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.

[Patrick DeRochie, Climate and Energy Program Manager, Environmental Defence Canada]

Thank you, Mr. Chair and MPs on this committee, for the opportunity to provide some ideas and recommendations for budget 2019.

My name is Patrick DeRochie. I am climate and energy program manager for Environmental Defence Canada. We work to defend clean water, a safe climate and healthy communities. My comments today will focus on recommendations from our plastics, toxics, and climate and energy program areas.

Regarding climate change, energy and clean growth, my recommendations will focus on how to best position Canada to capitalize on the massive economic opportunity arising from the global shift to a low-carbon economy.

Last month's report from the Global Commission on the Economy and Climate found that global efforts to accelerate climate action represent a $26-trillion opportunity. Canada can't afford to fall behind in this clean-growth opportunity.

Environmental Defence's recommendations include fulfilling the government's long-standing commitments to stop subsidizing fossil fuels in Canada, starting with the disclosure of all federal direct spending and the value of all annual tax deductions claimed for the exploration and production of oil and gas, and legislating a timeline for the phase-out of these fiscal supports.

In particular, the federal government can save upwards of $9 billion by ending its push to build the Trans Mountain expansion pipeline. The Prime Minister himself acknowledged that the project would be dead without public dollars to prop it up. The government should not be in the business of buying and building a fatally flawed oil sands export pipeline that nobody in the private sector wanted, and that cannot be reconciled with indigenous rights and Canada's international and domestic climate commitments.

The federal government must also play a role in supporting climate action in provinces that are not in compliance with the pan-Canadian framework. We would urge the government to link some of the revenues collected by the federal government pricing backstop to programs that reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Here in Ontario, we will see that revenue amounts to $2 billion next year, in 2019, rising to $5 billion in 2022.

There are a couple of things in particular that we would like to see that money spent on. One is the renewal of a residential home energy rebate program, through NRCan, that issues rebate cheques for home energy efficiency retrofits, including solar panels, home batteries, high-efficiency furnaces, heat pumps, insulation and other measures to reduce energy use.

Second is partnering directly with municipalities that are taking action on climate change, including support for cycling infrastructure, mass public transit, microtransit projects, electrifying municipal bus and truck fleets, district energy systems, and energy retrofits from municipal buildings, schools and social housing.

The federal government must also enhance regulatory certainty and attract investment in large energy and industrial projects by fine-tuning and passing Bill C-69. The legislation has had notable improvements over the 2012 omnibus bill that gutted Canada's environmental laws. Bill C-69 strikes a balance between economic developments and environmental protection that helps restore public trust in the project review process.

Some of the $1 billion announced in last year's budget should begin implementing this legislation, increasing scientific capacity across federal departments and enabling greater indigenous and public participation.

In the area of reducing plastic pollution and developing a circular economy, although Canada has made international investments and commitments to reduce microplastics and marine debris in the Great Lakes and our oceans, it has not matched the efforts of the European Union or other jurisdictions through investment in infrastructure, research, extended producer responsibility programs, or modernized waste management programs and policies that support a movement towards a circular economy. Now is the time for a national waste reduction strategy that harmonizes performance standards, measurement protocols and definitions from coast to coast to coast.

To accelerate the efforts to create a national plastics and waste strategy, Environmental Defence recommends that the government provide new five-year funding of $86 million per year to Environment and Climate Change Canada in collaboration with other federal agencies and levels of government. That includes $1 million per year for policy development, including on extended producer responsibility; $50 million per year in research that supports innovative product design and increases knowledge and understanding of the impacts that plastics have on the environment and human health; and $35 million per year in modernized waste diversion infrastructure to support the developments of a circular economy.

In the area of toxic pollution, Environmental Defence recommends that budget 2019 tackles exposure of Canadians to toxic chemicals and harmful pesticides and the presence of these toxics in the environment. Providing sufficient resources to regulatory departments to meet the current legislative requirements under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act and the Pest Control Products Act for managing toxic chemicals and addressing the risks of pesticides is necessary to ensuring the protection of Canadians' health, our communities and the environment.

We recommend that the upcoming budget renew funding for Canada's chemical management plan to ensure ongoing chemical assessments, research, monitoring and actions to protect people from toxics, and to provide funding to Environment and Climate Change Canada and Health Canada to implement needed legislative changes to modernize the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, the country's two-decades old toxics law. Specifically nearly half of the regulations under the law have received little to no enforcement activity, underscoring the need to increase the resources of relevant departments to better enforce pollution prevention regulation. Finally, we recommend providing funding for Health Canada to fulfill its obligations under the country's pesticide law to assess risks and enhance compliance enforcement. Funding is also needed to upgrade monitoring by reviving and expanding a national pesticide monitoring framework.

Finally, as Canada's leading environmental action organization, Environmental Defence Canada recommends changes in budget 2019 to free charities to fully participate in an equal playing field in public policy development in Canada. Specifically, that means amending the Income Tax Act, as promised, to remove prohibitions on public policy involvement by charities, clarifying and renewing CRA direction on partisan political activity to ensure that clear definitions of direct and indirect partisan activity are developed and applied, and undertaking consultations with the charitable sector to address overall sector modernization and development of a modern, enabling and encouraging legal framework for the charities sector.

I'd be happy to take your questions. I really appreciate your having me before you to speak today. I would note that I am a subject matter expert on our climate, energy and clean growth priorities, but less so on our plastics and toxics priorities. I'll do my best to answer those questions, but I'll pass them along to my colleagues in Toronto if I'm unable to myself.

Thank you.

[Churence Rogers, Bonavista—Burin—Trinity, Lib.]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Welcome to our witnesses.

Forgive me if I refer to Mr. Orb as Ray. We spent four years together as members of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities and we became good friends.

I have a couple of comments first, and then a couple of questions for Mr. Orb.

Regarding the comments around Bill C-69, it's my understanding that ditches and sloughs and such types of water are not considered navigable waters under Bill C-69. I remember that discussion, being a past member of the environment committee, so I just want to point that out.

I wonder if you could comment on the role of municipalities in trade and transportation logistics, and whether you think there is really a role for the municipalities in rural Saskatchewan. If so, how would you like to see the role of these municipalities incorporated into a national trade corridors strategy?

[Ray Orb]

Of course, we have opposed the amendments, the changes to the legislation. Actually, both Bill C-68 and Bill C-69 affect fisheries and navigable waters. We feel that the changes are actually going to impede what municipalities need to do as far as work is concerned. The projects will be delayed. We have a lot of examples that we showed to the committee of how that would add costs and time delays. We've relayed those concerns. We understand that now the Senate will be looking at that bill. We're actually hoping there will be some amendments to that to make it easier for municipalities, not only in Saskatchewan but across the country, to do their work while still protecting the environment.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

When we did a study of the Navigation Protection Act, or the Canadian Navigable Waters Act, you provided testimony. Here we are again.

The minister's mandate letter asked him to reverse all of the changes that were made back in 2012-13. I'm wondering if you would also comment on Bill C-69. What are some of the greatest concerns you have in regard to infrastructure and transportation being impacted as a result of reversing those changes?

Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Madam Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to speak to Motion No. 190, the private member's motion brought forward by my colleague from Mississauga East—Cooksville. I agree with some of his comments but have to disagree with others.

One of the aspects of his speech which I agree with is the fact that we are undervaluing a lot of these careers, whether they are in construction, agriculture, tourism or hospitality. We have to do a much better job of speaking with students when they are in high school, or even elementary school, and talk about the incredible opportunities available to them in these types of careers. Absolutely, one may be starting on the front lines as a dishwasher or a labourer, but there are opportunities to work up the ladder, be successful in that career and earn a very strong income. In concert with industry, as parliamentarians and parents, we need to do a much better job of ensuring that industry gets the word out to the schools and guidance counsellors. It needs to be part of the curriculum in order to ensure these careers are understood as the incredible opportunities that they are.

I grew up in a rural area, and the misperception when I was younger was that anyone who wanted to go into skilled trades was making a bad decision and it meant they could not make it in university or college. If they only knew the wages available in some of those skilled trades, the guidance counsellors may have given us different advice.

I want to talk about the scope of this study. It concerns me that it is so focused on Toronto and Hamilton. It highlights an issue with the Liberal government. It has become so urban-centric, so GTA-centric. I have spent the last several years travelling across the country focused mainly on agriculture, but I have spoken with many other industries and they are concerned with the inaccessibility of labour. It is a crisis out there. Some businesses have closed. I met with a greenhouse operator in B.C. just last week, who closed her vegetable greenhouse because she could not get the labour. Many of the other businesses we have spoken with are at risk of closing because they cannot access the labour.

The Liberal government has set a very high target. It wants $75 billion in additional agriculture exports by 2025. It is an aspirational goal but it can be done. Agriculture is ready. However, every tool that it has in order to reach that goal is being taken away. One of those critical pillars is access to labour. I would like to see this motion expanded to include other industries, sectors and certainly other parts of the country.

I appreciate my colleague's comments about why he focused this on the GTA, but to compare what is going on in the GTA to what is going on in rural Saskatchewan, Canada's north or the labour shortage in Quebec City is really difficult. There are so many different factors involved. I would like to see the scope of this motion expanded.

My colleague also spoke about some of the great accomplishments the Liberal government has had. I find it ironic that he is concerned about the labour shortage. He talks about the $180-billion infrastructure promise that the Liberal government made in 2015, yet only 6% of those funds have actually been committed to real projects. We cannot get any of these major infrastructure projects built because the money is not rolling out the door. The Trans Mountain pipeline is an infrastructure project which is on very shaky legs. It makes it hard to get Canadians back to work and get them encouraged about going into the skilled trades when they see none of these projects are going to happen. It is disconcerting.

We have to ensure there is a bright future. If we want to ensure young people understand the value of these jobs, they also have to see there is a career opportunity in these jobs, and that some of these opportunities will be there. Right now, I can sense their frustration. Why should they go into some of these skilled trades, such as pipefitting, welding or steel work, if we cannot get any of these infrastructure projects built? That is a critical piece of this. The government needs to start showing that it can get these projects done, get the money out the door and make this a priority. That is highlighted for rural communities, and is certainly what I have heard in my trips across rural Canada. Canadians are extremely frustrated that they see everything with the Liberal government is urban focused.

The map that came out last week in the Huffington Post or iPolitics showed where the vast majority of infrastructure dollars have been committed. The vast majority are in urban centres. I understand that this are where the mass part of the population is, but they cannot do that and neglect some of our rural areas at the same time. That is why I think it is important that we expand the scope of this motion and this study at the HUMA committee, of which I am a very proud member.

We have to look at some of the other issues that are part of this: higher taxes, punitive regulations, surrendering our sovereignty as part of the United States-Mexico-Canada agreement, not being able to remove steel and aluminum tariffs and not being able to get a softwood lumber agreement. All of these have an impact on attracting Canadians to these types of careers. They need to understand that are there is opportunity and a future there. Right now, with the pace this is going, Canadians see the writing on the wall. There is not a future in some of these careers, because the jobs simply will not be there long term. That is extremely disconcerting.

Let us take a look at Bill C-68 and Bill C-69. Regardless of what happens with Trans Mountain, it is very clear that if these pieces of legislation go through, we will never have another major infrastructure project built in this country, whether it is a pipeline, a mining operation or another resource extraction initiative. It is going to be very difficult to get these projects built.

When I speak to some of our stakeholders in agriculture, construction and hospitality and tourism, there is no question that their inability to access labour is much beyond a motion at a committee. It is a crisis. They need action on this quickly.

I am going to support this study, because I think we can get some really good recommendations out of it. It is still worthwhile going through that process. I hope we get some tangible recommendations from the study.

Again, we have had businesses close, and others are at risk of closing. We heard it at the agriculture committee yesterday. Some of the farmers and ranchers were talking about the mental stress they are under. One of the reasons they cited for that mental stress was the inability to access labour for their businesses. They are taking on much too much. They are working hard, long hours. It is difficult navigating the temporary foreign worker and seasonal ag worker programs. They said, almost unanimously, that over the last three years, under the Liberal government, being able to navigate these programs has become almost unattainable.

My hon. colleague talked a little bit about the temporary foreign worker program. We have to find a permanent solution to what is a permanent problem. Just tweaking the temporary foreign worker program or making some adjustments to that program is not good enough. We have to have bold changes when it comes to accessing labour.

Exhausting what resources we have right now to deal with illegal border crossers is not the way to do it. We need to put our focus on processing the applications of legitimate immigrants who are going to be coming to Canada and having a significant, positive impact on our economic development. These are people who are going to be filling job vacancies in skilled labour areas where we desperately need those jobs filled. That has to be another part of this discussion. Where do we put our focus in immigration? How do they access that system? How do our stakeholders access that system? How do they get through that process?

We have to build a pathway to Canada. I hope this is going to be part of that. Again, we need bold changes. I really look forward to working with our stakeholders across Canada as part of this study to come up with a permanent solution to a permanent problem to address the labour crisis that is happening right now across Canada.

[Matt Jeneroux, Edmonton Riverbend, CPC]

Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you both for appearing before us here today.

We spent the last week going across the country. We started in the Niagara region, went and visited a few ports and opportunities there. Then we went to Vancouver and down to Seattle to visit their ports as well.

A constant theme for me throughout the trip was the impact, either positive or negative, of some pieces of legislation that have come forward recently. One that we heard of a lot in Vancouver was the impact of Bill C-69 and what that meant for a number of...whether they be importing-exporting companies or airport authorities.

I'm hoping to open it up to both of you. Perhaps to you, Mr. Chaundy, is there any impact that Bill C-69 legislation would have on your organization?

Multilateral Instrument in Respect of Tax Conventions Act

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to this legislation. It is my pleasure to follow my colleague from Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola and his excellent discussion on a topic that he is interested in and knows a great deal about.

Bill C-82 is a welcome step forward. It is the natural conclusion to work that was first undertaken by the previous government in 2013. This is a good, positive step forward by two governments now to help address the serious problem of base erosion and profit shifting.

This legislation seeks to address a global problem that Canada is a part of, namely tax evasion, whereby corporations, through a corporate domicile or clever accounting, can shift profits between different jurisdictions or shop for the most desirable tax treatment from any of a variety of different jurisdictions.

For years we have heard in the news criticism of many global giants, including Starbucks, Apple and a number of other familiar global brands, that will seek to minimize their taxes by shopping for the most favourable jurisdiction. This is a problem that confronts western governments.

If the bill passes, Canada would be able to participate in a protocol that the OECD has in place.

We heard a bit about the scale and scope of this problem at the finance committee, and we welcome the bill.

The bill is an effective and efficient means by which we could deal with a wide variety of different tax jurisdictions through the same instrument. We would not have to separately renegotiate dozens of different existing tax treaties. As a result, we could co-operate much more efficiently with our global trading partners and combat what has been described by some as a “race to the bottom”.

Perhaps close to $25 billion in taxes is not being collected from economic activity that takes place in Canada. During its first two years in office, the Liberal government claimed it was going to recoup this $25 billion. The Prime Minister in late 2017 said in the House that the government looked forward to collecting this money.

While I do support the bill and acknowledge that it is an important step forward, it is certainly not a panacea or a solution to deal with all of the problems. I do hope colleagues from all parties will support it.

With respect to this $25 billion, the government has yet to really tackle the issue at all and it is now three years into its mandate. That number has been debunked. It would seem that most of the money the government planned to collect, money from tax evasion and tax avoidance, through the steps it would take, would be on the domestic side, the majority of which is believed, even by the department, to be uncollectible.

The CRA, almost three years into the government's mandate, has failed to make significant progress on foreign tax evasion, but during that time period it has floated a number of, in some cases, strange ideas on how it would plug its gaps in revenue. These ideas do not involve foreign tax evasion and do not involve corporate profit shifting.

They involve ideas that arose when the CRA first floated the idea of taxing employer benefits, like health and dental benefits; taxing retail discounts to service industry employees; and the war that was being waged this time last year on disabled Canadians, including the rejection of the disability tax credit for type 1 diabetics and a number of people who suffer from other health ailments.

In my riding, I have spoken to people who suffer from different types of chronic fatigue, who had been receiving the disability tax credit for years and suddenly were denied it. In one case, someone had been receiving it for 10 years and was suddenly denied it while her medical evidence had not changed. We have also heard the parents of autistic children losing their disability tax credit at the hands of the CRA under the Liberal government.

None of these seemingly small and petty attempts to raise additional revenues address the issue at hand and fulfill the promise of the government to crack down on foreign tax evasion and tax avoidance. These are nickel-and-dime measures targeting low-hanging fruit. The CBC reported again last night how the Liberal government makes it very difficult for single parents, with its onerous requirements on their proving they are indeed separated. We have seen quite a number of cases of this, and it has been raised in the House.

The other side of this and what this bill does not address is a different type of base erosion. Base erosion from profit shifting is an important global phenomenon that must be addressed. However, perhaps a bigger threat to the Canadian economy and a bigger drain on the tax revenue of the government than base erosion from profit shifting is base erosion from capital flight taking place right now.

Since the Liberal government took office, we have seen the imposition of a carbon tax. My colleague from Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola spoke about carbon leakage, how chasing economic activity with emissions into a different jurisdiction does not change global emissions, but does change the tax revenue base of the Canada Revenue Agency and costs jobs. We have seen the carbon tax and have seen Bill C-69, which should be titled, “an act to ensure no pipeline is ever built in Canada again”. We have also seen tax increases, which the government had indeed promised to impose on the wealthiest Canadians, actually result in a reduction in tax revenues from the wealthiest Canadians. That is a different type of base erosion that would not be addressed by this bill.

We have seen the debacle over the Trans Mountain expansion. That will also result in an erosion of the tax base, as that economic activity is curtailed. We also all know what is happening with the NAFTA negotiations, and we know how many hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions, of Canadians who fear for their jobs as this unfolds.

To conclude, this bill is an excellent step forward to address a serious global problem that Canada must play a part in solving for our own tax base and in participation with our economic partners. I look forward to its coming to committee, where it may be improved and where I could address some of the issues that have been raised by my colleagues.

I will be supporting this bill, and I commend the government for moving ahead with this initiative.

[Matt Jeneroux]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you to all three of you for being here today.

To follow along a line that's similar to Mr. Badawey's, I think it's certainly important that we hear where we can go forward with a number of policies, but I think it's also incumbent on the committee to address certain things that are in place, things that are the challenges right now in your industries. In particular, we heard a lot from a number of proponents today who addressed a piece of legislation, Bill C-69, that has been a hurdle to them.

Mr. Neuheimer, you indicated that around your own boardroom table a number of the CEOs are looking to the United States. You addressed one component of that, but I'm hoping you can expand on perhaps some other things that we as a committee can collectively look at—perhaps the challenges around why those CEOs are looking south as opposed to north.

I'll open that up to other members of the panel afterward.

Natural Resources

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, not a single shovel has been put in the ground to start the Trans Mountain expansion. The court ruled that Kinder Morgan consulted properly. Forty-three indigenous communities want the Trans Mountain expansion. Kinder Morgan only wanted certainty and clarity, not tax dollars, but the Prime Minister failed to deliver all of that. He gave 4.5 billion Canadian tax dollars to build pipelines in the U.S.

What is worse is he is bringing in the job-killing anti-pipeline act, Bill C-69. It would stop all future private sector pipelines and kill Canadian resource development.

Will the Prime Minister stop attacking the livelihoods of hundreds of thousands of Canadians and kill the anti-pipeline act, Bill C-69?

[Marko Dekovic]

Bill C-69 is generally a step in the right direction, but the key will be the execution. The concept is good, but much like some other regulatory processes, while it looks good on paper, it is how it is executed and how the timeline is kept.

Therefore, we are supportive of its general direction. I would echo some of Rob's comments that we definitely want to make sure that certain projects that are on federal land, that are currently being regulated by existing federal regulatory agencies, should probably stay.

One thing we would support is that in cases where, for example, the port authority is the project proponent, it should not be its own permitting reviewer. With Bill C-69 looking at that and pulling that out, we think that's a step in the right direction. It just creates a better, more transparent, more accountable process, which will ultimately build trust from the public, and I think that's ultimately what Bill C-69 is attempting to do, to rebuild confidence in the regulatory process.

[Matt Jeneroux]

Okay. That's interesting.

I noticed that the other two proponents were shaking their heads in agreement. I'll leave it to them to maybe put it in their own words some of the challenges that Bill C-69 makes for your organizations.

Mr. Dekovic.

[Matt Jeneroux]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I want to follow up on a comment that you made earlier, Mr. Booker, with regard to the impact of Bill C-69, and what the challenges could be. Do you mind outlining for the committee some of the challenges that you and your industry, and particularly your company, face when it comes to Bill C-69?

[Rob Booker]

With specific reference to Bill C-69 and the potential to have CEAA be the regulator for environmental approval, we wouldn't have invested. If that had been the condition two years ago, we would not have made the $450-million investment, because there's no certainty in process. It's really simple. From a business perspective, if there's not certainty in income or outcome, even in timeline—never mind yes or no—if there's just no certainty in timeline how can you make an investment?

[Matt Jeneroux]

I'm sure most proponents across the country will support it, but we've seen significant delays in infrastructure across the country, so I was curious as to whether you had any update on this. It sounds like it's still in the works, even though in summer it was anticipated that we'd have that conceptual drawing. There's still nothing as of yet.

Just quickly, could you expand on some of your comments on the impacts of Bill C-69 and what it would mean to CP in particular?

[Matt Jeneroux]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you all for being here today.

I hope to get to two points, both with you, Mr. Clements. I would love to touch on Bill C-69 if we have an opportunity, but first I want to raise the other issue that you brought up with regard to my hometown of Edmonton: the 50 Street overpass. You called it an overpass. From what I understand, there's still the debate between an underpass and an overpass. Is it clear that it's an overpass?