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

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Mr. Speaker, in Calgary, Alberta, there is no trust in the current government.

Bill C-69 is the greatest threat to Canada's energy industry since the NEP. The energy industry is responsible for more than 500,000 jobs across Canada. However, thanks to the Prime Minister's no-more-pipelines bill, there will be no more major energy infrastructure projects built in Canada. Companies say that if the bill passes, they will stop investing in Canada.

When will the Prime Minister stop driving energy investment away and killing Canadian jobs?

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

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has told Canadians more than once that he plans to phase out the energy sector, and Bill C-69 is exactly how he will do it. The no-more-pipelines bill means more regulations and longer application times. It means reduced transparency and less investment. It means increased uncertainty and further job losses. Hundreds of thousands of Canadian families and the workers in the energy sector depend on the resource sector. They are calling it the final nail in the coffin.

When will the government kill the no-more-pipelines bill and save the Canadian resource sector?

Indigenous Affairs

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Vancouver East for the question. Unfortunately, I disagree with the premise of her question for a number of reasons.

First and foremost, I disagree with the member's claim that our government has picked a side on the Trans Mountain expansion project, unless she is suggesting that she is against creating good jobs, opening new markets for Canadian resources, and ensuring that Canada receives a fair price for them, because that is the opportunity we support.

Nor do I agree with any suggestion that respecting indigenous rights is just a formality. Our government has been very clear: no relationship is more important to Canada, and this government, than the one with indigenous people. The Prime Minister has said it countless times. It was a central tenet in our throne speech. It has informed and inspired everything we have done since, including our consultations on a framework for respecting and implementing indigenous rights that would fundamentally redefine that relationship, replacing confrontation with collaboration.

That is why we also implemented an interim approach for reviewing resource projects that includes supporting meaningful indigenous engagement and taking indigenous knowledge into proper account.

We introduced Bill C-69 so that good projects go ahead in Canada. It is legislation that would create new partnerships by recognizing indigenous rights up front and confirming the government's duty to consult. It is legislation that would not only require the consideration of indigenous knowledge but respect the need to properly protect it. It is legislation that would consider the impact of resource development on indigenous rights and culture in the decision-making process. It is legislation that would build capacity and enhance funding for indigenous participation, and it is legislation that would aim to secure free, prior and informed consent. That is our record.

Now we are building on it by respecting the Federal Court of Appeal's decision on the TMX project and following its direction for enhancing indigenous consultations. That way forward includes relaunching phase 3 consultations with all 117 indigenous groups affected by the project. It also includes working with first nation and Métis communities and seeking their views on how to get phase 3 right; doubling the capacity of our consultation teams; ensuring that our government representatives on the ground have a clear mandate to conduct meaningful consultations and empowering them to discuss reasonable accommodations with indigenous groups on issues important to them; and, of course, appointing the former Supreme Court Justice, the Hon. Frank Iacobucci, as the federal representative to oversee the consultation process.

The evidence is overwhelming. We are committed to moving forward in the right way.

Corrections and Conditional Release Act

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

Mr. Speaker, it is ironic to take the floor after that ruling, but I am pleased that we can pursue that other matter through other channels.

I am here now to address Bill C-83. I appreciate that the Liberal Party gave me a time slot, in recognition of the fact that there has been an allocation of time on debate and I otherwise might not have been able to speak to this at all. I wish to go on record, and I am not feeling any sense of cognitive dissonance in doing this, to thank the government party for allowing me to speak for 10 minutes, and I also wish that the government party had not decided to use time allocation on Bill C-83.

In any case, this bill comes to us in a context I want to address first, which is a political context and a political climate that has been created by recent debates in this place, in which, I regret to say, I felt demeaned. I felt displaced, demeaned and diminished by a tactic of the official opposition to turn the House of Commons into sort of a secondary chamber for the review of punishments meted out through the proper system, the courts of law. We have taken days and had people's names and the horrors of gruesome, cruel murders repeated on the floor of this place.

There is clearly some thought in some quarters here that it is a good campaign tactic to talk about punishment a lot and to regret when our correctional system responds in ways that might appear to some as lenient. However, we are a country built on the rule of law. We recognize that our prison system is not merely for punishment. We have to have this discussion, I think, fairly constantly. What is the point of our correctional system? What is the point of our prison system?

As many MPs have said on the floor of this place today in response to Bill C-83, many of the people in our prison system are going to re-enter society. We would like them to re-enter society with the life skills they will need to be contributing members of society, having paid, in that terminology, their debt to society.

It is in that context, where on one end of the political extreme we are told that we have become too lenient towards prisoners, that we turn our attention to an appalling situation, where rights have been infringed and lives have been lost through the failure of the prison system to handle certain kinds of prisoners, those who find themselves in likely incarceration in solitary confinement.

Of course, this bill comes to us in the context of one of the most egregious of those examples, again, as has been mentioned in this place today, the case of Ashley Smith. I think we forget sometimes how horrific her death was, how hard her life was, how hard her mother tried to help her and how the prison system made her survival impossible.

The coroner's inquest into Ashley Smith's death found that although she died from self-inflicted choking, while the guards watched, the context and the circumstances of her death amounted to a homicide. That coroner provided 104 recommendations.

We also know of the cases of Adam Capay, a young indigenous man who spent 1,600 days in solitary confinement; or Richard Wolfe, who did not actually die in solitary but collapsed in a prison exercise yard, at 40 years old, having spent 640 days in solitary confinement; or another indigenous man whose case comes to mind, Eddie Snowshoe, who spent 162 days in solitary confinement before hanging himself.

We can note from those cases that it is quite often those with mental health issues, those who are marginalized, those who are racialized and particularly those who are indigenous who end up in solitary confinement. Therefore, it is certainly welcome that the Minister of Public Safety has brought to this place a bill that promises to end this ongoing stain on the reputation of Canada as a civilized country. Solitary confinement for those lengths of times has been found internationally to constitute torture, and we are a people who are convinced that we do not practise torture.

Therefore, I am sad to share my disappointment with this bill and my concern that we do not have it right yet.

Coralee Cusack-Smith, mother of Ashley Smith, speaking for her family on Bill C-83, said “it's a sham and a travesty that it's done in Ashley's name. It's just a different name for segregation. It's not ending segregation. Not ending segregation for anyone with mental health issues. It's just a new name.”

It seems that the fact it is merely a rebranding is reflected in a statement by the hon. Senator Kim Pate who, having spent time before entering the other place to dedicating her life to the fair treatment of women prisoners, in particular through the Elizabeth Fry Society, described Bill C-83 as disappointing and even as weakening the limitations on how often a segregated prisoner can experience solitary confinement. We have this idea that structured intervention units will be entirely different from solitary confinement. I hope they will be. I have to say that it is one place where I would like to emphasize the positive in this place.

I was a member of Parliament, at the same desk, in the same chair, for an opposition party through the 41st Parliament. I could add up on the fingers of one hand the number of times I saw a single amendment made to a government bill. In a four-year term of a majority government under Stephen Harper, bills were rammed through from start to finish without a single amendment. Therefore, I will credit the current government and the administration of the current Prime Minister with being more open to amendments. However, it is a mixed bag. Some bills I would have been so happy to support if they only had been amended enough to make them acceptable. Bill C-69, the environmental assessment omnibus bill, is in that category. It is a tragedy that the Liberals did not get that one right. It will be a tragedy if we collectively in the House do not get it right on this one.

We have an obligation as a civilized society to re-examine what we mean by “incarceration” and “corrections” in the criminal justice system and what the purpose of incarceration is. In the 41st Parliament, the former government got rid of prison chaplains in that system. It got rid of prison farms where some prisoners could have the first experience in their lives of a day outdoors doing an honest day's labour. I suppose it is ironic that an honest day's labour took place in a prison farm context. However, those programs were killed by the previous government.

The prison system in our country cannot just be seen as a place where some parts of the political spectrum can score political points by talking about life being too easy there for people who have committed heinous crimes, as the language always describes them. I am not sympathizing with criminals. I support the rights of victims. However, it is not an effective prison system if it kills people who have committed minor crimes, who become stuck in a Möbius loop where they cannot get help. We have to break that cycle now. We have to find ways to focus our prison system on fairness, respect, reconciliation and rehabilitation. This is not the stuff of bleeding hearts; this is what makes a society whole. This is what allows people who have been in prison to come back out and function in a civilized society and not pass on the patterns of behaviour they have experienced to their family and children.

I have hope for Bill C-83. I will do everything I can at committee, and everything I can by working with members of the groups who have given their lives to this, whether it be the Elizabeth Fry Society, the John Howard Society, the BC Civil Liberties Association, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, and those very brave people who have been incarcerated and are willing to come forward to say, “This is what would have helped me. This is how it did not help me.”

Yes, a prison system is to ensure that people pay their debt to society and are punished for things that are morally indefensible and a huge assault on our society. However, there are also a lot of people in prison who have committed relatively minor crimes who, if they were wealthier and had better lawyers, might not be there. There, but for the grace of God, go members and I. Therefore, let us fix Bill C-83.

Natural Resources

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

Mr. Speaker, I will stand up today and explain why we need Bill C-69, and why we need to rebuild trust and environmental assessments. Guess what? If we do not have trust in how we approve major projects, no projects go ahead.

We have an obligation to Canadians to figure out how we are going to protect the environment and grow the economy. I have spent, with my colleagues in meetings, over two years listening to the business community. We have shorter timelines under Bill C-69. We are providing more certainty of the process. We are working with indigenous peoples. We are also working with provinces.

We need to get this right. That way we will have investment dollars flowing.

[Ron Liepert, Conservative, Calgary Signal Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I know that the government is not listening to the indigenous community and so we will see if it will listen to the business community.

Recently, I had the opportunity to visit the Port of Vancouver. At the Port of Vancouver there are hundreds of millions of dollars' worth of construction in new facilities happening today. The officials at the Port of Vancouver said to me that if Bill C-69 had been in place two years ago, not one dollar of what is being spent today would be invested in the Port of Vancouver.

Will the minister stand up today and say to the business community who are investing in the Port of Vancouver that she will kill this bill?

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the fact is these Liberals are failing indigenous communities. The Liberals no-more-pipelines bill, also known as Bill C-69, is a threat to the prosperity of all Canadians.

A Texas company was recently awarded because it was able to get a pipeline permitted and built in only eight months. However, under these Liberals, we are not even sure if we are ever going to get a pipeline built ever.

When will the government get serious about pipeline jobs and scrap this terrible legislation?

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the minister should actually listen to what first nations are saying instead of countering with the exact opposite. The majority of first nations do support responsible resource development for the benefit of all Canadians, and it is key to poverty reduction and Canada's high standard of living.

The reality is that investment is fleeing Canada under these Liberals. Here is what Stephen Buffalo also said:

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.

When will the Liberals kill their no-more-pipelines Bill C-69?

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the Indian Resource Council represents hundreds of first nations and advocates for first nations oil and gas producers. Its president and CEO, Stephen Buffalo, says, “Bill C-69 will harm Indigenous economic development, create barriers to decision-making, and make Canada unattractive for resource investment. This legislation must be stopped”. Premiers, economists and the private sector all say the same.

When will the Prime Minister kill his no-more-pipelines bill, Bill C-69?

Trans Mountain Pipeline Project Act

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank all of my Conservative colleagues for proving that we are the only champions of responsible energy development on Canada's long-standing track record as a world-leading environmentally and socially responsible producer of oil and gas.

I would like to thank them on behalf of thousands of Canadians in every single corner of the country whose livelihoods depend on Canada's responsible energy development and the amazing incredible role that Canada could play in the world to provide responsible energy for the world's growing oil and gas demand long into the future. That is our vision for Canada as an energy producer and for the benefit of all Canadians.

The Liberals did not have to spend $4.5 billion of Canadian taxpayer dollars to give to Kinder Morgan to go and build pipelines in the United States and consider selling and divesting completely from Canada.

All Kinder Morgan needed, and never asked for, was certainty that once it completed one of the longest and most rigorous environmental reviews with the highest standards in the world on all counts, received approval and met the 157 conditions applied, that it would simply be able to proceed with construction of the Trans Mountain expansion.

For nearly two years the Liberals have failed and their actions just do not match their empty words. They failed to give certainty to Kinder Morgan that the legal provincial and municipal challenges, delays and ongoing roadblocks, which were deliberate tools to try to get Kinder Morgan to abandon the pipeline, would be removed.

For two years Kinder Morgan did everything it could to try to proceed with building the expansion that the Liberals themselves had approved and that we supported.

The Liberals denied three requests for unanimous consent to pass the bill in the House of Commons expeditiously before the spring, before Kinder Morgan's deadline that the Liberals had known about for months. They failed to take action then to provide Kinder Morgan that certainty before it was forced to abandon it.

Earlier my Liberal colleagues suggested it is too late but as my colleagues have expressed here, even if the pipeline can get built there are still future and ongoing threats, like restricting the volume of the expansion that other levels of government and activists can bring to the pipeline.

That is exactly why Bill S-245 is needed now just as much as it ever was to ensure that if the pipeline does actually get built, there will be no further impediments to its construction, operations and ongoing maintenance.

The Liberals failed to deliver a law to assert federal jurisdiction that the Prime Minister himself promised this past spring, around the same time that the Liberals defended spending Canadians' tax dollars on a protest position that was explicitly to stop the Trans Mountain expansion. That is why nobody believes what they say.

The court ruled that the Liberals failed to follow their own plan to consult indigenous people on the Trans Mountain expansion. For more than a month they failed to take any action to fix that failure and their ultimate announcement was just a consultation on how to consult.

The Liberals failed to listen to premiers and legal experts and appeal the court ruling to request a stay of appeal so construction could proceed while the Supreme Court deliberated.

The Liberals failed to introduce emergency legislation to affirm Transport Canada's holistic review of tanker traffic and marine vessels in the area in the case of the Trans Mountain expansion, instead kicking the can down the road for six months with no certainty what would happen after that process. That is why my colleague said their tactic is to rag the puck.

The Liberals continue to fail by still no longer being able to provide concrete timelines for a start date for construction and completion of the Trans Mountain expansion. That lack of a timeline has caused massive uncertainty and stress for the thousands of workers who have been left in limbo after losing those jobs that they were counting on.

It is a pattern. The Liberals killed the northern gateway pipeline instead of allowing more consultation. They killed energy east by political interference, changing the rules, adding red tape and forcing TransCanada to abandon the pipeline. Today the reality is that the Trans Mountain expansion remains stalled and the consequences of their failures have been staggering: more than $100 billion in energy projects cancelled; hundreds of thousands of Canadians out of jobs; more investment losses than any time in more than seven decades; future money for all levels of government lost; lost opportunities for indigenous Canadians and communities in every corner of the country; and deep divisions between Canadians being pitted against each other because of these Liberal failures.

They are about to make it even worse by ramming Bill C-69 through the Senate and failing to listen to experts who have said that legislation will guarantee no new pipeline will ever be proposed or built in Canada again.

What tremendous damage that will cause to our country's international reputation as a safe, fair, predictable place to do business and create jobs. The Liberals should be ashamed of themselves. They should support this proposed legislation to give certainty so that the pipeline could go ahead. I hope it is clear why nobody should believe any of their empty words about supporting the energy sector. Their agenda to shut it down is clear.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Mr. Speaker, a lot of members who have spoken so far on this Senate bill have provided numbers or explained why they are either for or against. I heard the parliamentary secretary explain to us that this was not needed, that this particular bill coming from the other place is defective, because it does not deal with the current situation.

After three years of dithering, confusing and obstructing, we find ourselves in the situation now where the Government of Canada has expropriated Kinder Morgan, allowed a private company in the most profitable sector of the energy industry in Canada, in transportation, midstream, to take $4.5 billion from the taxpayer, and there is no pipeline being built.

We are at this point today due to desperation. There is a great Yiddish proverb that applies: Out of desperation, one finds.

What a surprise that it is an Alberta senator, duly elected by the people of Alberta to represent them in the other place, who has put before this House a bill that would fix a major problem, which is the rule of law in Canada. We have a Constitution that is supposed to apply equally to all provinces, but I would submit that the vast majority of Albertans feel that there is a two-tier system, one system for everyone else and one for Albertans, and that is simply not good enough.

This bill is about respect, respect for Albertans and energy workers in all provinces, because this is not just an Alberta issue. This is an issue that affects energy workers in every single province in Canada if we cannot build major industrial energy projects any more, and with bills like Bill C-69 on the books, we will not be able to build them anymore.

The Senate has already passed this bill. It is up to us to take up the task and pass it here to clear any further obstructions and delays that may come the way of this project from other levels of government, provincial and municipal, and actually get this project built.

The ideal situation, which I would have preferred, like the vast majority of Albertans, would have been to see a private company build it. As I said before, this happens to be the most profitable sector of the energy industry. There is a great cartoon Malcolm Mayes put together in the Edmonton Journal. It shows the Prime Minister riding a massive anchor hooked up to a piece of equipment, and it says, “I'm behind you all the way!” That is what most Albertans fear when they hear that from the federal government, that the Liberals have their hands in Albertans pockets, taxing them.

For the longest time, Albertans accepted it. They said it was okay. They were willing to pay their freight, to contribute to equalization, to contribute to Confederation, because they knew they were building a better country, improving Canada and putting food on the tables of families all across Canada. That is not true right now. That is not true anymore. The highest unemployment rate happens to be in Calgary. I represent a suburban area of Calgary, where countless energy workers are unemployed and underemployed because of decisions being made by the Liberal government of today. It is not getting better; it is getting worse. Families are still losing their homes. Severance pay has run out.

Many people have left the province. An entire generation of young people was told to go into STEM, into science, technology, engineering and mathematics, because they would get amazing jobs in the energy sector and contribute to the province. We spent a generation trying to convince more women to join the STEM fields, trying to convince young people that it was worth their time, and convincing people from outside the province to come to Alberta to establish themselves and bring their families, because they could make a living there. That has been taken away, much of that because of decisions made by the Liberal government, which have compounded problems on the commodity market.

Now we have a differential that has only grown. I remember working for the Calgary Chamber of Commerce many years ago when the differential was $25, and businesses were complaining then. Now it is $40. The reason for the increasing gap between what Canadian heavy crude can get on the market and what we can get in the United States is the decisions of the Liberal government only.

Bill S-245 would clear the way. Liberals have already expropriated Kinder Morgan. They already own the project. This would clear the way from any further delays that could possibly happen. It is the right thing to do. I hear a member again heckling from the other side.

This is about respecting Albertans and respecting energy workers in every province in Canada. This particular section of the Constitution has been used before, many times. The Canadian Grain Commission used it. Facilities, such as storage and sorting facilities linked to the grain commission, were federalized. The Teleglobe Canada Reorganization and Divestiture Act used this particular section of the Constitution so the Government of Canada could divest itself of a corporation. The Cape Breton Development Corporation Act used this section of the Constitution to come into being. The Ottawa canal used that particular section as well. It is not special in any way. It has just not been used as of late, but it has been used hundreds of times by the federal government to ensure that large-scale industrial projects get built for the benefit and general advantage of Canada.

If this is a country of 10 islands, 10 separate provinces that can each do whatever they want whenever they want, then Albertans have a serious question to ask, which is: why are we still footing the bill through massive equalization payments? It is a legitimate question to be asking.

The member for Lakeland has fought for three years to point out the damage that has been done by Liberal government policy. It is something Albertans know all too well. They have experienced this before with a previous Liberal government and its national energy program. It is a myth now in Alberta. It is an easy thing to mention, even for those of us who did not have the opportunity to be born there, who moved to Alberta and became Albertans because they wanted to. The civic nationalism of our province knows about the stories, about the farms that were lost and the homes that were lost. That is what we do not want to have happen again.

The price differential we are experiencing right now is leading to job losses. Just last week, companies were telling us that for the first time ever they had to pay others a few pennies on the barrel to take our oil. That is ridiculous. It makes no sense.

Bill S-245 clears the way. Members opposite say it is not needed anymore, but I have not heard a single description of what harm it could do. The proposed bill does not even mention Kinder Morgan. It just mentions the projects and the licences issued. It applies just as well today as it will in the future. The government has explicitly said it wants to find a buyer. It has not explicitly said whether the project will be fully built and complete by then and actually producing and shipping or not. This would clear the way for any future owner of the pipeline as well, ensuring they can maintain it, ensuring the safety of the workers on site and ensuring the safety of the environment.

Bill S-245 is the right bill at the right time. It took an Alberta senator, an elected senator, not a member of the Conservative Party, but an independent senator, to put it forward. I am happy to support it. It is a great piece of legislation. It is brought from that desperation I just talked about. He found an opportunity to use the Constitution for the general advantage of Canada. This is how we build a community, a community of 10 provinces agreeing that—and I think we all agree—this has gone on for too long. There are too many delays, too much obstruction. Let us get the project built. The energy industry in Alberta is part of the lifeblood of Alberta. The public treasury there depends on it to ensure we have hospitals and schools, and pay for the salaries of its public sector workers. Without it, it will not happen. There will be further harm done to Alberta and to Albertans.

I am calling on all members to support the bill. Like other members have done in the past, when this section of the Constitution was used for things like Teleglobe, the grain commission, the wheat board, all of those things, it is time to act. The time to act is now.

Canada Labour Code

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am not quite sure because my colleague mentioned Bill C-69 and the hypocrisy. Bill C-69 is the new legislation that would require the energy companies, any resource companies, to be more intense, spend more time and more resources in getting the proper assessments through.

I will speak to the hypocrisy to which my colleague alluded. On the one hand, the Prime Minister is saying that he wants to have this pipeline built, yet on the other hand what he is really doing at the same time is putting in legislation that would kill any pipeline, not just the one he says has been okay.

Likewise, we are concerned about Bill C-65. He is putting forth that he is trying to eliminate sexual harassment and violence in the workplace. Would Bill C-65, like the concerns of my colleague, truly accomplish what we set out to do?

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I know my colleague across the way from Winnipeg North was concerned about the personal attacks, but this goes to a large part of the essence of the bill. There seems to be a lot of “Do as I say, not as I do” from the government. What are the implications of the message we are sending with Bill C-69?

The intent of this bill is very important. We do want to address sexual assault and harassment in the workplace. However, as parliamentarians, it is also very important that we send the message that this applies to everyone, no matter what his or her position is, no matter if the individuals are regular parliamentarians, regular Canadians, a cabinet minister or the prime minister.

Could the member talk about why it is important that we discuss the hypocrisy of what the Liberal actions have been when it comes to these types of issues and what Bill C-65 is intended to accomplish?

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as the member of Parliament for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, I am honoured to have the opportunity to talk about Bill C-65, which deals with workplace harassment and violence.

Violence against women is not new. While I would like to believe that in a predominantly rural riding like mine in eastern Ontario violence against women is an urban problem, we know that is not the case. Violence against women continues to be a fact of life in Canada and in rural Renfrew County.

Carol Culleton, Nathalie Warmerdam, and Anastasia Kuzyk were killed on September 22, 2015. Their killer was known to all of the women and to police for a long history of violence. He had been released from prison just shortly before the murders. The system failed these women.

On average in Canada, one woman is killed by her intimate partner every five days. The man arrested and accused of their murders had a long criminal history, including charges involving two of the three women. I am not prepared to let Carol, Nathalie, Anastasia and all the other women who have been murdered by their intimate partners die in vain. My memory of their senseless murders pushes me to speak out in this debate.

When I was first elected in 2000, I immediately recognized the transient and precarious nature of politics in general, and Parliament Hill in particular. For a female in a new political party with an evolving political culture, my position was even more precarious. Uncertainty after each election, and with the change in assignments in the ebb and flow of duties, was compounded by the hierarchical nature of Canadian politics and the fact that we serve at pleasure.

To quote one of my colleagues:

At any moment, everyone here weighs the opportunity cost of making a complaint or committing an non-acquiescent action with the threat of quiet dismissal, being overlooked for a promotion, being shuffled out of a spot, having a nomination candidate quietly run against us, or not having our nomination papers signed at all.

She went on to say:

To say that there is a power imbalance here is an understatement. Further, for all the talk of feminism and pursual of women's rights, there is not gender equality in the broader context of Parliament Hill. Women are still used as photo-op props, included for quotas or optics without having the authority of real decision-making automatically attached to their perceived utility. For that, women have to fight, and fight hard, and put up with being accused of not being a team player, or being an “insert choice of gender expletive here” when they do. That is only for those of us who are lucky enough to have built a platform and a profile that allows us to do that without those in the top tiers of power having to take a bit of damage in order to suppress our voices.

When this legislation was debated in the House of Commons previously, I did not have an opportunity to be part of this discussion. I was successfully defending my right to represent my party in the next federal election.

Bill C-65 is being supported by the Conservative Party. Today we are discussing amendments made by the other place, which allows for a re-examination of the legislation and the context in which it has been brought forward. At the time the legislation was previously in this chamber, it was presented by the government as partisan politics being set aside for a common purpose. All parliamentarians were prepared, or so I thought, to stand together and send a strong message to all Canadians that workplace harassment and sexual violence are unacceptable and that they will not be tolerated any longer, period.

It was that implied spirit of co-operation that encouraged my party to support Bill C-65. As a long-standing female member of Parliament, I am very cognizant of my position as a role model. I am reminded of my responsibility as a positive role model by the Daughters of the Vote program.

Young women are smart enough to spot a hypocrite when they see one. All parliamentarians have a responsibility to be a positive role model, starting with the Prime Minister.

I was hopeful that Bill C-65 would not be just another example of virtue signalling by the Liberal Party, where the Prime Minister directs his attack dog Gerald Butts to throw social media mud from the political ditch he occupies while claiming to take the high road. Subsequent events have proven me wrong.

Sexual violence and harassment in the workplace are nothing new.

I was particularly encouraged by the comments made by newly elected members of Parliament on the government side, such as the member for Oakville North—Burlington, who talked about taking a stand together. She shared her personal experience of harassment and bullying on Parliament Hill when she worked as a staffer prior to seeking elected office. She made reference to the #MeToo movement, #AfterMeToo and Time's Up and to having the courage and the strength to speak out and be a positive role model. In that context, her brave words in the House of Commons and her subsequent total capitulation to the Gerald Butts, “Kokanee grope” talking points were all the greater disappointment.

The greatest disappointment in this entire discussion has been the deafening silence from the female caucus on the government benches, who have quietly condoned the Prime Minister's behaviour with their silence. Not one female Liberal MP rose to defend the female reporter who was subjected to an unwanted sexual advance by the Prime Minister in her workplace. Not one government MP rose to demand a coherent explanation of what the Prime Minister admitted to doing when he belatedly provided an apology to the young female reporter who was the subject of his unwanted advance.

Enabling bad behaviour almost guarantees that it will continue. After all, is that not the subject of Bill C-65, which is what we are discussing here today? Silence is tacit approval.

Certainly in my career as the member of Parliament for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, spanning six elections over 18 years, I have experienced sexual harassment and bullying. It would be impossible to find a woman in politics who is not expected to put up with misogynist fools like Dan Leger or the tiresome Dick Mercer, let alone similar dinosaur attitudes in their own parties.

From the time Bill C-65 passed third reading and returned from the other place with amendments, something has changed. Canadians learned something about the leader of the Liberal Party. Canadians learned that the Prime Minister admitted to groping a young woman reporter at a music festival before he sought elected office. This is a very important discovery.

Unlike the recent events in the United States during the confirmation hearings for U.S. Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh about alleged events before he started his professional career, the Prime Minister has avoided a rigorous examination of his inappropriate behaviour.

South of the border, the Prime Minister has been referred to as the Bill Clinton of the great white north.

The Prime Minister had an opportunity. Rather than making up one answer, the Prime Minister chose to come up with a series of tortured explanations for the groping allegation against him. Constantly changing his story, he had an opportunity to come clean with Canadians.

In the process, the Prime Minister dodged questions about the need to call an investigation on his own conduct, the way he did with Liberal MPs Scott Andrews and Massimo Pacetti in his caucus, who faced similar allegations in the past and were removed from the Liberal Party.

The Prime Minister has single-handedly “terribly set back”, to quote Kathleen Finlay, founder of the Zero Now campaign to fight sexual misconduct in the workplace, progress on women's issues.

Ms. Finlay said:

He went from saying he had a good day and sort of smiling about it, and dismissing it that way...and then he went on to explain it, in a tortured explanation about different perceptions, how men and women can perceive things differently. And from where I was sitting, that just re-opened the whole “he said, she said” kind of explanation...which is something women who have suffered incidents of sexual misconduct do not want to hear.

The incident was first published in an editorial in the Creston Valley Advance, a community newspaper in British Columbia. The Prime Minister, who was in Creston to attend the Kokanee Summit festival, put on by the Columbia Brewery, admitted later to inappropriately groping the reporter while she was on assignment.

In addition to being on assignment for the Creston Valley Advance, the female reporter was also on assignment for the National Post and the Vancouver Sun. While her connection to the big city newspapers may have prompted remorse after the fact, that is a topic for a proper investigation.

The incident resurfaced online, including in a scandal magazine earlier this year. The allegation came into wider circulation the first week of June, when photos of the Creston Valley Advance editorial were widely shared on social media, and it received further comments when prominent online media outlets reported on it that same week.

The now former female reporter for the Creston Valley Advance community newspaper, the Vancouver Sun and the National Post confirmed that the Prime Minister groped her, or in his words, “inappropriately handling”, while she was on assignment at the festival.

After the incident, she wrote an unsigned editorial blasting the Prime Minister for his misconduct. The editorial did say that the Prime Minister told the female reporter that had he known the reporter was working for a national paper, he never would have been so forward.

The reporter wrote this about the Prime Minister:

...shouldn't the son of a former prime minister be aware of the rights and wrongs that go along with public socializing? Didn't he learn, through his vast experiences in public life, that groping a strange young woman isn't in the handbook of proper etiquette, regardless of who she is, what her business is or where they are?

After the incident, the female reporter, who is not in journalism anymore, held meetings with Valerie Bourne, the then publisher, and Brian Bell, the then editor of the newspaper, and communicated her displeasure about the Prime Minister's conduct. In a statement, the female reporter said she reluctantly went public to identify herself and to confirm the incident because of numerous media requests. She would not offer any comment or take part in any discussion on the subject, she said, adding that the incident happened as reported.

This is what the Prime Minister stated on CBC Radio, on January 30, 2018, before details of the groping incident were reported in the national and international media. He stated:

I've been very, very careful all my life to be thoughtful, to be respectful of people's space and people's headspace as well. This is something that I'm not new to. I've been working on issues around sexual assault for over 25 years.

My first activism and engagement was at the sexual assault centre at McGill students' society where I was one of the first male facilitators in their outreach program leading conversations—sometimes very difficult ones—on the issues of consent, communications, accountability, power dynamics.

To connect the dots, it was after the Prime Minister left university in Quebec when the groping incident occurred.

The following is from the newspaper editorial following the groping incident. It states:

It’s not a rare incident to have a young reporter, especially a female who is working for a small community newspaper, be considered an underling to their ‘more predominant’ associates and blatantly disrespected because of it. But shouldn’t the son of a former prime minister be aware of the rights and wrongs that go along with public socializing? Didn’t he learn through his vast experiences in public life, that groping a strange young woman isn’t in the handbook of proper etiquette, regardless of who she is, what her business is, or where they are?

And what makes the fact that she was working for the Post of any relevance? Big stories break first in community newspapers after all.

It may not have been an earth-shattering find, but one thing could have been learned from the experience. Like father, like son?

That was from the Creston Valley Advance, Monday, August 14, 2000.

What are Canadians expected to take away from this incident of groping that took place between the Prime Minister and a young female reporter? First and foremost, this incident is about hypocrisy, saying one thing and applying a different set of rules to one's own behaviour. It is about believing women, until it happens, then it is deny and hope that the clock runs out on the media cycle.

It has been noted by the CBC that there is no dispute that this incident happened. In 2018, the excuse “I did not think I was doing anything wrong” does not pass the smell test. Worst of all, the Prime Minister has shown no ability to grow with the job and learn from his mistake. Women in Canada deserve better from a Prime Minister who claims to be a feminist.

What this incident has also taught Canadians is that they cannot trust the Prime Minister, when he tells the public he is doing one thing but legislatively does another. It was finally figured out by the temporary socialist government of Alberta that the current government has no intention of seeing any pipelines built, let alone the Trans Mountain pipeline. In response, the NDP in Alberta pulled its support for the scam carbon tax, which is all about getting the provinces to take the blame for raising taxes while using the environment as an excuse to raise taxes.

If dragging the government's feet on this issue somehow does not work, Bill C-69 will be sure to suffocate any resource project from going forward.

There are ethics rules for parliamentarians, versus the Prime Minister's trip to a tropical island. When the Ethics Commissioner rules that opposition members are in violation of the rules, charges are laid by the RCMP. Where are the charges against the Prime Minister for his breaches of the code of ethics for parliamentarians?

In public, the Prime Minister claims that his government is going to crack down on guns and gangs but it cranks out Bill C-71 instead, which cracks down on law-abiding citizens who are already obeying the law. Then there is Bill C-75, which would soften the penalties for gang violence, among other atrocities.

The biggest lie of all is the Prime Minister's betrayal of veterans. It was announced by the government that no Canadian Armed Forces personnel would be medically released until their benefits were in place, yet last week, not only was it confirmed that soldiers are being released without their pension amounts and benefits confirmed but that soldiers should be told to wait longer.

In the last election, the Prime Minister claimed that the problem was that there were not enough offices open to service veterans. The government went ahead and spent funds intended for veterans to open offices in government ridings, and it now tells veterans that it has just doubled the official wait time, if they even qualify.

How much is the political decision to direct shipbuilding contracts going to cost Canadians?

I had high hopes for Bill C-65. It now appears that Canadians will be disappointed, as they have been disappointed with everything else this Prime Minister has touched.

The Environment

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Brossard—Saint-Lambert.

I am pleased to rise in the House this evening to speak during this emergency debate on climate change. I will begin with last week's report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The IPCC is dedicated to providing the world with an objective, scientific view of climate change and its political and economic impacts, so we know that the conclusions that come from this report have merit. The report confirmed that we are the first generation to feel the impacts of climate change and the last generation that has the possibility of stopping it.

This is not actually new information. We have known the urgency of our environmental situation for some time now, which is why we are taking steps to protect the environment and to combat climate change.

How are we doing this? In budget 2018, we reaffirmed our commitment to preserving and protecting our natural environment and to addressing climate change. That budget included a $1.3-billion investment for nature conservation, the most significant investment of its kind in Canadian history. Additionally, $500 million will come from the federal government to create a $1-billion nature fund with provinces, territories, not-for-profits, and corporate and other partners. The nature fund will allow us to secure private lands, support provincial and territorial environmental species protection efforts and help build indigenous capacity to conserve land and species.

We have also implemented a $1.5-billion oceans protection plan, the most rigorous of its kind on the entire planet. It includes a marine safety system, restoring marine ecosystems and investing in innovative cleanup methods. Budget 2018 also included a $1.4-billion investment in the low carbon economy leadership fund to support clean growth and reduce greenhouse gases.

On February 8, our government also introduced Bill C-69 to address the inadequacies of the current environmental assessment system. With this bill, our government would bring forward better rules for the review of major projects that would protect our environment, fish and waterways; rebuild trust and respect indigenous rights; and strengthen our economy and encourage investment. To help with the implementation of this bill, we also included $1 billion in funding in budget 2018 for the proposed new impact assessments under Bill C-69 and for the Canadian energy regulator.

It is also one of our top priorities to ensure that indigenous people have their voices heard in this political discourse on the environment. We are taking firm steps to conduct proper consultations with first nations, commensurate with direction from the court, on the matter of the environment and protecting heritage. To that end, our government has co-developed an indigenous advisory and monitoring committee that gives indigenous persons access to monitoring ongoing environmental projects. Further, we launched an economic pathways partnership that will make it easier for indigenous people and communities to access existing federal programs that will help benefit them economically.

Following consultations, we were able to meet with, discuss and come to an agreement with 43 communities that signed mutual benefit agreements with the proponents on the proposed expansion of the Trans Mountain pipeline, and 33 of those communities are in British Columbia. A grand total of 43 first nation communities will get the benefit from the proposed use of their territory for the construction of an expanded Trans Mountain pipeline.

We have undertaken all these projects with proper and comprehensive indigenous consultation and input. Where that consultation has been lacking, we have heard from the court, and we are committed to revisiting the consultations and reaching out in a serious manner to understand the needs of indigenous persons and to accommodate their needs.

We are also fulfilling the promise of UNDRIP. I think this bears some discussion. UNDRIP calls for a number of things, among which is having the resource wealth contained on indigenous territories reaped by those very indigenous communities, communities that for 400 years have been excluded from the benefit of the resource wealth on their land. That is what we are changing through our policies. That is what UNDRIP speaks to.

We are also helping to incentivize businesses to make positive, environmentally sound upgrades. We are extending tax support for clean energy investments. This is critical. I speak now as not only the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice but as the member of Parliament for Parkdale—High Park in the city of Toronto in the province of Ontario. The current provincial government of Ontario is stepping out of supporting green renovations. We, on the other hand, have allocated $123 million in budget 2018 to extend the tax benefit program beyond 2020 to 2023. This benefit promotes and supports the adoption of energy efficient equipment, which is exactly what Ontarians, and indeed all businesses, want to see around this country.

The most important step we have taken so far is to commit to putting a price on pollution. We have set a national price on carbon pollution that will be implemented in every province that has not implemented its own pricing system by January 1 of next year. This is essential, because polluters must pay. That bears repeating, and members will hear that over and over again from this side of the House: polluters must pay.

Many governments around the world understand this, but some provincial leaders are, unfortunately, deciding to no longer take action. Saskatoon has said no, Manitoba has withdrawn from pricing pollution and now, to the dismay of the residents in my riding, the Premier of Ontario has also withdrawn from the fight against climate change. This is nothing less than an abnegation of responsibility, and it jeopardizes the future of Ontario, and indeed, the future of this country. By cancelling the cap and trade system, the Ontario government cancelled at the same time 700 renewable energy contracts. However, our response on this side of the House and at the federal level is simple. We will stand firm in our commitment that polluters must pay.

For jurisdictions implementing an explicit price-based system, the carbon price must start at a minimum of $10 per tonne in 2018 and rise $10 per year to $50 per tonne by 2022.

Overall, our plan has over 50 commitments, and we remain committed to meeting those targets. It is also important to say that on this side of the House, we are actually focused on doing the work necessary to meet our targets, not simply talk about the targets, which is in marked contrast to some other members in the chamber, who continue to publicly opine on our plan but have yet to propose a plan of their own to address climate change.

The argument that pricing pollution harms economic growth is wholly inaccurate. The money collected from pricing pollution is returned to the residents and governments of the respective provinces. In this way, the price on pollution is entirely revenue neutral. Just look at the Province of British Columbia, for example. B.C. unveiled a carbon tax of its own with an identical commitment: that carbon pricing would be entirely revenue neutral in 2008 and that every dollar raised would be returned to the people of B.C. in the form of lower taxes. The statistics bear that out exactly. The first year of carbon pricing in B.C. saw $307 million collected and $315 million given back in the form of revenue returned to residents. The following year, the net give-back was over $180 million in excess.

Research by environmental economist Dave Sawyer, of EnviroEconomics, suggests that in this scenario, most households, regardless of income level, would receive more money, not less, from the federal government than they would pay in terms of any increased prices in the economy. The study of three provinces suggests that those households, particularly at the lower end of the income spectrum, would end up better off under this plan. The amount they receive would rise over time, in line with the direct price on pollution, which will start at $20 per tonne next January and rise to $50 per tonne in 2022.

In my remaining time, I want to reiterate that the concept of the environment and the economy going together is not a partisan issue. Indeed, it is only the leadership of NDP premiers, like Rachel Notley in Alberta, who aggressively put a price on carbon pollution and a cap on oil sands extraction, that allowed the notion of the pipeline approval to proceed in the first instance, in the case of TMX. Indeed, Premier Horgan, in British Columbia, is equally supportive of building up natural resource infrastructure to support economic growth, as he is actively pursuing a liquefied natural gas refinement facility in Kitimat, B.C., to ensure that this resource can be exported from B.C. to markets elsewhere. That historic agreement with the NDP Premier of B.C. and indigenous communities in the west for an LNG refinery, which will be the cleanest of its kind on earth, will support jobs for indigenous persons and help assist our Asian allies, including China and India, in transitioning from polluting coal toward a low carbon economy.

As we know and as the UN outlined in its study last week, the issue of climate change is not just pressing at a national level, it is pressing at a global level. It is a global problem that requires a global response. We need to think globally but also act locally.

I will finish on a note about my constituents in Parkdale—High Park who care so passionately about the environment. These are the residents of my riding who have expressed their dismay with the actions of Premier Ford and are asking for a reinvigorated federal response. That is what we are committed to: finding a way to address the environmental concerns of Ontario residents and businesses and making a firm commitment to combat climate change. That is what we are here to do, and that is what this debate is about tonight.