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.

Budget Implementation Act, 2018, No. 2

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is so interesting hearing the speeches from different shadow ministers on our side, digging deep into aspects of the budget implementation act that deal with their areas, and to really see how much of an omnibus bill this is, how many changes we are seeing in so many different areas. We are basically getting one good speech on each of those different aspects, providing so much comment with so little debate in response. It is really quite striking.

Today we are going to have an emergency debate on the terrible impact we are seeing in the auto sector. In my province of Alberta, which the member spoke about, we are dealing with major challenges in the oil and gas sector as a result of legislation brought forward by the government, such as Bill C-69, the no-pipelines bill, as well as other steps it has taken.

It really boggles the mind. On the one hand, the government has taken every possible step to kill the transportation of vital energy resources. On the other hand, it has put massive amounts of public dollars into buying a pipeline, supposedly in the name of getting that pipeline built, and it is still not succeeding with that. It has bought the pipeline without building it. We would prefer that we build pipelines without buying them.

Could the member share with us a little more about what positive alternatives there are? The Liberals have said that it would take magic to get these things done, in some cases, and yet we have had success in the past building pipelines. What are the steps we can and should be taking to move these forward?

Natural Resources

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Grande Prairie—Mackenzie, AB]

Mr. Speaker, when the finance minister was asked this weekend what it would take for the Liberals to finally do something to help the Alberta energy sector, he responded and said the Liberals would only help once there was a consensus from Alberta.

There is a consensus. There is a consensus that opposes the Prime Minister's plan to phase out the oil sands. There is a consensus that opposes the Liberals' unilateral decision to impose a northern tanker ban. There is a consensus that export pipelines to new markets must be built and that the Liberals are wrong to kill the northern gateway, the west to east and the Trans Mountain pipelines. There is a consensus from leaders of all political stripes who are opposed to the Liberals' “no new pipeline” law, Bill C-69, which will ensure that no new pipeline will be built in Canada.

There is a consensus. The minister is just not listening.

[Darshan Singh Kang, Independent, Calgary Skyview, AB]

Mr. Speaker, there is great concern about the economy not only in my riding of Calgary Skyview but right across the country. Just look at the bad news from Oshawa this morning. I wonder who is next.

My constituents, from business owners to electricians to cab drivers, voice the same fears for the future of Alberta. With no access to world markets for our oil and dropping oil prices, Alberta's economy is in dire straits. We are losing a shocking $80 million a day in revenue. This money could be used to build hospitals and schools. It could be used to improve infrastructure and social programs.

Bill C-69 in its current form is a huge concern in Alberta.

We understand that the economy and the environment have to go hand-in-hand, but not at the risk of hindering the future development of our natural resources.

I would urge the government to address all of the concerns raised by the industry regarding Bill C-69, and make the necessary amendments to the bill to ensure that it is both environmentally and economically friendly.

Motions in amendment

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

Mr. Speaker, right now in Alberta, over 180,000 people are out of work, and a majority of those people have seen their jobs lost in the last couple of years.

This morning, when I woke up and heard the news that the auto plant was being closed by General Motors, I tweeted the following, “From the tens of thousands of people who have seen their jobs disappear in Alberta, our hearts go out to the people of Oshawa today.” That is a legitimate sentiment. If we are going to be a federation, people in different provinces have to stand up for each other.

From the people of Alberta, I want to send a message to those in Oshawa who are affected: We get it. We are going through this right now. It should not happen. Canada should be a place where we have jobs and prosperity.

The interesting thing is that I had several responses to this comment of sympathy. One of them really stuck out for me, and it was this: “Both [job losses] are tied to outdated fuel sources/transportation modes. Economic hardship is always sad, but it was inevitable we would have to pivot.”

I want to spend the bulk of my time today refuting the government's budgetary plan, because it is based on this principle of economic management. I have watched the government travel internationally to attend wonderful meetings in Davos, and have heard the speeches the Prime Minister has given in Paris in which he talks about exactly what this Twitter response said. It is a leftist, elitist, academic understanding of the Canadian economy. It is a “let them eat cake” understanding from somebody who has never really had to work a day in his life, told to a bunch of people who only want to work.

They are being told their jobs are dirty and outdated. Do we have outdated modes of transportation? The last time I checked, it was cold in Canada, we did not have magical public transit from every place to every different place, and we drove cars. The last time I checked, the auto sector was one of the most important industries to the Canadian economy. The last time I checked, the energy sector in Alberta created so much revenue for all different levels of government in this country such that at the end of last week, we actually had major financial analysts asking the finance minister how he was going to deal with the significant price differential we are receiving for our energy products, compared to if we had market access for these things, in his budgetary forecast.

That is why the government's approach to budgeting is so fundamentally flawed. Liberals do not understand the fact that Canadians want to work and want to be competitive in some of the world's most important industries, such as energy production or manufacturing. They do not understand what their high-level, bourgeois thinking of what “appropriate” industries or “clean” jobs means to somebody who is just trying to make ends meet. They have not taken any sort of understanding of these concepts into a framework that would make us more competitive, not less competitive, with the United States. They do not understand how fundamentally damaging this is to the fabric of the Canadian federation.

If members were to go door-knocking from house to house in my province right now, as I frequently do in my riding, they would automatically hear a tale of somebody being out of work for a very long period of time. They would hear about how people have had to shutter businesses and how we are losing labour to the United States and to other parts of the world. They would hear about the fact that city council is increasing small business taxes by 25%, because the downtown core is now looking at about a 50% plus vacancy rate, even though we had, I think, a zero vacancy rate in downtown Calgary just a few short years ago.

We will hear one other sentiment and that is, why are we sending money to other parts of the country in equalization payments when the rest of the country will not stand up for us? The reality is that the context has changed since 2015. I used to think the Prime Minister's father, Pierre Elliott Trudeau, was the worst possible Trudeau to Alberta, while he looks absolutely great compared to his son. Bill C-69 finishes the job. It shoots the energy sector in the head. Oil is over under Bill C-69 and maybe that is what the Prime Minister wants. Maybe he is celebrating that, but my community sure is not. The tanker ban, the carbon tax, the political veto of the northern gateway pipeline, not saying anything to President Obama when he vetoed the Keystone XL pipeline. The Prime Minister and the government have done every single thing possible to kill the energy sector.

In the last budget implementation bill, the Liberals said they were not going to look at the equalization formula. If the Prime Minister will not stand up for the jobs in every part of the country, including Alberta, then we have to look at that formula because it is not fair. I would not be doing my job as a member of Parliament from that province if I did not stand and say he has a responsibility to make policy that is in the best interests of the entire country, not penalize regions because of his or his father's ideological opposition to having power and economic growth in Alberta. That is where we are at.

We cannot look at 180,000 people out of work and at the response that other industries get and the lip service. I look at his response in Calgary on Thursday. I am so proud of my city for getting out and protesting him. I saw that and thought it was great, give him a message. I am so proud of my city for doing that, but at the end of the day, the people of Calgary and of Alberta have always been happy to contribute to the entirety of Canada. They do not want to be out protesting, they just want to work. However, the Prime Minister comes with nothing for my city. He is still pushing through Bill C-69 full steam ahead, full steam to kill the energy sector. He is not even acknowledging the depth of crisis that his ideological opposition to the development of the energy sector has done to the Canadian economy.

The Liberals will stand with their talking points and will say the economy and the environment go hand in hand. There is only one reason that we will see a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, if we do, in Canada, and that is because he has killed the energy sector. His carbon tax will do nothing to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. That is because carbon, for the most part in Canada, is inelastic and we cannot set whatever the United Nations report called for, a $5,500 per megatonne price on carbon, and expect the economy to continue to grow. I cannot stand here on behalf of my constituents and support anything that the government is doing in terms of taxation, in terms of budgeting because it is a lot of spending on nothing. In this entire budget implementation act, there is no spending on any sort of infrastructure that is going to make my city more productive. There is nothing in it for the workers.

Frankly, to add insult to injury, he is not talking about the fact that the Liberals have underwritten and underpinned a continuous welfare system for this country based on the backs of the people in my province. Enough is enough. Either the Prime Minister writes some policy that is in the best interests of the entire country or he starts dealing with the voices of the people in my city and in my province. They are tired of it and they will not go gently into that good night.

Shame on the member for Calgary Centre. Shame on the member for Calgary Skyview. Shame on the members from Edmonton who have had the opportunity to speak up in their caucus for the rights of the people in this country and still see Bill C-69 going forward, still see the budget implementation act going forward, spending and taxing, with nothing happening for them. Enough is enough. There will be more protests like we see in Calgary. We will not go gently into that good night and the bill needs to die.

[Jocelyn Bamford, Vice-President of Automatic Coating Limited, and Founder, Coalition of Concerned Manufacturers and Businesses of Ontario]

Thank you for inviting me to speak today.

I'm not a lobbyist. I'm a business owner. We have a small company in Scarborough. It was started off by my father-in-law as a washing machine repair company, and it's grown to 92 people. We have over four patents for new technology developed here in Canada and we hope to export worldwide.

Ninety-two per cent of all companies in Canada are 100 people and below. I want to reiterate that. It's a big difference between small business and large business, and a lot different from the United States, which tends to have a gradual increase in business size. We have a lot of small companies, and then we have large companies.

Small and medium-sized companies are the lifeblood of the economy. We pay for everything. Without us, there are no schools, no hospitals and probably no politicians as well. We have to keep that in mind. What we do is put money into the economy. We give people jobs so they can pay taxes.

If you want to know what you can do to help businesses, the best thing you can do is to go back to your ridings and talk to those businesses. Don't make them come to you. Go to them, because we're just trying to survive. We're trying to keep the lights on and people paid.

You've asked me here to give you my advice on how to help business. Here's what we need. First of all, and most importantly, we need to be able to compete. We're not competitive in Canada due to the fact that our energy pricing is not competitive. I pay three times what I would pay for electricity if I moved my business to the United States. I also have to deal with cap and trade and carbon pricing. That adds costs that make it impossible for me to compete worldwide.

You can negotiate all the trade deals you like, but if we're not competitive, we're not going to be able to compete with those trade deals, and it will just be a vehicle for other countries dumping their product into ours.

There is also the tariff situation. Right now, there's talk of tariff waivers for LNG. We supply to the oil and gas industry. That will prevent fabricators, coders and steel companies from working on projects that are Canadian. We think that's fundamentally unfair.

The tariff situation is very inconsistent. One of our members makes screws and bolts. He tries to source as many Canadian products as he can, but there's one product that he can only source in the United States. He pays a tariff on that, and then he has to charge more to his Canadian customers who pick up that specific nut and bolt. He has a very innovative nut and bolt. Probably people think that's boring, but those nuts and bolts last a lot longer than anyone else's nuts and bolts. He has to charge more to his Canadian company. When he exports them to U.S. companies, he does get a tariff waiver, but those U.S. companies end up selling back to the Canadian companies for less than what he could sell to the Canadian companies. We think that's unfair.

We need assistance in exporting our innovation. We need ways to take small and medium-sized businesses that have great innovation and technology and pair them up with larger companies that have footprints to get our products to market. That would be a very helpful way to get our products to market.

We need equity and fairness. About six weeks ago, I saw the economic strategy tables. I was horrified, because when you read those economic strategy tables, it doesn't say we're going to create a level playing field where people can rise or fail on their own innovation. It says, we're going to pick the winners and losers. We're not going to help everybody. We're going to decide who's going to succeed and who will fail. We think, for a government that talks about equity and fairness, that is fundamentally not fair and not equitable.

We are also concerned about the strategic innovation fund. Again, we want everyone to be able to succeed and fail on their own merit, and not have government pick the winners and losers.

We need pipelines built so that we can have affordable energy and be able to sell our products. We're concerned about C-69 because we believe it will make us less competitive.

We need the trade commissioners to be more effective. They don't need to be diplomats. They need to be salespeople. For four years, I've been trying to get one of my patented products, which could be utilized by navies around the world, to Australia. I have yet to get an appointment with the Australian navy through our trade commissioners. We need our trade commissioners to help us set up appointments so that we can get in and show them our technology, which is world class.

I'm concerned that if we don't do some things to make us more competitive, then companies will leave. We've seen companies leave or take their growth and move it outside to the United States, so our wonderful success and innovation in Canada will be another country's success story. We think that's going to be a tragedy.

Public Safety

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

Mr. Speaker, about two weeks ago, every member in this House stood up and agreed on one thing, that the decision of Canada to have a “none is too many” policy and turn away Jewish refugees who were fleeing genocide was something worth an apology.

The Prime Minister invoked the phrase “never again”. To me, if we are going to truly mean never again, we should not be undertaking actions for which Parliament is going to have to apologize in terms of failing to prevent genocide in years to come.

ISIS is a genocidal death cult. There is no other way to describe it. Its members have raped, tortured and systemically eradicated ethnic and religious minorities. This place has declared that ISIS has committed genocide against the Yazidi people. Therefore, I just do not understand why the government has essentially acted as an apologist for Canadians, or people with affiliations to Canada, who have travelled abroad to take up arms to fight with ISIS. The Prime Minister cannot stand in this place, with flowery words and a Kleenex in hand, and say “never again” and then allow ISIS fighters, terrorists, to roam free in Canada as if nothing has happened. I refuse to use the term “fighters”. They are people who are complicit in genocide.

This is so wrong. The government refuses to issue peace bonds to people they suspect have gone and taken up arms and are complicit in genocide. The Prime Minister has stood up and essentially defended giving poetry lessons to these people as opposed to bringing them to justice. The government has introduced Bill C-69, which actually increases the intelligence-to-evidentiary gap in terms of being able to prosecute these people within our own courts of justice. The Prime Minister refuses to go to the United Nations and make changes to the International Criminal Court process.

The reality is that there is no such thing as a big bad guy or just one leader in terms of ISIS being complicit in genocide. As Nadia Murad said in her book, every person who spread propaganda or turned a blind eye to the sex slave trade that she was forced into are complicit in genocide and should be treated as such.

There is a Canadian, someone who is in Canada, who has confessed to having killed on behalf of ISIS. His name is Abu Huzaifa. He told this to a New York Times journalist, yet the government has been silent on what it is doing.

My question to the government is very simple. Where is Abu Huzaifa, and why has he not been brought to justice?

[William Amos, Liberal, Pontiac, QC]

That's great news for a number of young Canadians who are very interested in this topic. I'm sure they'll be thrilled to join the assessment agency, so I do look forward to the passage of Bill C-69.

Perhaps one of my colleagues has something to ask in my last minute.

The time is over to you.

[William Amos, Liberal, Pontiac, QC]

Okay. That's helpful.

I'd like to follow along the line of the agency here. How many new hires do you expect will have to be made in the coming 24 months to build the agency to the level it needs to be to properly implement BillC-69?

[Alan Kerr]

Could I just expand on Carol's comments?

For the Environmental Assessment Agency, the funding proposed to be provided to the agency under supplementary estimates is really to help build the agency to prepare for the expanded mandate under Bill C-69, which will allow us to be prepared for a broader early planning, improved co-operation with other jurisdictions and greater public participation and work with indigenous communities. It is really more about building for the future than any sort of catch-up.

[Mike Lake]

For the Environmental Assessment Agency folks, maybe you could speak to transparency in other countries, comparisons that have been made with Canada, with specifically those nine other countries in terms of transparency.

I know that we have a regulatory process right now. We're putting forward Bill C-69, which has a significant impact and has raised a lot of concern in the industry in Canada. The biggest concern that I'm hearing is that other countries that we compete with are not subject to the same requirements.

Maybe you could speak to your understanding of levels of transparency in Saudi Arabia, Russia, Iraq, UAE, Iran, Kuwait, Nigeria, Angola and Kazakhstan.

[Mike Bossio, Liberal, Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

As always, thank you all so much for being here. You're starting to feel like part of the family.

I want to follow up on Monsieur Godin's comments about $20 million and having an immediate impact, and connect those to Mr. Fisher's question around ensuring that, when there is legislation like Bill C-69 and so on involving protected spaces and all of these areas that are unfolding, there's a transition period. Therefore, funds need to be spent in order to prepare for that transition, so that it can be as seamless as possible and so that we don't have an adverse impact on good projects moving forward as quickly as possible.

Can you explain that? Is making sure that transition is seamless part of the aspect of the funding here?

[Darren Fisher, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

I have two minutes left. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Julie.

I'll go to Alan or Christine. We studied Bill C-69 for quite some time, late into the night. I know you guys know that because you were with us sometimes. In the supplementaries, there's $19 million to, as it says, begin assisting the transition from the old assessment system to the new impact assessment process. We heard a lot of testimony from various witnesses about the importance of ensuring that there weren't any unfair delays to proponents during the transition process. Is that what that money's for?

How will you guys be using these funds to avoid delays to the assessment process during this all-important transition?

[Christine Loth-Bown, Vice-President, Policy Development Sector, Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and members of the committee.

I'd like to give today some further detail on the initiatives and programs to which the funding that Alan has outlined will be allocated.

Under the proposed impact assessment act, Bill C-69, the agency will become the lead organization responsible for federal impact assessment of designated projects. This will include projects which are currently assessed by the National Energy Board and the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission. The agency will be conducting assessments within strict legislated timelines.

Some of the significant responsibilities and enhanced programs proposed under the legislation include the following: the conduct of a new early planning phase for projects, improved co-operation with other jurisdictions, increased opportunities for public participation and transparency, and support for indigenous peoples and the public in an expanded role in monitoring impacts during the implementation and operation of approved projects.

I'd like to note that the agency is now pursuing discussions on co-operation agreements with interested provinces, and is considering piloting early planning for projects in the early stages of environmental assessment under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act—the current legislation, CEAA, 2012.

Under the new act, the agency will fulfill the role of Crown consultation coordinator for all designated projects, and the agency will ensure effective collaboration and meaningful consultation with indigenous peoples. These goals will be achieved through the provision of increased participant funding, as well as the launch of a new capacity support program that will improve the preparedness of indigenous groups and their technical expertise related to impact assessment.

In turn, this increased capacity is expected to result in improved participation in federal assessments, ensuring that indigenous knowledge, laws and culture are considered in impact assessment and influence assessment processes. These efforts will support the government's reconciliation commitments and build deeper collaboration with indigenous peoples.

The final area for which the agency is receiving funding will allow the agency to make important contributions to the government's deliberative approach to cumulative effects. The agency will lead the conduct of three regional assessments over five years, which will support the management of cumulative effects and provide important information for future project assessments.

The agency is using the funding that was approved earlier this year to support the work on the first of the three regional assessments, which will explore the potential impacts of offshore oil and gas exploration. This initiative has been launched jointly with the Government of Newfoundland.

Thank you to the members of the committee for the opportunity to speak today. I look forward to taking any questions you may have.

[Alan Kerr, Vice-President, Corporate Services, Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency]

Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the standing committee. I'm Alan Kerr, vice-president, corporate services and chief financial officer, and I'm joined by my colleague Christine Loth-Bown, vice-president, external relations and strategic policy, to discuss the 2018-19 supplementary estimates (A) for the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency.

The Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency provides evidence-based environmental assessments. The agency's team of highly qualified employees supports the Minister of Environment and Climate Change in carrying out her responsibilities by conducting environmental assessments for major projects in a manner that protects the environment, fosters economic growth and jobs, supports sustainable development and reflects expertise received from the public, indigenous groups and other stakeholders.

In 2017-18, the agency supported the minister in leading a national review of federal environmental assessment processes, and in February 2018 these efforts reached a milestone with the tabling in Parliament of Bill C-69 that proposes changes to the current Canadian Environmental Assessment Act of 2012.

In this regard, we are providing ongoing advice and support to the parliamentary process. Regulatory and policy work, including public consultations, also began following the February announcement. In conjunction with this support to Parliament, within the agency, we are preparing to implement the proposed new approach to impact assessment. Budget 2018 announced new funding for the agency of $258 million over the next five fiscal years, including $21 million of funding in fiscal year 2018-19; $19.1 million for program expenditures, which include $99,000 in funding for pay administration; and $1.9 million for statutory expenditures for employee benefit programs. This funding has been requested to implement key legislative, regulatory, program and policy measures to support the successful implementation of the new impact assessment process upon coming into force and transition from environmental assessment to impact assessment.

In June of 2018, the agency accessed $11 million of the $21 million with a financial authorities instrument submission to Treasury Board. This funding enabled the agency to advance the necessary policy and regulatory instruments, hire staff and secure additional workspace, to take on a more proactive role and seamlessly transition to the new impact assessment act.

The funding provided through supplementary estimates (A) will be divided into three main program areas, namely, impact assessment, partnering with indigenous peoples, and cumulative effects and open science and evidence. To support these programs the agency was allocated 100 new full-time equivalent employees for 2018-19, 65 of whom have been hired thus far and staffing actions are in place to recruit the balance.

Now I'd like to introduce my colleague Christine Loth-Bown to expand on these main areas.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Natural Resources

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Grande Prairie—Mackenzie, AB]

Mr. Speaker, Stephen Harper never cancelled one pipeline. The minister has cancelled three.

Today Canada Action has initiated a campaign to inform Canadians of what the Liberals' failures are costing the Canadian economy. Tens of billions of dollars are lost as discounted Canadian oil flows to the United States, and the Prime Minister is making it worse with Bill C-69.

The question is simple. Will he kill his no-new-pipelines bill, Bill C-69, or is he going to continue to allow the energy sector to fail and everyone who works in it to fail as well?