Bill C-69 (Historical)

An Act to enact the Impact Assessment Act and the Canadian Energy Regulator Act, to amend the Navigation Protection Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts

Part 1 enacts the Impact Assessment Act and repeals the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012. Among other things, the Impact Assessment Act
(a) names the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada as the authority responsible for impact assessments;
(b) provides for a process for assessing the environmental, health, social and economic effects of designated projects with a view to preventing certain adverse effects and fostering sustainability;
(c) prohibits proponents, subject to certain conditions, from carrying out a designated project if the designated project is likely to cause certain environmental, health, social or economic effects, unless the Minister of the Environment or Governor in Council determines that those effects are in the public interest, taking into account the impacts on the rights of the Indigenous peoples of Canada, all effects that may be caused by the carrying out of the project, the extent to which the project contributes to sustainability and other factors;
(d) establishes a planning phase for a possible impact assessment of a designated project, which includes requirements to cooperate with and consult certain persons and entities and requirements with respect to public participation;
(e) authorizes the Minister to refer an impact assessment of a designated project to a review panel if he or she considers it in the public interest to do so, and requires that an impact assessment be referred to a review panel if the designated project includes physical activities that are regulated under the Nuclear Safety and Control Act, the Canadian Energy Regulator Act, the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Resources Accord Implementation Act and the Canada–Newfoundland and Labrador Atlantic Accord Implementation Act;
(f) establishes time limits with respect to the planning phase, to impact assessments and to certain decisions, in order to ensure that impact assessments are conducted in a timely manner;
(g) provides for public participation and for funding to allow the public to participate in a meaningful manner;
(h) sets out the factors to be taken into account in conducting an impact assessment, including the impacts on the rights of the Indigenous peoples of Canada;
(i) provides for cooperation with certain jurisdictions, including Indigenous governing bodies, through the delegation of any part of an impact assessment, the joint establishment of a review panel or the substitution of another process for the impact assessment;
(j) provides for transparency in decision-making by requiring that the scientific and other information taken into account in an impact assessment, as well as the reasons for decisions, be made available to the public through a registry that is accessible via the Internet;
(k) provides that the Minister may set conditions, including with respect to mitigation measures, that must be implemented by the proponent of a designated project;
(l) provides for the assessment of cumulative effects of existing or future activities in a specific region through regional assessments and of federal policies, plans and programs, and of issues, that are relevant to the impact assessment of designated projects through strategic assessments; and
(m) sets out requirements for an assessment of environmental effects of non-designated projects that are on federal lands or that are to be carried out outside Canada.
Part 2 enacts the Canadian Energy Regulator Act, which establishes the Canadian Energy Regulator and sets out its composition, mandate and powers. The role of the Regulator is to regulate the exploitation, development and transportation of energy within Parliament’s jurisdiction.
The Canadian Energy Regulator Act, among other things,
(a) provides for the establishment of a Commission that is responsible for the adjudicative functions of the Regulator;
(b) ensures the safety and security of persons, energy facilities and abandoned facilities and the protection of property and the environment;
(c) provides for the regulation of pipelines, abandoned pipelines, and traffic, tolls and tariffs relating to the transmission of oil or gas through pipelines;
(d) provides for the regulation of international power lines and certain interprovincial power lines;
(e) provides for the regulation of renewable energy projects and power lines in Canada’s offshore;
(f) provides for the regulation of access to lands;
(g) provides for the regulation of the exportation of oil, gas and electricity and the interprovincial oil and gas trade; and
(h) sets out the process the Commission must follow before making, amending or revoking a declaration of a significant discovery or a commercial discovery under the Canada Oil and Gas Operations Act and the process for appealing a decision made by the Chief Conservation Officer or the Chief Safety Officer under that Act.
Part 2 also repeals the National Energy Board Act.
Part 3 amends the Navigation Protection Act to, among other things,
(a) rename it the Canadian Navigable Waters Act;
(b) provide a comprehensive definition of navigable water;
(c) require that, when making a decision under that Act, the Minister must consider any adverse effects that the decision may have on the rights of the Indigenous peoples of Canada;
(d) require that an owner apply for an approval for a major work in any navigable water if the work may interfere with navigation;
(e)  set out the factors that the Minister must consider when deciding whether to issue an approval;
(f) provide a process for addressing navigation-related concerns when an owner proposes to carry out a work in navigable waters that are not listed in the schedule;
(g) provide the Minister with powers to address obstructions in any navigable water;
(h) amend the criteria and process for adding a reference to a navigable water to the schedule;
(i) require that the Minister establish a registry; and
(j) provide for new measures for the administration and enforcement of the Act.
Part 4 makes consequential amendments to Acts of Parliament and regulations.

Natural Resources

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, in response to a question, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources said that the energy east pipeline could rise from the ashes if TransCanada wanted it to.

Worse yet, he said that the government would use exactly the same decision-making process that the Conservatives did. Never mind BAPE, Quebec's environmental protection agency, or Quebec's approval, and there will be no environmental assessment as provided for under Bill C-69.

I will give the government another chance. Can the parliamentary secretary confirm that he will use the same process the Conservatives used and that he has no intention of respecting Quebec's environmental laws?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Nanaimo—Ladysmith for her important and timely question.

It is timely because we know that the Federal Court of Appeal recently ruled that the National Energy Board should have included marine transportation in its assessment of the Trans Mountain expansion proposal.

It is important because the issues she raised reflect what we on this side of the House have been saying from the outset: the economy and the environment must go hand in hand, and no relationship is more important to Canada than its relationship with indigenous peoples.

Those core values go to the heart of our government's vision for this clean-growth century. The good news is that our government is committed to ensuring that those values are respected in everything we do, including expansion of the Trans Mountain pipeline. That is why we introduced Bill C-69 to improve the way we review major resource projects.

That is why we are making the single-largest investment ever to protect Canada's oceans, marine life and coastal communities. The $1.5 billion oceans protection plan has been a cornerstone of our agenda and our efforts. The oceans protection plan strengthens the eyes and ears of the Canadian Coast Guard to ensure better communication to vessels, adds new radar sites in strategic locations, puts more enforcement officers on the coast and establishes the national aerial surveillance program to keep a watchful eye on ships and waters under our jurisdiction.

At the same time, the oceans protection plan strengthens our capacity to respond in the unlikely event of a spill, by adding more primary environmental response teams to bolster Coast Guard capacity, investing in new technologies and conducting scientific research to make cleanups more effective, including $80 million for groundbreaking research on the behaviour of diluted bitumen in marine settings. We are using every tool at our government's disposal to remain vigilant in protecting our coasts and marine life. That includes a $170 million action plan to protect the south resident killer whales.

The oceans protection plan is also building meaningful new partnerships with indigenous people in other coastal communities. This includes a Canadian first with the creation of an indigenous advisory and monitoring committee to oversee the safety of the TMX project through its entire life cycle. In addition, we have enhanced indigenous access to federal funding for economic development, job training and other business opportunities that will flow from the pipeline's possible expansion.

Our position is clear: We are committed to creating the prosperity we all want while protecting the planet we all cherish.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

But not for middle-class oil and gas workers, Mr. Speaker. Some 1.2 million barrels a day are flowing through new pipelines approved and built under Conservatives, which will rise to 2 million when Keystone XL is done, with no tax dollars needed. As of today, the Liberals have added zero after three years in government, and they blew $4.5 billion in tax dollars that will go into the U.S.

Every time the Prime Minister points to the past and blames others, he admits that he failed, and the Liberals still have no plan for the future. Their summer of failure is becoming their legacy of failure and it is hurting the whole country. When will he pull his ban-on-pipelines Bill C-69 and give a plan for Trans Mountain?

[Andrew Scheer, Conservative, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals bought it without building it. We will build it without having to buy it. That is the difference between us.

If the Liberals really wanted to develop Canada's energy sector and get our resources to market, they would invite energy east back to the table. They would scrap the carbon tax. They would scrap their plans for Bill C-69, the ban on pipelines bill.

Will the Prime Minister do any of those things to get our men and women in the country back to work?

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, whenever he fails, he just blames others. However, former Toronto Liberal MP and two-time Liberal leadership candidate Martha Hall-Findlay agrees the Liberals are failing. She said that Bill C-69 was “deeply flawed” and “Now is not the time to pass legislation that could make our investment climate even worse.”

The Liberals killed three private sector pipelines. Their failure stole Trans Mountain. One hundred thousand energy workers lost their jobs and hundreds of thousands more are at risk. Billions in investment is leaving Canada.

Will the Prime Minister scrap his no new pipeline Bill C-69 before he completely obliterates the Canadian energy sector?

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

Thank you, Chair.

I do appreciate the comments from my colleagues. I just want to add a few more items here, especially speaking as someone from Ontario who saw the effects of Liberal policies in action, specifically talking about General Electric in the City of Peterborough. That has been a company in the city since the 1800s. It's actually known as the “electric city”. General Electric had a contract to build motors for the energy east pipeline. Now, when the Liberals changed the rules halfway through the process multiple times, causing TransCanada to cancel its project, 300 jobs at General Electric were lost just like that. It was the straw that broke the camel's back for General Electric. Those 300 people are out of work and no longer receiving a paycheque, and there were the ripple effects that happened afterwards. A major factory with well-paid jobs was no longer in the City of Peterborough as a result of the cancellation of the energy east pipeline.

It should be noted that there are three big companies that have applied to build pipelines in this company, and all three are no longer doing so under the Liberal rule. There has been $4.5 billion to build a pipeline, right now, to nationalize the pipeline, and yet it's another failure. They claimed they were going to get it built. They claimed they were going to move forward, and yet we are seeing that money, $4.5 billion taxpayer dollars, going to the United States to build pipelines and other energy projects in the United States, not in Canada.

We are seeing billions leaving this country for projects outside our borders. People are now without jobs, without paycheques, selling off items they own in order to keep a roof over their heads. What do you say to the energy workers who were once making six figures or more and who are now making zero because of the policies of this Liberal government? I'm actually quite shocked—I think “shocked” is the right word—by the fact that we're not even coming back, that we don't have the minister standing in front of us with a plan. You'd think they would be preparing for this result on both sides—a positive court ruling or a negative court ruling—and they would be ready for that, and yet we're sitting here while the members across the way say, “Well, we would like to work on this a little bit more.” Well, that's not really reassuring to the thousands who are waiting to get back to work, people who want to work, who are now without a paycheque and without direction. We can't even get a commitment on when shovels will be back in the ground, to at least say, “Yes, eventually it will, on this date.” We can't get a time or a date from this government. It's like they're running around now trying to figure out what's next, and meanwhile they haven't even taken those thoughts forward, that they should be preparing for that and coming to Parliament, coming to this committee, with a plan to move this forward.

I go back to saying I am shocked that we are not here discussing their solution to the problem they caused. We said, over and over again, right from day one when they approved the Trans Mountain pipeline, that they needed to get in front of this. They needed to talk to the people in British Columbia. They needed to do everything they could to move this forward, because we agreed with their decision to approve that pipeline, and yet they didn't. They just seemed to hope that everything would fall into place by pure magic, and clearly it didn't. It was one problem after another, and repeated calls from the opposition about what their plan was. We threw out ideas, and there was still nothing. They just went back to the same old talking points that it would get built, almost like “We've got this under control”, and there has been one failure after another.

The Prime Minister should have gone out to British Columbia to speak with the new premier when he was sworn in. He avoided that over and over again. These conversations should have happened, but what happened? All sides dug in, and we're in the situation we're in now, with no plan to move forward. People's lives are on the line because they just lost their paycheques. Do they stay in their houses? Is there some light at the end of the tunnel?

I can also tell you, from Bill C-69, and I'll go back to the Ontario route, that even those in northern Ontario in the mining sector are quite concerned with this bill. There is no certainty for major projects in this country anymore. We continue to see investment flee this country under this government. What happens after that happens? We also start to lose major talent from this country because they will go elsewhere, where the jobs and opportunities are.

Again, I was hoping there would be a plan, a path forward, but we just have failure after failure. Think of our position with our issues with Saudi Arabia right now, had energy east been moving forward. Just think of the jobs and opportunities out there if we had been able to get Alberta energy out east, and that was a pipeline with most of it already there. It was just an addition on each end.

I obviously will support Mrs. Stubbs' motion. It's a common-sense motion. Hopefully, we can get some answers for these people who are now without a paycheque.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, all, for being here. I know some of you cut short your summer plans. I know I should be sitting in the dentist's chair right now; I'm concerned about that.

I think this is an important subject. I agree with the Conservatives that we need to talk about this, perhaps for completely different reasons, and I would support the motion.

We're obviously here today in this special meeting because of the recent Federal Court of Appeal decision to quash the federal government's approval of the Trans Mountain expansion project. The court quashed the approval based on two errors made. One was in the environmental assessment part, with regard to the lack of consideration of the marine transport issues. The other error was the inadequate consultation with first nations.

The Conservatives here are of course gleefully blaming the Liberals for this mess. It's true that the Liberals do deserve some of the blame here, but the irony in calling this meeting is that this is a problem that was created by the Conservatives in the previous government. It's doubly ironic, for instance, to hear Jason Kenney complaining about the incompetence of the Liberals in this file when he was at the cabinet table when this mess was created. It's the Liberals who ran on a promise to clean up this mess, to redo the approval process for Trans Mountain with a new system, and they failed to do that. That's why we're here today. It's the Conservatives creating this mess and the Liberals failing to clean it up. I hate to say I told you so, but that's why we're here.

In the rush to get pipeline projects done, the Conservatives got into the Fisheries Act, the Navigable Waters Protection Act, and the environmental assessment process. On their watch, the NEB hearings into the Trans Mountain expansion were widely criticized for being too narrow in scope, and they didn't properly consult with first nations. The courts also quashed the approval of the northern gateway pipeline for much the same reason they cited here. There's kind of a pattern.

Both the Liberals and the NDP, as I said, ran on the promise to redo the Trans Mountain expansion approval process under a new process with more rigorous science and more community input. The Prime Minister repeatedly said this on the campaign trail, but they broke that promise and instead simply had a ministerial panel tour through the region on very short notice to hear from first nations and other communities, businesses, and concerned citizens about the project. Nothing was even officially recorded at these meetings. The panellists simply took their own notes and produced a report at the end of the process. That report posed six questions that they felt the Liberal government had to answer before making its decision on the project. As far as I know, those questions have never been properly answered.

One of the two critical errors the government made, according to the Federal Court of Appeal, was the failure to properly consult with indigenous peoples. The consultation process was simply bureaucrats who were sent out to listen to first nations' concerns and relay those concerns to cabinet. As the court repeatedly stated in the decision, they were simply note-takers. There was no attempt made to actually address these concerns. In fact, the consultation team and the government mistakenly believed they couldn't add any more conditions on Kinder Morgan than the NEB had done, so why bother consulting if you can't make any change? That's what the court found was the critical error.

One example of that failure is the concern of the Coldwater first nation, which wanted the pipeline to take an optional route, the west route, so it avoided crossing their aquifer. That's a big concern, but there is no evidence that actually acting on that concern was ever considered.

I would like to quote a couple of paragraphs from the decision around the consultation process. It starts by saying that good faith is required on both sides in the consultative process:

The common thread on the Crown’s part must be “the intention of substantially addressing [Aboriginal] concerns” as they are raised...through a meaningful process of consultation.

It goes on to state the following:

The controlling question in all situations is what is required to maintain the honour of the Crown and to effect reconciliation between the Crown and the Aboriginal people with respect to the interests at stake.

Those are quotes that the court took from a previous ruling from the Haida Nation case. This is not news. The government knew this before they went into the process.

The decision goes on to make two final points on consultation. First, it says that when the crown knows, or ought to know, that its conduct may adversely affect the indigenous right or title of more than one first nation—we've heard concerns around that—each first nation is entitled to consultation based upon the unique facts and circumstances pertinent to it. So if half the first nations along the route were adequately consulted, or felt they were adequately consulted, and half felt they weren't, it's just not good enough. You have to consult with every first nation.

Second, to again quote from the decision, it's important to understand that the public interest and the duty to consult do not operate in conflict. As a constitutional imperative, the duty to consult “gives rise to a special public interest that supersedes other concerns” commonly considered by tribunals asked to assess the public interest. In the case of the board, a project authorization that breaches the constitutionally protected right of indigenous peoples cannot serve the public interest.

Earlier this year, I put a question on the Order Paper about the six questions that the ministerial panel posed. I want to quote one paragraph from the answer I received from the government that pertains to this consultation. It says:

While there are Indigenous communities opposed to the project, there are others in support of it. The goal of free, prior and informed consent is to ensure a holistic approach to interests, through transparent processes aimed at building consensus. It is the same goal at the heart of the Government's current legislation to modernize Canada's environmental assessments and regulatory reviews.

I could go on, but to me, this shows that the government doesn't get it. They are talking about building consensus within first nations. Each first nation has the right to proper consultation. When they talk about bringing indigenous rights—for instance, the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples—into modern Canadian legislation, they failed to do that in Bill C-69, the bill that updates our environmental assessment process. The government knew the proper way forward and they decided to do something quite different.

I'll just finish my comments on consultation by saying that the government knows what proper consultation is; they should. It's not an impossible task. It's been done before. It just requires more effort and a sincere desire to address the concerns rather than just write them down.

We heard here at this committee some good examples of that. There's the Squamish process regarding Woodfibre LNG. We heard how the Squamish Nation approached that and how that worked. It took some more effort, but it was done properly and they got to the endgame. We heard numerous examples from the mining industry. I think the mining industry has some great examples we can follow on how to properly consult with indigenous peoples and bring them into the benefits of resource extraction.

The other error the court of appeal pointed out was the failure to include concerns about marine transportation in the Trans Mountain expansion approval study. One of the main concerns there is the status of the southern resident population of orcas. That's something we heard a lot about in the news this summer. There were various new items on the plight of that population. The Liberals are relying on their oceans protection plan to cover off those concerns. It's a plan that claims to offer a world-class oil spill response.

This summer I was in Spokane, Washington, and I attended the Pacific NorthWest Economic Region meetings. They bring together legislators from across Oregon, Washington, over to Saskatchewan, and up to Alaska, the Yukon, and the Northwest Territories. I talked to American legislators and other people about the oceans protection plan, and they said one thing repeatedly. The ones who were very apprised of the situation said that Canada calls this a world-class plan, and it's world class only in the sense that it kind of meets basic world standards. It's not world class in the sense of being one of the best.

They pointed out that they have a very modern way of tracking shipping down the Pacific coast that Canada does not have. They want Canada to be part of this system so that we can act proactively when trouble occurs, and Canada has been stonewalling these attempts. They feel they have a real world-class system, and they're concerned about increasing oil tanker traffic off our coast, because they feel we're not putting in that extra effort.

I'll close here by saying that the actions of this government and the previous Conservative government have not only delayed these projects that they feel are so important to Canada but have polarized public opinion on pipelines and resource extraction in general. When people who are concerned about the environment or first nations reconciliation are labelled “foreign-funded radicals”, it makes the wide public choose sides and makes it very difficult to have a reasonable discourse. I think there's a way forward to reduce this polarization. I think it's important that we as a nation travel that path, because right now it's very difficult to have polite discourse on pipelines or on a lot of things, such as climate action, in Canada.

I've been involved in a number of meetings here in Ottawa with a group called Positive Energy out of the University of Ottawa. I'm not sure if anyone else here has gone to those meetings. Their goal is to find ways to bridge that gap, to bring these sides together, so that we can have these important conversations.

I was at one of their meetings and happened to be sitting next to the pollster Nik Nanos. He had done some polling for Positive Energy. That polling found that only 2% of Canadians had high confidence in our energy regulatory system—in the National Energy Board, essentially. I won't go into all the details, but he said that in the polling there was a path forward. The path forward was through more involvement of first nations and local communities to bring those voices into the national discourse and into the regulatory process. That would give people more confidence there. We have to look down that path.

To finish, the NDP was criticized for our call to redo the Trans Mountain expansion process under a proper system. Critics said it would take too long, an extra year or two. Well, here we are, three years later, and we're back at square one. The court decision is a reminder that we have to put in the effort at the start. There are no shortcuts.

We feel it's time for a thorough and critical look at our energy strategy in Canada and time to invest boldly in the clean energy sector to provide good, long-lasting jobs in a sector that is the true future of the world energy market. We feel that purchasing old pipelines is not a proper use of public funds. Let's invest in the future.

Thank you.

Impact Assessment Act

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

I declare these elements carried.

The House passed Bill C-69, 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, in its entirety, at third reading.

(Bill read the third time and passed)

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Pursuant to order made on Tuesday, May 29, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded divisions at third reading of Bill C-69.

The question is on part 1 regarding the impact assessment act, part 2 regarding the Canadian energy regulator act, the title, the preamble, the schedule, and all clauses in part 4, except clauses 85, 186, 187, and 195.

The House resumed from June 19 consideration of the motion that Bill C-69, 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, be read the third time and passed.

[Jim Carr, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

We're making very important strides in partnering with indigenous communities. The best example is in my department. We approached the indigenous communities located down the Line 3 replacement and the TMX line with a blank sheet of paper—not with our ideas written on the other side, but a blank sheet. We said to them, let's co-develop a monitoring system so that indigenous communities up and down these two lines are very much a part of ensuring that construction is done safely and the monitoring that throughout its life cycle. This has never been done before. It's a very important development.

By the way, in fairness, not all of these communities want the pipeline. Some of the chiefs had to go back to their communities when they knew that the majority of their residents were opposed to the pipeline for a variety of reasons. But when it came time to working with Canada to co-develop terms of reference and to be involved in monitoring the safe construction, the communities were in. That took great courage from indigenous leaders.

Another set of communities has chosen to sign on to benefit agreements with Kinder Morgan—some 43 of them, 33 of them in British Columbia—creating opportunity for these communities and their young people for employment, skills development, and community benefit. This is good. It's something that we have to understand is part of the future of resource development in Canada. Indigenous partnerships are a part of the reality. You saw that in Bill C-69, where we say right at the very beginning that these consultations have to start at the front end. I think Perry Bellegarde, chief of the Assembly of First Nations, said it best: “You don't build anything until you build relationships”. We have had the pleasure in our department of building relationships over a longer period of time. I think that speaks very well.

On Canada's role in the world, I didn't understand when I was appointed to this job how much time I'd be spending on an airplane—going to Beijing, Delhi, Mexico, Argentina, and Paris—but that's the way it is, because energy is international and pollution knows no boundaries. The reason Canada is such a welcome partner in the international community is the the richness, diversity, and abundance of energy we have and our proven track record as innovators. We are very confident that other countries will be looking to Canada for the way forward. I think we have the capacity to lead. I'm very optimistic about the future, and I think we should all be very proud of the steps we've taken and continue to take.

Aeronautics Act

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

Mr. Speaker, I always welcome the opportunity to comment on private members' bills. As members opposite will know, I am somewhat opinionated on issues that I believe are of national importance. It is not often that I agree with so many comments of my friend from across the way in the Conservative Party. Maybe we can find some commonality among parties inside the chamber, with the possible exception of some Quebec members of Parliament associated with the Bloc. That is why when I posed the question earlier, I made reference to my own heritage.

I am very much a proud Canadian. I think that we live in the best country in the world. I really believe in Canada's diversity and the rich heritage that can be witnessed in all provinces across our country. I am very proud, for example, of the St. Boniface area, with its very large francophone community that is quite possibly the largest in western Canada, as well as St-Pierre-Jolys where my grandparents came from, prior to coming from la belle province of Quebec. I understand the importance of the many different regions and the beauty from within that diversity.

Having said all that, I am very much a nationalist. I believe that we need strong national leadership on a wide number of fronts. It is in all the regions' best interests to have a government that is prepared to demonstrate leadership issues on those important files. That is ultimately, I would suggest, in the nation's best interest. We have witnessed that very recently.

If this bill were to become law, think of the impact it would have on what has been an incredible issue that has been debated and discussed in this chamber for a number of years. It has been fairly well debated even in the last number of days and weeks. That is in regard to the extension of the pipeline, the Trans Mountain expansion, which was deemed to be in Canada's national interest. As a result, we have the national government playing a fairly proactive role in ensuring that the extension takes place. It is sound policy.

My friend across the way talked about the importance of communities and working with communities, provinces, and municipalities. This government takes that very seriously. A good example of that is the Trans Mountain expansion. We have worked closely with not only provinces and municipalities, but as well with indigenous peoples to resolve a very important debate.

When I talked about the Trans Mountain expansion as one of the areas that is in the national interest, I made reference to my home province of Manitoba. I said that Manitoba has been a have-not province in terms of equalization. It is a beautiful province and I am very proud of it. However, in terms of equalization, we have received literally hundreds of millions, going into billions, of dollars on an annual basis.

That is important to note when we take a look at Alberta and the wealth that it has generated, with its contributions to equalization, and the positive impact that it has had on provinces like Quebec, Manitoba, and many others that have received significant amounts of funds through the development of the beautiful resources that we have. In particular, this one here happens to be oil. It has provided for things such as better quality health care, better quality education, and even investments in many environmentally friendly energy or high-tech companies.

I would argue that this legislation, if it were to pass, would prevent the national government from being able to take the actions necessary once it was deemed that this was in the nation's best interests.

In good part, for that reason I cannot support this legislation. I differ from members opposite. There are many federal areas of responsibility. We could talk about airports, parks, and other lands owned and run by the national government and I believe the national government needs to play that leading role. Quite often, leading means working with the different stakeholders.

This is not to take anything away from provincial jurisdiction or municipal responsibilities they carry out. I am very much aware of that. However, I believe Canadians in every region of our country will recognize there is a responsibility of strong leadership coming from Ottawa to protect those ideas and developments in the national interest. An example is transportation corridors, and we can factor into those transportation corridors our airline industries. Check with the municipalities or the City of Montreal on just how economically important, not to mention socially important, the Montreal airport is to the city and the province. This is also the case with other airports throughout our country, even our more rural airports, in terms of the lands and their operations and what sort of impact this legislation could have on them. The federal government has a responsibility to the population as a whole for such issues.

When I look at the national government and the types of things we have seen developed over the years, I see that it does have a role to play in the environment. We have seen very progressive policies, legislation, and commitments through national budgets in the last couple of years. For example, members made reference to Bill C-69.

We have a government that recognizes it has a role to play. Shortly after the Prime Minister was elected, he went to Paris and invited other stakeholders. I do not know if it is the case, but the Premier of Quebec might have been there. However, I believe other stakeholders such as provinces were represented in Paris. Often we find there is a high sense of co-operation between the different levels of government on those important issues, upon their return. Working with Ottawa and provinces, they can come up with good, sound environmental policies. We can learn from provincial jurisdictions. Some provinces are more progressive than others in different areas of development. The federal government has a role to encourage best practices where it can, and to ultimately have that holistic approach in the overall promotion and development of standards across Canada. As well, where necessary, it needs to be more directly involved, as with Trans Mountain.

When we look at the legislation coming before us, what the member is proposing is that Ottawa ultimately transfer its responsibilities to the provinces. Often my concern with members, whether from the Bloc or the separatist element, is that even though part of their motivation on the surface might be to introduce positive legislation, another part of the motivation is to not necessarily do what is in the best interest of the nation as a whole, but for one region of the country.

Ultimately, what is in Canada's best interest is in the best interest of our provinces, both collectively and individually.

We must continue to work with provinces, municipalities, indigenous groups, and others to ensure that we continue to build that consensus so that Canada remains a country of diversity and a country that understands and appreciates the true value of being a federalist state, and so that we ultimately develop our resources.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House to outline my position and the position of the NDP on the bill put forward by my colleague from Repentigny.

I think her bill has many interesting elements with regard to respecting the jurisdictions of Quebec and the other provinces, municipal officials, and certain acts and regulations Quebec or other provinces have passed to protect ecosystems, public health, or local residents. Legal and constitutional matters are being raised. There is also the matter of respecting the Quebec nation, as well as respecting the concept known as social licence. Today, no government of any kind can just barge in like in the old days and try to impose its projects in spite of misgivings or fierce opposition from local, regional, or indigenous communities.

I found it hilarious, but at the same time kind of tragic, to hear the Liberal member say earlier that this bill would undermine her party's efforts to promote co-operative federalism.

That takes some nerve. I do not know whether Kinder Morgan, health transfers, or marijuana mean anything to them in terms of co-operative federalism. That is the type of approach they promised to take during the election, but since they took office, the Liberals have been all about unilateralism, federal imperialism, bulldozing, and charging ahead. I think that is absolutely shameful.

In fact, I would like to point something out to the member for Winnipeg North, the parliamentary secretary. He asked a question earlier and I remembered it. I would simply like to tell him that Quebec is not a region. It is a nation. It was not the National Assembly that said that. That was recognized here in the House of Commons and by the Parliament of Canada. I think the member should do his homework and find out exactly what motions have already been adopted here.

The bill introduced by the member for Repentigny has to do with Quebec, of course, but it also has to do with all of the provinces. It seeks to establish a balanced approach that respects the different jurisdictions of the provinces, the federal government, the municipalities, and first nations.

I would like to remind members of the NPD's approach. A few years ago, we had a leader named Jack Layton. He believed that the recognition of the Quebec nation should have implications and consequences, and he took that very seriously. That resulted in a very interesting document entitled the Sherbrooke declaration, drawn up by Pierre Ducasse. The Sherbrooke declaration, which was historically adopted by the NDP, recognizes the Quebec nation and asymmetrical federalism. For years, we have been accused of being a centralist party, but all of the Canada-wide programs that the NDP has proposed have had a Quebec clause that would allow the province to opt out with financial compensation if it was not interested in the program or if it already had an equivalent program. That is what I mean by asymmetrical federalism.

In terms of co-operative federalism, the bill is a step in the right direction. That is why the NDP will proudly support this bill so that it may be studied in committee. We have questions about the mechanics of the bill and how the courts will interpret the fact that we are restoring balance between various jurisdictions and, if possible, those with the best environmental assessments and the strongest social licence. However, I think that this is worth studying. We agree in principle. Second reading is a vote on the principle. We want to refer the bill to committee to be studied. We have some questions, but we think that the spirit of the bill is consistent with our vision. It is also a step in the right direction toward better understanding, to better protect our communities and the people who want to protect their lakes, rivers, farmland, and simply their peace and quiet. They can protect their creek from one end to the other as well. I am sure that if we can sit down and talk about this we will come to an agreement at some point.

The member for Repentigny introduced a bill that will amend eight federal acts, forcing Ottawa to respect applicable provincial laws and municipal regulations governing land use and development.

That is very important because land development is key here and the government has to do a better job of respecting that. This bill will affect wharves, ports, airports, telecommunications infrastructure, federal properties, interprovincial pipelines, and more.

This bill does not explicitly state how it changes the status quo, and that is what we have questions about. The bill simply says that the exercise of the powers in question must comply with provincial laws.

I believe my colleague from Repentigny mentioned an example to do with the Canada National Parks Act, which already takes certain provincial jurisdictions and regulations into consideration. In many cases, the exercise of powers under federal law is already subordinate to provincial laws, including those that govern land development and environmental protection. We do not see this as an inapplicable precedent or something unprecedented. This is the natural extension of a principle we agree with. Remains to be seen how it will apply in real life.

The bill's purpose is to give the governments of Quebec and the other provinces more power over land development within their borders. The bill would require the federal government to recognize agricultural zoning regulations, for example, and to respect more exacting environmental assessments, such as those carried out by the BAPE, Quebec's environmental assessment agency. We can talk more about that.

As the Green Party leader said, the Liberal government's Bill C-69 does not inspire confidence in the seriousness of the government's new environmental assessment processes. In some ways, this bill is full of holes. We do not even know if it will be enforced or if the Minister of Environment and Climate Change will abide by these recommendations. After all, her discretionary power is absolute.

In accordance with the division of powers under the Constitution, the laws affected by this bill are a matter of federal jurisdiction. According to the Library of Parliament analysis that we requested, it is impossible to determine the legislation's exact scope from its current wording. It is possible that the courts will interpret the provisions of Bill C-392 as an incorporation by reference of provincial laws, meaning that it incorporates, for the purposes of the eight laws amended, the rules set out by the provinces. If it turns out that the courts consider that the provisions of Bill C-392 incorporate by reference the provincial laws related to the eight laws amended, these provincial laws, for the purposes of these eight laws, will be considered to be federal laws. This is a common legislative technique that has a great deal of precedent. However, the real effects remain unknown for the time being. It will be important to examine these points and questions when the bill is studied in committee.

We also consulted David Robitaille, tenured professor in the Faculty of Law at the University of Ottawa. He thinks this bill is interesting and could result in a better division of the responsibilities and decision-making powers between the federal government and provincial governments, or the Government of Quebec in this particular instance.

There are a number of examples in which this could have made a difference if the bill introduced by the member for Repentigny had already been applied. For example, there is the private developer operating near Shawinigan that had the right to operate a small airport on private land or to fly a float plane on a lake, even though it was prohibited by a municipal zoning bylaw or provincial law, such as the Act Respecting the Preservation of Agricultural Land and Agricultural Activities. This is the kind of situation we must stop from happening.

I think it is important to be open, show common sense, and send this bill to committee, so that we can respect Quebec laws, provincial laws, and municipalities.

The current Liberal government violated the rights of indigenous peoples and of British Columbia. It barged in and bought a 65-year-old pipeline for $4.5 billion. It completely disregarded all of the orders from the Government of British Columbia. As a Quebecker, I would be particularly concerned that it might manage to revive a pipeline project like energy east, which had massive opposition throughout Quebec, in Montreal, in the metropolitan area, in towns, and in the regions. Energy east would have crossed 800 rivers in Quebec, including the St. Lawrence. The government needs to understand that it must sit down with Quebec, the provinces, and municipalities to talk things over, like a respectful partner.

[Karen McCrimmon, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today about Bill C-392.

Bill C-392 touches upon several subjects, including intergovernmental relations, federalism, and the paramountcy principle, matters that have been debated in both houses of Parliament in relation to a wide range of subjects. In essence, this bill seeks to allow provincial governments to impose restrictions on environmental protection activities and land use for projects which the federal government undertakes across the country.

I applaud the member for Repentigny's initiative to give more prominent consideration to the environment and land use when projects and activities that fall under federal jurisdiction are being considered.

The government also believes that the environment is worth protecting. Canadians should know that their governments, at all levels, are working together to achieve economic and environmental objectives and are acting in the interests of their safety and security.

Every day millions of Canadians can go about their lives in an orderly and predictable way. They get into their cars that start and stop as they should; drive on roads where people follow the rules; buy groceries that are free from contaminants; land in airplanes at airports that are safe; drink water that is clean; and sleep well at night, knowing that our police, fire departments, paramedics, and military personnel are on guard for our security.

Our society depends on laws and rules to function, and each level of government is responsible for those things that fall into its jurisdiction. Education, building codes and highways, for example, are primarily provincial responsibilities. Matters such as defence, aeronautics, and radio communications, for example, extend beyond provincial borders and impact the country as a whole. In these areas, it falls to the federal government to implement a nationally consistent approach that serves Canada and its people.

As we all know, the division of powers in Canada has been defined in the Constitution Act, but we also know that this division is not black and white. There are many areas and many issues where interests will cross jurisdictional lines, where two or even three levels of government have a stake in an issue, like the environment, like health, like safety, like employment.

The Government of Canada works with the provinces on matters such as education, health, and employment. Likewise, the provinces work with the Government of Canada on matters that fall under federal jurisdiction.

This division of power is essential to maintaining order and predictability in our society. It ensures that we avoid the scenario of too many leaders in one situation or a leadership void when no one else wants to take responsibility in another. In Canada, all jurisdictions must work together on certain issues to promote and protect the interests of all Canadians. Even when we agree to work together, we must still respect jurisdictional boundaries.

Recent Supreme Court decisions on the doctrine of interjurisdictional immunity have stated that provincial and municipal legislation cannot impair core matters of federal jurisdiction over aeronautics or radio communication infrastructure.

While these decisions quite clearly establish federal authority on matters such as aerodromes and cell phone towers, the government does not hide behind interjurisdictional immunity to run roughshod over communities.

In fact, to ensure that local concerns are taken into consideration for activities and projects that fall under federal jurisdiction, the government puts processes in place for consultation and the consideration of environmental laws and land use.

I would like to illustrate this point with a few examples.

First, in January 2017, following a regulatory consultation process, Transport Canada implemented a new regulation called Canadian aviation regulation 307–aerodromes–consultations. The regulation was specifically established to require proponents of certain aerodrome projects to consult with affected stakeholders before starting work so local concerns could be identified and mitigated.

As another example, under the Canada Marine Act, Canada port authorities are charged with the management of federal real property and marine assets as well as navigable waters within the ports. In addition to abiding by all federal legislation and regulations, the Canada Marine Act provides for the incorporation of provincial legislation by reference to address specific issues when the need arises. As a result, British Columbia's liquefied natural gas regulation is being applied to the federal lands being managed by the Prince Rupert Port Authority.

My third and final example is the Canada Infrastructure Bank funding program. The Canada Infrastructure Bank acts as a minority partner in delivering federal support to infrastructure projects, alongside co-investment by private sector and institutional investors and sponsoring governments. Projects supported by the bank must respect all applicable laws in the relevant jurisdiction, including any applicable environmental or labour laws. Project sponsors are required to provide assurance to the bank and other investors that all applicable laws in a province have been respected.

The reason these specific examples were chosen is because these initiatives, all of which require consultation and consideration of local issues related to land use and the environment, are taken from the very acts that the private member's bill seeks to amend. There are countless other examples in the same acts and elsewhere that demonstrate the government's commitment to hearing the concerns of Canadians.

Because the government is not above listening and improving, it is constantly looking for ways to demonstrate this commitment.

Recently, it introduced Bill C-69, 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. Bill C-69 exceeds the amendments proposed in Bill C-392 and would explicitly reflect the consideration of environmental, social, safety, health, socio-economic issues, including gender-based impacts, economics, and impacts on indigenous peoples.

Bill C-69 will also provide the public an opportunity to express their views during review processes.

As we all know, there are many issues that transcend municipal and provincial boundaries, and many others where the federal government may be unaware of local concerns. For this reason, taking a co-operative approach achieves the best possible outcome for all Canadians. With a country as large and diverse as Canada, we must all act in good faith and work together to achieve the best possible results for our economy and the environment and for our citizens.

Co-operation is a fine balance. There have been, and will continue to be, times when differences arise despite our best efforts to work together. Even the strongest relationships will experience disagreements.

Bill C-392 would represent a major shift in federal-provincial dynamics in Canada and would undermine the co-operative relationship that we have worked so hard to establish.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the hon. member from Repentigny on her private member’s bill. I fully support the bill’s objective.

As my colleague mentioned, it is unacceptable that the government is ignoring the will of British Columbians in the matter of the Kinder Morgan pipeline.

With Bill C-69, there will be no credible assessment process for projects such as pipelines at the federal level. We must protect the provinces’ right to conduct more appropriate assessments, such as those conducted by the Bureau d’audiences publiques sur l’environnement.

What does my colleague think about this shortcoming in Bill C-69?