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.

Impact Assessment Act

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise to address what I believe is one area in which the Conservative Party of Canada is somewhat vulnerable, and that is the environment. I really believe that Conservatives, under the new leadership, are found wanting in coming up with ideas that are healthy for Canada's environment.

The legislation being proposed today reinforces other attitudes they have in general about the environment. Today, the Conservatives say a province is saying it can handle it with no problem at all, and the federal Conservative Party says it does not need to have any sort of federal involvement. That is, in essence, what the members opposite are proposing. It reminds me of this consistency of policy development that prevents the Conservatives from being concerned about Canada's environment.

We talk about the major projects that are under way and that are being proposed and considered. These projects will have profound impacts on our environment. There is a very clear possibility some of these megaprojects will go beyond any one provincial boundary. There is a need, I suggest, and the Supreme Court of Canada also suggested, for a federal government role in the process. Most Canadians would agree that the federal government should not get away from its important role when it comes to the environment.

When we think of industries having regulations, both at the federal and provincial levels, it enables a certain amount of security and predictability, which then allows for investment. There are so many investment opportunities. I was encouraged when the member opposite used the words “green developments”. He mentioned “green” quite a bit in his comments, and I applaud him on that.

There is the investment, for example, that Volkswagen has made in Canada, in co-operation with the Premier of Ontario and the Government of Canada, and thousands of green jobs that are going to be created as a direct result. Those jobs, in good part, are going to rely on mineral development as Canada is in the position of being a world leader in the development of batteries. Those batteries require rare minerals, and Canada not only has the opportunity to supply internally for potential demand and development of secondary industries that create more jobs for Canadians, but also has the capacity to supply the world in many different ways.

There are companies throughout the world looking at Canada as a place to invest, and investors are looking for regulatory certainty. When we talk about the IAA, we are really talking about recognizing that the federal government does have a role to play. The Supreme Court of Canada has made it very clear. We have indicated it will be under review. We can anticipate that amendments will be brought forward in a very progressive fashion. We are not going to do what the Conservative Party is suggesting through this legislation.

This is the type of legislation I have talked about in the past regarding the Conservative Party and its so-called hidden agenda. While this is very public, there is something within this legislation that Canadians need to be aware of. Once again, we are seeing the Conservative Party stepping back on the environment, and as a national government, we have the responsibility to ensure that there is the proper protection of our environment and that the IAA is the type of legislation that leads to regulations that protect our environment.

This can be done in a manner that is fully compliant with the Supreme Court of Canada, and that is why we are bringing forward these amendments. Unlike the Conservative Party, we recognize the need for co-operative federalism, which is ultimately what we have seen take place with the Liberal government from virtually day one with programs such as the CPP being put in place. We have also seen this with legislation brought forward by the government on environmental impact issues and with the dialogue that constantly takes place, most recently in regard to housing. These are some of the more high profile areas we have worked on.

An advantage Canada has, unlike virtually any other country in the world, is that we are fortunate to have all the minerals that we do. The government has a very important role in ensuring that we have laws and regulations in place at both the national and provincial levels to protect our environment. We also have a responsibility to ensure that indigenous peoples of Canada are not only consulted but also worked with when it comes to protecting our environment well into the future.

I recall when we brought in legislation and tried to improve the process, and the Conservatives were being very difficult, for example, when it came to dealing with bills like Bill C-69. This is because having regulatory uncertainty during Stephen Harper's 10 years did nothing when it came to expanding, for example, pipelines to our coastal tidewaters. Looking at the uncertainties that were caused, I would suggest that administration was not successful.

That is unlike our administration, which has created much greater certainty when it comes to environmental impact assessment studies.

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

moved that Bill C-375, An Act to amend the Impact Assessment Act (federal-provincial agreements), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, it is always an honour and a privilege to rise in the House to speak. Today is really special, because it is the first time that I have had the opportunity to explain the bill that I introduced with the support of the entire official opposition team. I put this bill together with the help of the House of Commons legislative drafting team and the team that I work with here in Ottawa and in my riding.

This is the first bill that I have introduced in the eight years and five months that I have been a member of the House of Commons. I would like to thank the people of Louis-Saint-Laurent for putting their faith in me in 2015, 2019 and 2021. The decision is in their hands as to what will happen in the future, but I trust their judgment.

Bill C-375 is entitled “An Act to amend the Impact Assessment Act (federal-provincial agreements)”.

I want to talk about the title because, although I was obviously happy and quite moved the first time I saw the bill in print, I also did a bit of a double take. Those who have the French version will notice that it says “fédéro-provinciaux” agreements. I was a little surprised to see that “fédéraux” is spelled with an “o” at the end. Since this was written by legal experts, I approached the table to make sure that this was indeed how it should be spelled. I was told that when it comes to legislation, “fédéraux” is traditionally spelled with an “o”. It is a small detail, but my colleagues know that, when it comes to introducing a bill, we want to make sure that everything is written in proper French, which is clearly the case here.

Climate change is real, as we know. We need to act quickly and decisively to deal with the effects of climate change. Human beings have contributed to climate change and must play a major role in this area. That is why our bill aims to combat climate change more effectively. To put it succintly, I would say that this bill essentially aims to establish a single environmental assessment per project, because, at this time, there is overlap between federal and provincial environmental powers. When a project is under way, an environmental assessment must be carried out. The first province to adopt this system was Alberta.

Why carry out two assessments if one has been done already, especially considering that the need for green projects to address climate change is greater than ever? This bill aims to significantly improve efficiency and optimize the scientific effort involved in assessing environmental projects. It aims to reduce duplication. In essence, it strives for collaboration, not confrontation. We think that provincial scientists are just as capable as federal scientists. Why pit them against each other by having two environmental assessments done when they could work together on just one and achieve the same objectives much more efficiently and pragmatically?

That is the big issue this bill tackles. What is the approach? For years now, our party has been saying that we need to stop doing two assessments every time. Federal and provincial officials need to stop stepping on each other's toes. When we came up with this bill, we looked at two options. We could have gone through every piece of legislation and analyzed every situation in order to amend this or that act, but that would have taken a very long time, and the resulting bill would have been a brick. That would have been cumbersome, so we opted for a pragmatic approach instead. My thanks to the team of legislative drafters we worked with.

This approach creates a mechanism to enter into agreements. Yes, we have no choice but to work together to fight climate change, but, in this case, we do so gladly because that is what needs to be done for the sake of the planet and the environment. That is why we are laying the groundwork for agreements that will enable federal and provincial partners to work together on a single study, rather than competing with each other. There are no good guys or bad guys. Nobody is stricter or more lenient. Science is science. Science has no allegiance, no political stripe. Science is rigorous. Let us put Canadian scientists to work for the environment. That is how we want to do it.

Needless to say, we need green projects now more than ever. As we speak, under the provisions of Bill C-69, which was introduced and passed by this government, the government gave itself veto power over hydroelectric projects. Obviously, as a Quebecker, this affects me, and I was deeply offended when I learned of that. We recognize Quebec's extensive expertise in hydroelectricity. All projects have been carried out in accordance with the environmental assessment process that falls under Quebec jurisdiction. However, this greedy government, which always interferes where it does not belong—in other words, in areas of provincial jurisdiction—has given itself veto power over hydroelectric projects.

If the federal government had had veto power over every hydroelectric project, including the Romaine River, James Bay, Manicouagan River, Outardes River and Betsiamites River projects, where would Quebec be today? If the federal government had given itself veto power in the 1950s, when studies were being done for Bersimis-1 and Bersimis-2, for the two generating stations on the Outardes River and the four generating stations on the Manicouagan River, where would Quebec be today? The green light was given in the 1950s, in 1958 to be precise, and the project was completed in the 1960s, with the magnificent inauguration of Manic-5 in 1968.

The federal government had no business being involved and that is why it was done properly. Why then did it interfere in this provincial jurisdiction by giving itself veto power and the ability to conduct an environmental assessment of hydroelectric projects?

This issue came before the Supreme Court of Canada. In the reference concerning the Impact Assessment Act, the Supreme Court of Canada chided the government for interfering in provincial jurisdictions. Obviously, the government did not take it as an order, but rather as an opinion of the Supreme Court. That is the issue. It is an opinion and it requires a response. Our response to that Supreme Court opinion is that the provinces are going to work hand in hand with the federal government and not against one another. That is how we have to look at environmental issues.

Let us not forget that the government said that it was going to review the situation. We have a suggestion for the government to ensure that the process is much more efficient and that there will be environmental assessments for major projects. There needs to be an environmental assessment for every project, and those will be done perfectly well by our experts.

Right now, there is a battle between the pragmatic approach that we support and the dogmatic approach. What has the government done to protect the environment in the eight years it has been in office? It has made announcements, announcements and more announcements. It has created the new carbon tax, imposed taxes and, obviously, increased the carbon tax. That is the very dogmatic approach that the Liberals are taking.

What exactly has been achieved after eight years of this government? In eight years, this government has never met its targets, except during the pandemic. If the government has to shut down the economy to meet its targets, then that is not exactly the best approach. That is what is so disappointing. The government's approach is all about taxing people. In a few days, on April 1, the government plans to increase the Liberal carbon tax by 23%. That is not the right thing to do. We will have an opportunity to come back to that a little later.

Some people will say that the Conservatives are against everything the government does. Of course, if the government were doing good things, we would be happy. If we were seeing results, we would be happy, but that is not what is happening. The government has yet to meet its targets, and we are not the only ones saying it.

Every year, the UN tables a report that evaluates the effectiveness of environmental measures for more than sixty countries around the world. Scientists from all over the world provide an objective, non-partisan analysis of the efforts being made to combat climate change and their results. I want to make sure I am using the exact wording used by the UN, so I will read this in English: “Climate Change Performance Index 2024 — Rating table”.

This document was recently tabled at COP 29. After eight years of this Liberal government, Canada ranks 62nd out of 67 countries. Not 40th, 50th or 60th, but 62nd.

After eight years of this Liberal government, Canada ranks 62nd on its performance in the fight against climate change, dropping from 58th place last year. Are the Liberals' climate change policies working? No. Canadians are not the only ones who see it, knowing that the Liberal carbon tax is set to rise in a few days. Scientists around the world see it too, and they clearly have no partisan political agenda like we do. Our very office requires us to have a political agenda. It is our duty to serve as the loyal opposition to this government and therefore to identify flaws. Scientists around the world have now confirmed that Canada's performance puts it in 62nd place worldwide.

We need to take action on climate change. We need pragmatic measures. That is why, at last September's Conservative Party convention, our leader outlined our plan to tackle climate change. I want to emphasize the fact that this happened at our national convention; it was not some press release issued at 4:30 p.m. on a Friday. I was a journalist, and I have been in politics for 15 years, so I am well aware that when people send out press releases on Friday evenings or at the end of the day, it is because they do not really want anyone to talk about them. In this case, it was quite the opposite. We had 2,500 grassroots members from across the country, all of them gathered to hear the member for Carleton give his first speech since being elected as leader of the official opposition. In that speech, he laid the foundation for a future government that a whole lot of Canadians want, none more than us, of course.

Our leader laid out and explained the four pillars of our party's potential government action on the environment. First, we have to invest in new technologies, through tax incentives, to fight climate change and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Investing in high tech through tax incentives is a pragmatic solution. The people whose plants or businesses generate greenhouse gases know the reasons why, and they, not Ottawa, are the ones who know how to lower their emissions. With tax incentives, they can take prompt, concrete action and achieve tangible results. The first pillar therefore consists of tax incentives that encourage investments in high-tech solutions for reducing pollution.

The second pillar of the Conservatives' action on climate change is to green-light green projects. We need green energy, hydroelectricity, solar energy, wind energy, geothermal energy and even nuclear energy now more than ever. None of them generate greenhouse gas emissions. These are the avenues that we need to explore, but we have to speed up the process. We need to green-light green projects. This bill aims to speed up the process and develop a game plan for collaboration between the provinces and the federal government. Instead of confrontation, we have to strive for collaboration. The second pillar is therefore to green-light green projects.

The third pillar is the Canadian advantage. Canada has so many natural resources and so many energy sources. Why go abroad for natural resources or energy when we have them right here at home? As long as we need so-called fossil fuels, we will always support Canadian energy and Canadian products because, yes, we do still need them.

The HEC, a Quebec institution, released its annual report about a month ago. What did it find? It found that the consumption of so-called fossil fuels has increased by 7% in Quebec. As long as it is needed, I would rather consume Canadian energy rather than the 48% of American energy that we currently consume. I have nothing against Texas or Louisiana, but the last time I checked, they were not contributing very much—in fact they were not giving one cent—to the principle of equalization.

Finally, the fourth pillar of our environmental action plan is to work hand in hand with first nations. When a project is carried out on ancestral land, we must make first nations communities our partners, rather than handing over a cheque and telling them to leave. On the contrary, we need to work together for the common good.

In short, this bill is about focusing on collaboration and pragmatic measures in order to make progress in the fight against climate change.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

We feel for the position that the officials are in. It's blindingly clear that the Liberals have failed to bring in changes to remedy the Supreme Court's finding that less than 10% of the Impact Assessment Act is in fact constitutional—the Supreme Court said “largely unconstitutional”—even though that bill has been law for the last five years. I can say personally and on behalf of my Conservative colleagues that nearly every single issue the Supreme Court of Canada pointed out as a problem in the Impact Assessment Act we pointed out during the debates on Bill C-69. In fact, it often happened that I personally did so during the debates on Bill C-69 in committee and through each stage.

Kudos to the officials for doing their best in this position that unfortunately the elected members of Parliament have caused for them.

I would note, of course, that it's been 139 days since the Supreme Court said that the Impact Assessment Act, including all of the provisions here in Bill C-49 relating to decision-making power and the project scheme, was unconstitutional. That was why, of course, as you'll recall, Chair, I moved a motion, which was rejected by the NDP-Liberal coalition, to first deal with fixing the unconstitutional sections of Bill C-69 so we could then move on to an analysis and assessment to ensure that legislators could deal properly with Bill C-49 and would not be facing what obviously will be delays, uncertainty and litigation, even once this legislation passes.

This entire scenario illuminates the failure of the Liberal government. They did not listen to experts in the first place during the democratic debate on Bill C-69. They have also ignored us and held up this bill, while also creating the potential for uncertainty and litigation and even less clarity for the people of Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador and any private sector proponents who want to get involved in offshore renewables as a result of Bill C-49.

Again, kudos to the officials for being in an uncomfortable position and making a good-faith effort to answer these questions and deal with the mess that the elected Liberal members of Parliament have created for them, backed by their NDP cohort, when we tried to deal with this in November.

Of course, the official is right that Bill C-49 was introduced on May 30, at the end of the spring session, always an indication of the government's priorities, with no debate and no assessment by legislators at that time. It was only brought back in September, with fewer than nine hours total of debate by all members of Parliament from all parties. Then of course we heard, from witness testimony during the limited hours the NDP and Liberals forced on this piece of legislation, that there are gaping holes in the existing and unconstitutional Bill C-69 provisions that are in Bill C-49, and that there may have been a catastrophic lack of consultation, during the development of the bill, with various entrepreneurs, business owners and generational family businesses in Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador.

Imagine the time that has been wasted at this point. Imagine how much further ahead we would be if the federal government had just done the right thing in the first place and gotten Bill C-69 right in the first place and not created a mess that has to be completely untangled.

Of course, if they had just listened to us in November instead of playing games and delaying to hold this bill up, we wouldn't have to be in this ridiculous scenario where we're having this conversation about having to bundle amendments to fix problems that are of their own making.

Thanks, Chair.

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

Would it have been easier if you did not have to deal with this legislation and you had some certainty on how the government was going to deal with the unconstitutionality aspect of Bill C-69?

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

Our witnesses here are from the justice department and particularly associated with Environment, I believe. Nevertheless, they should be the experts to speak to the unconstitutionality of Bill C-69. Of course, the whole issue is it not being dealt with before we're forced to deal with this. Therefore, the actions we have at this particular point in time, if we include those elements of Bill C-69, make this unconstitutional in my view.

I'd like to know what justice department officials have been doing to ensure there is no issue, or that it can be dealt with quickly, because that has been the whole point of what has been taking place here for the last couple of months.

I would like someone from Justice to enlighten me on that.

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Minister Rushton, I'll go back to you very quickly. This is a distinction. The Conservatives are trying to raise the prospect of a past bill, which is Bill C-69, but this is completely different. We're talking about the Atlantic accords and we're talking about a partnership whereby provincial governments actually negotiate with the Government of Canada.

Again, just to highlight that difference, this is something your government really believes in and we should be moving on as quickly as possible.

[Rick Perkins, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

No, it's okay. It's my time. I'm sorry.

Minister Rushton, there's nothing that this bill does that prevents offshore wind from being done now. It just gives process jurisdiction to a board. However, this bill includes the process from the Impact Assessment Act, Bill C-69, as we know. In fact, clauses 61, 62, 169 and 170 are from that.

You're aware, of course, that once that came in, the ability to get projects approved dropped considerably. When we look at, for example, the Tilt Cove exploration drilling project in Newfoundland, we see that it's been five years going through this process. As for the Cape Ray gold and silver mine, it's been eight years. For the iron ore project in Newfoundland, it's been 11 years. For the Fifteen Mile Stream gold project, it's been six years. It goes on and on. In Nova Scotia, for the Beaver Dam gold mine project, it's been nine years.

You believe that you need to have this in place—I think it's five megawatts—before 2030. When or if this bill passes through Parliament, how is it possible, given how slow this process is—six to eight years so far, and with no end in sight for those IAA projects in Atlantic Canada—that you think this can come online?

Government Business No. 34—Proceedings on Bill C-62

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

Madam Speaker, here we are again at the eleventh hour. The government has waited on something that it has to put in place; otherwise, on March 17, people whose only condition is a mental illness will be able to apply for medical assistance in dying.

The Liberals are not virgins in the parliamentary process. They understand very well that, typically, for a bill to go through three readings in the House and through committee meetings, and then go to the red chamber, where a similar number of readings and committee meetings take place, takes about 18 months. If there is goodwill among all parties and we agree, it may be six months. It is ludicrous to me that less than two months before the deadline, the government put forward this legislation. It is really putting a gun to the head of opposition members, because if we decide not to pass the bill, on March 17 people who suffer only from a mental illness will be able to receive medical assistance in dying.

I have a lot of compassion for people suffering from mental illness. In many cases, they have suicidal thoughts and are not full of hope for the future, so it is easy for them to say in despair that there is no way out. However, a lot of people get better and go on to live full lives. They are not in a place where they can really take that decision.

It is not the first time the government has waited until the last minute. I remember when the medical assistance in dying legislation in Bill C-14 was introduced, there was a lot of pressure for us to get along and pass the bill. I would have more confidence if it were not for the fact that the government continually brings forward legislation that is unconstitutional. Then it goes through the courts to the Supreme Court and, like Bill C-69, is declared unconstitutional. The bill for the welfare of indigenous children was also declared unconstitutional. It is our job to give due process to bills and to make sure they are a good idea, rather than just rubber-stamping them and passing them along.

I do not want to have the consequence that people who are mentally ill would receive MAID if we do not pass this legislation in time, but we have no guarantee that the Senate is not going to delay the bill. There was a question for the member who gave the last speech about how the Senate may choose to block the bill. That would delay it even further and we would not make the timeline. It is not a sure thing that the bill is going to get across the line.

We have to look back to the Carter decision. We spent a lot of time talking about what the response would be, and it was the court's order that the criteria be an irremediable condition with imminent death. That is the path we started on. I was very concerned at the time because every recommendation from the special committee that studied this said that without good-quality palliative care, one really does not have a choice.

At that point in time, I found out that only 30% of Canadians had access to palliative care. That is what prompted me to bring forward my private member's bill to get consistent access to palliative care for all Canadians. That bill unanimously passed in the House. Since then, we have doubled access, from 30% to almost 60%, which is a great thing, but there is more to go. If people do not have good-quality palliative care, they really do not have a real choice.

The government needs to refocus itself. I saw in the report that after five years of progress on palliative care, there are still identified gaps. The government needs to pursue that with passion and aggressiveness because that is the answer. If people have good-quality palliative care, they do not choose medical assistance in dying, and that applies everywhere. I met today with some of the representatives from palliative care, and they informed me that when people go to hospice, nine out of 10 of them are asking for medical assistance in dying, but very few of them actually take advantage of it once they experience palliative care.

Why are nine out of 10 of them asking for medical assistance in dying? It is because the doctors are recommending it, and I do not have any confidence that the safeguards that were supposed to be in place are actually being adhered to. A doctor from the Liberal Party who spoke before me cited five examples that he is aware of where clearly people did not meet the conditions but were given medical assistance in dying.

Canada is on a very slippery slope. If we look at the history of countries that have implemented medical assistance in dying, the Netherlands was sort of at the forefront, and it took a while for it to experience a rise in the percentage of people who were dying from medical assistance in dying. However, last year in Canada, 4% of people who died did so by medical assistance in dying. We set a world record. We are top of the charts on killing people with medical assistance in dying.

I think this is absolutely the wrong direction, so to broaden medical assistance in dying to include people who are mentally ill is absolutely ill-informed, at the very least. I would say, without being insensitive, that people who are mentally ill are actually able to kill themselves. Sadly, in their despair, many of them are taking their lives every day. They do not need the government to enable them.

The Conservatives warned the government, when this ill-advised amendment came from the Senate, that this would happen. Instead of realizing the mistake and backing off, the Liberal government is kicking the can down the road for another three years, where the next government will deal with it, instead of recognizing that this is not a good idea.

Doctors are saying that 50% of the time they cannot even identify whether somebody's condition, when they suffer from mental illness, is irremediable. If that is the case, then half of the time, they are going to kill someone who might have gotten better. This is a totally bad idea. The government should stand up, say it realizes the mistake it has made and that it should have introduced legislation to eliminate that mistake. However, that is not where we are today. Today, here we are: If we do not make a decision and pass the bill in a hurry, people with mental illness are going to start dying from MAID on March 17.

I would say that there is a lot scope creep that has been suggested. Where do we stop? There has been a suggestion that if we approve those with mental illness, maybe minors should be added, or maybe the option of advance directive should be added. It looks like the solution to all of these things is death. We hear that homeless people are requesting medical assistance in dying. We hear that veterans are being advised to take medical assistance in dying. This is just scope creep and broadening who is dying in this way, without having proper controls in place. I do not think that is acceptable.

One of the things that has been totally ignored is the conscience rights of doctors. The federal government will always say it did not preclude that in its bill, but the fact is that provinces are forcing medical doctors and nurses to participate, even if it is against their religion and their conscience rights, and the federal government has done nothing to correct that situation. That is a problem.

The other thing I would say is that in the creep that is happening, they have created an express lane for the disabled. It is disgusting to the disabled community and disgusting to me that they would say that if someone is disabled, they should go to the front of the line. For the vulnerable, the mentally ill and the disabled, we need to protect those people; we need to stand up for their rights and know that we can give them hope.

I do not agree with the way this was brought forward. I think the government should have appealed the Truchon decision. When Quebec decided this needed to happen, the government should have said no, that it had thought about it, studied it and spent a long time on it. It should have said it was going to appeal that decision, because what it brought in at the beginning was at least better than the scope creep we are seeing now.

I have talked about the many examples of things that are not good with the legislation. Obviously, I do not want to see anymore people die. I will definitely work with the government to see the legislation pass as speedily as possible, and I encourage it to use the same leverage it used on Bill C-234 to help its Liberal-appointed senators do what it wants. I hope it does the same on this bill and that it receives speedy passage, and that we do not have people with mental illness being killed by the government.

[Ches Crosbie]

That's a pretty hefty question.

Mr. Small, as you're aware, I took a high-level approach to the bill. There's plenty of scope for getting into what might be more technical legal problems.

One of them would be that we've just seen the Supreme Court of Canada—last year—shred Bill C-69. This piece of legislation, Bill C-49, in dozens of places wants to coordinate itself with the statutory scheme and regime of Bill C-69, yet how can it do that when Bill C-69 is lying in tatters on the cutting-room floor? That is a major legal problem that perhaps some other people with legal backgrounds might want to express an opinion on.

Otherwise, as I've said, I just tried to take a high-level view of things. To my mind, this is an abrogation: an abrogation of the historic Atlantic accord, the accord between the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador and the Government of Canada, which has served Newfoundland and Labrador and Canada so well for 30 years.

National Council for Reconciliation Act

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

Mr. Speaker, the point was that the government itself is creating policies that prohibit or severely stunt the growth of the oil and gas sector and even the mining industry and lumber, our natural resources. A lot of these are on first nations land and have the ability to create wealth in those communities, with jobs and opportunity. Bills such as Bill C-69 and others are hampering that growth. The government is using policies behind the scenes to stop investors from investing in the first place and creating jobs, opportunity and wealth there. This is creating the continued dependence on the government for handouts, in the form of program funding, that I am talking about.

When they do have a project, they have the resources leaving the community; the community then has to turn around and go to Ottawa to ask for them back. We think that system is broken, and the status quo is not working. We think there is actually a better way, which is listening to first nations themselves and these leaders in the community, such as the First Nations Tax Commission, the First Nations Financial Management Board and many others. They are doing amazing work, and they want to change how the status quo operates. That is what we support.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It's interesting to see MP Angus blocking discussion about an initiative that would benefit indigenous people in communities all across the country, when he talks about lots of things that are going wrong but chooses to prop up the Liberal government anyway.

I will just continue to wrap up my comments as efficiently as possible, which of course will happen better without interruption. I know that it's important to every Canadian and every community and person invested in energy development of all kinds in all parts of this country.

Before I talk about a couple more of those indigenous voices that Charlie Angus and the Liberals around the table are trying to silence, while they also don't acknowledge the fact that it's their own government motion that pushed Bill C-49 behind Bill C-50. In fact it was my November 1 motion that asked this committee to get the government to fix Bill C-69 and then immediately move to work to move on Bill C-49, so that the government didn't pass a bill as written that has multiple sections the Supreme Court has declared unconstitutional. It would obviously cause uncertainty and invite immediate litigation on a number of grounds if they passed Bill C-49 as it's written.

No doubt I certainly appreciate and value the opportunity to fix Bill C-49 so that it will do what its proponents say they want, except that as of now, of course, the bill is one of additional red tape, lack of clarity and uncertainty that will block both traditional oil and gas and renewable offshore energy development.

To explain why the common-sense Conservative endorsement of this first nations resource charge is important, let's talk a little bit about the organization. It is important to note that it will build on the most successful first nation-led legislative initiatives in history, the First Nations Fiscal Management Act and the Framework Agreement on First Nation Land Management, and of course there are now over 400 first nations using one or both frameworks.

I'm going to really put a fine point on why this optional tool is so important. It will especially help smaller first nations communities with capacity challenges and fewer resources to be able to bring home all of those economic and multiple other kinds of benefits from pursuing responsible resource development through this “reconciliACTION” initiative that Conservatives are proposing. It will help smaller communities to negotiate with big companies and law firms to secure benefits and opportunities.

To that end, I want to share the words of Chief Sharleen Gale who's from Fort Nelson First Nation in B.C. and she's the chair of the First Nations Major Projects Coalition. She says,

For too long, our people and governments have been left out of the resource bounty of this land. Many of our nations and members want to be part of the resource economy. They want careers, business opportunities, and equity stakes in resource companies. The First Nations Resource Charge finally means our fiscal jurisdiction over the resources on our lands is implemented. The Resource Charge will mean we can increase the economic benefits to our members and regions, improve services and infrastructure and close the gaps with the rest of Canada sooner.

The chief and other members of the Doig River First Nation in B.C. say it's ridiculous that the smallest governments must navigate the most complex negotiations. They say:

We want to implement a charge like other Canadian governments to streamline business. The Resource Charge is going to provide the kind of revenues we need to have the water, health care, education, and opportunities that every other Canadian takes for granted.

They also say:

We have many resource projects in our territory. The current process for negotiating financial compensation for First Nations takes too long, and it costs too much. We are small administrations. We cannot respond and negotiate in a timely way. It costs us hundreds of thousands of dollars. Our time is scarce. It costs Canada tens of billions in lost investment every year. The FNRC changes this. It is a pre-specified standardized charge for doing business in our territory—whether that is forestry, mining, hydroelectricity, oil and gas or any other resource project.

That captures especially well why our common-sense Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre and the Conservative Party of Canada are urging the government to support this optional first nations-led tool.

Chief Donna Big Canoe, who was in Vancouver, from the Chippewas of Georgina Island First Nation in Ontario, says:

Confederation in 1867 divided everything between federal and provincial governments, treating us as if we didn’t exist—wards of the state—leading to poverty, dependency, and the existence of residential schools for years. The solution is to bring First Nations into the federation by granting us tax powers to exercise our own jurisdiction. The First Nations Resource Charge aligns with this goal.

I'm mindful of Councillor Strater Crowfoot from the legendary Crowfoot family from the Siksika Nation in Alberta, who also supports this initiative. He says:

In 1989, we passed amendments to the Indian Act that gave First Nations the option to assume tax room and service responsibilities on reserve lands. A lot of people thought it was minor and would never amount to much. Other people thought we simply weren’t capable of carrying out such responsibilities. That, to me, is the most dangerous form of discrimination. Other people thought it was some plot to hold First Nations back. But First Nations all over the country proved the naysayers wrong. A lot has changed since then and for the better. I was there in ‘89, so I know. And I’m proud to be here now. This is going to allow many First Nations who were unable to take advantage of that earlier initiative to become more self reliant and more self-determining. It’s also a major step in acknowledging our rights and obligations over our historic lands. I welcome the Leader of the Opposition for supporting this, and I hope every political leader in the country will support this. It’s the right thing to do for First Nations and for the country too.

I will conclude, Chair, with a couple of other comments by indigenous leaders who've been involved in the work of developing this proposal, and I urge the members of Parliament and the House of Commons to consider supporting it.

Chief Darren Blaney from the Homalco First Nation in B.C.—

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Hopefully, the colleagues who were all waxing eloquent about doing this efficiently today will stop interrupting.

I will continue.

As our common-sense Conservative leader said on Thursday:

For hundreds of years, First Nations have suffered under a broken colonial system that takes power away from their communities and places it in the hands of politicians [and bureaucrats] in Ottawa.

The [racist] Indian Act hands over all reserve land and money to the federal government. This means that First Nations have to go to Ottawa to ask for their tax revenues [that were] collected from resource projects on their land.

This outdated system puts power in the hands of bureaucrats, politicians and lobbyists—not First Nations. The direct result of this “Ottawa-knows-best” approach has been poverty, substandard infrastructure and housing, [unmet education needs,] unsafe drinking water and despair.

The former Conservative government, of course, made the historic apology for residential schools on behalf of all Canadians and launched the truth and reconciliation process and commission. More and more indigenous leaders and people across Canada after the last eight years call for overdue concrete measures towards what many indigenous leaders call “reconciliACTION” so that indigenous communities everywhere can move from managing poverty and gang crime to enabling prosperity and peaceful communities with abundant opportunities.

Last week, a visionary indigenous leader reminded me that many promises have been made by the Prime Minister after eight years. This Prime Minister says that the most important relationship to him is with indigenous people, but of course, he's failed over and over to deliver on his many big promises. That hereditary chief and former elected chief said to me that he says that the relationship with indigenous people is the most important one to him, but it's not Trudeau.

All parties should support this first nations-led optional tool because the first nations resource charge can help transform the status quo. Importantly, this is why it's an unprecedented proposal by a federal leader. It cedes federal tax room so that indigenous communities will no longer need to send the revenues to Ottawa and then ask for them back. It will make resource projects more attractive to first nations communities so that resource projects important to all of Canada and to every Canadian are more likely to go ahead.

This opt-in, optional program would permit first nations to collect 50% of the federal taxes paid by industrial activities on their land, with industry getting a tax credit in exchange. Under the tax-sharing proposal, businesses would pay tax directly to first nations in exchange for this 50% refundable tax credit. Of course, this proposal would respect existing treaties and uphold the Crown's constitutional duty to consult, and it could either replace or supplement any financial aspects of indigenous communities' pursuits of impact and mutual benefit agreements.

As many colleagues here will know, I come from Treaty No. 6 territory in Alberta, where indigenous communities and entrepreneurs have worked with the private sector and the government for decades to responsibly develop natural gas, heavy oil, clean and renewable energy, and oil sands. This is along with mutual benefit agreements and ownership positions in major projects, in energy infrastructure like power lines and pipelines, and in the service and supply sector. Oil sands and pipeline companies are, of course, the leading individual private sector employers of indigenous people in Canada, which is why the anti-energy just transition is so dangerous, particularly for them. Of course, indigenous employment in Canada is led by the mining and energy sectors overall.

Those indigenous communities all over Alberta have generated incredible own-source revenue, jobs, skills, opportunities and wealth for their community members and for future generations. They've created jobs and economic opportunities alike for their non-indigenous neighbours and for surrounding communities too. Opportunities and responsible resource development have helped indigenous communities teach the past, support their elders, heal people, help communities to learn and share languages and cultural practices, support essential health and well-being services, provide recreational and spiritual activities for youth, plan opportunities for future generations, and employ both their indigenous members and surrounding non-indigenous neighbours.

That's why radical anti-energy ideologies violate and undermine the aspirations and goals of hundreds of indigenous communities and people who want economic reconciliation for a brighter future with hope, opportunity and autonomy. Conservatives are especially mindful of how important it is to prioritize this kind of action because of all of the losses that eight years of the federal NDP-Liberal coalition's colonialist anti-energy, anti-private sector agenda has already cost all Canadians, especially indigenous people.

It's like the northern gateway pipeline, when Prime Minister Trudeau unilaterally vetoed the entire project in an order in council, instead of redoing the indigenous consultation—an option given by the court's decision on the shortcomings of that process. The Prime Minister's veto destroyed the years of work by indigenous leaders, who had secured dozens of impact and mutual benefit agreements worth almost $400 million. Those indigenous communities were not consulted on the Prime Minister's veto or about all of the major losses they would then sustain as a result, before the Ottawa-knows-best veto by Prime Minister Trudeau.

It's just like when the people of the Northwest Territories were caught off guard when the same Prime Minister unilaterally banned drilling—which was announced, of course, when he was in the United States. He stopped and blocked economic and energy investment opportunities in the north, where it's badly needed.

I'm thinking of the fact that the Lax Kw'alaams in B.C. were not consulted on how their rights and titles are undermined by the Prime Minister's imposition of Bill C-48, the anti-Canadian, anti-energy, anti-pipeline export ban. Of course, it wasn't a full tanker ban in the area. It only banned the onloading and off-loading at ports of vessels of a certain quantity and a certain size. It was deliberately to ban energy infrastructure and energy exports off of that coast, which indigenous communities wanted.

The Lax Kw'alaams are suing the federal government over C-48 because it violates their decision-making power over fishing activities and any pursuit of energy infrastructure and export opportunities, which dozens of indigenous communities leading to and in that area want to achieve.

I think of the brave Woodland Cree in Alberta, who went all the way to the Supreme Court in a multipronged effort to challenge this government's anti-energy, anti-private sector, pro-red tape Bill C-69, because it risks drowning out the voices of locally impacted indigenous communities who seek economic and resource opportunities on and around their lands. I make mention of the Woodland Cree because, despite all of the resources and the ability on the government's side, the Woodland Cree won.

It's been 122 days since the Supreme Court said that less than 10% of Bill C-69 is constitutional and that the rest is largely unconstitutional, yet those indigenous communities and all Canadians wait for this anti-energy, NDP-Liberal costly coalition to do something about that Supreme Court ruling, to fix that bill that Conservatives warned would result in exactly what has happened.

It's the fact that the Trans Mountain expansion was supposed to have been operating in 2019, but this federal government's deliberate, politically motivated failure to assert legal and political jurisdiction to ensure and prove that the project could actually get built by its private sector proponent delayed and risked the more than 40 indigenous mutual benefit agreements that their communities have worked years to secure with the private sector proponent.

That's even after the federal Liberals took the opportunity to redo their failed consultation after a federal court said they failed the first time around. After eight years, of course, the TMX is still not fully built or operational, and indigenous-led ownership groups are left waiting by this NDP-Liberal anti-energy coalition.

I think about the 15 losses of LNG projects since this government took office because of their anti-private sector, anti-energy red tape mess. We salute Woodfibre LNG, which has a groundbreaking partnership and proposal with the Squamish people as a regulator. They are entrepreneurial and leading their communities for economic and energy business opportunities.

LNG Canada was previously approved by the Harper Conservative government and then delayed by the NDP-Liberals. Thank goodness it's starting to be back on track. All 20 first nations along the route of the pipeline supplying LNG Canada have had elected band council signed benefit agreements with the private sector proposal from Coastal GasLink.

The Liberal red tape mess has killed energy and resource opportunity, over and over, for indigenous communities and for all of Canadians. I think of the indigenous communities who want to develop the ring of fire in Ontario and are speaking out because of the red tape mess of the regional assessments from Bill C-69. So far, they are lengthily delayed and roadblocked in their pursuit of essential infrastructure and economic opportunities in the region.

Both Webequie and Marten Falls first nations communities have proposed projects to support their development in the ring of fire region, but have been stuck in the Liberals' red tape mess.

I think of leaders like Dale Swampy of the National Coalition of Chiefs and Stephen Buffalo of the Indian Resource Council, who have fought against this colonialist, anti-Canadian agenda—

National Strategy on Flood and Drought Forecasting Act

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to acknowledge you because you are my MP when we are here in Ottawa. I live in your riding of Gatineau.

Climate change is real. Humans are contributing to climate change and so humans need to help reduce the impact of it. The bill that was introduced by my colleague from Lac-Saint-Louis seeks to “establish a national strategy respecting flood and drought forecasting”.

I want to commend the member for his commitment to this issue. He is the chair of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development. Right now, the committee is conducting a study on water quality and the challenges related to the impacts of climate change on water. We are having some very interesting discussions on that. Dozens of witnesses are contributing to the debate. We are tremendously pleased about that. Last Thursday, a lot of people from Quebec were there. It was highly informative. I would like to commend the member for his bill and for his participation in the public debate on environmental issues.

Basically, this bill seeks to create a national registry of environmental and water initiatives in order to identify and share best practices from across Canada. It also talks about what the government and the public can do to improve the situation. That is basically what it is about.

We agree in principle with this bill. Coordinating the provinces' general actions is part of the federal government's job, along with sharing best practices and pooling information on what can be done and how to do it. However, this presents certain challenges.

We know that, as it happens, the current government is a bit greedy when it comes to the watershed line, as it were, between what the provinces can do and what the feds can do. It has a penchant for interfering. Let us not forget Bill C-69. The federal government gave itself veto power over hydroelectric projects, including projects in Quebec. This has never been done before. If, heaven forbid, the federal government had had veto power over the hydroelectric projects that were developed in the 1950s and carried out in the 1960s, we might not have as many good facilities as we do now, as many good hydroelectric plants. We have to be alert when this government suggests coordinating actions, because the most important thing it must do is respect the different areas of jurisdiction. I will give a specific example.

Last spring, we all saw the fires ravaging several parts of Canada. On June 5, the Leader of the Opposition, the member for Carleton, made a commitment, saying it would be great if we could share the best ways to fight forest fires, including with CL-415 water bombers. I should note that the CL-415, which fights forest fires, is a completely Canadian invention that we can all be proud of. We are proud that it is used around the world. We are recognized as being the best in the world in this area. However, we still need to look after our own country. That is why the Leader of the Opposition suggested that better coordination could help when the time comes to fight forest fires.

We have a concern about that. As for flooding, I would like to remind the House that our party, the Conservatives, has been in favour of conservation for years. I offer our 2019 campaign platform as proof. Our platform included a very long, substantial section on issues related to flooding, water and conservation. I would like to acknowledge our former colleague from Manitoba, Robert Sopuck, who contributed a lot to this section. He is still advocating for the environment and conservation, especially water, within our party, and we are very proud of him.

We have been aware of this reality for years. The work must be done, but it must be done collaboratively. When we study the bill in committee, our questions will be focused on finding out whether it will lead to new spending. We believe the Canadian government currently has enough human resources to provide assistance and work on reducing the environmental impact. We also have to ensure these people can do their job properly in their field of expertise. Sharing knowledge and best practices does not require hiring new people.

Let me remind members that whenever the government spends a dollar, it is not the government's dollar it is spending. That money comes from taxpayers and businesses or from tax that was collected and is being invested elsewhere. This is why we will be very vigilant when looking into this situation, because every dollar spent is not the government's dollar, but one it has taken from the pockets of taxpayers or businesses who would want to spend it differently. Care must be taken in these situations.

I also want to say that the environment is of paramount importance to us and that we must deal with climate challenges. I would remind the House that in September, we held a national convention that was attended by more than 2,500 people. At that convention, the leader of the official opposition, who is the leader of the Conservative Party of Canada and member for Carleton, gave a very important speech that we Conservatives now refer to as the “Quebec City speech”. It was not our election platform, but it expressed the party's broad ambitions, the overall vision we will have if we should happen to be lucky enough to be entrusted by Canadians to form the next government. We will let Canadians decide.

A key part of that speech involved environmental issues. Our leader recognized, like everyone else, that climate change is real, that we need to adapt to it and that adapting means taking an approach that is pragmatic, not dogmatic. The goal is to reduce pollution across the country. Reducing pollution is a daily challenge that never ends.

Reducing, reducing, it is a never-ending story. We have a continuous debate, a continuous fight, against emissions and against pollution, but we have to reduce it by pragmatic actions, not dogmatic taxation.

That is why our leader carefully laid out the three pillars of our environmental approach, along with everything underpinning it.

The first pillar is investment in new technologies to reduce pollution through tax incentives. We are well aware that the new technologies that are currently being developed the key to reducing pollution. We need to provide tax incentives. That does not mean per-tonne subsidies, but tax credits to help people who know why they are polluting find a way to reduce that pollution. We in Ottawa are not going to tell them what to do, but we are going to encourage them to take action to reduce pollution through tax incentives.

The second pillar is green-lighting green energy. We need green energy in Canada. We need more solar and wind power. We need geothermal power. We also need to be more open to nuclear energy. We need to speed up the green energy process by green-lighting it.

The third pillar is developing Canada's full potential. Canada has all the know-how it needs to reduce pollution. We have tremendous energy capabilities. Our extraordinary natural resources are the envy of every country in the world. It is unfortunate that we are not developing our full potential. Why is that?

Here is an example. Last week, the École des hautes études commerciales published its annual report on energy use in Quebec, which told us two things. First, fossil fuel consumption in Quebec has increased by 7%. Second, 48% of the oil consumed in Quebec comes from the United States. I have nothing against Louisiana and Texas, but why are we sending billions of dollars to the United States when we produce oil in this country? We need to develop Canada's full potential when it comes to energy and natural resources.

There is a fourth element, which is the cornerstone of the three pillars, in a way: We have to work hand in hand with first nations. Last March, the man we want to be prime minister, the member for Carleton and Leader of the Opposition, made a commitment to first nations. He said the days of giving them a cheque and then asking them to get out of the way were over. He promised to work with first nations and create wealth when something happens on their traditional territory. This commitment was confirmed last Thursday in British Columbia.

The future belongs to those who capitalize on high tech, green energy, Canadian potential and working hand in hand with first nations. That is our environmental approach.

Natural Resources

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

Mr. Speaker, I am returning to a question I asked in question period on October 18, 2023, just last fall. The question was asked five days after the Supreme Court of Canada struck down sections of the government's bill on environmental assessment, which it redubbed “impact assessment” and which came forward through Bill C-69.

I practised environmental law. I will briefly share with the chamber that I actually worked in the Mulroney government and took a draft environmental assessment law through to the Privy Council to get permission for the government of the day to bring forward the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, which ultimately entered into force around 1993. It went through several changes. It was an excellent piece of legislation; it worked well. It was repealed under an omnibus budget bill under Prime Minister Stephen Harper's government and was struck down and eliminated by Bill C-38 in spring 2012. That was more than lamentable.

When the new government came in, in 2015, the current Prime Minister gave a mandate letter to the former minister of environment, Catherine McKenna, to fix this. Tragically, she ignored the advice of environmental experts, even those she had empanelled.

What I asked on October 18 was whether the new Minister of Environment and the Minister of Justice would follow the excellent advice of the expert panel on environmental assessment law that was chaired by former Chair of the BAPE, Johanne Gélinas, and many environmental experts, and which was thoroughly supported, certainly by the Green Party and by me. I asked whether we would follow the advice that the essence of environmental assessment law is to evaluate the projects of the federal government itself: at a minimum, the panel said, federal land, federal money or where federal permits are issued. There was an additional list of concerns.

Tragically, the government ignored the advice. It took the advice of the Impact Assessment Agency itself. What I asked the minister on October 18 was whether the government would now commit to reviewing and putting in place the recommendations. An excellent opportunity was created by the court's striking down, as I completely predicted it would, the sections that were based on the designated project list itself, a creation of Harper's Bill C-38, which was a terrible way of weakening environmental law while at the same time failing to honour federal jurisdiction.

The minister missed the point of my question and merely said that they were going to fix it. I am desperately worried they are going to do a quick fix, and that in the quick fix, they will once again listen to the advice of the wrong people.

I beg the parliamentary secretary to tell us tonight that the government will follow the advice of the expert panel that gave them the right road to fixing the environmental assessment law in this country.

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

I look forward to seeing what those are because I think that will be needed for this bill to actually pass without there being any issues, as your former Bill C-69 has encountered.

Now, Minister, does the government measure the annual amount of emissions that are directly reduced from the federal carbon tax?