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.

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 agricultural 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?

[James Clements, Vice-President, Strategic Planning and Transportation Services, Canadian Pacific Railway]

Thank you, Madam Chair. It's a pleasure to be here this morning.

My name is James Clements. I'm CP's vice-president of strategic planning and transportation services. CP is pleased that your committee is studying the efficiency of Canada's trade corridors.

CP's transcontinental rail network across North America is a critical component of the supply chain that connects Canada's exporters with international markets and consumers with goods. Two-thirds of our traffic crosses the border. Thirty per cent of that traffic crosses the Canada-U.S. border, including in the Niagara region—where you were the other day—into Buffalo. A further 37% is imports or exports for Asia or Europe through the Canadian ports.

As international trade increases, our transportation systems throughout North America must develop the capacity to handle growing freight volumes. This includes export-driven demand for Canada's natural resources, such as grain, forest products, coal, potash and energy products, as well as import-driven demand from consumers.

CP has been investing significantly to expand the capacity and efficiency of our rail network, especially in the critical trade corridors, such as the one through the Rocky Mountains from Calgary to Vancouver.

Since 2012, CP has invested nearly $9.5 billion in our infrastructure to improve safety, service and throughput. Over this time, our capital investments have outpaced our growth in demand. This year alone, we are investing more than $1.5 billion to replace basic infrastructure, upgrade the network and expand capacity. In particular, we're focused on capacity and efficiency improvements in the grain supply chain.

We have announced that we are investing half a billion dollars to purchase 5,900 new high-capacity grain hoppers, which will replace the aging low-capacity government hopper cars. The new hoppers will handle 15% greater volume and 10% greater weight while featuring a shorter car body that allows more cars in the same train length.

In collaboration with our customers, we're also developing expanded train lengths of 8,500 feet. Those trains will haul 20% more grain than the current 7,000-foot train model we use to move grain and, when combined with hopper cars, represents 44% more grain per train.

The efficiency gains will yield real improvements in the efficiency and capacity of the grain supply chain, a critical element of Canada's trade corridors.

That said, Canada's trade corridors face future challenges. Looking at grain in particular, our railroad meets the market demand everywhere except the critical gateway of the port of Vancouver. There, the railway is sized to the overall supply chain capacity. There's simply more market demand through Vancouver than there is capacity in the supply chain to accommodate the grain traffic. The supply chain through Vancouver is constrained by terminal capacity, the impacts of inclement weather and the operational complexity of the railways, including having to manage around the West Coast Express commuter rail operations.

We are pleased that the government has announced funding under the national trade corridors fund for important grade separations at the Vancouver Intermodal Terminal in Pitt Meadows and the 50th street overpass in Lambton Park Yard in Edmonton. These projects will help alleviate congestion in the rail system. I give the government credit for committing these funds to these projects.

However, federal infrastructure programs in general need to continue to be targeted to support trade-enabling infrastructure, as this is critical to achieving the efficiency gains in Canada's trade corridors.

We recognize that there are political pressures from other levels of government for the finite infrastructure dollars, but the fact remains that the federal government is uniquely positioned to concentrate infrastructure investments on projects that will generate material gains for Canada's national economic needs. We strongly recommend that future federal government programs focus on this trade-enabling infrastructure and include consideration of the separation of freight and commuter operations in the Lower Mainland.

Finally, it is worth noting that the goal of achieving more efficient trade corridors is undermined by federal policy-making that favours additional regulatory interventions in the marketplace and the imposition of significant new requirements for major projects that fall under federal jurisdiction, such as those proposed in Bill C-69. An overbearing regulatory environment constrains the supply chain and the market's ability to build the infrastructure needed to accommodate market demand.

Thank you for your time this morning.

[Peter Xotta]

I would agree. Obviously, this is a complex space for which Canada has to have an appropriate process in place. The fundamental message is that ports have been responsible in fully serving the mandate that is before them in the Canada Marine Act. In the case of Vancouver, there's a tremendous level of complexity in our process reflecting the community and the issues that we have before us.

I think the key message with regard to Bill C-69 is, as Ewan mentioned, balancing those steps forward with ensuring that Canada remains competitive in attracting capital.

[Ewan Moir]

I would say no. I think Bill C-69 is the right way to go.

We have a case at this moment about a fast passenger ferry going from Nanaimo to downtown Vancouver, a potential project. The proponents had an environmental assessment in Nanaimo, and environmental assessments in the port of Vancouver, but nothing in between on the Salish Sea.

When we go to Bill C-69, we'll consider the full journey of that fast ferry. Both parties are introducing requirements to that proponent about noise and speed with regard to killer whales—to the question asked earlier. That's outside of the present remit of what we're supposed to examine from an environmental perspective, but we know it's very important, so we asked the proponent to include that as part of the process.

Bill C-69 would ensure that we look at everything—

[Matt Jeneroux]

If or when Bill C-69 becomes legislation, will that impact how you guys do business on a day-to-day basis?

I guess I'll explain where I'm coming from. Right now, with what's in place on your end, are you satisfied that you satisfy both the environmental and the economic concerns, the way business is right now, the way the federal government and the province do it now?

To put it simply, is Bill C-69 essentially more legislation that's not necessarily needed right now?