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.

Motion that debate be not further adjourned

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am privileged to stand up in the House again to respond to the government House leader.

Members may recall that when the Liberals were elected, their leader, the Prime Minister, promised that he was going to usher in a new era of openness and transparency. Do members remember that promise? It was one of hundreds of promises he made that he has now broken.

Now we see this playing out at committee. The government House leader tried to suggest that somehow we move motions at committee to improve legislation, to make it better for Canadians, and then, when that legislation comes to the House, we vote it down.

Here is what happens. The Liberals will cherry-pick one of our motions to improve legislation at the committee and vote in favour of it, but there are many others that are required to improve the legislation to a point where the opposition in the House can actually approve it.

What do the Liberals do? They slam the door shut. They cut down debate at committee. With over 100 amendments left to go on Bill C-69, they said, “That is it. We are simply going to vote on them without any debate or any input from government officials.” That is the way the government conducts its business.

It is a sham. It is a farce.

Environment and Sustainable Development

[Deb Schulte, Liberal, King—Vaughan, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 15th report of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development in relation to 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. The committee has studied the bill and is pleased to report the bill back to the House with amendments.

I want to thank the many organizations and individuals who provided information and recommendations for consideration. Many have been incorporated in the amendments adopted.

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

Another point on that would be the price point they are paying, and if they are able to afford such a technology, but I guess with mass production, the more it's available, the more there is competition, the lower the price will be—that type of thing.

Thank you so much. I appreciate that.

Chair, I do apologize to you and to our witnesses. Given what has developed in the news today, I'd like to move my motion, Chair, as follows:

That, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the Standing Committee on Natural Resources, in light of the potential cancellation of the Trans Mountain Expansion on May 31, 2018 and the flight of investment in oil and gas leaving Canada, immediately invite Mr. Brian Porter, the CEO of ScotiaBank, to appear before the committee to inform the members of how Trans Mountain’s cancellation may affect future investment in Canada’s oil and gas sector, its supply chain and other resource markets; that the meeting take place no later than May 31, 2018; that the meeting be televised; and that the committee report its findings to the House.

If anyone needs a copy of that motion, I have many in my possession.

You're probably asking why this is so important. I think we all know the deadline that is coming forward very quickly from Kinder Morgan, which is of concern to many, and for those who weren't paying attention to the news this morning, a deal has been announced. The headline from the Financial Post says, “Canada said likely to buy Kinder Morgan's Trans Mountain pipeline as deadline looms”. It came out about 15 to 20 minutes ago. The article says:

Canada is likely to buy Kinder Morgan Canada Ltd.'s Trans Mountain oil pipeline and its controversial expansion project in a bid to ensure it gets built amid fierce opposition, according to a person familiar with the talks.

Buying the pipeline outright has become increasingly likely and is now the most probable option for the Canadian government, the person said...because the discussions are private.

It went on to say that the deal, a value for which hasn't been publicly reported—but I think this has been updated since; I believe it's $4 billion—will be announced very shortly.

Here we have, Chair, a private company that did not ask for a single penny of taxpayer dollars being bailed out by a government which, since it approved this project, has been asked by the official opposition hundreds of times over a year and a half to come up with a plan to outline the path forward for the Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain pipeline, a pipeline that has been in existence since the 1950s—it would be an expansion of what is there—a project that required private investment only.

Now we get to the point, because we heard for a year and a half that legislation was coming, that there was a plan in place. No matter how many times we asked for a plan, the blame game started, and that's all we heard, over and over again. Frankly, for the opposition, it was quite tiring to hear from a party on the other side that had complained time after time when they were in opposition that they didn't like the answers they were getting, and in the election they promised Canadians they would be different. You heard that over and over again, that it would be different. And thank you to the NDP, which pointed out that they're actually worse than the previous government, and that is actually quite disgusting for those who voted for real change.

We have this project, a $7-billion project, thousands upon thousands of jobs, and the government bungled the file so badly that now we have to nationalize the project in order to push it through. I think that is quite shameful, and I just cannot believe that we are at the point where all sides in this debate have dug in so hard that Canadian taxpayers are now on the hook for this project.

Who are they going to get to build this pipeline? I would like to know. Are they going to get Enbridge? They're probably not too happy, because their last project was cancelled. Are they going to get TransCanada? No—energy east. Petronas? No, they're probably not going to do it. Petronas thought Canada was the next area to invest in. Their number one area outside Malaysia was Canada, where they saw opportunity and hope, environmental standards and regulations that are the envy of the world, and an energy environment that had access, or so they thought, to many markets. We watched how that fell apart.

How many tens of thousands of jobs and how many good-paying jobs have been lost because of these decisions? I've talked about this many times in question period. I've talked about it many times in this committee.

Even next to my riding, in Peterborough, we had General Electric, where there were 300 jobs lost and there are 300 families without a paycheque. They had a contract to build the motors for the energy east project. That project was cancelled because the government continued to change the rules. Why would TransCanada continue to put good money after bad when they knew that there was no light at the end of the tunnel?

That project got cancelled, and General Electric, which has been in Peterborough since the 1800s—it's known as “Electric City”—closed. Now, that wasn't the main reason that it closed, but it was the straw that broke the camel's back. As you can imagine, the ridiculous price of electricity in Ontario right now is not helping matters much, along with the increased taxes and regulation. On and on, the pile continues to grow.

Now we have this pipeline needing to be nationalized. In this day and age, nationalized: I cannot believe it. This is why we need Brian Porter here. What does this mean for investment in general in Canada? What does it mean for somebody like my friend Marc? What does it mean in his riding for someone with the mining sector? Do they expand? Is there certainty at the end of this tunnel?

For those of us in Ontario, there's the Ring of Fire with its huge resources in the ground. What does that mean? Does any company think that it might be a good idea nowadays with Bill C-69 and many others, and with what's going on here, to dump some good money and convince their investors that, yes, Canada is a place to do business? You never know; you probably won't get your project built, but if it is approved, well, chances are that the government is going to have to bail it out because you can't get it finished anyway.

I just cannot believe this in a country such as Canada, where we had a regulatory process that is the envy of the world, with years and years of consultations upon consultations and environmental standards that are the highest anywhere, and this is how.... This is just incredible.

These are good-paying jobs that do not require taxpayer dollars. They require private investment that companies secure. Mining companies, oil and gas, you name it: they can secure that financing, and then the taxes they pay on that revenue fund our valuable social programs here in Canada, programs that we all love.

Yet now we have to bail out a project that the government approved, all because the Prime Minister did not go to meet with Premier Horgan when he was sworn in and work out the path forward. That is an unbelievable failure.

That is an unbelievable failure on this file. I feel bad for the tens of thousands of Albertans and anyone else employed in the energy sector who have had to wonder if they will get a job. Well, for the longest time it was, will my job ever come back?

I will read this from the Financial Post—

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

—from what it was a generation ago in terms of the ability.... People used to look for Sears catalogues and library cards. The data sources were limited. We had door-knocking and phone banks. Now, any time someone clicks a survey on Facebook, we've learned that they might be trolled or exposed, and their data might be sold to political actors, to third parties or registered parties—it doesn't matter to me—and suddenly they're getting only this kind of information.... I think it's only going to get worse, so I wonder why, in a generational change, we're not doing more about it, Mr. Chair.

We're of course going to come to it with amendments. We just went through Bill C-69. We put 300 amendments on the table, and one was accepted, so you'll forgive me if I'm a bit skeptical about how open the government is. We'll see if it's any different on this omnibus bill. It's open, but not accepting.

Carbon Pricing

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, earlier this week, Liberal members of the environment committee rammed through Bill C-69, a badly flawed environmental law. In fact, they passed over 200 amendments without any debate. Imagine that. They did this despite over 7,000 Canadians emailing them to ask for more time to review the bill. What happened to the Prime Minister's promise of raising the bar on openness and transparency? Remember that?

Why are the Liberals shutting down debate on important bills like this one?

Business of the House

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister of Small Business and Tourism]

Mr. Speaker, this afternoon, we will begin debate on Bill C-75, the justice modernization act. This evening the House will consider, in committee of the whole, the votes in the main estimates for the Department of Citizenship and Immigration.

Tomorrow morning, we will debate the motion to extend the sitting hours. After question period, we will begin debate at report stage and third reading of Bill C-47 on the Arms Trade Treaty. We will resume that debate on Monday.

On Tuesday, we will resume debate at second reading of Bill C-75, the justice modernization act. On Wednesday, we will begin debate at report stage and third reading of Bill C-64, the abandoned vessels act.

Finally, should Bill C-74, the budget bill, or Bill C-69, the environmental assessment act, be reported back to the House, they shall take priority in the calendar.

Motions in amendment

[Deb Schulte, Liberal, King—Vaughan, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I find it very interesting how the member was weaving work that was done at committee on Bill C-69 into what we are discussing today in the House.

I just want to make a point to answer the question that was raised. All the committee members from all sides of the House brought many amendments. That was really to try to strengthen the bill. The work of a committee is to try to strengthen a bill of the government.

I am very proud of the fact that all the members who were working on the committee, plus those outside the committee, took the time to look at the bill and bring forward recommendations to strengthen it. We did consider all of those recommendations. We voted on all of them. We did. We heard from 50 witnesses. We had over 150 briefs. We considered every single one of those amendments and voted on them.

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for King—Vaughan for her presentation today, but there are a few things that trouble me. I believe the hon. member's words were that sustainable development is not something one department can work on on its own. I would interject that I do not believe it is anything any department is going to be able to work on now because of the way Bill C-69 was pushed through the House two days ago. I believe there were about 600 pages of amendments. For the last half of those amendments, we could not even have officials in the room to advise the members that were debating the bill. In fact, we were not even able to debate the last half of those amendments.

I will say that there were over 126 amendments from the Liberal Party on their own Liberal government bill. Obviously, the bill came out half-baked, half-finished. As well, we have heard members of the resource sector and some from the energy sector saying that it is the “never do anything again” bill.

How can the hon. member say that all departments are going to have to work together, when the committee she chaired rammed through a bill that is basically going to stop any development of any significant type in Canada in the future?

[Joël Godin, Conservative, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Montmagny—L’Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, who has done excellent work. I will be adopting his hairstyle on June 9. I will become his disciple. It suits him, but we will see what it does for me.

As my colleague mentioned, we have our doubts. We do not have the information and the government is hiding information. We do not even know what effect the carbon tax will have on greenhouse gas emissions. We cannot say how much money will be taken out of Canadian families' pockets. That is not very reassuring. Of course, we must protect the environment and take steps to introduce new technologies, but this government is not taking action. It is only trying to look good. Once again, with Bill C-69 it is making it look as though it is implementing additional controls and enhancing the regulations, but, in the end, the government has the last word. It is the minister who has the power.

If we reread Bill C-69, we see that this government does not have confidence in the people. It wants to keep the power for itself and is acting like the Liberals did in the past. Members will recall the Gomery commission.

[Joël Godin, Conservative, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the member who just spoke said that the economy and the environment go hand in hand. The official opposition, the Conservatives, completely agree. Contrary to popular belief, Conservatives do not wake up every morning plotting to destroy the planet. We did a lot for the environment in the past.

The principles of Bill C-57, an act to amend the Federal Sustainable Development Act, are commendable. Nobody can argue with the bill's intentions. However, now that we know how this government operates, we have serious doubts about its intention to respect our environment, set clear benchmarks, and make Canada more attractive to foreign investors so we can grow the economy while respecting the environment. I would point out that Canada has some of the strictest environmental standards. The previous government, under Mr. Harper, did a lot for the environment.

As I was saying, the bill's principles are commendable, but we have some serious concerns. The Liberals have been kind of inconsistent and seem to have trouble keeping their promises. People are losing confidence in the government, especially when it comes to the environment. To substantiate that claim, I would refer to the commissioner of the environment, who, in her recent reports, commented that she is very disappointed in the results but congratulated the former Conservative government on its actions. That reflects well on us. People should stop saying that Conservatives wake up every morning looking for ways to destroy the planet because that is totally false.

I would like to come back to the minister's mandate letter, which reads, and I quote:

Canadians sent a clear message in this election, and our platform offered a new, ambitious plan for a strong and growing middle class. Canadians expect us to fulfill our commitments...

We can already see that the government has fallen short, just from that section of the environment minister's mandate letter. It goes on to say, and I quote:

If we are to tackle the real challenges we face as a country—from a struggling middle class to the threat of climate change—Canadians need to have faith in their government’s honesty and willingness to listen.

If members read the news and keep up with current events, they will see that Canadians are losing confidence in this government, particularly when it comes to the environment. Fine words are all well and good, but the government also needs to be clear and consistent. It needs to keep its promises. However, the government is not doing what it said it would in the environment minister's mandate letter and in the mandate letters of many other government ministers. The ministers are not keeping their promises and they are not necessarily being honest in their actions. They want to look good, but when it comes right down to it, they are not keeping their word.

The mandate letter also says, and I quote:

It is important that we acknowledge mistakes when we make them.

The Liberals have a lot of trouble doing that and they wait a long time to own up to their mistakes. The opposition is forced to draw attention to those mistakes day after day until the government realizes that it needs to reconsider. The Liberals are not even following the instructions they gave their ministers in their mandate letters. The letter goes on to say, and I quote:

Canadians do not expect us to be perfect...

We do not pretend to be perfect, either, but it is important to aim for perfection, and that is not what the people on the other side are doing. The letter continues:

...they expect us to be honest, open, and sincere in our efforts to serve the public interest.

Speaking of honesty and sincerity, let us talk about the marathon study of Bill C-69 that we just finished. I have the privilege to sit on the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development, which came under pressure to hurry up. All the members of the House were pressured to hurry up, preventing us from doing our work properly. Even the Liberals presented over 100 amendments. We were inundated with more than 30 briefs a day for a month.

Let us do the math. Is it humanly possible for an MP to do their work properly under such conditions? Furthermore, all of the witnesses who appeared before the committee were also hurried along. Very few of them got selected. The number of witnesses was capped. Many witnesses were disappointed not to speak. The avalanche of briefs we got shows how important this issue is to all the witnesses from across Canada. The problem with this process is that we are being made to rush just to get it over with. My personal impression is that the Liberals are following a political agenda. They are not really trying to protect the environment with Bill C-69.

They rushed us, they bulldozed through the process, and they made an omnibus bill. It is more than 650 pages long. I do not claim to be an expert, but most, if not all, of the experts who testified before the committee said they were deeply disappointed with this bill. The committee even heard from a university professor who suggested scrapping the bill and starting fresh. That says it all. That suggestion did not come from the member for Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier. It came from a specialist who studies the environment on a daily basis.

I come back to the mandate letter for the Minister of Environment, whom I respect greatly, but who is guided by political agendas and opportunities. Unfortunately, she has no control over what happens in her department.

In partnership with provinces and territories, establish national emissions-reduction targets, ensuring that the provinces and territories have targeted federal funding and the flexibility to design their own policies to meet these commitments, including their own carbon pricing policies.

That is not what the Liberals did. They imposed the carbon tax and then left it up to the people to figure it out and do what they wanted. They cannot even tell us how this is going to reduce greenhouse gases. Take Australia, for example. That country implemented a carbon tax, but that tax no longer exists in Australia because it was ineffective.

Let us look at British Columbia and see whether greenhouse gases are on the rise or on the decline. That province has a carbon tax.

I am committed to leading an open, honest government that is accountable to Canadians, lives up to the highest ethical standards, brings our country together, and applies the utmost care and prudence in the handling of public funds.

Considering what I said earlier, I do not think I need to comment. My colleagues can draw their own conclusions. We have serious doubts.

In her report, the environment commissioner emphasized that the Liberal government has not succeeded, I repeat, has not succeeded in reducing greenhouse gas emissions or adapting to the effects of climate change. I am not the one saying this. This is not partisanship, it is the environment commissioner who said so. I have much more respect for her than for our friends across the aisle. The commissioner clearly indicated that the Liberals have made no progress in honouring Canada’s commitment to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. She confirmed that there was a lack of leadership in adapting to the effects of climate change. We should not be surprised.

In the last Parliament, we, the Conservative members of the House, implemented important measures that enabled us to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. We cut them by 15%. That is something. We did such a good job that the Liberals used our targets when they went to Paris to negotiate the Paris Agreement. They submitted the targets the Conservative government set when it was in power, and they applied them. They spent their time criticizing our work, but they used our tools.

I could say considerably more, but I will allow my colleagues to ask me questions.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Madam Speaker, the evidence shows otherwise. In fact, it was under our previous Conservative government that greenhouse gas emissions actually went down for the first time in Canadian history. We were the only government under which that happened.

My colleague suggests that somehow the Liberal government has this wonderful relationship with stakeholders and a wonderful relationship with indigenous communities, while his relationship with the provinces and territories is completely falling apart. The government is in a fight with Saskatchewan on the carbon tax and in a fight with Alberta and British Columbia on the Kinder Morgan pipeline.

When it comes to indigenous communities, at our environment committee we just finalized voting on all the amendments to Bill C-69 that were brought forward, which I referenced earlier. Members may recall that the Prime Minister promised that he was going to implement the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, so members will be surprised to hear what happened at committee: our Liberal friends over here, every time someone brought forward an amendment to include UNDRIP within that legislation, voted against it on at least 25 occasions. They were speaking out of both sides of their mouth.

The Prime Minister is all over the country pretending he is one thing in one area and another when he is in a different region of the country. It is hypocrisy at its very worst.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

moved:

That Bill C-57 be amended by deleting Clause 5.

Mr. Speaker, I am thankful for the opportunity to speak to Bill C-57 again. This bill, effectively, would amend the current Federal Sustainable Development Act. Members may recall that in a previous Parliament, it was John Baird and the Conservative Party that strongly supported the original legislation, brought forward under a private member's bill, to establish the Federal Sustainable Development Act. That act requires that all government decision-making be reviewed through an environmental, economic, and social lens in the appropriate balance. That is the rub: “in the appropriate balance”.

The bill before us today aims to make decision-making related to sustainable development more transparent, first; more certain, second; and subject to greater accountability, third, especially within government. This bill would require more departments and agencies of government—in other words, additional departments and agencies—to contribute to the federal sustainable development strategy, bringing the total to more than 90 departments and agencies from the current 26. The bill would also require these departments and agencies to prepare specific strategies to ensure sustainability and to table progress reports on their implementation.

Bill C-57 would also increase from three to six the number of indigenous representatives sitting on the Sustainable Development Advisory Council. Government, of course, relies heavily on these advisory councils to provide it with strategic advice on the implementation of that legislation. The bill would expand the council's mandate and provide that representatives appointed to the council may be compensated for expenses. We just heard the Speaker mention that a motion was being tabled that addresses the issue of remuneration. It has been my party's position that although the members of this advisory council should be compensated and reimbursed for out-of-pocket expenses such as travel and lodging, they should not be remunerated. This should not be a job they do, but their contribution to society in making sure that Canada has an effective sustainable development plan.

The act would be subject to a mandatory review every five years. It has already been studied at the environment committee, on which I sit, where the Conservative members strongly supported it, subject to the amendments that have been brought forward this morning. We strongly believe that any decision government makes should always be reviewed through the lens of sustainability and should ensure that social, environmental, and economic factors are in the appropriate balance. This act also supports a whole-of-government approach to sustainable development.

As I mentioned earlier, the challenge, the real rub, is finding the appropriate balance among those three: social, environmental, and economic considerations, especially the balance between the environment and the economy. Our friends in the Liberal Party are fond of saying that the environment and the economy go hand in hand, which is a nice platitude, but the implementation of that intent is a different matter altogether. We see major failures in the Liberal Party's efforts to implement sustainability in Canada. Despite the fact that the Liberals brought forward this legislation, which is supposed to strengthen sustainability in Canada, their performance reflects quite a different approach. It is one that pits Canadian against Canadian, province against province, and the federal government against province and territory. While in government, the Liberals have not found it as easy as it may seem to implement sustainability.

I will begin by highlighting the relationship among the provinces, the territories, and the federal government. Members may recall that the Prime Minister, when running for election in 2015, made a host of promises, most of which have been broken.

One promise the Prime Minister made, which is now broken, was to usher in a new era of co-operative federalism. Nobody understood exactly what he meant, but everybody took him at his word. They assumed he was a man of his word and had every intention of doing this. In fact, he then began to interpret sustainability as having one's cake and eating it too.

When the Prime Minister was in British Columbia, he would pretend he was the champion of the environment. He would talk about the oceans protection plan and how we have to move off fossil fuels. However, when the Prime Minister was in Alberta to appease the residents there, whose livelihoods depend on our oil and gas, our resource sector, he would claim he was the great champion of the energy sector, again wanting to have his cake and eat it too and trying to be all things to all people. Those of us who have been involved in business, who have had to pay salaries and make important decisions within our businesses, know that we cannot be all things to all people. Tough decisions have to be made that serve the greater interests of Canadians.

There was our Prime Minister travelling across the country and pretending to be all things to all people, and suddenly the Trans Mountain pipeline comes along. He tells our friends in Alberta that if they implement a massive carbon tax, Albertans will win the social licence to be able to build the Trans Mountain pipeline to get their crude oil to foreign markets, get their crude oil to tidewater, where ships can then take that oil to foreign markets where it will fetch the highest price.

Trusting the Prime Minister, the Government of Alberta moves ahead with this massive carbon tax, which is hurting Albertans right across that province. I know some of my colleagues will share the pain being suffered by Albertans.

Now the Trans Mountain pipeline wants to move forward. Kinder Morgan wants to start building that project, but British Columbia steps up and says it opposes a pipeline coming through British Columbia. Even though there is an existing one there and all we are doing is twinning it, British Columbia is opposed. Now we have a war between the provinces of British Columbia and Alberta, a fight between the provinces and the federal government, and there is an appalling lack of leadership on the part of the Prime Minister, who had made a promise that if Alberta implemented this heavy-handed carbon tax, at least it would get a social licence out of it. Now it turns out there is no social licence. In fact, there never will be a social licence.

Canadians have been misled by the Prime Minister, but it gets worse. We are talking about sustainability, finding the appropriate balance for our economic prosperity as a country, using our resources wisely, getting the maximum dollar for them, getting them to markets, and then a report comes out from the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development. Actually, it emanates out of the Auditor General's office. In this report, dated March of 2018, we read that in Canada greenhouse gas emissions in 2020, which the government committed to reduce, are expected to be nearly 20% above target. This whole report from the commissioner is riddled with criticism of the government's performance on the environment file.

Then we have Bill C-69, which is the impact assessment act revisions, which were intended to shorten timelines and provide more predictability and certainty for approvals of resource projects and pipelines. In fact, we are now hearing from industry that these timelines are much longer than they were before and that there are many additional criteria that are going to make it even more difficult for resource projects to be approved in Canada. As a result, what we are finding is that on the economic side, we are losing out.

We have a Prime Minister who pretends he is the defender of our economy, but who in fact is completely pandering to the environmental movement and those who are on the extreme left.

I would suggest that this legislation, although it does reflect the consensus of the parties within this House, has not been implemented by the Liberals in their actions and in their legislation.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

It's another amendment brought forward by Ms. Stubbs from Lakeland. It's that Bill C-69, in clause 10, be amended by adding after line 10 on page 121 the following:

(78.1) Despite section 78, the Minister must not enter into any arrangement under section 77 devolving any powers, duties or functions given to the Minister or the Governor in Council in respect of any final decision or order.

I think you all know where I'm going with this. It clarifies that, regardless of the regulations set by the Governor in Council in regard to the ability of the minister to enter into arrangements with indigenous governing bodies, and to authorize those indigenous governing bodies to exercise power under this act, the minister does not devolve any powers in respect of any final decisions. I want to make sure that's clear.

The bill, as currently written, provides that the minister may enter into arrangements with these indigenous governing bodies for the purpose of carrying out this act, may authorize those bodies to exercise powers or perform duties and functions under this act in accordance with regulations governing these arrangements.

This simply limits the ability of the minister to delegate her final decision-making powers. I think that's reasonable.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

This is another amendment put forward by my colleague Ms. Stubbs from Lakeland. She proposes that Bill C-69 in clause 10 be amended by replacing line 18 on page 120 with the following:

241(3). The participant funding program may also be used to facilitate the participation of the Indigenous peoples of Canada and Indigenous organizations in any steps leading up to those hearings.

The purpose is effectively to ensure that the participant program, which a regulator may establish, can only fund the participation of Indigenous people and Indigenous groups in the steps leading up to the public hearing played out in the act. As C-69 is currently written, the regulator may establish a participant funding program to help facilitate the participation of both the general public and Indigenous peoples in the public hearings and in the steps leading up to public hearings.

Just to be very clear, we support the funding of both public and Indigenous people's participation in public hearings. We also support funding Indigenous participation in the steps leading up to those hearings. However, allowing the participant funding program to fund all public participation in such a broadly defined portion of this regulatory process is irresponsible.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

This is another amendment brought forward by my colleague from Lakeland, Ms. Stubbs. The amendment is that Bill C-69 in clause 10 be amended by replacing line 25 on page 113 with the following:

ferred to in that subsection must be disclosed if

Let me tell you what the intent is. It clarifies that if any traditional knowledge of indigenous peoples of Canada is provided to the regulator in confidence, it is publicly available, or if disclosure of that knowledge is necessary for procedural fairness, natural justice, use in legal proceedings, or is authorized to be disclosed under the regulations set by Governor in Council, that information must be disclosed. Again, it's not optional. It's mandatory that it be disclosed under those conditions.

As Bill C-69 is currently written, any traditional knowledge that is provided to the regulator in confidence that is publicly available or necessary to be disclosed for the reasons I articulated earlier—