alike, for over a year.

Furthermore, the Public Works-led environmental effects evaluation under CEAA 2012 completely scoped both our first nations communities and threatened lake sturgeon species completely out of the process, as Transport Canada, NEB, and DFO issued authorizations without consulting us. Once again, the watershed and our rights were impacted by this development.

The great watershed of the Kitchissippi River is an ancient trade and travel route throughout the Algonquin nation, as are the shores, islands, and portages along the route. We ask this government, why was our navigation impeded under the Navigation Protection Act on a scheduled waterway? What navigation protection assurances do we really have in the scheduling of waterways?

Furthermore, it is unclear to us whether the working group of ministers will ensure the crown is meeting its constitutional obligations with respect to aboriginal and treaty rights within this new legislation and ongoing regulation, to provide innovative, effective, enforceable, and specific indigenous and environmental protections to the Ottawa River.

For example, Akikodjiwan is a key sacred site to our peoples. Here in Ottawa, it is also known as Chaudière Falls. Akikodjiwan was, and continues to be, a site of prayer, offerings, ritual, and peace. These activities are important work for us as custodians of our waterways and communities, as we redefine and reconcile the interrelationship between our people and the river.

We have closely examined the threats to Akikodjiwan and the Ottawa River watershed and have made recommendations to both the National Capital Commission and the Canadian Heritage minister,Mélanie Joly, that a much higher priority must be given to recognize and preserve Akikodjiwan as a key healing point for Algonquin peoples and all cultures here in the national capital region.

Therefore, as Algonquin leaders, we are together exploring all possible options that can address the legislative shortcomings impacting the protection of our sacred waterways and jurisdiction, including but not limited to the pursuit of separate legal rights for the waterways.

Wolf Lake and Kebaowek introduced a resolution at the AFN national assembly to give legal recognition for the Kitchissippi River, the Ottawa River, that explores the concept of legal identity for the watershed as a means of protection. It's attached for your reference later.

In terms of our recommendations, Bill C-69 remains overly politicized, with the minister making final decisions on the scheduling of waterways or designation of projects, and the cabinet making final project decisions after a full impact assessment process. Based on our experience, this would leave little incentive for us to participate. Similar to what we are discovering within this process to date, why put all this work into it if the government already has its mind made up?

Prime Minister Trudeau specifically promised to return lost protections to waterways in this country. That is not necessarily going to happen and is entirely at the discretion of the minister in scheduling new waterways for protection. We are requesting that the act guarantee in writing that it will schedule any waterway that first nations request to be scheduled. Without this amendment, we have little choice but to pursue legal identity for the Ottawa River watershed, because as far as we are concerned, in our view all protections have effectively been lost.

We support the opportunity that the impact assessment act is to “take into account” indigenous knowledge, along with scientific information and community knowledge. However, only “traditional” knowledge is a required factor to be considered in the environmental assessment, and the act does not go far enough to require that assessments and decisions be based on the broader scope of indigenous social, ecological, and cultural knowledge.

[Chief Lance Haymond]

As part of true modernization of the act, we ask you to revisit the act's original sources and acknowledge how the act's evolution over the past several decades has materialized against us. Stronger language in amendments pertaining to ecological and first nations rights protection is imperative. Otherwise, we appeal to this committee that this bill is a failed attempt at meaningful consultation with first nations communities and at modernized legislation as set out by this government.

I conclude these introductory remarks with no disrespect to your committee. Your work is both urgent and critical to all first nations in Canada. In fact, the Assembly of First Nations has a special assembly next week in Gatineau on this topic. I would urge you in all of your work leading to your final amendments to Bill C-69 to be resolute and determined that this piece of future legislation does operationalize first nations' perspectives, consistent with the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's calls to action and with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Modernized legislation must not further disparage or trivialize our assertion of territory, our environmental knowledge, our constitutional rights, and the implementation of UNDRIP.

Clearly, there is a strong link between reconciliation and environmental assessment and the protection of our rights on our territories, a link that is becoming clearer to us every day. We see our youth interested in environmental science, and Algonquin socio-ecological knowledge is growing. We see the need to develop an Algonquin institute for environmental assessments on our territory. However, our terms for reconciliation must be supported in writing in this legislation and policy.

The problem is that government is defining what reconciliation relations are as a priori to extinguishment of rights and title under a planned federal legislative framework to transition bands currently under the Indian Act into self-government agreements, or into comprehensive claims agreements or modern treaties, which the government regards as self-determination. First nations' rights and title cannot be undermined by the colonial interpretation of reconciliation.

Reconciliation should be a stated purpose within the legislation, and it should further Canada's commitment to implement UNDRIP, including our right to our own interpretations of self-determination on our territories.

Furthermore, the legislation must be consistent with the protection of aboriginal rights and title recognized and affirmed by section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982.

In terms of our second item, implementing the Algonquin institutions and the nation-to-nation relationships, we view that our nations' values, interests, and needs can be marginalized on a regional environmental assessment table or board where our constitutional rights and interests are diluted and/or ignored by the more dominant actors. Our constitutional provisions are unique and should be treated as such.

In our presentation to the expert panel, we introduced the concept of an Algonquin institution to encourage Algonquin involvement in Canadian environmental assessments in order to pay more careful attention to the matters that are of Algonquin concern. This is desirable not only to combat the development biases of proponents and government agencies that we have experienced under CEAA 2012, but also to explore the greater role that indigenous institutions can play in the economics of environmental impact assessment and ecosystem service planning, including evolving markets for project monitoring and other environmental services.

We request that Bill C-69 be amended to authorize nation-based indigenous institutions as a governing body to exercise powers or perform duties or functions in relation to impact assessments under this act, not excluding Indian Act bands with indigenous jurisdiction over unsurrendered title territories.

In terms of troubleshooting provincial environmental legislation, rather than relying on it for assessments and information gathering, I would like to bring your committee's attention to the Government of Quebec's recent reform of its Environment Quality Act by way of the adoption of Bill 102 on March 23, 2017. You should be concerned that, for a bill having potentially such an important impact on our aboriginal title and aboriginal rights, first nations in Quebec were not consulted. Furthermore, the new consolidated version of the EQA makes no reference whatsoever to the rights of first nations in Quebec.

This is shocking to us, that 35 years after the recognition of our rights in the Constitution of Canada and after years of jurisprudence, no reference is made to our rights, nor to the need to consult and accommodate, and in some cases, obtain our free, prior, and informed consent, despite the fact that we are often the main communities impacted by damages done to the environment.

We have aboriginal rights applicable in Quebec and that needs to be reflected in legislation and any directives, in order for our meaningful participation in environmental impact assessment and review processes in Quebec.

In closing, I advocate for legislating clear and mandatory protection and enhancement of section 35 rights in both federal and delegated review processes.

Chief St-Denis will now conclude with a couple of items.

Thank you.

[Chief Lance Haymond, Chief, Kebaowek First Nation, Wolf Lake First Nation]

Thank you very much, Chief St-Denis, for the introduction.

Good evening, Madam Chair and distinguished committee members. I appreciate the opportunity to be here to discuss this important matter.

As chief of my community, Kebaowek, I represent approximately 1,000 Algonquin members. Although our reserve lands are in Quebec, our traditional territory lies on both sides of the Ottawa River basin, where our members live, work, and exercise aboriginal rights including title in both Ontario and Quebec. Our jurisdiction is transborder.

Before starting, for the record I would like to address some procedural concerns in regard to this hearing. The short time frames, short notices, insufficient funding, and very tight timelines for aboriginal communities like my own have made it very difficult to present comments.

For your reference, Kebaowek and Wolf Lake first nations did prepare comments on all environmental and regulatory environmental act reform requests by your government and participated in two expert panel sessions. We also fully participated in the AFN's technical review of Bill C-69, and we give our full support to its 25-page submission and clause-by-clause recommendations for amendments.

Regardless of our combined effort, Bill C-69 appears to have not included our key messages and resorted to a matter of tweaking CEAA 2012 over modernization. In our view, true modernization of the act does require reconciling the wrongs of previous legislation and policies that have worked against indigenous people in Canada.

[Chief Harold St-Denis]

No one has a copy of the document I'm going to read, so we'll take our time to try to make sure that we get all our points across.

First, I would thank to thank you, Madam Chair and committee members, for the invitation to speak to the standing committee on making amendments to Bill C-69.

My name is Chief Harry St-Denis, and I'm from the Wolf Lake First Nation. I'm here today with Chief Lance Haymond from the Kebaowek first nation. Today we represent two Algonquin first nations in Quebec.

We have provided a written brief as per the deadline, as I mentioned, with a number of recommendations and amendments for your review. I understand you haven't had time to read our brief due to the rushed timeline surrounding this push towards legislation, and as such, I will provide you with some background.

The Algonquin nation is made up of 11 distinct communities recognized as Indian Act bands. Nine are located in Quebec, and two are in Ontario. The Algonquin nation has never given up the aboriginal title to our traditional territory. This includes all the lands and waters within the Ottawa River watershed on both the Ontario and Quebec borders. Aboriginal title is held at the community level within the Algonquin nation. Our two first nations, along with the Timiskaming first nation, assert un-extinguished aboriginal rights, including title under section 65 of the Canadian Constitution.

Inherently, our lands and waters are part of the Anishinaabe Aki, a vast territory surrounded by the Great Lakes in North America. For centuries we have relied on our lands and waterways for our ability to exercise our inherent rights under our own system of customary law and governments known as Ona'ken'age'win. This law is based on our mobility on the landscape, the freedom to hunt, gather, and control the sustainable use of our lands and waterways for future generations.

That is how Europeans discovered us, as a well-established society in control of the Ottawa River watershed. We had a vast trade network supported by our own economy that included levying tolls on canoe flotillas that descended the Ottawa River from Morrison Island. We were not only the gateway to the continent but the technology provider of the only craft that could navigate the rivers ahead. In no other part of the world have water and the canoe had such a huge influence on both Algonquin culture and the development of its history post-European contact.

What we once knew and shared on our territories under treaties of peace and friendship with Europeans has been abused. Our ancestors never contemplated our territories to be industrial, nor has government legislation ever adequately protected us from industrial development. We continue to regard ourselves as keepers of our lands and waterways, with seven generations' worth of responsibilities for livelihood, security, cultural identity, territoriality, and biodiversity. This sentiment has been expressed by many other first nations to your committee.

These responsibilities stem from a history of traditional knowledge and governance on the land that provided our Anishinaabe identity as opposed to how we have been recreated by crown governments through such legislation as the Canadian Indian Act.

In response to your task of gathering information for Bill C-69 that ensures that environmental assessment legislation is amended to enhance our consultation, engagement, and participatory capacity in protecting our lands and waterways, one of our guiding recommendations is for your committee to look beyond the act itself and take into account other pieces of legislation and policy that further weaken aboriginal peoples' capacity to participate in the resource development review process, including and not limited to the federal comprehensive claims policy.

I am concerned here that various pieces of legislation, including this current proposal to combine previous legislation under an impact assessment act, will come together as an assault on indigenous sovereignty and protection of our land, air, and water. This cumulative policy effect could intentionally strip environmental protections across the country as resource development proceeds and colonialism completes itself.

Therefore, our nations are here today to seek a different but joint legislative approach with your government that provides a strong foundation for recognition, protection, and reconciliation of our inherent and constitutional rights and interests that is consistent with the articles of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, now adopted by your government.

Today, in our presentation, Chief Haymond and I intend to give you a quick profile of our communities and our experiences related to environmental legislation on our territory, and briefly outline the problems we still have regarding Bill C-69. Specifically, we are asking the committee to make amendments to Bill C-69 concerning the following items: reconciliation; implementing indigenous institutions and a nation-to-nation relationship; troubleshooting provincial environmental legislation rather than simply relying on it; strengthening protection over our traditional waterways; and implementing indigenous knowledge and impact assessment.

Chief Haymond will now speak on three items, and then I will conclude.

[Chief Roland Willson, West Moberly First Nations]

Thank you for requesting us to come and present.

I am Chief Roland Willson from West Moberly First Nation. I am located in northeastern B.C. My nation is Dunne-za. We are the Dunne people of northeastern B.C., the heart of oil and gas, forestry, coal mining, wind farms, large hydroelectric projects, Site C dam—I hope everybody here knows what that is. Our presentation was put together really quickly to talk about the changes to Bill C-69.

Thank you for inviting us here and for considering what we have to say. Part of my presentation is the considerations that got us to this point in our territory. I know I've got 10 minutes, so I'm going to be going through this really fast.

The title of our presentation is, “Neither “Subject To, Or Inferior To, The Crown's Right” To Sustainability”. This comes out of our court case that we had with B.C. and a mining company in northeastern British Columbia. The province had proposed a mine in the area of critical wintering caribou habitat, the Burnt Pine caribou herd, which, because of that activity, is now extinct. The caribou in the North Peace are considered to be endangered now—they're on the Species At Risk Act—and there's not supposed to be any kind of activity like that happening. The court in British Columbia stated that the crown's responsibility to develop does not supersede the first nations right on that; they're equal. They're supposed to take that into consideration when they're doing their permits and things like that.

The third page is the treaty territory. Treaty 8 is the largest, most comprehensive of the historic treaties. It encompasses B.C., Alberta, Saskatchewan, and part of the Northwest Territories. The Dunne-za people have been on the ground in northeastern B.C. for over 13,000 years We hunted the mammoth that lived there, so we've been there and are continuing to be there and we plan on staying much longer. The Dunne-za people are dreamers—that's our culture—and profits are very much land-based; small family groups move through the territory. In 1914 the West Moberly First Nations adhered to Treaty 8 under the Hudson's Hope band. We became the West Moberly First Nation in 1974 when we separated from the Hudson's Hope band and became the Halfway River First Nation and the West Moberly First Nation, reasoning we were in two separate spots, and it was easier for us to maintain our own identity that way.

Treaty 8 promises us a number of things. Of those promises are the oral promises that have been taken into consideration. One of those oral promises is free from white competition. It gets talked about quite a bit. The other big one is no forced interference, which was used from the commissioner's report in 1899 in the Mikisew Cree court case as the oral promises are part of the context of the actual treaty.

Page five is the outcomes of the environmental assessment. We've been poring over the changes recommended from the EA document to what is now considered to be Bill C-69. It's pretty much the same document, just different words. When I said we thank you for your considerations, now I'm going to take you through the considerations that have got us to this point.

Page 6 is entitled “Air We Cannot Breathe”. Throughout our territory, we have signs up all over the place about sour gas, and oil and gas activities here and there.

Page 7 is entitled “Fish We Cannot Eat”. The image on the left is my son. That's the first fish he caught, but we caught it out of the Williston Reservoir, and the Williston Reservoir is contaminated with methylmercury. All of the fish in the reservoir system have high concentrations of methylmercury, and a fish this size is very unhealthy to eat. Typically we would have released that fish, but he snagged it so bad that it was damaged and we had to take it and put it in.

You can't see the pictures on the right unless you have the digital copy. There's a map that has red lines through it. Those red lines are the extent of the mercury filtration system in the Williston Reservoir. On the right-hand side, that light blue area is where the W.A.C. Bennett Dam is. In 1968 they commissioned the dam, and in 1969 they went to full pool on the Williston Reservoir and created what they call the largest man-made lake in western Canada. I think it's the third-largest in North America. The whole thing is full of methylmercury. All of the fish in it are contaminated and we can't eat them.

Page 8 is entitled “Land we Cannot Use to Hunt or Trap”. There are signs throughout the whole area that restrict our activity in those areas. There's no hunting and shooting by residents. There are camps everywhere in the bush out there.

Page 9 is entitled “Animals We Cannot Eat”. The image on the left was a female caribou. It's identified as a species-at-risk animal, and it was eating contaminated soil in a lease site that hadn't been cleaned up. She died. The image on the right is a species-at-risk protected bison that got into a well site that was not fenced, and got her head stuck under the pipes. They had to put her down in order to get her out of there. That was a species-at-risk animal, and we're not allowed to hunt these animals.

Page 10 is entitled “Water We Cannot Drink”. Areas where rivers and waterways are not affected by the Williston Reservoir and the methylmercury have coal mines on them, with high levels of selenium being dumped into them. There are signs throughout the territory about being careful not to drink the water or eat the fish because of the high levels of mercury there.

Page 11 is entitled “Forests we Cannot Use To Camp”. Throughout the territory, signs are up that restrict us from camping through our areas. On the right, in the image of the cabin on the edge of the bank, that's the Williston Reservoir, and sloughing has been happening since they flooded and went to full pool on the Williston Reservoir. When they first considered the Williston Reservoir, they said this would eventually stop. It hasn't stopped. It has been 40 years and it's still sloughing there. New debris goes into the water every year. That cabin has since fallen into the reservoir.

On page 12, I apologize for this, but this is our reality. This is a dead caribou. This is the last male caribou of the Burnt Pine caribou herd. When the province issued the mining permit for the mining company to go up there...an illegal permit.... They didn't actually give them the permit. They told them to go ahead and get started and that they'd get them the permit, and they never did. They went up there and built this big pit, and then when we got involved and the court case ensued, they didn't claim the pit. They left the pit there. There were two caribou left up there, and the male of the two got too close to the edge of the pit and fell into the pit and died. We discovered him that spring at the bottom of the pit. He fell far enough that he actually broke one of the antlers off his head.

That Burnt Pine caribou herd has now become extinct. When we went to court to try to protect the Burnt Pine caribou herd, from the provincial analysis of the caribou in the region, there were 425 caribou left in the southern Peace area. Now there are 219 caribou. This is after our court case and everything that we've been doing to try to protect the caribou. The West Moberly First Nations and the Sto:lo Nation, our next-door neighbours, have come together and we've been running a penning program, a maternity pen, where we have one of the herds, the closest to the communities, going from 19 caribou back up to 70 caribou. We're doing a recovery program ourselves on that because we couldn't wait for the federal and provincial governments to come together and do this.

Now the government has piled in. I don't know if anybody has heard that there's a herd in the south end of the province, called the South Selkirk herd. They're believed to be functionally extinct now. There are only three left and they're all females. This is all since the planning started. This is the state we're in here.

In the beginning I talked about the oral promises and the no forced interference with everything. We can't hunt the caribou because there are not enough of them there. The federal and provincial governments, in their recovery program, are not recovering the caribou to levels of harvesting; they're recovering to levels of sustainability. They want to stop the wipeout of the caribou, but they're not curtailing development and they're not doing any recovery program of the land, to rebuild the habitat zones. They're flying around in helicopters and shooting all the wolves and protecting the high-elevation habitat, not understanding that in the spring the caribou come out of the mountains and back down into the valley to live. They're being annihilated down there.

We went from having a sea of caribou. Caribou are considered to be an animal that we could always go to the mountains and get. They were considered to be a convenient food. We'd want to get a moose or an elk, but if we couldn't find them, we could always go to the mountains and find a caribou. It's like the fish. If you were hungry and you couldn't find anything else, you could always go to the river or the lake and catch a fish. Right now—

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Can you tell me what in this bill, Bill C-69, would actually speed up that process?

[Peter C. Watson]

Maybe I'll mention some of the things that we have already begun doing. I believe they're consistent with and supported by Bill C-69.

We recognized some time ago that we needed to be more proactive with our engagement with stakeholders across the country and participants in our hearing processes. Engagement with Canadians is necessary and appropriate, and we note that this feature is enabled and expected under Bill C-69.

I think regulators can also take steps to increase transparency associated with what they do. I would point to one of the initiatives that has been taken on both the Trans Mountain expansion and the Line 3 replacement project with our indigenous monitoring and advisory committees, where we're working collaboratively with them to be completely transparent regarding our activities on life-cycle oversight and how things are done that actually ensure safety and reduce harm associated with the potential effects of an operating pipeline.

Through that process, we're learning how to work better together and engage within first nations and the Métis Nation to ensure that we're really transparent and effective in our engagement with them, particularly around life-cycle oversight matters.

There are a number of things that I think we've been attempting to do, and I see that they will be able to be continued as we move forward.

[William Amos, Liberal, Pontiac, QC]

That was a process that I thought did engender public confidence, but there have been other proceedings that the NEB has been involved in where such confidence wasn't achieved. What can you comment, or are you willing to comment, on how Bill C-69 may best help engender public trust and public confidence in our regulatory process?

[William Amos, Liberal, Pontiac, QC]

I appreciate that, but what I am asking is around Bill C-69 in particular. What aspects do you see in this that could be enhanced in order to better achieve public trust? I appreciate that you're doing your utmost to communicate to the Canadian public, but there is clearly a disconnect.

[William Amos, Liberal, Pontiac, QC]

Thank you to our distinguished representatives of regulatory bodies across Canada. It is a privilege to have you here.

I feel as though the public—not just the constituents of Pontiac, but Canadians in general—would want me to ask each of you to speak to the issue of public trust in our regulatory institutions. How do you feel the legislative proposal in Bill C-69 is actually going to successfully address it, and where may there be opportunities for enhancement in order to achieve greater public trust? At the end of the day, if we want the environment and the economy to go hand in hand, we also need the public to come right along with that process. The public needs to feel as though good projects are going to be well regulated and that they're going to be well assessed before they even get off the ground.

I would go to Mr. Binder to start, but I'd invite each of your respected institutions to respond. What could be done better in Bill C-69? What could be modified to greater enhance public trust in our regulatory institutions?

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Sure. We look forward to having them back again, hopefully.

Two other recommendations were made by Calgary entities—a professor from the University of Calgary, and the Pembina Institute. They recommended something that, regrettably, will probably require a royal recommendation because it would require additional resources. They proposed an independent energy information agency. I think the intent there is that, because of their experience before the various provincial and NEB tribunals, it would be useful to have a common base of neutrally collected information that everybody can rely on and have trust in.

Do you think that there would be some benefit to consideration of that to support the work of, frankly, all the tribunals under Bill C-69?

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

My questions will be to Mr. Watson.

It's great to see you. We worked together a lot in Alberta on the Clean Air Strategic Alliance, which we both worked very positively with, and we recommend, at the federal level, bringing everybody together.

We've heard mostly about the first part of Bill C-69, but of course there is a second part, and that is the new Canadian energy regulator. A number of recommendations have been made both for the impact assessment part and the Canadian energy regulator.

One of the recommendations that some of the witnesses are suggesting, and frankly that the expert panel recommended, is that rather than ad hoc panels, there should be a full-time tribunal.

Given your experience both in Alberta and as the head of National Energy Board, do you think there is an advantage to having a full-time tribunal that develops the expertise to hear those hearings, or do you think you would be able to deliver the same responsibilities effectively with people appointed ad hoc to panels?

[Robert Sopuck, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

Well, I kind of respectfully disagree with that, because basically the reports are in. This is in an article from the Maclean's, “Investment by foreigners has collapsed. Foreign direct investment...in Canada clocked in at $31.5 billion...down 56 per cent...”

Chris Bloomer from the pipeline association made the point that “New projects are grinding to a halt and we have major problems as a sector and as a country accessing new markets for our energy products to the world.”

It appears that Bill C-69 is setting us on a path that's seriously going to affect Canada's competitiveness.

You brought up the issue of competitiveness, so obviously you are concerned about it, given the business you're in. How do you see this bill affecting Canada's competitiveness in terms of attracting investment around the world?

[Scott Tessier]

There will be a fundamental reset of our working relationship with the federal government, and the establishment of the impact assessment act and the impact assessment agency is going to change our day-to-day operations. We'll work more closely with those federal agencies, and we'll continue to work closely with subject matter experts in other federal line departments and agencies.

There will certainly be an increase, in terms of our day-to-day interface, of environmental and impact assessments. Beyond that, as I mentioned in my remarks, for something like our development plan approval process, we're going to have to sit down and figure out how to best streamline our accord implementation act responsibilities with the new working relationships that are being created under Bill C-69.

[Dr. Michael Binder, President and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission]

Good afternoon, Madame Chair and members of the committee.

Thank you for inviting me to appear before you today to provide comments on Bill C-69.

Under our enabling legislation, the Nuclear Safety and Control Act, the NSCA, our mandate is to regulate the use of nuclear energy and materials to protect health, safety, security, and the environment; to implement Canada's international commitment on the peaceful use of nuclear energy; and to disseminate objective scientific, technical, and regulatory information to the public.

The CNSC is a unique regulator. It is unlike any other energy regulator in Canada. As committee members surely know, in nuclear, an accident anywhere is an accident everywhere. That is why Canada established a nuclear regulatory framework that is based on international obligations and treaty-level legal conventions. In my submission, I provide you with a list of key conventions.

The key requirement of the international nuclear safety and security regime is for the countries to have an independent nuclear regulatory body whose decisions are based on the best available scientific and technical information, not subject to government or political review. Further, to ensure compliance with international legal commitments, Canada must regularly report its regulatory performance, undertake peer reviews, and undergo scrutiny by the United Nations International Atomic Energy Agency, IAEA. I've provided the list of peer reviews recently undertaken in Canada in my tabled remarks.

Along with this level of transparency and scrutiny at the international level, we apply rigorous domestic standards and regulatory requirements that we report on. The CNSC is the only energy regulator that publishes annual regulatory oversight reports that assess the safety performance of all its licensees.

All of this brings me to the proposed Bill C-69.

The CNSC has extensive experience in working on environmental assessments. Since 2000, the CNSC has conducted over 70 EAs and appropriately assessed the environmental impacts of all proposed projects. In every case, in the past and in moving forward, one thing remained constant: the CNSC was and always will be the responsible authority for nuclear safety and security.

It seems to me that the notion of environmental assessment as a planning tool has been forgotten. The implementation and operations of a nuclear project may take many, many decades. It is important that the nuclear life-cycle regulator has the tools to make all the improvements and adjustments, including environmental considerations, throughout the life of the project.

Following its review of Bill C-69, the CNSC identified areas of the proposed impact assessment act that could benefit from increased clarity. We understand that the objective is to have one project, one assessment, and we agree. At the same time, to recognize the independence of the CNSC's regulatory decision-making, there must be a clear separation between the impact assessment and the licensing phase of a nuclear project. Furthermore, all conditions under an impact assessment should flow to the CNSC so they can be effectively managed throughout the project's life cycle.

It has been our experience in regulating uranium mines that harmonization with provinces in the licensing of uranium mines has been beneficial and efficient in avoiding duplication. We believe the new impact assessment regime should allow for co-operation and even substitution with provinces. We also are working with the government on implementation processes and timelines.

It is important that we all know, from the get-go, the length of time to get project approval. From our experience, industry can accept a quick “yes” or “no” decision. What is unreasonable is to get a “maybe”. As an example, it has now been more than 15 years since Ontario Power Generation started discussions with us about a deep geological repository, DGR.

A joint review panel was set up under CEAA 1992. Extensive public and indigenous consultations and hearings were held, and a report was submitted to the government in May 2015. A decision is still outstanding. Situations like this need to be avoided in the future.

We are also participating in helping the government in coming up with an effective and reasonable designated project list. In our view, not all nuclear activities and facilities need to undergo a review panel process. For example, an isotope cyclotron in a hospital, a small research facility or refurbishing a nuclear power plant to make it safer—all such projects should be left to the CNSE to regulate under the NSEA.

I would like to close by affirming that the CNSE supports the Government of Canada's proposed changes to policy and legislation to announce the impact assessment process. We look forward to further collaboration with the new Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency to clarify requirements and effectively implement the act.

Thank you and I will be glad to answer any questions you may have.

[Scott Tessier, Chair and Chief Executive Officer, Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board]

Good afternoon, and thank you for the opportunity to share our views on Bill C-69.

I've had the privilege of leading a world-class safety and environmental regulator since 2013. For over 30 years, the C-NLOPB has served as an effective agent of independent joint management of the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador offshore area. Safety and environmental protection are paramount in all board decisions.

We've reviewed Bill C-69 and have been discussing with governments our role in the new legislative framework. I'd like to begin, though, with a brief summary of the board's recent experience in this area.

Since 2003, the board has completed 57 environmental assessments and an additional eight strategic environmental assessments or SEA updates. Public comments are invited at several stages in these processes and, in the interest of transparency, relevant documents are posted publicly. The C-NLOPB is currently updating our strategic environmental assessment for the Labrador shelf, an initiative co-chaired by the Nunatsiavut government.

In our submission to the expert panel on environmental assessment processes in the fall of 2016, we expressed support for the Government of Canada's interim EA principles. Similarly, today I can confirm our support for the objectives of Bill C-69.

The C-NLOPB recognizes that legislative renewal can provide opportunities to improve the delivery of our mandate. Section 6 of Bill C-69 speaks to the principle of joint management. We're pleased that the government has expressed its recognition of the importance of the Atlantic accord. We're also pleased to see in related documents that projects with potential for smaller effects in areas of federal jurisdiction may be subject to other regulatory processes under life-cycle regulators like the C-NLOPB.

That said, our analysis has identified specific areas of concern and inconsistency between Bill C-69 and the accord acts that governments have been made aware of and appear open to considering. I'll also speak briefly to our initial input on key issues in two related discussion papers, which we've reviewed in conjunction with the legislation.

Our first area of concern is with respect to the single-window approach, in the spirit of joint management and “one project, one review”. In addition to being a product of the Atlantic accord, having an integrated regulator was one of the recommendations of the Ocean Ranger commission report. The C-NLOPB's single-window approach has worked effectively for over 30 years in one of the world's harshest offshore environments. It ensures all relevant information is available and integrated, allowing us to make fully informed decisions.

Bill C-69 contains provisions respecting the appointment and powers of enforcement officers—whom I'll call EOs—which could deviate from that one-window approach and overlap with C-NLOPB officers. If an EO were to order work to be stopped or conducted independently of the C-NLOPB, that could result in safety being compromised. I should note that this potential also exists under CEAA 2012, and relevant agencies are working on it. However, Bill C-69 itself is silent on such matters of potential conflict between regulators, and the C-NLOPB would be concerned should decisions affecting offshore safety be made without our input.

A second issue is with respect to the role and authority of the C-NLOPB. We want to ensure we have clear legislative authority in any area in which we take on responsibility. Bill C-69 continues to designate the C-NLOPB as a federal authority. I've been advised that back in the mid-1990s when it originated, this designation was intended to permit substitution of review processes under the accord acts. Bill C-69 does not enable such substitutions.

At this point, there are no consequential amendments for cost recovery or to section 138.1 of the accord acts related to environmental assessments. There are also no provisions mandating the C-NLOPB to carry out duties and functions under Bill C-69, or to collaborate or otherwise incorporate the obligations enumerated in section 21 of Bill C-69 into the accord acts. It's also unclear what role the new Canadian energy regulator will play, given the offshore area in Bill C-69 includes by definition the exclusive economic zone and the continental shelf. Greater certainty is required to clarify the potential respective roles of the CER and the C-NLOPB for oil and gas and for renewable energy when it comes to physical activities within the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador offshore area.

We did note Minister Carr's comments to this committee on March 22 about the possibility of amending the accord acts to provide offshore boards with additional responsibilities if renewable energy is generated in the offshore. Ideally, the C-NLOPB should have commensurate regulatory authority with the CER for the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador offshore area, and one solution would be to mirror provisions in Bill C-69 and the accord acts to ensure consistency in statutory interpretation.

A third point in our review is the fact that Bill C-69 requires that the minister refer to a panel any physical activities that are designated projects and regulated under the accord acts. Our development plan approval process includes an environmental impact statement, a socio-economic impact statement, a benefits plan, and other plans specified by the board. It may also require a public review with hearings.

This raises the question of when the C-NLOPB's development plan process should commence. We'll need to decide whether we should wait until we have the decision report in hand from the impact assessment agency process.

The C-NLOPB recognizes that we'll have an opportunity to provide our expertise in the panel process. However, the decision-making at the conclusion of the panel appears to be exclusively federal, and that final outcome could conflict with the accord acts.

We acknowledge the commitment of the Government of Canada to conduct a regional assessment in eastern Newfoundland, which could be used to inform and guide environmental assessments and regulatory decisions related to future offshore exploratory drilling projects in the area.

As Minister McKenna indicated to this committee on March 22, there's an opportunity to avoid the need for a separate impact assessment for project-specific offshore exploratory drilling activities where a regional assessment has been carried out. This approach could avoid the need for lengthy panel reviews on exploratory drilling projects, for which impacts and mitigations are well known and well established.

The C-NLOPB is working collaboratively with the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, along with our colleagues in the federal and provincial departments of natural resources, in the design of the eastern Newfoundland regional assessment.

A fourth area of uncertainty stems from clause 9 of Bill C-69, under which the minister may designate a physical activity that is otherwise within the duties and powers of the C-NLOPB to be a designated project, as she or he could under CEAA 2012. In theory, this could apply to any delineation well or geophysical program, both of which typically have not been designated projects in the past.

In the spirit of joint management, our expectation is that this ministerial discretion would be exercised minimally and such decisions would be taken in consultation with the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador and the C-NLOPB, if the project in question is in the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador offshore area.

Our final area of observation deals with coming into force dates.

Any amendments to the federal accord act cannot come into force without mirror provisions being made in the provincial version. How the provincial statute would be amended to reflect many of the changes contemplated by Bill C-69 and the timing to do so while upholding the principle of joint management remain uncertain.

We're also unclear as to how the C-NLOPB will be expected to reconcile our existing obligations under the accord acts with Bill C-69 once it comes into force, given the precedence provision in section 4 of the accord acts.

Finally, our staff have reviewed two Bill C-69-related discussion papers released for public comment, and I'm pleased to briefly share our initial input today.

Regarding the “Consultation Paper on Approach to revising the Project List”, the C-NLOPB supports the criteria-based approach to revising the project list. To reiterate another point I made earlier, we're supportive of the plan for projects with potential for smaller effects to continue to be subject to other processes, such as those under life-cycle regulators.

With respect to the “Consultation Paper on Information Requirements and Time Management Regulations”, the C-NLOPB stands ready to assist the impact assessment agency in its review of documents, which project proponents would be required to provide in the early planning phase. We can also support the agency in its engagement and consultation efforts, given our familiarity and relationships with stakeholders. We can provide expert input on documents the agency intends to provide to proponents in cases where an impact assessment is deemed to be required. The C-NLOPB supports providing proponents with certainty, via regulation, when the clock could be stopped for legislated timelines.

In summary, the C-NLOPB supports the objectives of Bill C-69, with due consideration of coordination with the Atlantic accord regime and the C-NLOPB's oversight, which includes environmental protection and safety.

If the legislation takes into account the necessary considerations that are relevant to offshore petroleum activity, and if the required Atlantic accord act amendments are made, the changes could improve regulatory coordination and contribute to a more stable and effective regulatory system, including post-assessment monitoring and enforcement.

Thank you again for the opportunity to present. My colleagues and I look forward to addressing any questions you may have.

[Peter C. Watson, Chair and Chief Executive Officer, National Energy Board]

Bonjour, and thank you, Madam Chair, for inviting us to appear today.

In the interest of time, I'm not going to read my entire statement, which I understand members will receive copies of. I will just be introducing a summary of some of the key points in it.

Our work regulating energy infrastructure has placed us in the midst of some of the most important public policy debates in Canada over the last few years. It's very clear that Canadians are passionate about environmental stewardship, regional and cumulative effects, and the evolving status and nature of Canada's relationship with indigenous peoples. They have strong and often divergent views on these topics.

We often see that passion in our hearings, which have become a venue for debating some of these contentious issues. Many of these issues are at a regional scale, and one of our challenges is that the National Energy Board hearings are necessarily limited in nature, in that we apply the specific powers and legislative authorities to discrete project applications.

We note that the government is proposing to create space in the Canadian energy regulator act to allow for more transparent direction to the regulator on broad policy matters. Moving forward, the organization could benefit from this type of general, broad policy clarity as the overarching policies and priorities continue to evolve in the future, to ensure that appropriate mechanisms are in place to assess whether a specific project fits into the greater policy framework.

I emphasize that this should entail regional and cumulative effects frameworks built in collaboration across multiple levels of government.

There are many additional proposed changes in Bill C-69, and few are more pressing for us than the integrated impact assessments between the proposed impact assessment agency and the Canadian energy regulator, or CER.

The CER, the impact assessment agency, and other departments and agencies will need to work side by side to capitalize on our respective strengths, expertise, and authorities so we can build a new system that works for all stakeholders.

As a key partner in the new federal impact assessment review process, we bring extensive knowledge and technical expertise on energy markets, on pipeline design, construction, and operation, and on the environmental, social, health, economic, and safety aspects of energy projects. As I said, we also have the knowledge and expertise to assess market conditions and the economic need for the project.

There is need for alignment throughout the system, but with respect to integrated reviews, in three areas in particular. The first is timelines and stop-clock provisions. The next is with respect to the setting and amending of project conditions, because conditions play a critical role in mitigating the risks and harms associated with a project. The last area is with respect to the planning phase of an impact assessment.

We will work together across our agencies to learn from one another and align our respective approaches so that we can ensure that we're providing a single-window process for all stakeholders and that the review processes ultimately result in decisions that are timely, fair, and technically sound.

It's also important to recognize that the Canadian energy regulator act formalizes some best practices that we've already initiated at the NEB.

One final example I want to point out is our work with the indigenous advisory and monitoring committees on the Trans Mountain project and the Enbridge Line 3 replacement program. These committees were co-developed with indigenous peoples along those two routes. They support collaborative, inclusive, and meaningful indigenous involvement in the monitoring of environmental, safety, and socio-economic matters related to those projects over the project life cycle. Bill C-69 would formalize our ability to establish such processes and similar processes for life-cycle oversight on other initiatives moving forward.

In conclusion, I am exceptionally proud of the dedicated public service of our staff and members of the National Energy Board. We are ready and committed to work with our federal colleagues to implement the proposed legislation and deliver processes that are transparent, efficient, and fair for all participants and stakeholders in our process.

Merci beaucoup, Madam Chair.

[Paul Joffe]

I realize I have a little bit of time.

Yes, it's true. The Supreme Court has said, as I said, in 1987 and since then they've affirmed that international declarations are relevant and persuasive sources for interpreting human rights in Canada. So there's no question. But it goes farther than that.

First of all, indigenous governments, the federal or provincial governments, and all the human rights commissions in Canada under CASHRA, which is the umbrella group, support the UN declaration. People are free to use the declaration.

The benefit of having legislation is, first of all, that this legislation creates collaborative processes. That's always been a problem. When it isn't collaborative and legislators do things alone, unfortunately throughout Canada history has shown that there's been colonialism, there hasn't been an understanding, the problems have been entrenched in legislation, and we haven't gotten anywhere.

In terms of the recognition and rights framework—to be very quick—we'll have to see what that includes, but of course it fits with Romeo's bill. It's another step.

The way you implement the UN declaration in Canada, though, is not just to adopt Bill C-262. It's to integrate it in your various pieces of legislation. That way no one can say there's uncertainty. Let's say you're dealing with indigenous languages. If you fit it into, let's say, the preamble, the reference, or whatever, and show how it's going to be used and how it's going to reinforce the objectives of all legislators, that would help. It should be done with the proposed impact assessment act, Bill C-69. It should be done with Bill C-57. That way you not only create consistency but you also avoid uncertainty and meet the legislators...whatever.

I don't want to take their time.

Thank you.

[Joël Godin, Conservative, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I would like to thank our esteemed witnesses for being here today. We all have the same objective, which is to enact laws that are more effective than the current legislation.

My first question is for Mr. Lindgren, from the Canadian Environmental Law Association.

Your comment that we are doing a good job is puzzling. You said—and I pretty much agree—that this bill does not restore confidence. I think that is very important as regards the environment. If I may summarize, you said that you find section 27 very simplistic. From what I understand, you think Bill C-69 is a shortcut.

I have a very specific question for you, since this kind of bill seems to be part of your daily work.

Can you please compare the current bill to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act 2012 in terms of the process and the timelines for project certification?

[Melody Lepine]

From what I recall, I was invited to participate in the review panel's work, and I provided a presentation. Now I'm here today. I don't know whether this is considered consultation on your part, but I don't believe it was adequate and the timelines are quite aggressive in terms of our....

To be honest, I don't even think most people in my community are fully aware of Bill C-69, and probably not in many other indigenous communities.

[Churence Rogers, Liberal, Bonavista—Burin—Trinity, NL]

Thank you.

I have a question for Ms. Lepine.

Your submission talks about lack of consultation when the 2012 changes were introduced. Could you comment on the consultations for Bill C-69? Do you think they were adequate?

[Melody Lepine, Director, Government and Industry Relations, Mikisew Cree First Nation]

Good afternoon, Madam Chair and committee members. It's an honour to be on Algonquin territory today. Thank you for the invitation to speak.

I hold the position of director of government and industry relations with the Mikisew Cree First Nation. I'm joined today by Mark Gustafson. Mark is a legal counsel who is assisting me on numerous regulatory files and will be helping me answer some of your questions today.

Mikisew has prepared a written brief. That brief contains detailed legislative amendments that we ask you to consider.

The Mikisew Cree is the largest Treaty 8 first nation within the Athabasca oil sands region. Our office has been reviewing numerous environmental impact assessments for the last 17 years and has directly participated in about eight joint regulatory hearings, raising environmental concerns and concerns about impacts upon our culture and way of life.

Our traditional territory houses a convergence of federal interests. It is home to Canada's largest national park, is a world heritage site designated under UNESCO, is inclusive of transboundary waters, provides one of North America's most important migratory bird pathways, and is home to such iconic species as woodland caribou and wood bison.

Recently the UN's world heritage committee sent experts to review the state of Wood Buffalo National Park, after we raised concerns that Canada is not doing enough to deal with downstream impacts from hydro dams and oil sands development. Those experts found that Canada is failing the park and the indigenous people within it. Flaws in Canada's environmental assessment process played a role in this embarrassing outcome for Canada. The 2017 IUCN World Heritage Outlook says that the park is now of significant concern and shows a trend of deteriorating.

I cannot stress enough how important federal assessments are to creating better relationships with industry and government, building healthy communities, and protecting federal environmental interests. That's the lens we have used to review Bill C-69.

For us, the most disappointing part of Bill C-69 is that it likely means that the federal government is abandoning the best tool it has to protect Canada's largest world heritage site from the very activities that have put the national park on the verge of being added to the list of world heritage sites in danger.

It is also abandoning a key tool for respecting the Migratory Birds Convention, abandoning a key tool for protecting iconic federally recognized species at risk and for reaching Canada's greenhouse gas goals.

It is also abandoning the best tool available to us in implementing UNDRIP and recognizing our right to take part in making decisions that affect our livelihood.

How have we come to that view? It comes down to triggers and what is happening in the oil sands. As the bill is currently drafted, federal assessments will only happen if an activity is on the project list or if the minister makes a discretionary decision to require it. We agree that both have a place in the bill, but they aren't enough for the federal government to protect its interests.

First, the project list is a blunt tool. It's meant to capture megaprojects—and it's useful in that regard—but it isn't flexible enough to be responsive to key areas of federal jurisdiction, such as world heritage sites, species at risk, or transboundary waters. It has been our experience that the project list excludes many of the activities that have been shown to directly and cumulatively impact species at risk and the Peace-Athabasca delta. As it stands, the project list means that you will likely never see another federal assessment in the oil sands region.

Let me repeat that. Even though industrial activities are putting a national park, woodland caribou, and bison at huge risk, there may never be another federal assessment as this bill is currently drafted. This is because the future of oil sands is the expansion of countless smaller projects that are less capital-intensive but equally problematic for federal environmental interests.

Second, while there is a process for updating the project list under way, not a single request we have ever made for an activity to be added to the project list or its predecessor has ever been accepted.

Third, discretionary decisions to require assessments are inherently hard to deal with, and they don't provide certainty to anyone. They also leave that important decision up to political lobbying campaigns that, in the end, undermine the very trust in the system that you are trying to restore.

Fourth, on many occasions we've requested a federal assessment because a project could impact federal matters and our rights, and the answer has been no. From that perspective, the new criteria guiding discretionary decisions isn't likely to make a difference. Where does this leave us? We believe there is a path forward that will allow you to be responsive to core federal jurisdiction without upsetting the structure of the bill.

Our proposal would provide greater certainty to Canadians that key federal matters are being properly assessed. At the same time, it would easily merge with the new planning phase to ensure the assessment matches the size and complexity of the proposed activity. In other words, it won't create delays. You'll find our solution on page 7 of our brief.

First, it entails creating a modest, third way to trigger assessments. This category is tightly scoped to core matters of federal jurisdiction. Second, we've also proposed that the minister develop sub-regional regulations with new assessment triggers where a regional assessment has determined an area that is experiencing a high degree of cumulative impacts. This flows from normal impact assessment practice. Once thresholds are exceeded, even a small impact can have serious consequences.

Next, I will highlight a few other proposals in our brief that connect with questions the committee has asked over the last few weeks about what the bill means for achieving indigenous consent.

In my experience, when there is a federal assessment, we have a better chance of getting the information we need to make informed decisions and getting us on a path to consent. The same cannot be said for provincial regulatory processes. The Alberta regulatory process creates a loss of trust, animosity, and in the end, legal and investment uncertainty for proponents. If the government is serious about getting first nation consent in a timely and effective way, the key starting point is improving the triggers for when assessments take place.

Another way to advance this goal is to make sure that the act works for indigenous consultation. We have proposed a few modest changes on pages 8 and 9 of our brief for improving how timelines are calculated and how the agency works with us to improve our chances of getting to consent.

Next, there a few inconsistencies in the bill that we have identified in terms of criteria for decision-making and tracking through the improved language around traditional knowledge. We've proposed solutions for these on page 9 of our brief.

Before I make my closing comments, I want to highlight that our brief also covers the navigable waters act. The key issue we have brought to your attention is that the act needs a key tweak to enter the 21st century.

If you come to our territory, you'll hear everyone talk about impediments to navigation, but the huge impediments we are facing are barely covered by the act because it is primarily focused on physical barriers. Activities that change the flow of rivers is what impacts navigation most heavily in our region. There are a couple of new sections in the act that start to get at this issue, but they are essentially inadequate. If you want to make a difference to our way of life and inland navigation, fix these provisions.

I want to leave you with a quick snapshot of our proposal.

First, take federal jurisdiction seriously. When you do, you protect Canada's international standing, respect indigenous people, and build a stronger economy. All that is needed is to add a small list of legislative triggers to provide a backstop to the project list. Those are in our brief. We are confident that Canadians and industry would support reviews for projects that could impact nationally important species like caribou and bison, and Canada's world heritage sites.

Second, recognize and respect your treaty partners. As the Supreme Court said, consultation with indigenous peoples is always in the public interest. That can start to be achieved if you adjust the wording around timelines and better incorporate the UN declaration. We've given you a few recommendations to get there.

Finally, make the space for certainty and good decision-making. That means fixing the triggers for assessment and clarifying the considerations for decision-making.

Bill C-69 is far from perfect and less than we expected to see after months of engagement on EA reform, but it can be improved.

Thank you for your time.

[Chief Maureen Thomas, Tsleil-Waututh Nation]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I would like to acknowledge all the committee members who are here today to listen to us and to thank you very much.

I would also like to acknowledge that we are on the Algonquin territory and thank them.

I have a scripted thing in front of me, but I'm never very good at using one, so I would like to just speak.

My ancestral name is Si’lhe-Ma’elWut. It comes from my Si’lhe-Ma’el family. I'm a part of the Tsleil-Waututh Nation now, which is located in North Vancouver along the north shore.

Tsleil-Waututh is a community on the north shore, but at one time our ancestors inhabited the whole of the north shore. We are very central to a highly urbanized region, and we are a tiny little piece of property there. We are so impacted by the human element, by industry. There are so many things that impact our well-being and the well-being of the whole of the city of Vancouver. Today we are going to be talking, therefore, about the impact assessment part of Bill C-69.

The other key component I've been noting this morning or this afternoon is that there is a lot of discussion about indigenous jurisdiction. I think that's where I will focus.

John Konovsky is here with me, and he will speak to some of the detail. He's better at it than I am.

When you think about indigenous jurisdiction, I know right away when I look at all of you here that all sorts of red flags are going to go up. You immediately are going to look at all the risks and what they are going to mean to Canada. Someone said to me that relationships are important. When I look at you people—you're the Liberal, you're the NDP, and you're the Conservative—you're here for Canada. You have to have a relationship. You don't always have to agree, but that relationship among you to run this country is important. Without each other, you cannot do it. You bring a balance.

That's how I perceive first nations and the jurisdiction that we have and, I'm going to say, that I have for my community. It's inherent. It's within us to be stewards of our land. We're here to protect it. We're here to ensure that it's there for our grandchildren down the road. There is nothing that is going to stop us from protecting it. When you.... I don't want to say “you”; I'm sorry. When things come into our territory, we have to ensure that what is brought there doesn't leave a lifelong risk that is going to extinguish our being on that territory for my children and grandchildren down the road.

I appreciate your looking at this act with the idea that the existing one is inadequate. I also want to acknowledge how important it is for all of you to get it right, how important it is for Canada.

I know he wants it all rewritten. I know that is going to be challenging. For me, every little bit of improvement along the way is all we can truly ask for. If there is improvement, if there is a true desire for reconciliation.... All these words mean nothing to me in the sense that they're words from here. It's when you start living those words that I can truly come to this table and work with you to find a way to improve all of our living and well-being, for today, tomorrow, and well into the future.

That's what Tsleil-Waututh is about. We're not about taking anything from you. We're not about making life difficult for you. We're here to help you. We're here to work with you. Without that ability to do it, we're going to fail. If we're not allowed this freedom and these rights to protect, you're going to fail, and we don't want that.

You don't have to be afraid of us. Sure, you're going to have communities, and everybody is at a different level across Canada, including your constituencies. First nations are no different. We're all at a different capacity. We live in different regions. We have different strengths and weaknesses, but in our hearts and souls, we're all the same, including you. You want to protect what we have, and I know you guys can see the damage to this global world of ours that's going on.

That is what we're here for. We're not here saying let's fight with the Liberals, let's fight with the NDP, or let's ignore the native people. It's not about that. This whole process, this document, is about the environment and how we're going to protect it and how we're going to move forward into the future.

I can honestly tell you from my perspective, I care about each and every one of you. I care about your well-being. That's who we are. We're not here to fight with you. We're not here to cause problems for you. I know it's seen that way, but you always have to look at the bigger picture. That's how I approach everything. That's why I have no idea what's in this document.

Thank you.

[Kathy Hodgson-Smith, Barrister and Solicitor, Hodgson-Smith Law, Métis National Council]

Thank you very much.

I'm hoping my voice maintains, my apologies.

On behalf of the Métis National Council president, Clément Chartier, I thank the committee for its important work and study, and for creating space for the Métis Nation in this important dialogue.

The Métis people, as you know, constitute a distinct indigenous people based in western Canada who ground their assertion and nationhood in well-respected international principles, with a shared history, culture, language, and traditional territory that spans the prairie provinces and goes into parts of Ontario, British Columbia, Northwest Territories, and the northern United States.

We have had a long legal struggle to find a place constitutionally, and a lot of political struggle to find our way into recognition under section 35, through the decision of the Manitoba Métis Federation case where the issue of relationship to land and outstanding historical grievances was before the Supreme Court. Most recently we have the decision of the Supreme Court in Daniels, which has clarified the issue of jurisdiction in terms of the Métis under section 91(24).

We have experienced significant isolation and exclusion in the absence of clarity under section 91(24). With this recent clarification it has brought us to this table to make comment on federal legislation while still having a significant bundle of outstanding grievances, including rights of authority over territory, lands, resources, and without having developed robust relationships with industry or government over the last number of years.

I was reflecting on the submissions of the Inuit recently, of their success stories. I reflected upon the success of co-management under parks, where part of that success grows out of long-standing, historical relationships, where people, together, have looked at, for example, environmental assessment over a 30-year period.

For the Métis Nation we are embarking on negotiations under section 35, and the design of what we hope to be parallel systems of engagement with the Métis Nation on environmental impact. In the absence of that, we have been looking at existing structures to see what works. Where does this particular piece of legislation create the space for what could be negotiated, and does it close doors on opportunities?

Canada has made commitments to fully implement the UN declaration on a principled basis, to address the needs of the Métis Nation, and to implement obligations under section 91(24). It has committed to protecting section 35 rights.

The bill, as it's currently proposed, lacks those commitments front and centre, not just in a preambular kind of way but in a way that decision-making mechanisms and processes could reflect and do reflect a genuine implementation of jurisdiction and authority of indigenous peoples over particular lands.

This is the context in which we have come to look at Bill C-69.

When I look, for example, at the issue of decision-making, one of the questions we had was to try to flow chart out when and where indigenous authorities would make decisions. At what point in the process is an indigenous consideration considered? It was an impossible flow chart to draft. Therefore, we recommend clarity and reconsideration around the decision-making structures.

I think that there are several triggers of the Métis in Cumberland House who are dealing with the changing water flows of the dam, and are seeing cumulative effects and buildup and saying, “What's the trigger? How do we trigger an environmental assessment on this?”

I then go to the legislation and say, “Where would that trigger be?” However, I don't see that trigger. I don't see where the inclusion of the indigenous peoples in decision-making is for determining what the effects are, whether we have done sufficient research and analysis to know the effects—is the evidence sufficiently long—what the effects are on indigenous rights, or real clarity on what the public interest test is?

I'm reminded of the recent Supreme Court of Canada comments on balancing the public interest, where they said:

The public interest and the duty to consult do not operate in conflict here. The duty to consult, being a constitutional imperative, gives rise to a special public interest that supersedes other concerns typically considered by tribunals tasked with assessing the public interest. A project authorization that breaches the constitutionally protected rights of Indigenous peoples cannot serve the public interest.

Therefore, a review of the decision-making points is important. What gets on a project list? What's on schedule 2 remains a mystery.

The other, broader lens, in terms of the promises of government and the path forward that I think indigenous peoples have felt will be an effective one, is the nation-to-nation and government-to-government approach. However, that approach is really not here either. There is a generic category of indigenous group, community, or people, but how the relationship unfolds, in terms of reconciliation moving forward, is an important consideration.

If there is a recognition of a nation-to-nation relationship, there is then, in the implementation of the legislation, a clarity on appropriate representatives, with appropriate and effective investments in capacity, which are crucial, and which need to be ongoing and substantive. For the Métis Nation, without any capacity, when you're standing still, it's a very huge job to get the momentum going.

Also important is determining effective partnerships, clarifying when consent is achieved or what mechanism is best placed to advance consent, and in that way, legal certainty, and ensuring the proper protection and use of indigenous knowledge. I use that as a broader category than traditional knowledge, in the sense that, in this country, we don't have protections for indigenous knowledge. That's left for indigenous people to manage on their own. Once it goes into the public realm, where does it go? How is it used? What is the mechanism around that? That is unclear, but perhaps subject to a guideline or a schedule yet to be determined.

I think it would also allow the indigenous peoples' expertise on sustainability to have a meaningful influence on decision-making. There are many strengths to this piece of legislation, including early engagement and other mechanisms. With a bit more focus on the indigenous peoples, I think you could have a much stronger piece of legislation that meets a lot of needs, including those of industry and more broadly, other Canadians.

[Richard Lindgren, Counsel, Canadian Environmental Law Association]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Good afternoon, members of the committee. The Canadian Environmental Law Association welcomes this opportunity to speak to the impact assessment act.

As you may know, CELA is an Ontario legal aid clinic. We've been around since 1970. We specialize in environmental law, and on behalf of our clients, we've been involved in federal EA proceedings under the EARP guidelines, CEAA 1992, and CEAA 2012.

It is on the basis of that experience that we have assessed and evaluated the impact assessment act, and in our conclusion, the act is inadequate and incapable of regaining public trust in the federal process.

I've set out the detailed reasons for that conclusion in our written submission that I filed with the clerk and that I provided to each member of this committee. I'm not sure if you've had a chance to read it or whether it's caught up with you yet. I should say at the outset that I apologize for the length and complexity of those written submissions. I don't get paid by the word. I'm just simply trying to identify all the things in the act that need to be fixed, and frankly, that's a long list.

In our written submission we've also offered 35 different recommendations in relation to the act. You'll be relieved to hear that I don't intend to go through all 35 this afternoon. I don't have the time, in any event. I thought it might be more helpful and perhaps more efficient for me to simply highlight the top five concerns that we have about the bill.

In my respectful submission, the problems with the act really arise from the unfortunate decision to use CEAA 2012 as the starting point for the act, as opposed to beginning with a clean slate and drafting a whole new statute. In my respectful submission, it's obvious and regrettable that the basic architecture of CEAA 2012 has been carried forward into the impact assessment act, subject only to a handful of new provisions that, frankly, do not fully fix the problems and the weaknesses associated with CEAA 2012.

In my view, replacing one deficient law with another deficient law will not do the trick if we're serious about sustainability and about restoring public confidence. If anything, the act as drafted will continue or compound the many problems we see right now in recent CEAA cases.

What are the major concerns? I've boiled them down to five overarching concerns.

Number one, the act creates excessive discretion at virtually every assessment stage and every decision point under the legislation. You've heard that concern from several other witnesses, and I fully agree with them. Now, in making that submission, I recognize that giving broad discretion confers maximum flexibility to federal officials, but at the same time, it significantly diminishes the certainty and the predictability that proponents, members of the public, and others are asking for in the federal process.

Number two, the act fails to establish an independent quasi-judicial authority for gathering information and making credible, evidence-based decisions. This was one of the most important and far-reaching recommendations of the expert panel, yet the proposed impact assessment act does not reflect it at all. Instead the act simply retains political decision-making on the basis of some vague considerations. That's not a new and improved regime; that's essentially same old, same old. In this regard, I concur with Mr. Northey's testimony last week, when he strongly endorsed the need for an independent body or a tribunal to make decisions under this act.

Number three, the act fails to entrench meaningful public participation in all key phases of impact, regional, and strategic assessments, as well as in the self-assessment process that's been outlined for projects on federal lands. In short, too many critical details for public participation have been left out of the act, or have been left to unknown future regulations or undrafted guidance materials. That's not good enough.

Number four, the act fails to limit or prohibit life-cycle regulators from being members or even chairs of review panels under the act. This represents another key recommendation from the expert panel that has not been implemented in this legislation. To be clear, CELA does not object to having life-cycle regulators participate in the review panel process, but regulators should not be leading or co-leading the impact assessment for the reasons offered by the expert panel.

Finally, number five, the act fails to include mandatory triggers or clear procedures for the conduct, content, and outcome of regional and strategic assessments. Again, several other witnesses have noted this, and I concur with their submissions.

In conclusion, I urge the committee to take a hard, long look at the proposed act. If you agree with CELA and many other witnesses that there are fundamental problems with the act as proposed, that seems to leave this committee with very few viable options. Given its fundamental flaws, the whole act really should be rewritten in its entirety. That's certainly my preference, and that would be my primary recommendation to this committee.

However, given the committee's rather compressed timeline for reviewing Bill C-69, a complete do-over of the impact assessment act does not appear to be a realistic option for this committee to undertake on its own in the time frame. That leaves us with one other potential option, which is to try to patch up this act with a series of piecemeal amendments here and there. However, to me, that seems like putting band-aids on a patient who really needs major surgery, so that piecemeal approach will not work.

From a public interest perspective, CELA submits that it's far more important to get this law right than it is to rush things and get a bad law passed. In my view, the expert panel report gave all of us an excellent blueprint for constructing the new impact assessment law, so if this committee is inclined to amend the legislation, then let's use the expert panel report, not CEAA 2012, as the starting point for doing what's right.

Subject to any questions, Madam Chair, those are my submissions.

[Kate Darling]

That's right. We made a note of that and wondered why or how it came to be.

With respect to your question, a specific carve-out is what Inuvialuit has been advocating for. Just recall that the system in the Inuvialuit settlement region is based on co-management, so the federal government is at that table and is active in the process. With respect to capacity, capacity issues do abound, but they aren't going to be assisted in any regard by applying a parallel process that undermines the land claim process.

When I was thinking through our comments this morning, one thing I wanted to put to the committee was the consideration of a recommendation that gives the agency authority to provide capacity support for a land-claims-based impact assessment body upon request by a jurisdiction as defined in Bill C-69 under proposed section 2.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Thank you very much.

The testimony of all of you is really important and I very much look forward to seeing your briefs, as I want to have time to consider the specific amendments you're proposing.

As you know, we heard from Mr. Namagoose and he made the same type of proposal about a carve-out. One thing that puzzles me is, having heard your testimony, is why in Bill C-69 we only somewhat carve out the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act, completely ignoring all the other first nation self-government and land claim agreements and impact assessment processes of the north.

Perhaps it was Ms. Darling and Ms. Lam who spoke about this. I wonder if you could clarify something. There is added confusion because not only do we not know the project list, we don't know what's going to be on schedule 2. If your entities are included on schedule 2 so that you have a carve-out, or some such thing, we would probably have to remove section 40, which allows the minister to exercise her discretion and impose her system instead.

I hope that your briefs will resolve that. Are you looking for more specific measures in Bill C-69 that clearly state a carve-out? If you want a carve-out whereby your processes apply instead because there's greater confidence of the peoples of your region, do you have sufficient resources in all cases to deliver that, or do you need some type of provision in here where the federal government could assist with funding?

That question is for each of the three of you, maybe first to Ms. Darling and Ms. Lam.

[Andrea Hoyt]

The Nunatsiavut Government is in a slightly different position from the other two—or three—Inuit regions, in that we do not have a harmonized environmental assessment process in our land claim agreement. Our environmental assessment chapter lays out different regimes, depending on where in the settlement area the project ends up.

If it's a project that goes on Inuit private land and provincial crown land and is also on a federal designated project list, we currently have the potential under CEAA 2012 and we will continue under Bill C-69 to have the potential for at least three environmental assessments to happen concurrently. The problem is not solved here because we don't have a harmonized process to substitute.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Thank you very much to all of our witnesses for appearing here today.

My question is for all of you, because all of you referenced the right to substitute that is articulated in proposed section 31 of the bill. You have already noted that it's actually the minister's discretion on whether a substitution will be permitted. A number of your organizations already have agreements in place that have been there for quite a number of years. You've been operating under those. Now there's another process that you're being expected to accommodate somehow.

I believe either Ms. Darling or Ms. Lam referred to “parallel” systems. You have the Inuvialuit Final Agreement in place. Now you have Bill C-69 also, running parallel to that process. I believe one of you articulated that you're concerned that this was a discretionary power on the part of the minister whether to allow the local process to substitute for the impact assessment process set out in Bill C-69.

My first question is for all of you. In your consultations with the government leading up to Bill C-69, did you apprise them of this concern, and did they acknowledge that this was an issue that needed to be dealt with? Second, can you more broadly comment on how this parallel system is still going to challenge your ability to have, effectively, a full say in what kind of development happens in your region?

[Andrea Hoyt]

I think there are a couple of problems around the projects with Bill C-69. One of the problems is that we don't know what projects we're talking about. There is a project list, but we don't know what it covers. There are not clear stopgaps to let us know what we're even going to be assessing and what designated projects are, and for things that are not designated projects, what level of screening or consideration by the federal government there will be. So that's a problem.

I think I'm out of time.

[Darren Fisher, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Ms. Hoyt, you said something that I thought was really interesting. You said that Bill C-69 seems like it's reacting to projects rather than being proactive. I hadn't really thought about that. Perhaps you can finish off the time on that topic. Is it possible to be proactive when we're dealing with a project that comes forward by a proponent?

[Darren Fisher, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Jennifer, you said that the 2012 legislation provided some unnecessary complications, and that you voiced your concerns at the time. Does Bill C-69 solve any of those unnecessary complications that were in the 2012 legislation?

[Darren Fisher, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

I had the opportunity to sit around a table with some Nova Scotia chiefs on the weekend, a round table, and it wasn't about this bill, but they did lament the historical issue with interdepartmental coordination. Do you think the things that are in Bill C-69 will improve interdepartmental coordination, that whole-of-government consultation with indigenous groups?

[Darren Fisher, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you very much for being here today. Thank you to the folks on the phone for being here and being so patient.

I'm going to go first to Ms. Darling and Ms. Lam, and thank you again for being here.

I wasn't certain exactly who was speaking when you were speaking, so feel free to answer, whoever feels like answering this.

By incorporating indigenous knowledge into the process with Bill C-69, do you feel that this is going to create a better relationship between government, the proponents, and indigenous groups?

[Mark O'Connor, Resource Management Coordinator, Resource Development Department, Makivik Corporation]

Madam Chair, honourable members, I thank you for the opportunity to be here today and hope that my input will be useful in your deliberations.

I'm here representing the Makivik Corporation with regard to BillC-69, and particularly with regard to the impact assessment act included therein.

Makivik Corporation is the birthright organization established in 1975 to represent Nunavik Inuit ethnic rights, pursuant to the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement. It was the first modern land claim agreement in Canada. Makivik, in Inuktitut, means “To Rise Up”, which was a very fitting name for the organization mandated to protect Nunavik Inuit rights, interests, and financial compensation that were provided by the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement.

Most recently, Makivik also signed the Nunavik Inuit Land Claims Agreement, which has been in effect since 2008. Through this agreement, Makivik, on behalf of the Nunavummiut, the residents of Nunavik, own 80% of all of the islands, including both the surface and subsurface rights in the Nunavik Marine Region, the region defined under the land claims agreement.

Because of habit I will clarify now that the JBNQA is the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement, and NILCA is the Nunavik Inuit Land Claims Agreement, and I usually use the acronyms so there's a chance they'll slip out.

I am a resource management coordinator for Makivik in the resource development department. I've been entrusted by the Inuit of Nunavik to speak here on their behalf and when it comes to environmental issues and their potential impacts on Inuit rights. I am not here today to provide an in-depth review of the proposed legislation or its potential impacts on Nunavik Inuit, but instead will speak to you about the core concepts about which our understanding of the impact assessment process are based.

Nunavik Inuit are not opposed to development. They recognize that large-scale development projects can represent significant economic potential for our regions and our communities. However, we also recognize that even the smallest projects can have significant impacts on the environment and on the Inuit way of life. This is especially true when we consider the fact that Nunavik is one of the most pristine areas in Canada, and that wildlife harvesting is still a major component of food security.

Because of this there is an expectation within our communities that development projects will not be allowed to proceed unless every precaution has been taken to ensure that they are compatible with our understanding and respect for the environment, and that they uphold the maintenance of Inuit livelihoods, traditional practices, and the cultural identity.

As you know, I represent a region where governments have historically taken a top-down, colonialist approach to determining what is in the public interest. Of course, I am referring to events such as the High Arctic relocation, residential schools, and the dog slaughter, all of which were seen by governments at the time as being a benefit to Inuit. It's safe to say that Nunavik Inuit do not generally trust southerners and governments to determine what is in their best interest. The assurance that impact assessments will be conducted by people who are familiar with the region, the people, their culture, and their day-to-day reality is therefore critical.

For this reason the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement and the NILCA have laid a framework for environmental, social, and impact assessments to be conducted by bodies whose members give Inuit a direct role in the assessments. These bodies are essentially tasked with applying federal laws of general application in a manner that is consistent with the particularities of our region, and in a culturally appropriate way. It's critical that the provisions and spirits of these agreements be upheld by any federal legislation that's put in place by the government, including Bill C-68 and BillC-69.

Last week you heard a similar message from Mr. Bill Namagoose, who was here representing the Crees of Eeyou Istchee. He provided you with a relatively detailed overview of the federal social environmental assessment regime that was included in section 22 of the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement. Mr. Namagoose correctly explained that under this regime the COFEX should be the sole body responsible for federal assessments on the Cree territory of the JBNQA.

I assume that you're already familiar with the JBNQA, but I will nonetheless take the opportunity to remind you that section 23 of the agreement is actually essentially a carbon copy of the regime that Mr. Namagoose presented to you, the main difference being that the body responsible for assessments is called the COFEX-North and applies to the Inuit territory.

The COFEX-North's membership is composed of representatives who are appointed by the Inuit and by the federal government.

Similarly, under the Nunavik Inuit Land Claims Agreement, the Nunavik Marine Region Planning Commission and the Nunavik Marine Region Impact Review Board were created to oversee the impact assessment process in the offshore region. For each of these bodies, half of the members are appointed based on nominations put forward by Nunavik Inuit through Makivik Corporation, and the other half are appointed by governments.

In either case, the impact assessment regimes that are included within our land claims agreements are the outcome of extensive and careful negotiations. They are sensitive to the particular circumstances of the region and have been constructed with the rights of Nunavik Inuit in mind. Perhaps more importantly, they are relevant to and trusted by Nunavik Inuit. There is no need to add another layer of federal assessment to them.

The written submission we have provided to you outlines a number of inconsistencies between the text of Bill C-69 and the provisions of our land claims agreement. These relate to matters such as the project screening phase, the impact assessment agency's role in impact assessment, legislated timelines, and so on.

A relatively straightforward example of that is the fact that, under the JBNQA, a project screening committee was established to determine whether or not to assess projects that are not automatically subject to or excluded from review. Within the proposed act, this would fall upon the agency to do. There are some inconsistencies, and you'll understand that we can't support the creation of federal law and legislation that conflicts with the provisions of our constitutionally protected rights and processes.

Although we acknowledge that the proposed impact assessment act includes provisions that allow for substitution or harmonization, we are concerned that they won't be implemented to their full potential, leaving us with an extra layer of federal impact assessment.

Mr. Namagoose proposed last week that the new legislation allow for a carve-out of the JBNQA's section 22 process as it applies to the Cree territory. I will repeat his request today and ask that the process for federal environmental and social impact assessments that was described in section 23 of the James Bay Northern Quebec Agreement and the process defined in sections 6 and 7 of the NILCA be recognized explicitly in the act. Failing that, it is critical that negotiations to establish the appropriate regulations or agreements be initiated such that the direct participation of Nunavik Inuit in all impact assessment decisions is retained.

I won't venture too far into the debate about consent at this stage. I recognize it's an issue that was debated at length here, in other forums, and in our written submission to this committee. However, I will note that we are troubled by the fact that the proposed legislation does not require the minister—or the agency, as the case may be—to obtain the consent of indigenous groups before authorizing works to proceed.

We certainly agree that the proposed early engagement phase will be beneficial towards obtaining the consent, but as Andrea outlined, we are worried that the act will allow for unilateral decisions by the minister that can affect the constitutionally protected rights of indigenous peoples without needing to obtain their consent.

Finally, I wish to draw your attention to another organization that was born out of the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement—the Kativik Environmental Advisory Committee. The committee is composed of equal representation from the Inuit, the Quebec government, and the Government of Canada. Within the act, the advisory committee is defined as a consultative body to responsible governments and is the preferential and official forum for responsible governments concerning their involvement in the formulation of laws and regulations related to the environmental and social protection regime. It is mandated to oversee the administration and management of the regime through the free exchange of respective views, concerns, and information.

While Makivik Corporation has been actively engaged in this file for some time now, it appears that the Kativik Environmental Advisory Committee has been greatly underutilized by the Government of Canada throughout this process. I must therefore stress the importance that you take the necessary steps to engage with them before the new legislation is adopted. They have been involved in the implementation of the JBNQA impact assessment regime for over 40 years and have tremendous insights to offer.

More importantly though, their participation is required through the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement.

Thank you for your time.

[Andrea Hoyt, Environmental Assessment Manager, Department of Lands and Natural Resources, Nunatsiavut Government]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you very much for inviting us here today to discuss Bill C-69.

I would like to start by recognizing that we are on the traditional territory of the Algonquin Haudenosaunee and Anishinabek peoples.

My name is Andrea Hoyt. I'm the environmental assessment manager with the Nunatsiavut government, and I work out of our Makkovik office.

The Nunatsiavut Government is the regional Inuit government established through the Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement. The Nunatsiavut Government is currently in the midst of a general election. That is why our minister cannot appear before you today and has sent me in his place. The Nunatsiavut Government has jurisdiction in relation to the environmental assessment of projects on Inuit-owned lands in northern Labrador and a role to play in environmental assessment of projects in the Labrador Inuit settlement area, outside Labrador Inuit lands, as well as projects that occur outside our settlement area that have impacts on our rights and territory.

We have participated in the processes and procedures leading up to the introduction of Bill C-69, including providing comments on the Government of Canada's discussion paper in response to the final report of the expert panel on the review of environmental assessment processes.

The Nunatsiavut Government's understanding of Bill C-69 leads us to believe that we have not been heard or that the Government of Canada has not accommodated our concerns. I am here today because the Inuit of Nunatsiavut believe that you will hear them and amend this bill in order to do what is right.

Our greatest concerns, and those on which we focused our written submission, include the necessity to provide for free, prior, and informed consent of indigenous peoples for projects that affect them; mechanisms for harmonization to achieve the goal of one project, one assessment; sustainability and how that ties to the public interest; and the way that the legislated planning phase is articulated or not in the act.

The Nunatsiavut Government wants to be clear about the importance of indigenous consent at critical decision points in the impact assessment process under the bill. Perhaps the best way to explain the importance of consent is with the following statement.

It is an offence, under proposed section 144, to contravene proposed section 7 of the impact assessment act, which prohibits a proponent from doing anything that might impact the physical or cultural heritage of the indigenous peoples of Canada or cause a change to the health, social, or economic conditions of the indigenous peoples of Canada. Under proposed subsection 7(3), the proponent can do things that impact the physical or cultural heritage of the indigenous peoples of Canada or cause change to the health, social, or economic conditions of the indigenous peoples of Canada, under authorization of the agency, under proposed section 16(1) or a ministerial statement under proposed section 65. As the indigenous peoples do not participate in a decision referred to in proposed section 16(1) or leading to a ministerial statement, a proponent can impact their physical or cultural heritage or their health, social, or economic conditions without their consent and without committing an offence.

It is difficult to understand how the federal government finds this acceptable. To be blunt about it, this bill continues the practice of using the power of laws to license the slow and steady genocide of Canada's indigenous peoples in the name of the public interest. We are asking you to stop that, here and now, in this bill.

The provisions in the bill to harmonize impact assessment processes are deficient. There are limited options in the tool box and co-operation appears to be limited to reacting to proposed projects rather than taking a proactive approach. The principle of one project, one assessment should be clearly articulated as a guiding principle for intergovernmental co-operation and must be addressed at two general levels.

The first is the establishment, through intergovernmental agreements, of co-operative frameworks that harmonize assessment, independent of any project, with a view to minimizing, if not avoiding, process overlaps, duplication, and multiple assessments.

The second requires, in a project-specific context, interjurisdictional arrangements to co-operate in a project assessment, usually currently framed as an intergovernmental agreement establishing a joint review panel.

The impact assessment act does not address the first level and that is a fundamental failure. The second is inadequately addressed, largely through the offers to co-operate with other jurisdictions, which are made by the agency during the planning phase. A “tick in the box” offer can effectively download the responsibility to others.

Substitution appears to be considered the apex of co-operation in the act, but the impact assessment act does not provide a coherent and transparent process for its accomplishment, nor are there provisions for securing indigenous consent on the substitution of an impact assessment process affecting indigenous rights.

Canada has repeatedly stated its commitment to sustainability, including in the preamble to the proposed impact assessment act. The Nunatsiavut Government agrees that sustainability has to be a core principle of good impact assessment decisions, but of equal importance, indigenous peoples have to be recognized as integral to sustainability.

Parliament has an obligation to ensure that indigenous peoples and indigenous communities are sustainable. Our rights and cultures are not to be sacrificed to sustain others. The sustainability question must require that decision-makers identify how a project will promote the environmental, health, social, cultural, and economic sustainability of affected indigenous peoples. The definition of sustainability in Bill C-69 is insufficient, and we have proposed other language in our written submission.

The decision at the end of an impact assessment process must truly acknowledge trade-offs and justify decisions. The concept of sustainability includes indigenous peoples, and decision-makers must account explicitly for the substantive effect of authorizations on indigenous peoples, their rights, and their future generations.

Decision-makers must be required to justify any trade-offs between factors deemed to be in the public interest and impacts on indigenous peoples or their rights. Recent experience, particularly with respect to the Muskrat Falls project, is that political decision-making occurs in a black box, and the result is decisions that sacrifice our rights and interests, accompanied by a bare assurance that indigenous rights and interests were considered.

Assurances are unacceptable. Decisions under the act should explain how the minister accounted for all the proposed section 63 factors, including explicitly for any substantive effects the determination may have in relation to an affected indigenous group. The minister must be required to explain any trade-offs between impacts that the designated project may have on an indigenous group or their rights. The minister must also be required to specify which monitoring measures and aspects of follow-up programs must be designed so as to prevent or mitigate impacts that the designated project may have on an indigenous group or on indigenous rights.

In regard to the planning phase, the expert panel's report, “Building Common Ground”, had a well-articulated planning phase, which was designed to build consensus on how the impact assessment would be undertaken, including consent of indigenous peoples. This planning phase was to bring people together early in project planning to share knowledge and agree on what does and does not require future detailed assessment in the impact study.

The planning phase was seen as providing an opportunity for indigenous groups and other governments with impact assessment responsibilities to agree on a specific process adapted to the particular project with its potential impacts, while also accounting for the various assessment regimes that would apply.

The planning phase in Bill C-69 in the impact assessment act proposed sections 10 to 15, falls far short of this vision. There are no details on the process, products, or parties. There's no requirement to develop an impact assessment plan, a conduct of assessment agreement, a public participation plan, or tailored impact assessment guidelines. In fact, there are no clear deliverables from this process, and there is no requirement to seek agreement of affected indigenous peoples.

Nunatsiavut Government has been involved in the legislative and regulatory reviews for Canada's environmental legislation over almost two years. Our messages have been very consistent. This is not a time to tweak legislation that doesn't work, but an opportunity to create something that truly works toward reconciliation, while helping Canada move toward an economy that meets the needs of the current generation without compromising future generations' ability to meet their own needs.

The legislation must integrate free, prior, and informed consent in order to work toward reconciliation with Canada's indigenous peoples. The legislation must allow treaties and land claim agreements to be respected and fully implemented.

Indigenous peoples have a tradition of sustainable, respectful development and use of the land and resources in their traditional territories. For the federal government to fully partner with indigenous peoples, there must be a shift from mitigating the worst negative impacts toward using impact assessment as a planning tool for true sustainability.

We have made several specific recommendations in our written submission, proposing amendments we think will strengthen the act and improve impact assessment in Canada.

Thank you very much for the opportunity to appear before you today. I would be happy to answer any questions you might have, either about what I have just said today or about what we put in our written submission.

[Kate Darling]

In a nutshell, what I'd like to convey with the context is that the Inuvialuit Final Agreement was negotiated in response to the very thing that part 1 of Bill C-69 seeks to address. While it was negotiated some 34 years ago, it remains relevant to the same forces at work today.

The IFA or Inuvialuit Final Agreement is structured on principles of sustainability. The stated objectives of the IFA are to preserve Inuvialuit cultural identity and values in a changing northern society, to enable Inuvialuit to be equal and meaningful participants in a northern and national economy and society, and to protect and preserve the Arctic wildlife, environment, and biological productivity. In other words, the very purposes outlined in proposed paragraphs 6(1)(a) and (b) in part 1 of Bill C-69 are those that were incorporated in the final agreement in 1984.

To achieve these goals, and recognizing the development to which Inuvialuit needed to respond at the time, the IFA established, in section 11, an impact assessment system that is triggered at a low threshold. As Jen will explain now, it has worked.

[Kate Darling, General Counsel, Inuvialuit Regional Corporation]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Good morning—I think it's still morning there—to the members of the committee and our fellow organizations who are there with you today.

My name is Kate Darling and, as you mentioned, I am General Counsel for the Inuvialuit Regional Corporation. I'm joined by my colleague Jen Lam from the Inuvialuit Game Council.

IRC and IGC represent the rights of the Inuvialuit under the Inuvialuit Final Agreement. We are here speaking today in representation of those rights.

We do apologize for joining you only by phone this morning. We recognize that it's very difficult to communicate complex ideas over the telephone. We did work with your logistics team to try for a video conference, but our upload speed is too slow here in Inuvik still. As you probably have heard from other participants in the past in your committee work, connectivity is a constant frustration for us here in the north.

Our disembodied voices are but one demonstration of how many of our Arctic communities are both geographically and technologically a fair way from the capital. Nevertheless, thank you for giving us the opportunity to present the perspectives of IRC and the game council on Bill C-69 today.

I'd like to start by providing a brief bit of context for our comments. We'll then lead you through the key issues that the Inuvialuit want to see addressed through this legislation. Then you'll hear from me briefly again at the end.

I should say that we both feel that this bill is an opportunity and that the review process was a thorough one, which brought together many ideas that we hope will see the light of day in the legislation that is ultimately passed. For context, the Inuvialuit settlement region is located in the western Arctic segment of Inuit Nunangat or the Inuit homeland, which includes the land, ice, and waters of the Mackenzie Delta, the Beaufort Sea, and the Arctic Ocean.

The Inuvialuit initiated land claim negotiations with the Government of Canada in the early 1970s. The Inuvialuit Final Agreement was given effect on June 25, 1984. It is a modern land claim agreement within the meaning of subsection 35(3) of the Constitution Act 1982.

The massive effort of connecting remote communities and settling the land claim came in response to increasing and relatively unfettered development activity in the Inuvialuit settlement region and the permissive federal policies that supported this kind of activity in frontier land, at the time. The agreement that resulted, as IRC chair and CEO Duane Ningaqsiq Smith regularly reminds us, belongs not just to Inuvialuit, but also to Canada. Each party carries a—

[Nicholas Winfield]

As it stands, they are not triggers of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. Bill C-69 is the act that deals with that. I would note, though, that fisheries are a significant trigger for environmental assessment. Not in the way that it was prior to 2012, with a trigger coming from a law list regulation, but fisheries are still a major issue that triggers an environmental impact assessment. It's just not defined in the way that it was prior to 2012 in those three sections.

[Nicholas Winfield]

One of the biggest issues that's come up in both Bill C-68 and Bill C-69 is addressing cumulative effects. All the federal departments are investing time and effort to think through more holistically how each of the pieces of legislation can be gathering information that supports better cumulative effects assessment.

The Fisheries Act provides an opportunity, first off, with issues like codes of practice and standards development, the ability to notify DFO that projects are taking place on the landscape, and also then the ability to have information available to assess cumulative effects over time.

This is only one of the opportunities that exist. There are more opportunities just in terms of investing more time and effort in looking at trends in ecosystems, as compared to only looking at projects and site-specific impacts. That's part of our investment towards science and looking at ecosystem changes.

[Chief Sharon Stinson Henry]

Bill C-262 does provide the legislative framework to implement the declaration, and it sets out the principles. UNDRIP is such a great document, and the bill supports it. Our board supports both, of course.

I don't know if that answers your question, but the framework is there and the work has to be done. In my view, if you try to mix two bills—Bill C-69, and I think there's a Bill C-332 out there, speaking to the finance side of things and amending the corporations act—and start to mix these things up, we'll just be spinning our wheels and won't get Bill C-262 through.

[William Amos, Liberal, Pontiac, QC]

Bill C-69 is the legislation proposed to enact a new Canadian impact assessment act, and to create a Canada energy regulator.

[Dr. Sheryl Lightfoot]

For the witnesses, could you just refresh us on Bill C-69?

[William Amos, Liberal, Pontiac, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you to member Harvey for the time.

Thank you to your witnesses. I know it really takes a lot of work to prepare for these sessions and that it's a bit of pressure, so it's very much appreciated. Thank you for all of the work you've done on this issue and for the many years of advocacy and academic work. This is foundational. I hope you feel as though your work is really being validated, because, at the end of the day, Parliament is responding to the leadership of member Saganash.

To get to my question, I do appreciate the reticence and the preoccupations that some witnesses have articulated because there's significant uncertainty, but what does this really mean? On another committee that both member Bossio and I sit on, we're working through Bill C-69, which will have significant repercussions for all of Canada, including indigenous peoples. It's important that our government get this bill right, and it's important that UNDRIP be reflected.

What in your estimation would this bill do to inform the development and legislative passage of a bill like Bill C-69, beyond just incorporating into its the preamble, for example, the point that the bill fully respects and demonstrates a commitment to UNDRIP? The rubber does have to hit the road at a certain point. What is the actual impact?

I'll put that one to Ms. Lightfoot first, and then to Ms. Stinson Henry, and Ms. Bolduc if there's time.

[Ron Liepert, Conservative, Calgary Signal Hill, AB]

I want to ask you one quick question. You mentioned Bill C-69. Give us a few of the areas that you feel could negatively impact your industry as you outlined at the beginning.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

I appreciate that. In your opening statement, you talked about animal spirits in the United States and how there could be a good as well as a negative side. I guess I would refer to how, while investment is going to the United States because they see opportunities there, and we look at our own lack of business investment or reinvestment and at some of these investment decisions being put off, compounded further by our regulatory structures, whether they be new or higher taxes or new regulatory regimes like Bill C-69 while the energy industry, for example, has said there will be no further pipelines, complicated by the fact.... Speaking of pipelines, there's quite a discussion happening around those things.

That kind of says to Canadian and international investors that we may not have.... Are you concerned that these imposed taxes and regulatory structures may dissuade people from investing here and now in this great country?

[John Gamble, President and Chief Executive Officer, Association of Consulting Engineering Companies – Canada]

First of all, thank you for the opportunity to be here with you. I should warn you that asking me about infrastructure is like trying to get a glass of water out of a fire hydrant.

The Association of Consulting Engineering Companies is the voice of consulting engineering companies across Canada. We represent more than 400 private companies, and collectively we employ about 60,000 Canadians. Our firms provide a wide range of engineering, scientific, managerial, and professional services to both public and private sector clients. As such, our member firms are involved with almost every aspect and every facet of public infrastructure in Canada.

We believe infrastructure is a core business of government and an investment in our quality of life. It connects and enhances communities, it enables commerce, and it protects the environment. We applaud the meaningful and significant commitments by several successive governments and the ambitious investments proposed by this current government. It is encouraging to us to see that all the parties are more or less rowing in the same direction on infrastructure. Commitments of seven, then 10, now 12 years provide the opportunity for owners of infrastructure to plan more effectively and manage their assets more effectively. It allows for the design and construction supply chain, including municipalities and public agencies, to more effectively manage and invest in their capital and their technological and human resources. However, there has been much discussion over the slower-than-anticipated pace at which investments are being made. This is a concern to us as well.

The government has noted that their funding regime is based on receipts received when projects are constructed. This is a fair and reasonable explanation. The government's new requirement for the provinces and territories to provide a three-year rolling forecast is prudent, and will be helpful going forward. It also appears that the bilateral negotiations with the provinces took longer than the government had initially anticipated. I suspect that the government is as frustrated as the rest of us. We are grateful and encouraged to see the recent wave of announcements of phase two funding.

However, while we remain confident that the government will eventually fulfill its current commitments to infrastructure investment, albeit much of it later than originally anticipated, it is also important that the commitments are not only long term but also timely and as consistent as possible. Both the investing in Canada plan under this government and the building Canada plan under the previous government are significantly back-end loaded, with most of the investments skewed toward the latter years of the program. The recent delays, while understandable and defensible, will even further back-end load the infrastructure commitments. This threatens to negate some of the advantages of making long-term commitments.

We are all trying to maintain our current workforce through this early period of relatively modest investment. Then, suddenly we'll all be charging up a hill with no idea of what's on the other side. Labour and materials will become more expensive because of intense competition. Approval and regulatory processes will become overwhelmed. Municipalities could have challenges with cash flow or meeting their contributions. Delays and overruns will become almost inevitable. The resultant business uncertainty may discourage private investment. The important economic and societal benefits of infrastructure may be delayed or—worse—unmet.

To help infrastructure in a timelier and more consistent manner in the short term, we recommend a re-profiling of the existing building Canada plan from the previous government so that investments can be made earlier in the program to help offset the recent profiling of the phase two investments in the last federal budget.

Our second recommendation is to begin planning and renegotiating the next generation of federal infrastructure investments prior to the expiry of the current programs. Gaps between programs result in layoffs and lost capacity and expertise, only to have to rebuild years later when a new program is announced. This applies to both us and our public sector partners. For example, after the expiry of the previous building Canada plan, there were three announcements over two governments. Each successively and legitimately claimed to be the largest commitment yet in Canadian history. However, over this same period we also saw our industry shrink by 15% as we waited for the funding to flow—a loss of much-needed expertise and capacity. Only recently have we started to rebuild that capacity.

In cases where municipalities have robust and well-considered asset management plans in place, we recommend providing funding based on their investment program rather than on a project-by-project basis. This would allow multiple strategically related projects to be approved under a single application. More importantly, it will serve as an incentive for municipalities to develop and adopt asset management plans to guide strategic investment decisions.

Finally, I would encourage you to look at the cumulative regulatory burden that can significantly delay or increase the costs of projects. Each year, all levels of government introduce new laws and regulation impacting everything from labour to licensing, from building permits to accessibility requirements. Each of these may individually be very sound policy, but there's rarely consideration of cumulative impact. In particular, you'll want to keep a very close eye on Bill C-69 regarding environmental impact assessments. Many provincial and municipal projects will likely fall subject to Bill C-69. While there is a lot more detail yet to come, there is a significant risk that unless Bill C-69 and its regulations are sufficiently clear and appropriately scoped, it may result in projects being delayed or not proceeding at all.

I would like to conclude by acknowledging that we are grateful for the significant investments by this and previous governments. It is a sound investment in Canada and Canadians. Notwithstanding the challenges of implementing and delivering programs of this magnitude, I believe we can all make it work, and the consulting engineering sector is here to work with you and help make it work.

Thank you. I look forward to your questions.

Bill C-74—Proposal to Apply Standing Order 69.1

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would indeed like to raise a point of order.

I am rising today to ask you, Mr. Speaker, to apply Standing Order 69.1 to Bill C-74, the budget implementation act, 2018, no. 1.

In this corner of the House, we believe that this bill is an omnibus bill, as defined under Standing Order 69.1. As you know, Mr. Speaker, and have ruled in the past, Standing Order 69.1 was added to the Standing Orders last June and was supposed to be the government's answer to the abuse of omnibus legislation.

I will remind you, Mr. Speaker, though I know you are well versed in this, that Standing Order 69.1(1) says the following:

In the case where a government bill seeks to repeal, amend or enact more than one act, and where there is not a common element connecting the various provisions or where unrelated matters are linked, the Speaker shall have the power to divide the questions, for the purposes of voting, on the motion for second reading and reference to a committee and the motion for third reading and passage of the bill. The Speaker shall have the power to combine clauses of the bill thematically and to put the aforementioned questions on each of these groups of clauses separately, provided that there will be a single debate at each stage.

Since the adoption of the Standing Order, we have seen a number of new omnibus bills tabled by the government. Bill C-63, the previous budget implementation bill, was divided for votes at second and third reading, because it contained so many different provisions. Mr. Speaker, you ruled on that.

We also had a huge environmental bill, Bill C-69, that was split for the purposes of voting. Mr. Speaker, you will recall that you ruled that the section on the Navigable Waters Protection Act was distinct enough from the rest of that environment bill to split it.

We have serious concerns, and all parliamentarians should have serious concerns, about the use of omnibus bills in this place. It becomes increasingly difficult for members of Parliament to represent their constituents when governments table these massive bills, in which so many different things are lumped together.

Bill C-74 poses a particularly problematic situation. This massive bill is over 555 pages long and affects over 40 different acts. It is clearly an omnibus bill because it deals with matters as diverse as veterans' compensation, changes to the Parliament Act with respect to maternity and parental arrangements, and the establishment of the office of the chief information officer of Canada. This is, in fact, the most massive budget bill ever.

What worries us most, however, is that this budget implementation bill enacts the greenhouse gas pollution pricing act.

Mr. Speaker, you are aware, of course, that the second paragraph, Standing Order 69.1(2), stipulates:

The present Standing Order shall not apply if the bill has as its main purpose the implementation of a budget and contains only provisions that were announced in the budget presentation or in the documents tabled during the budget presentation.

We looked through the budget speech, the budget documentation, the tax tables, and everything else that was tabled with the budget in February. The only reference to carbon pricing in the budget documents is a few short paragraphs, including the following:

The Government recently released draft legislative proposals on the federal carbon pollution pricing system, as well as a regulatory framework outlining the approach to carbon pollution pricing for large industrial facilities, and intends to introduce legislation to establish that system.

In that short paragraph, there is an acknowledgement that the government actually was working on separate legislation that should properly be put to the House separately. Of course, in terms of the spirit of Standing Order 69.1, the fact that this draft legislation was developed separately, and that the government even seemed to indicate a propensity to introduce that legislation separately, should give cause for consideration in terms of Standing Order 69.1, because it has an impact on all of us as members of Parliament being able to adequately represent our constituents.

Because of those few paragraphs, the Liberals—the government—felt justified in including the brand-new greenhouse gas pollution pricing act, a bill that takes up 215 pages of the budget bill, 215 of 556 pages.

The issue is that the government intended to introduce legislation to establish this system. This indicates that the intention was to have separate legislation on the subject. A federal carbon pollution pricing system is a big step that deserves to be properly studied, looked at, and voted on by parliamentarians.

Mr. Speaker, I will remind you of your ruling of March 1, 2018, on Bill C-69, when you said the following:

the question the Chair must ask itself is whether the purpose of the standing order was to deal only with matters that were obviously unrelated or whether it was to provide members with the opportunity to pronounce themselves on specific initiatives when a bill contains a variety of different measures.

At that time, you answered very appropriately and courageously, establishing the precedent for separating that bill out so that members of Parliament could have the opportunity to adequately represent their constituents through that separate vote.

I also want to quote the Minister of Public Safety, who said the following with respect to the issue of omnibus legislation, and I could not agree with him more:

The Liberals did in fact condemn the Conservatives' repeated use of omnibus bills as undemocratic. Now that they are in power, they are using some of the very tactics they criticized. Here is what the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness said about the Conservatives' 2012 budget implementation bill when he was in the opposition:

He further stated:

On the procedural point, so-called omnibus bills obviously bundle several different measures together. Within reasonable limits, such legislation can be managed through Parliament if the bill is coherent, meaning that all the different topics are interrelated and interdependent and if the overall volume of the bill is not overwhelming. That was the case before the government came to power in 2006.

That was the Minister of Public Safety, speaking in 2012, commenting on the previous Conservative government. He went on:

When omnibus bills were previously used to implement key provisions of federal budgets, they averaged fewer than 75 pages in length and typically amended a handful of laws directly related to budgetary policy. In other words, they were coherent and not overwhelming.

However, under this regime the practice has changed. Omnibus bills since 2006 have averaged well over 300 pages, more than four times the previous norm. This latest one introduced last week had 556 sections, filled 443 pages and touched on 30 or more disconnected topics, everything from navigable waters to grain inspection, from disability plans to hazardous materials.

That was the previous record before the budget implementation act of a few weeks ago.

TheMinister of Public Safety completed his comments by stating:

It is a complete dog's breakfast, and deliberately so. It is calculated to be so humongous and so convoluted, all in a single lump, that it cannot be intelligently examined and digested by a conscientious Parliament.

I could not agree more with the current Liberal Minister of Public Safety in condemning what the impact is on parliamentarians of having these dog's breakfast omnibus bills. As members know, the current budget implementation bill is the largest we have ever seen dumped on the floor of the House of Commons, and 215 pages are on carbon pricing. This clearly violates the spirit of Standing Order 69.1.

As the Speaker, it clearly gives you the opportunity, despite the loophole I am sure the government House leader or the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader will try to use, to justify what is unjustifiable.

There is long precedence in this place that we try to make sure that our votes count and that legislation is distinct enough so that as members of Parliament, we have the ability to truly represent our constituents.

This dumping in of 215 pages around carbon pricing to make the most massive budget implementation act in Canadian history simply violates to every degree the spirit and the principles around Standing Order 69.1.

You have ruled in the past on these important measures, Mr. Speaker. You have taken the opportunity to judge whether parliamentarians, or parliament, or ultimately Canadians are well served by this dumping in of legislation. It started under the previous government. Standing Order 69.1 was designed to give you the tools to counter that abuse by governments of dumping in separate legislation. There is no doubt that the government is violating the spirit of Standing Order 69.1 by dumping in carbon pricing into this massive bill.

What I ask you to do today, Mr. Speaker, is to take the time to consider what I have said, and other members may choose to join in as well, and ultimately to rule to separate out carbon pricing so, as members of Parliament, we can truly represent our constituents.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Okay, I'll ask another question.

I notice that Pembina has recommended that UNDRIP be specifically referenced. We did have a number of other first nation leaders appear, and we're having more. Each of them seems to be echoing what you're saying, that UNDRIP should be specifically referenced.

You might want to clarify one of the concerns that some people have raised, that this Bill C-69 appears to be premised on the Conservative reiteration of CEAA, not the original iteration. That's where there's some confusion. The Conservative iteration of CEAA was that the decision is by cabinet, not by the panel, so I find it puzzling that the Conservatives are raising the concern that in this bill the decision is left at the political level. In other words, it's the same—

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Are there other provisions in Bill C-69 that you believe undermine Canada's competitiveness in the resource sector?

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Bill C-69 significantly expands the factors that must be considered in coming to a decision on any particular project, including the impact the project will have on Canada's greenhouse gas emission targets.

Do you believe that the expanded list of factors will improve the process, slow down the process...? What impact will that have on resource projects in Canada?

[Churence Rogers, Liberal, Bonavista—Burin—Trinity, NL]

Thank you very much for that commentary.

Under this proposed Bill C-69, Ms. Mitchell, what are the particular challenges and opportunities? I know you've talked about some of these things, but specifically for Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia, what are some of the challenges you see that this legislation presents?

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

I'm glad you mentioned that you don't want this to turn into a circus, because that is the fear of the investment community, that a process like the one provided for now in Bill C-69 will indeed result in a circus.

You haven't been specific as to what kinds of limitations you would impose in terms of standing.

[Colleen Collins]

No, because the bill doesn't trust the regulators or the impact assessment committee to make the decisions. As I've said, why would the public trust a process that in fact Bill C-69 doesn't trust?

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Is it your opinion that Bill C-69, which is before a committee right now, would improve the public's trust and confidence in the regulatory process?

[Duncan Kenyon]

Good morning, Chair, and committee members. Thank you very much for allowing us to present today on Pembina Institute's recommendations for Bill C-69.

My name is Duncan Kenyon, and I am the director of Pembina Institute's work on responsible fossil fuels. I'm here with my colleague Nichole Dusyk, who is a postdoctoral fellow with Pembina Institute.

The Pembina Institute is a national, non-partisan, non-profit think tank that has over 30 years of experience providing research and recommendations to inform energy policy and regulations in Canada. We have been actively engaged in the environmental law reform process for the last two years, and our submission to the NEB expert panel, a report entitled “Good Governance in the Era of Low Carbon”, was based on original research that involved interviewing 23 experts from around Canada and the world. Our comments today are largely based on that research, and in fact, as energy nerds, it's always a good day when we get to share our perspective on energy policy with decision-makers.

Our involvement to date has focused on mobilizing the National Energy Board, and our comments today will continue in that vein. We will focus our comments on part 2 of the bill pertaining to the Canadian energy regulator.

We believe that the Canadian energy regulator act is a good piece of legislation that will move us toward more credible review processes. It is clear that the government is aware of major issues that have been identified with the NEB and is seeking substantive reform that will address many of those issues. In particular, we support the revised governance regime for the CER, the transfer of authority for impact assessment to the impact assessment agency of Canada, the expanded list of factors that must be considered when issuing a certificate or authorization, the removal of the standing test for public participation, and the emphasis on partnering with indigenous groups and jurisdictions.

However, the act contains significant omissions that will need to be addressed if it is to achieve its intended purpose of providing credible, evidence-based project reviews and ultimately restoring public trust in the federal energy regulatory process.

In our testimony today we will address four issues: climate change, the composition of review panels, public participation, and energy data. We ask you to refer to our written statement for additional recommendations to strengthen the accountability and transparency of CER decision-making, to ensure the CER is diverse and has a range of competencies, and to tighten up the conflict of interest provisions.

Our first recommendation is to include climate considerations. Similarly to Nigel's discussion on that, the CER act makes no reference to climate policy, commitments, or impacts. In fact, the word “climate” does not occur once in the entire act. This is a major omission. If the economy and the environment are to go hand in hand, the federal energy regulator must have the mandate to integrate climate considerations throughout its activities and functions. This includes the climate impacts of energy infrastructure but also the financial and physical risks that climate change poses to energy infrastructure.

We recommend including climate considerations in the purpose of the act, in the reporting and advising responsibilities of the regulator, and in the factors considered in issuing a certificate or authorization under the act.

Our second recommendation is to limit CER representation on project review panels. We strongly support transferring the responsibility for impact assessment to the impact assessment agency of Canada. Having a single agency responsible for conducting all assessments under the impact assessment act will help ensure consistent application of the law for all sectors and projects. We recognize the specific expertise of the life-cycle regulators and feel it is acceptable that the CER and other life-cycle regulators have a seat on review panels. In fact, that's critical. It is not acceptable, however, that they potentially comprise a majority or the entirety of an impact assessment review panel. The existing wording of the impact assessment act allows for this possibility and must be amended to ensure that project review panels have balanced representation and expertise, including representation from relevant regions.

We recommend amending proposed subsection 47(3) in the impact assessment act to limit CER representation to one of three seats.

Our third recommendation is to provide specific mechanisms to ensure meaningful public participation.

We are very pleased to see the removal of the standing test for public participation. While the intent of the bill is clear, removing barriers to participation is not enough to ensure the public has a real voice in major energy projects. The practical need for improving public participation in the assessment of major projects has been noted by the commissioner of the environment and sustainable development as well as both the expert review panels.

We are past the point of acknowledging the need for public and community engagement. We need to make this happen. This requires explicit and careful design from the outset and throughout project life cycles. We believe the best way to ensure this happens is to create a public intervenor office, as recommended by the NEB expert panel, to ensure meaningful public engagement.

We recommend creating a public intervenor office to advise on public engagement activities and ensure public access and representation throughout the project life cycles. We also recommend making the participant funding program mandatory.

Our final recommendation is to create an independent energy agency. We were disappointed to see no specific provisions in the Canadian energy regulator act to improve the state of energy information in Canada or to ensure that federal energy regulation is based on high-quality, independent data and analysis.

The expert panel on NEB modernization stated:

We feel that the Canadian Energy Information Agency needs to have the mandate and ability to tell it like it is on energy matters, and inform the development of energy policy and strategy, without being involved in the determination of energy policy, or administering energy infrastructure regulation. This will help to assure that information is seen as neutral and credible.

We strongly agree with that statement.

We recommend amendments that would enable and fund the creation of a new Canadian energy information agency and expand energy data collection at Statistics Canada. In addition, we recommend that the new agency be tasked with producing annual scenarios for energy supply and demand, including a reference case that considers domestic and international action on climate change.

Thank you for the opportunity to appear today and we welcome your questions.

[Lisa Mitchell, Executive Director and Senior Lawyer, East Coast Environmental Law]

Thank you. Good morning, Chair and committee members. Thank you for agreeing to hear from us today.

I'm with the East Coast Environmental Law association, an environmental law charity based in Halifax. We work throughout Atlantic Canada, providing environmental law information, advice, and support. Over the past several months, we have been providing support to the Ecology Action Centre—and my colleague, Mark Butler is with you today—and to the offshore alliance.

Given the breadth of your review of Bill C-69, our focus today is very narrow. Our focus is on the role of the offshore energy regulators in impact assessment; so in particular, the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board and the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board, which I will refer to collectively as the petroleum boards. As you know, the petroleum boards are the regulatory bodies responsible for the development of oil and gas resources and the management of petroleum operations off the coasts of Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador.

Currently under CEAA 2012, the petroleum boards do not conduct environmental assessments of designated activities. In this regard, they are treated differently from the other two energy regulators, the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission and the National Energy Board. The NEB and the CNSC are responsible authorities under CEAA 2012, with the power to conduct EAs of designated projects in combination with their own regulatory processes. Of course, this was not always the case. Prior to CEAA 2012, the NEB and the CNSC did not conduct EAs. The merging of project assessment processes and regulatory processes began under CEAA 1992, through the substitution provisions, and proceeded to be formalized for the NEB and CNSC under CEAA 2012. Those changes were made with the intent of streamlining project assessment.

The federal government has stated an objective of regaining public trust in environmental assessment. The appointment of the expert panel on EA reform was part of that objective, and the introduction of Bill C-69 is presumably the culmination of the government's efforts to achieve this objective. Perhaps in an effort to strike a balance, Bill C-69 requires referral to a review panel of all designated projects that include physical activities regulated by CNSC, the Canadian energy regulator or CER, and the petroleum boards. This would be a significant change for the NEB and the CNSC, reducing the role of those regulators in the assessment process and to some extent decoupling the assessment and regulatory processes.

The assessment and regulatory processes are not entirely separated, as proposed section 51 of the impact assessment act requires the review panels to provide conclusions and recommendations to support licensing and other processes under the Canadian energy regulator act and the Nuclear Safety and Control Act. This is for the most part positive, in that the planning or assessment process appears to be at the forefront with the role of informing the regulatory considerations. However, there could be more clarity provided in the act to ensure that review panels under the impact assessment act would not serve as regulatory hearing processes.

Let me move to the petroleum boards. The proposed implementation of the impact assessment act through Bill C-69 creates some confusion for those of us seeking to understand the role of the petroleum boards in impact assessments. As written, the IAA would treat the petroleum boards in a way that is different from the CER and the CNSC initially, but it would subsequently be amended to treat all energy regulators in a similar manner. I'll base my comments on a presumption that the amendments will be passed, but I do seek clarification on why there are provisions in the bill, specific to the petroleum boards, that would come into force at a later date.

In any case, once the amendments are in effect, the impact assessment act would require referral to a review panel for designated activities that are regulated by the petroleum boards. We agree that a review panel should be established for major offshore activities, including exploration and extraction drilling. We also agree with the requirement that the review panel hold public hearings.

As it is written, the review panel must include, at a minimum, two members of the petroleum board, selected from a roster. We do not believe that it is in the best interests of the assessment process, communities, potentially impacted industries, or the environment to have regulators on the review panel. To that end, we would recommend that proposed subsections 46.1(3) and 48.1(3) be deleted.

Regulators have an important role to play in providing expertise to the impact assessment process, and we support consultation and co-operation with the regulator as prescribed in proposed section 21 of the impact assessment act.

However, the assessment process should be conducted independently. Selection of the review panel members should be done on a case-by-case basis with the focus of ensuring that those selected have relevant expertise, local knowledge, no conflict of interest, etc. Limiting the role of the regulators in the assessment process to providing their input and expertise rather than full participation as panel members helps to protect the independence of the assessment process.

I'd like to speak briefly about designated activities. Not all offshore activities are necessarily major energy projects that require a review panel, but many do require independent impact assessments. Under the impact assessment act, energy projects are assessed by a review panel, or they're not assessed at all. We're concerned that this means that designated activities will be limited to the worst of the worst.

Let's take seismic surveys for example. The negative impact of seismic surveys on fish species and marine mammals is not well understood, but recent studies have indicated that seismic survey activities require more thorough scrutiny than they currently receive. We would recommend that seismic surveys be added to the list of designated activities to undergo federal impact assessments; however, there is no path currently in the impact assessment act to assess these activities other than by a review panel. We ask the committee to consider a revision to Bill C-69 to enable offshore activities that may not qualify as a major energy project to be subject to an independent impact assessment by the impact assessment agency.

I'm going to turn the rest of my time over to Mark Butler.

[Colleen Collins, Vice-President, Research, Canada West Foundation]

Good morning, Madam Chair, and honourable committee members. I am Colleen Collins, vice-president of the Canada West Foundation, an independent, non-partisan public policy research organization with a western Canadian perspective.

Bill C-69 proposes to overhaul Canada's energy project assessment process, create a new impact assessment agency, and replace the National Energy Board with the Canadian energy regulator. Changes to the existing process are necessary to restore both public trust in the project approval system and the confidence of potential investors in the Canadian economy.

We are pleased that the government has put forward a comprehensive vision for a process that is intended to increase transparency, fairness, and inclusiveness. However, it fails to address the implications of that process on trust, economic activity, and national competitiveness, the very reasons that drove the change in the first place. Proponents and investors are not worried about tough, evidence-based regulation. What discourages investment is decision-making that is vague, uncertain, and subject to politically motivated decisions at the end of a long and expensive process.

Bill C-69, as proposed, retains some of the same features that are causing problems in the current system. Most important, the bill continues to leave the political decision until after the end of the regulatory process. Without question, decisions about what is or is not in the national interest should be made by our elected leaders. That is key to our democracy. However, those decisions need to be made up front, before the long and costly regulatory process begins. Bill C-69's proposed planning phase prior to the impact assessment provides an ideal window for this upfront political decision.

The national interest decision should not be subject to changing political views during or after the process. We have seen political decisions undermine the credibility of the regulatory process. If the government does not trust the regulator to make fair, independent, evidence-based decisions, then why should Canadians and investors? There needs to be certainty that during the long process of seeking regulatory approval the goalposts will not change and a new government will not overturn prior decisions and commitments.

Bill C-69 further compounds this problem by removing the requirement for a decision by the regulator at the end of its assessment process. Currently, the regulator recommends to the government whether it should approve a project or not. Bill C-69 does not extend this authority to the new IAA, and this is a mistake. The government's job is to put in place a framework for the regulatory process. It must let the regulator do its job. That job should go beyond communicating a project's impact, benefits, and mitigation. After examining the evidence presented, assessing and balancing positive and negative impacts, as well as potential mitigation, the regulator is in the best position to make an informed and impartial decision on whether or not the project should proceed.

Another critical driver of uncertainty and lack of trust has been a shifting of the development of economic, indigenous, and environmental policy onto the regulator. A regulatory process cannot and should not be expected to determine policy. Ongoing political debates about climate, energy, and indigenous relations have found their way into NEB project hearings for lack of any other venue in which to resolve these issues. These policy debates are much broader than any specific project. The federal government must address broader policy questions before they encumber the regulatory process with issues beyond its scope. The combination of clear policy on relevant issues and a regulatory process that deals with project specifics is critical to improving both trust and the investment climate in Canada.

A positive step forward is the shift to an assessment process that considers both the positive and negative impacts of a project, unlike the focus on negative impacts under the current system. In addition, including the formal recognition of health, social, and economic effects will also contribute to a more balanced assessment and a balanced public debate. The new regulator will also have to figure out how to deal with the increased volume of participation in regulatory reviews stemming from the elimination of the well-established principle of “standing”.

While obtaining input from a wide variety of people is a positive step, the regulator will need to establish a strong process to manage them. It should ensure that diverse voices are heard without the consultation becoming an impediment to good decision-making. It will need to ensure that the most relevant voices are not lost. Finally, whatever process is used, it must be clear to all that consultation does not mean veto power.

Thank you.

[Professor Nigel Bankes, Professor, Faculty of Law, University of Calgary, As an Individual]

Thank you.

Good morning and thank you for the opportunity to appear before this committee. Thank you also for accommodating my appearance via teleconference.

I am a professor of law at the University of Calgary, where I teach, amongst other subjects, energy law. I also comment regularly on developments in energy law and policy on our blog, which is the blog of the faculty of law. I appear this morning in my personal capacity, and I also made a personal submission to the energy modernization panel.

My submission focuses principally on part 2 of Bill C-69, which, as you know, is concerned with the abolition of the National Energy Board and the creation of the new Canadian energy regulator. My written brief makes six main points and I think I have time for three of those this morning.

The first point the bill needs to address, in my view, is the close connection between energy policy, greenhouse gas emissions, and Canada’s climate change commitments. I think it is self-evident that there is a close connection between energy policy and climate policy, simply because the extraction, processing, production, transportation, and consumption of carbon-based fuels results in emissions of greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide and methane.

Part 1 of Bill C-69, the impact assessment act, addresses this connection in two linked provisions. Proposed section 22 deals with the content of an impact assessment, and proposed section 63 deals with the final project decision to be made by the minister or Governor in Council.

There is no similar provision in part 2 of Bill C-69, notwithstanding the interconnection between climate and energy issues. I think this omission is especially significant when we consider that the CER will continue to perform the NEB's energy information function under proposed sections 80 to 86 of part 2 of Bill C-69. We can anticipate that the CER will continue, as part of this function, to prepare energy supply-demand forecasts for Canada. It's crucial that these forecasts be informed, and indeed constrained, by Canada's climate change commitments, as well as relevant provincial commitments.

Accordingly, I recommend that the committee consider proposing a series of amendments to part 2 to recognize the connection between energy policy and climate policy. I have three concrete proposals.

First, part 2 of the bill might include appropriate references to climate and energy policy in the purposes section, proposed section 6, and in the mandate provision of the bill, proposed section 11.

Second, I think that part 2 of the bill might borrow from the provisions of part 1 of Bill C-69, which I have already mentioned, and list climate change obligations as a relevant consideration when considering new projects.

Third, I propose a substantive provision that might be inserted immediately after the current proposed section 55. This might read as follows: “When making a decision, an order, or a recommendation under this act, or in discharging its mandate under sections 80 to 84, the commission must consider the Government of Canada's ability to meet its environmental obligations and its commitments in respect of climate change.”

I am now going to change direction a little and address two issues that relate to the transparency of the NEB's and the CER's processes, and the resulting judicial supervision of these processes. To do that, I need to make two background comments. The first is that we find ourselves here today discussing part 2 of this bill, because the elected government concluded that Canadians had lost faith in the review system for energy projects. Accordingly, we should be checking to ensure that the procedures that are being proposed will help restore that faith.

Second, the drafting of part 2 of Bill C-69 exhibits, notwithstanding its huge length, a certain economy in approach. What l mean by that is that notwithstanding the new name and the abolition of the NEB, much of this legislation is simply cut and pasted from the existing National Energy Board Act. One of the implications of this is that there are missed opportunities to improve the current approach.

I'll now make have two substantive comments following from those propositions.

The first is that the bill, as drafted, fails to clarify what is referred to as the exceptions process in the current act. This process allows the NEB to exempt projects from the requirements of the act, including the requirements for a public hearing and the need to obtain a certificate of public convenience and necessity. While this seems fairly innocuous since it's confined to pipelines not exceeding 40 kilometres, it was also the process that was used in relation to the controversial Line 9 project, which involved the reversal of over 600 kilometres of the Enbridge line between North Westover, near Hamilton, and Montreal, and a related expansion of throughput to allow oil sands product to reach further east. The exemption could be triggered because the project was largely using existing pipe and right-of-way.

The difficulty with this current provision, which is section 58, is that it's completely opaque from the outside. It fails to communicate to the public, including municipalities and others, how this discretion will be exercised and what terms and conditions might be included as part of granting the exemption. Bill C-69 does nothing to clarify this in what is now proposed section 214 of the bill, which is a copy of the current section 58.

Accordingly, I recommend that the committee consider how the bill could be amended to provide more transparent direction to the CER in exercising this important discretionary power. One possible avenue to explore will be to require the CER to address its mind to all of the factors listed in proposed section 262, which is the list of relevant considerations for pipeline projects requiring a certificate.

My final point relates to another missed opportunity, this time in the context of judicial supervision of the process. Under the current rules, decisions of both the NEB and the Governor in Council, where appropriate, can be appealed to the Federal Court of Appeal. The first step in this process is for an aggrieved party to file an application for leave to appeal with the Federal Court of Appeal. It's only if the court grants leave that a panel of the court will consider the merits of the appeal. By tradition, and I think it's no more than that, the Federal Court of Appeal does not provide reasons when it grants—or more commonly, denies—an application for leave. As a result, unsuccessful applicants feel aggrieved when they are denied further access to the court without knowing the reasons. The city of Burnaby has recently experienced this in the context of the Trans Mountain expansion project.

Once again, the current provisions are reproduced verbatim in part 2 of Bill C-69, proposed sections 72 and 188. In my view, this undermines the faith of the public and the integrity of the project review scheme in a most unfortunate and unnecessary way. Accordingly, I recommend that the committee should propose amendments to Bill C-69 to require the Federal Court of Appeal to provide reasons for its decision on leave applications under this act.

While I acknowledge that it is perhaps unusual to give this level of direction to a court, I think that if the court can't see the problem itself then it needs some direction. Other superior courts in Canada provide reasons for exercising their authority under similar leave applications. For example, the Court of Appeal of Alberta routinely provides reasons on leave applications involving the Alberta Energy Regulator.

I make these last two points—the exception point and this point about reasons—in light of the concerns that are alleged to be driving this modernization process. I think that each of these proposals will add transparency and accountability and, hence, improve the public's trust in the integrity of the process.

That concludes my remarks.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

Well, maybe not that exciting. I don't want all those reporters running after us.

We are carrying on with our study of Bill C-69, and we have quite a few witnesses in front of us. I always wonder, what is the right word: guests, witnesses, experts?

Thank you very much for joining us today, and I'll just let the committee know who's with us.

We have Nigel Bankes, professor, faculty of law, University of Calgary, and he's with us through video conference. From the Canada West Foundation, we have Colleen Collins, vice-president, research. From the Ecology Action Centre, we have Mark Butler, policy director. We also have Lisa Mitchell. executive director and senior lawyer for East Coast Environmental Law. Finally, from the Pembina Institute, we have Duncan Kenyon, managing director, and Nichole Dusyk. Dr. Dusyk is a postdoctoral fellow responsible for federal policy.

Welcome to each of you. We're very much looking forward to the discussions today.

We'll start with Mr. Bankes.

Budget Implementation Act, 2018, No. 1

[Robert Sopuck, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour of serving on the environment committee, and the testimony we are hearing about Bill C-69, the new impact assessment act, is truly horrifying, and I use the word advisedly. My colleague across the way had a rosy comment about Canada's economy. That view is not shared by the resources sector. One in 10 Canadian jobs is provided by the resources sector, which is rapidly declining. Canada is losing investment. We have lost about $80 billion, and the Royal Bank says that investment is fleeing Canada in real time. Chris Bloomer, the head of the Canadian Energy Pipeline Association, went so far as to say that Canada has a “toxic regulatory environment”. We can let those words sink in. We see what is happening with Kinder Morgan. Again, the uncertainty is starting to increase.

With the natural resources industry being about one third of our economy, how is my colleague across the way going to deal with the investment that is fleeing the country right now? It is project after project: Petronas, energy east, and on and on. These projects are dropping by the wayside, along with thousands of jobs. Does the member even care about the workers in the energy industry?

[Stephanie Kusie]

I'm getting there, Madam Chair. Thank you so much. Certainly it is relevant. This is specifically relevant to both the environment and the oil sector, which I believe are the two cruxes of Bill C-69. It is all very relevant indeed.

In practice, annual withdrawals are often less than 1%. The framework also limits, monitors, and adjusts withdrawals from the river on a weekly basis.

Finally, point number six is that almost all water in the oil sands is, of course, recycled, so most water used in oil sands development is recycled, 80% in fact, for established mining operations, and approximately 94% for in situ recovery. However, some new water is required and comes from a variety of sources including on-site drainage, collected precipitation, rain and melt water, underground salt water, brackish—I've always liked that word, brackish—aquifers, and local watersheds such as rivers.

I would say, given these incredible improvements that have been made and have been recorded by the Government of Canada most recently as July 2017, as I said, I wonder if Mr. Hazell can still, in fact, agree with Andrew Weaver's comments cited earlier today:

This should concern all Canadians who took the Prime Minister at his word when he said he would build a clean, forward-looking economy. That means providing targeted incentives and support programs for industries who are embracing low-carbon solutions. Instead, the Prime Minister is doubling down on a sunset industry whose expansion puts our climate targets out of reach. We need to be investing in our shared future, not subsidizing the wealth of Texas oil companies.

Mr. Hazell, are you still in agreement with the comment of Mr. Weaver, given the information that I shared with you in regard to the incredible environmental improvements that have been made in regard to oil sands development?

Thank you.

[Robert Sopuck, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

So you're saying Bill C-69 is flawed.

[Robert Sopuck, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

Mr. Northey, you were quite proud of the report that you and your colleagues produced, but I want to look at some testimony that we received not that long ago from the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers. CAPP and the investment community today see very little in Bill C-69 that will improve investment. I would say we're at a very high risk of leakage of carbon outside of Canada, so the resource won't be produced in Canada but will likely be produced in a jurisdiction with no carbon policy.

Chris Bloomer, from the Canadian Energy Pipeline Association, said, “New projects are grinding to a halt and we have major problems as a sector and as a country accessing new markets for our energy products to the world.” He further said, “In short, we cannot see that timelines will improve; we expect them to be longer.” Mr. Bloomer goes on to say, “If the goal is to curtail oil and gas production and to have no more pipelines built, this legislation may have hit the mark.”

In a legal review by Osler and company, written about in The Lawyer's Daily—you can tell I don't have a life, because I read The Lawyer's Daily—it was quoted by the author, “there is nothing in these legislative proposals that suggests future assessments [of designated projects] will be in any way streamlined, more efficient, or more effective”, and that's compared to your review of the legislation.

Are these people all wrong?

[Jay Morrison]

One of the benefits of it, as you can see, is that it's just webbing. It's very light, very breathable, and there is no excuse not to wear it. I must confess that until I had a daughter, 10 years ago now, I would often not wear my life jacket if I was on warm waters that I could swim across. I'm a whitewater instructor as well, and I wouldn't always wear my life jacket in whitewater. These are extremely light, easy to wear. Wear them. Most people who die are not wearing their life jackets.

There are a number of strengths and potential weaknesses in the proposed amendments to the NPA in Bill C-69. Our general perception is that the proposals in Bill C-69 may, with some caveats, effectively restore an acceptable level of ministerial oversight to the right of public navigation to all navigable waters. Bill C-69 continues the use of a schedule of waters where proposed works would require ministerial permits. Ideally, and I know some of my colleagues have proposed this, abolishing the schedule would go toward restoring full oversight to all navigable waters. However, effective oversight may be realized through the bill's requirements that owners of works on unscheduled waters give notice to those who may be affected and by providing a dispute resolution process.

The caveat here is that the minister provide sufficient program resources to ensure that proponents do give such notice to all potentially affected parties, including paddlers, and that the minister does respond to unresolved disputes in a timely and effective manner. The bill should specify a time limit for the minister to respond.

Whether this new approach works as intended should be closely examined when the five-year review is done.

I should add that I'm a former senior manager with the Treasury Board and I'm very sensitive to the issue of efficiency and the cost to taxpayers. By implementing this new regime, there is a possibility that the long waiting list of projects and the cost to taxpayers can be reduced. My understanding is that is why Transport Canada has proposed this new approach.

Bill C-69 defines “navigable water” as that which “is used or where there is a reasonable likelihood that it will be used by vessels”.

In our view this is sufficiently specific that it would include waters that have been, are currently, or may be used in the future by human-powered craft. Attempts in 2009 at legislating an objective canoe-test definition of navigability—which, by the way, never was in the old NWPA—were, in my view, a failure. This bill's specific definition, therefore, represents an improvement over the old NWPA in securing the right of navigation for paddle craft.

The NWPA contained provisions that certain types of works on navigable waters—notably dams, bridges, booms, and causeways—always would require ministerial permit and the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act specified that such works would require an assessment.

The proposed Canadian navigable waters act does not contain any specific triggers for impact assessment, so we urge that the proposed impact assessment act ensure that works that obstruct flows or change water levels require impact assessment and that provision be made for assessing the cumulative effect of lesser works.

Paddle Canada recommends that such works that completely obstruct navigation of unscheduled waters specify a requirement that a ministerial permit be obtained. This is not a matter of only effectively maintaining the right of public navigation, but it is also a matter of safety, especially in the case of power dams and their treacherous cousins, weirs, where in the absence of safe and reasonable portages, paddlers may sometimes take dangerous risks.

When asked by parliamentarians and officials at Transport Canada to name our main concerns with respect to works, our answer has been power dams. We are pleased that officials have responded positively to the need to mitigate the obvious dangers posed by power dams; however, the hazard also posed by weirs, or low-head dams, requires more explanation.

Weirs often involve a relatively gentle drop, sometimes less than a metre, tempting the uninformed to run the weir in a canoe or kayak or even to swim in it. The drop can sometimes set up a recirculating hydraulic that can trap a boat or a person in the foaming water until they tire and drown. For this reason, those of us who are trained whitewater paddlers refer to weirs as drowning machines. As an example, a weir on the Bow River in Calgary took the lives of 14 people over the course of the last 30 years in many different incidents until it was recently re-engineered. A Paddle Canada instructor, a friend of mine actually, recently recounted to me an incident at a day camp during which in spite of the efforts of a large, strong man who risked his life to attempt a rescue, a young boy drowned when trapped in an innocent-looking current below a weir.

Paddle Canada recommends that no dam or weir should be permitted on any waterway without provision for a safe and reasonable portage with appropriate signage.

Paddle Canada also recommends that in the case of works that completely obstruct navigation, such as dams and weirs where permits have already been granted, Transport Canada should consider the feasibility of reviewing the status of the permit with respect to a requirement to provide a safe and reasonable means of bypassing the obstacle. Of all the rivers on the historical fur trade routes from Montreal to the Pacific and Arctic oceans, the power dams on the Ottawa River stand out as exceptionally poor in this regard. Paddle Canada may be able to assist in identifying opportunities for improvement.

Similarly, we recommend that in order to give the right of navigation full meaning, Transport Canada should also examine the general legal status of portages, particularly on historical routes. Specifically, the department should be able to advise those who travel such waterways whether they have the right to walk on private land in order to bypass natural obstacles such as rapids and waterfalls. If not, the department should examine measures that might establish that right.

Many historical portages have been lost to development over the years. One of them is within sight of these Parliament buildings. The first nations portage that is thousands of years old and closest to us right now was also used by every single one of the early European explorers to bypass the Chaudière Falls. These routes are part of our shared history and must be preserved.

Our final recommendation is that because the proposed Canadian navigable waters act deals with a historic public right that is not established by any overarching document such as the charter, consideration should be given by legislators to inserting a short preamble into the Canadian navigable waters act that describes the nature and importance of this right as part of our Canadian heritage.

Madam Chair, I would like to point out to the members of the committee that while I have been involved for a long time with environmental organizations, impact assessment is not at all my area of expertise. As a certified Paddle Canada instructor who has canoed the 8,000 kilometres from the Gulf of Saint Lawrence to the Arctic Ocean, my expertise is in the safety and navigational aspects of this bill.

I would be pleased to answer any of your questions. Thank you.

[Jay Morrison]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

My name is Jay Morrison and I'm representing Paddle Canada today as the environment chair. I should also mention that I'm the secretary of the Canadian Safe Boating Council.

Paddle Canada welcomes the opportunity to comment on Bill C-69. We have been engaged with the public right of navigation since amendments to the Navigable Waters Protection Act were first proposed in 2009. Closely related to navigation rights is the question of safety, and Paddle Canada has been coordinating its work with the Canadian Safe Boating Council. Paddle Canada has several recommendations with respect to the bill.

The mission of Paddle Canada is to promote recreational paddling instruction, safety, and environmental awareness. Paddle Canada's 3,000 certified instructors teach canoeing, kayaking, and stand-up paddleboarding to more than 10,000 Canadians every year. For the millions of recreational paddlers in Canada, we are the organization that is most concerned with their public right of navigation.

The mission of the Canadian Safe Boating Council is to promote safe and responsible boating throughout Canada. The CSBC contributes to a declining mortality rate for recreational boaters but the annual toll is still much too great and most deaths are highly preventable. When you are boating, wear your life jacket.

Allow me to do a very brief demonstration.

[Stephen Hazell, Director of Conservation, Nature Canada]

Thank you, Madam Chair and members of the committee.

My name is Stephen Hazell. I'm with Nature Canada. I have a long history with environmental assessment. I worked for the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency when the initial regulations for CEAA 1995 were developed, so I have a long history with environmental assessment.

I wanted to say first of all that in the current bill, Bill C-69—and I'll be focusing on the impact assessment act provisions—there's a lot of good stuff. We support strengthening this impact assessment agency, requiring assessments to consider a project's contribution to sustainability, the incorporation of indigenous knowledge, and including Canada's climate commitments. These are all good things. We support the increasing transparency in decisions by requiring the minister and cabinet to provide reasons for approvals.

I wanted to focus on five areas in my comments. I want to talk about discretion and legal requirements, triggers for impact assessments under the act, the project list, getting federal house in order, and regional and strategic assessments. Some of what I say will overlap a little bit with what my colleagues have said in the previous panel. Some of it I hope will be new.

The first thing I want to say is that, leading up to 1992, the primary focus of the environmental community and Canadians generally was that we needed rules. We needed laws. We needed to know what projects were going to be subject to a federal assessment and which ones weren't. That was the key objective.

With CEAA 2012, we lost that almost completely because, with very few exceptions, there are no legally binding rules for what would be assessed and what would not. Unfortunately, this act sort of perpetuates that problem. It creates discretion at two levels.

No projects are assessed under the current proposed law unless they're on the project list. We're disappointed by that. Even if they are on the project list, it doesn't mean they are going to be assessed. They go through a whole process, the early planning process we talked about. At the end of that, the minister makes the decision whether there should or should not be an assessment. There's discretion all the way along, which just creates uncertainty for everybody. I would put it to you that it also politicizes the process.

Whereas under the 1995 law, proponents, stakeholders, and governments knew what was going to be assessed, under this law, we have no idea. We really don't. It will be at the discretion of the minister. That is something I would ask the committee to reflect on. Think about ways in which we can limit that discretion. Some ways have been suggested by colleagues in the previous panel.

The second thing I wanted to talk about is triggers for impact assessments. We're disappointed that the project list is the principal trigger for the assessment of projects. What it means is that many federal decisions that adversely affect the natural environment will not be assessed because the project list, as it's currently written, is very narrow.

Nature Canada starts from the position, and I think we would all agree, that one key function of environmental assessment is to provide good information about environmental effects and sustainability effects so that we can make good decisions. Ultimately it's about how we can make good decisions about projects. If the whole legal regime is focused on a handful of projects that are on that list, that means we're not going to get there. The decision-makers are not going to have the information they need to make good decisions.

I also want to note that the 1995 law had four distinct triggers. There was a regulatory trigger, a dispositional land trigger, a federal proponent trigger, and a funding trigger. Now, Mr. Northey may remind you that the expert panel in its report recommended that we continue with that four-trigger approach from CEAA from 1995. It was abandoned in the 2012 law.

What projects do we need to start getting better information about so that we can make good decisions? High-carbon projects—projects that we know are going to produce megatonnes or hundreds of thousands of tonnes of GHG emissions—should be assessed under the federal act so we can meet our Paris climate agreement.

There's a good example just downstream from Ottawa, upwind from Montreal, where we're not doing that. A cement plant is going to produce one megatonne of GHG emissions every year, not including all the trucks carrying all the cement. The sulphur dioxide and nitrogen oxide emissions are in excess of U.S. and European standards. Who did an assessment of that project? It wasn't the provincial government. It wasn't the federal government. The little municipalities around Hawkesbury did the assessment. Their only recourse was to deny a rezoning application. The proponent, a European multinational corporation, appealed the refusal of the rezoning to the Ontario Municipal Board.

That's where we sit. A megatonne of emissions are unaccounted for and there are no interventions by either level of government to figure out how we can get those GHGs down. We're missing the boat on that. High-carbon projects have got to be on the project list, at least. We think it would be better if there was a law list, like we had in the CEAA 1995, so that any regulatory approvals under the Fisheries Act, the Canadian navigable waters act, or the Species at Risk Act would be assessed. That would be our preference, but we think we could also do it by way of the project list.

Next, I want to turn to the project list itself. I want to talk about the regulatory approach that's being taken by the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency for listing projects under your new impact assessment act. We say it's unacceptable.

According to the consultation paper, the project list would “focus federal impact assessment on projects that [would] have the most potential for adverse environmental effects in areas of federal jurisdiction”. They're saying that even very bad projects with serious adverse effects in areas of federal jurisdiction may not be listed on this project list so long as there are projects that have more serious impacts. That's a problem. That means they only want to have a very select number of projects listed that would be subject to the whole process.

I want to add that I found nothing in Bill C-69 or in the proposed act that requires the approach that appears to be taken by the agency with respect to the development of these absolutely critical recommendations. We would say delete that word “most”, so that the language would read “federal impact assessments would focus on projects that would have potential for adverse environmental effects in areas of federal jurisdiction”, not the “most potential”. I would make that recommendation.

Next I want to talk about the federal house in order. The exemption of federal projects from assessment under the proposed act is simply unacceptable. As it's written now, federal authorities are required only to determine “that the carrying out of the project is not likely to cause significant adverse environmental effects”, and that factors set out in proposed section 84 be considered.

“Just trust us” is just not good enough. Let me give you an example from the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society. I don't know if they're testifying before the committee, but they said to go ahead and tell the story.

Since 2012, Parks Canada has made 1,600 determinations under a provision identical to the one I just read to you. Instead of doing an assessment, they're required to make a determination based on...we have no idea what. They made 1,600 of those determinations over two and a half years. Not once did they identify a project that had significant adverse effects.

These projects are in our national parks, where presumably we're a little more sensitive to what “significant” might mean. Remember that in national parks the minister has, as her first priority, the maintenance and restoration of ecological integrity when considering aspects of the management of parks.

Am I over...?

Okay. I did want to say something about regional and strategic assessments.

[Robert Sopuck, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

It is directly related to the testimony that Chief Crey gave on his comments regarding Bill C-69, so my colleague is out of line.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Chair, I have a point of order. I would like you to make a ruling on relevance. We're here reviewing Bill C-69. If my colleague here has an explanation about the relevance of what he's raising to what they're requesting be in this bill, then I would be happy.

[Mike Bossio, Liberal, Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON]

I would just say that to me it seems to be a very good description of the way the relationship should happen with indigenous peoples under Bill C-69. I would like to see it taken from Bill C-68 and brought over into Bill C-69. I don't know why it wasn't done in the first place. Anyway, I'll leave this question there.

I know we've already spoken a bit about meaningful public participation, but I'd like to get your feedback on the early planning phase of public participation, looking at meaningful public participation but also alternatives and need. Can you talk about how you would define it and how you would ensure that the right criteria are in place to make it happen?

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

To the motion, the uncertainty is caused by the Government of Canada and the lack of verbal and legal support, not financial support. The finance committee can be involved because the finance minister was at the table. It was a four-person meeting and he was right there. This does matter because it does affect his ministry. The decisions he will make on the financial implications for the Government of Canada, and what the Government of Canada will do to provide some type of financial support, matters to the committee here. It could be money, direct subsidies, an insurance policy, or an equity stake. We have no way of knowing that. We should find out what the implications are for budgetary matters.

Energy East, Northern Gateway, and Petronas were cancelled. Between Energy East and Northern Gateway, 1.625 million barrels per day of production are not moving through a pipeline. That's royalties, levies, and construction jobs, and that has a huge impact on the Government of Canada's bottom line. Trans Mountain moves 590,000 barrels per day. You are talking about a third of what has already been lost through your decision. Bill C-69 adds to the burden. We're talking about establishing a baseline of what the government can use to say, “This is how much money we've brought into the public coffers, so this is what the Government of Canada can do on the financial side and regulatory side to lessen the burden on the government.”

The last thing I will say is from a constituent. I think he raises a great point. Then, Mr. Chair, I'll turn it over to you if there are no other speakers. I will also ask for a recorded vote.

Darren Engels from my riding says:

When I finished university, I made the choice to move to Calgary, where I was told that the city was a built on a can-do attitude of hard-working people. My kind of place. I secured a career at a boutique investment bank that focused exclusively on the energy industry. I made it! My hard work paid off. Unfortunately, I now have a front-row seat of investment capital fleeing our country, due to an overly burdensome environment. Arguably, I cannot blame the investor for having zero confidence in Canada, given the hostile investment environment that has been created by over-reaching regulations and governments, I barely have any confidence in Canada anymore. The fact that Energy East, Northern Gateway, Petronas LNG have been abandoned, and there is real risk that Trans Mountain will be cancelled, should ring alarm bells across the country as the rule of law has been overtaken by the “green mob” that lacks facts but is well funded by foreign dollars.

The most unfortunate aspect of Canada's new reality is that I cannot honestly tell my daughters that if they work hard, good things will happen. Not in Canada, anyways. My next professional question might be: do I stay and fight for my livelihood and city I love, or do I move outside Canada to pursue the next phase of my career and protect the financial well-being of my family.

...

From my perspective, the current governments definitely do not stand up for the oil and gas industry. That is tragic, especially given that the oil and gas industry enabled Canada to survive the world-wide recession of 2008 and has employed thousands of people across the country, and provided millions upon millions of dollars to support our high-standard of living. Please, we need you to act.

Make me a proud Canadian again.

[Jamie Kneen, Communications and Outreach Coordinator, Mining Watch Canada]

Good afternoon. Thank you for the opportunity to be with you today.

I would like to begin by acknowledging that we are on the unceded territory of the Algonquin nation. This fact needs to shape our discussions here. It's not just something that we say before we go about our business, but a reality that we need to carry through everything we do.

Like many, Mining Watch was greatly encouraged by the government's commitment to reforming environmental assessment and by the expert panel process that was created to advance that agenda—notwithstanding its compressed time frame—both in the astonishing extent and thoughtfulness of participation from the public, indigenous people, and experts alike, and in the depth of consideration that the expert panel reflected in its report.

My focus today is primarily on part 1 of Bill C-69, the impact assessment act. There are certainly important concerns with respect to other parts of the bill, as well as Bill C-68, the amended Fisheries Act, both on their own and in relation to the impact assessment act, especially regarding the assessment and monitoring of non-designated projects. I would direct your attention to the submission of the Canadian Freshwater Alliance, especially as it appears they will not be called as a witness.

This bill brings great promise and great disappointment. Overall, we find that it cannot fulfill the government's commitment to restore public confidence, and therefore, also cannot fulfill the promise of facilitating good development projects. In some respects, it represents a failure of ambition, where a stronger commitment and stronger leadership are required to meet the challenges of the 21st century. In other respects, it's just a matter of design flaws and limitations of implementation. At this juncture, it may not be possible to address the bigger structural problems, but we have the opportunity to fix many of its deficiencies.

We are greatly concerned that while this committee has heard the testimony of the responsible ministers, it has not heard from the civil servants, the government's own experts who worked diligently to develop the government's direction in the bill that is before us now. We strongly urge you to call those involved in drafting this legislation as witnesses. We're also greatly concerned that there is very little time for this committee to hear witnesses and to develop and integrate the necessary amendments in order to allow for a more thorough evaluation of some of the critical structural aspects of the impact assessment act.

The minister, through the new impact assessment agency, should undertake a short-term review of the new act and develop a package of housekeeping and substantive amendments to bring before Parliament within a year or two. As well, the proposed 10-year parliamentary review will come much too late. The legislative review requirement should be changed to a five-year ministerial review cycle.

I'll not attempt to address the needed amendments comprehensively—there just isn't enough time—but we have worked extensively through the Canadian Environmental Network, the RCEN, and its environmental planning assessment caucus, of which Anna and I are both co-chairs on a national level, which has made submissions to this committee. We endorse and support the observations and recommendations of the caucus, as well as those of its other members, and I would refer you to the caucus's written submission, as we're not actually here on behalf of the caucus.

The bill does make an important advance in setting out a broad consideration of economic and social factors in addition to biophysical environmental impacts. All of those factors are to be subject to public scrutiny and scientific evaluation, allowing decisions to be based on much more transparent reasons and justifications than has previously been the case. This is something we have advocated as critical to allowing an assessment of any proposal's contribution to long-term sustainability. The bill's inclusion of gender-based analysis is also important.

However, as I think Josh has already laid out, the bill does not provide a clear legal link between the consideration of those factors and the justification for actual assessment decisions. Neither does it establish basic criteria to provide a solid and consistent base for those decisions.

As Professor Doelle pointed out in his submission, the enabling nature of the legislation allows for good decision-making to take place, but it does not guarantee it and, without clearer requirements for justification, doesn't even encourage it. Provisions that enable action also enable inaction and do not provide certainty. It is greatly helpful in understanding the application of discretion if wherever the bill says the minister “may”, one reads “the minister may not”. This is not a question of ill will or irresponsibility, but more one of natural administrative tendencies to conserve money and energy, and natural political tendencies to seek short-term benefits.

We note that the question of discretion has been raised as a concern of all sectors, including industry representatives, indigenous peoples, public interest groups, and environmental law experts, with varying degrees of emphasis on three factors.

First is certainty and clarity, being able to know what the decision-making criteria are at the legislative level, and how they will be established at the level of individual project assessments or regional and strategic assessments.

Second, with regard to fail-safe criteria, is assurance that where benefits or, at least, no harm cannot be assured in all areas, any trade-offs will be subject to defined weighting and limits.

Third, on indigenous self-determination, is definitive protection for indigenous rights, including implementation of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, so that impacts on treaty and indigenous rights and the outcomes of nation-to-nation processes are determinative so that the requirements are clear and knowable. I think the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement provides a clear example of that.

We urge the committee to pursue amendments to more closely tie the proposed section 63 decision-making factors to the proposed section 22 factors to include in an assessment.

This is not the first time that you are hearing this, and it won't be the last. We should include a requirement for regulations setting out generic decision-making criteria in each area, and establish a requirement for specific criteria for individual assessments, as well as making impacts on treaty and indigenous rights and the outcomes of nation-to-nation processes determinative and not just considerations.

We have made recommendations for specific amendments and provided background arguments in our written submission in seven other areas to help ensure that public participation is meaningful; that indigenous peoples involvement in any assessment processes respects their self-determination; that there are effective mechanisms to assess regional development impacts as well as policies, plans, and programs, with clear links to project assessments; that impact assessment is linked to monitoring of non-designated projects authorized under the Fisheries Act and the Navigation Protection Act, especially in relation to cumulative effects and project assessments; that energy regulators have a specific and a much more limited role in assessment processes; that international transboundary processes and international obligations and guidelines are given adequate weight; and that scientific integrity is built in, including in mitigation, adaptive management, and follow-up.

In conclusion, Bill C-69 has the potential to make important and badly needed changes in the federal impact assessment regime. Unfortunately, it does not provide clear enough direction on implementation to give us confidence that its promises will be fulfilled. It also replicates many features of the existing failed CEAA, including its limited scope of application. We have provided recommendations in key areas, and we trust this committee to do its best work to improve the bill.

Thank you.

[Bill Namagoose, Executive Director, Grand Council of the Crees (Eeyou Istchee)]

Madam Chair and committee members, bonjour. On behalf of the Cree Nation of Eeyou Istchee, I thank you for the invitation to address you today with respect to Bill C-69.

[Witness speaks in Cree]

My name is Bill Namagoose. I'm the executive director of the Grand Council of the Crees, the Cree Nation government. With me today are Cree Nation government representatives Brian Craik, director of federal relations; Geoff Quaile, senior environment adviser; Kelly LeBlanc, environmental and social assessment coordinator; and Jean-Sébastien Clément, our legal counsel.

Bill C-69 must guarantee the Crees of Eeyou Istchee our treaty right under the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement to be active and mandatory participants in any environmental or social impact assessment of development projects carried out under federal legislation in the JBNQA territory of Eeyou Istchee. Any federal legislation providing for environmental or social assessment of development projects in the JBNQA territory of Eeyou Istchee must ensure that the assessment is conducted by the federal environmental and social impact review panel, known as the COFEX, established under section 22 of the JBNQA. To achieve these ends, Bill C-69 must provide for a carve-out or distinct regime that specifically addresses the JBNQA territory.

The Cree Nation of Eeyou Istchee counts more than 18,000 Eeyouch, or Cree, occupying our traditional territory of Eeyou Istchee. This territory covers over 400,000 square kilometres and is located mainly to the east and south of James Bay and Hudson Bay. We occupy and intensively use the entire area of Eeyou Istchee, both for our traditional way of of hunting, fishing, and trapping, and increasingly, for a wide range of modem economic activities.

As a result of massive hydroelectric and resource development over the past 40 years, the Cree of Eeyou Istchee have undergone extremely rapid and disruptive cultural, social, and environmental changes. These changes have caused enormous stress on the Cree in terms of our traditional way of life and culture. Fifty per cent of Hydro-Québec power is now generated in our territory.

I will now tum to the specific issues that relate to Bill C-69 and the assessment projects in Eeyou Istchee. Section 22 of the JBNQA sets out the first environmental and social impact assessment and review regime for development projects in Canada. I want to stress that the first environmental and social impact assessment in all of Canada was a gift from the Cree. This assessment is done by tripartite and bipartite committees that assess both the environmental and social impacts of projects.

One of the main objectives of the regime is to ensure that the Crees are active participants in the orderly development of the resources in Eeyou Istchee so as to safeguard their hunting, fishing, and trapping rights, as detailed in section 24 of the treaty.

There are four joint committees established under section 22 of the JBNQA. For today's purposes, the relevant committees are, first, the federal environmental and social impact review panel, also known as the COFEX, a joint Cree-Canada panel that is mandated to review projects under federal jurisdiction. The COFEX is composed of five members: three appointed by the federal government and two by the Cree Nation government. The second is the provincial environmental and social impact review committee, also known as the COMEX, a joint Cree-Quebec panel that is mandated to review projects subject to provincial legislation. The COMEX is composed of five members: three appointed by Quebec and two appointed by the Cree Nation government.

Over the years, the Crees have been involved in litigation regarding section 22 of the JBNQA and the various federal assessment processes external to the JBNQA, including the environmental assessment and review process, or EARP, guidelines and the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, known as CEAA.

The most recent litigation on these issues ended up with the 2010 decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in Quebec v. Moses. The Moses judgment distinguishes between the environmental review processes internal to the JBNQA treaty and the environmental review processes external to the treaty as required by CEAA. The court held that the JBNQA treaty permits only internal review process, either federal, provincial, or combined. However, an external federal review process is also required where mandated by the federal environmental law.

The federal assessment process external to the JBNQA proved problematic in the past, as they set out a regime in JBNQA territory that did not take proper account of the specific context of the JBNQA treaty, a fact expressly noted in the Supreme Court of Canada in the Moses decision. In addition, federal assessment processes were set out despite the treaty requirements that the federal laws or regulations be established by and in accordance with section 22, including the Cree right to be active participants in the decisions made for the territory.

The key message of our submission today is that Bill C-69 should provide for a carve-out, or distinct regime, to address specifically the JBNQA territory. In so doing, Bill C-69 must guarantee the treaty rights of the Cree of the Eeyou Istchee under the JBNQA, as recognized in the Moses decision, to be active and mandatory participants in the assessment of development projects in Eeyou Istchee carried out under federal legislation. The mechanism to ensure this participation is the COFEX panel already established under section 22 of the JBNQA.

The Crees have consistently urged our federal counterparts to use COFEX, established by the JBNQA, to assess all projects subject to external federal review processes in the JBNQA territory, and not to impose a foreign process.

In Moses, the Supreme Court accepted the Cree arguments in respect to the necessity to ensure Cree participation in external federal environmental assessments of projects in a manner compatible with JBNQA processes. The following sentence of paragraph 48 of the judgment sums up this view of the Supreme Court. I quote:

Common sense as well as legal requirements suggest that the CEAA assessment will be structured to accommodate the special context of a project proposal in the [James Bay Treaty territory], including the participation of the Cree.

This statement indicates that a project subject to internal assessment by COMEX, under the JBNQA, should not be reviewed by COFEX when an external assessment process is required under federal legislation. We have been in discussions with Canada since 2010, including through the dispute resolution process further to the passing of CEAA 2012, in an attempt to ensure that the changes called for in the Moses judgment are properly implemented.

What is the solution for the JBNQA territory? The solution is simple and anchored in two basic principles flowing from the JBNQA treaty and the Moses decision. One, every time an internal assessment is carried out by COMEX under the JBNQA territory for a project that has impacts within areas of federal jurisdiction or that requires a federal permit, an environmental assessment should be carried out under the proposed impact assessment act. Two, impact assessments under the proposed impact assessment act in JBNQA Cree territory should be conducted through COFEX, already established under section 22 of the JBNQA, thus ensuring direct Cree participation as mandated by the Moses Supreme Court decision.

In order to ensure certainty and predictability, we urge Canada to engage with us immediately in discussions to make the necessary amendments to Bill C-69, and section 22 of the JBNQA, to put in place the various agreements and regulations required to give effect to the proposals that I have outlined here.

On the Canadian energy regulator act, the most pressing amendment required is to clarify that the consent of the concerned Cree first nation is required when a company proposes to construct a pipeline on category 1A lands, where our communities are located, or if a company proposes to engage in related activities or take possession of such lands. This requires an amendment to proposed section 317 of the Canadian energy regulator act.

In conclusion, Bill C-69 proposes a measure of consultation and accommodation with respect to first nations. However, the JBNQA, as affirmed by the Supreme Court of Canada in the Moses judgment, goes further by providing the Crees with the treaty right to full and mandatory participation in environmental and social impact assessments and reviews carried out in JBNQA territory.

We are available to answer any questions.

Thank you.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I have a motion that I tabled March 29, which I think is ample notice, and I intend to move it now. Just to remind the clerks—because they're looking at me, and the analysts are too—it's the one dealing with the Trans Mountain pipeline, because I had a feeling back then that there might be a suspension of the work on the pipeline. The motion I gave notice for back on March 28 was the following:

That the Standing Committee on Finance undertake a study over a period of four meetings to review the tax revenue losses to the federal government, including but not limited to royalties, personal and corporate income taxes, and levies, as well as review the fiscal impacts, including loss of business and economic activity, resulting from the construction delays of the Trans Mountain Expansion Pipeline, that the Committee review the potential long-term federal benefits, including employment opportunities that the project would generate, and that the Committee would report back to the House and make a recommendation as to whether or not the Government of Canada declare the Trans Mountain expansion project to the national advantage of Canada and invoke Section 92(10)(c) of the Constitution of Canada.

I won't read it in French because I know we have interpretation services, so I'm sure they're able to catch all of it—they're nodding to me over there. The reason I tabled the motion originally is that I was really worried that the pipeline would not be approved. It was approved in the sense that the company was given regulatory authority to deal with it and legal authority to go on with it, but it hasn't been given any political backing almost whatsoever. I'm going to draw the attention of the committee to the news release that Kinder Morgan put out on their own project. I think it has valuable information in it when it talks about the deadline they've set for themselves of May 31 and the potential paths forward that they kind of itemize and go through. In it they say:

The uncertainty as to whether we will be able to finish what we start leads us to the conclusion that we should protect the value that KML has, rather than risking billions of dollars on an outcome that is outside of our control.

To date, we have spent considerable resources bringing the Project to this point and recognize the vital economic importance of the Project to Canada. Therefore, in the coming weeks we will work with stakeholders on potential ways to continue advancing the Project consistent with the two principles previously stated.

This is a news release that they put out on the Canada Newswire on April 8, 2018. It goes into a lot of detail on what they see as the problems with the current regulatory and legal environment, because, let's face it, they're being harassed legally and through regulation by B.C.'s NDP government. That's their biggest problem. They're facing a situation where they have government approval to proceed with it, but they're being harassed through the courts and the regulatory process, and they feel that they cannot place the entire company at risk for the project.

I will mention that it was interesting to go Natural Resources' website to see what Natural Resources Canada's views are of the prospects of the energy sector. This is from Natural Resources Canada. It says here that “government revenues from energy were $12.9 billion in 2015”. What I've been saying in the parts of the country I've travelled to, including my own riding and Vaughan that I was in last week, is that we basically need, at this point, two and a half Trans Mountain pipelines to be approved and built in order to balance the budget in the future. That's where it ties it back into federal budgets. I think the revenue generated by the Trans Mountain pipeline is of immense value to the federal government because, on the Liberal side, they will be unable to meet the promises made in the 2015 election unless they see more of these projects built. This is where Trans Mountain becomes critical to actually reaching a balanced budget. In terms of those numbers, this motion speaks to figuring out what exactly, and how much value there will be to the federal coffers over the next five, 10, 15, and 20 years as the construction is completed and the pipeline comes online.

I know that the government has said—and there are no members of the government here, just government caucus members—that it's going to table legislation. I assume this will be done far before May 31, the deadline the company has set. So, they're going to table the legislation, and there's some type of financial or insurance consideration that is going to be given to Kinder Morgan.

Now that's of interest to me because I'd like to know what those considerations would be. I also think it's incumbent upon the finance committee to give advice to the government. I have only asked for four extra meetings to be assigned for this because I know that we have to get into the details of an important budget implementation bill that we have to review. You probably heard at question period that there will be a lot of questions to ask of the government about some of the estimates changes and the impact on the spending to be approved in the budget.

However, this is how important the TMX is. It is of vital importance to the federal government to ensure that this project is built, completed, and made operational and then to have more such projects happening in the future. We know there has been massive capital flight from Canada—$86 billion, the largest loss since at least 2010. These are immense numbers that hurt the attempts of the federal government to balance its own budget.

Not to be piffy, to say that the budget will be balanced and the pipeline will be built without then putting in a comma and completing the sentence by saying what you will do, how you will do it, and how you will get there.... That's the important stuff; that's what everybody wants to know. That's what the journalists are talking about.

Constituents are coming to me. I probably get now hundreds of phone calls, emails, and contacts a week through social media from people talking about the TMX pipeline, energy, and what is going on, because it involves their jobs. I come from the constituency of Calgary Shepard, in the deep southeast part of the city, where I have a lot of white-collar and blue-collar oil and gas workers.

This motion is important because we could be providing the government with vital financial information to influence the legislation it is going to be proposing before the House. Then we would be debating it, of course, but there is no way to tell which committee it will go to. I hope the government will consider, but it might not, whether it should invoke section 92.10(c) of the Constitution Act of Canada.

I did some research on this subject. I know there are constitutional law experts in Canada, so I'm not going to go through all 470-plus times that power has been used in Canada, but it has been used many times—including, I'm sure it will please the chair to know, for grain elevators. Grain elevators were in fact federalized by the federal government at one point, along with much of the work surrounding grain elevators—the bylaws, the construction, the roads, a lot of what's involved. That was news to me; I didn't know this. That would be an interesting aspect to look at.

There is also a Senate bill before the Senate, from independent, elected Alberta Senator Doug Black, that deals exactly with this matter.

I think the finance committee has a unique opportunity from the financial perspective to make a pitch to study the issue, look at the federal impact—the employment numbers, the corporate income taxes, the levies, the royalties that the federal government could be receiving—if this project is completed on time, and also if it's not, What would be the loss to Canada if this project does not go ahead; if Kinder Morgan says, because of the regulatory and court harassment it's facing from the B.C. NDP and the lack of support from the federal government, which is exactly what they've said has happened, that they will not be pursuing the project?

That's how this all ties into giving a yea or nay on the use of this part of the Constitution. If the government is going to invoke it, how should it invoke it and for what reasons should it invoke it? I think the reasons are financial. It's a benefit to members of the government caucus, I think. Here is free advice on my end that is also of benefit to the Liberal government—the ministers, the members of the executive. If they want to balance the budget, they have to see this project through, and this will be a mechanism through which to do it.

I'm only asking, as I said, for those four meetings. There are numbers available from CAPP and others on what it would look like if the project didn't go through.

One thing I want to mention is Claudia Cattaneo's view of this—she's an expert in this field—on April 5 with regard to Bill C-69. Aside from legislation, because it's not important to this motion, there is the regulatory version faced by Kinder Morgan and other projects, because it comes as a basket. The cancellation of the Kinder Morgan pipeline could precipitate others' cancelling their projects.

I think this is another avenue by which the committee through this motion could undertake a study, with four meetings, and make some recommendations to the government respecting a yea or a nay on the Constitution. Then we could have our piece on it before the government tables the legislation. They could have our view of it before that happens. I know the time is short, but it's the time that has been given to us by Kinder Morgan.

She said that “The message couldn't be clearer than in the Canadian Energy Pipeline Association's recent response to Bill C-69” that “investors have tuned out and moved to jurisdictions where governments aren't kneecapping their companies to meet commitments on climate change.” She says there's an opportunity cost involved. What is that opportunity cost? I think we could look at much of that question through this motion and then determine it.

Trans Mountain's project was announced May 23, 2012. We're almost in May 2018. It's almost six years now from the moment of announcement to the moment we're now facing, when the pipeline could be cancelled.

Some members know, of course, that I was born in Poland. We fought World War II from start to finish, I think in the same time span, and yet here in Canad we still don't have the Kinder Morgan project completed. It's startling to me that a nation-building project like this could not be done in the same timeline during which previous generations were able to fight a world war. It's stunning to me. I don't make the comparison lightly, but it's interesting to note how long it has taken the company to get to the point where they're now saying they can't proceed because there are too many regulatory and court-related burdens for them to continue.

I'm hoping that members on the opposite side will hear me out on this. I'm just going to shuffle through the examples that I want to give you. Off the top of my head, as I said, there were grain elevators; the Cape Breton Development Corporation was federalized; and the government divested Teleglobe as well.

This is a section of the Constitution that has not been used in almost 30 years. Perhaps the chair can correct me, because I know he has a long memory of things that have happened here in Parliament, but it's a section, nevertheless, that is available for use when the government wants to declare something to the national advantage.

I think it's worth our time to take four meetings to study the issue and provide recommendations to the government. That's purely on the fiscal side, to study the impact to the budget and future budget years. We could invite experts to appear before us both from Kinder Morgan, and National Resources Canada, if it has done the assessment already. We could also invite others, like Alex Pourbaix, who issued a statement basically saying that there are 200 environmental and legal conditions attached to the approval, and they've been trying to meet them over the past two years. I saw a stat put out by the British Columbia government that about 1,187 permits are required by the pipeline, although it could be 1,178, as I may be getting the last two numbers in the wrong order, and something like only 200 or 300 have been approved so far. It shows you how much more permitting there is imposed upon the company for a project that is approved by the federal government.

On behalf of my constituents, I'm interested to see this motion passed, for us to have this debate, and to hear from expert witnesses in the field who can inform us on what the financial repercussions would be of this project not proceeding. We're seeing headlines like, “As investors blast Canada's pipeline ‘gong show,’ Ottawa must take action”. That's Chris Varcoe from the Calgary Herald. In here, he has quotes from Steve Kean, the Kinder Morgan CEO, who is saying, “It's not a bluff” or a ploy but that they're seriously considering cancelling the project. There are hundreds of thousands of jobs that will be impacted, because this is product: feedstock that is moving through the pipeline. Those jobs on the back end, in production and the white-collar jobs, a lot of which are in Calgary, will be impacted directly by this. It will hurt even more of their confidence. Whatever confidence was returning will be hurt by this.

I don't think four meetings is unreasonable to set aside for a study of this motion. If you could just give me one second, I want to—

[Joshua Ginsberg, Barrister and Solicitor, Ecojustice Canada]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair and committee members, for inviting Ecojustice to provide suggestions to the committee on Bill C-69.

Ecojustice is a national environmental law charity providing free legal services to Canadian conservation groups, concerned citizens, and first nations. Lawyers from Ecojustice appear across the country before courts and tribunals at every level, including with respect to environmental assessment, which will be the focus of my comments today.

I am an Ecojustice litigator and a part-time professor at the University of Ottawa faculty of law and director of Ecojustice's environmental law clinic at the faculty, where I teach environmental litigation, including with respect to environmental assessments. My comments today are informed by those various hats.

The points I propose to focus on are the following: first, the discretion to exempt projects from an assessment; second, the importance of clear requirements for decision-making; third, environmental justice; fourth, assessments of federal projects; and finally, review and appeal.

I've submitted a brief touching on other aspects of the proposed IAA as well as the proposed energy regulator act and the navigable waters act, which I commend for your review.

One of the most consequential effects when the 2012 legislation replaced the previous Canadian Environmental Assessment Act was the shift from a triggers-based approach to a project list approach, which limited potential assessments to a short list of major projects under federal jurisdiction. CEAA 2012 reduced the number of project assessments to dozens annually, compared with the former legislation that applied to thousands of projects annually. Even then, the 2012 act added an off-ramp whereby the agency could exempt projects from assessment. That discretion has been used 27 times since the current act came into force, or about five times per year. It is a regular part of agency operations.

Here are just two examples of exempted projects as a result of that discretion: a gold mine located near Timmins, Ontario, with an ore production capacity of 4,000 tonnes per day, where the minimum production capacity to trigger a federal assessment is only 600 tonnes per day; and a crude oil storage facility with capacity for 6.64 million barrels just outside the municipal border of Edmonton, Alberta.

The proposed IAA does not remedy this exclusion problem. It retains the discretion to exempt projects from a list that will likely only include those with the most potential for adverse effects in an area of federal jurisdiction, according to the government discussion paper on the subject. To be clear, I am not suggesting that any particular project ought not to have been approved. However, projects make the list because they have real potential for adverse effects, like toxic heavy industry in proximity to communities, like the two I mentioned. Failing to assess those projects undermines public trust in the process. Communities should get a full picture of the potential adverse effects of the project and ways the project might be improved. Not assessing such projects also undermines efforts to tackle cumulative effects, which is a core purpose of the bill.

We, therefore, recommend that section 16 of the act be amended to allow the agency to exempt a designated project from assessment only if it determines that there is no potential for impacts on areas within federal jurisdiction. In other words, if the presumption of federal jurisdiction that led a project to end up on the list in the first place is rebutted, it doesn't need an assessment. Otherwise, an assessment ought to take place.

The lack of clear criteria in the existing legislation has resulted in an interpretation by the courts that decision-making on assessments is based on nearly unfettered discretion. The assessment report is merely one input in an indeterminate sea of considerations that are never made public. The law is so vague that the Federal Court of Appeal concluded that decisions are, “based on the widest considerations of policy and public interest assessed on the basis of polycentric, subjective, or indistinct criteria”. In other words, after all of the evidence and public participation that goes into an assessment, there's no guarantee that it will do anything to influence the final decision.

What's more, courts have doubted whether the law imposes any standards for the content of the assessment report. According to some jurisprudence, it is doubtful whether the report is even required to contain substantive consideration of environmental effects, even serious ones like the release of liquid effluent from a nuclear reactor into Lake Ontario. The prevailing standard is “some consideration,” no matter how cursory or disinterested in relevant evidence that consideration may be.

To its credit, the proposed impact assessment act does try to do more than avoid acute harm. It requires politicians to consider the extent to which a project contributes to sustainability, including environmental, economic, health, and social factors. It also incorporates a consideration of Canada's climate commitments and indigenous interests, and it mandates reasons for environmental approvals.

However, the IAA should do more than require that factors be considered, since judicial history shows that mere consideration provides no enforceable standard. To avoid uncertainty as to whether the decision will really be based on the legislated factors, we suggest that proposed section 63 of the act be amended to ensure decisions are “based on” the legislated factors rather than simply taking them into consideration. That would be a significant change in law and accountability in the system and would help ensure that decisions that are tied to the EA process are evidence-based.

While the decisions should be based on the proposed section 63 factors, it's important to note that those factors are incomplete. The section should include bottom lines that place an outside boundary on ministerial or cabinet discretion so that all participants in impact assessment understand the minimum expectations. For example, the law should prevent the minister from deciding that adverse effects indicated in an assessment report are in the public interest if the evidence suggests otherwise. The minister should not make a positive public interest determination where adverse effects do not offset some more severe effect, or unless—as you heard from Professor Stewart Elgie yesterday—the benefits substantially outweigh the adverse effects. A project should also not be found in the public interest if evidence suggests it will result in the crossing of a dangerous ecological threshold or will substantially hinder Canada's ability to meet its international or national environmental, climate change, or biodiversity obligations. These bottom lines should not be reduced to optional considerations, which is currently the case with the proposed legislation. Proposed section 63 ought to be amended accordingly.

The bill also does not recognize that in Canada, vulnerable populations such as low-income populations, indigenous communities, and socially marginalized groups are disproportionately exposed to environmental hazards while also disproportionately lacking access to environmental benefits. In other words, environmental approvals often lack environmental justice.

Let me provide an example from some of our work. In “chemical valley”, located just outside Sarnia, Ontario, sirens can blare at any time of day to warn people to stay indoors when all-too-frequent pollution incidents occur.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

I think you again flagged some things that I have addressed, whether it's Bill C-45, C-68, or C-69. This bill has significant implications for all those other three bills and that is something that I don't think we've perhaps looked at or addressed very well.

I do want to talk about Kinder Morgan because I think it's a pretty good example of some of the challenges that we have. I think a mining project is somewhat easy in terms of free, prior, and informed consent, identifying whose territory it's in and ensuring that the rights and titles are respected and acknowledged and the projects move forward.

You talked about concerns from your community, Mr. Richardson. I have chiefs who run down that pipeline and who are saying, “We took it to our community. They voted 85% for it. One-third of the pipeline is going through our territory.” We have communities along the whole pipeline route, and it's more than just the benefit agreements. They've taken it to their communities and 85% is not 100%, but it is significant.

What we have is rather like Canadians in general. We have a complexity of very strong feelings on this particular issue. How will government ever, if we have something like Bill C-262, align all those important considerations? Again, I look at the communities, the Shuswap people who are predominantly in one area.

It's difficult. It's complicated. I know we were grappling with it until midnight last night. It's important and I worry about where we're going to end up in terms of making sure we respect rights while still being able to move forward with things that are important for everyone who lives in this country.

Maybe we'll hear from Mr. Newman and then Mr. Richardson.

[Dr. Dwight Newman, Professor of Law and Canada Research Chair in Indigenous Rights, University of Saskatchewan, As an Individual]

Good afternoon. It's an honour to speak with this committee as it studies Bill C-262. I'd also like to acknowledge the Algonquin people on whose territory this meeting occurs.

My name is Dwight Newman. I'm a professor of law and Canada research chair in indigenous rights in constitutional and international law at the University of Saskatchewan.

I come here today with full respect for the very noble aspirations reflected by Bill C-262 and the passion and lifelong advocacy efforts of the member who has introduced it, the support for the bill by many civil society organizations, and the profound importance of Canada working to implement the aspirations reflected by United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

However, I am going to say something different than some of the other witnesses. I do come to say that I think Bill C-262 as presently drafted is framed in ways that have the potential to cause enormous unforeseeable consequences. It has a range of highly unpredictable legal effects due to two things: elements of uncertainty on the international norms referenced, and legislative drafting issues in the bill itself.

In the next few minutes I'll try to introduce some of those, although I'd also refer you to my written brief for further reference, particularly on some of the legislative drafting issues.

I would suggest that the range of possible implications of this bill is very wide, from courts giving it no effect at all on through to the courts giving it massive, unexpected effects that could inadvertently cause governance gaps, for example, by the potential implied repeal of existing statutes, on through to legal effects that could depend in complicated ways on the order in which different bills currently under consideration in Parliament are passed.

I'll explain some of that momentarily, but my ultimate question is whether it wouldn't be better for Parliament to determine what, more precisely, it's trying to do and to enact a clear bill to do exactly what it's trying to do.

In my few minutes, I'll make three main points: one related to the substantive content of UNDRIP, one related to the drafting issues in the bill, and then a third one, quickly suggesting the need for further analysis by other committees.

First, the substantive content of UNDRIP is itself subject to more debates than often realized, and a statute drawing upon the declaration is no less subject to uncertainties that arise from these ongoing debates. To offer just one prominent example, a number of articles of UNDRIP refer to the concept of free, prior, and informed consent, or FPIC. Some of those articles of the declaration refer to a requirement to have FPIC before taking certain steps, and others refer to consulting and co-operating in order to seek FPIC. The first special rapporteur after the declaration was adopted, Professor James Anaya, attributed significance to that difference and suggested that a spectrum of different duties arose in relation to different articles.

In the years since, in general terms, in international law scholarship, three main interpretations have emerged in relation to the declaration on FPIC. There's an ongoing, growing literature, but I might mention Mauro Barelli's chapter in the new Oxford commentary on UNDRIP, released this year, as a particularly helpful piece in outlining some of those concepts.

One interpretation reads the text more strictly and says that in some circumstances, the declaration says it's enough to seek FPIC in good faith without necessarily obtaining it. I've suggested that this is the implicit position that Canada's 10 principles document, issued last summer, took somewhat slyly, as I put it in an op-ed. It's arguably that interpretation, though, that is most consistent with the French-language version of UNDRIP, and with one possible interpretation of the English-language version.

A second interpretation says the FPIC requirement is really about the type of process required and that it's possible to move away from talking about consent itself as long as one has the right type of consensus-oriented process. That interpretation fits with the approach of many practitioners who are trying to work with FPIC in practical ways.

A third interpretation sees FPIC as grounding rights analogous to vetos, and that interpretation is, and continues to be, urged by many indigenous advocates. A prominent Canadian example would be found in articulations by the scholar Pam Palmater.

In the context of Bill C-262, just which of these interpretations filters through from UNDRIP has drastically different legal consequences that matter. Not knowing that poses difficulties for everyone.

We've seen in the events of the past week around the Trans Mountain pipeline how legal uncertainty can affect the investment climate that can contribute to prosperity for both indigenous and non-indigenous Canadians, though obviously in the context of a project on which people have many different views.

My main point is that legal uncertainty doesn't help anyone, and this bill may draw Canadian law into new uncertainties coming from uncertainties around the interpretation of UNDRIP itself.

Second, the bill as presented has significant issues from a legislative drafting perspective, which I highlight at more length in my written submission, but I'll mention some of those briefly.

One, it uses a number of legal terms that have either no, or almost no, prior use in Canadian statutes, meaning that one's essentially gambling on how the courts might interpret those terms. That might render the whole bill merely symbolic at one end or it might lead to it having very significant effects, or anything in between.

Two, the different sections of the bill are subject to some tensions as to whether it requires immediate implementation, whether it requires implementation over a multi-decade period, or something in between. That could undermine clarity of meaning.

Three, the English and French versions of the bill may not line up in terms of their language. The French versions of terms from the English side are not the same as the French terms used for the same English terms in other pieces of legislation, again suggesting that there may be more drafting issues to be carefully considered.

Four, the way in which the bill may interact with other statutes or bills gives rise to some real complexities. I go through that in what is probably painful legal detail in the brief, but I suggest that if the courts were to give the bill substantial meaning, it could lead to the implied repeal of other statutes, or provisions of other statutes—maybe the Indian Act—overnight, in a manner that could lead to governance gaps and legal vacuums. That's not the way to abolish the Indian Act, which should of course be done but needs to be done in a clear way that doesn't generate problems in the process for indigenous communities who use its governance structures.

I also raise the prospect that because of the underlying legal principles on dealing with multiple statutes enacted by Parliament, the meanings of Bill C-68, Bill C-69, and Bill C-262, if all passed, could end up being significantly different, depending on the order in which they're passed. With respect, there needs to be a coherent plan and clearer legislative drafting to address some of these issues.

Third, just very briefly, Bill C-262 has the potential and indeed the aim to affect a huge range of areas of Canadian law. Is this committee alone well placed to consider the effects on Canada's intellectual property regime of something like clause 3 in the bill? Is this committee alone well placed to consider the implications on various religious freedom contexts arising out of UNDRIP?

My written brief lists some of the very wide areas of policy-making that could be impacted if the bill is adopted, and indeed the bill hopes to affect. With respect, it's analogous to an omnibus bill, which I would suggest could warrant attention from almost every other committee of Parliament. I would urge that there be some kind of further consideration of those effects.

In conclusion, my overall view is that Bill C-262 warrants further study and careful analysis. The legislative drafting does not meet all of the standards that we would hope for in the best legislative drafting of a bill on behalf of indigenous peoples to support a better relationship between indigenous peoples and other Canadians. There are a range of highly unpredictable effects across almost every area of government policy, and those deserve study. There could well be amendments that could improve the bill, but they need to be developed with legislative drafting expertise of the sort that the justice department has but presumably hasn't provided enough of in support of this committee at this point.

The government has committed its support, but I would hope that we would see further tangible results in terms of the details of the bill, and that there would be that legislative drafting support so that the government's commitments to implementing UNDRIP are realized in the way that best fulfills those.

I urge that the committee call for more support for its work in examining this bill and not rest with brief statements that have been offered by the justice officials who have appeared before it thus far.

Thank you for your attention, and I'm happy to discuss matters further in questions.

Natural Resources

[Matt Jeneroux, Conservative, Edmonton Riverbend, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has said he wants to phase out the oil sands. Well, he is doing it.

By introducing Bill C-69 and the carbon tax, the Prime Minister is driving investors out of the country. Petronas, Shell, and ConocoPhillips have all left. Gateway and energy east have been cancelled and the Trans Mountain pipeline is on life support.

The government claims to make evidence-based decisions. When will it accept the evidence that the resources approach is failing, and reverse these job-killing policies?

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I want to thank the witnesses for being here. I'm going to get right to the point.

I'm not normally on this committee either; I'm with international trade. Interestingly enough, this morning we had a topic on foreign direct investment in Canada, and the numbers are shocking. For 2017, the last year for which we have numbers, it was $33.8 billion. To put that into perspective, it's half of what it was in 2015, and just a free fall from what it was in 2007, which was $126.1 billion. Much of this investment really does affect development in your neighbourhood.

We had an interesting witness. His name is Ian McKay. He was the former CEO of the Liberal Party, but now he's working on a new body to help increase foreign direct investment. However, he said “perception is reality”, and I told him I was going to use that quote.

Chief Crey, I appreciate your comments earlier, because I think our indigenous people are not getting a fair rap as far as development is concerned. I remember the cringe when the Prime Minister said in Peterborough, just up from where I am in Oshawa, “We can't shut down the oil sands tomorrow. We need to phase them out.”

The reality out there and the perception has been expressed quite clearly by Douglas Porter, the chief economist at BMO Financial. He said, “People are giving up on Canada as a safe place to invest in natural resources. It's seen as a very hostile environment now.” He also said, “I think we're going to get crushed in the next recession.”

I'd like to ask a practical question, and maybe we could start with you, Chief Crey, and then Chief Boucher. I also noticed Mr. Pinto nodding his head a little earlier.

Is there anything in Bill C-69 that's going to help your communities work to attract more foreign investment or more investment in your communities and get rid of some of the uncertainty and increase the competitiveness of your communities for this type of investment?

If I have some time left over, Mr. Sopuck wanted one minute.

[Tim Dickson]

There are clearly some steps in the right direction with Bill C-69, and lots of room for improvement, hearing some of those voices here.

It's important that the legislation look specifically not just at section 35 rights, but UNDRIP, and create all sorts of avenues for participation by indigenous peoples. Regional Chief Teegee stressed in his comments there has to be sufficient funding to make that happen. That has to be a major pillar allowing for indigenous involvement in these processes.

We're focused on advisory committees and the like, and the formation of groups that can effectively engage with resources in the regulation of these projects, whether it's through advisory committees advising on the approval process. Our committee is more the post-approval process where the effort is to make sure that the regulation is as rigorous as possible so the project is as safe as possible. We're talking about having flexibility to form these committees and let the indigenous side speak for itself through the formation of large groupings where there is the desire to do that on the part of the individual nation.

This legislation has to provide that kind of flexibility, and it has to provide funding.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

I have one last thought. You've talked about how Bill C-69 should be amended to reflect that the delegation of power should be broader than just the indigenous governing bodies, so that the views of individual first nations, reserves, and chiefs are reflected when these projects are consulted on. Again, it's refreshing to see that there is thought being given to how we incent prosperity within the approval process so our first nations can participate in our national prosperity.

[John Aldag, Liberal, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

Thank you.

I'd like to begin by acknowledging that we're meeting on the traditional territory of the Algonquin Nation. I am visiting this territory from where my home is, which is on the Coast Salish people's land, specifically the Kwantlen Nation, Katzie Nation, and Semiahmoo Nation, which are just down the valley from Chief Crey's traditional territory.

Welcome, everyone. It has been a very insightful panel, and I think you've done a wonderful job at outlining the complexity and the need for us to try to get right in this legislation the relationship in how we work with the indigenous communities across Canada on assessment of projects.

There were three areas that I was really delighted to hear each of you touch on. These three areas I want to explore are reconciliation, consent, and jurisdiction. In the six minutes that we have, we're not going to get into it, so if anyone has any additional thoughts from the brief discussion we'll have, and if you have any additional thoughts beyond the comments you've given, please feel free to send in any submissions to the committee.

The first area I'd like to talk about is how the impact assessment act specifically, or any of Bill C-69, could incorporate free, prior, and informed consent, which has been discussed, in a manner that could work in practice, given the large number of impacted communities on any project.

Chief Boucher, I heard you speak at the GLOBE conference. You talked about the work your community is involved in with the oil sands and moving that product through pipelines, and what we're seeing with Trans Mountain, which, as Chief Crey has said, involves many nations. I am interested in some brief thoughts about this question of free, prior, and informed consent, and how we do that when we have a large number of communities involved.

Mr. Dickson, would you like to start, and then we'll move to Chief Boucher.

[Chief Ernie Crey, Indigenous Co-Chair, Indigenous Advisory and Monitoring Committee for the Trans Mountain Pipelines and Marine Shipping]

Madam Chair and honourable members, I'm Chief Ernie Crey. I'm the Chief of the Cheam First Nation in the Fraser Valley of British Columbia, but I appear before you today as the indigenous co-chair of the Indigenous Advisory and Monitoring Committee for the Trans Mountain Pipelines and Marine Shipping. Appearing with me is Tim Dickson of the JFK Law Corporation, who is legal counsel for the indigenous members of the committee.

We have provided a written submission, which we hope you will read and consider carefully. Today, we will make some broader oral submissions, and then we would welcome any questions you may have.

Turning to our recommendations in brief, we are making two recommendations with respect to Bill C-69. Mr. Dickson will speak to them more fully in a moment, but I will briefly state our recommendations.

The first concerns the provisions of the impact assessment act and the Canadian energy regulator act that allow for the delegation of authority to indigenous governing bodies. Our view is that the definition of which bodies may receive delegated authority is too restrictive and will, in many cases, defeat the objective of advancing reconciliation and indigenous involvement in the regulation of major projects.

Our second recommendation concerns ensuring that enough time is provided to form indigenous committees effectively.

As I said, Mr. Dickson will address these points in more detail in a moment.

First, I want to provide an overview of the committee, how it was formed, and what it is doing presently.

The committee was formed in response to a letter that Chief Aaron Sam and I wrote in June 2016, which was supported by representatives of over 60 indigenous communities, where we called for the establishment of an indigenous oversight committee to monitor and regulate the pipelines and marine shipping.

The federal government took up that suggestion, and when it approved the TMX project, it committed to co-developing an oversight committee with affected indigenous communities, and it approved a significant level of funding for it. Many of you might recall the amount. It was nearly $65 million over five years.

The terms of reference were negotiated and ratified in the six months that followed the announcement. We were formally established in July 2017. In my experience with these kinds of bodies, and I have a lot of experience with these kinds of bodies, that is extremely fast, a point I'll address more fully in a moment.

The committee is comprised of up to 13 indigenous members and six members from the federal government and National Energy Board. The NRCan member is the government co-chair. The indigenous members, which form what we call the indigenous caucus, seek to represent the interests of the 117 affected indigenous nations and communities. They do not formally and directly represent those nations; however, there are just too many affected nations to allow that to happen. Rather, the indigenous members are selected by the nations in particular regions to sit on the committee, and they seek to represent indigenous interests and perspectives broadly.

Related to that point, the terms of reference make clear that the committee does not replace nor reduce the government's duty to consult indigenous nations, and participation with the committee is without prejudice to a nation's position on pipelines.

The committee's main roles are to monitor the pipelines and marine shipping to make sure the rules and conditions are being followed, to give advice to government in the development and application of those rules and conditions, and to provide funding to communities for projects related to the pipelines and marine shipping, for example, spill preparation and response.

The committee aspires to having a more direct role in the regulation of pipelines and marine shipping in the future.

The indigenous nations want to see the committee be a forum for shared decision-making in respect of the pipelines, where government and indigenous nations can together regulate the pipelines and marine shipping to better ensure the protection of the environment and aboriginal title and rights. In our terms of reference at proposed section 14, the government committed to looking for ways to deepen indigenous involvement in regulation. Indeed, that direction for future involvement is part of why we're here today.

Last, the committee operates by consensus, except that the caucus, that is, the indigenous caucus, can formally give advice to government on its own where the government members are unable to sign on to it.

We have seen a great deal of success at the committee. Among other things, we have seen that it is possible to operate from consensus even where there are very different perspectives on the pipeline. Our committee not only has both government and indigenous members; the indigenous members come from nations that support the TMX and nations that oppose it—indeed, nations that are leading the charge to have the Federal Court of Appeal overturn the approval. Those folks are on this committee.

I want to mention a few points on why I think this kind of constructive consensus building is possible at the committee and why the committee has received a great deal of support among affected indigenous nations.

First, the committee's role is not about whether the pipelines should be—

[Chief Jim Boucher, Chief, Fort McKay First Nation]

Good afternoon, Madam Chair and members of the environment standing committee. It's a pleasure to speak to you today about Bill C-69.

I am Jim Boucher, chief of the Fort McKay First Nation. With me are Dr. Alvaro Pinto and Tarlan Razzaghi, our legal counsel. They will help me answer questions that you may pose to me later.

It is my duty as chief of the Fort McKay First Nation to protect and advocate for the Cree and Dene people of our first nation and our cultural identity, values, traditions, and way of life. It is my job to ensure our constitutionally protected rights are recognized, respected, and upheld by Canada, other governments, and Canadians in general.

Fort McKay is located at the very centre of the oil sands in the Athabasca region in northeast Alberta. Our ancestors have lived in our traditional territory since time immemorial. For us, this is not merely a landscape or a location of exploitable resources. It is our home. It is sacred to us because it has provided the necessities of life: water, animals for food and clothing, and the materials for shelter.

Figure 1 on page 12 of our brief shows Fort McKay's traditional territory. In the 1970s, oil sands production was 250,000 barrels per day. Today it is 2.5 million barrels per day, a tenfold increase, the majority of that in the last two decades. Figures 2 and 3 on pages 13 and 14 show that growth, which has taken up 75% of our traditional territory through mineral leases awarded by the provincial Government of Alberta without proper consultation, which is shown in figure 4 on page 15.

Our sustainability department addresses scores of oil sands-related applications every year. We hire the best scientific experts available and blend that with our expert traditional knowledge to pursue what we view as sustainable development.

The United Nations' Brundtland commission defined sustainable development as “development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs”. Sustainable development means, of course, economic opportunity, but more important, it also means passing on our traditional lands and the traditional use of those lands to future generations, just as they were passed to us.

Bill C-69 affirms the federal government's commitment to nation-to-nation and government-to-government relationships that recognize our unique identity, rights, and traditions: the foundation for reconciliation. It has been easy for governments to talk about reconciliation, but more difficult to translate those words into action. I have yet to see a true example of reconciliation from this government. With its power and authority, we are perplexed to see Canada relinquish its fiduciary duty to first nations to assess and mitigate development impacts that adversely affect reserve lands and traditional territories, our first nations people, and our treaty rights to the lower orders of government.

Do not mistake me: Fort McKay is not opposed to oil sands development. We are, in fact, among the most proactive of first nations with respect to oil sands development. Working in the oil sands sector has brought to the first nation and its members opportunity, economic self-sufficiency, stability, and prosperity that are inaccessible to many first nations people across the country, but as I said earlier, Fort McKay is also surrounded by oil sands development that has increased 1,000% since the 1970s.

Working with industry to advance shared objectives requires mutual respect and an acknowledgement that section 35 grants to all first nations the right to continue a way of life. It also demands that we identify the full range of impacts to first nations and take action to mitigate and accommodate our concerns.

Our concerns with Bill C-69 relate to the expert panel recommended consensus-based decision-making process. Bill C-69 unfortunately does not reflect that recommendation. The bill does not require proponents, governments, and first nations to work together to ensure that impact assessments are meaningful or adequate with respect to first nations people or their lands, even though it defines “effects within federal jurisdiction” as any change to the environment that would impact the physical and cultural heritage, traditional land use, significant historical, archaeological, paleontological, or architectural features, and the health and social or economic conditions of Cree and Dene people. Bill C-69 cites transboundary effects but does not acknowledge that direct or indirect impacts on reserve lands arising from activity on provincial lands are, in effect, transboundary.

The oil sands developments that surround our reserve pose tremendous insufficiently regulated risks to our people. For example, existing tailings ponds contain 1.3 trillion litres of contaminated water, enough to fill an eight-lane Olympic swimming pool 11,000 kilometres long stretching from Ottawa to Beijing with 11,000 pools left over.

A tailings pond breach from any mine would devastate our homes and reserves. When approvals are granted, there is no longer any federal presence. In fact, in the mid 1990s, Canada effectively approved by default all future tailings ponds in anticipation of new treatment technologies that still have not arrived. Canada takes too little action with respect to tailings ponds. Canada must consider the life-cycle impacts of tailings ponds.

As another example, Environment Canada installed the most advanced mobile air quality monitoring station in the world at Fort McKay. Scientists chose Fort McKay for its unique exposure to intense industrial activity. Environment Canada conducts research on air quality features of national and international importance and releases its data to the public. However, action to protect reserve lands from airshed impacts is left to Alberta, which relies on embarrassingly outdated ambient air quality objectives that do not protect human health. After years of disappointment, the provincial regulator finally acknowledged frequent exceedance of provincial standards in 2016, but provincial action remains elusive.

Another example is For McKay's Moose Lake Reserves to the northwest of our community, which were set aside in 1915 to preserve our traditional way of life. These were expanded in 2004 when Canada settled our treaty land entitlement claim. To fulfill the promise made in Treaty 8, Canada must protect all reserve lands designated for the exclusive use of Cree and Dene people. Five years ago, Alberta approved a 260,000 barrel per day project on the border of those reserves, and the first phase of a 40,000 barrel per day project is in the provincial regulatory process. Other projects are in the planning stages. Fort McKay requested federal intervention, but Canada has done nothing to help us protect our Moose Lake Reserves.

Alberta exempts pilot projects of 12,000 barrels per day or less from impact assessments. Accordingly, many companies announce projects that begin with a 10,000 barrel per day pilot, which increase by 10,000 barrel per day increments, and so get away with completing no impact assessments at all. The federal government must recognize and act upon its fiduciary duty to protect first nations and Fort McKay's occupation, active use, and enjoyment of its reserve lands, including our traditional territory.

The act must enable our first nation to sit at the table with the federal and provincial governments and all project proponents to protect reserve lands and our people from the beginning.

I think I'm running out of time; therefore, I'm going to say that we made some recommendations, and I'll pass this over to you and leave myself open to your questions.

[Regional Chief Terry Teegee]

[Witness speaks in Dakelh ]

My name is Terry Teegee. I'm the Regional Chief of the British Columbia Assembly of First Nations. I'm the political executive lead from the First Nations Leadership Council in regard to environmental assessment.

Considering the time constraints, I want to jump in with regard to this environmental impact assessment act, Bill C-69. First and foremost, I want to preface this discussion in regard to the comments Justin Trudeau made when he was first elected. He stated that the most important relationship that he has is with the indigenous peoples of this country.

As we go down the road in this era of reconciliation, last week, we came from a meeting where not only the Province of British Columbia but also the federal government were looking to fully implement indigenous peoples' rights and have them be recognized by the federal and provincial governments. We're in a time of reconciliation where our rights are being recognized, rather than continually going to the Supreme Court of Canada and having those rights reaffirmed and recognized.

As it relates to Bill C-69, this bill falls short in terms of recognition of the core principles of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of indigenous Peoples. We have great concerns in regard to the legislation, as it fails to recognize indigenous jurisdiction and decision-making.

I want to state how important first nations jurisdiction as well as the ability to make decisions are in the development of many major projects. We're seeing that played out right now as it relates to Kinder Morgan, how first nations who have made their decisions aren't being recognized in regard to the final decisions of those major projects.

While the impact assessment act and its predecessor, the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012, recognize indigenous and aboriginal peoples' rights and entitlement, decision-making at all points is retained by the federal crown. This is a major point that I'm bringing up in regard to recognition of our indigenous peoples' right to make decisions.

This was brought up as part of the expert panel in regard to environmental assessment. There was a clear indication the panel stated that indigenous people need to be recognized in how final decisions are made on major projects. This bill falls far short in that regard.

It should be noted that the decision-making process needs to be recognized for indigenous peoples throughout the impact assessment act, from the preamble right to the definitions and provisions throughout the purpose of the act itself. This is quite important, especially in the age of reconciliation and the provisions for free, prior, and informed consent.

The second issue is that the provisions for indigenous-led reviews may be impossible to implement. Although the act states that there could be provisions in regard to indigenous peoples leading their own environmental assessment process, their governance may not be recognized in regard to the project of concern. Moreover, these opportunities may be lost if these first nations who want their own review process to be engaged are not properly resourced.

In my own experience, in my history as the tribal chief of the Carrier Sekani Tribal Council, I have had the ability to review not only one oil pipeline, but four LNG pipelines and two mining projects. In many of those cases, our indigenous people led environmental assessments of those projects. Moreover, it was quite difficult to get proper resources. More often than not, we had to use our own resources to review those projects.

The third issue is that there is a narrow approach to indigenous knowledge, traditional and ecological knowledge, as it is sometimes called. Moreover, the expert panel that reviewed it with regard to what should be brought into a new assessment act said that indigenous knowledge should be acknowledged and given the same weight as western knowledge. It's really important that our experts are indigenous peoples, such as elders and people who live off the land. It's important that those ways of knowing are given the full weight of all we acknowledge and utilize western science. It gives a different world view to these major projects and a better understanding of how our indigenous people use the land.

The fourth issue is that the core deficiencies we find in the impact assessment act are also found in the Canadian energy regulator act. There are many shortcomings in the Canadian energy regulator act in recognizing the jurisdiction and the ability for indigenous people to make decisions with regard to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, and more importantly, their ability to make decisions with free, prior, and informed consent.

It's really important that throughout this whole process within the act, there should be provisions for resourcing funding for indigenous peoples, funding for elders to participate. It's really important to have a communication strategy for the indigenous peoples to fully understand some of the scientific explanations of environmental assessments.

It's very important that the free, prior, and the informed consent part of any environmental assessment be well understood. It goes both ways. The Government of Canada and the Province of British Columbia need to understand the indigenous world view prior to any major project being given the green light. We're seeing that play out with the Kinder Morgan project, which had been approved by the previous Environmental Assessment Act. It was reviewed by the Liberal government, but it doesn't meet the standards for some of the first nations. This is why there is this issue over the Trans Mountain oil project.

There is going to be a question and answer session, so I'll leave it at that right now. I'm hoping I'm ending a little early. I want to thank the standing committee, the indigenous people, and the many interested parties who presented to you, to make sure that we have a fulsome impact assessment act that represents all peoples.

Mahsi cho.

[Chief Kluane Adamek]

Thank you.

What does this mean in the context of this act? It means that we need a better process, one that is designed with first nations and one that involves us from the very start.

We already have many examples of practical, co-operative jurisdictions being effectively and efficiently exercised, joint decision-making in our agreements in the modern treaty context, and an example such as the Arctic Council. This kind of process and robust dialogue is essential and possible within this bill.

The CEAA expert panel recommended a process for impact assessment that incorporated first nations as governments and decision-makers at all stages of the process in accordance with their own laws, customs, and required consent before a project could be approved.

It is important to understand that we are considering what the legislation actually said and requires, not what the current government describes as the spirit of the act, which it will implement through policy.

For first nations, laws must be written in anticipation of future governments that may be hostile to our rights, jurisdiction, and authority. In this context, legislation must constrain and/or require those governments to respect what has already been written in legislation. For example, in our submission to this committee, we begin to outline some of our suggested amendments to ensure that ministerial discretion, of which there is plenty, does not infringe on first nations' inherent and constitutionally protected rights, but rather moves us forward towards the new co-operative, respectful, jurisdictional arrangements consistent with our agreements, treaties, and rights.

Finally, I'd like to focus on three areas of amendments that are intended to strengthen the modest reforms that have been tabled by the government in this part of Bill C-69. More detail on our suggested amendments can be found in the submission. These include, first, protection of first nations' inherent and constitutionally protected rights; second, full inclusion and protection of indigenous knowledge systems; and third, full decision-making with first nations governing authorities.

Protection of section 35 rights, the inclusion [Technical difficulty—Editor]

[Chief Kluane Adamek, Interim Regional Chief, Yukon Region, Assembly of First Nations]

Good morning.

[Witness speaks in Tlingit and Southern Tutchone]

My name is Kluane Adamek, and I am from Kluane First Nation in Yukon Territory. I am the Interim Yukon Regional Chief. I introduced myself in Tlingit and Southern Tutchone. I come from the Dakhl’aweidí killer whale clan and my traditional name is Aagé.

Our territory in Kluane First Nation also encompasses Kluane National Park, which many of you may have been to.

This morning, I am pleased to be here on behalf of the Assembly of First Nations. To members of the committee, thank you for inviting me here today to share the perspectives of the Assembly of First Nations on Bill C-69, 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.

In the next 10 minutes, I am going to speak about three things.

First, I will speak to first nations participation in the environmental and regulatory reviews, the mandate of the chiefs and assembly, and the role of the AFN in this regard. Second, I will talk about perspectives on framing where we are and why we feel we must continue to press for reconciliation, given your commitments to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Third, I will speak about the 10 principles and the rights recognition framework, and propose critical amendments to improve on the reforms that have been tabled by the government in this part of Bill C-69.

With cautious optimism, in 2016, first nations overwhelmingly participated in the legislative reviews that laid the foundation for the bill you have in front of you. This work illustrates how first nations envision the complete overhaul of key environmental legislation and regulations.

Concepts such as jurisdiction, inherent and constitutionally protected rights, nation-to-nation relationships, and reconciliation come up over and over again. Unfortunately, many of these concerns are not yet addressed in the current legislation. Issues such as maintaining ministerial or cabinet decision-making and approving major projects using a public interest test remain red flags for first nations and the proposed nation-to-nation relationship. Moreover, from the perspective of many Yukon first nations and other self-governing nations, these provisions are inconsistent with our expressed jurisdictions and agreements, which languish with the failure of Canada to fully invest and respect commitments to implementation.

As a result, Bill C-69 does not withstand an analysis using the 10 principles respecting the Government of Canada's relationship with indigenous peoples. We recommend that the government ensure that the legislation is a beacon for all of Canada to signal that we are in a new era, where first nations rights, interests, and jurisdictions are promises kept by this government, not ignored and not overlooked. This would serve to support that reconciliation called for by the TRC, including observing and implementing the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

Chiefs and assembly have passed numerous resolutions about this process, calling on the AFN to work with Canada to ensure the legislation respects first nations treaties, rights, title, jurisdiction, agreements, and recognizes the responsibilities to their traditional territories. However, the chiefs also made it very clear that any phase in this engagement process cannot be construed as consultation, and additional time must be afforded to consult directly with rights holders in a manner that is respectful to their unique protocols, processes, and elements.

To be clear, AFN plays a role in communication, coordination, and facilitation for first nations across the country, but we are not a rights holder.

Before I get into the specific amendments, I want to start by framing where we are and why this is an opportunity for real reconciliation. First, as you are all aware, Canada has announced its full and unqualified support for the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. This doesn't create any new rights, as these rights are inherent and pre-existing. The UN declaration simply affirms indigenous peoples' human rights. However, this does not mean that Canadian law, even the common law, is meeting these minimum standards, and we are committed to work with you on that effort.

Legislators should not forget that they are here to legislate about section 35 as well, and that we have been frustrated by government officials telling us this law includes common law standards, without clear legal language that pushes our rights forward. Across government, including Bill C-262, we are talking about realizing those rights and finding a better way to work together, so that we don't have to spend millions of dollars and waste years fighting in courts.

Indigenous lawyers are discussing how the bill could be strengthened to assist the inevitable judicial reviews because of the continuing use of a public interest test and the regulatory choice of a project list. To be clear, we are not satisfied with these policy choices, but we realize that real legislative time limits require us to make this bill a workable law that will actually achieve free, prior, and informed consent.

This bill must enable first nations to realize our rights and fulfill our responsibilities. It's about working with us to establish the laws, policies, and practices needed to respect our rights and our status as self-determining peoples.

Inevitably, the conversation will slip to the challenge of achieving the standard of free, prior, and informed consent, FPIC. To be very clear, FPIC was not created in the UN declaration. It was not created in this bill nor in Bill C-262. It already exists [Technical difficulty—Editor] in treaties in Canada. It is an essential element of the right of all peoples, including indigenous peoples, to self-determination, which Canada has recognized for decades, for example, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. Consent is the essence of mature relationships and was and is the premise of treaty-making between self-determining nations.

The UN declaration set the standard [Technical difficulty—Editor] of partnership, detailing the right to participate in decisions that can affect our rights, property, culture and environment, and our [Technical difficulty—Editor]

[Robert Sopuck, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

Thank you.

I'm a rural member of Parliament. I represent a natural resources constituency, so I can't help but think about people in communities. I am actually quite shocked at how little discussion there was now on the effect on people and communities.

Just for the record here, I'm going to read something about the natural resources sector:

It accounts for 13 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) and 50 percent of exports. When spinoff industries are added, the contribution of natural resources to GDP jumps to nearly 20 percent. About 950,000 Canadians currently work in natural resource sectors, and another 850,000 workers, spread across every province and territory, provide supporting goods and services to the sector. Combined, this amounts to 1 in 10 jobs in Canada. In addition, the energy, mining, and forestry industries provide over $30 billion a year in revenue to provincial and federal governments.

From Mr. Elgie, Ms. Ronson, and Mr. Olszynski, I heard a very academic discussion, but the effect of these processes on people and communities when they fail is absolutely devastating.

Ms. Flood, Chris Bloomer, from the Canadian Energy Pipeline Association, spoke at one of our previous meetings, and he was extremely blunt. He talked about Canada's “toxic regulatory environment”. Those are his words, not mine, a toxic environment. We have a poisonous regulatory environment.

He also pointed out, and I'm quoting him again, that if the goal is to “curtail oil and gas production, and to have no more pipelines built, this legislation”—Bill C-69—“may have hit the mark.”

Do you think Mr. Bloomer overstated the case? He was extremely forthright in his comments.

Ms. Flood.

[Virginia Flood]

As I stated, I think there are some aspects within Bill C-69 that need improvement in order to provide better certainty and better clarity in a number of areas. However, we do support many of the aspects within Bill C-69 around the focus on aboriginal communities.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Yes.

You also mentioned regulation, so let me ask you, do you believe that Bill C-69 as presently drafted is going to improve Canadian competitiveness?

[Virginia Flood, Vice-President, Government Relations, Suncor Energy Inc.]

Madam Chair, thanks for inviting Suncor to participate in the work of the committee as you complete your examination of Bill C-69, the impact assessment act.

My name is Ginny Flood. I'm the Vice-President of Government Relations for Suncor. Previous to Suncor, I was with Rio Tinto, and previous to that, I was with the federal government as a regulator for environmental assessment.

I would begin by acknowledging that the land on which we gather here in Ottawa is the traditional unceded Algonquin territory.

Suncor is Canada's largest integrated energy company and a significant contributor to Canada's economy. We are best known for our oil sands production, but we also operate three refineries in Canada, 1,800 Petro-Canada retail and wholesale locations from coast to coast to coast, four wind power projects in three provinces, and the largest ethanol production facility in Canada, which is in Sarnia, Ontario. We are the only company engaged in all four of the major east coast oil exploration facilities, making us the largest producer of oil off Canada's east coast. Together, Suncor's operations are located in every region of the country and in the traditional territories of more than 140 aboriginal communities across Canada.

Suncor has been an active participant throughout the many stages of the consultation held across Canada to provide our views and our experience with CEAA, 2012, the renewal of the NEB, and the Navigation Protection Act. Today we are pleased to share with you our thoughts on Bill C-69.

As part of the committee's call for written submissions on Bill C-69, Suncor did provide a detailed written brief, but today it's not my intention to go through all of those points. I would rather highlight some of the key points. I'll focus my comments on three key themes that are related to the outcomes of Bill C-69.

The first is maintaining competitiveness in the industry. In terms of overall competitiveness, the perception is that the pace, scale, and scope of environmental regulatory change in Canada today is rapid and vast, and is likely unprecedented.

We recognize the need to address environmental concerns related to climate change, and the desire of government to restore confidence in the regulations related to the impact assessment. We recognize the importance of Canada doing its part, but we also are committed to doing our part to advance this agenda and meet Canada's commitments. However, we believe it is absolutely critical for the future of Canada that the federal legislative agenda proceed with great care and deliberation so that environmental policy is enacted in a way that best maintains our competitiveness in a highly fluid, mobile, diverse, and competitive world.

We support broad-based carbon-pricing mechanisms as a tool that can achieve desired outcomes, if they are balanced with other regulatory and fiscal relief, as well as taking into account competitiveness pressures from other jurisdictions that don't have the same costs. We will continue to lead in Canada, but we need to lead with one eye on the environment and one eye on the economy.

New regulations, such as those that will eventually accompany Bill C-69, should strike the optimum balance between improving environmental performance and at least maintaining, and ideally increasing, our competitiveness. We must advance our economy with the same diligence as we protect the environment.

As a producer of a global commodity, we compete on the world stage. We strive to be leaders in sustainability, but limited market access and restrictive policy measures lead to project uncertainty and a diversion of investment outside of Canada. Statistics Canada's latest report shows that direct investment in Canada fell dramatically, with the retreat of investment in the oil sands as a key contributor.

The bottom line is that the cumulative cost and complexity of all the recent regulatory policies across the federal and provincial jurisdictions and the related regulatory uncertainty will have a negative impact on the competitiveness of Canada. While we support strong environmental policy and Canada's ambition to do its part in meeting the 2030 Paris commitment, we also believe that the goals are not mutually exclusive from a competitive regulatory framework.

The second area I want to focus on is to draw your attention to the transition from the CEAA 2012 to the new model that will be put in place under the impact assessment act. By its nature, legislative change introduces uncertainty for project proponents, investors, and the communities where resource development projects are proposed. Bill C-69 needs to clarify the transitional provisions to mitigate uncertainty to the greatest extent possible.

At this time, there is considerable uncertainty with respect to the final wording of the act, the coming-into-force date for the act, the regulations designating physical activities it will include, as well as what guidance will be associated with the new act and the regulations.

Suncor currently commits significant resources and effort to indigenous engagement, discussions with local communities, engineering design, modelling, and the collection of baseline data in the development of impact assessment reports. It is therefore imperative that this work be allowed to continue under the current CEAA 2012 unless a project proponent elects to transition to the new impact assessment act.

Providing this flexibility sends a positive message to industry and the investment community that the government recognizes the value and importance of early engagement work already undertaken by proponents and is willing to provide a level of certainty with respect to project development.

As specified in our written submission, we are formally recommending that the committee consider a change to the transition provisions of the impact assessment act, that the projects undergoing CEAA 2012 assessments will continue under CEAA 2012 unless the proponent requests a transition of the assessment to the IAA. This amendment will clarify the process and mitigate negative impacts related to uncertainty of projects currently undergoing CEAA 2012 review.

The next area I want to talk briefly about is the original intent and spirit of impact assessment. We believe that the original intent of environmental assessments, what we will now know as impact assessment, was never intended to impede development, but it was a mechanism to ensure proponents worked with aboriginal communities and those impacted by the project to mitigate the residual environmental impacts of any project. We strongly recommend that the current IAA clearly articulate this intent to avoid lengthy delays caused by interested parties seeking an avenue to challenge broad policy initiatives of the government of the day, for example, whether to develop our energy resources.

The focus must remain on individual projects, and in fact, should be even more carefully focused on those parts of the project which cannot be mitigated through other activities.

Suncor has stated in its position that where robust provincial environmental assessment processes exist, a harmonized process respecting jurisdictional powers would reduce the risk of duplication and allow the federal government to focus on mitigating residual impacts that fall under their jurisdiction, such as fisheries or navigable waters. We support the proposed impact assessment act's ongoing commitment to coordinate among relevant jurisdictions with the objective of one project, one assessment.

With respect to Suncor's assets, the majority of our resource projects are located in provinces that have proven robust and effective project review processes that are designed to thoroughly assess potential environmental and socio-economic impacts. Provincial governments have the right over the natural resources and some, for example, such as Alberta, have significant experience in weighing the overall economic benefits of the project and assessing the proposed mitigation measures against potential environmental, social, and cultural impacts.

One area of particular interest comes from projects offshore Newfoundland and Labrador that require of Bill C-69 a panel review of offshore projects. This represents a significant change, potentially doubling the review timelines from the current process.

Based on past projects and effects and potential risks associated with offshore development, these are well understood and the environmental assessment process is a standard practice.

For this reason, Suncor would recommend that the requirement of offshore projects to undergo a panel review be removed upon recognizing a rigorous assessment process and the codes of practice currently in place.

I do look forward to your questions.

Thank you.

[Alison Ronson, National Director, Parks Program, Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society]

Good morning to the committee, and thank you for asking me to appear today.

I'm the Director of the Parks Program at the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society, a charitable non-profit, as many of you may know, with over 50 years' experience in advocating for the protection of Canada's wilderness and wildlife. On a personal level, my background is in environmental sciences and biology, law, and international affairs, with a focus on environmental governance. I've spent the last four years working with CPAWS.

I will be limiting my comments to part 1 of the bill, the impact assessment act. My comments will relate specifically to federal protected areas in general, but I will be referring a lot to our national parks.

Parks and protected areas are what make our country special. They safeguard our natural heritage, protect iconic wildlife, provide us with clean air, fresh water, and traditional foods, and provide opportunities to us for both quiet contemplation in nature as well as life-altering backcountry experiences.

There's a growing scientific consensus that we are currently living in the midst of the world's sixth mass extinction event, and this is being exacerbated by human activities, including resource extraction and development. We're already seeing the impacts of this event here in Canada.

Globally, parks and protected areas are one of the best proven solutions to slowing down this extinction event, as they safeguard habitat for iconic species here in Canada, such as moose, caribou, and grizzly bears, and also the suite of biodiversity represented across our country.

The pieces of legislation that create our protected areas in this country create them for nature and for protecting ecosystems. Given this, and given that they're also so important to our own well-being and are supposed to be our most treasured and valued places, it is logical that the highest possible standard of impact assessment should be applied in these areas.

Unfortunately, in our estimation, Bill C-69 falls short of providing that high standard. The bill largely follows the structure of CEAA 2012. If a project on federal lands is not listed on the designated project list, a federal authority—in the case of national parks, Parks Canada—must determine whether that project or work is likely to create significant adverse environmental effects. This determination regime watered down impact assessment in protected areas and has led to problems with transparency, accountability, and public consultation related to private, commercial, and infrastructure development in our parks.

CEAA 2012 and, likewise, Bill C-69 do not provide provide adequate guidance as to how a federal authority should conduct their determination of a project. In national parks, our impact assessment regime is currently conducted by Parks Canada in accordance with an internal policy that is open to interpretation and applied in an inconsistent manner across the country.

Under their regime, there are developments such as the massive expansion of the Lake Louise ski area, which has been determined not to cause significant adverse effects to Banff National Park even when scientists and the public clearly expressed concern about the impacts of this development on the habitat of important species such as mountain goats and grizzly bears. In fact, in an access to information request submitted by CPAWS, we've learned that since 2012 over 1,500 development projects that were assessed by Parks Canada were considered not to have significant environmental effects, including the Lake Louise expansion.

Under CEAA 2012 and the Parks Canada policy-based approach, CPAWS has observed less rigour, less opportunity for public engagement, and inconsistent application of the policy. In contrast to this, the 1992 act contained provisions that aimed to recognize the special status of federal protected areas and to provide safeguards related to development projects.

Under CEAA 1992, there was an immediate presumption that projects in national parks and federal protected areas would undergo an impact assessment. This presumption was then informed by the regulations. For example, the exclusion list provided which projects in parks would not have to go through an impact assessment, and that included things like routine maintenance, painting of park benches, and so on.

The comprehensive study list regulations provided guidance about which projects required a more rigorous impact assessment. This list included physical works that we obviously wouldn't and shouldn't accept in protected areas, such as dams and mines, and projects that were likely to have significant long-term effects, such as ski area expansions. Under CEAA 1992, the expansion of the Lake Louise ski area would have been subject to a comprehensive study, would have been coordinated by the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, and would have provided resources for public consultation.

That act also contained language that required the minister to consider ecological integrity of a protected area when deciding whether a project would have adverse environmental effects.

In CPAWS' opinion, CEAA 1992 was much more protective of our national parks and federal protected areas than CEAA 2012.

Bill C-69 largely maintains the same structure as CEAA 2012 and will perpetuate the same problems with development in parks and protected areas as we are currently witnessing. Those problems include lack of transparency, lack of consultation, proponents conducting their own impact assessment and soliciting only positive feedback on their projects, incredibly short timelines that don't provide the public with enough time to read highly technical documents, and a lack of scientific rigour.

Clause 86 of the bill now obligates the federal authority to provide notice of their intention to conduct a determination. However, it then allows them to make that determination within 15 days. In our estimation, that's wholly inadequate.

To improve Bill C-69, we suggest the following: that the committee include language in the bill that creates the presumption that all projects in national parks and federal protected areas are subject to impact assessment, unless the minister determines, with an adequate notice period, that such projects are likely to cause insignificant adverse environmental impacts; ensure that impact assessment is carried out by the impact assessment agency or, where appropriate, by Parks Canada when Parks Canada is not the proponent of the project; and that the assessment follow legislated process and consultation guidelines. The bill, unfortunately, contains limited guidance as to how the determination process by a federal authority should be conducted.

There should be an option to reject the project, not just apply mitigation procedures, which is what's largely happening with every development project in our national parks at this point.

We should ensure that ecological integrity is the number one priority of the impact assessment agency or the federal authority when they are conducting impact assessments in federal protected areas. We should increase resources available to ensure all Canadians can be consulted on impact assessments in our federal protected areas.

Many of the projects we're seeing right now in national parks will inform the local communities only about the project rather than ask what all Canadians think. CPAWS would argue that our national parks are in the public trust. They are here for all Canadians to enjoy, and therefore, all Canadians should have a say in how they're managed.

More specifically, in clauses 22, 63, and 84 of the bill, which set out the factors to be considered when impact assessment is ongoing, we need to include that the impacts of the project on an ecosystem's biodiversity is a factor. Currently those sections consider climate change, but biodiversity and biodiversity loss in particular are crises that are facing the global community, and we need to address them here in Canada.

On clause 86, making the notice period at least 30 days when a federal authority is conducting a determination would provide adequate time for members of the public to read the information that is provided and provide feedback.

Finally, I would like to stress that nowhere in the bill is there any recognition that Canada is home to some amazing world heritage sites. Many of our national parks have been designated as globally important and as having outstanding universal values. Bill C-69 does not recognize this.

The International Union for Conservation of Nature provides guidance for how a state party should conduct impact assessment when a project is in or near a world heritage site. Our impact assessment regime should incorporate and adopt this guidance.

For the sake of our well-being and that of future generations, I urge this committee to recommend changes to Bill C-69 that would restore the presumption that projects in national parks and federal protected areas require impact assessment by the impact assessment agency.

I would also like to suggest to this committee that trust in the system and government accountability cannot be restored to the impact assessment regime when parks and protected areas, supposedly our most valued and conserved places, are not subject to the same or better requirements than the rest of our landscape. They must be elevated above the rest of the landscape and truly protected for the benefit of both current and future generations.

Thank you.

[Martin Olszynski, Assistant Professor, Faculty of Law, University of Calgary, As an Individual]

Good morning, Chair and committee members. Thank you for the opportunity to be here today with you in your review of Bill C-69, and the impact assessment act in particular.

Briefly by way of background, I am an assistant professor at the University of Calgary faculty of law. Prior to joining the law school back in 2013, however, I spent almost six years as counsel at the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, where my practice included advising that department with respect to its environmental assessment responsibilities under both the previous Canadian Environmental Assessment Act and the current CEAA 2012.

I hold bachelor degrees in science and law from the University of Saskatchewan, and a master of laws degree from the University of California at Berkeley. I have been an active participant in this reform process for the last two years, having filed submissions with both the expert panel and with the government directly.

With the time I have I will focus on what I believe to be some specific shortcomings in the current bill as drafted, especially with respect to the role of science in impact assessment. I will not be tackling the IAA's general architecture in my opening remarks, but I am prepared to speak to that. As context, essentially I think it's fair to describe the Impact Assessment Act as a kind of CEAA 2012 plus. It has essentially all the same parts as the previous act except for certain parts that have just been expanded.

My comments will track my written submission to the committee. I understand that has been translated and provided to you. I also brought a small supplemental brief. There are three figures in that brief. I don't know that I'll get to all of them, but I wanted to have them with me just in case and to have them for you for your record.

As noted in part II of my brief, one of the more important themes to emerge in the context of the current reform process is that the science of impact assessment needs more rigour. In a 2015 piece in BCBusiness, for example, one professional biologist described these as dark days for his profession, including having his professional opinion heavily pressured, and his wording, results, and interpretations changed.

The expert panel on environmental assessment heard this message loud and clear and concluded that stronger guidelines and standards are needed.

The government itself, in its 2017 discussion paper and in the various policy documents that have accompanied Bill C-69, also seems to understand this issue, yet Bill C-69 falls far short on this score. The terms “science” or “scientific” are only mentioned five times, and in no case are they given any real work to do.

I want to refer the committee members to the first figure in my supplemental materials which is a little triangle diagram that we came up with. The idea basically here is straightforward. Science is foundational to the entire impact assessment exercise. Every step and subsequent step, whether planning phase, assessment, or decision-making, relies on scientific information. The flip side of this of course is that an error or flaw in the science has the potential to compromise the entire process.

As a starting point, Bill C-69 should be amended to include a “duty of scientific integrity” on those persons involved in the impact assessment process, which at a minimum would capture the principles of objectivity, thoroughness, and accuracy.

A further amendment should give the government the power to develop regulations to further flesh out what this duty requires, including guidelines and standards for such things as the design, data collection, and analysis of baseline sampling, as well as monitoring during and after projects.

I want to reiterate here a point that has been made by others in their briefs. There is nothing new under the sun about having a duty of scientific integrity. References to scientific integrity can be found in numerous American environmental laws, regulations, and policies.

A second critical shortcoming along this line of science is the continued gap between the legislated contents of the public registry and the agency's internal project files.

To ensure transparency and open science, the registry provisions—and these are at clause 105 of the proposed impact assessment act—should match the provisions for the agency's internal files which are described at clause 106. The act should also make explicit that all scientific information submitted in the course of an impact assessment is presumptively public unless a request for confidentiality is made and granted pursuant to narrow terms. This would require an amendment to the current clause 107, which appears to create a presumption of confidentiality.

I really need to stress this point. I have never received any explanation, let alone a compelling one, as to why proponent data and models should not be readily available. I can understand that some data and models may be proprietary, but that does not mean they need to be confidential. It simply means their use would be governed by the Copyright Act, which of course includes “fair use” exemptions for academic and other public purposes.

My next set of recommendations has to do with mitigation measures and how they have been dealt with under both previous CEAAs.

Here it is important to recall the basic nature of this regime. I'm referring to 1992, 2012, and the current proposed impact assessment act. Like all of its predecessors, the IAA does not draw an environmental, or any other, bottom line. The whole regime boils down to the consideration of effects, which is then supposed to enable political accountability for project approval or refusal. You need to keep this in mind when I discuss my next recommendations.

While a lot of attention falls on baseline studies—how we decide what the state of the environment is before a project proceeds—mitigation is also a critical aspect of the IA process. Mitigation includes the strategies that a proponent might implement to reduce known adverse environmental impacts or others. It may come as a surprise to the committee, but there is actually a long and troubling history of proponents and EA panels relying on unproven mitigation measures to avoid concluding that a project will result in significant adverse effects.

In my view, this fundamentally undermines the assessment process and the public accountability it is intended to enable. Consequently, I recommend provisions aimed at ensuring that mitigation measures be demonstrably effective or their effectiveness be reasonably certain based on the best available science. Again, this would not mean the projects that cannot meet this threshold would not be approved. There is no bottom line set out in the IAA. It just means Canadians would have a more honest and accurate assessment of a project's likely impacts.

I would also allow some reliance on mitigation measures whose effectiveness is uncertain, but only if a proponent commits to a structured process of learning, otherwise known as “adaptive management”. Here I refer committee members to page 5 of my brief. There is a figure at the top of the page indicating the adaptive management cycle. Adaptive management has a long history. You can pull up any number of joint review panel reports; last summer we did a quick word search, and 90% of the projects on the CEAA registry contained a reference to adaptive management.

The problem is that it's not actually being done. Adaptive management is a good idea in theory, but it's not being done in practice. To substantiate that, I looked at 18 projects in a recent research project at the University of Calgary. We looked at the environmental impact statements filed by proponents where they claimed to rely on impact assessments. Now I'm referring you to the second figure on page 5, which shows the percentage of completeness of the adaptive management cycle by project type. We find that whereas adaptive management is supposed to be this rigorous process for learning that requires identification of objectives, of indicators, of planning and rigour, none of that work is being done. Proponents say they're going to do adaptive management as a way of convincing regulators that everything is going to be fine, but then they never do it.

At appendix A of my submission, I propose some basic language to ensure that adaptive management will actually be done where proponents say they will do it. I pause to note that I submitted a much more detailed set of provisions, three pages' worth, back to the government in August 2017. I've scaled those down considerably for you. They are about three-quarters of a page now. I'm hopeful that the committee will see their merit.

Alternatively, if the committee is not prepared to prescribe some process around adaptive management that would ensure its actual implementation, then I suggest that the IAA should be amended to explicitly bar reliance on it. As things currently stand, it is essentially being used as a smokescreen when proponents don't know how to deal with environmental effects.

Those are the main points I wanted to make. I have five or six remaining recommendations that I will briefly cover. I'd be happy to discuss more during the questions and answers.

Recommendation five is a reflection of existing case law and specifically the problem of what “consideration” means. A series of cases in the last couple of years have basically said that so long as there is some consideration of an environmental effect, then it's not reviewable. There's no error of law. In other words, there would have to be no consideration whatsoever. I think everyone would agree that it's not a very high threshold. I suggest that some kind of modifier needs to be added to the beginning of the term “consideration” at, for instance, proposed sections 22 and 63 to ensure that it's meaningful. Whether it's “meaningful” or “robust”, either of those would be useful.

I think the mandate provisions at proposed subsection 6(2) should be cross-referenced to specific process points in the IAA to make sure that the mandate is being followed. I also am concerned with the total jettisoning of the term “significance”. I think overall it's a good idea that we would frame our environmental assessment or impact assessment around a basic binary significance; non-significance would be problematic. At the same time, however, not having anything also creates real problems and the potential for ambiguity.

I see that my time is up, so I'll wrap up there.

Trans Mountain Expansion Project

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to divide my time tonight with my good friend and colleague, the hon. member for Louis-Saint-Laurent. Tonight we appear to be the central Canadian connection here in a debate that many Canadians believe is exclusive to Alberta and British Columbia, but I am here tonight, as a proud Ontario MP who has had the honour of serving and working across the country, to say that debates like this are critical to the future of our country. Pipelines are as much in the national interest of my constituents in Ontario as they are in Lakeland and Peace River, or in British Columbia, or in Louis-Saint-Laurent.

I would remind people in my riding all the time, when we are looking at regulatory reviews like the line 9 reversal and other things accomplished under the government of Stephen Harper, that the present government has to bend over backwards to hide the fact that many pipeline projects were approved under the previous government. All were reviewed appropriately, but the last government recognized and was proud to stand in the House and proud to stand on any street corner in the country and say that resource development is in Canada's national interest. The Liberal government will not do that.

Here we have a Conservative caucus from across the country. I, with my time representing Durham, and my friend from Louis-Saint-Laurent will remind people that the jobs in Ontario are due to the success and wealth of Canada as a resource country, and getting our products to market through pipelines allows us the best world price, the best royalties, and the best economic activity possible. We need to remind Ontarians of that.

I am proud that my dad worked for General Motors when I was a kid. Ontario is still known for vehicle manufacturing and auto parts. In the last decade, there have been more jobs created in Ontario as a result of the resource economy in Alberta than through automobile assembly. When I tell that to auto workers in my area or retired GM workers, they are astounded, because they do not hear that enough. As parliamentarians, it is our duty to remind Canadians that when we say something is in the national interest, it is in their interest, at their kitchen table in southern Ontario, just as much as it is around a very concerned kitchen table in Edmonton or Calgary.

These debates are important. What troubles me to no end about the Liberal government is a Minister of Natural Resources heckling my colleague from Peace Country when he was talking about personal stories. The minister from Edmonton is laughing now. We are here to tell those stories, to talk about the concerns. I have spoken to the Edmonton chamber, and it is worried.

Canada is not open for business under the present Prime Minister. We are closed for business. Capital is fleeing Canada, not because we are the safest, most prosperous, and most well-educated and well-trained country in the world, but because of the uncertainty caused by the Prime Minister from day one.

On his first trip abroad to sell Canada at Davos, the Prime Minister said that we are not just resources now; we are resourceful. He mocked the entire resource industry by suggesting that. Maybe the Prime Minister should learn a bit about steam-assisted gravity drainage, or slant drilling, or shale deposit exploration and extraction, or minimizing water usage in the resource industry in Alberta. The innovation in our resource economy has been astounding, yet on his first trip to Davos, the Prime Minister just wiped it away: “We are resourceful now. We do not need resources.” Certainly, the government's plan for pipelines means we are not going to sell our resources.

Let me tell the House how much the Liberal Party has changed. My friend from Skeena—Bulkley Valley raised the issue that the Prime Minister got elected by pretending to be a New Democrat when he was in British Columbia, and then pretending to be a Liberal when he was in Ontario or Quebec. Now it is coming home to roost. He has to pick a side. He has to defend Trans Mountain as being in our national interest, which it is. The B.C. premier has no mandate. He lost the last election in popular vote and seat count.

He is being held hostage by a couple of radical Green MLAs to cause a constitutional crisis. That is what he is allowing to happen. It is terrible, and we have heard virtual silence from the Prime Minister of Canada.

Let us see how much the Liberal Party has changed. One of the most raucous debates in this chamber took place in May 1956, when the Right Hon. C.D. Howe stood up and said this about pipelines, “The building of the trans-Canada pipe line is a great national project, comparable in importance and magnitude to the building of the St. Lawrence seaway.” He went on to say, “The action proposed today is another declaration of independence by Canada..”. That was when they were rushing through a pipeline debate.

This Prime Minister has been avoiding selling pipelines and resources to Canadians and around the world. This Prime Minister waited for a constitutional crisis before he had meetings and started speaking about it being in the national interest. Why is it a crisis? Because he has already dropped the ball.

A few years ago, former Liberal premier Frank McKenna said this about energy east: “The Energy East project represents one of those rare opportunities to bring all provinces and regions of this country together to support a project that will benefit us all, and that is truly in the national interest.”

Well, certainly that aspirational national interest language by a prominent former Liberal politician was quashed when the actions of the current government led TransCanada to cancel the energy east pipeline. Previous to that, this Prime Minister had already cancelled the northern gateway pipeline that had been reviewed. What did some Canadians say about that? Chief Elmer Derrick, Dale Swampy, and Elmer Ghostkeeper, three first nation leaders, said that they were very disappointed from the unilateral cancellation of northern gateway. That was a $2-billion opportunity for first nations in British Columbia that was cancelled because of a unilateral anti-resource decision by this Prime Minister.

We now have Bill C-69. We have a track record in two and a half years of saying not just to the global capital markets that Canada is closed, but we have had the Prime Minister and members of his own caucus say that we need to prepare for closing down our resources. We need to move beyond it. Tonight, they heckled when they heard about the concern that causes at a lot of kitchen tables around our country.

Why I am so passionate as an Ontario MP is that my first job before going to college was inspecting TransCanada pipelines, the pipeline inspection crew between Belleville and Ottawa. I have seen the economic activity first-hand. I have also seen the manufacturing industry during the global recession when oil prices were still high. Contracts for the oil sands and exploration in Saskatchewan and Manitoba was the lifeline for manufacturing. It kept us afloat. That is the national interest.

The fact that we have to bring an emergency debate and the Prime Minister had to have a stopover meeting between his global jet-setting to bring a few premiers together means he has let this crisis happen. He has cancelled northern gateway, and through his actions he has cancelled energy east. The one pipeline he thought he could let go is sliding off the table, with Kinder Morgan now suggesting all this uncertainty is leading them to question their investment. They are in Hail Mary pass mode when they suggest that they will buy the line or pay for part of it. That desperation is not needed.

For a change, I would like the Prime Minister to go to Davos and talk about the importance of our resource industry. I would like him to showcase the innovation brought by these men and women who work in our oil patch, the pipeline industry, and the jobs that supply it. It is sad that we have to bring an emergency debate to remind the Liberals that jobs in the resource industry from coast to coast are in all Canadians' national interest.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we are here today for one reason and one reason only, and that is we are in a crisis, a crisis of confidence. We have investors who, whether they are foreign or domestic, lack the confidence in Canada as a place to invest, as their confidence in the government to create an environment for them to invest in and protect their investment has gone sideways.

It has gone that way because if the Prime Minister's contradictory messages or comments, policies, and inaction on core projects. This has absolutely rocked the investor community. As a matter of fact, at the COFI conference which I was at just last week, as was the Minister of Transport, we heard very soundly from economists who stood on the stage and said that investor confidence in Canada is at an all-time low.

Investment is flowing out of Canada at record levels, levels that have not been seen in over 70 years. Why is that? As mentioned, it is due to legislation such as Bill C-69, Bill C-49, a tanker moratorium, and the Prime Minister killing energy east at the eleventh hour by introducing new rules. Let us not forget northern gateway, a project that was approved. It was a project that underwent rigorous environmental standards and testing, a project that had indigenous equity partners. As the Prime Minister and the government came to power, the rug was pulled out from underneath the project.

I remind this House that it was just over a year ago when the Prime Minister said that he was phasing out the oil sands. I will also remind my colleagues that one of the very first statements the Prime Minister made on the world stage after gaining power was that Canada will become known more for its resourcefulness than its resources. That is shocking.

On Trans Mountain, the reason we are here tonight, the Prime Minister has failed to deliver a clear action plan from the very beginning. Truthfully, I do not believe for a moment he ever wanted this project to go forward. He will stall while saying those words with his hand on his heart, that he and his cabinet are seized with this project and that it is their intention to have it go through. We have seen a few ministers today and over the last couple of weeks state that this project will go through, yet it has taken over a year for them to even come to the province of British Columbia, my beautiful province, to actually say those same strong words. Where have the 18 MPs from B.C. been? They have been silent on this issue.

I will go as far as saying that I put the blame squarely on the shoulders of the Prime Minister and his 18 Liberal MPs from the province of British Columbia for the situation we are currently in provincially. They failed to stand up for the Trans Mountain pipeline. That was a major issue in the provincial election last summer when the NDP and the Green Party campaigned that this project will never go through under their watch. The B.C. Liberals were fighting it out and doing their very best to try to win back our province. What we saw was essentially a deadlock. Then there was a coalition with the NDP and the Green Party. Premier Horgan might be in a little trouble because if he supports the pipeline, what will happen to his majority? He is going to have a bit of an issue in terms of how he can hang on to power.

Domestic and foreign investors looking at Canada and British Columbia as places to invest are comparing the ease of doing business and returns on capital that can be achieved here with those in other jurisdictions around the world.

We have to remember that investors have choices. What we do as a government or as a parliament, or what the Liberals do as government, can have a significant impact on investor confidence. That is what we are seeing currently. Under the current government, investors in Canada have been besieged by significant federal and provincial tax increases, which taken with the recent substantial tax reductions in the United States and the ever-increasing protectionist government, as well as the opportunities they are seeing south of the border, underscores that Canada's small, open trade-exposed economy is no longer competitive.

Economists are speaking out. Dave McKay, president and CEO of RBC, raised a concern about investment capital leaving Canada in real time, noting that a significant exodus of capital from Canada to the United States is well under way and that we should be worried.

These comments have been echoed by John Manley, president and CEO of the Business Council of Canada, who stated recently that real issues of competitiveness are absent from the federal government's thinking, noting that Canada is, “always in this difficult competition to attract investment and to retain investment — and it's not be taken lightly because investment can move quickly.”

We even have the Suncor president and CEO Steve Williams saying that his company, Canada's largest integrated oil firm, will not embark on new major projects in our country because of the burdensome regulations and uncompetitive tax rates.

Finally, late last year, the TransCanada Corporation, after spending over a billion dollars, cancelled its proposed $17-billion energy east pipeline project out of frustration with the government and the project approval process.

These and other examples across the country demonstrate that policy-makers have a definite impact on our economy. That is what we are seeing with Justin Trudeau's failure to get this job done and creating burdensome regulations on investors. We must always remember that investors have choices.

I want to touch on the indigenous partners aspect, because this has been brought up time and time again. I will relate it to a story in my own riding, the Mount Polley disaster, which I have brought up before. There are no two ways about it, it was a disaster. However, the proponent, the company, and our indigenous first nations partners within our riding, as well as our communities, banded together and got the job done with respect to mitigating the disaster.

We had protesters out there day in and day out. When a card check was done on those people, it was shocking to find that most of the protesters were not from our region, and some of them were not even from Canada. However, they were there making sure that Canadian businesses had every roadblock put in front of them. There is a lot to be said in the media about how our indigenous partners and indigenous communities are tired of being pawns for environmental groups, of being trucked out in the media and being used as pawns in this. Our indigenous communities only want an opportunity to be self-sufficient and to be partners in these programs. In the Trans Mountain pipeline, over 43 indigenous communities are equity partners in this project.

In the seconds that I have left, I want to read this. It states, “A Conference Board of Canada report has determined the combined government revenue impact for construction in the first 20 years of expanded operations is $46.7 billion, including federal and provincial taxes...for public services such as health care and education.”

It also notes that B.C. alone would receive $5.7 billion, Alberta would receive $19.4 billion, and the rest of Canada would share $21.6 billion because of this project.

If there is a project that has national interest, this is the one. Unfortunately, through delay tactics and confusing comments, the Prime Minister has shaken investor confidence, and that is unacceptable.

[Jonathan Wilkinson, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to participate in this emergency debate.

The Prime Minister has said repeatedly, and reaffirmed on Sunday, that the Trans Mountain pipeline will be constructed.

Interprovincial pipelines are the responsibility of the federal government, and when making decisions on interprovincial pipeline projects, it is the Government of Canada's duty to act in the national interest. That is exactly what happened when we approved the $7.4 billion Trans Mountain expansion pipeline.

It is worth reviewing the process that was undertaken in order to remind Canadians that the decision to approve the project was taken only after careful review, extensive consultations, and thoughtful deliberation based on sound science and Canada's best interests. I would like to highlight some of that tonight.

When our government took office, we committed to reviewing and reforming the way the federal government makes decisions with respect to major projects. In February of this year, we introduced Bill C-69, the impact assessment act, which would accomplish exactly that through better rules to protect our environment, fish, and waterways; rebuild public trust and respect indigenous rights; strengthen our economy; and encourage investment.

We also committed not to send projects already under review back to the starting line.

That is why we implemented an interim approach to address projects that were then in the queue, such as Trans Mountain. That interim approach was based on five guiding principles, principles such as expanding public consultations, enhancing indigenous engagement, and assessing upstream greenhouse gas emissions associated with projects.

As part of this, our government appointed a special ministerial panel of distinguished Canadians, who travelled the length of the proposed pipeline route, ensuring indigenous peoples and local communities were thoroughly canvassed and heard.

On the TMX expansion, we also completed the most in-depth consultations with rights holders ever undertaken on a major project in Canada. To date, 43 first nations have negotiated impact benefit agreements with the project, 33 of those in British Columbia. In the end, the project was approved with 157 conditions that reflected these consultations, robust scientific evidence, and the national interest.

The economic benefits of this project are clear. It would create thousands of construction jobs and countless more spinoff jobs in every part of the country. It would generate billions of dollars in new government revenues over 20 years of operation, new tax dollars to help pay for our hospitals and our schools, build new roads and safer bridges, and help fund Canada's transition to a low carbon future. The project would also open up new economic opportunities for the 43 indigenous communities that have signed more than $300 million in impact benefit agreements along the pipeline's route.

However, we should not look at the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion in isolation. We also need to consider how the pipeline will fit in with our government's overall vision for Canada in this clean growth century and how this government has responded to legitimate concerns of Canadians, in particular those who live in the British Columbia Lower Mainland, those being issues relating to spill prevention and climate change.

We have signed the Paris Accord on climate change. We have worked hard with the provinces and territories to develop the pan-Canadian framework on clean growth and climate change, a plan that lays out Canada's clear path to achieving our targets under the Paris Accord.

At the same time, our government is putting a price on carbon, accelerating the phase-out of coal, promoting energy efficiency, regulating methane emissions, creating a low carbon fuel standard, and making generational investments in clean technology, renewable energy, and green infrastructure.

The pan-Canadian framework incorporates all of the upstream and direct emissions associated with the Trans Mountain pipeline. Its greenhouse gases are also well within the 100-megatonne cap on oil sands that was brought in by Alberta's NDP government. It is complemented by the most ambitious oceans protection plan in our country's history, a $1.5 billion investment to protect our waters, coastline, and marine life.

The oceans protection plan builds on and maximizes every possible safeguard against an oil spill happening in the first place. Measures include air surveillance, double-hulled tankers, and double pilotage.

Kinder Morgan must provide enhanced tanker escorts using tethered and un-tethered tugboats beyond the Lions Gate Bridge into the Strait of Juan de Fuca to Canada's 12-mile nautical limit. New, larger vessels are being purchased for this purpose, as tugs of this size are not currently available on the west coast.

We have made the largest investment in the Canadian Coast Guard in years, strengthening its eyes and ears to ensure better communication with vessels and making navigation safer by putting more enforcement officers on the coast and adding new radar sites in strategic locations.

An important example of this was our decision to reopen the Kitsilano Coast Guard base with new rescue boats and specialized pollution response capabilities, and we are funding more scientific research and new technologies to make cleanups even more effective.

The House should note that it was the previous Harper Conservative government that announced the immediate closure of the only Coast Guard station located in Canada's busiest harbour in Vancouver. That is their record when it comes to protecting B.C.'s coasts.

Our approach is world class, an approach that meets or exceeds the gold star standards set by places such as Norway. Our government has been very clear about the path forward regarding this project. We can and must protect our environment and communities while growing our economy. Our approval of the Trans Mountain expansion project, along with measures that will enable our oceans and coastal communities to remain healthy and safe, achieves these goals.

As we have said before, federal jurisdiction with respect to the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion project is very clear, and we are actively pursuing options to provide the certainty required for this project to move ahead. As the Prime Minister said yesterday, we will have more to say in the coming weeks.

Some will take issue with our government's approach, and we respect that. We are lucky to live in an open society where people with different views can debate them respectfully and choose to protest peacefully and lawfully.

Our government will continue to listen and work hard on behalf of all Canadians to ensure that the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion is completed and that it moves forward safely and responsibly.

Budget Implementation Act, 2018, No. 1

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is always an honour to rise in this place, even during difficult times such as today when it is with somewhat of a heavy heart one rises after the tributes we heard on the terrible tragedy in Saskatchewan.

It is also sometimes difficult to rise in trying times such as these when so much is at stake for the future of our country, even as we grapple with the ongoing crisis over the Trans Mountain expansion and the implications that a failure of that project would have for all future projects in Canada.

This budget implementation act necessarily brings us back to the budget that it implements. The bottom line of any budget, and really the first thing that anyone wants to know about a budget, is whether it is going to be a surplus budget or a deficit budget. Any analysis, criticism, or commentary has to take place in the context of the size and scope of any surplus or deficit. All the choices of inclusion or omission from a budget have to be viewed through that lens.

In the case of a deficit, it is customary to address the question of when the budget will return to surplus. I say this is customary because indeed it is. In fact, all 13 provincial and territorial governments either have a balanced budget or have a specific timeline or projection for when their budget will be balanced, and it is contained in their budget.

The finance minister is currently running a significant deficit, and neither the budget nor this implementation act make any mention of the means or timing of a return to balance. I raised this with the minister when he appeared before the finance committee last month. I asked him why he is the only finance minister in Canada who has no plan for a balanced budget, and why he did not even address the issue in a 400-page budget document. He said, “No matter how many times the Conservative members ask us to follow the playbook of the previous Conservative government, we won't do it.” I may disagree with the minister on the point of whether or not he should follow the Conservative playbook, but at this point I think most Canadians would settle for this government merely following its own playbook.

On page 12 of the 2015 Liberal platform, its playbook, it reads:

We will run modest short-term deficits of less than $10 billion in each of the next two fiscal years to fund historic investments in infrastructure....

After the next two fiscal years, the deficit will decline and our investment plan will return Canada to a balanced budget in 2019.

On page 72 under the fiscal plan and costing chapter it reiterates, “We will run modest deficits for three years so that we can invest in growth for the middle class and credibly offer a plan to balance the budget in 2019.” Later on in the same chapter it says, “After the next two fiscal years, the deficit will decline and our investment plan will return Canada to a balanced budget....” The Liberal playbook refers to balanced budgets, and in fact, the Liberals promised balanced budgets. They promised small deficits and a return to a balanced budget.

Given that the Liberals promised a balanced budget by 2019 in the 2015 election, given that they promised only short-term deficits of less than $10 billion, and given that they promised these short-term deficits only to fund historic investments in infrastructure, the question is why they are now implementing a structural deficit in a budget with over a $20-billion deficit. Why does the finance minister repeatedly refuse to give any timeline for a balanced budget at all? Why does he bizarrely criticize the Conservatives for even asking about a balanced budget when he ran on an election platform that contained that very promise?

In fact, the finance minister got lucky this past year. The Canadian economy benefited from a whole host of factors, for none of which the finance minister can take any credit. Commodity prices were better than forecast. The world economy has had perhaps its best year since the great recession. The American economy was positively booming with a record-setting stock market run. Real estate price inflation has continued in Canada. Interest rates have remained low. Even with all of these factors in his favour, the finance minister still ran a promise-breaking deficit in this budget following what will surely be one of the strongest economic years in this Parliament.

If the minister promised to return to balanced budgets, he has completely failed to deliver, and it is more than reasonable for opposition members to ask if not now, then when. Given that a return to balance was a huge part of the Liberals' election promise, we would not be doing our jobs as an opposition holding the government to account without asking that question and no answer has been given so far. Still, there really is nothing in the bill to address that question either.

There is, however, in the original budget a troubling item contained on page 290, and that is a recognition of the fact that Canadian oil sells at a significant discount to world prices due to a lack of pipeline capacity in general and the routing of existing pipeline capacity mostly to the oversupplied Cushing, Oklahoma hub rather than to tidewater or to other refinery areas with spare capacity. This discount from world prices, which the government commented on in the budget itself, has grown significantly worse in the past few months.

This difference between the price that our producers get and world prices has a significant impact on business profits and jobs in the industry. The discount has an enormous impact on tax revenues to both the oil-producing provinces and to the federal government itself and it dictates the viability or non-viability of future projects. Simply put, this discount means that we are actually exporting tax revenue and public services to the United States.

Using round numbers, Canadian exports are about three million barrels a day. If Canadian producers take a $20 discount, that means the industry loses $60 million a day, or roughly $22 billion per year. A significant portion of that $22 billion will be taxable income at both the federal and provincial levels. The federal government loses billions in tax revenue because of this price differential, so it cannot be ignored as a factor in the budget.

What is truly alarming today, given the debacle over the Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain expansion, is that the finance minister, in his budget, assumes that both Trans Mountain and Keystone XL will be built at a reduced price discount. We obviously know that these assumptions are being challenged right now. Both projects at best will delay projected revenue from profitable oil production, but in typical fashion, the finance minister has just assumed that the pipelines will be built even though a host of opponents are doing everything they can, including breaking the law, to prevent these pipelines from getting built.

The finance minister surely knows that he has cabinet colleagues who oppose the energy industry, that he has caucus colleagues who campaigned in the last election against the Trans Mountain expansion, and that the most senior unelected adviser to the Prime Minister is notoriously anti-pipeline. Therefore, it was a fairly bold assertion for him to simply assume the Trans Mountain and Keystone XL pipelines would be built. Both projects are behind schedule. Both continue to be opposed by extremists committed to everything from vexatious litigation to violent clashes with police while defying court orders, trespassing, and destroying private property.

Given the government's track record, what credibility does it really think it deserves on pipelines? The finance minister's budget assumes the pipelines are going to be built, and yet one of the first things the government did after it was elected was to kill the northern gateway project, which was a pipeline to tidewater approved previously. The proponent was working through the conditions and the concerns that had been raised about the project when the Liberal government used an arbitrary tanker ban to ensure that it could never be built.

Then the Prime Minister completely failed to get Barack Obama to approve Keystone XL, which added another couple of years to the delay of that project. The finance minister is counting on this project to reduce the differential that has to be taken into account in his tax revenue projections.

We know energy east was killed by the government's decision to move the goalposts on its proponent by absurdly deciding to make both upstream and downstream emissions part of the criteria. I say absurd because the emissions from fossil fuels moved through a pipe are mostly determined by the type of vehicle the fossil fuel is put into by the end consumer.

Now the government is even pushing through Bill C-69. At the environment committee, the president of the Canadian Energy Pipeline Association said, “It is hard to imagine that any pipeline project proponent would be prepared to test this new process or have a reasonable expectation of a positive outcome at the end of it.” He went on to say, “If the goal is to curtail oil and gas production and to have no more pipelines built, this legislation may have hit the mark.”

What is the finance minister going to do if the capital flight that has been under way for months cannot be reversed? What is he going to do if nobody will invest and create jobs in the resource sector? What is he going to do if interest rates exceed his expectations? What is he going to do if there is a real estate price correction? What is he going to do if the NAFTA renegotiations end in trade restrictions that damage Canadian access to the American market? Even with everything going his way he cannot balance the budget. Was he going to do it if any of these eventualities happen or any of the hundred other unforeseen events should happen? Now is the time to establish a fiscal cushion to prepare for the inevitability of difficult times ahead.

The budget is not balanced. There is no plan to balance it. There is no date for the budget to be balanced. There is no plan that will get pipelines built, which has a significant impact on the finance minister's ability to balance future budgets. There is no apology by the Liberals to Canadian voters for breaking their promise on the deficit in the first place. There is nothing in the budget implementation act to address any of these issues.

What does this bill do? It makes certain changes to the Income Tax Act to implement changes announced by the Minister of Finance last summer on the taxation of Canadian-controlled private corporations, and other tax changes that we are now getting to the point where the CRA has to actually implement them.

We know that on July 17, the Minister of Finance dropped his bombshell announcing that too many wealthy Canadians were using complex corporate structures to avoid taxes. He went on to announce, following a brief summertime sham consultation, that the Liberals would ram through private corporate tax changes to severely restrict dividend payments between related shareholders, the so-called sprinkling, eliminate the dividend tax credit, which would create the double taxation of passive income with rates at about 73%, and make it virtually impossible to sell a business to a relative, among other things.

I am sure that every member of this House heard from small business owners who do not have a pension, do not have a minimum wage, do not have the protections of employment law, and cannot collect employment insurance. They have to be 100% liable for the conduct of their own employees, who they also cannot sue for gross negligence. What all of these people, these hard-working business owners, heard in the summer was the wealthy finance minister called them tax cheaters.

What happened after that announcement was remarkable. Business owners and tax experts all across Canada spontaneously rose up and with diverse voices unanimously spoke in opposition to every aspect of the minister's proposals. This grassroots opposition did cause the government to partially backpedal on some of its plans contained in this bill. The part of last summer's announcement that many found the most egregious was the double taxation of passive income. Therefore, in December, the finance minister backpedalled and said there would be a limit under which the double tax would not apply. What he did instead in the budget, was he said there would now be a tie-in between passive income and access to the small business rate, which will now be reduced or eliminated for small business owners who have passive incomes of greater than $50,000.

My suggestion to addressing the problem that he created back in the summer was simply a complete retraction of what the Liberals had announced then, and an apology to all of the hard-working small business owners across Canada who were deeply wounded by the bold assertions the finance minister made. Let us face it. The reason the finance minister and the Prime Minister believe that small businesses are really just tax dodges for the wealthy is that they themselves use private corporations to dodge taxes. All the while he was pointing his finger at shopkeepers, farmers, plumbers, realtors, accountants, doctors, lawyers, engineers, taxi drivers, and restaurant owners, the finance minister, that wealthy-born one percenter, was found to have failed to disclose the private corporation he used for tax planning purposes to shelter income and future gains on his French villa. Contrary to his past statements and all expectations of a minister of the crown, much less a finance minister, the finance minister still owned millions of dollars of Morneau Shepell shares.

How was that fact concealed from the public for almost two years? The shares were held in a private numbered company the finance minister registered in Alberta, presumably for tax-planning purposes. It was owned by him, his wife, and another Ontario numbered company. For the first time in the span of a few months, the finance minister was found not only to be personally using complex corporate structures to avoid paying tax but was using them to avoid requirements of the Conflict of Interest Act.

It is high time for this finance minister to end his war on small-business owners and to apologize for his own hypocrisy instead of proceeding with changes to the Income Tax Act contained in this bill.

If passed, this bill would also hand over to the CRA responsibility for dealing with the changes to the tax on split income and the reduction of the limit on the small-business tax rate for small businesses with over $50,000 in passive income.

As shadow minister for national revenue, I could not help but notice that 2017 was a particularly tough year for the Minister of National Revenue and her agency. Every time we turned around, it seemed the agency had a half-baked plan to raise additional tax revenue at the expense of some vulnerable group or another, such as when the minister spent the entire months of October and November insisting that the CRA had done nothing to deny the disability tax credit to type 1 diabetics, despite the fact that it was obvious to everyone except her, and perhaps her parliamentary secretary, that of course the CRA had changed its forms in May 2017 to make it harder to qualify.

The agency also changed its folio to state that after 2017, it would tax employee discounts and meals, but the minister again seemed to be the last person at the agency to be aware that this was being done, before she ordered a reversal. The agency also appeared to be targeting single parents, restaurant-server tips, and disabled Canadians, who suddenly had problems qualifying for the disability tax credit.

On top of that, tax preparers complained about an ever-increasing backlog of corrections and appeals caused by sloppy or incompetent assessments, and a scathing Auditor General's report confirmed that the agency's call centre hangs up on people 64% of the time and gives incorrect information to 30% of the rest who get through.

To an agency already struggling, and a minister who is clearly not in control of her department, this bill would now add a complex reasonableness test for dividends paid to related shareholders of private corporations. Let us think about that. An agency that hangs up on people and is wrong almost a third of the time when it speaks to taxpayers would now have to answer questions about things like the reasonableness of the payment of dividends, questions about share classes, questions about labour contributions, questions about property contributions, questions about the financial risks assumed, and a great catch-all, questions about such other factors as may be relevant.

How on earth can Canadians expect that they will get reliable answers to these questions, given the track record of both the current government and the CRA's call centre? These questions have been asked here in this House and at committee meetings and even at public meetings attended by the minister, and nobody from the government has been able to give anything but the most vague and hypothetical answers to these questions. Canadians might be forgiven if they are a bit worried that nobody knows the answers to these questions and that the legality of thousands of Canadians' tax planning is going to be at the mercy of future court decisions.

It would be very easy to go on for a lot longer about different aspects of this act, such as the implementation of the higher taxes on beer, wine, and spirits and the escalator clause; and certainly about the carbon tax, which is also part of the government's horrific mismanagement of its natural resources policy and an outrageously regressive tax on the poorest and most vulnerable members of society. However, time marches on, so I will wrap up.

I would like to conclude by urging members to vote against this bill, given that it would increase taxes; would fail to even address the very concept of a balanced budget; would do absolutely nothing to get pipelines built, the very same pipelines the budget needs for its own tax revenue; would help facilitate this minister's war on small business through the changes to the taxation of private corporations, and of course, would enable the job-destroying, poverty-inducing carbon tax. Therefore, I will be voting against this act, and I urge all other members to do so as well.

The Environment

[Jonathan Wilkinson, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change]

Mr. Speaker, our government has brought forward in Bill C-69 better rules for the review of major projects that will protect our environment, fish, and waterways; will restore public trust and respect indigenous rights; and will strengthen our economy and encourage investment. Reforms to these laws were important because of the gutting of environmental assessment procedures undertaken in 2012 under the previous Conservative government. We are committed to changing the way decisions on projects are made so that they are guided by science, evidence, and indigenous traditional knowledge.

Natural Resources

[Andrew Scheer, Conservative, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, the reason the stakes are so high for Trans Mountain is because of the government's disastrous energy policy from start to finish.

It vetoed northern gateway, something that had gone through an independent, evidence-based analysis. It killed energy east. It has driven out $87 billion worth of investment in the energy sector. It has brought in Bill C-69, which has further shaken confidence in Canada's economy.

Why is that the Trans Mountain project had to become a crisis before the Prime Minister finally took action?

Fisheries Act

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by acknowledging we are on the traditional territory of the Algonquin people, and express gratitude to them for their generosity and patience. Meegwetch.

I also want to thank the hon. member for Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook for sharing his time with me, and acknowledge this shows a spirit of respect toward opposition benches from the current Liberal government. I am grateful for the opportunity to speak, although I still must object to the use of time allocation and reducing time for debate in this place. However, the respect shown in shortening time but still allowing a member such as me to have at least one crack in second reading to this very important legislation is appreciated. It is particularly appreciated when I stand to speak, with shared time from a Liberal member, with the intention of attacking Liberal legislation, which I have done recently with shared time.

Today is a different occasion. Bill C-68 would repair the damage done to the Fisheries Act under former budget implementation omnibus bill, Bill C-38, in the spring of 2012, as the hon. member for Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook was just referencing. This bill goes a long way. Within the ambit of what the Minister of Fisheries can do, it would repair the damage done by omnibus budget bill, Bill C-38, in relation to the Fisheries Act. I want to speak to that, as well as the one aspect where it would not fully repair the damage.

This is definitely a historic piece of legislation. The Fisheries Act was brought in under Sir John A. Macdonald. Canada has had a fisheries act for 150 years. That act traditionally dealt with what is constitutionally enshrined as federal jurisdiction over fish, and some people may wonder where the environment landed in the Constitution of Canada and the British North America Act. Where was the environment? The fish are federal. The water is provincial if it is fresh water, and federal if it is ocean water, so there has always been a mixed jurisdiction over the environment.

Over fish, there has been no question. Fish are federal. In the early 1980s, this act received a significant improvement, which was to recognize that fish move around and they cannot be protected without protecting their habitat. The Fisheries Act was modernized with a real degree of environmental protection. It had always been a strong piece of environmental legislation, because if we protect fish then we tend to protect everything around them.

In this case, the Fisheries Act was improved in the early eighties by a former minister of fisheries, who by accident of history, happened to be the father of the current Minister of Fisheries. It was the Right. Hon. Roméo LeBlanc. We use the term “right honourable” because he went on to be our Governor General. He amended the Fisheries Act in the 1980s to include protection of fish habitat, requiring a permit from the federal Minister of Fisheries if that habitat was either temporarily or permanently harmed or damaged. This piece of legislation is the significant pillar upon which much of Canada's environmental regulation rested.

What happened in Bill C-38 in the spring of 2012 was a travesty that remains in the annals of parliamentary history as the single worst offence against environmental legislation and protection by any government ever. It was followed up with a second omnibus budget bill in the fall of 2012, Bill C-45, which took an axe to the Navigable Waters Protection Act. In the spring, Bill C-38 repealed the Environmental Assessment Act and replaced it with a bogus act, which I will return to and discuss. Bill C-38 also repealed the Kyoto Protocol Implementation Act, the National Roundtable on Environment and the Economy, and gutted the Fisheries Act.

Rather than go on about that, the hon. member who was just speaking referenced the changes made. I can tell people some of the changes that were made, and I was so pleased to see them repealed. When one opens a copy of Bill C-68, the first thing one sees is subclause 1(1), “The definitions commercial, Indigenous and recreational in subsection 2(1) of the Fisheries Act are repealed.” This is not a scientific thing. This is what Bill C-38 did to our Fisheries Act. Fish were no longer fish. They were only fish if they were commercial, indigenous, or recreational. That language came straight from a brief from industry. It did not come from civil servants within the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. It came from the Canadian Electricity Association. That is repealed.

This bill would bring back protections for habitat. It goes back to looking at some of the foundational pieces of how the Fisheries Act is supposed to work, and then it goes farther.

I have to say I was really surprised and pleased to find in the bill, for the first time ever, that the Fisheries Act will now prohibit the taking into captivity of whales. That was a very nice surprise. It is proposed section 23.1. I asked the minister the other day in debate if he would be prepared to expand this section with amendments, because over on the Senate side, the bill that was introduced by retired Senator Wilfred Moore and is currently sponsored by Senator Murray Sinclair, and I would be the sponsor of this bill if it ever makes it to the House, Bill S-203, would not only ban the taking of whales into captivity but the keeping of whales in captivity. I am hoping when this bill gets to the fisheries committee. We might be able to expand that section and amend it so that we can move ahead with the protection of whales.

This bill is also forward-looking by introducing more biodiversity provisions and the designation of areas as ecologically sensitive, work that can continue to expand the protection of our fisheries.

I will turn to where there are gaps. Because I completely support this bill, while I do hope for a few amendments, they come down to being tweaks.

Where does this bill fail to repair the damage of Bill C-38? It is in a part that is beyond the ability of the Minister of Fisheries to fix. That is the part about why Harper aimed at the Fisheries Act, the Navigable Waters Protection Act, and the Environmental Assessment Act.

There was not random violence in this vandalism; it was quite focused. It was focused on destroying the environmental assessment process so that we would no longer be reviewing 4,000 projects a year. Of those 4,000 projects a year that were reviewed under our former Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, most of them, about 95% of them, were reviewed through screenings that were paper exercises, that did not engage hearings, and so forth. However, it did mean that, at a very preliminary level, if there was a problem with a project, a red flag could go up, and it could be booted up for further study.

There is a reason that the Fisheries Act habitat provisions were repealed. They were one of the sections listed in our former Environmental Assessment Act under what was called the “law list”, where a minister giving a permit under section 35 of our former Fisheries Act automatically triggered that the decision was subject to an environmental assessment.

Similarly, why did the former government take a hatchet to the Navigable Waters Protection Act? Like the Fisheries Act, it is an act we have had around for a long time, since 1881. It was not an act that had impeded the development of Canada or we would never have had a railroad. Since 1881, we have had the Navigable Waters Protection Act. The previous government took a real axe to it. The current Minister of Transport has gone a long way toward fixing it under one portion of Bill C-69.

This is why. Navigable waters permits also were a trigger under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. Do members see where I am going here? This was synchronized action. It was not random.

The current government has pledged to fix all of the damage done by the previous government to environmental laws. Where the failure to fix things is evident is in what is called the “impact assessment act” in Bill C-69. It has abandoned the concept of a law list altogether. It has abandoned the concept of having permits and environmental assessments required whenever federal money is engaged. In other words, the Harper imprint of going from 4,000 projects reviewed a year to a couple of dozen will remain the law of the land without significant improvement to Bill C-69. In particular, the decisions the Minister of Fisheries makes should be subject to an EA, just as the decisions of the Minister of Transport should be subject.

In my last minute, I want to turn our attention to something I hope the Minister of Fisheries will take up next, because he is doing a great job. I hope he will take up looking at open-pen salmon aquaculture. It must end. It is a threat to our wild salmon fishery on the Pacific coast. It is a threat to the depleted wild Atlantic salmon stocks on the Atlantic coast, where I am originally from. There is no Atlantic salmon fishery because it has been destroyed. However, there are still Atlantic salmon, which could restore themselves if they did not have to compete with the escapement of Atlantic salmon from fish farms in Atlantic Canada, and the destruction of habitat by those farms. On the west coast, these are not even indigenous species that are escaping and threatening our wild salmon.

Let us close down open-pen fisheries, give aquaculture to the Minister of Agriculture, have fish in swimming pools on land, and let the Minister of Fisheries protect our coastal ecosystems.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

The specific concern was raised that they thought Bill C-69 does not have enough emphasis on the economic advantages or benefits.

What I'm asking is this. Should we not be doing a balance? My recollection is that, at every hearing I've been at, we hear lots about the economic benefits. The local county comes in, the local towns, and so forth. Should we not also be hearing about the other side, possible economic costs?

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

Following up on that, one of the things that were novel...and I think for a lot of people who are looking at Bill C-69, their only experience was with CEAA 2012. It's not to say that they don't have background and experience, but some people are relatively newer to the process than are some of us who have been through this a few times.

Prior to CEAA 2012 there wouldn't have been the problem for your industry of the National Energy Board, the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, or the offshore boards having a role. You worked exclusively with one agency. I don't want to answer the question for you, but what is your experience with the energy regulators' introduction to the process?

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

Okay, so you have a lot of experience.

I wanted to ask is that, given your experience, on behalf of the mining industry, interacting with several different iterations of environmental assessment law in Canada.... You've experienced the environmental assessment process up to 2012, under the previous CEAA. You've experienced CEAA 2012. I know you haven't experienced Bill C-69 because it isn't in place yet, but from what you're experienced, Mr. Gratton, which would you say was the form of EA that was fairest and easiest to work with from the point of view of MAC?

[Darren Fisher, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

Thank you, folks, for being here. It's very good testimony, and I truly appreciate the very pointed recommendations that you're all making.

The first question is going to go to the Canadian Electricity Association, Francis or Terry.

Bill C-69 has shortened timelines for decision-making, both for project reviews and for cabinet. With the new early planning phase, which will include outreach with stakeholders, indigenous communities, and others, do you think the time frames are going to be reasonable to get all this done?

I'm looking at Terry only because I know him, but, Francis, perhaps you...?

[Pierre Gratton, President and Chief Executive Officer, Mining Association of Canada]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair and members of the committee. It's a pleasure for the Mining Association of Canada to be with you today.

Members of the committee, I'm mad.

Last week, you heard from Minister Carr, who said:

All projects that are currently under review will be reviewed under the National Energy Board

Even after the legislation is proclaimed, these projects that began under the current system will remain under the current system unless the proponent makes the choice to move to the new one. It would be a decision that the proponent would make.

It makes sense. Such logic befits a democratic country such as ours, where rule of law is respected.

What he didn't tell you is that for mining projects and all others subject to agency assessment, the rule of law will be ignored by this bill. In the case of mining, only projects at the very end of their reviews, awaiting final decisions, will remain under CEAA 2012. All other projects that are any earlier in the process will transfer to the new IA act and essentially start again in some way, shape, or form to be determined by officials on a case-by-case basis, however they think best, at a date we don't yet know.

When we asked why this is, we were told that the government is concerned that there would be projects a few years after the act came into force that would still be governed by CEAA 2012, and that these assessments would lack public confidence. They said they wanted to clean house and bring all assessments forward under one act, to make their workload a little less complicated. The fact that it will make the workload of mining companies wanting to invest billions of dollars in Canada a whole lot more complicated didn't seem to matter.

I ask this committee: Why is it that the government feels there will be a lack of public confidence in mining reviews but not pipelines? Why the double standard in Bill C-69?

Shouldn't the government be more concerned about the lack of international investor confidence in Canada's respect for the rule of law?

To be clear, it is not fear or opposition to the IA act that makes me say this. As will be evident in a minute, we believe that the proposed legislation, implemented well, may result in an improved review process for mining over CEAA 2012. The problem is the uncertainty. Proponents making billion-dollar investments need to know what the rules are and how they will be implemented. You can't have this certainty knowing that the rules may change midstream in some way.

Thus MAC strongly recommends that the committee support the proposed amendment in our submission that would change the transition provisions by amending proposed section 181 so that projects undergoing CEAA 2012 agency assessment will continue under CEAA 2012, but allow the proponent to request transition of the assessment to the IAA or impact assessment act; i.e., the same as for NEB projects.

Now let me turn to comments on the rest of the proposed legislation. A number of measures, implemented well, as I said, hold the promise of an improved review process for mines.

Mining is constitutionally the responsibility of provinces, and each of Canada's provinces has its own environmental assessment regime. In addition to the requirements for building and operating a mine, provinces require companies to develop reclamation plans and provide financial assurance for their implementation. Co-operation with other jurisdictions on project review is, therefore, critical for the mining sector.

Although CEAA 2012 introduced the possibility of substitution to other jurisdictions, in practice this has only been taken up by one province, British Columbia.

CEAA 2012 also introduced legislated timelines, which are critical for industry and the smooth functioning of assessment. However, CEAA 2012's timelines are rigid and have had the unintended effect of making co-operation more difficult and at times unworkable with other jurisdictions that have not pursued substitution.

The proposed IAA maintains timelines but provides for flexibility to better align with other jurisdictions, plus it contains a number of other measures that should improve co-operation with provincial governments. As well, we are encouraged that the proposed legislation provides for extending co-operation with indigenous governments.

There is one notable exception with regard to uranium mines and mills, and that is the one my colleague and friend Liam Mooney just mentioned. I won't repeat what he just said—I think he made exactly the same point I was going to make—except to emphasize that while, as I've just said, there are measures in this proposed legislation that promise to improve coordination for mining projects with other levels of government, it takes a step backwards when it comes to uranium mines and mills. That needs to be addressed in the way that Liam Mooney just outlined. We urge this committee to take that recommendation extremely seriously. It's our understanding as well that this is an inadvertent measure, so I'm hopeful this committee will recognize that and correct it.

Beyond provincial assessments and permitting and federal assessment, many mines require other federal approvals. Inadequate interdepartmental coordination has been a source of duplication and delays for mining for years. MAC, therefore, is encouraged by proposed subsection 13(2) and related provisions, which hold the promise of improved coordination and shorter timelines, though I might add that the different treatment of NEB projects and CEAA suggests there is still work to do to improve coordination between two parts of government.

Perhaps our greatest concern with CEAA 2012 has been how it has disproportionately applied the responsibility for cumulative effects to proposed mining projects and not to the sources of most environmental effects. The project-by-project approach to addressing cumulative effects in CEAA 2012 is dysfunctional, penalizing responsible project proponents while failing to address cumulative effects resulting from activities that are not designated projects under the act.

The mining industry is not the only user of the land base. Its impacts are localized and, on most metrics of environmental effects, dwarfed by other activities.

We're encouraged, therefore, by the approach proposed in the IAA, which includes cumulative effects as a factor to consider in decision-making, but not as a sole factor. The IAA also proposes to strengthen provisions for regional and strategic assessments.

Governments are best placed to undertake cumulative effects assessment on a regional basis. We've been advocating these measures for over 15 years, so we are pleased to see them incorporated in Bill C-69, An Act to enact the Impact Assessment Act.

It is critical, however, that the completion of regional assessments not be a prerequisite to individual project assessments. It would be unreasonable and prohibitive to Canada's investment climate to delay projects while awaiting governments to address all relevant gaps.

It will take many years to complete regional studies across the country, and we can't wait for all of those to be completed before we allow projects to move forward.

Related to these issues is the project list, where mining makes up the vast majority of CEAA projects despite a relatively small footprint. While the revision of the regulations designating physical activities is subject to separate consultations, we are concerned that the IAA will remain arbitrarily and disproportionately applied to mining. Should this be the case, it will hamper our sector while not achieving the sustainability, public trust, and indigenous reconciliation goals the act is purported to advance.

Let me conclude with the following message. Our sector has entered a new period of strong commodity prices, and decisions are being made around the world on where to invest. Unfortunately, pipeline politics and the general politicization of natural resources development, in a country that is a recognized leader in natural resources, are putting our country's future at serious risk.

Canada's relative share of global mineral exploration investment has fallen by half in the past five years, and the number of projects submitted for review has hit record lows since the original CEAA was proclaimed in 1992.

Sadly, most of my members are not choosing Canada right now, and I fear that, unless the situation I described improves quickly, Canada is going to largely miss the current cycle. This will impact a sector with nearly 400 agreements with indigenous communities across Canada, which has become the largest employer of indigenous people and one of the largest clients of indigenous businesses.

Canada is in desperate need of some stability and predictability in the regulatory environment governing natural resources. It is in this spirit that we submit our comments on this proposed legislation. The proposed legislation, while not perfect, addresses some long-standing concerns we've had with federal environmental assessment and some more recent problems we've experienced with CEAA 2012. If implemented well—this is a critical “if”—and if you support our two critical amendments, the proposed legislation could bring some certainty and predictability back to the federal project review of mining projects.

Thank you.

[Liam Mooney, Vice-President, Cameco Corporation, Canadian Nuclear Association]

Thank you, John.

One specific amendment that the CNA would like to propose is on the multiple scoping phases in the proposed process. The planning phase was intended, in part, to improve certainty and predictability by determining the requirements that the proponent would have to meet early in the process. In our view, the bill's process does not achieve that goal.

The proposed bill sets out an initial scoping by the agency as informed by federal authorities, all other jurisdictions, the public, and indigenous groups. However, the bill also allows for two additional scoping phases: one at the sole discretion of the agency, and one by the review panel, which is appointed later. These final two potential scoping phases are well into the process. They could change the scope of the project after the proponent has spent years and millions of dollars to comply with the original scoping decision.

For panel reviews, a “one project, one review” process can only occur if the scoping stage is coordinated amongst the agency, the review panel, and all federal regulators, as well as harmonized with provincial or other jurisdictional requirements. For this to occur, two overarching amendments must be made: first, the chronology of the provisions in the proposed bill must be changed, and second, successive scoping stages throughout the assessment process must be replaced by a consolidated, single, harmonized scoping early in the process, which is led by the review panel.

The CNA would also like to propose an amendment with respect to uranium mining. Similar amendments have been proposed by the Mining Association of Canada and the Prospectors & Developers Association of Canada. More specifically, designated projects that are related to uranium mines and mills, like any other designated mining project, should undergo agency assessments with full access to provisions with co-operation with provinces and indigenous governing bodies.

Uranium mines and mills, like all other mines and mills, are subject to provincial regulatory and permitting frameworks, but they are also regulated by the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission. Federal environmental assessment legislation has historically allowed the CNSC to co-operate with a province in the ongoing oversight of uranium mines and mills. However, Bill C-69 would preclude this co-operation and prevent agency-led assessments, joint review panel assessments, and substitution for all designated projects that are regulated by the CNSC. As a result, the opportunity for co-operation with a province and using a “one process, one assessment” approach is lost by treating all such projects as exclusively in federal jurisdiction.

There's no justification for such different treatment, because the complexity and impacts of uranium mines and mills are not in a different category from those of other mines and mills. Co-operative assessment processes across jurisdictions increase efficiency and decrease timelines and costs, and should be available to uranium mines and mills. The CNSC, like other federal regulatory bodies, would have the opportunity to be engaged in an agency-led assessment as provided for in the proposed process to encourage coordination within the federal government.

The CNA urges the committee to recommend changes to the provisions dealing with CNSC-regulated projects to permit designated projects related to uranium mines and mills to access the agency assessment provisions of the bill, including the suite of provisions related to co-operation with provinces and indigenous governing bodies. Further, we would propose that mines and mills be specifically excluded from the automatic panel review created by proposed section 43, by adding “other than a uranium mine or mill” after each reference to the Nuclear Safety and Control Act.

[Dr. John Barrett, President and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Nuclear Association]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

My name is John Barrett, and I am president and CEO of the Canadian Nuclear Association. With me today is Liam Mooney, vice-president of safety, health, environment quality, and regulatory relations with Cameco Corporation.

The Canadian Nuclear Association has approximately 100 members, representing more than 60,000 Canadians employed directly or indirectly in uranium mining and exploration, fuel processing, electricity generation, and the production and advancement of nuclear medicine.

Today, nuclear energy produces approximately 20% of Canada's non-emitting clean electricity, including 63% of Ontario's electricity. Of note is that, when the Ontario government committed to phasing out coal generation across the province, a major part of this commitment was made possible through the refurbishment of six reactors. Looking to the future, nuclear energy will play an increasingly important role in the overall low-carbon energy mix, as well as in nuclear medicine, advanced manufacturing, and electronics.

Canada's nuclear industry also works closely with indigenous peoples and communities, not only to enable proactive engagement but also to create mutually beneficial opportunities. As one example, Cameco has worked closely with indigenous communities in northern Saskatchewan for decades on environmental stewardship, community investment, employment, education and training, and contracting opportunities. Cameco has demonstrated the power of such partnerships in improving the economic and social well-being for communities and the benefits of working together to bring about real change.

I would like to preface our feedback today by highlighting, first, the concept of cumulative impact, which is a key issue not only with respect to the environment but also with respect to investment in Canada. Large energy projects require large amounts of capital, capital is fluid, and investors do not like uncertainty, so any new legislation, no matter how well intentioned, creates initial uncertainty.

Against this backdrop, CNA would like to offer the following comments and amendments for your consideration on Bill C-69.

Let's start with joint panels. The draft bill proposes that a single government agency be responsible for impact assessment reviews. In the case of the nuclear industry, the bill only provides for the option of an agency-led joint panel review. While joint panels are not new—we've had them in the past—CNA does not believe this will be an improvement over the current process.

Most of the potential impacts considered in relation to nuclear projects are related to radiation protection and international commitments on safeguards and non-proliferation. That work must be overseen by an agency with significant and specialized scientific expertise. The Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, CNSC, is the only place in government with that expertise. The CNA believes that assessment should remain at the CNSC, as the most efficient and effective way of conducting reviews.

As a full life-cycle regulator, the CNSC licensing regime and regulatory framework already covers the entire life cycle of the project and is subject to the Nuclear Safety and Control Act and its regulations. This allows CNSC, the commission, not only to conduct the impact assessment in the planning phase of the project, but also to ensure that monitoring programs and follow-up conditions required by the impact assessment are directly integrated into the licensing process throughout the various stages of the projects. In this regard, our industry is unique, and the CNSC uniquely has the expertise to best manage our projects.

I'll turn now to the designated project list. Bill C-69 makes provisions for a designated project list to be created by regulation. This list determines what projects are subject to review by the new agencies, and by default, what projects will be reviewed by the life-cycle regulator, as is the case in the nuclear industry. It is difficult to fully consider the impact and consequences of the impact assessment agency without fully understanding what projects will come under the IAA review.

The CNA believes a facility or project should undergo one impact assessment for its life cycle. As drafted, proposed section 43 could be interpreted as to require an impact assessment for any activity at a facility regulated under the Nuclear Safety and Control Act. However, maintenance, technological, and capital upgrades are fully regulated by the life-cycle regulator, by provincial regulators, or by other federal authorities, and thus, there is no need for a new IA. Therefore, this could be clarified.

In addition, many of our sites are large and with significant space for new facilities, including new reactors and research facilities that could require an IA under the new agency. Most nuclear sites have undergone full environmental assessments. They have had continuous environmental monitoring and their environmental impact is well understood. If a new project were to occur on one of these existing sites, it should not require a full impact assessment, but rather, an assessment of the delta between what has already been done and what is now required. In our view, the delta assessment could be best done by the life-cycle regulator.

On timelines, CNA members have significant concerns over the proposed timelines. We understand and we appreciate the government's intention with an early planning phase, but are somewhat skeptical of the potential effectiveness.

As the early planning phase occurs after the proponent has provided an initial project description, the proponent will have already undertaken stakeholder engagement to ensure the business case and to have some degree of confidence that the issues can be mitigated. The CNA believes the current process already allows for the important early input and engagement from local communities, indigenous groups, and public stakeholders.

In addition to the uncertainty caused by creating a new agency-run early engagement process, Bill C-69 dramatically increases the scope of assessment, by adding several new elements of review. While the criteria, aims, and goals of environmental assessment are well understood and measurable, there is a great deal of uncertainty around some of the new elements of assessment. We would like to work with the government to provide greater definition on how the various elements are weighted in decision-making. Are all elements weighted equally? Is there a minimum weighting level that must be met?

Answers to such questions will help proponents factor these elements into their project descriptions and their early engagement with stakeholders. Also, our members have concerns about how closure will be achieved with respect to issues raised through the review process. It is our view that, without some decision-making procedure that allows closure on contentious issues, the new IA process will simply add uncertainty and increased timelines, create additional work with minimal project benefits, and result in multiple legal challenges.

I will now hand it over to Liam Mooney for our recommendations.

[Francis Bradley]

In conclusion, the real test of this legislation will be whether good, sustainable projects that are in the interest of Canadians move through the process and get built in a timely fashion.

Currently, seven of Canada's 10 largest infrastructure projects are in the electricity sector. There are four hydro dams, two nuclear refurbishments, and a transmission line. Every one of these projects represents emissions-free energy for Canada.

Transitioning to a clean energy future won't just happen. We must decide as a nation to build it.

Developers must have a predictable, credible federal process to work through. New and innovative technologies must not be stifled.

Electricity is Canada's clean energy future. How Bill C-69 is framed and implemented will go a long way to determining whether we achieve our national aspirations.

Thank you for your attention, and we would be pleased to respond to any questions.

[Terry Toner, Director, Environmental Services, Nova Scotia Power, Canadian Electricity Association]

Thank you, Francis.

I'd like to begin by acknowledging that this bill contains a lot of progressive provisions. However, the following adjustments that we'll be talking about would further improve the intent of the impact assessment act and the Canadian energy regulator act. For the sake of brevity, I will be focusing my comments on the impact assessment portion.

Speaking about clarity and predictability, Minister McKenna and Minister Carr spoke to the need for project proponents to know what is required of them from the beginning of the regulatory process. We would suggest that some simple yet important modifications are necessary to meet this objective. Minister McKenna has made it clear that this act is focused on major projects. We support this, and we look forward to that being reflected in the project list.

The project list, to be developed by regulation, must firmly establish the scope of application of the impact assessment act. The power of the minister to designate other projects for review must be circumscribed and used only in exceptional circumstances, based on the criteria used to develop the list in the first place. The consideration of alternatives to a project should be limited to ones that are technically and economically feasible. Transitional provisions should also make clear that existing projects already on a regulatory path are not brought under the ambit of the impact assessment act.

In the quest for clarity and focus, we welcome strategic and regional assessments. It is our hope that these may ensure that individual project reviews are not burdened with analysis of impacts well beyond their scope. Too often now, project reviews are the place where we debate and litigate national policy in such domains as climate or indigenous reconciliation. A project review should be just that: a project review.

Speaking about timelines, while the timelines in the bill provide some guidance for project proponents, the government's goal of process predictability is significantly diluted by provisions in the acts that permit limitless extensions and suspensions. Time is of critical value, and it can make the difference between a project built and a project abandoned. We accept that there must be some flexibility, but there must also be discipline and transparency in order to ensure investor confidence in Canadian infrastructure projects.

Extensions decided by the Governor in Council should be published with reasons. There should be limits for the time taken by the minister to establish the terms of reference and the composition of a panel. Once a decision is made at the end of the process, there should be a firm timeline to issue the decision and no capacity for the Governor in Council to delay.

We also propose, for your consideration, a provision that could quite importantly give proponents and all participants some confidence that closure may be achieved at the end of an authoritative process, a privative clause that would narrowly contain the scope for legal challenges. There must be proper deference by all parties, including the courts, to the judgment exercised by the authorities entrusted with the administration of this legislation. A project decision must not be the beginning of a new process played out in the courts. There are precedents for such clauses in other federal and provincial acts.

Speaking about balance, it is critically important that the impact assessment act ensure balanced consideration of environmental and economic factors. The current draft is deficient in that it can easily be recalibrated as per the following recommendations.

The requirement to take into account whether the project hinders or contributes to the government's environmental obligations and commitments in respect of climate change is welcomed by our sector. We expect to make positive contributions to the pan-Canadian framework for clean growth and climate change, yet there must be as explicit a requirement to take into account economic benefits, which is currently implied only by reference to a broad concept of sustainability.

In speaking of cost recovery and proponents' obligations, any regulatory process must be subject to cost discipline. Costs charged to proponents should not exceed amounts reasonably incurred by the crown. For predictability and good management, there should also be provided to the proponent at the beginning of the process an estimate of projected costs—in effect, a budget.

Our full submission to the committee next week will summarize the intent and wording of our proposed amendments. We commend them to your attention.

[Francis Bradley, Chief Operating Officer, Canadian Electricity Association]

Thank you, Madam Chair and members of the committee, for inviting the Canadian Electricity Association, or CEA short, to appear before you on this important review of Bill C-69.

I am pleased to represent the association this morning, as our CEO, Sergio Marchi, had a prescheduled commitment outside Ottawa. I am accompanied by Terry Toner, director of environmental services with Nova Scotia Power.

Together, we will provide you with the electricity sector's perspective on the bill, specifically the Impact Assessment Act.

Before I do so, I'd like to say a few words about the association. The CEA is the national voice and forum for the Canadian electricity sector. Our membership is comprised of major generation, transmission, and distribution companies from across Canada, as well as manufacturers, technology companies, and consulting firms representing the full spectrum of electricity suppliers.

Electricity is indispensable to the quality of life of Canadians and to the competitiveness of our economy.

Indeed, the electricity sector is also uniquely positioned to contribute to a cleaner and greener energy era. For us to realize this opportunity, two conditions are critical. Our business environment must be competitive, and the regulatory framework must provide confidence that good projects will get built.

As an industry we are deeply preoccupied by the accumulation of wide-scoping federal and provincial-territorial legislative and regulatory changes. This pancaking effect challenges the economics of needed investments in energy projects.

The ministers who appeared before this committee last week spoke of their intent with Bill C-69, to ensure good projects get built. We applaud the intent; however, we believe that absent constructive amendments, Bill C-69 has the potential to discourage worthy investments.

As a committee, you have an opportunity and obligation to restore public trust and create more predictable, balanced, and workable legislation.

Let me turn to Terry Toner, who will share our specific recommendations.

[Joël Godin, Conservative, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

I'll have to stop you there because we have only a minute left.

My takeaway from your testimony today is that you're deeply troubled by Bill C-69. In the past, you've demonstrated your willingness to adopt environmental standards while adhering to sustainable development principles. Naturally, economic development is also important.

Is it fair to say that the existing legislation lacks the necessary tools for us to go further, be more competitive, and balance sustainable development with economic development?

[Terry Abel]

As Chris said, CEAA 2012 wasn't perfect either. We didn't have a lot of projects moving through on the upstream side. It had some of the same elements that created uncertainty in the process. It did have timelines. We did see the governments and the agencies working closely to try to stick to those timelines. It had weaknesses in working with the life-cycle regulators and having those processes work more seamlessly.

Like anything, it's how it gets implemented. I don't know that all the provisions of CEAA 2012 were followed, at least in the way we understood the intent. We have engaged in this process because we felt improvements could be made, and Bill C-69 and the associated legislation would be an opportunity to address some of those challenges, most of which, in my mind, are focused on having a competitive regulatory regime that does those processes and reviews efficiently. They add value to the decisions that need to be made, and everybody comes through that process feeling there is certainty.

[Terry Abel]

Again, further to my comments to Ms. Duncan, we're not here to say that Bill C-69 is at the root of every problem. We acknowledge that. What I will say is that, overall, compared to other jurisdictions, Canada has a history. I think my colleague, Chris, highlighted the fact that there are a number of policies that all have a potential negative effect on the competitiveness of our industry. They are all collectively incrementally adding cost. You can take any one of them and say, “Well, it's 20¢ a barrel,” but you add up five or six of them and it adds up to a dollar a barrel or $1.50 a barrel. You compare that to margins that under the current commodity price environment are very tight. You see the effect that you have: companies that have assets in other jurisdictions look at where they can make a fair return for their investors. Right now, granted, we haven't gotten to the end of the review of Bill C-69, we haven't gotten clarity on a lot of the policies, but what we have is uncertainty and no clear signals that Canada is taking steps to address some of those additional costs.

I think one thing I've always been proud of—and most of my career was as a regulator—is that Canada did have very stringent environmental and social requirements, and our industry was very good at innovating to find ways to continue to be productive and economic with those policies. As a result of innovating them, you're able to move that technology into other jurisdictions, raise the bar in other places. But what we're seeing right now is increasing difficulty being able to bear all of those costs and continue to innovate.

Canada doesn't generate enough capital in and of itself to fund an industry like ours. You heard the numbers. In 2014: $80 billion. I'm sorry, Canada can't do that. It needs to come from foreign investment. When you're competing in a world now with many choices there are many places you can go with your investment. It's not 10 years ago where we had a limited supply of oil and gas throughout the world. I would argue a lot of that investment is going to jurisdictions that don't have the same environmental and social standards. We're not saying, relax those standards in Canada. In fact, we want to celebrate those standards. My opening comments were that we're clearly reflecting that. We think that's an advantage for Canada, but you have to take additional steps to make sure you implement policies in a way that minimizes those costs. Where costs are unavoidable, you have to look to the rest of the world and see what's going to make this industry competitive or not competitive, and then take other steps to address that.

It is unfortunate, but what you're describing are companies that have choices, and, as any good business that has shareholders—maybe even some of you—they're going to places where they can make an appropriate return on that investment.

[James Maloney, Liberal, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

Thank you, Madame Chair. Thanks, Mr. Bossio.

Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for your presentations.

I'm not a regular member of this committee, although I've met many of you before. I'm the chair of the natural resources committee, and it's that capacity that brings me here to talk to you.

Our committee has been working collectively—in fact, all of our members have been working and sort of pushing in the same direction—trying to find ways that we can help the resource sector. My conversation, notwithstanding some of the comments you've heard from around this table.... We don't hear those kinds of comments at our committee, which is quite a refreshing approach, frankly.

Mr. Bloomer, my question is for you.

I was quite surprised to hear your level of pessimism, in particular the comment that you don't see how another pipeline could ever be built. I think you were backing off from that a little when you were thinking about your mother, and I was glad to hear that your mother was more of an optimist.

My question is this. You're saying that Bill C-69 is what made you make that statement, but our government has approved three pipelines since we came to power two years ago. It's done so under the guise of the interim provisions that were implemented in January 2016, which formed the foundation of Bill C-69.

I'm wondering how you reconcile your position with those approvals, given that it's our government that approved and in fact championed those three pipeline approvals.

[Terry Abel]

I would agree with you that there are a number of factors affecting the competitiveness of our industry and the ability to attract investment. What I would say is that it's not true that investment isn't being made in other jurisdictions. It is, in fact, and I would argue that many of those jurisdictions—the U.S. is a good example, for the Permian Basin in Texas where there is no climate policy—that investment is going crazy. Look at Brazil offshore; they don't have strong commitments either. It's not the only factor and I'm not here to say that Bill C-69 is the only factor at all. We agree and we've taken strong positions on indigenous reconciliation. We are supportive of climate policy that sets practical objectives that are implemented in a practical way.

They're all important. I agree with you.

[Chris Bloomer]

Well, as we said in our statement, we don't see how Bill C-69 is going to lead to major new projects being proposed and developed in Canada.

[Eduard Wojczynski, President, Canadian Hydropower Association]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'm Ed Wojczynski, president of the Canadian Hydropower Association. With me are Genevieve Martin of BC Hydro, who is chair of our regulatory processes working group, and Pierre Lundahl, our chief consultant with the Canadian Hydropower Association.

The CHA is the national voice of the hydro power industry. It represents generators, manufacturers, engineering firms, and construction companies. Hydro power, as I think you probably already know, supplies over 60% of Canada's electricity. It is our largest generation source, and has made Canada's electricity system one of the cleanest, most renewable, and most reliable in the world.

Hydro power has virtually no greenhouse gas emissions, and it has a key role in achieving Canada's climate change targets. Studies indicate that to meet our 2030 and 2050 commitments, Canada needs to electrify the economy and further reduce the greenhouse gas emissions of the electricity sector, among other measures. This means doubling or even tripling electricity generation by 2050 through a major expansion of hydro power, in concert with wind, solar, maritime, and geothermal power.

Our industry is up to the challenge. Canada still has vast amounts of hydroelectric resources that can be developed. For this to happen, though, Canada needs a predictable and timely project review process that engages all stakeholders and indigenous peoples and has the confidence of the public. Bill C-69 will, in the view of CHA, bring us closer to that objective.

CHA generally supports the bill, but there are some important improvements that are still needed. We are pleased that a number of the suggestions we made in response to the government's 2017 discussion paper are in the bill.

The bill has many good elements, but today we will focus on further suggestions to improve the process. We will later provide the committee with a written submission commenting on several areas of the proposed legislation, and we will suggest specific amendment wording in that submission. We will also provide comments on revisions to the Navigation Protection Act, which we have some concerns with as well. This afternoon, we would like to highlight five recommendations on the impact assessment act.

First, focus the act on projects of national significance. Second, include guidance to the minister when she or he is thinking of applying the act to a non-designated project. Third, guide the ability to extend timelines. Fourth, set a time limit for the establishment of panels. Finally, provide the minister or the agency with a more explicit authority to issue a notice of commencement when a party is taking an unreasonable amount of time to respond, or refuses to respond or participate during the planning phase.

I would like to turn now to the first of these five items. The proposed impact assessment process, with its broader scope, two-phased approach, and large number of decision points, will be more challenging to manage and more complex than what we have today. It will call on specialists from many different areas. It will have to coordinate work from many departments and agencies. It will have to accommodate a large number and a broad variety of intervenors.

The complexity and overall effort required by governments, indigenous peoples, stakeholders, and the proponent argues strongly for focusing the act only on large projects of national significance. We suggest that this be added to the act's purpose statement, to assist in interpreting the bill. This would also guide development of the designated project list.

Large projects of national significance tend to be ones that have more impact than small projects. They involve more public concerns and expectations for a major review. Their proponents would be more likely to be able to manage the complexity and rigorous demands of the process. Projects of that scale already take time to develop and are managed by experienced teams with access to wide-ranging expertise.

If the regulations designating physical activities cast too wide a net, there are two risks. First, medium and small projects with significant benefits and minimal impacts might not be pursued. If the regulatory costs are unpredictable and potentially too large, and the review outcome is uncertain, then the financial viability of entire classes of projects could be undermined.

The other risk is that legislation leads the government to use its regulatory resources inefficiently. These smaller projects, with only minimal impacts, are likely already subject to provincial environmental assessment mechanisms. There are also federal statutes to protect various aspects of the environment such as the Migratory Birds Convention Act, the Species at Risk Act, the Navigation Protection Act, and the Fisheries Act, which is currently being made more stringent as we speak.

Turning to the second recommendation, the impact assessment act would also give the minister the discretion to assess a project that is not on the designated project list and thus would otherwise not qualify for review. Some sort of provision to this effect is necessary, and CHA supports that, but apart from the impact on indigenous rights, there are no criteria in the act to guide the minister's discretion.

As currently drafted, the minister may order an assessment on the basis of her opinion on adverse effects or on the basis of public concerns related to these effects—and that makes sense—but there's no explanation of the procedure or considerations that would help form that opinion. This is inconsistent with the goal of greater process transparency.

CHA recommends establishing criteria in the act to guide the minister's discretion. Our written submission will suggest specific criteria similar to those the government is already utilizing in development of the designated project list regulation. If it's good enough for the project list regulation, it's good enough to put in the act.

Geneviève Martin, my colleague from B.C. Hydro, will take over.

[Lisa McDonald, Interim Executive Director, Prospectors and Developers Association of Canada]

Thanks very much.

I'm Lisa McDonald, and I'm the interim executive director with the Prospectors and Developers Association of Canada. I'm joined here today by my colleague, Lesley Williams, who's our director of policy and programs.

I'd like to thank you for the opportunity to be here today to provide input on behalf of the mineral industry on Bill C-69. Our comments will focus mainly on the aspects related to impact assessments.

PDAC is the national voice of Canada's mineral exploration and development industry. We represent over 7,500 members from Canada and around the world. As the trusted representative of the sector, PDAC encourages leading practices in technical, operational, environmental, safety, and social performance.

Just briefly about the mineral exploration industry, it is a staged process of information-gathering with the hopes of discovering an economically viable mineral deposit, which is a little bit like looking for a needle in a haystack, quite frankly. Junior exploration companies do the bulk of this work in Canada. These companies are small. They have limited budgets and timelines. Most do not generate revenue and fund their activities by issuing shares. While some exploration companies may sell promising projects to mid-tier or major mining companies in order to take them through the assessment process and to be mined, a number of junior companies initiate the assessment process themselves.

Our remarks today will cover a brief overview of the mineral industry, two proposed amendments to Bill C-69, and comments on some of the key provisions in the act.

The value of Canada's mineral industry cannot be overstated. The mineral exploration and mining industry makes vast contributions to Canada. From remote and indigenous communities, rural areas, to large cities across Canada, it generates significant economic and social benefits for Canadians.

Our industry contributes more than 3% to the GDP. Valued at $89 billion in 2016, mineral exports accounted for 19% of Canada's total domestic exports. The industry employs nearly 600,000 workers across Canada, and it is also the largest private sector employer of indigenous people in Canada, and is a key partner of indigenous businesses.

That being said, the Canadian mineral industry faces fierce global competition for investment. In fact, Canada is starting to fall behind its competitors in a number of areas, indicating its decline in attractiveness as a destination for mineral investment. From 2012 to 2016, there was a prolonged downturn where investment in the sector severely declined around the world. Investment has started to return and has strengthened globally, however, in Canada mineral investment has stagnated and it is not recovering as substantially as in other jurisdictions.

A number of factors affect the decisions made by investors about where to invest, and by companies about where to explore and mine. Investment, both foreign and domestic, is particularly sensitive to legislative and policy changes. These generate uncertainty and unpredictability. An unpredictable, complex, and inefficient regulatory regime that is not well implemented will increase risk and deter investment and, consequently, exacerbate the waning of the Canadian mineral industry's competitiveness.

In order for the Canadian mineral sector to regain strength, we are proposing two amendments to the legislation that are critical to our industry.

We are proposing that the committee consider amendments regarding transition. Bill C-69 proposes that when the impact assessment act comes into force, projects that are being assessed under CEAA 2012 would have their assessment continued under the new act, unless they are in the final phase of the process. Industry recommends that the transition provisions be amended so that projects being assessed under CEAA 2012, or those that will enter the process before the coming into force of the new act, must be allowed to continue under CEAA 2012 unless the proponents specifically request the transition. This amendment to transition is critical. Otherwise, it would be extremely disruptive and cause uncertainty for industry, which will ultimately have a negative impact on investment.

Our second proposed amendment relates to the assessment of uranium mines and mills under the new act. We recommend that, similar to any other designated mining project, designated projects that are uranium mines and mills should undergo agency assessments with full access to provisions for co-operation with provinces and indigenous groups.

In its current form, Bill C-69 would preclude co-operation and agency assessment for all designated projects that are regulated by the CNSC.

With respect to the provisions, we understand that critical regulatory policy decisions remain to be developed with regard to the implementation of the new act, and these could materially influence the assessment process for project proponents.

We would like to briefly offer comments on some of the other key aspects proposed in Bill C-69. In general, we support Bill C-69 expanding the scope of factors and effects to be assessed, but there are potential implications to be considered. This expansion of scope will result in significant increases in the amount and type of information required and studied in project assessments. This could exacerbate the time and cost burden. Of particular concern are the ways that this will impact the ability for exploration companies to advance good projects.

Further, the collection, analysis, and weighting of impacts related to these diverse areas can also pose challenges. Views on whether an economic or social impact is positive or negative can be subjective and difficult to quantify. The weighting of various impacts is also not straightforward, particularly in the absence of any plan or guidance on how the various factors should be considered. The new process will require very clear, transparent guidance outlining the impacts that will be considered, the methodologies for the way these elements will be studied, and the weighting of impacts against each other.

With respect to cost recovery, PDAC urges careful consideration in terms of its implementation. Fees required should be transparent and predictable, and proponents should not bear undue burden of the costs for the assessment process. Some jurisdictions already have cost-recovery mechanisms for permitting and assessments. Imposing additional fees for the federal process would mean a duplicate cost for what is ideally intended to be one process, one assessment. This is particularly critical for junior exploration and development companies because, as mentioned before, they have very limited funds and generate no revenues.

Cost recovery, at a minimum, should have a clear, predictable, reasonable set fee per assessment; be linked to various guarantees, including timelines of process; and exclude out-of-scope costs such as policy development or regional assessments.

With respect to timelines, Bill C-69 proposes legislated timelines for project assessments, a provision that PDAC strongly supports. Clearly defined timelines are essential for the certainty that proponents and investors require, leading to a predictable, timely process. PDAC recommends that timelines should allow for alignment with the assessment process of other jurisdictions and enable co-operation, with the objective of one project, one assessment. We also recommend that the factors for suspension of timelines be clearly defined, and limited to specific circumstances to avoid endless delays and undermining predictability.

The mandatory early planning and engagement phase, if designed and implemented well, could provide more clarity for proponents and predictability for the process. That said, some important elements to consider are that officials must have the resources, both human and financial, to provide a proponent with a forward-looking permitting plan. Early planning could adversely impact proponents, particularly mineral exploration companies, as it could require various studies earlier on in the process than previously through CEAA 2012.

Proponents must have the ability to amend the project during the planning phase in response to indigenous and community feedback without having to restart the process from the beginning.

Bill C-69 outlines a more prominent, formalized role for indigenous peoples and traditional knowledge in the assessment process. PDAC supports meaningful participation by indigenous communities in project development and throughout the life cycle of a project. The mineral industry, as a leading practice, builds strong partnerships and seeks input on aspects related to their projects, and also guarantees economic opportunities for indigenous communities. As such, much of what is in Bill C-69 reflects the reality of current practice in the mineral exploration industry.

Furthermore, Bill C-69 proposes that the new agency would coordinate crown consultations and require, by statute, the consideration of potential impacts on indigenous rights. PDAC supports the crown or its delegated authority taking responsibility for fulfilling its duty.

We urge government to assess and outline its requirements for consultation and accommodation with indigenous peoples, to develop a transparent consultation plan that conforms to the tenets of consultation as articulated by the courts, and to assume its responsibility in the process, including for related costs.

[Chris Bloomer, President and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Energy Pipeline Association]

Thank you very much for the opportunity to present to this committee.

This point in time represents the culmination of a long process of consultation, of input and so on, and a process that CEPA, the Canadian Energy Pipeline Association.... It also represents 97% of the volume moved from production in Canada into the U.S. We look forward to your comments.

I'm going to be fairly direct, fairly straightforward in my comments and look forward to your questions.

We remain fully engaged. We've submitted a submission already, and we will continue to follow up with further consultations. First I'd like to give you a brief “state of the union” for the energy sector. It's not good news.

In the two years leading up to this bill, you can pick your poison: policies, including a tanker moratorium off British Columbia's northern coastline; proposed methane emission regulation reductions; clean fuel standards; provincial GHG emission regulation; B.C.'s restrictions on transporting bitumen; a lack of clarity regarding the government's position on the implementation of UNDRIP and FPIC; and the fierce competition from energy-supportive policies in the United States, etc. The cumulative effect of these policies has significantly weakened investor confidence in Canada. It is seriously challenging the energy sector's ability to be competitive.

We are already in a time of profound uncertainty. New projects are grinding to a halt and we have major problems as a sector and as a country accessing new markets for our energy products to the world. The reality is that CEPA member companies, with material assets in other countries, are actively pursuing opportunities in those jurisdictions, and investment capital in the oil and gas industry is moving out of Canada. This is due in large part to the current regulatory policy uncertainty and the potential implications of any further seismic regulatory changes directly impacting the pipeline sector in Canada. The consequences are real, and the sector is suffocating because of it.

We believe that a majority of Canadians still appreciate the significant contribution the oil and gas sector makes to Canada's economy, and we hold firm to the belief that continued growth in the oil and gas sector is completely consistent with Canada's 2030 GHG emission targets. In the consultation process leading up to the tabling of this bill, CEPA took some comfort in assurances from the government that any new legislation will reflect shared values focused on a strong regulatory regime, relationship safety, environmental stewardship, public confidence, competitiveness, and the kind of certainty and clarity for a reasonable prospect of actually building a new major pipeline in Canada. In its current form, the bill cannot achieve that greater certainty, clarity, and predictability for projects that can extend hundreds if not thousands of kilometres across provinces, communities, and indigenous communities. In fact, it is difficult to imagine that a new major pipeline could be built in Canada under the impact assessment act, much less attract energy investment to Canada.

We are concerned that all this bill has done is frustrate regulatory reform in order to advance this government's climate change agenda and has baked too much broad policy subject matter into an otherwise very technical decision-making process.

With respect to the specifics of this bill, this process started with the Prime Minister's mandate letter to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change. The minister was asked to review environmental assessment processes to achieve three objectives: to restore public trust; to introduce new, fair processes; and to get our resources to market. With all due respect, CEPA does not believe the proposed impact assessment act would accomplish any of these objectives. Over the course of a year and a half of consultation, CEPA's 200-plus pages of submissions were meant to provide thoughtful and practical recommendations to address the government's three objectives. Our recommendations were premised on the underlying need to stem the erosion of Canada's competitive position in the natural resource sector. They were guided by key principles that we believe would have set the framework to meet all of these goals.

The first one is a process that ensures that broad public policy issues are addressed in more appropriate venues outside project reviews, a science and fact-based process that is coordinated and efficient, and provides clarity and certainty. The National Energy Board is the best placed regulator, with technical expertise and full-cycle responsibility for project reviews, operations, and maintenance. Regrettably, the impact assessment does not address these concerns. CEPA is disappointed that the proposed process appears to double-down on the very factors that created the toxic regulatory environment for major projects that this regulatory review process was intended to fix. The impact assessment does not address the pipeline sector's most fundamental concern: a process that is expensive, lengthy, polarizing, and ends with a discretionary political decision.

Bill C-69 has not addressed the need to find an appropriate venue to debate and resolve broader public policy issues. The bill is flavoured throughout with the government's commitment to meeting climate change objectives, gender-based analysis, indigenous reconciliation, and subjective and inherently unpredictable sustainability tests.

Despite CEPA's very strong recommendation to remove broader public policy from project-specific reviews, these issues are now explicitly included in the review process as factors to consider.

The impact assessment act will not achieve greater certainty, clarity, and predictability. Instead, it introduces a new regulatory agency and unique new processes and information requirements that have never been tested.

The public participation standing test has been removed. Science and fact-based assessments will now be obscured by the layering of other policy-based assessments that are ill-defined, fluid, and open to potential strategies of delay and obfuscation of the processes by groups opposed to any project. In short, we cannot see that timelines will improve; we expect them to be longer.

The National Energy Board, now the Canadian energy regulator, has effectively been sidelined with respect to major pipeline project reviews. CEPA consistently emphasized that the NEB was the best-placed regulator to oversee the full cycle of a pipeline from beginning to end. Instead, Bill C-69 carves out the review of major pipeline projects and places it with the new impact assessment agency. This new agency does not have the rich history of administrative decision-making and technical expertise of the NEB, now CER.

Instead, the new agency is mandated to perform a broadened role and assess a wider scope of issues, and is expected to implement the government's political agenda related to climate change, reconciliation, and gender objectives. It is not an independent, expert regulator. CEPA is not convinced that it will have the capacity to conduct these broadened political reviews, even with the announcement of $1 billion of new spending to support the implementation of the impact assessment.

Given these concerns, it is hard to imagine that any pipeline project proponent would be prepared to test this new process or have a reasonable expectation of a positive outcome at the end of it. With built-in climate change tests covering upstream and downstream emissions, it is preposterous to expect that a pipeline proponent would spend upwards of a billion dollars only to be denied approval at the end, because the project must account for emissions from production of the product to consumption in another part of the world.

If the goal is to curtail oil and gas production and to have no more pipelines built, this legislation may have hit the mark.

In conclusion, today CEPA has offered the views of member companies based on their direct experience in investing, building, and safely operating the energy infrastructure that supports the Canadian economy and the everyday lives of Canadians. Project proponents and their investors will continue to evaluate the feasibility of developing resource projects in Canada against other investment options.

The government's June 2017 discussion paper suggested a more balanced approach between the views of the more radical environmental elements and industry. This bill tilts the balance wholly in favour of the environmental perspective, some of whose goals are to keep fossil fuels in the ground and never see another pipeline built.

This bill will introduce even more risk and uncertainty. The net effect of the impact assessment is an impractical and unworkable process that will create unmanageable uncertainty and a decision-making framework that will insert broader policy issues squarely into a process that is not equipped to resolve them.

Finally, this bill does not provide a vision as to how it fits into Canada's achieving longer-term energy objectives; it does not reflect the reality of the importance that oil and gas will continue to play in the global energy mix for the next several decades; and therefore, it does not help Canada achieve full value of its resources in the world markets.

Thank you for hearing our comments. I look forward to questions.

[Terry Abel, Executive Vice-President, Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers]

I would be happy to. Thank you.

Good afternoon, honourable chair and members of the committee. My name is Terry Abel. I'm executive vice-president with the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers. Joining me today are Mr. Paul Barnes, who is the director of our Atlantic Canada and Arctic offshore, and Patrick McDonald, who is director of climate and innovation.

We are very appreciative of the opportunity to address the committee today and provide some of our experience and thoughts that might help inform your review of Bill C-69.

Hopefully, many of you know that CAPP and its members are responsible for producing around 80% of all the natural gas, natural gas liquids, crude oil, and oil sands across Canada, including offshore resources. Our industry is the largest single private sector investor in Canada. In 2014, it invested at a peak of $81 billion and at more like $45 billion in 2017. Collectively, we employ well above 500,000 Canadians from coast to coast.

Our offshore oil and gas and natural gas projects, located generally quite a way offshore—200 to 500 kilometres offshore in Newfoundland and Nova Scotia—have brought tremendous benefits to Newfoundland and Nova Scotia over the years and will continue to do so for some time.

As you know, the International Energy Agency continues to project that energy demand will grow worldwide by more than 30% by the year 2040, and growth in that demand will happen in both oil and natural gas, with hydrocarbon resources continuing to make up the lion's share of energy demand across the country, although renewables are growing substantially.

CAPP believes that Canada is well positioned to become the supplier of choice for oil and natural gas resources, given our world-leading responsible development practices and the fact that we have some of the largest and highest-quality reserves of oil and gas in the world. It's therefore imperative that Canada remain competitive with other oil and gas-producing jurisdictions; otherwise, Canada loses not only the opportunity to generate economic value from this industry, but also the consequential global reductions in GHG emissions that flow from Canada's being a more responsible producer of those resources.

I am going to introduce my comments today focusing on the competitiveness of our industry and on some aspects of the bill that can create uncertainty and further erode the global competitiveness of the industry. I'll touch on such things as transitional provisions, timelines, early planning, review panels, and regional strategic assessments.

We understand that the government's stated objective is to restore public trust in its environmental and regulatory review processes, something we absolutely share as an objective. We also want to ensure, however, that any changes restore confidence in the investment community.

Our industry is very challenged these days. There is a highly competitive global competition for capital resources, and Canada needs to remain competitive, if we're going to bring capital into Canada. Unfortunately, today Canada is attracting more uncertainty, not more capital, and we will continue to lose investment and jobs if we do not have a system of clear rules and decisions that are final and can be relied upon.

I'd like to point out that a 2016 WorleyParsons study of environmental assessment practices worldwide observed that while Canada has an EA process that is one of the most thorough and comprehensive, it also currently has “one of the most expensive time, and resource consuming EA processes in the world”.

Unfortunately, CAPP and the investment community today see very little in Bill C-69 that will improve that status. A simple example of this growing uncertainty is found in the transitional provisions within the draft impact assessment act. Current provisions require that assessments initiated under CEAA 2012 but not yet complete would generally have to continue and be completed using new legislation and rules. Specifically, the language in the bill that might allow an assessment to be completed under the current legislation, CEAA 2012, is actually very subjective and does not provide clear certainty as to which process will apply. If the intent of those provisions was to have those started in 2012 continue, we would argue that you could make this far clearer and more certain within the current language.

Requiring a new proponent, if that is the intent, to follow the new regulatory process midstream would run the risk of essentially taking processes back to the starting line. For example, we would point to offshore exploration drilling programs. There are four currently in Newfoundland. We see substantial risk that all the work undertaken today could be deemed incomplete. Therefore, they may have to restart and follow an entirely different process, which would add more time and more uncertainty for our investment community.

We simply propose that the government confirm that all projects in flight within federal, provincial, or territorial processes not be revisited under the new legislation.

Madam Chair, CAPP supports maintaining legislated timelines that we see both in CEAA 2012 and within proposed Bill C-69. However, it's not evident that overall, the regulatory review timelines will be any shorter than the current process. With the addition of early planning and no clarity regarding the time frames for review and information requests, and a number of opportunities sprinkled throughout the legislation to extend those timelines, we and the investment community generally conclude that we only see an increase in timelines overall.

We fully support the concept of early planning. I would note that it is normal practice by CAPP's members and our industry in general to engage early with stakeholders that may be impacted by proposed developments. We support the government's involvement in a more formalized process of early engagement as it provides an opportunity to get an early understanding of issues and clarity for all. It also gives stakeholders an opportunity to address issues that we often find come up in our project reviews that actually have very little to do with the project. They're much broader in nature.

For early engagement to be effective, however, all parties must be committed to the process and held accountable to meaningfully engage and honour timelines and their respective roles. We believe that without setting clear expectations for the stakeholders, industry, and government, the commitment to, and the introduction of, an early engagement or early planning process is likely to continue indefinitely and do nothing to support timelines improvement.

CAPP believes that, should the proponent and the agency at the end of the process not be able to agree on the scope of an EA, there needs to be some mechanism to actually bring discipline and closure to that process and actually let an EIA continue.

I'd like to flag something very specific to our offshore in my final comments. The way it's currently written, all offshore-designated projects would require a panel review. With that panel review come timelines that are at least twice that of the review by the agency. We do not believe there's any justification for a process that would effectively double the timelines, which we would expect would be at least four years, particularly as the potential effects of offshore oil and gas projects are well understood.

We have had numerous environmental assessments completed and reviewed in Canada both by CEAA and the offshore boards and decades of environmental effects monitoring in Canada as well as internationally that can contribute to practices that are pretty much standard at this point and are adopted in all jurisdictions across the world.

It's our view that a review panel that combines the experience and expertise of both the impact assessment agency and a specialized regulator, such as the offshore petroleum boards, should actually be able to decrease the regulatory review time required, not double it, as would currently be interpreted with the way the legislation is written. CAPP recommends that the requirement for offshore operations to require a review by panels be removed.

Our industry is also very supportive and sees the benefits of regional impact assessments as are enabled under the draft legislation. We note that they can include such benefits as improved environmental effects assessment and cumulative effects assessment. They would probably help a lot with stakeholder fatigue by not having to do the same things over and over again, and should afford some regulatory consistency and efficiency.

This approach is something that's used internationally. We would point to jurisdictions, such as Norway, that have already used that.

We continue to support the idea of regional impact assessments, and we recommend that, if we're going to go that route, a list of the completed and accepted assessments should be maintained and should ultimately form part of exclusion criteria for the project list that's going to be developed as well.

We believe it can be a powerful tool provided Canada, the provinces, and the territories, work together to complete assessments. However, as currently written, in Bill C-69 we really see no mandated timelines, no confirmation of the inclusion of provinces or life-cycle regulators, and really no guarantee that the process will be successful or will actually be utilized within the assessment process that Bill C-69 talks about.

I will wrap up quickly here, Madam Chairman.

CAPP again thanks you for the opportunity today. We urge you to carefully consider some of our feedback today, and we recommend changes that will resolve investor confidence, help Canada fully realize the significant economic value of our industry, and ensure the resulting global environmental benefits that flow when Canada is the supplier of choice.

Thank you again.

[Marc Garneau, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Westmount, QC]

You're right about that. That's why we have this new act, because we are going to be addressing through Bill C-69, through the impact assessment act, the issues that you have brought up specifically today. The importance of indigenous rights, environmental effects, health effects, cumulative effects—all of those things—will be part of the considerations with respect to impact assessment.

I recommend that—

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Let me ask you a second question.

You spoke in your remarks about how highly you value impacts upon indigenous peoples. One of the greatest harms brought by the Harper changes was excluding the trigger of navigable waters for assessments of all the oil sands activities in northern Alberta, because of the interaction of all the streams, the marshes, and so forth.

The federal government also, in its wisdom—both the Conservatives and the Liberals—failed to look at the transboundary impact of the Site C dam upon the rights of indigenous peoples in northern Alberta to traverse.

There actually is a court case. Mr. Justice Hughes of the Federal Court of Canada found that any reasonable person would expect that the reduction of the number of protected waterways carries the potential risk of harm to the fishing and trapping rights of the Mikisew, thereby triggering the duty to consult. The area in which the indigenous people want to consult is the overall impact assessment, not a narrow process of simply looking at whether it is a minor or major impact.

One of the big issues is cumulative impact, and that's a significant issue that's been raised by a number of people. I wonder whether you can tell us how this new act, under Bill C-69, adequately addresses potential cumulative impacts, even of minor works upon minor waterways.

[Marc Garneau, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Westmount, QC]

Okay.

We did not remove the responsibility for an environmental assessment. It is covered in Bill C-69 through the impact assessment act.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

—of the first part of Bill C-69 is fisheries.

[Marc Garneau, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Westmount, QC]

As you know, the Navigation Protection Act, or now the Canadian navigable waters act, and before that the Navigable Waters Protection Act, is one of the oldest acts in the country.

I just want to make the point that, as you said, I have a great deal of power. I take that job extremely seriously because of the importance of the common right of Canadians to have access to navigation on our waterways.

As I said, we have added further dimensions to it. It was intended as an act to cover the issue of navigation when it was originally created.

Now, to address your point about an environmental trigger, there is, through Bill C-69 and through the impact assessment process, the possibility of triggering environmental—and not just environmental, but as well other—concerns that may be expressed, whether with respect to health, whether with respect to community—

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Minister, I know you're fully aware that you have a great power. You have the unilateral power over navigation. It's a unilateral federal power, so unless you make a decision to protect a navigable river, there is no other recourse.

Your government also committed to strengthening this act, as well as other environmental laws.

There are definitely a lot of concerns that have been raised about the changes made by the Conservatives to this act, but there are equally a lot of concerns about this bill. One is that this Bill C-69 in its entirety has 800 clauses. One of the concerns that is being raised is that the impact assessment law does not include potential impacts to navigable waters as a trigger.

Prior to the changes made by the Harper government, there were two major triggers for federal environmental assessment: one was potential impacts under the Fisheries Act, and the second was under navigable waters. The third, but always confusing, was impacts to the rights of indigenous peoples.

Why has a decision been made not to include in the proposed impact assessment act, under clause 7, a trigger of a potential impact to navigable waters? Why is there a completely separate impact assessment process for navigable waters?

[Marc Garneau, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Westmount, QC]

I am concerned about future generations as well, as we go forward, and that is why I am making the changes that are necessary.

In order to just complete, if I may, you said this bill should be split. I believe your party made that request to the Speaker, and the Speaker ruled that this bill did not have to be split because it was a bill that dealt with impact assessment. That was ruled on by the Speaker, and that is why this part, the Canadian navigable waters, constitutes a part of a very important bill, C-69, dealing with impact assessments on the environment.

[Marc Garneau, Liberal, Minister of Transport]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Madam Chair and honourable members, I am pleased to meet with the committee today to talk about Bill C-69, an act to enact the Impact Assessment Act.

Canada is fortunate to be surrounded on three coasts by the Pacific, Arctic, and Atlantic Oceans, and is also home to countless lakes and rivers. I have had the pleasure of travelling coast to coast to coast to see these waters first-hand, and the special pleasure of being able to see the vast network of lakes, rivers, canals, and oceans that form our great nation from space. I can tell you that even from space, you can clearly see that lakes, rivers, and other water bodies are a key element of our transportation network.

I have also had the pleasure of hearing from Canadians about their passion for boating, be it in their canoes, kayaks, sailboats, motorboats, or larger vessels.

There can be no doubt that Canada relies on all of its navigable waters for recreational use and for the movement of goods and services. Indigenous peoples also exercise their rights in these waters.

Canadians want to ensure that navigation on these waterways can be protected now and in the future, including on our heritage and longest wild and free-flowing rivers. They expect that their public right of navigation is being protected.

When I was appointed Minister of Transport in 2015, the Prime Minister gave me the mandate to review the Navigation Protection Act with a view to restoring lost protections and incorporating modern safeguards. After an extensive review and consultation process, we are now proposing to amend the Navigation Protection Act and create the new Canadian navigable waters act to fulfill this commitment and better protect the right to travel on all navigable waters in Canada.

The new Canadian navigable waters act is the product of more than 14 months of consulting with Canadians, which began with a study of the previous government's changes by the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities.

Madam Chair, I would like to take this opportunity to thank the standing committee for the time it dedicated to this study and for its recommendations. The standing committee's work provided a solid foundation for the new Canadian navigable waters act.

The proposed Canadian navigable waters act was also informed by the views of indigenous peoples, provinces and territories, industry, recreational and environmental groups, and the general public. Waterway users have told us clearly that they want oversight on all navigable waters in Canada, more transparency and clarity around processes and decisions, greater partnership opportunities for indigenous peoples in administering navigation protections, and observance of the need for processes to remain efficient and predictable.

The proposed Canadian navigable waters act addresses these concerns. The act will contain a new requirement for approval of major works that significantly impact navigation on all navigable waters, such as large dams or other works, and authority for the Minister of Transport to regulate obstructions on all navigable waters.

Madam Chair, the government is committed to open, accessible and transparent processes. It is a question of public trust.

The Canadian Navigable Waters Act would provide better rules that will deliver greater transparency about proposed projects that could affect navigation, to make it easier for Canadians to have a say in projects that concern them.

We recognize that, to participate in decisions, Canadians need to know about projects before they are built. The Canadian Navigable Waters Act would require that project proponents notify and engage with potentially affected communities and waterway users before construction of a project takes place on any navigable water.

Should this early engagement leave unresolved navigation-related concerns for works, the government would now have the ability to review these concerns and require the proponent to seek an authorization if appropriate. This new resolution process would give Canadians a better and more modern way to raise navigation concerns for a project proposed in any navigable lake or river in a more efficient, timely, and modern manner.

The act would also require that the department establish a new public registry to house project information and information on decisions. This would help communities stay informed, participate in decision-making processes, and access information over the long term.

The Canadian Navigable Waters Act also provides for an improved, more inclusive schedule, allowing a layer of extra oversight to be provided for navigable waters where it is needed most, including those of particular importance to Canadians and indigenous people.

I must recognize the critical role the navigable waters have in supporting the indigenous peoples of Canada and their ability to exercise their rights. We have heard that water is critical to their way of life, and the Canadian navigable waters act has been proposed to further our goals for reconciliation in a number of ways, but most importantly, to facilitate partnerships between Canada and indigenous peoples in administering the proposed act within their traditional territories.

The proposed act supports a strengthened relationship with indigenous peoples based on recognition of rights, respect, co-operation, and partnership that is responsive to indigenous peoples and that aims to secure their free, prior, and informed consent. The act would require consideration of and protection of indigenous traditional knowledge and the consideration of any adverse effects that decisions may have on indigenous rights.

We also recognize that stronger navigation protections are only of value to Canadians if they can be robustly enforced. That is why the Canadian Navigable Waters Act would include new modern enforcement powers and stronger penalties.

Madam Chair, the proposed Canadian Navigable Waters Act is an important element of the proposed new impact assessment system that will protect our environment, our fish, and our waterways, while rebuilding public trust and respecting indigenous rights. This new system will require a rigorous assessment of a full range of impacts for projects that have the potential to pose a significant risk to the environment in areas of federal jurisdiction.

Furthermore, the proposed changes to the Fisheries Act will restore protection measures for all fish and fish habitats and create new fisheries management tools to enhance the protection of species and ecosystems. This broad new system will consider a whole range of potential impacts for any project designated for review—not just on the environment, but also on communities, health, indigenous peoples, and jobs. Decisions under the Canadian Navigable Waters Act will be fully integrated into this new impact assessment system.

To sum up, this proposed legislation will provide navigation protection for all navigable waters as a significant contribution to the new impact assessment system. It will also create more accessible and transparent processes, making it easier for indigenous peoples and the public to engage in projects that affect their communities and to resolve navigation issues of concern to them. Our navigable waters are the common heritage of all Canadians, and the right to travel on them must be protected. The proposed new Canadian navigable waters act will do this.

Thank you.

[The Chair (Mrs. Deborah Schulte (King—Vaughan, Lib.)), Liberal, Deb Schulte]

I'm going to bring the meeting to order. I'd like to get the meeting under way. The minister has to be out of the room at 4:30, and we have our industry panels coming in.

I want to welcome the minister.

Thank you very much, Minister Garneau, for joining us today with your team. We're very much looking forward to your statements, and it is great to have you kicking off your portion of Bill C-69. It's great to hear what you have to say.

We'll have a quick round of questioning. We're probably going to get only one round. You're all going to get your six minutes, but you may want to share that time with other members so that everybody can have a chance to ask a question. I know there is an eagerness for that.

I'm going to open the floor right now to the minister.

Oceans Act

[Terry Beech, Liberal, Burnaby North—Seymour, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to start by addressing the statement that we misrepresented the actual progress that has been made with regard to marine protected areas. Up until the last election, less than 1% of our oceans and marine ways were protected, despite the fact that we are five years into a 10-year commitment to get to a protection level of 10%. Our government has doubled down our efforts and now has reached a point of 7.75% protection, representing hundreds of thousands of square kilometres of new protection, which I know for a fact Canadians are proud of.

Also with regard to transparency, what we will see, not just in the changes to the Oceans Act in Bill C-55 but also in the changes in Bill C-68 to the Fisheries Act, and Bill C-69, is that our government is sticking to and increasing our commitment to provide transparency. In the Fisheries Act, for example, a registry is being created. This is to make sure Canadians have all the tools they need to understand what the government is doing so that they can hold us to account. It is also to make sure people who are doing projects, whether big or small, have certainty around timelines and the like. That is the kind of transparent work that our government continues to do on these important bills.

World Water Day

[Fin Donnelly, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, on World Water Day, I rise to speak about the importance of protecting Canada's lakes and rivers.

In 2012, the Conservative government gutted the Navigable Waters Protection Act. During the 2015 federal election, the Liberals promised they would immediately reverse stripped environmental protections and create new environmental safeguards.

Almost three years later, the Liberals finally introduced Bill C-69, the Navigation Protection Act, which falls considerably short of what the Liberals promised during the election campaign. In fact, the minor changes introduced in the bill make little or no difference for the protection of 99% of our waterways. Instead, Canadians will be forced to fight the government on a case-by-case basis to protect each lake, river, creek, or stream.

On World Water Day, I hope the government and all MPs will acknowledge the importance of water to Canadians and pledge to conserve, protect, and restore watersheds across our great country.

[Darren Fisher, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Thank you, ministers, for being here. I know our committee certainly appreciates your appearance.

Madam Chair, I have one question, and then I would like to share my time and give Ms. May the opportunity to have a few minutes to speak to the ministers as well.

Ministers, back home in Nova Scotia, the Halifax Port Authority administers about 260 acres of federally owned land situated at multiple points around the navigable waters of beautiful—I am a little bit biased—Halifax harbour.

I'd like to know more about how Bill C-69 would change the way ports conduct their assessments and whether this may mean a strengthened oversight for projects on port lands.

I also would like to know if there is a possibility that Bill C-69's assessment of projects could be conducted by the agency itself.

[Mike Bossio, Liberal, Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON]

Thank you, Minister, for your patience and for the decorum that you've exhibited here today. We appreciate it.

Your mandate is to restore public trust in the environmental assessment, to provide meaningful public participation, to ensure that decisions are based on science, and to advance reconciliation through nation-to-nation co-operation with indigenous peoples.

I have a group of questions, and they are aimed at determining whether, or to what extent, those goals are actually satisfied in Bill C-69 and whether further amendments are going to be needed.

First, why are the five public interest factors for ministerial cabinet decisions, found in clause 63, merely considerations? For accountability purposes, why are they not the mandatory basis for decision-making?

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Thank you, Chair. I have one very quick question for the Minister of the Environment.

Will this committee and the public receive the project list before our review of Bill C-69 completes, and before third reading proceeds?

[Mike Bossio, Liberal, Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON]

Ministers, thank you very much for being here this afternoon. I very much appreciate it.

Having gone through provincial terms of reference and the environmental assessments process multiple times, how does Bill C-69 ensure that the IA process is not just one of checking off boxes? You know, consulted with indigenous groups, check; consulted with local residents, check; received technical briefs from opponents, check.... At the end of the day, none of the consultation briefs, in my experience, were taken seriously, or considered or reflected in the final project deciding the design or alternatives.

How does Bill C-69 ensure that all public input is considered, reflected, or acted upon? Does Bill C-69 ensure that the IA process is not simply a checking boxes routine?

[Joël Godin, Conservative, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Can you let me know when I have one minute left in my time? I am going to share the time with Mrs. Stubbs.

Madam Minister, Mr. Minister, and the senior officials, my thanks for being part of this morning's exercise.

I was pleased to hear the Minister of Natural Resources say that he was happy to sit down with the Minister of Environment and Climate Change. I completely agree with that approach. Now, beyond the approach and the image, we must work together to attain concrete results.

Madam Minister, in your presentation, you said that Bill C-69 is intended to ensure that scientific data are considered, that indigenous people are consulted to find out their interests and their opinions, that public opinion will be able to be expressed, that groups that want to provide information to the process can do so, and so on.

Let me lead by example. Following a request from the Department of Environment, I led a consultation in my constituency of Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier. I have sent you the information.

I am having a hard time assessing the consistency of the entire process. At second reading in the House, there is a time allocation motion. You want to hold consultations and make everyone happy. But here you are actually limiting the participation of parliamentarians in the debate.

Madam Minister, can we hear your comments on the paradox that is jumping out at us?

[Robert Sopuck, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

Quite clearly, the minister is simply unable to provide a number, which is clearly ridiculous. When I ran the environmental program at a paper mill, we installed a waste-water treatment plant and we knew exactly how water quality would improve because of the installation of that plant. What you're telling Canadians here is that they will be asked to pay a $50 carbon tax—probably increasing over time—and there is absolutely no measurement of what the environmental effect will be. That's basically what I'm hearing, and that's fine.

I now would like to address the issue of competitiveness. What I heard from both ministers is simply beyond belief in terms of how this will help Canada's competitiveness. It will help to destroy it. In fact, my first job as a young fisheries biologist was doing pipeline assessments in the Mackenzie Valley. Twenty-five years of process on that potential project killed that project, and now we have impoverished communities all along the Mackenzie Valley because that pipeline was not built. Bad process kills projects.

For example, on February 9, 2018, Steve Williams, the CEO of Suncor, said that Suncor was to shun major new projects amid Canada's “difficult” regulatory environment, and we're one of Canada's major oil companies and we're not investing here anymore....

I have a paper here: “Pipeline shortage to cost the economy $15.6 billion this year”. Maybe you wouldn't run into so many deficits in your budgeting if you allowed the economy to actually proceed and create income. In terms of the legal review of Bill C-69, in the legal Daily publication, the headline reads, “Bill C-69 aims to expand and speed federal reviews, but lawyers doubt process will be faster or cheaper”.

Quite clearly what your government is doing is severely constraining the development of Canada's natural resource industries. You're reaping the remnants of the good governance under Stephen Harper, but that will quickly dissipate. How will you ensure investors with a process like this? Why do you think someone like Steve Williams has decided to shun Canada in terms of investing?

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Thank you, Minister.

Now, I'm going to repeat that you've often said that the economy and the environment go hand in hand. I've gone through Bill C-69 with a fine-tooth comb. It addresses many of the environmental challenges that projects that fall under the ambit of the act will face. Nowhere is there any reference to economic benefits or anything compelling the agency or the review panel to actually consider the economic benefits for Canada.

Despite the rhetoric we hear from you and your government, it appears that in fact the economy and the environment don't go together. This legislation, which addresses economic projects that drive prosperity in Canada, doesn't in any way address the economic benefits that would accrue to Canadians as a result of these projects.

[Jim Carr, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

I would add that this is a different world from what it was in 1959 when the National Energy Board was first established. This is a different world even from what it was when the first idea of building pipelines was developed by proponents and the process of regulatory review was established a number of years ago.

This bill reflects that changing world, and we believe it reflects it in a way that recognizes and honours the three pillars of responsible economic development in the energy sector, and that is that we want good projects to go through. We understand that the expansion of export markets is of vital Canadian interest. Ninety-nine per cent of Canada's exports of oil and gas go to one country, the United States. We don't think that's healthy in the short term or the long term.

We started looking at what results we want and we concluded that we want responsible, good projects to go through in a timely way while respecting the environmental realities and our international and domestic obligations and our constitutional and moral obligations to indigenous peoples. We think that all three of those pillars and the values that underlie them are reflected in Bill C-69.

[John Aldag, Liberal, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

Ministers McKenna and Carr, thank you for coming to our environment and sustainable development committee to speak to Bill C-69. Like many of my colleagues, I believe this may be the most important piece of legislation that our government passes, and we have passed some very important legislation since forming office.

As a British Columbian with strong roots in the Prairies, I feel strongly that the current legislative and regulatory framework for projects has in the past decade failed our country, including our economy, our environment, and, as importantly, our indigenous peoples. We're seeing this through the conflict that's arisen, as an example, under the Kinder Morgan pipeline project that affects British Columbians, Albertans, and Canadians.

As a government, we added interim principles to address the shortcomings of the legislative and regulatory process left by the previous government for the Kinder Morgan pipeline project, and yet conflict remains.

Can each of you summarize for our committee and for Canadians who are following these hearings how Bill C-69 will provide clarity and certainty in the process for assuring future projects under federal jurisdiction, how this legislation will provide better protection for our environment, and how future assessments will include the input of Canadians, including indigenous Canadians with whom we, as a country, have a special relationship that requires special consideration? If you could each take about two minutes to provide your summary, that would be appreciated.

[Jim Carr, Liberal, Minister of Natural Resources]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Good morning, everybody.

Let me begin by thanking you for your work. Really, the work of committees is at the heart of our democracy. The fact that it's in the centre of this building is a metaphor for how important it is.

I want to say that for ministers to come together and be accountable in front of members of Parliament from all parties is one of the most important things that we ever do. I look forward to the exchange, which I am sure might have its spirited moments, and that's the way it should be.

I also want to begin by picking up on something that Minister McKenna said, right at the end of her remarks. That's the importance of Bill C-69, to ensure that the economy and the environment continue to go hand in hand.

It makes sense for us to appear together. I'm sure both Conservative and Liberal members will remember that it wasn't always this way. There was a time when ministers of the environment and natural resources would probably not sit at the same table. When they sat around even their own partisan tables, things were always a bit tense. We believe in 2018 that there is one conversation.

Also, the minister and I were together in Vancouver last week at the GLOBE conference, giving keynote addresses and participating in panel discussions during round tables with indigenous people, with environmentalists, with leaders of industry and clean technology. It didn't matter in front of what audience, our message was always the same, the message that we're delivering this morning.

I think it is a powerful message that Canadians see the Minister of Natural Resources and the Minister of the Environment and Climate Change sharing the same table, demonstrating that the economy and the environment are not competing interests, but equal components of a single engine that drives innovation, jobs, and economic growth. That has been our government's vision from day one, and the results speak for themselves.

Last year, Canada added more than 420,000 jobs, most of them full-time positions, and many of them in our resource sectors.

Alberta, a province hit hard by three years of low oil and gas prices, is among those posting large job gains, adding 55,000 new positions. Its economic output per capita is again leading the country.

As one University of Calgary professor told the Canadian Press last month, Alberta's economy is recovering faster than almost anyone could have expected. On the other side of the country, Quebec is essentially at full employment, with labour shortages reported in some parts of the province.

It's not surprising, then, that Canada led all G7 countries with 3% growth last year and that our unemployment rate has been hovering around 40-year lows. Such robust growth is difficult to duplicate year after year; we know that. We also know that governments are a part of it; job creation is really due to the actions of individual Canadians.

Economies have their cycles, but the message is clear: we can create good jobs for the middle class and those working hard to join it, with a future built on the three pillars of economic prosperity, environmental protection, and indigenous participation.

Bill C-69 is a big part of our vision. It has the potential to transform our natural resources sector by providing project proponents with clearer rules and greater certainty, by allowing local communities to have more input, and by ensuring indigenous people have more opportunities in the development and oversight of our nation's vast resources.

That includes our energy sector, which is why we are proposing a new Canadian energy regulator, or CER, to replace the existing National Energy Board. We want to create a new federal energy regulator with the necessary independence and the proper accountability to oversee a strong, safe, and sustainable Canadian energy sector in the 21st century.

It would be a federal regulator with a modern, effective governance structure, one that includes a chief executive officer who would be separate from the chair; a board of directors that would provide strategic direction, distinct from a group of independent commissioners responsible for adjudication; and at least one member of both the board and the commissioners who would be first nation, Inuit, or Métis.

That's what the Canadian energy regulator act proposes to do.

Under our plan, timelines for reviews would also be shorter, more predictable, and better managed. Project reviews would not exceed two years for major new projects, and not more than 300 days for smaller ones, all the while continuing to recognize the expertise of the offshore boards and the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission.

At the same time, the CER act would make public engagement more inclusive. For example, the NEB's existing “test for standing” would be eliminated to ensure every Canadian has an opportunity to express his or her views during project reviews. Participant funding programs would be expanded to support new activities.

We also want to advance reconciliation by building and funding the capacity of indigenous peoples to participate more meaningfully in project reviews, as well as recognizing indigenous rights up front, confirming the government's duty to consult, requiring consideration of traditional indigenous knowledge, and aiming to secure free, prior, and informed consent.

The new CER would have more powers to enforce stronger safety and environmental protections, including new powers for federal inspection officers.

All of these enhancements would ensure that good projects can proceed without compromising the environment or engagement, allowing our energy resources to get to markets in responsible, timely, and transparent ways.

Canadians have painted a similar picture for our country in this clean growth century through the hundreds of thousands who joined our ongoing Generation Energy discussion to imagine Canada's energy future, the hundreds more who travelled to Winnipeg last fall for our two-day Generation Energy forum, and the thousands who participated in 14 months of public consultation to draft this legislation. Canadians have told us that they want a thriving, low-carbon economy. They want us to be a leader in clean technology, and they want an energy system that provides equal opportunities to Canadians, while minimizing harm to the environment. They also understand that we're not there yet. We need to prepare for the future, but we must also deal with the present by providing energy that they can count on when they flick on a light or fill up their cars.

A modern energy regulator is essential to that, and to ensuring all Canadians have continued access to a safe, affordable, and reliable supply of energy. That has been the role of the National Energy Board since 1959. Under its almost 60-year-old mandate, the NEB has been responsible for making recommendations and decisions on projects, overseeing the safety and environmental performance of facilities, and engaging Canadians.

Today the NEB regulates approximately 73,000 kilometres of international and interprovincial pipelines and another 1,400 kilometres of international power lines, as well as all of our Canadian imports and exports of energy.

Unfortunately, the NEB's structure, role and mandate have remained relatively unchanged since the National Energy Board Act was first introduced in 1959.

That has created some challenges at a time when energy regulation should be evolving and adapting with the changing times, and when a modern energy regulator is central to integrating Canada's energy, economic, and climate goals. The new CER would help to address all of that.

For example, it would introduce a more inclusive approach to reviewing energy projects by incorporating a full impact assessment of key factors. As well, the CER's mandate would cover emerging energy developments such as the regulation of offshore renewable energy, and with legislative timelines, the new CER would significantly strengthen investment certainty. So will the new transition period that is based on clear rules, the earlier engagement to identify public priorities, the clearer direction on indigenous consultations, the coordinated activities between the CER and the new impact assessment agency, and the continued government responsibility for final decisions.

Bill C-69 is ambitious, but achievable. It is legislation designed for the Canada we know today, and the Canada we want for tomorrow, a Canada where we create the growing middle class we all want, while protecting the planet we all cherish for generations to come.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

[Catherine McKenna, Liberal, Minister of Environment and Climate Change]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I certainly appreciate the opportunity to speak today about this important piece of legislation, and I really appreciate the hard work of all the committee members.

The legislation we introduced earlier this year aims to restore public trust in how the federal government makes decisions about such major projects as mines, pipelines, and hydro dams. These better rules are designed to protect our environment, improve investor confidence, strengthen our economy, and create good middle-class jobs. They will also make the Canadian energy and resource sectors more competitive.

With these better rules, we are working to build on Canada's strong economic growth and historic job numbers.

Together with my ministerial colleagues, I have been working very hard to deliver this government's promise to regain public trust in environmental assessment and regulatory processes to help get resources to market in a sustainable way and introduce new, fair processes. As a first step, in January 2016 we introduced an interim approach and principles that will guide decision-making for projects that were already in the system.

These interim principles clearly show the following.

First, decisions will be based on scientific and probative data as well as on sound traditional indigenous knowledge.

Second, we are going to listen to the opinion of Canadians and of their communities.

Third, indigenous people will be consulted in a significant and respectful way.

Fourth, decisions will consider the effects of the various projects on the climate.

Fifth, no project that has already been assessed will have to start the process from scratch.

Our government did not stop at interim principles. In June 2016, we launched a comprehensive process to review existing laws and seek Canadians' input on how to improve our environmental and regulatory system. This review was guided by two expert panels, two parliamentary committees, as well as extensive consultations with indigenous peoples, industry, provinces and territories, and the public.

The expert panel established in August 2016 and tasked with examining environmental assessment processes, travelled for four months to consult Canadians across the country. After that, the committee submitted to me a report that included a summary of the comments received and the way in which they had been examined, together with recommendations to improve federal environmental assessment processes.

The government then held a public comment period on that report and engaged with stakeholders and indigenous peoples. Over 1,000 online comments and 160 submissions were received, and over 100 in-person meetings were held with thousands of Canadians from across the country.

We then took all the information and input that we heard and released a discussion paper that outlined the government's proposed path forward, based on the feedback from the expert report and the submissions provided. This too was the subject of extensive consultations, both online and in person.

On February 8, I introduced Bill C-69, which is the culmination of all that input. The proposed legislation responds to what we heard from provinces and territories, indigenous peoples, industry stakeholders, environmental groups, and the public, addressing what matters to Canadians. Bill C-69 will introduce a modern assessment process that protects the environment, supports reconciliation with indigenous peoples, attracts investment, and ensures that good projects go ahead in a timely way to create new jobs and economic opportunities.

First, assessments will consider not just environmental impacts of projects, but also the social, health, and economic impacts they may cause. When making decisions, we will consider whether companies are using the best available technologies and practices to reduce impacts on the environment, and a gender-based analysis will ensure any potential impacts unique to women, men, or gender-diverse people are identified and addressed.

Under the proposed framework, decisions will be based on whether a project with adverse effects is in the public interest. A public interest determination will be guided by several factors, including the project's contribution to sustainability, impacts on indigenous peoples and their rights, and mitigation measures that are proposed to reduce the project's impacts on Canada's ability to meet its environmental obligations and climate change commitments.

Proactive strategic and regional assessments will allow the potential cumulative effects of development projects to be evaluated. In addition, the decision-making process will be more enlightened.

We also heard that project reviews need to be predictable, provide regulatory certainty, and work across multiple jurisdictions. The new legislation proposes to have one agency, the impact assessment agency of Canada, lead all major project reviews and coordinate with indigenous peoples. One project, one assessment, is a guiding principle to drive co-operative reviews and avoid duplication.

New tools are available for the impact assessment agency to work collaboratively with jurisdictions and with life-cycle regulators such as the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission and the proposed Canadian energy regulator to ensure this principle is met.

A new early planning phase will engage jurisdictions, potentially affected indigenous peoples and communities, to ensure that key issues are raised early so that project proponents know at the outset what is expected from them.

Thanks to this early planning and participation stage, we will also be able to encourage the public on the front lines to participate in the dialogue. That stage will also allow us to simplify the process, something that is positive for everyone.

For the first time, there will now be a legislated timeline for decision-making for assessment. These timelines will ultimately shorten project assessments, allowing proponents to spend more time investing in project development to build the Canadian economy.

Indigenous peoples are leaders in conservation. They've long been stewards of the environment and have rights related to the management of land, waters, and wildlife. They have knowledge of the land that spans generations. We will advance Canada's commitment to reconciliation and get to better project decisions by recognizing indigenous rights and working in partnership from the start.

We will require traditional indigenous knowledge to be considered, as well as available scientific and other data.

Indigenous governing bodies will have more opportunities to exercise their powers and responsibilities under the Act to enact the Impact Assessment Act.

In addition, we will increase funding to the Participant Funding Program to support indigenous participation and to strengthen capacities linked to impact assessments.

We also heard that Canadians want to ensure that assessments are grounded in science and that the process is transparent and accessible. The bill proposes a number of measures to address these issues. Greater public participation opportunities will be provided, including during the early planning phase and during the impact assessment process. All Canadians will be assured the ability to participate.

An online registry will provide access to information on specific environmental assessments of projects, including the scientific data used in the impact assessment.

Summaries of the facts supporting the assessments, written in plain language, will be made available in order to ensure strong participation.

Assessments and decisions will be informed by the best available science, evidence, and indigenous traditional knowledge. Scientific evidence will be tested, and where findings are uncertain, third party reviews will be available.

The bill also proposes to increase transparency by requiring that decisions, with detailed reasons, are made public so that Canadians can better understand the rationale behind the decisions.

As you know, the proposed impact assessment act was informed by extensive consultation, and I am committed to continuing the dialogue.

Since the bill was tabled in the House of Commons, I have met with stakeholders from industry and from environmental groups, with representatives of indigenous peoples, and with my provincial counterparts in order to obtain their reactions on what has been proposed in the bill.

The better rules we announced this year reflect what we have heard overwhelmingly and consistently from Canadians over the past year and a half.

They want a modern environmental and regulatory system that protects the environment, supports reconciliation with indigenous peoples, attracts investment, and ensures that good projects can go ahead, which creates good, middle-class jobs and grows our economy. As we always say, the environment and the economy go together.

Thank you, Madam Chair, for the opportunity to speak to the committee today. I would like to thank the committee for the collaborative approach that you have taken in your work around this table to date, and I look forward to the outcome of your review of this important piece of legislation.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

That's great. We'll take those on board, and we'll put that for consideration at subsequent meetings. Thank you very much.

I want to welcome the ministers to the environment and sustainable development committee. We are kicking off our evaluation of Bill C-69, 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. We're very, very appreciative of having both ministers here with us today.

I will turn the floor over to you for 10 minutes each. Then we'll go into our rounds of questioning.

Minister McKenna, I think you would like to go first. The floor is yours.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

I am giving notice of a motion that I think you will find interesting:

That, with regard to the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development's consideration of Bill C-69, 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 (a) the Chair of the Committee write, as promptly as possible, to the Chairs of the following standing committees inviting them to consider the subject-matter of the following provisions of the said Bill: (i) the Standing Committee on Natural Resources, Part 2 Canadian Energy Regulator Act, Part 3 Pipelines, Part 4 International and Interprovincial Power Lines, Part 5 Offshore Renewable Energy Projects and Offshore Power Lines, Part 6 Lands, Part 7, Exports and Imports, Part 8 Oil and Gas Interests, Production and Conservation, Part 9 and Part 4 at General; (ii) the Standing Committee on Transport and Infrastructure, Part 3 Navigation Protection Act; (iii) the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development, Standing Committee on Natural Resources,Standing Committee on Transport and Infrastructure, Part 4, Consequential and Coordinating Amendments and Coming into Force as the provisions may be relevant to each respective parts of bill C-69; (b) each of the standing committees, listed in paragraph (a), be requested to convey recommendations, including any suggested amendments, in both official languages, in relation to the provisions considered by them, in a letter to the Chair of the Standing Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development, in both official languages, no later than 9 a.m. on Monday, April 30 2018; and (c) any amendments suggested pursuant to paragraphs (b) shall be deemed to be proposed during the clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-69, and further provided that the members of the Standing Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development may propose amendments notwithstanding the recommendations received pursuant to paragraphs (b).

Thank you very much. I have copies that I can circulate.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

I would like to table a motion.

The motion is as follows:

That, with regard to the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development's consideration of Bill C-69, 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—

Financial Statement of Minister of Finance

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for Beaches—East York for splitting his time with me. More specifically, I would like to thank the government House leader. As one can imagine, it has been a difficult thing for me over the years to obtain speaking slots on important bills. I went too quickly on my last occasion, where the Liberals offered me a speaking slot, because it was on the application of time allocation on Bill C-69, an omnibus bill. It was certainly egregious to have applied time allocation and to have made the bill omnibus in the first place. However, there is no question, and it bears repeating, that the spirit of co-operation to members on the other side such as myself, who are not likely to give a speech cheering the government on, means even more when the decision is made that a Liberal member of Parliament will split speaking time to allow me to speak to the issues before us.

In the instance of this budget speech, there is much to like in this budget. Before I get to that, let me just step back.

This is a concern I have been raising for years, going back to my election in 2011. It has been some time since we have had a budget that one could honestly describe as a budget. By this, I mean in the old days, say before 2006, when I would go to budget lock ups on behalf of Sierra Club of Canada. I would open the budget and would be able to find a budget for every department in the Government of Canada. I would be able to see what it spent last year and what it would spend next year. It would be easy to verify if there was an announcement in the budget for x hundreds of millions of dollars for thus and such, if it was new money or reprofiled old money. We no longer know any of these things. There is no budget in the budget.

It is a fundamental principle of Westminster parliamentary democracy that Parliament controls the public purse. That is now a laughable anachronism. It is anachronistic to imagine we actually control the public purse because we cannot see into it. I started describing this in the Harper era, but the budget every spring should be called the “annual, thick, spring brochure”. It is very thick and it is full of good ideas and lots of good rhetoric. However, it does not tell us the revenue coming in, the expenses going out, and the bottom line. This is something a basic budget in every household knows.

We know we have a deficit and we know the bottom line. Beyond that, we have to wait for supplementary estimates and other things that receive very cursory review in this place.

I make the plea again. I have noted things in this budget that are truly puzzling, but they are not explained. At page 324, the Government of Canada is projecting virtually no increase in spending over a five-year period. There is no explanation for it, but it is almost magical that right now there will be $95 billion in spending this year. In 2023, it will be $97 billion. There is no explanation offered for how, over a five-year period, spending stays virtually flat.

I could be wrong, and we need to dive into this as there may be more explanations, but it appears to me, from reading the charts on page 311, as if there are $20 billion found in savings to pay for some of the new programs in this budget, but it is not explained. There really is not much budget in the budget.

However, there are good things that will be funded, and I welcome those.

Let me mention the good things before I dive into the things that worry me.

The most important to the conscience of the nation is the commitment to fully implement the order of the Human Rights Tribunal in relation to the treatment of first nations children. This is fundamental, it is important, and it is stated in the budget that it is $1.4 billion in new money.

I congratulate the Minister of Indigenous Services, our former minister of health. I hope she has all our support in the task ahead. She has been very candid in laying out the challenges of providing clean drinking water, ensuring every indigenous person has access to affordable housing, that every indigenous child has the same access to health care and educational opportunities as non-indigenous children. This budget goes a long way to make that so. Money alone will not do this. We need to see this in a non-partisan light as fundamental.

Another thing I was pleased to see, after two years of Liberal administration, is this. I have been disheartened to see our commitment to overseas development assistance falling. We have a commitment, which came to us from our former prime minister, Lester B. Pearson, that every country on earth that is a donor country should contribute 0.7% of its GDP, gross domestic product, to overseas development assistance. The closest we ever got to that was under former Prime Minister Mulroney. We went to 0.45%. When the new Prime Minister came in 2015, we were at 0.26%, and we dropped to 0.24%. Therefore, I am really pleased to see in this budget the first new money to overseas development assistance, a $2 billion commitment over the next five years.

I am pleased to see changes to reverse some of the damage done by the Conservatives to those recipients of seasonal employment insurance. Many industries are seasonal, and people who have to get employment insurance more than once in their lifetime are not recidivists who need to be punished. They are people who work in the tourism or forest industries. We need to revisit that, and I would encourage the government to go further than it has.

Of course, we have seen a substantial commitment to the expansion of biodiversity protection to nature, and some money to the science of studying whales. I hope we are not studying them as they move to extinction. However, $1.3 billion over five years certainly must be noted and noted with approval.

We have seen improvements in this budget in commitments to actual science.

I will never forget the words of the 2012 budget. It is terrible that I remember verbatim the words of Harper's budgets. In 2012, it was stated that money from the federal government to science must be for projects that were “business, land, and industry-friendly”, in other words, no such thing as intellectual inquiry and basic fundamental research. Therefore, I am pleased to see that is gone by the board.

Most important, I am pleased to see a commitment, with no money, to pursue pharmacare for Canada. However, the Minister of Finance's comments immediately afterward suggests the Liberals do not understand the commitment.

Where am I disheartened, and I am fundamentally disheartened by this budget?

One thing we had been promised for small business was more clarity around the change in rules. It is true, and credit where credit is due to the Minister of Finance, that the controversial anti-small business provisions were eliminated. However, there is still a lot of uncertainty for small business about how income sprinkling will work. It said to not apply to those in the service sector, but that is not defined. Therefore, I would urge the government to consider giving the one-year delay in implementation so family businesses can sort this out, because it is not all that clear. They could be penalized a few years down the road when they are audited.

A second area where it was not quite what was promised is this. In October there had been a commitment that past savings accumulated by small business and family-held businesses would not be prejudiced by this, that there would not be retroactivity. However, when we really look at these passive investments, they are not really grandfathered, because they can boot that small business out of the small business tax rate and have a really large impact on their effective taxes. That needs to be revisited.

However, I am really horrified by the fact that in the year 2018 we have a budget with nothing new to address the climate crisis. In fact, we have some weakening of resolve. We were told initially that there would be a carbon price in place by 2018. The language we now find on page 151 of the budget is, “The Government will review each system”, referring to provincial systems, “and implement the federal system in whole or in part on January 1, 2019.” This is a very significant commitment, virtually the only one made by the Liberals in their election platform, and it is slipping into the distant horizon.

I also worry because another commitment made in the platform has not been acted on, which is to eliminate fossil fuel subsidies. We cannot keep subsidizing with tax dollars the very thing we are trying to reduce, which is the emissions of fossil fuels.

I was disappointed with respect to the budgets in 2016 and in 2017. In 2018, I am almost giving up. The Liberal government is capable of looking back to the budget of 2005, which was full of great climate programs, such as eco-energy retrofits, very popular job creators to fight greenhouse gases. We need to have an energy-efficiency revolution. I cannot find it here. We should be building the east-west electricity grid. It is not mentioned here. We are not seeing the programs to incentivize getting renewable energy for homeowners and small business, or for energy-efficient vehicles and electric vehicles. I ask the government to look again. It has to do more on climate.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Minister, in those bills that were put forward in Parliament, Bill C-68 and Bill C-69, the language around free, prior, and informed consent was specifically not in there. This is language you're committing to that will be committed to in law. That would actually change even the work that's been done in Bill C-68 and Bill C-69. If you're committed to the implementation and putting that language in, why is that language of free, prior, and informed consent not in Bill C-68 and not in Bill C-69?

Access to Briefing on Bill C-69—Speaker's Ruling

[The Speaker, Geoff Regan]

I am now prepared to rule on the question of privilege raised on February 26 by the hon. member for Abbotsford concerning briefings held by the Minister of Environment and Climate Change in relation to Bill C-69, 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.

I would like to thank the member for Abbotsford for having raised this matter, as well as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and the member for Berthier—Maskinongé for their comments.

In raising the matter, the member for Abbotsford explained that within an hour of having introduced Bill C-69 in the House on February 8, a briefing on the bill was offered to the media and to stakeholders. This briefing was more than five hours before members of Parliament were offered the same. With members unable to respond immediately to media and stakeholder inquiries, he contended that this was a profound act of disrespect on the part of the minister that constituted a contempt of the House.

The parliamentary secretary disagreed, saying that the minister had not deliberately tried to impede members’ access to information on the bill and would offer additional briefings, if requested. Noting that the bill was not debated in the House until days later and that departmental briefings are beyond the purview of the Chair, the parliamentary secretary said that no breach of privilege had occurred.

As I already noted, the Chair is concerned that this question of privilege was not brought up at the earliest opportunity. Members know that in determining a question of privilege prima facie, the Speaker must consider whether the two requisite conditions have been met; that is, whether the matter was raised at the earliest opportunity and whether, in the Speaker's view, it constitutes, at first view, a breach of a parliamentary privilege.

With respect to timeliness, House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, states at page 145:

...the Member must satisfy the Speaker that he or she is bringing the matter to the attention of the House as soon as practicable after becoming aware of the situation. When a Member has not fulfilled this important requirement, the Speaker has ruled that the matter is not a prima facie question of privilege.

In this particular case, I note that between February 8, the date of the alleged contempt, and February 14, the date on which the member raised his complaint in the House, several sitting days had elapsed during which the member was aware of the situation that gave rise to his question of privilege. This is cause for concern for the Chair, particularly as the member did not provide an explanation as to why the condition of timeliness was not satisfied. While I am prepared to be flexible on this point this time and not dismiss his question of privilege for this reason alone, it is a condition that must be taken into account in assessing the alleged question of privilege.

Now, turning to the substantive elements of the member’s question of privilege, there have been past instances where members have raised concerns about departmental briefings. Speaker Milliken, in a ruling on November 21, 2002, stated, at page 1742 of the Debates:

It is very difficult for the Chair to intervene in a situation where a minister has chosen to have a press conference, or a briefing or a meeting and release material when the Speaker has nothing to do with the organization of that....The same thing goes for those who are invited to meetings and for the way people are notified of meetings. Whether there is one meeting, or three or four, makes no difference. In my opinion, it is impossible for me to intervene in this case.

It is equally important to understand that the House’s right to first access to legislation was respected in this instance since, as the member acknowledged, Bill C-69 was introduced in the House before either of the briefings in question took place. Thus, this situation cannot be characterized as one of premature disclosure of a bill, even if Members were excluded from the first briefing, that of the media.

The member stated that a contempt may occur if, by diminishing the respect it is due, the House’s ability to perform its functions is impeded. Speaker Sauvé, in a ruling on October 29, 1980, at page 4214 of the Debates, said:

…while our privileges are defined, contempt of the House has no limits. When new ways are found to interfere with our proceedings, so too will the House, in appropriate cases, be able to find that a contempt of the House has occurred.

This points to an essential truth that to constitute a contempt, it is necessary to demonstrate that a proceeding in the House, or the ability of members to fulfill their parliamentary duties, was in some way impeded. In response to a similar complaint, on December 4, 2014, at page 10168 of the Debates, my predecessor reminded the House:

That is not to say, however, that every proceeding or activity related to delivering or accessing information by members implicitly involves their parliamentary duties.

He also had cause to state on March 3, 2014, at pages 3429 and 3430 of Debates:

When a situation is brought to the Chair’s attention, it must be assessed within the somewhat narrow confines of parliamentary procedure and precedents. ...the Chair must assess whether the member has been obstructed in the discharge of his responsibilities in direct relation to proceedings in Parliament. ...a member who is preparing to participate in proceedings—whether through a technical briefing or some other means—is not participating in the proceedings themselves. While such preparation is no doubt important, it remains ancillary to, rather than part of, Parliament's proceedings.

That being said, as Speaker, I understand the member for Abbotsford's frustration and the sense of disrespect that he feels in not having had priority access to a briefing on such a complex piece of legislation. In fact, the Chair not only finds this matter to be unfortunate, but also entirely avoidable. While no parliamentary rules may have been broken or privileges breached, respecting members’ needs for timely and accurate information remains essential. There is no question that the work of members of Parliament is made more difficult without expeditious access to legislative information. Given this reality, there is a rightful expectation that those responsible for the information should do their utmost to ensure members’ access to it. Not respecting this expectation does a disservice to all. It is particularly disconcerting when the government gives priority to the media over the members of Parliament.

Having examined the evidence and given the limited parameters of the Chair in this matter, I cannot conclude that the House or its members were unable to fulfill their parliamentary duties. Accordingly, I cannot find that the question raised constitutes a prima facie contempt of the House, and thus there is no case of privilege.

I thank all honourable members for their attention.

Impact Assessment Act

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Hope, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I noticed that the member for Kildonan—St. Paul was not in the House for the previous vote on the Canada summer jobs, and came into the House well after the vote on the motion on Bill C-69 had started. I believe if you check with the member, she would indicate her vote should not count for this vote.

The House resumed from March 2 consideration of the motion that Bill C-69, 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 be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-69 is the latest monstrosity to come out of the Liberal government, a bill that will cripple Canada's energy industry and eliminate tens of thousands of good-paying jobs across communities in Canada, particularly in my home province of Alberta. This entire process is yet another concession made by the Liberal government to radical environmental groups that will not stop until Canada's oil and gas industry is eliminated.

I reject the argument that Canada's National Energy Board was not capable of making independent decisions based upon critical public evidence and public interest. Canada's environmental assessment process is among the best in the world, because for generations, Canadians have placed a high emphasis on environmental stewardship and responsible energy development. This symbiotic relationship has allowed Canada to be innovative with environmental regulation and solutions. Our energy industry as regulated under the National Energy Board has resulted in such benefits as hundreds of billions in investments, tax revenue, jobs, and long-term prosperity in our country.

The new Liberal environmental review process threatens that foundation and our long-term prosperity. In fact, we are already seeing that happen today. Our oil prices have doubled over the past year and yet Bloomberg reports that in 2017, foreign direct investment dropped by 27%. This is primarily due to the toxic political environment that has scared away investment from Canada's energy sector.

The always shifting goalposts of the Liberals' social licence requirements are dictated by a United States funded radical environmental lobbies. They are not acting in our country's interests; they are acting in their own self-interest. While Canada appears to have been assigned to the role of a national park for the enjoyment of Americans, the United States has pushed forward with groundbreaking LNG projects and a rapidly expanding export market for shale petroleum. Canada is a hostage to American interests as our lifeblood flows down into America at a dramatic discount, only to be repackaged on American tankers at a premium market price. Canadians are doing the work and we are letting Americans get all the profits.

We live in an age of globalization and our decisions affect our neighbours. However, the Liberals have gone too far and I do not believe that other countries have the right to interfere in our energy regulation. Would the Americans, the Chinese, or the Russians entertain delegations from Canada that opposed their energy development? Never, and yet the Liberal government has eliminated the standing test, which allows only those with a direct connection to the project to have a say. Allowing foreign citizens and foreign interests to influence our energy industry policies and whether or not our regulators will allow infrastructure to be built is an attack on Canadian sovereignty.

In closing, Bill C-69 undermines our nation. It would consign us to the status of a national park for the enjoyment of people around the world, to the detriment of Canadian citizens, people who need jobs and the prosperity and stability that is created by a responsible energy sector.

It is time for the Liberals to go back to the drawing board and create policies and regulations that will actually get shovels in the ground so that our critical LNG and pipeline projects can get the support they deserve.

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech.

I gather that my colleague analyzed Bill C-69 through the lens of her own bill, which I hope I will get a chance to speak on, because it has some interesting aspects and raises questions.

To come back to the essence of Bill C-69, at the beginning of her speech, my colleague welcomed the idea of the Liberal government putting or wanting to put more emphasis on science. However, what happened under the Conservatives and is now continuing to happen under the Liberals is that every bill gives the ministers additional powers. In this case, although we do want to put more emphasis on science, the minister will have the power to save or kill a project with a snap of her fingers.

Is there not something of a disconnect between intention and execution?

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Mr. Speaker, during the member's speech, she alluded to the fact that the minister could, on a whim, essentially approve or veto a pipeline project. That seems to be part of the problem. In as much as Bill C-69 is a framework, what it is lacking are rules that would apply consistently to all major pipeline projects, and this creates uncertainty and a whole host of other issues.

I was wondering if the hon. member could comment on that.

[Monique Pauzé, Québec debout, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-69 has some interesting aspects, but it also raises questions and does not do much at all for Quebec.

For example, the government wants to put science back into decisions on the environment. That is great, especially after our experience with the Harper government, which saw science as the enemy. Obviously, this is a vast improvement. It shows there is an intention to protect the environment, but as always with the Liberals, intentions are more talking points than anything else. That does not amount to much unless it is written in black and white in legislation.

I will provide some examples. Do members remember the electoral reform promise that was dropped like a hot potato, or the promise to defend supply management at any cost?

The Liberals did not even want to renegotiate the transpacific partnership to defend our farmers. The government has not even changed its greenhouse gas reduction targets. Instead, it adopted the Conservatives' targets, which are well below those of all other countries.

I cannot get into every one of these issues in the few minutes that I have, but I will raise a few points that are important for Quebec.

In its current form, this bill is the opposite of what Quebeckers want. I firmly believe that instead of imposing these requirements on Quebec, the government should be doing the opposite, that is, it should let Quebeckers decide how to manage their province and protect their environment.

That was the reason why on February 1st I introduced Bill C-392, which goes in the opposite direction of Bill C-69. We have a very simple vision: what happens within our borders should be decided by us.

We firmly believe that citizens must have a say on projects that can negatively impact their health and their environment. I am definitely thinking of energy east.

The federal government is being pressured by companies that have interests in these projects. The government must balance the competing interests of provinces. I am thinking of the interests of Quebec as opposed to those of oil producing provinces. I am also thinking of British Columbia, which is in a dispute with Alberta over the Trans Mountain pipeline.

In both cases, one province assumes all the risks without reaping any of the benefits, while the opposite is true for the other province. It is unfair that citizens must suffer the consequences.

I will give another example. In 2016, IMTT-Quebec Inc. moved to the Port of Québec and polluted the entire neighbourhood of Limoilou with red dust. The residents of Limoilou found this dust on their balconies and clotheslines.

The Superior Court ruled that since the company was located in the Port of Québec, which is a federal jurisdiction, Quebec's environmental quality act did not apply. That was ridiculous. The air pollution was a nuisance for everyone in Limoilou and also compromised their health. We are talking about the health of parents and our children, not an administrative technicality. Not at all.

It is really quite simple, it is the provinces that have the expertise. Quebec must manage its health services. It is Quebec that pays the price for pollution and, even worse, it is the people who suffer the consequences. That is why Quebec must have the final say.

The complete opposite would be happening with Bill C-69. The federal government always has the final say. Even if a project is rejected by the Bureau d'audiences publiques sur l'environnement du Québec, or BAPE, the new impact assessment agency of Canada and the Minister of the Environment and Climate Change can always ignore our experts' findings and approve the project anyway, all under the guise of the national interest. I think we can all agree that this term is a little vague. It means nothing and can be invoked at any time, in any way, and for any project.

To us, national interest means the health and safety of our citizens. To others, it may mean corporate profits. The government will be able to make its decisions based on its own interests and the interests of its friends, as we have seen in other cases.

I am not the only one who is concerned about this arbitrary aspect of the bill. Greenpeace contacted me to say it is concerned about the vague assessment criteria that the government will use. The problem is that the government is creating an agency that ultimately serves no purpose, since the minister will reserve the right to override it.

The government claims that Bill C-69 will fix existing problems and help the environment, but with a little lobbying from wealthy corporations, destructive and polluting projects may still be allowed to move forward. The bill really emphasizes consulting the public, scientists, and indigenous peoples, but the minister will be able to approve a project even if the public is against it. Even if the entire province of Quebec opposes a project, the minister will still be able to move forward with it, invoking the national interest.

On another note, the bill missed the opportunity to remove a provision in the current act that makes Hydro-Québec subject to Ottawa. In the current legislation, Hydro-Québec must go through the National Energy Board to build international and interprovincial lines. Hydro-Québec must also have a permit to export electricity, and the Canadian government reserves the right to prevent Quebec from exporting its electricity surpluses.

The future Canadian energy commission will decide whether Quebec can export its surpluses after considering the impact those exports will have on the provinces, verifying whether anyone else has shown an interest in that electricity, and determining whether Hydro-Québec is making an effort to offer its electricity to Canadian buyers. Ottawa also reserves the right to refuse for other reasons. In short, Hydro-Québec is under federal control.

I have to say that the government has never abused that law in the past, but it could well decide to use the legislation to its advantage, thus harming Quebec. The minister could have taken the opportunity presented by this reform to remove all of those provisions. Unfortunately, she did not do so.

In short, this bill takes the wrong approach for Quebeckers. By giving herself the right to approve a project regardless of the results of the agency's assessment, the minister is negating any positive effects this bill might have had. The government could impose projects such as energy east on Quebeckers and they would have no way of preventing it. That is unacceptable. It is Quebec that has all the expertise and is assuming all the risks. The government needs to listen to Quebec and respect its choices. It is simple. This is simple, and I will repeat: what happens within our borders should be decided by us.

I would point out that the government did not even change its greenhouse gas reduction targets, which are the same as the Harper government's. That is why this bill is just an empty shell in our opinion, and that is why we will be voting against it. I encourage all my colleagues to vote in favour of my Bill C-392, which will give Quebec and the other provinces their say on projects that could have an impact on their environment and their people.

[Mike Bossio, Liberal, Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, a primary focus of our government has been achieving the balance between the environment and the economy going together. I wonder if the member could expand on how Bill C-69 would help us accomplish that balance.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Environment and Climate Change has stated that one of the objectives of Bill C-69 is to increase investor confidence. I would ask the hon. parliamentary secretary to square that statement with the fact that the Minister of Environment, at the planning stage, has the ability to kill a major energy project before any economic analysis is done, before any environmental analysis is done, and before any scientific analysis is done. In other words, the minister can kill a pipeline project on the basis of a purely political decision. Could the parliamentary secretary explain just how that increases investor confidence?

[Pam Goldsmith-Jones, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Repentigny.

I am very pleased to join this important debate. Bill C-69 is a generational opportunity to realize the full promise of Canada through the resources of our land and the resourcefulness of Canadians. It is an opportunity to achieve a lasting balance. This is not easy, and this debate is most timely and most important.

We are at a pivotal moment. Climate change is the great challenge of our generation. The natural environment signals this to us, of course. It also plays a critical role in assisting us to manage climate change, and it will be the measure of the balance we achieve. The natural environment restores us in our daily lives. Our ingenuity and investment in clean technology and innovation are fundamental to the way forward as we continue to build success in the natural resources sector.

As we debate this bill, a new wave of resource development is before us, with more than 650 billion dollars' worth of projects either under construction or planned over the next 10 years. This is not insignificant. This means good, sustainable jobs and new economic opportunities for the middle class. Therefore, it is imperative we have a modern environmental and regulatory system, one that is open, transparent, and effective, a process that views public engagement as an asset, that is critical toward earning public confidence in government decision-making

This is what Bill C-69 achieves. Bill C-69 is based upon better, clearer rules in order to recognize and achieve greater protection of the environment, fish, and waterways; the centrality and importance of positive relations between Canada and indigenous peoples; collaboration between the federal government and the provinces and territories; more investment in Canada's natural resource sector; and finally, the importance of earning public trust every day.

Bill C-69 strives to integrate Canada's economic and environmental goals to advance indigenous reconciliation and to ensure that worthy projects go ahead in an environmentally sustainable manner. This cannot be accomplished on our own. We can work together better. The provinces and territories are key regulators. Indigenous peoples are central to Canada's economic development. Project proponents make key investments in our innovation economy. Bill C-69 anticipates and accommodates multiple players and multiple imperatives. It is an integrative bill that provides a strong foundation for decision-making.

Beginning with a commitment to the fundamental principle of one project, one assessment for major resource projects, Bill C-69 creates the way in which all parties are part of one process. Industry is asking for environmental processes that are timely and rooted in science, and regulatory reviews that are efficient and offer greater certainty. The general public and indigenous communities are asking for early and meaningful engagement to identify priorities. All of this would be coordinated by the new impact assessment agency.

Canadians are right to expect that impact assessments consider more than environmental impacts. This has been a long-standing criticism of the previous approach, and we should be proud of sustainability advocates from coast to coast to coast. Bill C-69 proposes that major new resource projects be viewed in the wider context of economic, social, and health impacts of ongoing development, as well as environmental impacts. The bill also expands the opportunities for Canadians to participate in the process, improving public funding for citizens to do so, and communicating our own efforts and decisions in language that is easy to understand and readily available.

Bill C-69 would help to renew and improve Canada's relationship with indigenous peoples, supporting new partnerships by improving the consultation process and ensuring clear accountabilities between indigenous peoples and the crown.

Finally, Bill C-69 would enhance how science and data are weighed, and how this contributes to a decision.

We believe that Bill C-69 responds directly to the reasonable expectation on the part of the general public, that policy-making should incorporate input from thorough public consultation, expert reviews, parliamentary studies, and open deliberation.

Bill C-69 is about environmental assessments and regulatory reviews that make resource development better and more sustainable. Our proposals for modernizing the National Energy Board build on this. Under the Canadian energy regulator act, the NEB would be replaced by a new federal energy regulator that would remain headquartered in Calgary, where it belongs. The new federal regulator would be based on the principles of modern, effective governance, more inclusive public engagement, greater indigenous participation, stronger safety and environmental protections, and more timely decisions.

The modern regulator would reflect Canada's changing energy needs and desires with an expanded mandate to review traditional and renewable sources of energy, including offshore, wind, and tidal. It would have the required independence and proper accountability for our clean-growth energy future in the 21st century.

Drawing upon the best energy data and the latest trends to inform its decisions, the new regulator would operate with shorter timelines for project reviews. For major new energy projects, the proposed Canadian energy regulator would collaborate with the new impact assessment agency to provide its own recommendations in a single final report. For all other projects, the new federal energy regulator would retain its existing responsibility to review.

Ultimately, our goal is to ensure that sound resource projects are built. We believe that this calls for a modern environmental and regulatory system that promotes common values and ensures shared benefits. Canada can achieve the public good by ensuring that projects are built in a responsible, timely, and transparent way, creating good jobs and a stronger middle class. We are rising to the challenges of our times by driving economic growth, building investment certainty, advancing indigenous reconciliation, and achieving sustainable solutions. We are restoring public confidence and combatting climate change. We are creating inclusive prosperity.

I am very proud to support this legislation, and I hope all members will join our government in approving better rules to build a better Canada.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-69, 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, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Joël Godin, Conservative, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak after my colleague from St. Albert—Edmonton in Alberta. As we will see, Quebec and Alberta can get along well. He is my seatmate and an extraordinary, thoughtful man. He works for his constituents and his province, and I take my hat off to him.

I hope my colleague has convinced the Liberal government to improve Bill C-69, 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. That is the title of the bill, and it sure looks like an omnibus bill to me. I will explain why as I try to figure it all out.

Part 1 enacts the Impact Assessment Act and repeals the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012. Among other things, the Impact Assessment Act....

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.

Part 3 amends the Navigation Protection Act....

One might say that this 360-page bill is as clear as mud. The provinces are unable to comment on the bill because it is too big and too complex. The Liberals say that they want to improve the process. They have to do better. This government wants to paint us as the big bad Conservatives. The Liberals try every day to label us as wanting to destroy the planet. No one in the official opposition gets up in the morning with the intention of destroying our planet. We want to improve it and be smart about it.

I would like to remind my colleagues from the Liberal Party, the window-dressing party, the social media party, that the previous government introduced a number of measures to combat climate change.

We created the clean air regulatory agenda. We established new standards to reduce car and light truck emissions. We established new standards to reduce emissions from heavy-duty vehicles and their engines. We proposed regulations to align ourselves with the U.S. Working Group III standards for vehicle emissions and sulphur in gasoline. We sought to limit HFCs, black carbon, and methane.

I can see my colleague from Mégantic—L'Érable smiling. My Conservative colleagues from Alberta, Quebec, and every other province work well together. That is how we build a country.

I will continue with my list. We established new rules to reduce emissions from carbon-based electricity generation. We implemented measures to support the development of carbon capture technologies and alternative energy sources. We enhanced the government's annual report on the main environmental indicators, including greenhouse gases. Another thing that will likely surprise the members opposite is that we even abolished, yes abolished, tax breaks for the oil sands, so the Liberals really need to stop talking about Alberta's dirty oil.

All of these measures resulted in a good environment report card for Canada and confirmed the reduction in greenhouse gases under the previous government. Do members know that, in 2014, the last full year our government was in power, we reduced greenhouse gas emissions? Canada's share of global emissions decreased by more than 15%.

We were unable to do more after 2014 because we were no longer in office. The Liberals took power. What did they do? Under the Conservatives, our share of global emissions fell from 1.9% to 1.6%. Those results were not obtained under the Liberals. We, the Conservatives, reduced greenhouse gas emissions.

We must have done something right because the Liberal government adopted our greenhouse gas emissions targets. They say that we do not consult scientists, but they probably consulted the same scientists that we did. They took the findings of our scientists and the findings of theirs to come up with the same target. As a Conservative MP, I established a circular economy committee in my riding of Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier. Yes, we Conservatives are working to protect our planet in various ways in our own ridings.

When the Liberal government talks about western Canada's dirty oil, I would like to remind the group of members opposite that it was prime minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau who created the oil sands. Yes, members heard me right. It was Pierre Elliott Trudeau. It was probably to pay for Canada's deficits because it was under Pierre Elliott Trudeau that Canada's deficits were created. Who is the son of that prime minister? It is the current Prime Minister of Canada. It is the son of Pierre Elliott Trudeau. Is this son about to do the same thing? Is he legalizing marijuana to try to address his spiralling debt? The father, at least, would not have emboldened the party's friends and organized crime.

I recently said in the House that the government was very naive to think that the Liberals' bill would stop organized crime groups from selling marijuana. What were the papers reporting this weekend? Prices are already dropping. I hear about this every time I go out to talk to constituents in my riding of Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier. People think this is irresponsible. This is not the right way to go about it.

To get back to the topic at hand, this Liberal government was elected on all kinds of promises to environmental groups, and now, 28 months later, it has brought forth a mouse. There is nothing in this bill to improve effectiveness and there is nothing to provide for reasonable time constraints, so that we can proceed with smart sustainable development.

Allow me to take a sip of water. This is a natural resource. We must protect it and develop it intelligently.

Furthermore, this law to protect the process creates a sense of insecurity. Even if the scientific assessment determines that a developer's project complies with environmental standards, the project will still not be guaranteed, since the minister has discretion over whether the project will move forward and can make this decision based on her mood or on the relationship this government has with the developer.

Why not be clear and provide criteria that are properly defined and based on scientific data? Why put the power in the Liberals' hands?

We saw what they were capable of with the Liberal bagmen and the friends of the Liberal government who are investing in pot. The Minister of Finance carried out a few transactions, and once he had made his money, he changed the law on pension plans. Does anyone remember the Gomery commission?

In conclusion, this bill is nothing but window dressing. The Liberals changed the formula for calculating the duration of the process. Honestly, this is just window dressing. It is not for real. It is irresponsible. The government sets deadlines and requests scientific studies, but at the end of the day, the minister has all the decision-making power. We agree that improvements need to be made to the way things are being done. Yes, we do agree. As I said earlier, we Conservatives want to protect our planet. We need to consider new processes for protecting the environment.

Once again, the government is tabling a document with blatant disregard for the objectives we seek to achieve. Like so many departments and files, this bill is all about appearances.

Can we balance sustainable development with economic development? Why this charade? Why do we not put effective mechanisms in place to protect our resources and develop them intelligently?

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the comment from the hon. member for Trois-Rivières that the Liberals like to say one thing to appeal to their base and then almost always do quite another.

With respect to the Navigation Protection Act and changes that are provided for in Bill C-69, I would say that I do have concerns with those measures. Perhaps they are not necessarily the same concerns that the hon. member for Trois-Rivières has, but the bottom line is that the changes being brought forward in Bill C-69 with respect to navigable waters are going to make it more difficult, and there are going to be more roadblocks and more impediments to getting critical infrastructure built.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am going to be splitting my time.

I rise to speak to Bill C-69, a massive 400-page omnibus bill. Canadians will remember during the last election when the Prime Minister put his hand over his heart and made the solemn declaration to Canadians that he would never ever introduce anything resembling an omnibus bill, but here we are yet again with another omnibus bill from the government.

It gets even worse because the government has seen fit to invoke time allocation after two hours of debate. The government has invoked time allocation after just two hours of debate on a massive, complex bill that is going to rewrite the environmental assessment process, and that is going to have a profound impact on jobs and the economy. I say shame on the government for doing that.

In the short time that I have to speak to the bill, I am going to be focusing on part 2 of Bill C-69, this massive omnibus bill. Part 2 establishes a new approval process for energy projects, including pipelines. It is going to have a profound impact on my province of Alberta and thousands of my constituents who live in St. Albert and northwest Edmonton whose jobs are tied directly or indirectly to the energy sector.

The Minister of Environment , in speaking to Bill C-69 in this House, said that the objectives of the bill include improving public confidence in the approval process, strengthening investor confidence, making the energy sector more competitive, growing the Canadian economy, and creating good, middle-class jobs. That is what the minister said. Who could disagree with those objectives? Those are laudable objectives.

The only problem is that Bill C-69 will achieve none of those objectives. Rather, Bill C-69 is about keeping energy in the ground. That is what Bill C-69 means. I know that for the Prime Minister's principal secretary and chief political strategist, Gerald Butts, keeping Canadian energy in the ground is something he has long fantasized about.

Bill C-69 means gutting an assessment process based on science and evidence that balance environmental and economic issues with an assessment process that is politicized from top to bottom. How is the process politicized from top to bottom?

Let us start with who gets to make submissions to the regulator. Who has standing? Presently, in order to have standing before the National Energy Board, one must be impacted directly by a project, or one must have relevant knowledge or information about a project. Bill C-69 eliminates that criteria and replaces it with any member of the general public.

This means that it is open season. It is an invitation to Gerald Butts' friends and the Minister of Environment 's friends, and for the radical anti-oil sands movement to take over the process, to control the process with their ideological and political agenda to shut down Alberta's oil sands, a movement that is funded by U.S. money, filled with activists who are in many cases nothing more than shills for foreign interests.

The Minister of Environment says that is going to restore public confidence in the assessment process. What it is really going to do is completely politicize the process and result in delays in the approval process.

The Minister of Environment says that we should not worry about delays, because Bill C-69 is going to streamline the approval process, that it is going to reduce the time to see major projects approved. When the minister makes that assertion, she is conveniently overlooking the fact that Bill C-69 would impose a planning process before the assessment process begins. The planning process would be a six-month process, 180 days. When that is taken into account, it will not reduce the time; it will add about 100 days to the time in which a project could be approved.

If all we were talking about was an additional 100 days, we probably would not be having this debate, but it gets worse. The minister, on the basis of a political whim influenced by George Soros funded activists, can extend the timeline. She can extend the delay.

It gets even worse than that. The minister can kill a project at the planning stage before any scientific analysis is done, before any environmental analysis is done, before any economic analysis is done. In other words, the minister can kill a pipeline project purely on the basis of a raw political decision.

The minister says that this is going to increase investor confidence. Is that some kind of a joke? It is not going to increase investor confidence. It is going to do the opposite. It is going to drive billions of dollars of investment south of the border and to other energy-producing jurisdictions that allow their energy sectors to grow and thrive.

Make no mistake about it. If Bill C-69 is passed, not one major energy project will be approved in this country. Before another major pipeline project is killed, it is imperative that this Parliament kill Bill C-69.

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

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley is absolutely right. To me, the question suggests its own answer, which is that had we not been put through a process that is not part of that history of environmental review that I reviewed, the National Energy Board had no expertise in doing reviews.

This allows me to mention another carry-over bad aspect of Bill C-38 into Bill C-69. The time limits that were put into Bill C-38 are how the National Energy Board determined that it would not allow people like me as an intervenor to cross-examine Kinder Morgan's witnesses, which led to an abuse of process and not really getting to the facts of the matter.

That aspect of time limits has not only been continued in Bill C-69, but the time limits have also been shortened.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today on the traditional unceded territory of the Algonquin people, and thank them for their generosity. Meegwetch.

I also want to thank the hon. member for Davenport for splitting time with me. The circumstances are not those that led me to feel particularly relieved or happy, but I am grateful for the civility of giving me 10 minutes. Otherwise, I would not be able to speak at all, because of the egregious use of time allocation on an omnibus bill. I never expected to see omnibus bills with time allocation after the change in government.

This is three bills put together: the National Energy Board Act changed, the Navigation Protection Act changed, and the Environmental Assessment Act overhauled. The fourth piece that had been running along in tandem, through the great judgment of the Minister of Fisheries, is Bill C-68. It stands on its own, and it is an excellent piece of legislation.

However, with the time available to me, I am going to be able to speak only to the impact assessment piece of this omnibus bill, which I am afraid falls below any standard of acceptability and should trouble deeply any Liberal who stood in this place and voted against Bill C-38 in the spring of 2012. We stood together with every single Liberal MP and every single New Democrat against the destruction of decades of environmental law. How that process has been captured by the same mentality, values, and principles that led to Harper destroying these acts, so we now have a repackaged version of those same principles of eroding environmental assessment, is something that the Liberal caucus should try to figure out. I hope it will lead to changes in committee.

With the time available to me, I will quickly review my background in environmental law. I happen to be an environmental lawyer. It is an even weirder fluke that when I was 22 years old and a waitress and cook, I participated in the very first environmental assessment panel hearing in Canadian history, in 1976. It was in Cape Breton. It was about the Wreck Cove hydroelectric plant. I have participated in dozens since.

Ten years after that, I was in the office of the Minister of the Environment. I was actually a senior policy adviser, the person who took the quest from Environment Canada from a wonderful senior civil servant named Ray Robinson, who headed the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency in those days, and we took to the Privy Council Office the request to legislate. Up until then, we had been operating under a guidelines order that required environmental reviews, but it was a bit uncertain in its full rubric. Some people thought it was a guideline and therefore was not binding. We got permission to legislate. Subsequently, I resigned from my job with the Minister of the Environment when the minister violated the environmental assessment review process guidelines in approving dams without permits.

This is just to say that I did not only recently come upon my commitment to proper and thorough environmental assessment in Canada. It is non-partisan and goes back decades.

Now, what happened under Bill C-38 was the repeal of our environmental assessment process and its replacement with a rather bogus process. We can compare Bill C-69 to the bogus process in Bill C-38 in 2012, or we can compare it to what is needed. It is all well and good for the federal Liberals to say to us today that they did a lot of consultation. It is true. There were 21 cities with public hearings, and over 1,000 people showed up to a superb expert panel on environmental assessment. The question before us today is why their recommendations were ignored.

I am going to read, one at a time, the recommendations that were ignored. There are many. In previous debate in this place, when the bill was first put forward, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment claimed I was wrong in my assertion, which I think is fact, that the environmental assessment expert panel was ignored. It is really important to understand the point of environmental assessment. I will just go back a bit and say that this is one of the pieces of Harper-think that have survived into Liberal-think.

Environmental assessment has never been about a green light or a red light, yes or no, or whether the project goes ahead or not. It is primarily a tool for good planning. In the entire history from 1976 to 2012, when Harper repealed the act, only two projects were ever given a red light. I will say that again. From 1976 to 2012, with the thousands of environmental reviews that were done, only twice did a federal-provincial environmental review panel say that a project was so damaging that it could not be mitigated and the panel had to say no.

It has primarily been about studying a process thoroughly, studying a project thoroughly, and deciding that we can mitigate the damage if only the proponent would agree to better scrubbers or change the location slightly. In the course of the review process, many projects were improved, the damages mitigated and reduced, and in the end a much better project was accepted. This has never been primarily about how to get to yes or no faster. That is what Harper thought, and apparently that thought process has somehow infested some ongoing decision-making process within government. An environmental assessment is about good planning.

Until 2012, the Environmental Assessment Act said that the purpose was to get in and review a project, “as early as is practicable in the planning stages of the project and before irrevocable decisions are made”

Let me quote what we heard from the expert panel on what an environmental assessment should contain. It did agree that it should be called “impact assessment”. That is one piece they could claim.

Page 5 states that the impact assessment authority “should be established as a quasi-judicial tribunal empowered to undertake a full range of facilitation and dispute-resolution processes.” This has been ignored. Members have heard about the expert panel the government sent around the country, with a thousand people participating and with 800 submissions. Their recommendation was not to have ad hoc panels where people are pulled in, with different projects always having different panels, but to develop expertise through a quasi-judicial tribunal. Ironically, this was also the advice from the red book Liberal platform of 1993.

The second point is to have time limits and cost controls that reflect the specific circumstances of each project, not the current one-size-fits-all approach, which was an innovation under Bill C-38. This is a key point. Projects need to be reviewed whether they are big or small. The effect of Bill C-38, which Harper brought in, is this. The previous era had seen approximately 4,000 projects a year reviewed, most of them with paper-screening exercises that did not take much time. After Bill C-38, the number shrank from 4,000 a year to fewer than 100 a year. The Liberals have gone with perpetuating the fewer than 100 a year. This is how they have done it, by ignoring this advice.

The panel stated that there should be a review when there are federal interests, and that “federal interests include, at a minimum, federal lands, federal funding and federal government as proponent, as well as”, and then there is a list: species at risk, fish, marine plants, migratory birds, indigenous issues, and so on.

This piece of legislation ignores anything except the project list. That was an innovation of Bill C-38. There are no law list reviews requiring that if the navigable waters act or the Fisheries Act requires a permit from the minister there be a review, and no requirement that when federal money is spent there be a review. That is the advice the government got from its expert panel, which it ignored.

The expert panel also said clearly that there should be no role at all for the National Energy Board, the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, or the offshore petroleum boards. It pointed out that “the federal system prior to 2012 had decades of experience with delegating final decision-making to the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission...and the [NEB]” without those agencies meddling in the environmental assessment.

What is happening under Bill C-69 is like a shell game. We are told it is one independent agency, except that when it is reviewing pipelines the panel must be comprised of people who are sitting members of the NEB, now called the Canadian energy regulator. If they are reviewing offshore petroleum operations in Atlantic Canada, the panel members must come from the offshore petroleum boards, which by legislation are required to expand offshore oil. It is an embedded conflict of interest in the legislation.

The atrocities continue, with respect to indigenous rights. How is it that the Minister of Fisheries can put before us Bill C-68, which has strong language to protect indigenous rights? Bill C-68, in section 2.3, “Rights of Indigenous peoples of Canada”, makes it clear that the act cannot derogate from indigenous rights. Section 2.4 states that it is the duty of the minister when making a decision to “consider any adverse effects” on the rights of indigenous peoples.

This piece of over-discretionary political masquerading of environmental assessment in Bill C-69 merely states that “the impact that the designated project may have on any Indigenous group” is a factor to be considered. As a former litigator, I can tell members that the courts do not regard indigenous rights as a factor to be considered as protecting indigenous rights.

This bill gets an F. At committee, let us please get it to a C+.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, at the northern and aboriginal affairs committee, we had natural resources officials there. We are currently studying Bill C-262, on the implementation of UNDRIP and how all Canadian law is going to have to live within the framework of UNDRIP. We asked the natural resources officials if they had considered whether Bill C-69 lived within that framework, and they had not. That was their answer.

I am just wondering if free, prior, and informed consent is to be held at all levels, particularly legislative, but also if the member thinks that Bill C-69 meets that threshold of free, prior, and informed consent.

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be happily splitting my time with the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands.

It is an absolutely great honour for me to rise in the House and speak on behalf of the residents of Davenport to Bill C-69. It has quite a long name, 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.

Davenport residents deeply care about the environment. They care about how we develop projects in this country that impact our environment. They care about how the Canadian government will be adhering to our Paris accord commitments. They have been asking me to show them the plan for how Canada will be achieving its targets, and I will be showing that to them very shortly. In Davenport we are doing our own bit as well in terms of trying to find ways to model a low-carbon, urban, sustainable community.

Back to Bill C-69, I am so pleased to have this opportunity to address the House regarding a legislative initiative that is at the heart of our priorities as a government: to ensure a sustainable future for Canadians. Our guiding principle is that a strong economy and a clean environment go hand in hand. We believe that we can harness our natural resources to create good jobs while fulfilling our duty as stewards of the environment.

Bill C-69 would introduce a review process that for major projects would strike a balance between protecting our environment and ensuring that good projects can be built and can create jobs for the middle class. Essentially, Bill C-69 would create a single agency, called the impact assessment agency of Canada, that would lead all impact assessments for major projects to ensure a consistent and efficient approach. The impact assessment agency of Canada would ensure that there were better rules in place to protect our environment, our fish, and our waterways; to rebuild public trust and respect indigenous rights; and to strengthen our economy. Let me spend the next few minutes telling members how.

We have to go back a little in time. The fact is that many Canadians no longer have faith in our previous environmental review process following changes introduced by the former government. That is why we made a promise to Canadians that we would review and modernize environmental assessment and regulatory processes. I am proud to say that we are delivering on that promise by bringing in better rules that will restore environmental protections and rebuild public trust in decisions about major projects. Building on what works, we have designed an assessment system that is clearer and more predictable and that allows good projects to go ahead sustainably.

We are a government that consults broadly. The proposed impact assessment act was not arrived at in isolation. It is the result of careful examination and extensive consultations with Canadians.

More than two years ago, our government launched a comprehensive review of federal environmental assessment and regulatory processes. This comprised four separate, but complementary, reviews. We looked at ways to improve federal environmental assessments, to modernize the National Energy Board, and to restore lost protections and introduce modern safeguards under the Fisheries Act and the Navigation Protection Act.

To that end, our government set up a four-person expert panel to solicit the views of Canadians from across the country. We also established a multi-interest advisory committee to support this work. The expert panel went to 21 cities, received more than 800 online and written submissions, and welcomed over 1,000 people at engagement sessions. We had extensive consultations with indigenous peoples and heard from the provinces and territories, industry, environmental groups, and the public.

We also took into account input from three other processes led by another expert panel and two parliamentary standing committees. We then prepared a discussion paper on the government's proposed path forward and solicited feedback. What did we hear? We heard from environmental groups, indigenous leaders, provinces and territories, businesses, and Canadians from communities across our country who told us that effective assessment must not only focus on avoiding negative impacts but must foster sustainability.

Stakeholders told us that there was a need for greater transparency and that assessments must demonstrate how public input informs decision-making. Project reviews must be grounded in scientific evidence as well as in indigenous traditional knowledge. Indigenous people want to participate as partners in the economic development of their territories. We heard that Canadians want to be more involved in our processes. Businesses need clearer and more predictable timelines, and decisions should be more open and evidence-based.

Let there be no doubt that the residents of Davenport also contributed their thoughts to the consultation process. They felt that the previous assessment process was not a good one, that there was not enough consultation with communities and indigenous groups, that there was not enough being done to protect nature, and in general that we needed stronger and fairer environmental assessment laws. I am happy to say that the new legislation incorporates and reflects not only the views of Davenport residents but of all Canadians who participated in the process. What we are proposing is a system that is more transparent, effective, and efficient for all concerned.

I will now highlight some of the principles that form the basis of Bill C-69.

First, we are adopting a broader approach based on the principles of sustainability. Canada has had a law in place since 1992 to ensure that the environment is taken into account as projects are considered for design and implementation. When first introduced, environmental assessment laws and regulatory processes had a specific focus on environmental impacts. Our thinking has greatly evolved since then, and we now understand that an assessment system must consider more than just the environment. It must take into account wider concerns, including the economic, social, and health consequences associated with proposed projects. The new act would do just that, and that is why the name of the act would change from the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act to the impact assessment act, reflecting a much wider range of effects we would consider as we reviewed projects for implementation and aimed to foster sustainability.

Second, the new process would be more efficient and more predictable. It would allow people to know where they stood. Projects would now go through an early planning and engagement phase during which potential impacts would be identified and discussed with the public, indigenous people, and the project proponent at the outset of an initiative. Timelines would continue to be legislated. Efficiencies gained through early planning would allow timelines for other phases to be reduced, leading to more timely decisions.

Third, we want to establish a new partnership with indigenous people. They are the most affected by the impacts of the projects, and we will ensure that we respect their rights and jurisdiction in the way decisions are considered.

Fourth, we want evidence to guide and inform all our decisions, so we will consider evidence of science as well as indigenous traditional knowledge as we move forward on these projects. The value of indigenous traditional knowledge cannot be underestimated, and we are determined to include indigenous people in every single project moving forward.

Fifth, we want to increase transparency. By transparency we mean openness that translates into removing barriers to public participation in the review process and making key project information openly available.

Finally, we want to take a truly big-picture view of impacts, one that improves our understanding of the cumulative effects of all projects in a given region. The new impact assessment would take this wider view through the increased use of regional assessments. Regional assessments would examine the effects of past, present, and future activities in a region. For instance, they might examine effects on biodiversity and species at risk and identify impacts on the rights and interests of indigenous people. They would provide decision-makers with a fuller and more complete picture of the context within which a project was proposed, allowing for a better understanding of the overall impact on the environment.

These are not mere operational changes we have introduced but rather are fundamental changes in the way we actually do business. I am very proud to be in this House speaking on behalf of Bill C-69. I believe that we have a wonderful new process in place, and I have a lot of confidence in the projects moving forward. I appreciate the opportunity to speak on behalf of the residents of Davenport.

The House resumed from February 27 consideration of the motion that Bill C-69, 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, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Brent Parker]

I'll add to that.

I have a different perspective on Bill C-69. As you heard from the first panel that was here, Department of Justice and CIRNA are leading the overarching approach with the principles guiding the governments writ large, but the way in which that has tangibly played out in a very real initiative is with the introduction of Bill C-68 and also Bill C-69.

with the principles guiding the governments writ large but the way in which that has tangibly played out in a very real initiative is with the introduction of Bill C-68 and also Bill C-69.

A number of different acts were all introduced as a comprehensive package. We worked on it very closely with NRCan, DFO, and Transport. There was horizontal coordination, a team, a lot of the elements that you highlighted in trying to ensure there's both an action plan that put it onto the table but that also is supporting it in the strategy going forward. There's enabling legislation but implementation and policy support will follow in a coordinated manner.

[Kevin Waugh, Conservative, Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK]

Bill C-69 builds engagement, co-operation, and collaboration with indigenous groups, but there must be consent in order to proceed with major projects.

Is that right or wrong that there must be consent?

[Terence Hubbard]

Genevieve mentioned earlier in her remarks a number of different areas where we're moving in that regard. First off, in terms of the review of projects currently underway, the government in January 2016 announced its interim principles on how it would approach reviews and the decision-making processes, including enhanced engagements and consultations with indigenous communities as part of that process.

Through the proposed Bill C-69, there are a number of steps we are proposing to take to further implement these commitments, including incorporating indigenous participation right in the government's mechanisms of the new regulator, mini-oversight, strategic oversight board, as well as in the roster of commissioners who would hear projects.

[Genevieve Carr]

The department is committed to implementing the principles of the UN declaration. We will continue to do that. As I noted in my remarks, we have work to do to continue to implement those principles and they will continue. We will do it through legislation such as Bill C-69, and we feel that we've advanced and started to implement some of the principles there. We will continue to do it through the development of our policies and programs as we go forward.

[Terence Hubbard]

I would say that throughout the development of proposals included in Bill C-69, we have been striving towards implementing all of the principles of UNDRIP and it reflected in some of the engagement and consultation processes that we embarked on as part of that process.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

You'd say that general application changes to the law have to go through free, prior and informed consent. Bill C-69 has passed those hurdles? Would you say that there's free, prior and informed consent on Bill C-69?

[Terence Hubbard]

It's embedded in the framework that we're proposing through Bill C-69 to ensure that impacts on aboriginal rights are considered part of the review process and part of any decisions taken by the government.

[Brent Parker]

Thanks for the question. You're right, they're in Bill C-69, when the impact assessment act is proposed. There is a new set of provisions, and they are certainly in line with, and in support of, the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

The agency has been evolving over time in terms of moving away from just a de minimis standard of duty to consult, and looking at going above and beyond that in terms of engagement with indigenous peoples. What the impact assessment act will do is institutionalize some of those practices. The early planning process that you mentioned is one of those places where there's an obligation on the agency to offer to co-operate with indigenous jurisdictions. There's also a mandated obligation for the agency to consult with indigenous groups, and to collaboratively develop what's called an indigenous engagement plan. That's something that would be regulated. That plan would be co-developed with those groups that are implicated in the process, and would drive the impact assessment process that would take place after that.

[Mike Bossio, Liberal, Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON]

I think that's pretty good.

Dominique, I would like to maybe have you speak to this as well, but really, through the lens of Bill C-69 and the standpoint of that early engagement process that will happen with indigenous communities, and indigenous communities participating directly and controlling, in some instances, impact assessment.

[Genevieve Carr, Acting Director General, Indigenous Policy and Coordination, Department of Natural Resources]

Good afternoon, and thank you for your attention.

I, like my colleagues, wish to acknowledge that we are meeting today on unceded Algonquin territory.

Thank you for the invitation to speak today to support your study of Bill C-262.

My name is Genevieve Carr. I am the acting director general of indigenous policy and coordination, a new unit in the Department of Natural Resources, which reports directly to the deputy minister and which was formed to support efforts to foster reconciliation with Canada's indigenous peoples.

I wish to acknowledge my colleague, who has joined me today, Mr. Terry Hubbard, who is the director general of the petroleum resources branch in the energy sector of Natural Resources Canada.

My remarks today will focus on some the areas where Natural Resources Canada is working to proactively ensure that our policies, programs and legislation align with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

My department is transforming its internal operations and culture, reviewing its policies and practices, and working across government to align with the principles, norms and standards of the United Nations Declaration.

We support Minister Carr—I should note there is no relation, despite our shared last name—in his role as a member of the Working Group of Ministers on the Review of Laws and Policies Related to Indigenous Peoples. We work closely with our colleagues across government to support horizontal engagement and policy initiatives, such as the permanent bilateral mechanisms established with national Inuit, first nations, and Métis organizations, federal responses to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's calls to action, and the recently launched engagement of a recognition and implementation of rights framework.

We are also advancing corporate change within our organization to increase cultural competencies of all staff within the department, and we are helping to transform the department so that it can become an employer of choice for indigenous Canadians.

Natural Resources Canada is changing how we work and partner with indigenous peoples, placing emphasis on creating lasting relationships that respect and recognize the rights of indigenous peoples. Examples include the department's Generation Energy dialogue on the shift to a low-carbon future, which was heavily shaped by its engagement with and perspective of indigenous peoples from across Canada.

This engagement is ongoing as the vision that grew from Generation Energy moves to being implemented. NRCan is driving inclusion of indigenous leadership in federal, provincial, and territorial fora, such as the Energy and Mines Ministers' Conference, and the Canadian Council of Forest Ministers, as well as international trade delegations to facilitate with jurisdictions that control many of the levers for resource development. The geo-mapping for energy and minerals program is another example that has allocated close to $1 million to northern indigenous organizations to develop tools and capacity to integrate science knowledge into decision-making by northerners, for northerners.

Natural Resources Canada is also taking measures to support self-determination through full and fair opportunities to indigenous peoples to participate in the natural resources economy. Some examples include the establishment of an economic pathways partnership to make it easier for indigenous groups potentially impacted by major pipeline projects to access existing federal programs, and help support job training and business opportunities. The indigenous forestry initiative supports forest-based indigenous economic development across Canada. This year it will provide over $2.5 million to indigenous communities and organizations for capacity and business development. The IFI is exploring options to move toward a shared governance model with indigenous peoples.

The green jobs science and technology internship program is starting to take action to target career-stream jobs for indigenous youth, recognizing the importance of opportunities for indigenous youth employment in the natural resources sector.

The interim approach for major project reviews allowed my department to enhance public and indigenous participation in projects undergoing reviews by the National Energy Board. As part of the interim approach, Minister Carr appointed a three-person panel, one member of which was indigenous, specifically to create opportunities to share views not already heard by government on the Trans Mountain expansion pipeline project. Enhanced indigenous engagement through the review process led to an $86-million federal investment to establish and co-develop two indigenous advisory and monitoring committees for National Energy Board-regulated pipelines. These committees are now actively working with the National Energy Board as projects move to construction. They're an important example of how co-development can advance shared goals of safety and protection of environmental and indigenous interests for federally regulated projects.

Lastly, my department is changing laws and policies to entrench a new way of doing business, both for government and for the private sector that has an interest in developing Canada's resources. The active participation of first nations, Inuit, and Métis organizations and communities from across Canada was key to our efforts to modernize the National Energy Board, given concerns around the nature and process of indigenous peoples' participation in the regulation of pipelines under federal jurisdiction.

To note, two of the five members of the NEB modernization expert panel were indigenous. Appointed by Minister Carr, the Minister of Natural Resources, the panel was tasked with conducting a targeted review of the board's structure, role, and mandate. Natural Resources Canada provided a total of $4 million in participant funding to 157 indigenous groups over a two-year period, to provide capacity for those groups to participate in the NEB modernization review.

Our experiences through the interim period, and the lessons learned through the NEB modernization process, were critical to shaping the proposal for a new Canadian energy regulator that was tabled as part of Bill C-69 last month in Parliament. The Canadian energy regulator, CER, will help oversee a strong, safe, and sustainable Canadian energy sector as we transition to a low-carbon economy. The regulator will conduct reviews that are more open, accessible, inclusive, and transparent. This will give communities and indigenous peoples a greater voice in their future.

I have provided a brief overview of some of the work my department is undertaking to align with the United Nations Declaration and have focused my remarks on: internal corporate changes and support to whole-of-government priorities; changes in how we partner externally to build meaningful relationships and create space for full and fair access to economic opportunities; the application of lessons and experiences from the last two years to propose new legislation for energy regulation in Canada.

This government set a new path for its relationship with its indigenous peoples in Canada, and our work is not done. We will continue to work closely with other departments on programs, policies, and initiatives that are aligned with the key principles of the declaration. We will also continue to support self-determination and engagement through programming that develops the capacity of indigenous peoples to participate in the natural resources sector and leverage that wealth creation to support their own priorities. We will continue to work closely with indigenous peoples to advance policies, programs, and regulations, including approaches to consider and protect indigenous knowledge in federally regulated energy project reviews; outline expectations for early engagement, planning, and roles for monitoring and oversight; enter into collaboration agreements on project reviews; and ensure we have appropriate indigenous representation on boards and panels.

Thank you for your attention. I look forward to answering any questions you may have.

[Dominique Blanchard, Assistant Deputy Minister, Public and Indigenous Affairs and Ministerial Services Branch, Department of the Environment]

Thank you.

I'd like to acknowledge that we are here today on the unceded territory of the Algonquin people.

My name is Dominique Blanchard. I am the assistant deputy minister of the public and indigenous affairs and ministerial services branch at Environment and Climate Change Canada. I am joined today by my colleague Brent Parker, who is from the Canadian Environment Assessment Agency.

Thank you to the committee for inviting my department to contribute to this session on the subject of Bill C-262. In my remarks today, I will discuss the actions of Environment and Climate Change Canada in advancing reconciliation with indigenous peoples and in working toward fulfilling the government's commitment to adopt and implement the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. I will address the work already under way as well as the opportunities we see to further enhance relationships between my department and indigenous peoples and governments.

Indigenous peoples are leaders in conservation. They have long been stewards of the environment and have well established rights related to the use of the land, waters, ice and wildlife. They have knowledge of the environment that spans generations.

The mandate of Environment and Climate Change Canada is to protect the environment and to conserve the country's national heritage. We undertake weather forecasting; wildlife conservation; air and water quality monitoring and protection; water quantity monitoring for informed water management decisions; and, oversee and contribute to measures that mitigate against and adapt to climate change.

Accordingly, it is critically important for Environment and Climate Change Canada to maintain and build strong and positive relationships and partnerships with indigenous peoples, and to collaborate in defining our environmental future. This is a responsibility that extends to each and every part of our department.

We have a history of establishing and supporting partnerships that enable us to reflect the perspectives of indigenous peoples in the delivery of our mandate. We are proud of recent efforts we have made to expand and deepen those relationships at local, regional, national, and international levels. For example, we have established joint distinctions-based senior bilateral tables to support nation-to-nation, Inuit-to-crown, and government-to-government relationships to assist with the implementation of the pan-Canadian framework on clean growth and climate change. We work with indigenous peoples on projects to support the stewardship of natural resources, including through, for example, the co-management of conservation areas, wildlife management boards, and indigenous-led projects supported by the aboriginal fund for species at risk.

At the international level, Canada has been recognized for its leadership in advancing the local communities and indigenous peoples platform under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Indigenous peoples have joined us in representing Canada on the delegations for this and other international fora, such as the Convention on Biological Diversity or the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

We're also establishing countless partnerships at the local and regional levels. For instance, the Canadian ice service is partnering with Inuit communities to understand sea ice information needs in light of changing ice patterns in the north. We are collaborating with first nations on a project to develop training curricula related to environmental monitoring. We are also supporting indigenous-led efforts to address environmental challenges affecting the Great Lakes.

Finally, we and the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, along with other federal partners here at the table, worked closely with indigenous partners in developing the recently tabled Bill C-69, which proposes important requirements concerning the engagement of indigenous peoples in the environmental review process and the use of traditional knowledge to inform decision-making.

Sustaining and enhancing partnerships of this nature, and supporting the broader work being done across government to advance reconciliation, has required Environment and Climate Change Canada to look internally, as well.

In May of last year, our department created a new branch, which I lead. Part of our mandate involves bringing cohesion and organization to the department's indigenous affairs and reconciliation activities, and bringing to ground broader government efforts in these areas within our department.

In this vein, we're developing governance structures to ensure effective cross-departmental collaboration, developing tools to support broader engagement and consultation with indigenous partners, and implementing training and awareness opportunities to develop the intercultural competencies of our employees.

We are also working closely with many of the colleagues you have and will be hearing from today in implementing the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's calls to action, the principles respecting the Government of Canada's relationship with indigenous people and, relevant to our discussion today, the United Nations declaration.

In our view, working towards aligning our work with the provisions of the UN declaration presents an opportunity for us to build trust with our indigenous partners; enhance the integrity of our policy-making, research, and analysis; and achieve better environmental outcomes for all Canadians. Several articles in the UN declaration are tied closely to our mandate in that they reflect indigenous people's rights concerning the stewardship of the environment. For example, article 24 speaks to rights related to conservation of medicines, plants, animals, and minerals. Article 31 relates to the maintenance and manifestation of traditional knowledge, including in relation to flora and fauna. Importantly, article 32 confirms the rights of indigenous peoples to determine and develop priorities and strategies for the development and use of their lands and resources.

In regard to these articles, Environment and Climate Change Canada is well situated to build upon existing practices and relationships. Through our engagement in the negotiation of treaties and other arrangements, ECCC works with indigenous partners to collaboratively conserve and protect wildlife and other environmental resources. Also, as a science-based department, we are working to ensure that traditional knowledge informs our work, and we are reviewing and refining our approach that freely shared traditional knowledge can better complement contemporary scientific research to inform decision-making. Lastly, we're working to build transparent and comprehensive engagement processes that respect the rights of indigenous peoples in determining how lands and resources are used.

Environment and Climate Change Canada recognizes that there is more to be done. This will involve the continued examination of our contribution to the government's reconciliation agenda, including the implementation of the United Nations Declaration. This will mean further strengthening our engagement with indigenous partners, and assessing new opportunities to align departmental programs, policies, laws and regulations with indigenous rights and interests. And we will need to do more work internally to build greater awareness amongst our employees of indigenous rights and interests, and of our related responsibilities.

In closing, I would like to thank you for the opportunity to highlight some of the efforts under way at Environment and Climate Change Canada to move forward on our commitment to support reconciliation with indigenous peoples, including through the implementation of the UN declaration. As a department, we are steadfastly committed to this important work.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

We had two bills tabled just recently, Bill C-68 and Bill C-69. The government has committed to the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Certainly, there are parts of those bills that talk to indigenous rights, but there was no language included in terms of the UN declaration, so despite the government's commitment to indigenous peoples in Canada, it tabled two important pieces of legislation that made no mention of these concepts, other than perhaps that they are going to aspire to getting this.

Can you tell me why was that missing from those pieces of legislation? I would presume that the justice department reviews these pieces of legislation in terms of these overarching commitments by the government.

Bill C-69—Speaker's Ruling

[The Speaker, Geoff Regan]

I am now prepared to rule on the point of order raised on February 27, 2018, by the hon. member for Berthier—Maskinongé concerning the second reading of Bill C-69, 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, under the provisions of Standing Order 69.1.

I would like to thank the hon. member for having raised this question, as well as the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons for his intervention on this point.

The hon. member argued that Bill C-69 is an omnibus bill, as she feels it contains several different initiatives which should be voted on separately. She noted that the bill would delete two existing acts, would enact new ones, and would amend over 30 other acts. The hon. member requested that the Chair divide the question at second reading to allow for a vote on each of the three main parts of the bill.

Part 1 would enact the impact assessment act and repeal the existing Canadian Environmental Assessment Act.

Part 2 would enact the Canadian energy regulator act as well as repeal the National Energy Board Act. The hon. member argued that this second part deals more with natural resources than with the environment and should therefore be voted upon separately.

Part 3 consists of amendments to the Navigation Protection Act, which would be renamed the Canadian navigable waters act. As this deals with matters relating to transportation, she felt that this part should also be subject to a separate vote.

The hon. member helpfully identified which of the consequential and coordinating provisions, contained in part 4, she believed were associated with each of the other parts. I am grateful for her specificity in this regard. I would note that these consequential and coordinating amendments represent the changes to the 30 other acts referenced by the hon. member. In the vast majority of cases, the changes are to reflect updated terminology relating to the names of new agencies or statutes created by the bill. The fact that there is a large number of them is not a significant factor in determining whether or not this constitutes an omnibus bill.

The hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader agreed that the bill amends several acts, but argued that there is in fact a common element to link together all of the changes. He stated that the bill represents a comprehensive review of federal environmental and regulatory processes and that to consider them separately would create unnecessary uncertainty about the overall framework.

As members will recall, Standing Order 69.1 took effect last September. It gives the Speaker the power to divide the question on the second or third reading of a bill where “there is not a common element connecting the various provisions or where unrelated matters are linked”. The critical question for the Chair, then, is to determine to what extent the various elements of the bill are linked.

To date, I have been asked to apply this standing order on two instances. On November 7, 2017, I declined to allow multiple votes in relation to Bill C-56, an act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and the Abolition of Early Parole Act, as I felt the two issues raised by the bill were sufficiently related and that they were essentially provided for under the same act. On November 8, I agreed to apply the standing order in relation to Bill C-63, the Budget Implementation Act, 2017, No. 2, as I considered that there were several issues contained in the bill that were not announced in the budget presentation. On November 20, in relation to Bill C-59, the national security act, 2017, I ruled that the standing order could not apply to a motion to refer a bill to committee before second reading, though I invited members to raise the issue again prior to third reading of the bill if necessary.

I would underscore, as I did in my ruling on Bill C-63, that the Chair does not have the power to divide a bill into different pieces of legislation to be considered separately. The Standing Order only allows me to divide the question on the motions for second and third reading for the purposes of voting.

Bill C-69 does clearly contain several different initiatives. It establishes two new agencies, the impact assessment agency and the Canadian energy regulator, and makes a series of amendments to the Navigation Protection Act. One could make the case, as did the parliamentary secretary, that there is indeed a common thread connecting these various initiatives, in that they are all related to environmental protection. However, the question the Chair must ask itself is whether the purpose of the standing order was to deal only with matters that were obviously unrelated or whether it was to provide members with the opportunity to pronounce themselves on specific initiatives when a bill contains a variety of different measures.

In presenting arguments relating to Bill C-63, the hon. member for Calgary Shepard raised an interesting concept from the practice in the Quebec National Assembly. Quoting from page 400 of Parliamentary Procedure in Québec, he stated: “The principle or principles contained in a bill must not be confused with the field it concerns. To frame the concept of principle in that way would prevent the division of most bills, because they apply to a specific field.”

While their procedure for dividing bills is quite different from ours, the idea of distinguishing the principles of a bill from its field has stayed with me. While each bill is different and so too each case, I believe that Standing Order 69.1 can indeed be applied to a bill where all of the initiatives relate to a specific policy area, if those initiatives are sufficiently distinct to warrant a separate decision of the House.

In this particular instance, I have no trouble agreeing that all of the measures contained in Bill C-69 relate to environmental protection. However, I believe there are distinct initiatives that are sufficiently unrelated that they warrant multiple votes. Therefore, I am prepared to allow more than one vote on the motion for second reading of the bill.

As each of the first two parts of the bill does indeed enact a new act, I can see why the hon. member for Berthier—Maskinongé would like to see each one voted separately. However, my reading of the bill is that the regimes set out in part 1, the impact assessment act, and part 2, the Canadian energy regulator act, are linked in significant ways, reflected in the number of cross-references. For example, the impact assessment act provides for a process for assessing the impact of certain projects, but contains specific provisions for projects with activities regulated under the Canadian energy regulator act. There are also obligations in the Canadian energy regulator act that are subject to provisions in the impact assessment act. Given the multiple references in each of these parts to the entities and processes established by the other part, I believe it is in keeping with the Standing Order that these two parts be voted together.

With respect to part 3, which amends the Navigation Protection Act, I find that it is sufficiently distinct and should be subject to a separate vote. While there are some references in part 2 to changes made in part 3, I do not believe they are so deeply intertwined as to require them to be considered together. There would be an opportunity to correct these references as part of the amending process if part 3 should not be adopted by the House.

As I stated earlier, part 4 of the bill is made up of consequential and coordinating amendments arising out of the other 3 parts. In my ruling on Bill C-56, I recognized that the analysis and division of a bill into different parts can sometimes be quite complex. Based on my reading of part 4, which differs slightly from that of the hon. member for Berthier—Maskinongé, clauses 85, 186, 187, and 195 seem to be related to part 3 and will be voted with that part. The remaining clauses in part 4, with the exception of the coming into force clause, specifically 196, appear to relate only to parts 1 and 2 and will therefore be grouped with those parts. The schedule relates only to part 1 and will also be grouped with it.

Business of the House

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister of Small Business and Tourism]

Mr. Speaker, I too look forward to having our two weeks in the riding.

I can assure the hon. member and all Canadians that the Prime Minister and this government will always stay focused on the needs of Canadians.

This afternoon, we will continue to debate the Conservative opposition day motion. Tomorrow the House will debate Bill C-69, the environmental assessment legislation, at second reading.

When we return after two weeks in our ridings, we will have the last three days of budget debate on Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

Before we leave the room...wait. Wait. You're not scaring anybody; just let me finish this up.

Thank you very much to our guests. I'm just going to carry on into what we're going to do. I want to make sure that when we come back...wait. Wait.

I'm sorry. You guys are fine to leave; the committee is not fine. They just have to listen for a minute.

It is very likely that we will be getting Bill C-69 very soon. I want to make sure that the committee is as prepared as we can be; I want to make sure everybody is okay.

I would like to let the universe know that it's likely going to come to the committee and I'd like to call for submissions. I want to make sure everybody is okay with our putting out a call for submissions.

We've already been polling for your witnesses. Some of you have sent them; not everybody has. We will get the witnesses as fast as possible so that we can put out a list to all of you, which we can then work on in the first week we're back.

Access to Briefing on Bill C-69

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to respond to the question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Abbotsford on February 26, 2018, with respect to the briefings that were provided for Bill C-69. I contend that in fact no breach of privilege has been committed.

The crux of my hon. colleague's argument is that the minister “impeded every single member of this House”, and that someone “tried to withhold information from the House”.

Mr. Speaker, I will refer to the decision given by your predecessor on March 3, 2014, regarding a technical briefing from the minister of state for democratic institutions. In that case, the Speaker ruled with relation to the technical briefing, where deficient interpretation was considered by a member as “preventing parliamentarians from participating fully in subsequent debate on the bill”. The member went on to note that the protection of the official languages in the House is fundamental to ensuring equality among all members.

In his decision, the Speaker at the time referenced two rulings. The first, by Speaker Bosley on May 15, 1985, can be found at page 4769 of Debates, and states:

I think it has been recognized many times in the House that a complaint about the actions or inactions of government Departments cannot constitute a question of parliamentary privilege.

The second ruling, delivered February 7, 2013, which can be found on page 13869 of Debates, states:

It is beyond the purview of the Chair to intervene in departmental matters or to get involved in government processes, no matter how frustrating they may appear to be to the member.

I believe there are similarities with regard to departmental matters and these rulings are pertinent. I will also note that the bill was not debated in the House until the following Wednesday, after its introduction, which means the member for Abbotsford had plenty of time to prepare his intervention for second reading debate.

While the member may feel that he was disadvantaged in some way, I do not agree with his assertion that the minister or her staff intentionally tried to impede his ability to carry out his duties. If the member feels that he needs additional briefings, I can assure him that they will be provided, as has been the practice of our government.

The member for Abbotsford was right in acknowledging that his intervention “does not fall strictly within one of the specifically defined privileges or confines of a proceeding in the House of Commons”.

This is not a legitimate question of privilege. It is a well-established convention that the Chair's role is confined to proceedings before the House and of Parliament. Although I appreciate my hon. colleague's devotion to the respect of parliamentary privilege, I will reiterate that the situation at hand does not constitute a prima facie question of privilege.

[David Groves, Committee Researcher]

I'm happy to speak on any of the bills or motions if anyone has any questions.

The one I noted that I thought the committee might want to discuss is Bill C-385, an act to amend the Navigation Protection Act.

The criterion this year around votability is whether it concerns a question that is currently on the Order Paper or the Notice Paper as an item of government business. The item of government business is Bill C-69, 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.

The question at issue is the Navigation Protection Act. The NPA is an act that regulates, among other things, the development or maintenance of works or obstructions that might affect the navigation of navigable waters across Canada. Under the current version of the NPA, protections are provided only to navigable waters that are on the schedule.

Bill C-385, the item before the committee, amends the NPA to add a number of lakes and rivers to that schedule, so it extends those protections to those lakes and rivers specifically. The government bill, Bill C-69, was introduced earlier this month, on February 8, and makes significant amendments to the NPA. It renames it the Canadian Navigable Waters Act and, under the CNWA, the regime around protecting navigable waters from obstructions and works changes considerably. In particular, it expands the protections that were previously granted in the schedule to any lake, river, or body of water that meets the definition of “navigable water”.

There is a distinction between the types of protections offered, based on the type of work, and there remains a schedule on the act. There remains something of a difference between lakes and rivers on this schedule and navigable waters generally.

I can get into that if you would like, but suffice it to say that both Bill C-385 and Bill C-69 extend protections currently provided by the NPA to the lakes and rivers named in the private member's bill. They do so in different ways and would ultimately provide slightly different levels of protection. The issue that arises is whether they concern the same question. I'm happy to provide my assessment on that question.

Impact Assessment Act

[David Yurdiga, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB]

Madam Speaker, today I will be speaking to Bill C-69, 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.

The natural resource sector has brought tremendous wealth to my riding, all of Alberta, and Canada. The oil sands alone have brought $7.4 billion to the Canadian economy outside of Alberta: $3.9 billion to Ontario, $1.3 billion to British Columbia, $1.2 billion to Quebec, $330 million to Newfoundland, $143 million to Manitoba, $142 million to Saskatchewan, $96.7 million to Nova Scotia, $50.8 million to New Brunswick, $11.4 million to the Northwest Territories, $6.3 million to Prince Edward Island, and $1.6 million to Yukon. These figures include everything from specially made work gloves to satellites monitoring emissions. What the figures do not include are the equalization payments, which have long relied on collecting billions from Albertans working in the energy sector to be divided among have-not provinces.

When I was first elected, anyone across the country that was willing to work could find a job in Alberta. For those willing to work hard, often more than 40 hours a week, they could support a family, send their kids to post-secondary education, and still have money to save for the future. Small businesses across Alberta were also booming from the economic activities that the industry brought into almost every town and county in the province. That is not the case today. An oil crash later, a provincial government change, and a federal government change have all Alberta reeling.

The global price of oil is out of control, but what many Canadians do not know is we do not receive market rates for our oil. What is often reported is the North American benchmark, West Texas Intermediate. Our oil is traded as Alberta's Western Canada Select. As of yesterday, the difference between the two prices was $34.74 per barrel. Pipelines can help close those gaps in prices. The more access we have to markets other than the United States, the better the deal we can strike. Instead of supporting the building of these pipelines, the Liberal government has introduced regulation after regulation, which is crippling the industry and deterring investment.

Today, we are talking about the newest blow the Liberal government has struck against the west and our oil industry. It would rob the National Energy Board of most of its power and create the Canadian energy regulator.

The National Energy Board has served as a world-class regulator for the natural resource sector since its creation in 1959. Since then, it has reviewed and approved many major energy projects in Canada. Over the last decade, the NEB has approved pipelines that Alberta desperately needs, which has made it a target for political interference.

When the Liberals took power, the natural resources minister's mandate letter called on him to modernize the National Energy Board to ensure that its composition reflected regional views and had sufficient expertise in the field, such as environmental science, community development, and indigenous traditional knowledge.

While the government believes Bill C-69 will complete his mandate, I would like to cover how the bill will drive investment out of Canada.

One of the changes the bill would bring is the establishment of timelines. The government claims there would be timelines of 450 days for major projects and 300 days for minor projects, respectively, pursuant to proposed subsections 183(4) and 214(4). While many Conservatives are in favour of timelines for projects, the devil is in the details. The application process can be dragged out and will not be considered in the timelines. The lead commissioner will be given the ability to exclude time in the process. Last, and most important, the minister can approve or deny an application before it even gets to the assessment phase. We only have to look at the cancelled northern gateway pipeline to see that the government has no problem putting national interests on hold and dismissing a pipeline for political reasons.

I am also concerned about the changes to the NEB standing text. Currently, individuals and organizations directly affected by the projects or capable of providing valuable knowledge are heard by the National Energy Board. The new rules will allow anyone to participate and be heard. This will ensure that groups who oppose all energy projects across Canada will be given a bigger voice. Groups outside of Canada will be given a voice as well, and they do not have our best interests at heart.

I can only imagine what our global competitors think of our legislation. It gives them an opportunity to fund groups that will oppose every project that has the ability to threaten their market share. To think that this will not occur in the future is foolish and shortsighted.

This is an attempt to fix a problem that did not exist. During the review of the Enbridge line 9B reversal and line 9 capacity expansion project, only eight of the 177 applications to participate were denied. I encourage Canadians to take a look at some of the denied submissions. One individual said that a spill from a pipeline, even far away from her home, is an insult to her sense of the holy.

While this example may come up a couple of times today, I think it is important to show that our National Energy Board is not trying to silence individuals and organizations, but is just applying common sense to the process. We need more common sense in government, not less.

Over the last three years, we have seen less and less investment in our natural resources because of the Liberal government's policies. From the carbon tax to the inclusion of upstream emissions to the National Energy Board review, it appears that the government wants to repeal investment in the resource sector.

According to the Financial Post, in February, Suncor CEO Steve Williams told financial analysts that Suncor is actively discussing Canada’s lack of competitiveness with various levels of government here because “other jurisdictions are doing much more to attract business, so Canada needs to do much more to up its game”.

Members need to consider that if we keep our resources in the ground, like David Suzuki wants, we are not saving the environment; we are just moving the resource development to other countries around the world that have lower safety standards and lower environmental protection. I believe that if resources are needed, it is better that they come from here and not from a human rights abuser or a dictator or a country with very low environmental standards.

I know that many members of Parliament have voted for and will continue to vote for regulations of every type. What they need to consider before voting on the bill is that we are part of a global market. Right now we are competing with countries across the world to sell our goods and attract investment.

We only need to look across the border to see a government intent on bringing in billions of dollars of investment and the jobs that come with it. Since taking office, the Trump administration has given the energy industry a tremendous amount of confidence to invest by cutting regulations and taxes.

Future natural resources jobs in my riding, in Alberta, and across Canada are at stake if this bill passes. That is why my Conservative colleagues and I stand against this bill.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am going to have to try to speak really fast because it is hard in 20 minutes to talk about a 360-page bill.

Many will be delighted that after two and a half years the government has finally delivered the campaign promise to bring forward a new federal assessment process. During the 2015 election, the Prime Minister committed that if he became Prime Minister, Kinder Morgan would have to go back to the drawing board, saying the process needed to be redone. When asked if no means no if indigenous peoples opposed a pipeline, the Prime Minister responded yes. Regardless, the Kinder Morgan pipeline project, the Site C dam, and an LNG project were all approved by the government based on the Harper-eviscerated assessment process.

The Minister of Environment, in tabling Bill C-69, said, “The legislation we are introducing today aims to restore public trust in how the federal government makes decisions about major projects, like mines, pipelines, and hydro dams.” This 366-page omnibus bill includes an environmental assessment law, a revised energy regulation law, and a new law on navigation. Therefore, how well would Bill C-69 actually restore public trust by enshrining a strengthened rules-based process including clearly prescribed rights to participate, and respect for indigenous rights and title?

In most instances, the bill leaves these concerns unanswered, either because the bill is rife with discretionary powers or the fact that significant matters are left to yet-to-be-promulgated regulations or rules. Does the bill respond to the recommendations made by the government's appointed expert panel? Again, it does so only partially.

Yesterday, a motion on privilege was filed against the minister for her disdain for the rights of parliamentarians to review this bill. Now, after only two hours of debate, the Liberals have moved to impose time allocation. The parliamentary secretary has just said that his government is open to refinements. It is for these reasons that I am issuing a call for expanded opportunity for Canadians, including indigenous peoples, to directly participate in the review of this bill. This can best be met by having the standing committee conduct hearings in communities across this country. The government advised that the law and associated regulations would not be in place until the spring of 2019. This allows ample time for a process enabling Canadians to express their voices and to recommend amendments.

In the time allotted to me, it will be impossible to discuss this massive bill in its entirety. I will therefore touch only on a few key issues in the bill. Would it restore public trust and confidence? Would it create greater legal certainty? Would it prescribe expanded rights of participation by the public in project reviews and government energy policy? Would it enshrine a clear process to assess government policy consistent with the sustainable development 2030 commitments? Finally, would it respect and deliver on the rights and duties to indigenous peoples as prescribed by the UNDRIP?

First, would the bill restore public trust and confidence as the government has alleged? The expert panel struck by the minister to gauge public views on the federal environmental and energy assessment and regulatory regime made a number of recommendations to reform and strengthen the systems. These included replacing the ad hoc review panels with a new quasi-judicial agency and to disallow federal regulatory bodies from participating in the reviews. Both recommendations were ignored.

While the bill would provide for the appointment of an independent impact assessment agency, review panels would still continue to be appointed on an ad hoc basis and could still include representatives of the Canadian energy regulator and the Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador offshore boards.

The bill does expand the factors to be considered by a panel if an assessment proceeds, and that is a big if, including cumulative impacts, contributions to sustainability, impacts to the federal government's obligations on climate change, alternatives, mitigation measures, and impacts to indigenous rights. However, concerns have been raised that little clarity is offered on how these factors are to be considered or weighted. It is noteworthy that the list of factors the minister must consider in deciding if a project is in the public interest is far shorter than those considered by a panel.

Does the bill introduce greater legal certainty? A vast array of duties and powers remains discretionary.

For these and other reasons, I share the views expressed by many, including CELA lawyer, Richard Lindgren, “that the new [environmental assessment] process will not restore public trust or ensure credible, participatory and science-based decision-making.” The best description one can ascribe to Bill C-69 is that it offers a framework for project assessment processes but little certainty for when a federal project is assessed or approved. This observation appears supported by a number of legal experts.

I fully concur with the views expressed by law professor Martin Olszynski from the University of Calgary, who said:

my approach to this legislation--and the basis for one of my main criticisms of it--is to consider what it actually says and requires, not what the current government says it will do as a matter of policy. In my view, environmental law should be written with a view towards potential future governments that may be hostile to environmental concerns. Better rules, in this context, means legislation that would constrain such governments, forcing them to either conform or to - yet again - try to amend the legislation, with all the potential for democratic accountability that comes with that. On this score, much of the legislation introduced last week is wholly inadequate.

A critical determinant to knowing when a project triggers a federal assessment is the project list, yet consultation on the list was only just initiated. Why was it not done over the past two years? Will it include projects excluded by the Conservatives, for example, in situ oil sands operations? Will it include dangerous rail traffic as proposed under my bill, Bill C-304?

While the bill does list some laws that may trigger effects under federal jurisdiction, the responsible ministers still get to decide if an approval or review is even needed. The minister is required only to consider if a project may impact federal lands, have transboundary or transborder impacts, or impact indigenous peoples, health, social or economic matters, not yet established by cabinet.

It should be noted that the minister can allow for the substitution of a provincial assessment regardless if federal powers or duties may be triggered. The majority of the bill extends broad and extensive discretionary powers to the minister of the environment, the new agency, and the cabinet to call for an assessment or not. The minister is not required to call an assessment, even if in her opinion the proposed activity warrants designation due to its adverse effects or due to public concerns. The power currently in place has rarely ever been utilized. It should be mandatory.

My bill, Bill C-304, to the contrary, imposes a mandatory duty on the minister to call for an assessment where, in her opinion, a project may pose significant risks to environment or health or there are public concerns.

There are many discretionary powers to list, but they include the following examples: discretion to decide if an impact assessment is not required even for a designated project; the discretion to decide the scope of factors to be considered; an agency discretion to delegate any part of the impact assessment to other jurisdictions; ministerial discretion to substitute equivalent provincial processes; ministerial discretion to terminate a review panel or remove conditions in an environmental impact assessment decision to revoke or amend the impact decision statement. The minister can even delegate his or her powers, duties, and functions to the agency.

The power to assess regional impacts and strategic assessments also requires greater clarity. The bill provides absolutely no clear triggers for either of those to occur, or any right to trigger them.

The much-touted planning stage sounds remarkably similar to the initial assessment process. There is concern that the new approach is solely reliant on information provided by a project proponent.

Broad concerns have been voiced that the power to approve or reject a project remains vested in the minister or the cabinet, and that while panels can identify adverse effects, they cannot reference any degree of significance. The potential remains for interjection of political considerations to override any of the determination in the review, including sound science. The minister need only determine that the effects are in the public interest.

With regard to public participation, while the government claims that the bill provides strengthened rights to participate, it is remarkably silent in extending any specific rights, including to present evidence or to cross-examine. The agency must merely “provide an opportunity to the public to participate” in the planning stage and assessment of a project in any regional or strategic assessments. The agency is empowered to decide on participant funding, but there is no similar duty to enable funding for strategic reviews.

Regarding indigenous rights, the bill does require the addition of some indigenous participation in panels and advice. Any assessment must consider impacts on indigenous groups or adverse impacts to indigenous rights. The minister, in making a determination on public interest, must also consider adverse impacts of a project on the rights of indigenous peoples, although they are not stated to serve as a bar to approval.

The minister alleges that the bill provides indigenous peoples with “Early and inclusive opportunities for engagement and participation at every stage, in accordance with a co-developed engagement plan, with the aim of securing free, prior and informed consent..”. However, while the justice minister committed last December to ensuring that all federal laws will be made consistent with the UNDRIP, no such specific reference is found in this bill.

The second part of the bill is with respect to the Canadian energy regulator act. An expert panel was also struck to modernize the National Energy Board, whose recommendations included, among them, a new independent Canadian energy information agency, which does not exist in the bill. There was significant public concern with the decision by the Harper government to shift the decision-making power from the NEB to the cabinet, and from the CEAA to the NEB and the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission.

How well does the proposed new regime deliver on these calls for reform? The answer is perhaps best expressed in the analysis by Calgary energy law expert Professor Nigel Bankes, entitled “Some Things Have Changed but Much Remains the Same”, adding that the tabling of a completely new Canadian energy regulation act rather than mere amendments to the NEB Act “no doubt creates the impression that the new Bill represents a wholesale replacement of the NEB rather than mere tinkering.” His analysis suggests that much of the current regime remains unchanged.

The name of the agency is changed, there are several additional requirements for indigenous appointments, and there is the addition of prescribed factors for the Canadian energy regulator to consider. However, what is noteworthy is that unlike the impact assessment panel members, the Canadian energy regulator is not required to consider climate commitments or cumulative impacts. In fact, there is zero mention of climate in the entire Canadian energy regulatory act. This is doubly concerning, as Bill C-69 allows for unlimited CER appointees to each panel. As with the Harper law, the energy regulator may only recommend.

The CER is empowered to review offshore renewable and power line projects. Concerns have been expressed with a potential conflict of interest, as the Nova Scotia and Newfoundland offshore oil boards will participate in assessments of offshore projects. Interestingly, the power to issue export and import oil and gas licences is shifted from the cabinet to the Minister of Environment. The CER may review designated interprovincial power lines, but no such project has to date ever been designated. Legal experts have raised concerns with the lack of legal certainty if the CER is authorized to deliver on the crown's aboriginal consultation duties.

Finally, on the Navigation Protection Act, while the new law counters views once expressed by the Liberals while in opposition, they do mirror recommendations of the Liberal's majority standing committee on transport to maintain much of the downgrades to the law instituted by the Harper government. Erased are the words “navigable waters protection” from the law.

In many instances, the legal protection of our lakes and rivers is even further weakened or left to be determined by yet to be promulgated regulations. The schedule of lakes and rivers is blank, shifting the onus to Canadians to even seek the meagre protections offered under the bill. Public notice and right to participate are very limited.

Gone is the once important trigger for a federal assessment where navigable waters may be impacted. I think immediately of the loss of navigation access by indigenous peoples, who practice their traditional harvests in the many lakes, rivers and marshes in northern Alberta, because the approval of dams and oil sands projects are absent consideration and respect for their treaty and aboriginal rights. The bill offers one vague opening for consideration of these rights. However, based on past experience, the likelihood of genuine consideration and respect is small.

In summation, I implore members to support extended standing committee hearings to ensure opportunities to hear Canadians on their views, including recommended amendments to this bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a habit of the Liberals, I have discovered, to reference the abundant consultation that has taken place as though that directed or influenced their decisions.

I consulted on this particular piece of legislation, which is three bills in one. Bill C-69 is an omnibus bill. I submitted every time a window opened for consultation, and I have looked at the submissions of others. Overwhelmingly, the government was told to repair the environmental assessment process and not to allow it to continue as it had been destroyed under Bill C-38 back in 2012.

In my question for the parliamentary secretary, I want to reference in particular the expert panel on environmental assessment, among many important pieces of advice received by the government. When it empanelled a group of experts and paid for them to travel the country and listen to people, I do not see how anyone could doubt that their recommendations should have had some influence. We have never even seen a report or a response from the minister to the expert panel report on EA, nor the expert panel report on the NEB, both of which one would think would have some reference in this omnibus bill, which deals with both.

Specifically to the parliamentary secretary, I would say that the expert panel on environmental assessment said clearly that whenever federal money was used, there should be a federal review. The expert panel on EA said there should be no role for the National Energy Board, the offshore petroleum boards, or the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission.

However, the legislation before us today, Bill C-69, does not include a trigger when federal money is used. Although it pretends to have one agency, the impact assessment agency, whenever projects fall under the jurisdiction, for regulatory purposes, of what used to be the National Energy Board, the offshore petroleum boards, or the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, members of the panel must be selected from those agencies, which hardly takes them out of the process.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-69, 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, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague, the member for Foothills for his most inspiring, factual, and authentic speech.

Bill C-69, part 2, is the part I want to expand on a bit further. It is the part of the bill that replaces the National Energy Board and proposes a Canadian energy regulator. The entire process is supposed to increase clarity, predictability, and transparency. However, it fails on all three counts.

Of course this does not come as much of a surprise since the Liberal government has an outstanding record when it comes to breaking its campaign promises. We have seen numerous commitments, both big and small, meet untimely ends before ever achieving the goals set forth by the Liberals. Bill C-69 offers the same failing formula. The Liberal platform claims to “make environmental assessments credible again.” For one to make that promise, one has to start with the premise that the entire environmental assessment process had lost credibility somewhere along the way.

We recognize that there are always room for improvements to be made to existing processes, ways of doing things more simply and more effectively. However, when I look back over these last two years of so-called Liberal improvements, I wonder how much differently things would look if the Liberals were intentionally trying to sabotage the process. It's probably not much. I do not think it could get much worse.

Far from making the process more credible, the Liberals have mismanaged this file to such an extent that nothing can get built in this country. In particular, the Liberals have pushed the view that by building social licence, somehow all of the roadblocks to responsible resource development will disappear. In reality, attempts to improve social trust and build social licence have not increased resource or national infrastructure development.

Before I go any further, I want to turn back the clock to consider what was being said about Canada's environmental review process several years ago. Before the lack of leadership that we are witnessing today, Canada had long been recognized internationally and by experts as the most responsible and transparent producer of oil and gas. A 2014 WorleyParsons report compared the environmental assessment processes and policies around oil and gas development across the globe. When it came to environmental assessments, the report concluded:

The results of the current review re-emphasized that Canada's [Environmental Assessment] Processes are among the best in the world. Canada [has] state of the art guidelines for consultation, [traditional knowledge], and cumulative effects assessment. Canadian practitioners are among the leaders in the areas of Indigenous involvement, and social and health impact assessment. Canada has the existing frameworks, the global sharing of best practices, the government institutions and the capable people to make improvements to [environmental assessment] for the benefit of the country and for the benefit of the environment, communities and the economy.

It goes on to state:

In summary, the review found that [environmental assessment] cannot be everything to everyone. In Canada, however, it is a state of the art, global best practice, with real opportunities for public input, transparency in both process and outcomes, and appeal processes involving independent scientists, stakeholders...and courts

That was in 2014. Looking back at 2014, Canada was considered a world leader in environmental assessment. We had the most stringent standards and most rigorous review process in the world. As I said earlier, no system is perfect, and just like with any other statute or regulation, there are always sections that could be improved. The regulatory system tries to strike a balance between projects and the environment, between predictability and social factors. It is not a perfect system. However, it is far better than the regime we are going to have under the imposement of Bill C-69. Instead of making the system better, the Liberals have simply made it worse. Under the Liberal government, the environmental assessment system lacks clarity, predictability, and transparency.

Let us look at what Bill C-69 does to clarity. The changes proposed in the bill would make the regulatory process more unclear. This does not serve anyone, whether we are talking about investors looking to participate in responsible resource development or Canadians who care deeply about this process. What is proposed is a move away from science-based decision-making processes.

For example, references to sustainability, identity, and gender-based analysis are difficult to quantify in a standardized test. This is, much like a great deal of Liberal policy, more of a virtue-signalling smokescreen to give the illusion of modernization to a bill that ultimately takes Canada backwards.

Furthermore, the proposed legislation makes a point of treating major and minor projects differently, but it provides no clear list of criteria which would make a project either a minor project or a major project. Leaving so much to guesswork is just plain irresponsible.

That leads me to my next point. Predictability will suffer under this legislation. The Liberals claim that Bill C-69 creates concrete timelines for review, saying that the process will take 450 days for major projects and 300 days for minor projects. However, the timer only begins when the Governor in Council determines that the applicant has submitted a complete application, which seems to be an entirely discretionary process. According to the proposed legislation at this time, that will be the criteria to set the clock in motion. Furthermore, the process may be stopped at a number of different points to add additional studies or submissions. Finally, the Minister of Environment and Climate Change may extend the timeline indefinitely with repeat orders.

The Liberals call the system more predictable. It is not more predictable. It is more uncertain. It is a process where the outcome rests entirely in the hands of the minister, one minister, the Minister of Environment and Climate Change. She will be the sole individual deciding which projects will go forward in the national interest. It seems that rather than making the process more open and democratic, the Liberals' proposed legislation has concentrated power in the minister's office. This does not lend itself to predictability in any way, shape, or form.

One of the difficulties that Canada faces is a decline in major capital investments in energy. The decline has occurred since the Liberals were elected in 2015 and it is directly related to the regulatory uncertainty created as a result of their poor leadership in this area. We are bound to see this sad trend continue as the Liberals try once again to fix a system that worked better before they took their tool box out. This again is a solution in search of a problem.

Energy investment has to be a priority. We are a natural resource country. These investments are directly and indirectly responsible for employment and revenue for all three levels of government, yet in just two short years, which actually seem very long, energy investment in Canada is lower than any other two-year period in the last 70 years. Ensuring a stable, predictable process has to be a priority in order to attract these essential investments.

Let us talk about transparency as well. Bill C-69 claims to change the framework of indigenous consultation. However, in reality, all it does is codify something that already exists. The practices are already in place which allow for indigenous consultation.

A significant change in the regulatory process would be the elimination of the standing test. This will affect the predictability of the process, as any individual would be able to challenge the process, whether or not they have a connection to the project. Under the proposed new regulations this would include non-Canadians. Bill C-69 would allow Canadian decisions made about Canadian resources in Canada to potentially be influenced by non-Canadians. That is not right.

The Liberal government talks about the importance of restoring public trust to the regulatory system, but allowing non-Canadians or foreign special interest groups to influence the outcome of Canadian energy projects does not inspire trust in the proposed new system. It will not inspire trust from potential applicants that are seeking to develop our resources further.

Bill C-69 is not clear, predictable, or transparent. It adds vague criteria to the process, more uncertainty to the process, and eliminates a standing test from the process. The Liberals are just adding more burden to the already heavily regulated energy sector, and the industry has taken notice. That is why we have seen, as I mentioned earlier, that investment in the energy sector over the last two years has been lower than any two-year period in the previous 70 years.

The Liberals took the existing Canadian system and managed to change it into a system which is discouraging capital investment in our country. Those capital dollars are now flowing into the United States, funding projects there. The United States has a competitive advantage over Canada, in terms of regulatory and tax regimes and access to markets. Investors are putting their dollars into the U.S. market, which is fast becoming a world leader in energy.

If Bill C-69 becomes law, Canada will continue its downward trend in global competitiveness rankings. Both foreign and domestic investors will find other countries for their investments.

While the bill certainly leaves much to be desired, I want to conclude on a positive note. The new process under the proposed Canadian energy regulator will not apply to projects already approved under the National Energy Board. That means the already approved energy projects which are in our national interest will go ahead. I hope that the Liberal government will make sure to follow through on its promise and build the Trans Mountain pipeline. Get it done.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I completely agree, except in this case I do not think there is any room in Bill C-69 for any science-based decision-making. It is quite clear that there would be one person making the decision moving forward on any infrastructure project when it comes to our natural resources. That is mining, LNG, oil and gas, and 7% of our economy is based on these sectors. One person only would be making the decision, not based on any science, environmental stewardship, reports, or analysis. It would be the minister who decides if a project is in the public interest or not.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague has to understand the difference in terms of what was in place before. There was never a political decision made on any pipeline approval that was there. It was based strictly on the National Energy Board, which is a non-partisan, arm's length decision process. That is how those decisions were made.

However, let us understand what would be in place now with Bill C-69. At every single step of the way, there would be an opportunity for political interference from the Minister of Environment and Climate Change, where she could step in and ask for a delay, stop the clock, or even ask for an entire new study to be done. That is significantly different from the quasi-judicial system we had under the National Energy Board that ensured we had the best record in the world when it came to environmental standards for natural resource development.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the debate continues. All the Conservatives and Liberals care about is whose bill can fast-track pipelines faster.

It is my understanding that in Bill C-69 we are supposed to be reviewing processes that are going to address climate change, protect the environment, address transboundary rivers, and the interests, concerns, and rights of indigenous peoples. Somewhere along the way I guess we have the idea of where both those parties think this bill should go.

The member is complaining that the government is leaving the ultimate decision on approval of a project to a political level, the Minister of Environment. My recollection is that the law, as it is right now, was changed by the Conservatives so that it was no longer the review panel of the National Energy Board but was at a political level. Is the member's concern simply that it is assigned to the Minister of Environment and not the Minister of Natural Resources?

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with my colleague from Provencher.

I want to start by reading a couple of quotes about the response to the Liberals' new Bill C-69:

In reality, it’s unlikely that any major project would proceed under the new rules.... [It] contains a good deal of political posturing and seems to lean to the side of attempting to please the most extreme critics.... [It puts] the wants of a small number ahead of what is best for Canada’s economy as a whole.

That came from the research team at GMP FirstEnergy.

Here is a second quote:

By diminishing independent, quasi-judicial regulatory processes for expert tribunals, cabinet risks drifting further into the dangerous political shoals where science and economics are eclipsed by the darker forces of opportunism and favouritism.

This is by a former National Energy Board chair and Jack Mintz, who is president's fellow at the University of Calgary's school of public policy.

These are very esteemed people who have researched the energy sector, and they are telling us what Canada is facing when it comes to the changes the Liberals have brought forward. It strikes me how disingenuous the Liberals are about the impacts of this bill, or how much they really do not understand the impacts these changes would have on the energy sector.

There was a good example earlier today, when the Minister of Natural Resources said that the only reason energy east did not go forward was that TransCanada abandoned energy east when the price of oil dropped.

I am pretty sure that companies do not base multi-billion dollar projects on what the price of oil was on Thursday. They are going to be making a long-term, major investment into that piece of infrastructure. TransCanada walked away from energy east because of the changes and regulatory burdens the Liberals put on it, and the downstream emissions, unprecedented. No other industry in the country has to deal with those types of regulations. How can we expect a company to be putting those types of things into its decisions?

The same thing is happening with Trans Mountain. Our colleagues across the way kept talking about all the wonderful pipelines they have built that are going to tidewater. I would like to remind them that not one single inch of pipeline that they profess to have approved has been built. I suspect that Trans Mountain is a long way from getting a shovel in the ground.

I think the Liberals are waiting for Kinder Morgan to just walk away in pure frustration. Then, once again, they can say, just as they did with TransCanada and energy east, that it was not them but a business decision the company made. It was a decision based on Liberal ideology and regulations that make it literally impossible for a major piece of infrastructure to get built in this country.

That is certainly the case with Bill C-69, an omnibus bill, as many of my colleagues have shown, that has more than 400 pages. I would argue, as a Canadian, that this bill would have an incredibly profound impact on Canadians across the country.

We are no longer on the verge of being an energy superpower that develops its natural resources under the most stringent environmental stewardship in the world. We are now becoming a non-factor. Under these regulations, there is no capital investor in the world who looks at Canada as a place open to do business. In fact, investors look at Canada as a place where they are not welcome. There is no clear line to success for an infrastructure project.

What really bothers me is that Bill C-69 would open the door for non-Canadians to have an influence on Canada's natural resource sector and our future, whatever that may be under these new regulations. A portion of Bill C-69 allows non-Canadians to have an influence on Canadian infrastructure projects. Let us think about that for a minute.

Under the previous Conservative regime, we made sure that anybody who wanted to have intervenor status on a project had a very good reason to be there, and would be impacted in some way by this project. By eliminating those rules, we are now going to open wide the doors for anyone to influence these decisions.

This could include extreme anti-oil activists, who would now have a seat at the table. It could also include energy companies in the United States, which would benefit a great deal from crippling Canada's energy sector. They are also going to have a seat at the table.

Therefore, these people who are trying to negatively impact Canada's economy would have the same standing as those energy companies, pipeline companies, and first nations who want our energy sector to succeed. Who are the Liberals going to be listening to when they are making these decisions?

We have seen the impact of these activists across the country, and they have been doing this through subterfuge. However, now they could not only be blocking roads, highways, mining operations, and drilling operations, but they would be invited to the table to help the Liberals make these decisions. I find it extremely disconcerting that they would have an active role in defining who we are as Canadians when it comes to our natural resource sector.

How is it possibly going to make this process shorter or those timelines definitive, when the Minister of Environment and Climate Change could invite a countless number of witnesses to provide testimony? Also, as it is written in black and white in the bill, as much as the Liberals would like to deny it, throughout the process the minister would have the ability to stop this process multiple times at every single stage, and it stops the clock. Therefore, these comments about 45 days, 185 days, 300 days, 475 days, are a bunch of bunk. The minister could stop any process indefinitely and as many times as she wants.

Let us talk about another aspect of that. Time and again today our colleagues across the floor have said that this is going to be a science-based decision process. They would take it out of the hands of politics. How can the Liberals say that with a straight face when, again, in Bill C-69, it says, in black and white, that the Minister of Environment and Climate Change would have the sole responsibility of deciding if a project is in the public interest? She alone would decide if a project moves from the assessment stage on to the main study stage. How can the Liberals possibly say that this is science based? It is not. There is political influence at every single stage.

How can proponents or investors possibly make the decision to invest billions of dollars in a project when they know that one person would decide if their project is worthwhile? It would not matter how many studies were done. It would not matter how much support there was from communities, first nations, or businesses. It would not matter what kinds of environmental studies were done or what science was there. It would come down to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change, who has been extremely vocal about her position on Canada's natural resource sector. She wants the gas and oil production, mining operations, and LNG projects to absolutely cease. She does not want those things. She wants to be a non-carbon-based economy, despite the demand for oil and gas increasing over the next 50 to 100 years. The oil would be coming from somewhere, but our Minister of Environment and Climate Change is saying as long as it does not come from us, and we are paying the price.

Let us talk about the price we are paying, even before the bill makes it through to legislation. More than $50 billion in capital has left Canada. Hundreds of thousands of energy jobs have been lost. I will put it into a perspective that I think every Canadian can understand. I talked about the price of oil a few minutes ago. It is at $60 a barrel, or maybe $57 a barrel, which is for West Texas Intermediate. Canadian crude is being sold at half that, at $30 a barrel. As a result, we sell our oil to the United States because we do not have international market access, because pipelines are not being built, and they will never be built under this proposed legislation. The United States buys our oil and sells it at a premium. That is a hospital being built every week and a school being built every day in the United States instead of Canada, and we are subsidizing it because of these decisions of the Liberal government.

It is absolutely wrong. We will fight it in every single way.

[Sheila Malcolmson, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Mr. Speaker, this is a hard debate for us on the B.C. coast because we have a government that is now indicating, by repairing the legislation two years into its term, that it concedes that the legislation was completely inadequate to review the Kinder Morgan pipeline, which has serious risks for jobs that already exist on the B.C. coast. The trade-off is 50 permanent jobs offered by the pipeline for British Columbia by Kinder Morgan.

Particularly in the area of oil spill response, the previous environmental review and National Energy Board review blocked evidence about whether bitumen spilled in the marine environment would sink or float. The National Energy Board found that hearing such evidence would be prejudicial to Kinder Morgan.

Is the government now willing to redo that part of the environmental review to make sure that Bill C-69 is applied to protecting marine environment in the likely event of a bitumen spill in the Salish Sea?

[Terry Duguid, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary for Status of Women]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak on Bill C-69, 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. This important piece of legislation fulfills some of our earliest campaign promises from the 2015 election: restore credibility to environmental assessments, modernize and rebuild trust in the National Energy Board, conduct a wholesale review of the previous government's amendments to the Fisheries Act and the elimination of the Navigable Waters Protection Act with the intent to restore lost protections and incorporate more modern safeguards.

We made this commitment because we recognized that the economy and the environment go hand in hand. By putting in place better rules that protect our environment, fish, and waterways, by rebuilding public trust and respect for indigenous rights, and by strengthening our economy, these new rules will ensure good projects can go ahead and create new jobs and economic opportunities for the middle class. They provide clarity and consistency when it comes to impact assessments by creating a single agency, the impact assessment agency of Canada, which will lead all impact assessments for major projects. It will draw on the lessons learned through other agencies, such as the National Energy Board, the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, and offshore boards.

The Minister of Environment and cabinet will have final say over decisions. Our government prioritizes accountability on issues of national interest, and this will allow Canadians to hold our government to account on decisions of importance. The manner in which these decisions are made will be vastly improved by this legislation. Decisions will be made based on science and evidence, not politics, like the previous government's process. We will create more publicly available data to allow Canadians to be informed and involved in these decisions. We are expanding the scope of these reviews to assess their impacts on health, society, and the economy. As the Parliamentary Secretary for Status of Women, I am pleased to see that we will be conducting gender-based analysis as part and parcel of these assessments as well.

We will advance Canada's commitment to reconciliation by recognizing indigenous rights and working in partnership from the start with indigenous communities across the country. We will integrate traditional knowledge into the process, and promote active participation from indigenous communities to ensure their voices are heard.

We will maintain a professional approach to these reviews by creating a predictable, streamlined process. Shorter legislated timelines for the project review phase will be rigorously managed to keep the process on track. Our goal, as the previous speaker mentioned, will be one project, one review.

The bill also seeks to amend the navigable waters act. Water is an issue of utmost importance to me. Lake Winnipeg is one of my home province's most important and treasured resources, and I am incredibly pleased to see this bill recognize and prioritize the importance of water. The Canadian navigable waters act would restore navigation protection for every navigable waterway in Canada. Changes to the Fisheries Act will add important new safeguards for our fisheries, including measures to rebuild damaged fish stocks and restore degraded habitat, ensuring that our fisheries and environment are protected for future generations.

This is not our first effort to protect water in this country. The historic investments we made with the oceans protection plan is a testament to our commitment to this essential natural resource. Canada has the longest coastline in the world. Our coasts support traditional indigenous and coastal community livelihoods, attract tourism, and enable the export and import of goods overseas. They are home to an abundance of Canadian fisheries, and play a key role in strengthening the economy and growing our middle class. That is why our government launched the oceans protection plan, the OPP. It is a historic $1.5 billion investment that will create a world-leading marine safety system, restore and protect Canada's marine ecosystems, and strengthen partnerships with indigenous communities.

Similarly, I am proud of the investment we are making in protecting and rehabilitating the water in the Great Lakes. The Government of Canada is committed to protecting fresh water through science, action, and collaboration with Canadian and American partners and, importantly, indigenous peoples. This includes the freshwater resources of the Lake Winnipeg basin. Budget 2017 allocated $70.5 million over five years to protect Canada's freshwater resources, including the Lake Winnipeg basin at $25.7 million and the Great Lakes at $44.8 million.

Through the $25.7 million allocated to protecting freshwater quality in Lake Winnipeg and its basin, Environment and Climate Change Canada will continue to support research, as well as provide financial support aimed at reducing nutrients, enhancing collaboration, and supporting enhanced engagement of indigenous peoples on freshwater issues in Lake Winnipeg and its basin.

I am extremely proud of the legislation we are debating before the House today. When we first came to office, we knew we had to act swiftly on this file, and did so by implementing the interim principles, offering a glimpse of our vision, and ensuring that projects could continue to be assessed. Now, after thorough consultation with the public and stakeholders, 14 months all told, and the parliamentary input of two committees, we are moving forward with the next steps.

Bill C-69 would ensure that the economy and the environment can both continue to thrive and that good middle-class jobs are created in our resource sector. We are providing clarity and certainty for development projects and ensuring that our natural treasures will be protected for generations to come.

[Jennifer O'Connell, Liberal, Pickering—Uxbridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Winnipeg South.

It is my pleasure to rise in the House today to speak to Bill C-69, 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.

Canadians understand that protecting our environment and growing our economy is not an either/or proposition. With hundreds of major resource projects worth over $500 billion in investment planned across Canada over the next 10 years, we need to ensure that better rules are in place so good projects that balance the need for economic growth and environmental protection can go forward.

Bill C-69 would fulfill that objective. It would also fulfill our goal of one project, one review. The review process would be streamlined and would make the process more predictable, timely, and clear, while ensuring stakeholders would be engaged effectively and potential issues with project proposals would be identified up front. These better rules would increase regulatory certainty and clarity, encouraging investment in Canada's natural resources sector.

After a decade that saw the erosion of public trust in our regulatory bodies, Canadians can be assured that we are putting in place better rules to protect our environment, fish, and waterways, with the goal of rebuilding that public trust. I am proud to say that decisions will be guided by science, evidence, and indigenous traditional knowledge. Impact assessment will also consider how projects are consistent with our environmental obligations and climate change commitments, including the Paris agreement on climate change.

A single agency, the impact assessment agency of Canada, would lead all impact assessments for major projects, with the goal of ensuring the approach would be consistent and efficient. Canadians can expect that under our new framework, projects will be held to a high standard and we will protect our environment and build healthy communities.

I am sure all members of the House would agree and recognize that building new and efficient infrastructure systems is necessary in a modern economy. We need bridges and other works to travel, to get goods to market, and to grow our economy. However, these projects need to be built in a way that allows Canadians to continue to travel and enjoy our waterways, and to be safe while doing it.

Canadians travel through our country's vast network of oceans, lakes, rivers and canals for commercial and recreational purposes.

It is important to note that navigable waters also play a critical role for indigenous peoples in the exercise of their rights. The free and unobstructed passage over navigable waters has long been recognized in law and has been one of the foundations of our country.

In 2014, the Navigation Protection Act introduced by the previous government drastically cut back navigation protections by establishing a short list of waters in a schedule to the legislation to focus protection on waterways that were heavily used near large population centres and which had a significant commercial use.

New works on waters not on the legislative schedule, including large dams, do not require any approval under the existing Navigation Protection Act, even though they may create a significant interference to navigation.

Obstructions on navigable waters outside the schedule do not receive protection under the existing legislation. The only recourse for Canadians who have navigation concerns about projects on navigable waters outside of this list is to take the matter to the courts. The Navigation Protection Act reduces transparency and makes it harder to know about proposals for works before they were constructed.

We have heard loud and clear from Canadians that this is not enough protection for their right to navigate our lakes, rivers, and canals. This is why we spent over a year consulting on changes to the Navigation Protection Act to better understand the kinds of navigation protections that Canadians and indigenous peoples were seeking.

During this comprehensive and informative consultation, we heard that Canadians wanted further navigation protections on more waterways, more information about projects that could affect navigation, more opportunities for their navigation concerns to be heard and resolved without going to court, and more clarity on the definition of “navigable water”.

We also heard from indigenous peoples that they want a greater role in protecting navigation in their territories. We heard from industry and provincial representatives, who said they want clear and predictable regulations.

We have listened to these concerns and we have acted. This is why the Canadian navigable waters act would deliver on all of this. First, it would restore navigation protection on all navigable waters in Canada by using modern safeguards. Major works, like dams, would require an approval on any navigable water. Minor works, like small cottage docks, would need to meet the requirements set out by an order in the act on any navigable water. All other work on unscheduled waters would be subject to mandatory notification and consultation requirements, and a new dispute resolution process that could require approvals where concerns remain unresolved. Canadians would no longer have to turn to the courts to resolve these types of issues.

All other works on scheduled waters would also be subject to notification and consultation requirements, but would always require an approval. Owners would not have the choice of using the dispute resolution process because they are proposing to build on waters identified as being vulnerable to impacts on navigation and of the utmost importance to Canadians.

The government is committed to open, accessible, and transparent processes. For the first time, a comprehensive definition of a navigable water would be included in the act. This new, broader definition does not return to the canoe test, which is unworkable in today's context, but actually creates a modern definition to identify the navigable waters that require the protection of the new act.

A strengthened crown-indigenous relationship is at the heart of the proposed approach. The Canadian navigable waters act would require the consideration of indigenous rights and knowledge, and create new opportunities for indigenous peoples to partner with Canada in the administration of navigation protections in their territories and jurisdictions.

Through the Canadian navigable waters act, the government is proposing modern protections for the right of Canadians to navigate on every navigable water in Canada. This protection would be stronger than ever before.

Before building any work on any navigable water, owners of works would have to satisfy the requirements of the navigation legislation. Under the new Canadian navigable waters act, these requirements would be tailored to take into account the many types of works and the many types of navigation that exist in Canada today.

The new Canadian navigable waters act and Bill C-69 is smart legislation, designed to deliver navigation protections where they are needed, to give indigenous peoples and communities a say in what is built in their territories, and to make expectations clear for owners of works. Bill C-69 and the new Canadian navigable waters act gets it right. That is why I am proud to support its passage through the House.

[Karine Trudel, NDP, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. I want to talk to him about Bill C-69. The government says it is putting this assessment process in place to rebuild public trust in environmental assessments. I would like to know what the member thinks about the consultation period being shortened. What impact will that have? He talked about small communities. The government says it wants to restore trust and transparency, but it is reducing the time spent on consultation. Reading the bill, we can plainly see that the goal is not establishing public trust.

I would like to hear the member's thoughts.

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to rise today to discuss Bill C-69. I would like to hold up a copy of it. This bill is so thick that the super staplers could not drill a hole through it. It had to be put into two packages to make it presentable to us.

The government has decided, after two hours of debate, that it is going to bring time allocation on this bill, that it needs to limit debate on it.

As my colleague just pointed out, it is not a simple bill. It is 400 pages. The index alone is 27 pages. The summary takes up two of them. We need to spend a little more time discussing it than the government is prepared to let us spend. This bill is going to have more impact on Canada, particularly on western Canada, my area in particular, than the budget today will have. It will take a little longer for the effects to show, but it is going to be very damaging to a large part of this country. My colleague just talked about some of the impacts that this bill will have on small communities.

I believe that as we do in small things, so we will do in large things. Therefore, I want to tell a story about the current government and the way it has approached an environmental issue in my riding. We can probably extrapolate from that how it is going to use this bill across the rest of the country.

A few years ago, our government made a decision that we were going to turn the PFRA pastures in western Canada back to the provinces, which previously had ownership of the land. The land had been turned over to the federal government in the 1930s when the provinces could not manage it, and the federal government had managed it since then. We made a decision to turn it back to either the local communities that wanted to buy it or the provincial government, and that process carried itself out.

There is a small pasture in the southwest corner of Saskatchewan called Govenlock. It has been federal land for 100 years. There was a discussion about how to handle this piece of property that was federal land. The decision was made that it was going to be transferred from Agriculture Canada to Environment Canada, and hopefully would be managed in a responsible fashion over the coming decades.

Our government made a decision that we were going to try something a bit different. We went to the local community. The minister's chief of staff went there to listen to the local community, to talk to the ranchers, and said, “You folks have been basically managing this property for the last 80 or 100 years. What would you like to see from the federal government in terms of being able to manage this pasture over the next few decades?”

The invitation was there, and she went. She sat down at a meeting with the community and talked about what they would like to see. There was an agreement that whatever happened, the community should benefit from the project. There was an agreement made, but this was not formalized at the time, unfortunately. There was an agreement that the committee would have some control over management of the pasture and the research money that was going to be spent in that pasture. They could bring people in, perhaps university students in the summertime, and assign them to do research. The community and the people living in the community would benefit from taking some of that money that was going to be spent on the project.

It was a unique pilot project, and that is probably the best way to label it. It was based around co-operation between the government and the local community. It would provide a benefit to the local community. There was going to be good long-term management. The government had decided it was going to trust the people who had managed that environment for so long that they could continue to do it in an effective way.

It has been a very different situation in the two years since the current government was elected. Basically, all elements of community control have been thrown out. It is interesting. There have been top Environment Canada officials come out to the community to tour around in a cavalcade of vehicles, yet they have refused to stop and talk to the local people. They came out, drove around, and took a look at the pasture land, but they would not stop to talk to the locals about what they might want to see or provisions for the future management of the pasture. They have basically come back to the community and said, “Here are the provisions we are laying out for you over the next few decades if you want to have access to this pasture.” They have told them the way they think the ground will be managed.

In my part of the world, every time that either an environmental organization or the government has come in to take over land that ranchers have managed, it has usually taken about 30 years to learn how to manage it. Interestingly, they typically end up managing it in the way the ranchers did in order to be successful. They removed any funding control from the local community. Basically, there is no commitment at all in any fashion to that. Certainly, any research that has taken place has been removed from the local community and will come out somewhere, maybe out of some environmental group that the government favours or a university somewhere, but the local community is not going to benefit.

The Liberals basically have set up a management system where the ranchers are the servants or slaves of government.

The only interest from Environment Canada seems to be in completely controlling the situation rather than co-operating. There has been a big loss to one small community, the small community of Consul in my riding. If that is how one small community has been approached, can we extrapolate that into how the bill will approach and deal with small communities across the country? I think we can.

Bill C-69 is 400 pages. As I mentioned, it is not so much concerned about improving the environment as it is about basically controlling the economy, controlling the environment, and trying to have the government tell people across the rest of the country how it is going to manage their affairs and the resources in their part of the world.

Now we have time allocation. That is the biggest insult in some time. We have a 400-page bill and now we are told we have two hours to debate it. The Liberals are rushing the bill through. Clearly, if people read this and see what the provisions are, the Liberals know they will get concerns. They are getting concerns from both ends of the spectrum. We know that. No one sees this as being adequate and the government, in its usual commitment to mediocrity, probably thinks that is okay.

In the past, we have had the highest standards in the world on energy development. When I drive through my riding and I see the energy development going on there, the wells that are being drilled, the environmental standards are extremely high. I would invite anybody to come out, walk onto one of those well sites and try to find any place where there has been any kind of a spill or pollution. People would have difficulty finding that because of our high standards. They have been high in the past as well. We are environmentally responsible. In the world in which I live, there is more wildlife now than there has ever been and the air is cleaner than it has ever been. We believe we did a good job of managing environmental issues around resource development, and that needs to be continued.

I want to talk specifically about the approval process around Bill C-69. I am trying to run through this quickly and it is only one part of the stream. People may get confused. If they do, it would not be the least bit surprising because it has taken a lot of people a lot of time to even try to figure out what the approval process looks like.

There is a preplanning section to the projects of 180 days. The minister would have the discretion to designate how that would proceed. We do not know how limited the minister's discretion will be because it is not in the bill. The minister can extend that process by 90 days before it goes to cabinet. The cabinet can extend that process indefinitely. Then it goes to an impact assessment of 300 days and two different streams, a short one and a long one. With both of them, we do not have any clarity right now about how that will be determined. With the short ones, the agency will handle it.

All major projects will end up in this long stream of a 450-day commitment. All life cycle regulatory projects will go through that one. That 450 days starts when a panel is appointed, not from the beginning of the application, and it will stop when the minister gets the report.

The short or long process can be extended 90 days and the cabinet can extend those timelines indefinitely. The minister will have the authority to ask for any information along this whole cycle and then the minister can come back and say that he or she needs new information, and a whole new process needs to happen. That is just one small part of one stream of the bill and the approval process that the Liberal will put in place.

As the minister pointed out to us, all of these decisions are political decisions. These decisions should be made based on science, based on whether it will impact the environment in the area. The government is clearly saying that it wants every one of those decisions to be political and it is happy to manage them. We know what will happen, and that is the economy in my part of the world, the economy in western Canada, will be severely impacted, It will do nothing to protect the environment beyond what has already been done.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-69, 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, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Bill C-69—Proposed Application of Standing Order 69.1

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise to address the points raised by the member for Berthier—Maskinongé in her point of order.

Standing Order 69.1(1) is clear in outlining the procedure as it relates to omnibus legislation.

As stated by my hon. colleague, Bill C-69 seeks to amend more than one act. Where my hon. colleague and I disagree is in the claim that there lacks a common element linking the various underlying elements of this comprehensive piece of legislation.

This legislation is the result of the government's comprehensive review of federal environmental and regulatory processes that were launched in June 2016. The tabling of Bill C-69 in its current form represents the continuation of this government's commitment to address this priority. The engagement process for the bill brought together a range of stakeholders to inform our approach on interconnected and interrelated environmental assessment processes, such as the review of major projects, so as to minimize and mitigate impacts on the country's land, air, and waterways.

Its content represents the outcome of this engagement. Through this bill we seek to strengthen the existing environmental assessment and regulatory processes in a global manner to regain public trust, protect the environment, introduce modern safeguards, advance reconciliation with indigenous peoples, and help get natural resources to market. Introducing these changes via separate legislative vehicles would introduce unnecessary uncertainty and imperil the overall strategy that results from consultations with a broad range of stakeholders.

Our government remains committed to end the inappropriate use of omnibus legislation. Consequently, I respectfully submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that Bill C-69 respects both the letter and the spirit of Standing Order 69.1 in its establishment of a new single Canadian approach to impact assessments.

Impact Assessment Act

[Jim Carr, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the member is absolutely right. The three pillars of responsible energy infrastructure development are the ones he suggests, economic growth, job creation, and environmental stewardship, in partnership with indigenous communities, all of which are contained within Bill C-69.

One can certainly make an argument that it is because those three pillars were not in place for 10 years that the Conservative opposition can let us know about the pipelines that were approved during the Harper administration. However, the Conservatives cannot seem to name a single one that was built to tidewater, because those three elements were not in place.

[Mike Bossio, Liberal, Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, one of the primary goals of our government and the minister has been to achieve a balance of the environment and the economy going hand-in-hand. Could the minister please explain to the House how Bill C-69 would help to achieve that balance?

[Jim Carr, Liberal, Minister of Natural Resources]

Madam Speaker, I am proud to rise today to support the legislation before us.

Canada was built largely on investment and innovation in our abundant natural resources, from our oil and natural gas to our minerals, like gold, silver, copper, nickel, and zinc, to our vast and diverse forests. Canadians know that investment and innovation in all of our natural resource sectors must continue so that we can get our resources to global markets and use the revenues they generate to invest in a clean energy future, a healthier future, for those who will follow us.

Bill C-69 recognizes that the only way to achieve this success is by creating a modern environmental and regulatory review system that is truly open and inclusive and that can get good resource projects built. This proposed legislation would restore investor and public trust, invite the full participation of indigenous people, and be grounded in science, evidence, and traditional indigenous knowledge. It would also be an important piece of a larger picture and a broader plan, one that responds with the global transition to a clean energy future. Canadians know that we are in the midst of that transition.

Last April, we invited Canadians to imagine Canada's energy future and to be part of the largest and most important conversation of its kind ever held in our nation. We invited Canadians to be respondent, joining in the conversation online by the hundreds of thousands, with hundreds more descending on my home city of Winnipeg for the two-day Generation Energy Forum last fall.

People came to Winnipeg from across the country and around the globe, from Norway, France, Mexico, and the United States. They came from every sector of the energy industry, oil and gas, wind, solar, nuclear, electricity. Indigenous leaders, youth leaders, community leaders, academics were all there. Several members opposite joined us as well, from every party except the Conservative Party. That speaks volumes about how much the official opposition cares about the future of the energy industry in this country. There was not one individual in a group of 650 from every region in our country who represented the official opposition. Had any of the members opposite felt it worth their time to join us, they would have found people who may never have spoken to each other before, in the same room challenging each other and themselves.

Suddenly, the questions became ever more pressing: What happens now? What if our individual choices could add up to transformative changes? Generation Energy tapped into something unexpected and special. Years from now, Canadians may very well look back and say that Generation Energy was a turning point, that it marked our emergence as a global leader in the transition to a low-carbon economy.

Our government is building a Canadian energy strategy, working with the provinces and territories to expand on what they have already done, leveraging the fossil fuel resources we have today to deliver clean energy solutions for tomorrow, leaning on shared priorities such as energy efficiency, clean technologies, and green infrastructure, and linking those provinces who have an abundance of clean electricity with those who are trying to get it.

Until this proposed legislation was introduced, we had been missing an important piece of this vision. We were missing an environmental and regulatory system that commands the confidence of Canadians, a system that ensures we can mine the minerals and metals that will go into tomorrow's clean technology, that we can tap our abundant natural gas as a transitional fuel, and that we can get our resources to market. Those resources, by the way, include Canadian oil.

One of the clear messages from Generation Energy was that Canadians want a thriving low-carbon economy, but they also know that we are not there yet. They understand that while we need to prepare for the future, we must also deal with the present, by providing energy that they can count on when they flick on a light switch, or fill up their gas tanks, or plug in their electric cars. This means we must continue to support our oil and gas industry even as we develop alternatives, including solar, biomass, wind, and tidal.

We do not share the view of those who would simply pump as much oil as we can as fast as we can, nor do we agree with those who say we should leave all of the oil in the ground and never build another pipeline. Both miss the larger goal of balancing economic prosperity and environmental protection. How do we do both?

We do it by promoting resource development while putting a hard cap on greenhouse gas emissions, including Alberta's 100-megatonne limit on the oil sands. We do it by putting a price on carbon, implementing a $1.5 billion oceans protection plan, and enforcing new environmental safeguards, such as those in the Pipeline Safety Act. We do it by recognizing that a strong and sustainable oil and gas industry represents an enormous opportunity to fund the transition to a low-carbon economy.

Here are a few quick statistics. In 2016, the oil and gas industry directly employed 190,000 Canadians, producing $75 billion in exports and accounting for almost 5% of our GDP. It also generated billions of dollars in government revenues, revenues that pay for our hospitals and schools, for the social programs that make us who we are, and for the clean energy and new technologies that represent our future.

The Harper government took the approach of ignoring indigenous rights, climate change, and the environment in favour of economic development at all costs. This resulted in Canadians losing trust in the way major resource projects were being assessed.

That is why, when we formed government, we introduced a set of interim principles to get environmental assessments and regulatory reviews moving on those projects already in the queue, principles that reflected our priorities: maintaining certainty for investors, expanding public consultations, enhancing indigenous engagement, and including greenhouse gas emissions in our project assessments.

The benefits of these interim principles were felt right away. Major projects, such as the Trans Mountain expansion and the Line 3 replacement pipelines were approved, while the northern gateway project was not. Each one was the right decision based on good jobs, sound science, and the national interest.

Our goal has always been a permanent fix to Canada's environmental assessments. Just seven months into our mandate, we launched a comprehensive review that included modernizing the National Energy Board, protecting our fish, and preserving our waterways. We appointed expert panels, enlisted parliamentarians, released a discussion paper, and at every step of the way consulted Canadians, listening more than we spoke.

What emerged from these efforts were the same messages we heard through Generation Energy. Canadians are engaged. They are well-informed. They know the economy and the environment can and must go hand in hand. They agree that Canada works best when Canadians work together.

Those are the hallmarks of Bill C-69, a new and inclusive approach to protect the environment and build a stronger economy, creating good jobs and a sustainable future. It is an approach based on restoring public trust, renewing Canada's relationship with indigenous peoples, collaborating with the provinces and territories, protecting our environment, fish and waterways, and encouraging more investments in Canada's natural resource sector: better rules to build a better Canada.

It all starts with our proposal for an early engagement and planning phase that would help resource companies with new projects identify the priorities of local communities and indigenous peoples. This would create immediate benefits. First, the proponents and their investors would have a clear lay of the land before they spend a lot of money advancing their proposals. Second, by identifying the key issues early, the ensuing project reviews would be shorter and more focused. In other words, by engaging earlier, companies would be better able to plan and develop smarter, all of which would help them to attract investment, maintain competitiveness, and enhance bottom lines.

Bill C-69 also proposes to integrate project reviews within a single, consistent impact assessment, which Canadians have been calling for for years: one project, one assessment. Our legislation would do this by creating a new federal agency for impact assessments, the impact assessment agency of Canada, that would be responsible for coordinating indigenous consultations and collaborating with federal regulators who provide specialized expertise.

We are also proposing to establish a new federal energy regulator to replace the National Energy Board. Called the Canadian energy regulator, or CER, it would have the required independence and the proper accountability to oversee a strong, safe, and sustainable Canadian energy sector in the 21st century. Located in Calgary where much of the country's energy expertise is located, the CER would help restore investor confidence, renew Canada's relationship with indigenous peoples, and rebuild trust through open and inclusive public participation, all while ensuring good projects go ahead and our energy resources get to markets.

This new energy regulator would be specifically designed to deal with the shifting global energy markets of the 21st century, to respond to the evolving legal landscape for indigenous rights, and to adopt new technology that can support greater transparency and broader public engagement.

Let me outline how the new Canadian energy regulator would do this in five key ways.

First, it would have a more modern and effective governance. While the National Energy Board has served Canadians well, its structure, role, and mandate have remained relatively unchanged since the National Energy Board Act was first introduced in 1959. The Canadian energy regulator act clarifies the new regulator's responsibilities and operations, while strengthening its independence and its diversity. This includes separating the regulator's adjudicative function, which demands a high degree of independence, from its daily operations where a high degree of accountability is what we need. This would be achieved through a board of directors that would provide oversight, strategic direction, and advice on operations, while the chief executive officer, separate from the board, would be responsible for day-to-day operations.

The new regulator would also include a group of independent commissioners who would be responsible for timely, inclusive, and transparent project reviews and decision-making. The act would enhance the diversity of the new regulator's board of directors and commissioners, requiring the regulator's expert panels to include expertise in traditional indigenous knowledge, as well as municipal, engineering, and environmental issues, and ensuring that at least one member of the board of directors and one commissioner are indigenous.

Second, the act proposes to strengthen investment certainty and deliver timelier decisions. The energy sector's future success depends on a predictable process and timely regulatory decisions for major new projects, without compromising on public consultations, indigenous reconciliation, or environmental stewardship. The principle of “one project, one assessment” directly addresses those concerns.

Under the legislation, the Canadian energy regulator would work closely with the new impact assessment agency for new projects requiring a full impact assessment. With smaller projects, the new regulator would conduct the reviews and have final decision-making authority for minor administrative functions, such as certain certificate and licence variances, transfers, and the suspension of certificates or licences. Under our plan, project reviews would not exceed two years for major new projects and not more than 300 days for smaller ones. The Canadian energy regulator act would also restore the regulator's pre-2012 decision-making authority to issue a certificate for major projects, subject to cabinet approval. This change is important because it removes the federal cabinet's ability to overturn a negative decision from the CER, but maintains the cabinet's right to ask commissioners to reconsider a decision.

The third key change is an emphasis on more inclusive public engagement. Our new approach would create more opportunities for Canadians to have their say on resource development. This would include more avenues outside of the traditional hearing process so that Canadians could debate pressing issues that are beyond the scope of the regulator's project reviews. The new Canadian energy regulator would also be more open and transparent, making more information public in a language that is easier to understand.

Here are a few examples. The NEB's existing “test for standing” would be eliminated to ensure every Canadian has an opportunity to express his or her views during project reviews. The new regulator would also accept comments from the public on a draft list of issues and factors. These would include explicit consideration of environmental, social, safety, health, and socioeconomic issues, as well as gender-based impacts and effects on indigenous peoples. As well, the CER's participant funding program would be expanded to support new activities.

Fourth, the new Canadian energy regulator would help advance reconciliation through greater indigenous participation. No relationship is more important to Canada than the one with indigenous peoples. Our government is committed to renewing that relationship based on recognition of rights, respect, co-operation, and partnership. Our government's new rights and recognition framework represents a historic step in that direction, replacing confrontation with collaboration, but we know we cannot do this on our own.

Canada's energy sector has been playing a key role in building indigenous partnerships through benefit agreements, indigenous advisory and monitoring committees for new pipelines, and indigenous-led assessments. Our legislation would complement those efforts by recognizing indigenous rights up front and confirming the government's duty to consult, requiring consideration of traditional indigenous knowledge, building capacity and enhanced funding for indigenous participation, and aiming to secure free, prior, and informed consent.

Fifth and finally, the new federal energy regulator would oversee stronger safety and environmental protection. The Canadian energy regulator act would strengthen the federal energy regulator's powers to protect Canadians and the environment in a number of important ways, such as assigning new powers to federal inspection officers, clarifying the regulator's role in enforcing standards related to cybersecurity, and authorizing the CER to safely cease the operation of pipelines in cases where the owner is in receivership, insolvent, or bankrupt.

In all of these ways, through modern and effective governance, enhanced certainty and timelier decisions, wider public engagement and greater indigenous participation, and strengthened safety and environmental protections, the Canadian energy regulator would help create the new environmental and regulatory system we want, one that promotes common values and ensures shared benefits. Our legislation is for the Canada we have today and the Canada we want tomorrow, a Canada that uses the resources of its land and the resourcefulness of its people to lead in this clean-growth century, a Canada that not only imagines the future but creates it for generations to come.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to continue my comments on part 2 of Bill C-69, the Canadian energy regulator act.

Last week I shared some concerns about the bill, especially in the context of the Liberals' constant denigration and undermining of confidence in the regulator and in Canada's reputation at home and internationally, especially since the 2015 election, with respect to responsible resource development.

The Liberals have imposed new hurdles, delays, rule changes, called for phasing out the oil sands, added costs and roadblocks to the oil and gas sector, which is already the most heavily-regulated industry in Canada by all levels of government. They have told the hundreds of thousands of unemployed energy workers in Canada to just hang in there.

Regulatory and fiscal policies are key factors in the economics and business decisions of multi-year, multi-billion dollar energy projects for private sector companies. Now the Liberals are adding more uncertainty with more processes and more details yet to be known. The risk is the acceleration of the already massive investment and job losses in Canada's natural resources development as a result of the Liberals' ideological and anti-energy-driven decisions.

I am concerned about the new preplanning phase in part 1 that would apply to major projects like pipelines. Put aside the fact that Canadian common best practice already is to undertake early pre-project engagement with stakeholders, indigenous communities, and scientific experts. According to Bill C-69, after the initial six-month process, the minister alone can deny projects before the assessment stage. So much for experts, transparency, objective evidence and clear measures.

The bill provides no assurances that clear and publicly-known rules will be applied consistently to all project applications or that the full rationale for a denial will be made public. This approach clearly allows for political and ideological decision-making behind closed doors. The only hope for energy developers is that if a project is politically risky, the minister might kill it at the outset, instead of forcing proponents to wade through years of expensive reviews, wasting time and billions of dollars of capital investment, risking jobs in the meantime.

I want to review the three key claims made by the Liberals.

First, the Liberals claim that public participation will increase in both volume and effectiveness because of the elimination of the standing test of the National Energy Board. That test set out the two-pronged consideration for those who can participate: first, anyone who was directly affected by the project; and, second, anyone who had sufficient expertise or relevant information may be heard. On the face of it, that is reasonable.

However, let us look at a concrete example, the Enbridge Line 9B reversal and Line 9 capacity expansion proposal, about how this test operated in practice.

After receiving 177 applications to participate, the NEB granted 158 applicants full participation rights, and asked 11 applicants to submit a letter of comment. The board only denied eight. One of them appealed, so the courts examined her application and the board's decision. Her application was aimed at the second prong of the standing test, to contribute based on her expertise.

The judicial decision stated:

She stated that she had a specified and detailed interest in the matter...based on her religious faith. In her view, a spill from a pipeline, even far away from her home, is “an insult to [her] sense of the holy.”

I think this case illustrates that the standing test worked reasonably, designed to keep the focus of the approval hearings on important issues and to weed out irrelevant information.

Now let us review the new standing provision. Section 183(3) states, “Any member of the public may, in a manner specified by the Commission, make representations with respect to an application for a certificate.”

I note this language excludes no one. Every person or organization, so long as they comply with the procedure, may submit comment and be heard. This means that a radical anti-resources activist organization from Europe or an American-funded group competing with Canadian companies for investment dollars has the same right to be heard at a hearing for a pipeline, mine, or an LNG project in Canada under Canadian regulations, in Canada's process, as local stakeholders, indigenous communities, industry representatives, experts, and concerned Canadian groups.

Therefore, the regulator will have two options. It might choose to allow everyone who asks to be heard to provide comment, which effectively eliminates any meaningful participation, because when everyone is heard in fact no one is heard. Or the regulator will establish a hierarchy where some participants have the right to give oral and written evidence, others will give written submissions, and the least helpful or relevant contributions will be relegated to some kind of participation prize category where they can contribute but no one will care.

This is fundamentally chaotic, unpredictable, and unclear. How can a proponent prepare for a hearing process where literally anyone can provide comments and questions? Why should decisions about Canadian projects in Canada be influenced by non-Canadians?

The second key claim the Liberals make is that Bill C-69 would create concrete timelines of 450 days for major projects and 300 days for minor projects, except it does not really.

First, the clock starts only when the commission says the applicant has submitted the complete application, but it is entirely discretionary. The bill gives no definition of what is “complete”. It does not prevent the regulator from continuously deciding that an application is incomplete for political reasons or otherwise.

The second problem is that the regulator may exclude any period of time from the time limit calculations, so long as reasons are provided. It is any amount of time and any number of times. Is a timeline that could have any part of it excluded from the calculation really a timeline at all?

The third problem is that the minister may extend the timeline indefinitely by issuing repeat orders granting new 300 or 450 day timeline resets. Stakeholders, like the Mining Association of Canada, are concerned that the proposed system for timelines could undermine the competitiveness and growth prospects of mining in Canada, a sector that is often the only or the major employer in northern, remote, and indigenous communities.

It is disingenuous of the Liberals to claim they have made timelines concrete when the bill clearly shows there is nothing concrete about them.

The Liberals third claim is that new factors for consideration will make the approval process more robust and produce better results for Canadians. Of course factors for consideration for a major pipeline project, for instance, are fundamental to its viability. For example, the Liberals interfered in the energy east hearings, and their appointed panel told the NEB that even though it was years and millions of dollars into the process, energy east should be reconsidered, based on upstream and, for the first time ever, downstream emissions. Making upstream and downstream emissions a condition for pipelines is a double standard to which no other major infrastructure, or any other sector or foreign oil, is held. It is already regulated provincially. The Liberals forced energy east to be abandoned.

On page 167, proposed subsection 183(1)(2), it states:

The Commission must make its recommendation taking into account...all considerations that appear to it to be relevant and directly related to the pipeline, including

(a) the environmental effects, including any cumulative environmental effects;

The term is not defined and may be designed to allow a project to be killed for political expediency.

Cumulative environmental impacts should be clearly defined here, not left broad and vague. Also, it is unfair to project proponents to account for impacts elsewhere in the value chain. For example, the approval of Trans Mountain should not hinge on Kinder Morgan accounting for emissions of planes flying out of Victoria and Vancouver. Imagine if that same standard applied to other vital infrastructure, like highways, airports, and rail.

On top of that, once a project gets through every single hurdle and even if approval is granted, the minister or the regulator can still issue a post-approval demand for further study and evaluation. This new measure almost guarantees delays after future approvals. Despite the Liberal rhetoric, that is exactly how the B.C. NDP is trying to kill Trans Mountain right now. Unfortunately, it is already clear that under the Liberals, federal approval of a national project in federal jurisdiction does not mean it still will not be stopped.

For every Liberal claim about the bill, the process is clearly designed for political influence and intervention. At any stage the minister can step in and kill the project. Even at the various stages where there is no formal ministerial approval required, the minister still could interfere, just as the Liberals did with energy east, and signal to the regulator that the project needs to be delayed or killed outright. It does not clarify or streamline an objective, evidence-based process where decisions will be made by experts.

What are the results? Suncor, the leading integrated oil and gas company in Canada, says that it will not invest in major projects in Canada in the future. Billions of investment dollars are leaving Canada for the U.S. and other energy-producing jurisdictions. The combined impact of additional regulations, higher taxes, and uncertainty makes Canada a more difficult place to invest capital.

There is another component of Bill C-69 that requires careful examination.

The government claims the bill would broadly enhance and expand consultations with indigenous communities, but the government should be more precise and accurate. Bill C-69 does not actually change the consultation rights for indigenous communities at all. Canada has developed, through laws, executive action, and court decisions, a framework within which meaningful indigenous consultation occurs. The crown has a duty, when it takes executive action, to examine if it would interfere with or infringe on a section 35-protected right of an indigenous community. If such a right is identified and the executive still intends on following that course of action, the indigenous community must be meaningfully consulted and compensated for any loss or infringement of the right.

Bill C-69 simply would not change this fundamental principle.

What I have heard from pro-energy and pro-natural resources indigenous groups is that the Liberals are interfering with their ability to responsibly manage their lands and to engage with industry in equity partnerships, which is a widespread practice. From the tanker and drilling bans to the northern gateway veto, the Liberals unilaterally destroyed immediate and future opportunities in responsible resource development for indigenous people, without consultation.

Canadian natural resource proponents have long worked with indigenous communities early to identify affected communities and establish relationships. In the case of Trans Mountain, literally any indigenous community that wanted to be involved was included in consultation. The project is supported by 40 aboriginal groups along the route and four of the six first nations in the area are equity partners.

The real question the House must consider about the legislation is this. What global oil market share should Canada own? As well, what will really be the future of natural resources development and all the jobs it provides across the country? The fact is that global demand for oil and gas is going to continue to increase. Countries that do not match Canada's environmental, human rights, labour and consultation standards, and transparency are ready to meet that demand.

If the Liberals continue to create more layers and uncertainty, it will only mean Canadian energy investment will continue to fall and energy resources will not be able to meet that increasing demand from Canada.

Energy is the number one private sector investor in the Canadian economy, and it is Canada's second biggest export. The importance of this sector cannot be understated. The responsible development and transportation of Canada's energy resources lifts that standard of living of every Canadian, reduces poverty, and funds important social programs in every community across the country.

Canada's economy needs a strong natural resources sector. It has sole ownership of 7% of GDP. It produces billions of dollars and a million jobs. It is Canada's opportunity to continue to be an environmental leader in the world.

Ramming this bill through is irresponsible. Industry is already pulling investment capital from Canada. It is warning about the impacts of this legislation. Hundreds of thousands of jobs have already been lost. If Bill C-69 passes, in one blow, the Liberals will have put at serious risk the immediate and long-term future of Canada's natural resources development.

I will oppose this bill and encourage my colleagues to do so. I hope, at the very least, the Liberals will allow us to represent the people who sent us here on their behalf to represent their interests and values, and to give this massive legislation the debate it deserves.

The House resumed from February 14 consideration of the motion that Bill C-69, 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, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Bill C-69—Proposal to Apply Standing Order 69.1

[Ruth Ellen Brosseau, NDP, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order regarding the omnibus nature of the most recent government bill, Bill C-69, 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.

I do so somewhat reluctantly because the government has just finished passing a time allocation motion that will limit the debate on this enormous important and sensitive bill. There will be fewer than 10 hours of debate. The time is at such a premium here that I will do my best to be very brief.

I also note, Mr. Speaker, that in your ruling of November 7 of last year on a similar request, you said, “I would encourage them to raise their arguments as early as possible in the process, especially given that the length of debate at a particular stage can be unpredictable.”

I doubt even you could have foreseen the government would have shut the door on debate here after just two hours, but I trust that you will still have enough time to rule on this request before the debate wraps up this Friday.

Standing Order 69.1 states:

In the case where a government bill seeks to repeal, amend or enact more than one act, and where there is not a common element connecting the various provisions or where unrelated matters are linked, the Speaker shall have the power to divide the questions, for the purposes of voting, on the motion for second reading and reference to a committee and the motion for third reading and passage of the bill. The Speaker shall have the power to combine clauses of the bill thematically and to put the aforementioned questions on each of these groups of clauses separately, provided that there will be a single debate at each stage.

Mr. Speaker, as you can see, Bill C-69 repeals two laws, enacts three new laws, and amends 31 existing laws. In total, Bill C-69 will affect 36 statutes. Bill C-69 enacts the impact assessment act, which will replace the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. As a result, the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act and the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, which were put in place by Mr. Harper in 2012, will be replaced by the new impact assessment act and the new impact assessment agency of Canada. This agency will now be responsible for any assessments requiring federal review—

Bill C-69—Time Allocation Motion

[Catherine McKenna, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, let me be clear. Over the 14 months, we travelled across the country. We heard from Canadians. We heard from environmentalists. We heard from industry. We heard from provinces and territories. We heard from indigenous peoples.

When Bill C-69 gets to environment committee, we need to make sure it has time to hear from witnesses, to review the bill, to go clause by clause. As I said, I would be very happy to answer detailed questions at committee.

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

Madam Speaker, I must say I am astonished that the minister is so unfamiliar with the content of the bill she is attempting to rush through the House on this day. This is an omnibus bill, but it is not, as she claims, a bill that brings together four pieces of legislation. If she were aware, Bill C-68 is the Fisheries Act and it was not lumped together with Bill C-69, which is an omnibus bill and requires proper study. It is offensive. If it were good legislation, I might get behind rushing it through, but it is decidedly not good legislation and it must not be rushed. Bill C-68 is good legislation and the fisheries minister, lucky for him, does not have to wear the rest of this package of hybrid Harper-Liberal strategy that will make a mess of our environmental assessment.

Here is some gender analysis on this day that we are expecting a gender budget. For an omnibus bill including legislation that would normally be presented by the male Minister of Transport and another piece of legislation that would normally be presented by the male Minister of Natural Resources, why does she suppose they picked the Minister of Environment and Climate Change to wear the whole thing? They are eroding her political capital by having an omnibus bill where she is the only target.

[Catherine McKenna, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, our government knows how important it is to establish better rules for reviewing environmental processes to protect this country's environment, fish, and waterways, restore public confidence, respect indigenous rights, strengthen our economy, and attract investment.

We agree that this is very important, and that is why it is important for the Standing Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development to have enough time to complete its study, hear from witnesses, and work on Bill C-69. I hope the NDP will work with us to make sure we have good laws to protect environmental processes.

[Ruth Ellen Brosseau, NDP, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Madam Speaker, I want to stress my disappointment with this government's use of time allocation for Bill C-69. This is an incredibly important bill that is over 400 pages long and affects 36 acts.

The bill was tabled quite recently, on February 8, and was called for debate the following Wednesday, less than a week later. Bill C-69 has been debated for just two hours so far. We still have a chance to debate it today, but our discussion will be curtailed by the government's time allocation motion and the tabling of the budget. Our only other opportunity to debate this bill will be Friday. That means the mammoth Bill C-69 will be debated for less than 10 hours total in the House of Commons.

We just heard the Minister of Environment say that this is a critical bill and it is really important. I just want to ask the government why it is forcing us to have less time to look at this bill and debate this important piece of legislation. It is important to engage in this House of Commons. It is important to make sure that we have the time necessary to evaluate this bill.

[Catherine McKenna, Liberal, Minister of Environment and Climate Change]

Madam Speaker, I absolutely agree that this bill is of critical importance. It is really important that we rebuild trust for lost protections when it comes to our environment, fish, and waterways. We need to make sure that we engage with indigenous peoples. We also need to make sure that we attract investment. It is very important that the environment committee have the appropriate time to review, hear witnesses, and work through the clause-by-clause of Bill C-69. I really hope that the party opposite will join in detailed questions at committee.

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister of Small Business and Tourism]

moved:

That, in relation to Bill C-69, 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, not more than one further sitting day after the day on which this Order is adopted shall be allotted to the consideration at second reading stage of the Bill; and

That, 15 minutes before the expiry of the time provided for Government Orders on the day allotted to the consideration at second reading stage of the said Bill, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required for the purpose of this Order, and, in turn, every question necessary for the disposal of the said stage of the Bill shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment.