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.

Natural Resources

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the reality is this. In the last year and a half I have talked with fund development managers. They have explained how the billion dollar funds they monitor have gone to the U.S. I have constituents in my riding who own oil rigs and have all sorts of pipeline. They have gone to Texas and are not coming back. The fund managers say that they are not coming back because of the legislation they are facing, which the government can delay for 600 days. The minister can intervene at any time.

We need to appoint an ambassador to China so we can get the canola going. We could take that quarter billion dollars back from the investment bank, which is building pipelines in Asia, and build pipelines here.

We need a different approach. Bill C-69 does not work. It is divisive.

[Andrew Leslie, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs (Canada-U.S. Relations)]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-69 is about re-establishing the balance between economic prosperity and environmental protection. It is about restoring investor certainty, rebuilding public trust and advancing indigenous reconciliation, all the while ensuring that good projects are built in a timely, responsible and transparent way. That is what we have been doing since assuming office. We have approved the Line 3 replacement project, supported Keystone XL and done the hard work necessary to ensure we move forward in the right way on the Trans Mountain expansion project.

We know there is still more to be done, but our efforts are starting to pay off.

Let us look at the LNG Canada decision last fall to proceed with its $40-billion project on the west coast of British Columbia. It will create thousands of good jobs and generate billions of dollars in new revenue for government, all the while building the cleanest, large scale LNG facility in the world to bring Canadian natural gas to new global markets.

There are also plans for a $4.5-billion petrochemical facility in Sturgeon County.

Inter Pipeline, which is another example, is proceeding with two new facilities, valued at $3.5-billion, in Alberta's industrial heartland.

Nauticol has given its green light to develop a $2-billion methanol plant just south of Grande Prairie.

These are real investments in our energy sector, in Canadians and in Alberta. In fact, there are more than half a trillion dollars in new resource projects that have either been started or are planned over the next 10 years. In Alberta alone, that includes 102 energy projects, representing a total investment of $178 billion. That is good news.

At the same time, we have recently announced a $1.6 billion package to support workers in the energy sector and boost the industry's competitiveness. This includes a $1 billion program in commercial financial support from Export Development Canada to invest in innovative technologies.

There are another $500 million in new commercial funding from the Business Development Bank of Canada to support energy diversification, as well as $50 million from Natural Resources Canada's clean growth program that will leverage almost $900 million in new investments in oil and gas projects.

These investments reflect our confidence in Alberta and our belief in all Canadians with respect to making Canada the supplier of choice in this century of clean energy.

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to address a different topic. The question is about trade.

Canada is a trading nation and has been a trading nation for hundreds of years. We have some challenges. In my riding, we have some legislation that is not only hampering trade but is divisive, particularly in western Canada.

Bill C-69, for example, is a piece of legislation this government has brought forward that we find very divisive. Trade is important, but we have lots of issues in western Canada. For example, the government has never fixed the problems with Italy. Durham wheat, which we grow in my riding, is the best in the world, and we can no longer send it to Italy.

Regarding India, we grow a tremendous amount of lentils and peas in western Canada and in my area. We had the situation in India after the Prime Minister's visit, and now, with the tariffs, that trade is not a possibility.

The highest quality barley in the world, as of a year ago, is no longer traded with Saudi Arabia.

We then get to China. The issues we have with China started with officially shutting down trade in canola seed. However, there are two other parts to canola: the meal and the oil. The Chinese are refusing to offload it. There are boats in harbours sitting in China paying the demurrage fees back to the producers because they will not even unload it. Now we are hearing of more agricultural products produced in the west. We feel a lot of divisiveness in the sense of trade issues and the challenges we have.

Then we get to Bill C-69 and the tanker ban, Bill C-48, which basically says that we are not going to build pipelines anymore. Was there consultation on Bill C-48? I do not remember that one. Bill C-69 is here. Martha Hall Findlay says that it will significantly increase political interference in the regulatory process. The Canadian Energy Pipeline Association states, “It is difficult to imagine that a new major pipeline could be built in Canada under the Impact Assessment Act”.

Stephen Buffalo, president and CEO of the Indian Resource Council says, “Indigenous communities are on the verge of a major economic breakthrough, one that finally allows Indigenous people to share in Canada's economic prosperity. Bill C-69 will stop this progress in its tracks.”

We find that those two pieces of legislation, Bill C-69 and Bill C-48, are very divisive in western Canada and very much against what we are as a trading country.

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

Thank you very much, Chair.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak to the committee. It's great being back; I appreciate the work the committee does. It's really important that action to protect the environment and tackle climate change is not a partisan issue.

I want to acknowledge the hard work of the colleagues who have joined me today: Sean Fraser, parliamentary secretary for this portfolio; Dr. Stephen Lucas, deputy minister of Environment and Climate Change Canada; Michael Nadler, acting chief executive officer of the Parks Canada Agency; and Ron Hallman, president of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency.

Gentlemen, thank you for your work.

I want to start by recognizing that we're on the traditional territory of the Algonquin and Anishinabe peoples.

I also want to recognize all the people who are suffering with the flooding that's going on. That's people in New Brunswick, in Quebec, in Ontario and in the national capital region. I know our members of Parliament are working very hard; thank you for that.

On behalf of the Government of Canada and all Canadians, my department is taking strong action to protect our environment, fight climate change, conserve nature and grow our economy.

On April 11, the main estimates were tabled. For Environment and Climate Change Canada, the main estimates for 2019-20 are $1.8 billion. This represents an increase in planned spending of $312.2 million.

The increase is mainly due to new funding for two priorities. The first is to re-profile funds for the low carbon economy fund to support our work on climate change and clean growth. The second is to better protect Canada's nature, parks and wild spaces.

These main estimates also include four new votes that total $26.3 million. This includes Canada's marine safety response and funding for strong Arctic and northern communities.

In addition, we will be implementing a federal carbon offset system to develop the information technology infrastructure and tracking systems required for a national carbon offset credit system.

It also includes ensuring better disaster management, preparation and response. Unfortunately, the annual economic costs of disasters around the world have increased fivefold since the 1980s, as events related to climate change have occurred with more frequency and severity. Canada has not been immune to this trend.

Our planet is in crisis. Canadians are deeply anxious about climate change. Under the previous Conservative government, these concerns were ignored. Our country is warming at twice the global rate, according to expert Government of Canada scientists, and our north at three times the rate. Canadians voted for leadership that would confront this crisis with action: it is a moral imperative.

We're working hard to make sure all Canadians are part of our cleaner future, from resource workers and their communities to the school strikers and other young people calling for bold climate action.

Climate change is creating real and present dangers. Here in Ottawa and Gatineau, our riverbanks have been breached by floods once again. What we called the flood of a century now happens every few years.

Across our country, you will hear more and more stories related to the environment. These extreme weather events are happening more and more often because of a situation our species, humankind, has created.

The simple fact is that in 2019, if you don't have a plan for the environment, you don't have a plan for the economy. Our made in Canada climate plan, made with all Canadians, includes phasing out coal-fired electricity and regulating greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles, methane emissions from oil and gas, and HFCs, which on their own could account for half a degree of global warming. We're also investing in energy efficiency across the country.

An important part of any serious climate plan ensures it's no longer free to pollute. Climate change is already costing us a fortune. Last year, extreme weather caused $1.9 billion in property damage. That number is estimated to go as high as $43 billion by 2050.

Putting a price on carbon is a practical and proven solution to reduce emissions. Let me also unequivocally remind you that all direct proceeds from federal carbon pricing will be returned to the jurisdiction in which they were collected. In Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and New Brunswick, taxpayers get the money back through the climate action incentive when they file their 2018 taxes.

Let me be clear that all money collected under the price on pollution is going back into the province, with 90% of the money going directly to families. Eighty per cent of families will be better off, so go file your taxes if you are in Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan or New Brunswick.

Last week, the parliamentary budget office's independent analysis found that under the federal system, all but the wealthiest 20% of Canadians will get more back through the climate action incentive rebate than they pay. A price on pollution encourages Canadians to make cleaner choices, reduces pollution and helps Canada meet its Paris Agreement requirements. It is a practical and affordable way to fight climate change.

Leading economists from all over the world agree that putting a price on pollution and returning the money, as this system does, is one of the most effective ways to encourage people and businesses to reduce their pollution.

While we are standing on the precipice of a climate catastrophe, members of the opposition want to make climate action a partisan issue. We've been waiting a year—yes, today marks 365 days—to see the Conservatives' climate plan. They keep stalling, but time is running out. Worse, they're misleading Canadians about how the federal price on pollution works.

A number of our Conservative colleagues recently sent out taxpayer-funded householders— newsletters—that deliberately withheld details about how their constituents can claim their climate action incentive. That's hundreds of dollars that rightly belong to their constituents, to Canadians.

Conservatives are more focused on scoring partisan points than looking out for the people they're elected to represent and ensuring they are better off.

That's just one of the ways I have seen the members of the opposition use to mislead their constituents and to spread information that is partially, or even totally, false. Climate change is a serious and urgent issue that should not be used as a political forum by the opposition.

The children who are marching the streets may not be able to vote yet, but they know that we need to do more, not less. They do not inherit the earth from us when we are done polluting it. We are borrowing the earth from them.

Mr. Chair, protecting the environment and supporting a sustainable economy also means keeping our waters clean and our oceans healthy. That's why our departmental plan outlines strategies to protect Canada's freshwater resources and reduce marine litter and plastic waste.

We are continuing to work with international partners, all levels of government, indigenous communities, industry and the public to reduce plastic waste and its pollution.

We launched the ocean plastics charter during Canada's G7 presidency, to beat plastic pollution and keep it out of our oceans, lakes and rivers. Membership has expanded to 18 governments and over 50 organizations. We're working with the provinces and territories on a Canada-wide strategy to keep plastics in the economy and out of landfills.

Work also continues on implementing the recommendations of the committee's report on the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. Many of the actions require using new science, and actions are being taken to strengthen the use of new science in decision-making.

Our departmental plan also highlights major investments in conservation. The world is home to 60% less wildlife than it was in 1970 and wilderness is disappearing rapidly. Canada is one of five countries that holds the world's significant remaining wilderness. We are in a unique position to lead. That's why our government launched the nature legacy fund; the single-largest investment to protect nature in Canada's history. We've also protected 11.8% of our land and fresh water and 8% of our oceans and coastal areas. We're well on our way to doubling the amount of nature being protected across Canada.

On that note, I'd like to speak now about the main estimates for the Parks Canada Agency.

Protected areas play a critical role in restoring the health of ecosystems and protect biodiversity. Intact wilderness absorbs twice as much carbon as other landscapes, helping to mitigate the impact of climate change.

The main estimates propose about $1.65 billion in total funding for the Parks Canada Agency. This represents an increase of $178 million. In addition, budget 2019 proposes $368 million for capital projects to protect natural treasures in our national parks, historic sites and marine conservation areas.

To quickly highlight a few of Parks Canada's recent accomplishments, in October, Canada reached an agreement in principle with the Qikiqtani Inuit Association for the proposed Tallurutiup Imanga/Lancaster Sound national marine conservation area in Nunavut. It will become the largest protected area in Canada, covering 2% of our oceans.

In early 2019, the first-ever management plan for Rouge National Urban Park was tabled in Parliament. Meanwhile, budget 2019 proposed to take steps to legally establish Thaidene Nëné National Park Reserve in the Northwest Territories.

I'd like to speak about the vital work of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency. The government tabled Bill C-69, which proposes to put in place better rules to protect our environment and rebuild public trust in decisions about major projects. It also aims to restore investor confidence and ensure that good projects can move forward in a timely way. The agency plays a key leadership role in the development and implementation of this legislation and associated regulations, and can be very proud of the many contributions it makes on behalf of Canadians. The Senate is diligently considering this bill, as I speak.

The agency's total 2019-20 main estimates is $74.2 million. The requested funding supports continued delivery of environmental assessments under the current act. It also anticipates new and expanded activities under the proposed impact assessment act. These activities would touch on impact assessment, partnering with indigenous peoples. They would work on cumulative effects and collaborating with other jurisdictions to make assessments more efficient, supporting the objective of one project, one review.

Mr. Chair, this concludes my formal remarks to the committee.

I thank you again for the invitation. I look forward to your questions.

Budget Implementation Act, 2019, No. 1

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's comments and his humour. It is always funny watching Liberals stand up and try to explain all the great things they have done for western Canada, such as Bill C-69, the no new pipelines bill, and Bill C-48. It is amazing that we had four, now down to three, Liberal MPs from Alberta betray the people of Alberta by supporting the Liberal plan to destroy our energy industry.

As to the member's comment about infrastructure, again I have to laugh at this. The independent-controlled Senate, filled with Liberal senators and appointees, came out with a report that said there is no metric for success for the infrastructure spending by the government apart from money spent. Therefore, are we spending money so that people can get to work faster, improve productivity, which we are not, or improve the environment? No, the Liberal plan is not any of those. Its metric of success is spending.

We saw the spending for Alberta. The Prime Minister stood up and talked about it the other day. He bragged about putting ashtrays at bus stops in Alberta. We have 100,000 unemployed energy workers and the government is bragging about upgrading a bus stop with its infrastructure money. The current government has failed Alberta and this is another perfect example of it.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am going to be sharing my time today with my colleague from Louis-Saint-Laurent. For those who are watching at home and who may be quickly bored by my speech, if they hang in there for 10 minutes, they will hear a much better speech after by my colleague.

I am very pleased to join the debate today on the Liberal budget. The Liberals have presented what I call a Dr. Strangelove budget or, in this case, “How I stopped worrying and learned to love the debt”. That is what the government wants Canadians to believe: “Do not worry, we can continue to spend forever. Do not worry, the economy will grow forever. No recession will ever happen again. Do not worry, we can rack up debt to the very end of time and it will not be a problem. Do not worry about about interest payments. Do not worry about the fact that our interest payments are growing from this fiscal year of $26 billion and to $33.2 billion per year in just a four-year period.”

That is $149 billion that we are going to be paying, transferred out of the pockets of taxpayers to rich bondholders on Bay Street, just over a five-year period. It will be $149 billion. In the fourth year, 2023, it is going to be $33.2 billion. Now, that is more than we spend per year in EI payments. That is more than we pay out in the child benefit program. That is more than we pay out for national defence.

Here we are with the Liberal priority of paying off rich Bay Street bankers and bondholders instead of defence, instead of families and instead of those on EI. To put it in perspective, with that money, the Liberals could pay for 2,750 refrigeration units for the Weston family. Let us think about that. The Liberals could also provide their own billionaire island for every single cabinet minister, so they could go to their island and not worry about violating the ethics laws. Liberal ministers could go to their own billionaire island and not worry about being invited by a paid lobbyist.

“Do not worry” is what the Liberals are saying. Do not worry about the declining productivity rate that Canadians are suffering through. Do not worry about disappearing foreign investment.

That is one thing I do worry about, though. We see foreign investment fleeing Canada. We see the oil industry devastated, $100 billion fleeing to the States. We see the Liberals giving Kinder Morgan $4.5 billion to take out of the country and invest in pipelines in the States. Who do we see interested in investing in Canada, which the Liberals are only too happy to see? It is Huawei. We see Anbang investing in Canada, thanks to the Liberal government. We see the Chinese Communist government-controlled CCCC construction firm trying to buy out local Canadian infrastructure companies. The Liberals are all willing to invest in Canada but not regular people.

“Do not worry,” say the Liberals. Do not worry about the fact that the debt is going to rise to over three-quarters of a billion dollars over the next five years. That is not including Crown corporations. When we throw in the Crown corporations, it is well over a trillion dollars of debt that Canadians are going to be carrying. This money has to be worrying, but “Do not worry. Stop worrying. Learn to love it,” is what the Liberals are saying.

Canadians are worried. We sent out a request to my constituents, asking for their response, asking what they think of the debt and if they feel they are further ahead than when the Liberals took over. This is what they are saying. This is not the made-up information that is in the budget, such as “Billy went to buy an electric vehicle and got a handout from the government.” These are real Canadians, real people living in Edmonton West, and this what they are saying.

Elmer wrote in and said, “It's worse off and it's not improving. They are so concerned about the ramifications of Oshawa's GM plant closing. What about Alberta? We've had no oil revenue and, therefore, severe unemployment problems for over three years, but I have not seen any concern about Alberta's unemployment situation.”

We used to have four Liberal members of Parliament. We have not had any of them stand up, supporting Alberta. We had four MPs in Liberal Party from Alberta, which are now down to three because of a scandal. We used to have two in the cabinet and now we are down to one, again, because of a scandal.

The member for Calgary Centre stood up and publicly stated that he would pound his fist on the desk at the cabinet table to make sure pipelines were built. What has happened? Absolute crickets from the member, he has done nothing.

The natural resources minister is based in Edmonton in the riding of Edmonton Mill Woods. What has he done for Alberta? Absolutely nothing.

In the budget, $27 million are provided for the diversification of the western economy and there are $100 million for oil and gas support. What did the Liberals put aside for subsidies so wealthy people could buy electric vehicles? Almost half a billion dollars. Even though the Minister of Natural Resources is from Edmonton Mill Woods in Alberta, only $27 million have been provided for diversification.

What about the member for Edmonton Centre? I asked him for his thoughts on the no new pipeline bill, Bill C-69. I asked him about the offshore tanker ban that did not ban tankers, just Alberta oil. I also asked him about all of the Liberals' other punitive policies against Alberta. He stood and said that he was proud of them. He was proud to push through Bill C-69, which ensures we will not see a single new energy project ever again in Alberta. He was proud that our oil was banned on the west coast, while we happily bring in oil from Venezuela and Saudi Arabia. This is shameful.

I received a letter from a lady named Holly, who was asked if she was better off. She said, “Seriously? Can anyone be better off? We lost our small business of 20 years. We paid our taxes and paid our staff. The bank took our house, which guaranteed our small business loan, which we hadn't missed a payment on. All of our employees, including four family members, are all out of work. We are jobless and homeless, and the government just keeps on destroying the economy.”

Let us remember back to a couple of years ago when the Prime Minister was in Calgary and confronting these things. His comment was, “Just hang in there.” People like Holly cannot just hang in there. The government's policies are destroying the livelihoods and hope of people living in Alberta.

Brian writes, “Worse off—I live in subsidized housing in Edmonton—the cost of living has gone up a great deal but not our income. We all got a raise from the Alberta Government, not even $2. 30% of that goes to my apartment cost, so what did I get? We got a carbon tax—30% of that went to our apartment cost. Anything we get, 30% goes to the cost of our apartment.”

The Government members stand again and again, as they did just recently, to note the Liberals' $40-billion national housing program. Apparently, it is $50 billion now. The Institute of Fiscal Studies and Democracy, or IFSD, which is headed by former parliamentary budget officer Kevin Page, has looked for this money. It writes that the Liberals', “NHS looks like” nothing except a “glossy document that accompanied its announcement....unfortunately, for now, the NHS is virtually nowhere to be seen in the federal fiscal framework.”

With respect to the Liberals' $40 billion, the Prime Minister and the parliamentary secretary responsible for this both stood to say that the Liberals housed one million people. They actually told people this. That was until the Toronto Star, the prophet of North America, said this was not true and that the number was actually 13,000. The Liberals' own department results showed it was 13,000 and the Liberals claimed it was one million. However, they say, as they just did now, this is worth $50 billion.

The IFSD said that it could only find $1.3 billion budgeted in the first five years and $5.1 billion budgeted over 10 years.

As a last comment, I would like to note comments by a man named Helmut. He said, “Worse than a year ago. As a senior on income security, the provision is not keeping pace with high rise in expenses....”

This is what we are hearing from Canadians when we talk to them. They are barely treading water. They are not getting ahead, as generations have before them. Every time they take a step forward, the government drags them back two steps, whether it is done with the carbon tax, taking away other tax credits or pushing up debt, which pushes up interest rates. Canadians are not getting ahead.

On Tuesday, when Jason Kenney becomes premier of Alberta, we will take our first steps toward fixing the problems in Alberta. On October 21, we will take the next step, when we turf the government and bring back a Conservative government.

Equalization Payments

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, there are many people across Canada who are furious about the fact that the government continues to denigrate the energy sector and to cause the loss of jobs. They are also furious that they still have to pay the same level of equalization while the government takes away their jobs.

I am pleased to table this petition calling on the government to immediately cancel Bill C-69; to launch a study of the economic impact of equalization, including an examination of the formula and an examination of how renewable and non-renewable resources, including energy resources that are both developed and undeveloped, are treated in the formula; and to issue a report to Canadians on the fairness, effectiveness and outcomes of the equalization program.

Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act

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

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to speak to Bill C-88. Despite the use of time allocation, I appreciate that the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons earlier today said she would make efforts to give me a chance to speak and has done so. Even with abbreviated debate, I am therefore able to speak to this legislation.

I am also able to speak to what happened to this legislation when the Northwest Territories Devolution Act was brought forward in the 41st Parliament in 2014. It was something everyone wanted to support, but there were many measures with that act that were offensive to the foundational principles of self-government and respect for treaties.

In fact, the Mackenzie Valley Land and Water Board, the Gwich'in Land and Water Board, the Sahtu Land and Water Board and the Wek’eezhii Tlicho Land and Water Board, all of which were the result of treaty negotiations between the Crown and those nations, were callously, carelessly, disrespectfully and completely violated with the notion that we could replace them with something described as more efficient.

I protested those changes at the time, as did the previous NDP member of Parliament for the Northwest Territories, Dennis Bevington. We tried quite hard to persuade the 41st Parliament that it was wrong to change the law in this way.

Subsequent to the changes being made, a number of the boards that were impacted went to court to challenge what had just happened. The notion of a superboard was deeply offensive to the principle that had been there, which was that the land and water boards represented fifty-fifty decision-making between first nations and the federal government. It would have reduced the self-government that the Northwest Territories Devolution Act was supposed to respect. It would have taken away rights and reduced the scope of review by those various boards.

Earlier today in debate I heard a Conservative member say that Bill C-88 was another effort by the Liberal government to interfere with development, to thwart development and to drive investment away from Canada.

I am saddened by that kind of commentary. I agree with a number of criticisms of the Liberal government. There are a lot of measures being taken that I find far short of what is required, particularly when looking at the climate crisis, and far short of what is required when looking at the need for thorough environmental assessment. There was a commitment in the election to undo the damage that had been done by the Harper administration in a number of areas, and so far the Liberal government has done really well in some areas and less well in others.

It did extremely well in undoing discriminatory legislation towards trade unions, and that was done relatively quickly by the former member of cabinet responsible for labour issues.

The Liberal government did an extremely good job on a piece of legislation that is still before the Senate, Bill C-68, to repair the Fisheries Act. Bill C-68 not only repairs the damage that was done by the previous prime minister and his government and not only brings back protections for fish habitat. It also expands and improves other protections for habitat. It is an extremely important piece of legislation and I hope it passes quickly.

It is also complementary to a piece of legislation that I hope will be passed here. Earlier today in the House, the hon. member for Avalon, the chair of the fisheries committee, presented the report, and Bill S-203 is now back before the House. I hope we move to report stage and third reading expeditiously.

Bill C-68, which I am referencing, is also complementary in saying that we are now going to ban the taking of cetaceans into captivity in Canadian waters.

Again, all of these bills speak to undoing the damage done by the previous government, but Bill C-68 goes beyond that with more progressive measures.

Unfortunately, Bill C-69 is also before the Senate. I hope it will be amended and sent back here quickly. The Minister of Transport did an excellent job of repairing the former Navigable Waters Protection Act. There are some innovative changes to energy regulations. Unfortunately, the middle piece of legislation in that omnibus bill, the one on environmental review, does not undo the damage of the previous government, but rather keeps it in place.

However, this legislation is excellent in that it would actually undo the damage the previous government had done. It would set back in place the integrity of self-government, of decisions for land and water boards that reflect the negotiations under self-government agreements and treaties. Now that we are debating this bill at second reading, I would certainly like to see this bill in committee so that it could receive one or two additional amendments.

As was mentioned on the floor of the House earlier today when we started second reading debate of Bill C-88, given the content, the context and the need to take a step further and be more progressive than merely repairing, we should say that this bill operates under the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. That would be a very welcome amendment and, assuming this bill gets to committee and we are in a position to put forward amendments during clause-by-clause consideration, it is one that the committee can expect to hear from the Green Party.

I certainly support this bill, including the provisions to allow moratoria on drilling to affect such decisions based on evidence. I do hope the bill passes. I would like to see it pass with an amendment to ensure that it operates under the terms of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

I think that's why you're one of the most important elected leaders in the entire country. You're leading a fight that is imperative for every single Canadian citizen in every community in every province.

You made an interesting point earlier in your comments in talking about the best practices and the successes of the B.C. government in your negotiations, in the context of best practices for indigenous engagement on major resource projects. This is actually a point of concern for the Liberals' Bill C-69. As you probably know, the definitions of major and minor projects, the potential of in situ development to fall under the legislation, and the potential for—exactly as you just said—provincial projects and provincial jurisdictions to actually get caught up under that legislation will not really be established until the details are, through the development of regulations out until 2021, so it remains a real risk.

There are also numerous indigenous leaders speaking out against Bill C-69, because in fact it really does nothing concrete in terms of expanding or increasing the rights of indigenous communities to a consultation or accommodation, nor does it increase the scope of the measures, really, or the imperative on government to fully meet the Crown's duty to consult. The removal of the standing test will ensure that literally anyone, anywhere, can intervene in Canada's review process for major resource projects, rather than having it be confined to locally impacted communities, Canadian citizens, locally impacted indigenous communities or subject matter and technical experts.

In the context of engaging best practices for engagement of indigenous communities on resource projects, would you agree that it is completely backwards that a major regulatory and impact assessment overhaul of research projects that explicitly relates to the duty of the Crown to consult with indigenous communities is actually in the Senate right now, weeks or months away from becoming law, and that only now is this committee actually doing an extensive review of best practices for indigenous consultation on major resource project development?

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to rise today to speak to Bill C-88, an act to amend the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act and the Canada Petroleum Resources Act, and to make consequential amendments to other acts.

I say it is an honour, but I really question that when I take a look at what this bill is proposing to do. I say “proposing” because I hope we can make changes to it. What we see in this bill is what we have seen in other bills and in actions by the government. Basically, they are anti-resource actions.

The first action we saw on this was in November 2015, barely a month into the government's hopefully very short reign, when the Prime Minister decided to shut down the northern gateway project that would have taken oil resources from northern Alberta to tidewater. Rather than working with the challenges that were identified in that project, the Prime Minister decided, basically unilaterally, without debate in the House and without any criticism of his actions, to shut that down.

People in the north were looking forward to those jobs. People in ports and people right across the country could have benefited from those jobs. However, the Prime Minister made the decision almost single-handedly. Was it single-handedly, or was it a decision by his senior advisers? There was certainly very little input or debate in this House on that decision.

Next was the energy east pipeline, which would have taken high-quality Canadian products, produced and refined in Canada, to meet the fuel needs of eastern Canada. However, instead of allowing that project to proceed, the Prime Minister canned it as well.

Where are we now? We are still bringing in billions of dollars' worth of foreign oil. This foreign oil is produced in countries with lower environmental standards than we have in Canada, with lower human rights standards than we have in Canada and with lower technologies than we have in Canada.

That is the type of choice the Prime Minister and the government have been making. They have been penalizing Canadian resource workers and the companies and businesses that supply the resource sector from right across the country.

A lot of people think that the only jobs affected are those in Alberta or those in the oil sands projects, but those jobs stretch far further than that. I live in the North Okanagan—Shuswap, the south central part of British Columbia, a long way from the Alberta oil sands, but it is very close for some of the businesses and workers in my communities. I visited a machine shop that builds the highest-quality parts and pieces for the oil sector, everything from pipefittings to brackets and attachments used in the oil sector.

When I visited that machine shop and talked to the managers and people there, the pride they took in the quality of products they built, because of the technology that is developed out of the resource sector in Canada, was second to none. They manufacture and machine to a higher quality than anywhere else in the world, and it is because of one thing. It is because we have a strong resource sector in Canada.

They have seen their technology work. They have continuously improved on it. They have decided to go into a niche market of only looking at that top-end, high-quality, high environmental standard, high safety standard product, because there are people and businesses all over the world competing for the 20-year-old technology that is used in some of those countries I just referred to, which have lower environmental standards, lower human rights standards and lower worker safety standards.

The government continues to penalize Canadians for being innovative, for being creative and for taking the risk. They sometimes risk millions of dollars, their personal investments and their family homes to build a business or an industry that is reliant on the Canadian resource sector.

This bill is another step in that direction. The government is taking what we had done in a previous government in reducing the size of bureaucracy, making it easier for projects to move forward still with our the same high environmental standards. Now the Liberals are splitting it up, making it so that a major project like the Mackenzie Valley pipeline would have to go through multiple individual steps all the way through. The bill would do that kind of thing. As I mentioned, Bill C-88 is similar to many other bills in some other ways.

I am very familiar with Bill C-55, the Oceans Act, and the unilateral power that that bill would give to the minister, the unilateral power to shut down activities in an area, regardless of whether there would be scientific evidence as to the effects or not. Bill C-68 does much the same thing.

Bill C-69, which has been referred to as the “never do anything ever again” bill, is now in the Senate, I believe.

Those bills would give unprecedented unilateral power to ministers to make a decision to shut down activities without it being based on science, without it being based on debate.

The other one, which we saw for the first time, was in Bill C-68, the Fisheries Act. There is a paragraph in there that says that the minister on making decisions on a project must consider the intersection of sex and gender into his decision-making process. We saw that clause and it baffled us. What does that mean in a Fisheries Act bill? We also have to wonder what it means in a resource act bill.

The briefing that we received, to summarize and really simplify it, meant that any project moving forward had to look at the impact of outside workers coming into a community, for example, the impact of growth in the community, the impact of, as I said, sex and gender in the project. That did not seem too bad, all in itself, until the Prime Minister actually was questioned on it and started referring to resource and construction workers as a threat to communities. I believe he called them “dangerous” and said that they could present a danger to those communities. We heard the outcry from people in communities where they had seen the benefits of those projects. They absolutely could not believe those construction workers could be considered a threat.

We see this trend continuing, with the government attempting to shut down anything that resembles a major resource project. Those projects are going to be needed if Canada is to continue to prosper and thrive as we move forward. We know countries with strong economies create the best environmental conditions and protect their environments better than others. However, the government seems to want to take away anything that would allow benefits and prosperity in our country. We have seen it in the government's previous budgets, in which it attempted to attack small business or attack family farms and the succession planning of small business to pass their family businesses and farms on to their family members. It would cost them as much as four times higher to sell the family farm to a family member than to a total stranger or a foreign entity. It is an absolutely atrocious attack on small business and family farms.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, I wish to focus my comments on the first part of Bill C-88, the amendments to the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act. However, I cannot resist adding that contrary to the remarks the hon. member just made, it was the Harper government that took the power away from the National Energy Board to make the final decision of nay or yea for a pipeline and gave it to the cabinet, so the statement lacks a certain level of credibility.

Forty-five years ago, the federal government commissioned Judge Thomas Berger to lead an inquiry to investigate the social, environmental and economic impacts of a proposed gas pipeline that would run through the Yukon and the Mackenzie River Valley of the Northwest Territories. The Berger inquiry set the bar for proper consultation with communities, in particular with indigenous communities, on proposed major energy projects.

Justice Berger heard testimony from diverse groups with an interest in the pipeline. The inquiry was notable for the voice it gave to aboriginal people, whose traditional territory the pipeline was intended to traverse.

Berger travelled extensively in the north in preparation for and during the hearings, visiting all 35 communities along the Mackenzie River Valley, as well as other cities across Canada, to gauge public reaction. In his travels, he met with Dene, Inuit, Métis and non-aboriginal residents. He heard from experts. He held community meetings across the Northwest Territories and Yukon. This played an important role in shaping his views.

Sadly, despite my request, no similar community-level process was agreed to by the parliamentary committee on review of Bill C-69.

For the first time, intervenor funding was provided to aboriginal communities to ensure their voices would be heard. This inspired many of us to pursue similar rights and open processes for energy reviews in my province of Alberta and before the NEB. My Canadian environmental bill of rights, Bill C-438, is premised on these same basic rights and principles.

The commission recommended that no pipeline be built through northern Yukon and that a pipeline through the Mackenzie Valley should be delayed for 10 years.

His report's first volume, entitled “Northern Frontier, Northern Homeland”, highlighted the fact that while the Mackenzie Valley could be the site of the biggest project in the history of free enterprise, it was also home to many people whose lives would be immeasurably changed by the pipeline.

Berger was quoted as saying this:

The North is a frontier, but it is a homeland too, the homeland of the Dene, Inuit and Métis, as it is also the home of the white people who live there. And it is a heritage, a unique environment that we are called upon to preserve for all Canadians.

The commission found no significant economic benefit to northerners from the pipeline. The report was prescient in concluding that large-sale projects based on non-renewable energy sources rarely provide long-term employment and that those locals who did find work during construction could only find low-skill, low-wage positions.

In addition, Berger feared that the pipeline development would undermine local economies, which relied on hunting, fishing and trapping, possibly even increasing economic hardship. Berger ultimately found that the economy of the region would not be harmed by not building the pipeline.

The commission believed that the pipeline process had not taken native culture seriously and that any development needed to conform to the wishes of those who lived there.

Berger predicted that the social consequences of the pipeline would not only be serious; they would be devastating. The commission was particularly concerned about the role of indigenous peoples in development plans. At the time the report was released, there were several ongoing negotiations over native land claims in the area. Berger suggested that the pipeline construction be delayed until those claims were settled.

The commission found that the local population would not accept development activity without some control. In addition, land claims were part of a broader native rights issue that needed to be settled between the government and the first nations.

In Berger's view, rapid development in the north would preclude settlement of these important issues due to the influx of non-native populations and growing business interests.

The north today bears little resemblance to the north of Berger's time. The land is the same and the resources are still there, but the people of the north have changed. Most land claims have been settled. For many, the traditional ways of life have waned, and indigenous peoples are seizing control of their own destinies. Many who fought so fiercely against the Mackenzie Valley pipeline now favour building one, or building other developments, including a highway, but on their own terms, which include making sure the benefits flow to their communities over the long term.

In the previous Parliament, the Conservatives tacked on to a devolution bill regressive measures that directly contradicted any of the lessons of the Berger inquiry. Those measures also undermined rights within the constitutionally entrenched land claims and self-government agreements or modern treaties. These first nation final agreements provide that those communities most impacted by developments must have a direct voice.

The Conservatives' Bill C-15, contrary to the wish of northerners, eliminated four regional land and water co-management boards created under carefully negotiated first nation final agreements. Lawsuits successfully filed by the Tlicho and Sahtu First Nations succeeded in stopping these measures.

The bill before us, Bill C-88, restores the co-management boards, providing more effective voices for first nations in the development reviews and approvals. However, as my colleague, the MP for South Okanagan—West Kootenay, has pointed out, Bill C-88 could fully recognize and strengthen indigenous rights by entrenching the UNDRIP in this proposed law.

A few years back, I had the honour of attending a Dene gathering in Fort Providence with my former colleague, Dennis Bevington, the then Northwest Territories member of Parliament. I heard first-hand concerns from northerners about an oil spill that was discovered on the land by indigenous hunters and their struggle to receive the necessary assistance to monitor the cleanup of the disaster, so the struggle continues to have a true voice.

However, I also experienced the joy of seeing the mighty Mackenzie River running along the shores of Fort Providence, a magnificent transboundary river basin relied upon by many communities that have long deserved a greater voice in decision-making.

I look forward to supporting the bill before us.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Madam Speaker, the Liberals went in and politically vetoed the northern gateway pipeline after it had been reviewed extensively and had over 200 recommendations attached to it, conditions that were required for the build-out. When the government went in and said “no”, it showed that a company can spend millions and millions of dollars for the natural resource review process but a group of politicians can sit around and decide that they do not like the politics of it at a given time and say “bye”.

Guess what happens. Industry looks at Canada and thinks that it is a non-stable place to do business. This is not about getting a “yes” and it is not about getting a “no”. This is about creating a system investors can look at and see that there is a clear arm's length path that is free from political influence.

What the government is doing with this particular bill is to enshrine that principle into more legislation. That is wrong. What they have done is say that, over an environmental review, over any investment, over any other principle, the principle most important to them is to be able to politically interfere in a decision so that they can manipulate the situation for their electoral prospects. That is what is wrong with Bill C-69. That is what is wrong with part 2 of this legislation and, frankly, that is what has ruined the economy in my province.

We have to depart from this ideology that somehow a group of politicians can sit around a table and dictate the investment climate, because then one gets into situations where people and lobbyists start looking at how they can influence the political situation in other ways, which is what we are seeing with SNC-Lavalin. This particular principle is exactly why the government needs to go. We need to have a reset of the government so that we can get back to our democratic processes, arm's length processes, and jobs and growth in Canada.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, part 2 of this legislation amends the Canada Petroleum Resources Act to expand the power of cabinet to interfere in the decisions surrounding natural resource projects. This is not helpful for the communities of the north, any of its peoples or for economic growth. In fact, this is the exact type of legislation that is imbedded in Bill C-69 and other bills that do nothing to protect the environment but everything to create uncertainty and instability in the investment climate for natural resource development.

The question is not “Can we protect the environment?” or “Can we have a proper resource development process?” It is ensuring that we have a stable process that the government and the Liberal Party are not interfering in politically depending on whatever way the wind is blowing. That is no way to create an investment climate and that is no way to partner with communities in the north.

This legislation is, again, another overreach of the government's desire to interfere in the natural resource sector in Canada and to stymie jobs and growth in that area.

Second Reading

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to be very clear about the government's instincts. When it comes to many pieces of legislation, the Liberals' instincts are wrong. Their instinct is to manage to bureaucrats and to the wealthiest few in this country.

I want to walk people who are watching through Bill C-88 as an example of why this is the case and also compare it to something that just happened in the last 24 hours that proves that the government really does not care about the environment but does care about bettering the interests of the Liberals' corporate donors and the wealthy companies in this country.

Part 2 of bill C-88 would amend the Canada Petroleum Resources Act to allow the Governor in Council to issue orders, when in the national interest, to prohibit oil and gas activities and freeze the terms of existing licences to prevent them from expanding during a moratorium. For those who are watching, what that means is that like Bill C-69, the no more pipelines act, the government is introducing yet another piece of legislation that would allow the cabinet or the Liberal Party of Canada to interfere politically in the review process, or essentially in the economy, in a way that is not positive.

What do I mean by that? Part of what we have seen in terms of the economic downturn in Canada, when it comes to the natural resources sector, and what we will hear from anyone who wants to look at Canada as a potential place to invest, is that the Liberal government, led by the Prime Minister, has made it uncertain and unstable for people to invest in Canada because of pieces of legislation like this.

If we were sitting around a board table or were a small business trying to decide whether to make an investment, one of the questions we would ask is what the government was going to do with regard to regulations or whether a project was going to go forward. What the government has done with bills like part 2 of Bill C-88, which we are discussing today, and Bill C-69 is say that it would politically interfere in their decision and make a decision that would be in the Liberals' best interests politically, whatever they might be. That would not help investment in Canada. That would not help protect the environment.

Liberals might say that this would help protect the environment, but it would not. All it would do is create an environment of uncertainty so that people could not and would not invest in natural resources projects in Canada. It is a convenient way for them to kick the can down the road.

Rather than standing up and saying that as a government, as a political party, this is what the Liberals' vision is for natural resource development in Canada, they are saying, “Maybe we will do something at some point. Why don't you invest? However, we may pull that football away through legal provisions” such as the one they are introducing in the bill. That is why it is important for Canadians to pay attention to this.

With regard to protecting the environment and perhaps protecting average Canadians, we saw something remarkable happen yesterday. The environment minister not only signed off on $12 million worth of taxpayer money going to one of the wealthiest companies in Canada, Loblaws, to buy new fridges, she also staged a taxpayer-funded announcement at a Loblaws store. Twelve million dollars of taxpayer funds went to a company that makes hundreds of millions of dollars a year to buy fridges, and then tax dollars were used for the minister to get a photo opportunity for doing that.

One could argue that Loblaws is a very successful company. If everyone is so committed to protecting the environment, why could Loblaws not just buy those fridges itself? Why was the government's policy instinct not to incent the company, either through regulations or tax credits or something that would be better for everyone in the country and would put everyone on a level playing field? Why was the Liberals' instinct to give money to this company, which can afford lobbyists to fill out very complicated grant applications? Why was it the Liberals' instinct to give money to a wealthy company that could have done this itself instead of something that would have evened the playing field for all Canadians and incentivized business?

I like to call it “reverse Robin Hood”. The Prime Minister has a really great track record of doing everything possible to take money away from Canadians. It includes this announcement and the SNC-Lavalin scandal and things like the carbon tax, which will never reduce greenhouse gas emissions, as well as giving opportunities to wealthy companies that have lobbyists.

I believe in the economy. I believe that we should create an opportunity for companies to thrive. What I do not believe is that the government should be using tax dollars to pay for fridges for a company that has done three things that I will describe.

First, it makes hundreds of millions of dollars of net profit every year. It made about $3 billion in net revenue and $800 million in net profit last year. It is doing okay. I think can afford a few fridges.

Then this company was involved for years in a price-fixing scheme on bread that by all accounts impacted poor people in Canada the most.

Also, early last year, reports broke that this company was involved in a fight with the Canada Revenue Agency over $400 million in claims over a bogus offshore account. That was a CBC headline.

What was the minister thinking? I know what she was thinking. I would like to chalk it up to incompetence, but when we look at SNC-Lavalin and this announcement, it is not as if she signed this accidentally. It was not, “Oh, no; I accidentally signed this.” She scheduled a funding announcement for it. She took pictures with somebody.

When I talked about this issue yesterday, somebody named Amanda from Lundar, Manitoba, wrote to my office to say that the dairy cooler in the family grocery store she owns in her community had broken and that she cannot afford to replace it. She said she just cannot afford it. She asked why the government is so out of touch that it thinks the right thing to do is to give $12 million to a big company that makes hundreds of millions of dollars and then increase her taxes to pay for it. That shows how out of touch the government is.

The government has no desire to fix the environment. It is like the Prime Minister saying he is a feminist. Now he is saying he is fixing the environment, but he is finding ways to give money to Loblaws.

Loblaws should be concerned. Loblaws should know better. In terms of any brand credit that Loblaws gets from this, I know the company is managing profit and loss for their shareholders, but did the board members think this was a good idea? Come on. There is $12 million for new freezers when that company made $800 million in profit. Why should Amanda have to go without a dairy freezer—

[Nick Whalen, Liberal, St. John's East, NL]

Mr. Speaker, as the member knows, the regulatory regime that we are living under is the regulatory regime that the Conservatives put in place. The legislation that we are trying to get through the House today, as well as Bill C-69, which is before the Senate, is our attempt to fix the regulatory system. If the member's complaint is that our regulatory system does not work, then he only has his own party to blame.

Having said that, we do not pick one month and base the entire job-number argument on it. Since we have been elected, there have been 900,000 new jobs and 825,000 people lifted out of poverty. We are looking forward to getting a number of environmental assessment processes through what we consider to be the failed 2012 process but it is the process we have, with full indigenous consultation where indigenous peoples have been funded for their participation. We are so excited that the Newfoundland offshore will have an opportunity, hopefully, to avail itself of that this summer.

Of course, we look forward to a final decision on an improved process for the NEB, which, again, if it had been done right the first time, we would have had four years of pipeline to our coast to B.C. However, we did not because of the previous government's ineptitude.