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.

[Chief Byron Louis, Okanagan Indian Band, Assembly of First Nations]

Thank you.

First, I would like to acknowledge I am giving this presentation on the traditional territory of the Algonquin people.

Members of the committee, friends and relatives, thank you for the invitation here today to share the perspectives of the Assembly of First Nations on international best practices for engaging with indigenous communities in major energy projects.

I would like to start with the important point from our national chief, Perry Bellegarde, who said that first nations are not opposed to the development, but we will balance what is right for the economy with what is right for the environment and our responsibilities to our traditional territories.

Clearly, when we consider the energy and mining sectors and how important they are to our local, regional and national economies, I am again reminded how closing the gap must be part of the energy discussion.

A key component of closing this gap is fulfilling the promise of a nation-to-nation relationship with clear decision-making processes through partnerships. This is a key component of achieving consensus—to realize a process that all Canadians and first nations can have confidence in.

We have been working in partnership to identify and address transboundary mining issues that impact our territories. This is reflective of some of the collaborative work that has been occurring in British Columbia. One of the examples I would like to give is our relationship with the Colville confederated tribes who reside in Washington state. The majority of our people reside in Washington, Idaho and Montana. They are Nsyilxcen-speaking peoples who are still members of our tribal council. One of the issues that came out of impacts to mining was a resulting case in the United States where they took Teck Cominco to court and successfully had a lawsuit against them for downstream damages from Teck Cominco, which is located in the Canadian portion outside of Trail, British Columbia. They were dumping tailings into the Columbia River for well over 100 years.

This resulting court case that had been launched and was successful found in U.S. courts that the Canadian mining firm, Teck Cominco, could be charged with damages to U.S. downstream effects.

The other part of this is that to date, through the Columbia.... This was starting in about 1946, with building the Grand Coulee Dam in Washington state. Canada had identified that there were no upstream impacts, resulting in not only the building of Grand Coulee Dam—half of it on Colville Reservation—but leading to Chief Joseph. I think there are upstream treaty and non-treaty reservoirs that serve this high-head dam for energy production in the United States, which basically benefits Canada in that particular area.

What I find is that sometimes people say hydroelectric energy is clean energy. No, it's not—not from an aboriginal context and the impacts to aboriginal people when you change the natural hydrograph to one that is developed along filling reservoirs that slow down the speed of the water where what was usually freshets carrying smolt salmon to the Pacific Ocean. It also impedes upstream migration of Okanagan sockeye that travel through nine dams in the United States.

Two or three years ago, we had changes. What happens in the Okanagan system is that in the water column, deoxidized water happens at a certain level where fish, especially salmon, can't survive. You have what's called thermal blockage, where salmon in the Columbia River can withstand temperatures to 22°C. When you have a dam, the water changes; it almost decants, where it takes off the surface of the water and flows into the next reservoir.

In the summer months you also have heated water that's flowing down through the systems that ended up in the Rufus Woods Reservoir in Washington state. As a result of this squeeze, we lost 200,000 of a return of 400,000 sockeye. At one time in the 1990s we had fewer than 600 sockeye returning to the Canadian portion. The Okanagan system is basically the only system within the Columbia Basin where we still have anadromous species returning to Canadian waters, which happens in the Okanagan sub-basin.

This is an example of a measurable outcome or impact of what would be classified as a major energy project.

To move along in there, I think the fact that in a 2015 report, an independent working group on natural resources called for immediate action to ensure all first nations participate and share in benefits of natural resources development in Canada. Recommendations included the establishment of a national round table inviting first nations, provinces, territories, industry and non-governmental organizations; the launch of a discussion on resource revenue sharing as the best means of eliminating socio-economic disparities; the establishment of central knowledge and information resources to support first nations; and the international forum to promote first nations trade and international partnerships.

First nations as rights holders, as owners and as a burgeoning labour market force must be participants in and part of solutions going forward. First nations businesses must be included in contracting processes and benefits from procedural procurement opportunities. Processes must bring together mechanisms that involve licensing, engagement and good practices.

The energy sector and, in fact, the broader Canadian economy is a much-needed partner and not excluded from the work towards a renewed relationship.

When we're talking about reconciliation, I think from a first nations perspective we really need to come to what is actually a definition of “reconciliation”. You look in the dictionary for an example or a meaning of reconciliation, and it is a renewal of relations after a long period of hostilities, which basically describes first nations' relations with Canada for a long period of time, whether it's with Canada or the provinces.

What is the definition of what we're using for reconciliation? Is it more or less the international model that could be actually construed as being an example of what happened after the Second World War with Germany, Italy and Japan being able to rebuild socially and economically? Is that the type of reconciliation we're talking about, or is it something less? Because with first nations I think we need the opportunity to rebuild, not only socially but economically. Major projects play a large role in that.

Before we get into specific examples, I want to start by framing where we are. This is an opportunity for real reconciliation. First, as we're well aware, Canada has announced its full and unqualified support of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. This declaration did not create any new rights as these rights are inherent or pre-existing; it simply affirms indigenous peoples' human rights.

Across government, including Bill C-262, we talked about realizing these rights and finding a better way to work together so that we don't have to spend millions of dollars and waste years in fighting the courts. Poor environmental processes lead to hundreds of unnecessary judicial reviews annually. Partnerships with first nations must respect and realize existing rights. It's about working with us to establish the laws, policies and practices needed to respect our rights and status as self-determining peoples.

Inevitably, the conversation will slip to the standard of free, prior and informed consent. To be very clear, free and prior informed consent was not created in the UNDRIP or the rights of indigenous peoples. It was not created in Bill C-69 or in Bill C-262. It was already existing in international law.

It is an essential element of the right of all peoples, including indigenous peoples, to self-determination, which Canada has recognized for decades. For example, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, have, in their first article, that “All peoples have the right of self-determination.”

Consent is essential for nation-to-nation negotiation and for treaty interpretation, treaty-making in general. It is between self-determining nations. The first nations already have the right to participate in decisions that can affect their rights, property, cultures, environment and capacity to exercise their right to self-determination.

What does this mean in the context of this study? What is needed is a better process for major energy projects, one that is designed with first nations, one that involves first nations from the start. There is no need to reinvent the wheel here. Free, prior and informed consent exists around the world. There is already a lot of international jurisprudence to draw on.

On first nations leading the energy transition, when given the space, first nations have participated in and benefited from energy development.

As many of you already know, first nations across Turtle Island are achieving investments in clean energy and low-carbon economy. These investments are being supported by an aggressive Government of Canada approach to investing in energy sector projects that support the transition to a low-carbon economy: generation, transmission and export. For example, the federal budget commits $2.37 billion over four years to Canada's clean technology industry. As well, the government outlines its plan to invest $21.9 billion over 11 years in green infrastructure.

Our teachings have taught us to be stewards of the land. With that, first nations can be champions when it comes to clean energy and alternative energy moving forward. As a result, first nations are increasingly joining Canada's growing clean energy economy as a way to generate revenue in a manner that is consistent with our cultural and environmental values.

A focus of these efforts must be to encourage and support energy independence and assist with the transition away from diesel power generation for approximately 112 diesel-dependent first nations across Canada, 42 first nations in the territories and 70 first nations in the provinces.

One of the Generation Energy Council's five principles is “A collaborative transition … integrating Indigenous values into the process at every step and creating opportunities for reconciliation and new partnerships with Indigenous peoples.” In this report developed by the council, it's recommended that indigenous peoples have involvement in energy governance, investment tools and capacity development.

Last year, the Assembly of First Nations hosted a one-day session in advance of the Generation Energy Council process. The consistent theme from that discussion was a need for collaboration with first nations, a true and meaningful engagement, and federal government and territorial policy.

There is more, but my 10 minutes are up.

[Ryan Greer]

I think that consultation processes in general through the NEB looking backwards and forwards have provided an opportunity where instead of focusing on the project, we are instead focusing on the policy. Policy consultations and project consultations are two very different things, but over the last several years they have been merged into one.

We think there's room to continue to work on how the NEB is set up and how consultations under new Bill C-69 will work, because we need to find a way to get oil to tidewater.

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

Are you saying that the new standing test requirements under Bill C-69 could open us up to foreign interests interfering in our regulator?

Natural Resources

[Amarjeet Sohi, Liberal, Minister of Natural Resources]

Mr. Speaker, the purpose of Bill C-69 is to fix a broken system that was implemented by the previous government in 2012. It took away the ability of indigenous peoples to participate in a meaningful way. It took away the ability of Canadians to participate in the review process. It took away the ability for us to protect our environment, waterways, fish and fish habitat. We are fixing a system that will allow us to move forward on large energy infrastructure projects in a way that makes sense for Canadians.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, more than 125,000 oil and gas workers have lost their jobs under the Liberals. The Prime Minister vetoed northern gateway with no consultation. He killed energy east with red tape. He overpaid for Trans Mountain, and every delay costs taxpayers more. His mistakes have caused the crisis in the energy sector and have recently threatened the jobs of over 2,000 CNRL workers in northeast Alberta. Now Imperial is cutting rail shipments and considering cancelling a new oil sands project.

Will the Liberals stop their no-more-pipelines bill, Bill C-69?

Wrecked, Abandoned or Hazardous Vessels Act

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

Mr. Speaker, I could not be more pleased to take the floor. I think I may be the last speaker at this stage of the progress of the bill. We are now reviewing the amendments sent to us by the Senate before approving the bill to go back to the Senate.

I want to share with members who do not experience it what it means to have the problem of derelict and dilapidated boats. It might sound to someone who does not live on a coastline as though it is a rather small issue, as though it is something one could leave waiting a while. After all, the boats are derelict and dilapidated and abandoned.

On the east coast, where I lived for so long, certainly around Cape Breton Island, we did not have a problem with derelict and dilapidated boats, because they were generally smashed to bits by the winter storms, and we did not see them the following year. However, on the more tranquil inland waters of the Salish Sea, around the southern Gulf Islands and up into the northern areas of our Gulf Islands, around Gabriola, Hornby and the islands stretching up into the eastern coast of Vancouver Island, we have a lot of problems with derelict boats. Many areas of British Columbia have peaceful inland waters and a lack of winter storms. Boats are abandoned, which owners do far too frequently at no cost and no risk to themselves. They just abandon the vessels. That has caused threats to navigation and hazards in the waters.

More recently, we have had a profound problem. The housing shortage in southern Vancouver Island and on the Lower Mainland is so acute that homeless people have taken up residence in abandoned vessels. Try to imagine the multiple threats and hazards that involves, and it is growing at an epidemic rate.

On January 21 I took a tour with local residents of Tsehum Harbour, where multiple vessels, some of them rafted together to form something of a community of vessels, are housing people. Some people are paying rent to the owners for substandard living conditions. Of course, there is no proper heat. Living on a vessel on open water in the winter is not a safe living condition, but it is particularly acute on Salt Spring Island, where Burgoyne Bay and Ganges have become magnets for crime. They are no longer safe areas. It is a significant problem. That is compounded by not having adequate RCMP attending to the southern Gulf Islands. There just are not enough RCMP officers to help where crime is increasing in areas, such as Pender Island and Salt Spring Island, which are idyllic places. This is really a crisis. We need to find homes for these people who are taking refuge in inadequate habitation on abandoned vessels. We need to deal with abandoned vessels rapidly.

There is another problem that is worse than this situation. That is in a bill that is currently before the Senate. I am going to seek amendments there to deal with Bill C-69, which amends our navigable waters protection act, now the Navigation Protection Act. Under the previous government of Stephen Harper, they made it much easier to put buoys out and ignore them. They did not think they were making it easier to put buoys out. They just exempted minor works. This needs to be dealt with now, because what has happened is that it is easier to place buoys in the water without proper review, because we treat them as minor work and they are therefore exempted. That is another matter to return to.

I want to let the House know that multiple layers of government are struggling with this problem and waiting with bated breath for Transport Canada to have the additional resources and focus. The current situation involves local governments, municipalities, the Islands Trust, and the Capital Regional District for the Victoria area, which has an abandoned vessel program and gets stuck with the costs. We need to find federal funding to help the CRD with the costs it experiences. We also have the Coast Guard and the RCMP involved and primarily Transport Canada, which is gearing up. I have to say that the civil servants working on this in our local area are terrific. There are also numerous local residents for whom this bill cannot come soon enough.

I am extremely grateful to the local residents who organized that meeting on January 21, which brought together mayors, CRD officials, the Islands Trust, the RCMP and Transport Canada. This has been a nightmare of an issue. We know that funding is waiting. It will not be enough, but it is a good start.

I would like to thank the House for doing everything possible, as expeditiously as possible, to get this legislation passed, get those derelict boats out of our waters and find housing for people who are currently taking shelter in abandoned vessels.

[Kent Hehr]

My question is for Mr. Hubbard.

The process brought in by the Conservatives in 2012 led to how the courts threw out northern gateway, as well as said that we need to do better on the Trans Mountain duty to consult. Both of the phases followed the process laid out by the former government.

Has Bill C-69, in your view, taken into account what was set up in that process? Do we reflect on how the new process is better and will lead to a better duty to consult going forward?

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

That's interesting.

Following up on that, would or could it be appropriate to make some references to UNDRIP within Bill C-69, or are your departments making those suggestions?

Opposition Motion—Affordable Housing

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to share my time today with the amazing member of Parliament for Lethbridge.

Notionally, I support the bill. Who would not support better housing for those who cannot afford it? We have a housing affordability issue in Canada. We have an issue regarding too many regulations, which are adding costs to housing and slowing down the development of housing. Local municipalities are limiting the amount of supply. We have higher interest rates, which are pushing people out of the market. We also have an affordability issue, period, in Canada.

We have a Liberal government that sits smugly, day after day, telling us, in the face of all the evidence, that everything is fine, the economy is great and not to worry. It reminds me of the black knight in the movie Monty Python and the Holy Grail. He has and arm and a leg chopped off, but he is bouncing around on one leg saying that everything is okay and that he is fine. It is the same denial that we hear from the current government.

Meanwhile, we have investment fleeing from our country at record rates and interest rates are on the rise. Just recently we heard that almost 50% of Canadian families are just $200 a month away from not being able to pay their bills. We are creating fights with our international partners: America, China, Australia and Japan. Despite what the government says, evidently we are not okay.

Let us look at how the government is making things unaffordable.

It is killing jobs. I want to talk about Alberta. The Prime Minister has stated again and again that Alberta needs to phase out the oil sands. The Liberals are doing a great job on it. They killed northern gateway, which would have brought Alberta oil to the northern B.C. coast and then to overseas Asian markets. Let us not be fooled by their claims that this was done by the courts. This was killed by a government order in cabinet.

Despite the member for Edmonton Mill Woods, a senior cabinet minister from Alberta, being at the table, he did not raise a complaint when the government killed northern gateway. Before he was punted from cabinet, the member for Calgary Centre stated that he would pound on his desk at the cabinet table to make sure a pipeline got built, yet he sat quietly and did not say a thing while northern gateway was killed. Just a couple of weeks ago, the member for Edmonton Centre stood in the old place to say that he was proud of the pipeline-killing Bill C-69. He was proud of the government for banning tankers off the northern B.C. coast only carrying Alberta oil. He was proud of that record.

The Liberals killed energy east. Do not be fooled again by their saying it was a business decision. They killed it with regulatory changes that made us consider upstream and downstream emissions from that pipeline.

Did they make the same requirements for the Saudi oil coming in? No, they did not. This is the same Saudi Arabia that the foreign minister was bashing on Twitter regarding human rights. Nevertheless, the government can bring in the oil no problem without the same regulations as are in Alberta.

What about Venezuelan oil? Were there any issues? Of course there were not. The government is happily bringing in oil from Venezuela without the same regulatory requirements or emissions testing as exist for Alberta oil.

The government put Kinder Morgan's Trans Mountain project into a coma and then nationalized it. Members have to ask themselves, who in the world, with such immense oil reserves, has the problems that exist in Canada and has to nationalize oil? It is Venezuela and no one else.

The government nationalized it to the tune of $4.5 billion, and we just heard form the PBO that it overpaid. It was published in the paper that the Liberals overpaid by $1 billion. That is $1 billion if it gets built. If it is blocked, which is what I am sure the Liberals want, the existing pipeline would only be worth $2 billion.

In response to an earlier question, the finance minister told us to read the report. I would suggest to him that he read the report himself so that he can see how much he overpaid.

The loss of revenue from the pipelines ranges from $40 million to $100 million a day. Scotiabank says it is $40 million. The Government of Alberta says it is $80 million. GMP FirstEnergy says it is $100 million. The lowest of those numbers, from Scotiabank, works out to $15 billion a year in lost revenue, lost wages and lost resources for the government. We have to ask ourselves what we could do for social housing with that $15 billion.

There are two sides to the housing issue. It is not just a lack of available housing but a lack of good-paying jobs, and the current government is killing those jobs.

The Liberal government is forcing through a carbon tax. The government's own report shows that it needs to go to $300 a tonne to be effective. That works out to about $5,000 a year for a family in Alberta, and it is higher in Saskatchewan. On top of that, the Liberals eliminated the sports credit for children, the arts credit for children and the public transport credit. Here they want more public transport, but they eliminate the credit for low-income people to take advantage of public transport. They eliminated income-splitting for families. They cut the tax credit for text books. Of course, they are hiking the CPP. They like to say that they are providing for the future with the CPP, but we are paying a tax now that will not benefit us for decades. Of course, there is the middle-class tax cut. Those making between $90,000 and $170,000 will get tax break of $2.50 a day. However, people who are low-income, those making less than $45,000 a year, who are hurt by the lack of affordability will not get penny from the Liberal government's tax cut.

I want to talk further about the carbon tax. We are very blessed in this country. I am very blessed in my riding of Edmonton West. We have a phenomenal number of churches, charities and not-for-profits that deliver services to the needy. We have an incredible food bank with an incredible number of volunteers, but they expect the carbon tax to hit them with between $25,000 and $50,000 a year. I am sure people opposite are confused when they see banks raise their rates, but a food bank cannot pass costs on to its clients. The churches cannot pass on the cost of the carbon tax. These are churches that go out and provide help for the food banks and help to the needy.

One of my favourite organizations in my riding is called the Elves Special Needs Society. It looks after Edmonton's most disabled and disadvantaged people from ages one or two up to 55. It cannot afford the added carbon tax. Some of its clients cannot feed themselves, breathe for themselves or care for themselves. Members of the Elves Special Needs Society had to go the food bank and beg and borrow to get adult diapers for some of their clients, as it is so stretched for money, yet the government wants to add a carbon tax on top.

I want to talk about the fast and loose numbers for the Liberals' housing program. The Prime Minister said in this place that the government has already helped one million people find housing. However, here is the truth. The government's own document from the department shows that they have actually helped 7,500, not a million. The government's own document said 7,500 last year, which dropped from the previous year and the year before that.

The Liberals said they have spent $5 billion this year on housing. A report from the former Parliamentary Budget officer, Kevin Page, says that they have actually only spent $1.3 billion over the last couple of years. The Institute of Fiscal Studies and Democracy said:

This all begs the question: Where is the proposed $40 billion National Housing Strategy funding? By following the funding throughout the years and tracking what is “new” money, we have painted a picture of what the NHS looks like apart from the glossy document that accompanied its announcement. And unfortunately, for now, the NHS is virtually nowhere to be seen in the federal fiscal framework.

Once again, for the government, I give it an A for announcements, but Canadians give it a D for delivery.

We have an affordability crisis in housing and day-to-day living in this country, and the Liberal government is making it worse, as I made it very clear. Heaven forbid the Liberals get re-elected. They are going to jack up taxes and make it even worse for common, everyday Canadians.

[Terence Hubbard]

Thank you.

The proposed framework, Bill C-69, integrates the government's commitments to reconciliation. As part of the specifics of what will change, the proposed legislation would require earlier and more regular engagement and partnership with indigenous communities and a deeper level of collaboration and respect for indigenous rights and jurisdiction throughout the process.

For example, the new framework specifically requires consideration of impacts on rights and indigenous culture. It requires indigenous engagement and partnership early and throughout the process, mandatory consideration of indigenous knowledge and provides new provisions that would allow more collaborative arrangements with indigenous groups to exercise powers and duties under the framework.

It also specifically advances the government's commitment to aim to secure the free, prior and informed consent throughout the impact assessment process, based on principles of mutual respect and dialogue.

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

I'll ask it quickly; this is a very tiny question. It's about Bill C-69.

This is more for the NEB and how that would change how you work with indigenous consultation. Specifically, the expert panel was mentioned and how that informed things, and yet, the expert panel mentions 50 times that UNDRIP should be mentioned specifically in Bill C-69 and it was not. Perhaps comment on that and whether....

[Garnett Genuis]

Okay. It seems pretty obvious, then, that policies like the offshore drilling moratorium in the Arctic, like Bill C-69, like Bill C-48, like the tanker exclusion zone, would have a significant impact on indigenous communities and on their ability to provide for their own communities through economic development, which they may well have planned, and in many cases did plan, in advance of the introduction of those policies.

Let me drill down on a few of those examples.

What consultation happened by the government before the imposition of the tanker exclusion zone? I'm talking about before Bill C-48 was actually proposed, when the Prime Minister first came into office and introduced the tanker exclusion zone.

[Garnett Genuis, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, CPC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It was a surprise for me to hear one of the witnesses say that Bill C-69 was the product of consultation with indigenous people. I think it's fairly well known that the National Coalition of Chiefs, the Indian Resource Council, the Eagle Spirit Chiefs Council and a majority of Treaty 7 first nations all opposed Bill C-69. In fact, the more than 30 first nations that compose the Eagle Spirit Chiefs Council say they're going to take the government to court over Bill C-69 because it would make it “impossible to complete a project” and because it would remove the standing test that could lead to foreign interests overriding the interests of aboriginal title holders.

I'll share a few other quotes with you.

Roy Fox, chief of the Blood Tribe First Nation and former CEO of the Indian Resource Council, says Bill C-69 will have a “devastating impact on our ability to support our community members”.

Steve Buffalo, the 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.

I have some comments, which maybe I will share later on, from indigenous leaders who are deeply critical of some of these other government decisions shutting down progress in terms of energy projects.

The general question I want to ask is this. Of course all of us here agree about the importance of a duty to consult and to engage when a project is going forward. Is there a duty to consult indigenous communities when those communities have put time, resources and money into a project going forward and then a government policy stops that progress from being put forward? Is there a duty to consult if indigenous communities are trying to move forward the development of a project and the government puts in place policies to stop that progress? Is there a duty to consult in that case?

The question is for whoever is interested in responding.

[Terence Hubbard, Vice-President, Operations, Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency]

Good afternoon.

My name is Terence Hubbard and I am the Vice-President of Operations at the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency.

I appreciate the opportunity to speak with you today about the agency's experience in consulting with indigenous groups.

In my presentation, I will highlight our enhanced approach to consultation under Bill C-69, and I will describe recent innovative approaches we are undertaking with indigenous communities.

As the committee is aware, the federal environmental assessment process has been undergoing legislative review since 2016 when the Minister of Environment and Climate Change established an expert panel to review the federal environmental assessment process. Since January 2016, and until such time that a new legislative framework is in place, the federal government has been guided by an interim approach that includes principles and plans for major projects to inform decision-making. The interim principles include a commitment that decisions will be based on science, traditional knowledge of indigenous peoples and other relevant evidence, and that indigenous peoples will be meaningfully consulted and, where appropriate, accommodated where potential impacts on rights may occur.

ln February 2018, the government proposed legislation in Bill C-69 that would repeal the current environmental assessment legislation and introduce a new impact assessment process for major projects. The process for developing this bill was based on extensive consultations, including with indigenous peoples, industry, provinces and territories, for more than 14 months. At present, external discussions are ongoing regarding the development of regulations contemplated under the proposed impact assessment act and policies that will support the agency's new roles and responsibilities.

Our assessment process will also help us achieve the objectives underpinning the principles respecting the Government of Canada's relationship with indigenous peoples by exploring approaches and mechanisms aimed at ensuring that indigenous peoples and their governments have a role in public decision-making as part of Canada's constitutional framework, and to ensure that indigenous rights, interests and aspirations are recognized in our decision-making.

ln order to realize these broad legal requirements and government commitments, the Government of Canada integrates consultations into the assessment process to the greatest extent possible in order to facilitate opportunities for exchange of indigenous knowledge and technical information. The courts in Canada have reinforced this integrated approach as an appropriate mechanism for carrying out the duty to consult. Over time, however, the courts have also indicated areas for improvement. The Government of Canada is constantly working to ensure that court decisions and the views of indigenous groups regarding the assessment process and proposed projects are taken into account as part of our decision-making.

lt's expected that this integration model will continue to be the model under the proposed impact assessment act, with modifications to the process to better include indigenous groups and reflect their interests. Under the proposed act, there would be early and regular consultation with indigenous peoples, and indigenous traditional knowledge would be mandatory to consider, along with other sources of science and evidence to inform decision-making.

The proposed act also strives to work towards securing consent by developing a more collaborative and inclusive process based on mutual respect and dialogue. Specific examples of how we have reflected this in the proposed impact assessment act include the requirement to consider potential impacts on the rights of indigenous peoples on matters such as whether to designate a project for assessment, as well as the determination of whether adverse impacts of a designated project are in the public interest. The proposed legislation would also create new space for indigenous jurisdictions to exercise powers under the act related to the conduct of impact assessments.

As practitioners in consultation, the agency has learned that a cornerstone of our best practice in consulting with indigenous groups to date is being collaborative, in addition to respecting indigenous-led processes and knowledge. One recent example is the proposed Blackwater gold project in B.C., where the agency is consulting with 10 indigenous groups including the Lhoosk'uz Dené Nation, the Ulkatcho First Nation and Carrier Sekani First Nation.

The agency is working collaboratively with these nations towards consensus on conclusions with respect to the project's impacts on indigenous rights. This approach is supported in part by a memorandum of understanding that the agency signed in 2016 with the Lhoosk'uz Dené Nation, Ulkatcho First Nation and the Province of B.C.

The MOU includes a commitment that parties will collaboratively draft sections of the environmental assessment relating to effects on these nations and will work towards consensus on measures to address the potential effects of the project on the rights of the signatory indigenous groups. Integrating consultation into the environmental assessment process also provides for the consideration of impacts on rights, which can directly influence decision-making with respect to whether a project should be approved.

For example, in December 2017, an environmental assessment of the proposed Ajax mine in B.C. found that the project would likely have significant adverse environmental effects and cumulative effects on physical and cultural heritage and the current use of lands and resources for traditional purposes by the Stk'emlupsemc te Secwepemc Nation. Throughout the environmental assessment, the agency engaged in deep consultation with the SSN through face-to-face meetings and exchanges of information. The agency took into consideration indigenous knowledge and their own assessment of the project's potential impacts on their rights, which were reflected in the environmental assessment report. In June 2018, the Governor in Council found that these effects were not justified in the circumstances and therefore this specific project, as proposed, could not proceed.

I have one final example: The agency recently co-developed a methodology with the Mikisew Cree First Nation to assess the potential impacts on aboriginal and treaty rights of a proposed oil sands mine in Alberta. The collaborative approach in the development of this methodology is based on the combination of expertise within the agency in the domain of environmental assessment methodology and the expertise of the Mikisew in culture and rights studies. The application of this methodology not only provides for fulsome consideration of rights and culture in a manner that reflects the Mikisew's perspective, but its early application in the process has led to a more informed discussion regarding potential accommodation measures.

The methodology is currently being contemplated in the context of guidance related to the proposed act. The agency and the Mikisew Cree will be co-presenting this methodology on an international stage this coming April at the International Association for Impact Assessment in Brisbane, Australia. The co-development of this methodology demonstrates how effective partnerships with indigenous peoples can lead to a better-informed process. It also demonstrates how to set the foundation for positive changes in our relationships with indigenous peoples.

As we go forward, there will no doubt be further opportunities to develop even more collaborative and inclusive approaches with indigenous groups.

Thank you for your time today. We look forward to your questions.

Carbon Pricing

[Matt Jeneroux, Conservative, Edmonton Riverbend, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is the Liberals who are making pollution free again by mass exemptions to industrial emitters and dumping sewage into the ocean.

The Prime Minister has no concept of managing money because he inherited, in his words, a great “family fortune”. According to his own government's documents, the Liberal carbon tax is expected to cost a family of four up to $5,000 a year. He has already introduced Bill C-69 and Bill C-48. He cannot build a pipeline. How does he now expect that struggling families are going to pay for this?

When will the Prime Minister stop making Canadians pay for his mistakes?