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

[Serge Cormier, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Calgary Midnapore for her question.

My colleague spoke about the importance of leadership and action in her speech, and I completely agree with her on that. This is why I am proud of our government and, in particular, of the Prime Minister's leadership in making the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion a reality.

The Prime Minister has been clear, all across the country, about how urgent it is that this project move forward, since it is in the national interest and reflects our profound belief that economic prosperity and environmental protection can go hand in hand. This has not always been the case in Canada's recent history.

For instance, not a single pipeline was built along the coast in 10 years, and in fact, environmental protections were weakened considerably. Obviously, our government did not want to repeat the mistakes of the past. That is why one of the first things we did when we took office was to introduce an interim set of guiding principles for reviews of major resource development projects already in the works. This was a new approach intended to maintain investors' confidence. We also increased public consultation and the participation of indigenous peoples considerably.

Just a few months later, in June 2016, we launched a comprehensive review to come up with a permanent solution for conducting environmental assessments and regulatory reviews in Canada. The result is Bill C-69, which provides for stricter rules for carrying out major projects and getting our energy resources to global markets. It includes plans for a new Canadian energy regulator to replace the National Energy Board, which has not been modified since the National Energy Board Act came into effect in 1959.

Our objective is clear: to develop the vital infrastructure that is critical to our capacity to get Canadian resources to global markets, while also protecting our environment, which includes protecting our coastlines and combatting climate change.

The Trans Mountain pipeline expansion is part of that. It is part of a sensible approach that includes diversifying our energy markets, improving environmental safety, and creating thousands of good jobs for the middle class, including good jobs for first nations communities. The Prime Minister has been very clear and consistent on this. He said that the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion project is a vital strategic interest to Canada and insisted that it be built.

That is why he also asked the Minister of Finance to engage in formal financial discussions with the pipeline proponent. We are also looking at legislative options to clearly assert the Government of Canada's jurisdiction over this project in order to see it come to fruition.

That is what I call leadership. We were not just posturing. We made a commitment.

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Mr. Speaker, when Kinder Morgan announced that it would stop all non-essential work on the Trans Mountain extension project until it received assurances that there would be no more government delays, I do not think anyone was surprised. They were concerned, yes; angered, sure; saddened and disappointed, of course; but not surprised. That is because the Liberal government has failed time and again to support the Canadian energy sector. It has changed the rules, vetoed projects that were already independently approved, imposed burdensome regulations, and spoken publicly about phasing out the Canadian energy sector.

I am not surprised, because I know that actions have consequences, and the consequence of the Liberal government's failure to support the energy sector is that investors no longer have confidence in our business environment. On its own, the Prime Minister's failure to show leadership to get the Trans Mountain pipeline built would be detrimental to the energy sector. However, when it is combined with the cancellation of the energy east pipeline and the veto of the northern gateway pipeline, it is clear that there is a pattern.

The Liberal government's actions are making it increasingly difficult for the natural resources industry to access any global markets whatsoever. If Bill C-69 is passed in its current form, I question whether we will ever see another major energy project approved. This raises the stakes of the Trans Mountain extension. It is essential that the Liberal government ensure that this project goes forward.

Over the last two years, we have witnessed the flight of foreign investment from the Canadian energy sector, and I fear that this will only increase as investors watch this development in the Trans Mountain project and question whether to invest in projects without dependable access to global markets, not to mention the burdensome regulations.

This phenomenon has very real implications for the families and communities that depend on the energy sector for their livelihoods. More than 110,000 energy workers have lost their jobs, thanks to the Prime Minister's policies and the resulting decline in energy investment.

While knocking on doors in my riding of Calgary Midnapore, I have spoken with countless men and women who have lost their jobs in the energy sector over the past two years and who are now struggling to make ends meet. The Liberal government needs to show that it cares about the energy sector and the hard-working Canadians whose livelihoods depend on it.

The stakes are incredibly high for this industry, and the Trans Mountain extension must be built. What concrete steps is the Liberal government taking to make sure that this happens?

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

I'm very glad to hear that.

Thank you very much to all of you for being here today and answering our questions.

I want to remind the committee that we're back on Bill C-69 on Thursday with the minister and the departments.

The meeting is adjourned.

[Susanna Fuller, Oceans North Canada]

Thank you.

Thank you for inviting me to present today in my new role at Oceans North Canada.

Having been involved in previous attempts to amend and modify the Fisheries Act in 2006 and 2007, I want to commend the current government and the work of this committee for finally bringing us, on the 150th anniversary of Canada's Fisheries Act, to the point where significant amendments have been proposed, the majority leading to an improvement and a modernization of Canada's Fisheries Act.

Given the importance of fish and fish habitat to coastal communities, indigenous peoples, and Canadians in general, we do need a Fisheries Act for the 21st century and an act that we can take with pride to Canada's presidency of the G7, particularly with the priority given to oceans.

My comments are based on my history as part of the national fish habitat coordinating committee, which, together with DFO, was a member of several advisory committees for commercial fisheries in the belief that there's an urgent need to ensure that Canada's laws are consistent with the need to reconcile our history with indigenous peoples. They are also based on the belief that the management of a public resource must have a strong legal and policy framework to ensure that its sustainability is part of diversity, valuable ecosystem services, support for independent fishermen, and the future of coastal communities.

As you may know, the initial response to Bill C-68 was very positive, and this is reflective of the broad, though swift, consultative process that was undertaken. There are several elements of Bill C-68 that are significant improvements. I want to take note of these before I get to the few key areas where I believe amendments are needed to ensure that the act adequately provides for fisheries management and protection, conservation of fish and fish habitat, and access to fishing resources for adjacent communities.

The improvements that I think are good are the addition of a purpose section; expansion of factors to be considered in decision-making; measures for protection of independent fishing fleets; restoration of HADD; inclusion of a rebuilding clause for the first time; establishing permanency for fisheries closures, particularly those that are to count towards marine protection targets; creation of advisory panels that can ensure there's an increased use of expertise and public engagement in the implementation of the act; and finally, the five-year review of the act, which will ensure that regular updating is done when needed.

However, on closer examination, and after taking the time to think through how the new act would begin to address existing and long-standing problems with fish and fish habitat, there are a few key areas that, if left as now written, will undermine the achievement of the proposed purpose over time. It's generally accepted that fish populations decline primarily through two key factors: we harvest too many of them, or we destroy too much of their habitat. That's notwithstanding natural mortality and climate change, but without strong legal measures in place, there's no way to ensure that we are managing the harvest properly or able to mitigate and avoid habitat destruction. It is with this view that recommendations for improvements are made.

As you're likely aware, the environmental and conservation communities have been working closely together so that we are concise and aligned in our recommendations for amendments. I've also reached out to the fishing industry to better understand their concerns for areas of support for Bill C-68. The recommendations below are consistent with those put forward by West Coast Environmental Law, Ecojustice, Oceana Canada, and others. I align largely with comments made this morning by Keith Sullivan and Ecotrust Canada. It's interesting to note that the Mining Association of Canada is also aligned with some of the comments from Ecojustice. I think that's actually a unique situation, where we have such a broad constituency acquiescing in so many of the same things.

I will expand upon my six recommendations in a written submission with specific language, but the first one is to strengthen the purpose of the act. It's great that there's a purpose—it's much needed since 1996—but I believe it should be aligned with international agreements and conventions. I suggest that at a minimum we should add long-term conservation and sustainable use of the fishery to the purpose of the act.

Second, there is no mention of section 35 of the Canadian Constitution, and I note that in Bill C-69 it is included. To enshrine indigenous rights in this legislation and have consistency across Canadian legislation, I think section 35 should be added. I am mentioning this for the first time. My colleague Josh Laughren and those at Oceana give lots of reasons for why we need to rebuild the Fisheries Act. I feel strongly that this does need to be in the act and does need to be strong.

In Atlantic Canada, there are 17 species of marine fish that are either targeted by commercial fisheries or impacted by them, and these species are considered threatened or endangered by COSEWIC, the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada, which advises on the Species at Risk Act. Marine fish do not tend to get listed under the Species at Risk Act, mainly for socio-economic reasons, many of which I have some sympathy with. However, I believe that if we had a strong Fisheries Act that required the rebuilding of fish populations we might not find ourselves in such dire straits, with so many species considered endangered, some of which are vital to our coastal communities.

Strengthening the current rebuilding provisions means there is a legal backstop to the Species at Risk Act, which I would think the fishing industry would support. It gives us another tool to rebuild fish stocks without their being listed under the Species at Risk Act, although in some cases that may be the best tool. The Fisheries Act should require that rebuilding plans be in place and that they take into account ecosystem considerations, including climate change, with regard to timelines and targets. Failing to do this with Canada well behind other fishing nations and their legislation—many examples were given by Oceana—also fails to align us, again, with the international agreements to which Canada is a party or a signatory.

Fourth is on reporting to Parliament and to Canadians. Reporting on the status of fish habitats and the status of population rebuilding should be done on an annual basis. Currently, Environment and Climate Change Canada reports on the fisheries checklist from DFO. It seems a bit misplaced. I think DFO should have to report on its own goals, including fish habitats and the fish stocks and rebuilding. There are excellent examples of how this is done that are easily communicated to the public, and one of those is done by NOAA to the U.S. Congress. It's very readable. It's an infographic. It's not difficult to do. I would recommend adding reporting on rebuilding in proposed section 42.1

Finally, with regard to cumulative effects, we need to broaden the requirement of what's included in the public registry, proposed section 42.3. The public registry for projects is much needed. The NGO community has been advocating this for a very long time, and we're glad to see it in there. However, it's important that all projects where a fish habitat is impacted, whether through a letter of advice or through a departmental authorization, are included. Organizations on the ground, including DFO, through a pilot project in the gulf region, have already mapped areas where fish passage is blocked or a habitat has been altered. In practice, this is happening. It shouldn't be so difficult to add it to a public registry that is geospatially referenced. Without low-risk projects being included, planning and mitigation on a watershed level will be impossible, and I think colleagues at the Canadian Mining Association made reference to that as well.

In closing, a very strong constituency in Canada is interested in helping to implement a new Fisheries Act. This is a unique situation where thousands of volunteers through stewardship organizations and indigenous communities are working to identify barriers to fish passage and damage to fish habitat, to work on restoration. Increasingly, there is more transparency and multi-stakeholder engagement at fisheries advisory committees with regard to commercial fisheries where common ground can and is being found and actions can be agreed upon that help protect fish habitat and rebuild fish populations.

We can also use new tools to implement a new Fisheries Act, including mapping and GIS, electronic monitoring, just as examples, that can make data collection and data analysis easier. In the past attempts to upgrade the act, we didn't have those tools and now we do. They can make implementation much simpler.

In closing, as you consider and review Bill C-68, I hope you will be as ambitious as possible in this historic moment. It is the 150th anniversary of the Fisheries Act, the second act after the British North America Act, and this current act, Bill C-68, gets us up to about the 1970 level. We need to bump ourselves up to this century and give us a Fisheries Act for the future. We're very close. This act is and will continue to be foundational to who we are in Canada.

Thank you, and I'm happy to take any questions.

[Pierre Gratton, President and Chief Executive Officer, Mining Association of Canada]

Thank you, members of the committee. On behalf of the Mining Association of Canada, Justyna and I thank you for this opportunity to appear before you today.

As some of you may know, when I spoke to your colleagues on the environment committee about Bill C-69, I said I was mad, mad because in the same bill, the transition provisions for mining projects under CEAA were not the same as those for NEB projects.

In the latter, the government ensured that all projects undergoing an assessment begun by the NEB under CEAA 2012 would remain under the NEB, but not so for mining, which faces the uncertainty of switching acts midstream.

Guess what. I'm mad about Bill C-68 for a very similar reason. In our appearance before this committee on November 14, 2016, we stressed the importance of adequate departmental capacity for implementing the act and managing transition. We described the significant challenges we encountered with the transition resulting from the amendments introduced in 2012. Over and over we emphasized to the department that they had to do a better job of managing the transition this time around.

We appreciated your recommendations, particularly 21, 22, and 25, that advocated for investments in hiring field personnel and meaningfully resourcing the monitoring, compliance, and enforcement components of the department. We are pleased that the government has materially increased funding for DFO.

However, here with Bill C-68, we find once again a failure to address the problem of transition. While the provisions proposed in subclause 53(1) provide an orderly transition for authorization applications that have been deemed complete, they do not recognize directions given to proponents by DFO in response to a request for review or to guide an application for authorization.

What does this mean exactly? I'll explain.

Determining whether a large and complex mining project will impact fish habitat, gathering information on potentially impacted fish habitat, and examining mitigation or avoidance options takes time. Field studies take time, and must account for seasonal constraints. If an authorization under the Fisheries Act is required, additional time is needed to gather all necessary information, assess offset options, seek input from affected communities, particularly indigenous communities, and otherwise conform to the applications for authorization under paragraph 35(2)(b) of the Fisheries Act regulations. The cost of the complete authorization application package can range from hundreds of thousands of dollars for small projects to millions of dollars in the case of large projects, and can take several years.

Thus, requesting a review and preparing an application is not a trivial or a quick undertaking. Mining projects are also subject to federal and provincial environmental assessment processes. These can take three or more years, and application for an authorization under the Fisheries Act cannot be submitted until these assessments are completed. The case of one MAC member is particularly troubling, and exemplifies the importance of our request for amendment.

The project entered federal environment assessment in 2012, and the proponent had to completely revise its original Fisheries Act-related plans when the new Fisheries Act amendments came into force in late 2013. In the case of this project, it is unlikely that the environmental assessment will be completed in time to allow an application for authorization to be submitted before this bill, Bill C-68, and its amendments, come into force. This proponent would then be required to revise its application all over again, because the extensive direction given by departmental officials over the past six years would suddenly be deemed invalid.

I'm sorry, but we find this simply unacceptable. We therefore urge you to amend subclause 53(1) as suggested in our brief to you, to prevent responsible proponents from being forced to redo field studies, project design, offset design, and application development.

I should emphasize we have met with the department on this matter, and we believe we've been heard, but again, we strongly encourage this committee to consider our proposed amendment seriously, because, members of the committee, our sector has practised due diligence. Unlike other sectors that believe their activities were no longer regulated by the Fisheries Act, over the past six years we have fully complied and engaged with departmental officials to understand the requirements of the 2012 amendments to the Fisheries Act.

Indeed, officials, by their own admission, confirm that most authorizations today are for only the mining sector. Few others, removed from the scrutiny of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act and, thus, removed from the scrutiny of DFO, have bothered to seek authorizations even though their activities can, and do, harm fish.

Yet we find it is the mining sector that, by following the directions received, now may be penalized for our due diligence and engagement with the department if the directions received are invalidated through inadequate transition provisions, and duplication of effort is required to re-engage following the coming into force of new amendments.

The change we are requesting is not wholesale grandfathering. In fact, we believe the number of projects that would be affected by the proposed change is small. Morever, the requested change to the transition provisions would not affect the health of Canada's fish habitat. We do not believe there has been a deterioration in the protection from inadequate stringency of reviews and authorization applications for mining projects—and I believe the department could confirm that, as well. If there has been a deterioration, it is due to the lack of scrutiny of the activities of others. We are asking for relief from unnecessary administrative burdens on responsible project proponents and DFO regional staff.

Let me now turn to a second issue, which relates to cumulative effects.

When addressing the environment committee on Bill C-69, I spoke about how CEAA 2012 has penalized the mining sector by making us responsible for the cumulative effects of others not subject to CEAA. With Bill C-68 we face a similar situation with the requirement in proposed paragraph 34.1(1)(d) that the minister consider cumulative effects before recommending regulations or exercising any power.

Consideration of cumulative effects is necessary in making decisions that may impact aquatic ecosystem health. Fisheries are under federal jurisdiction, and the Fisheries Act contains a comprehensive range of regulatory tools for the discharge of that jurisdiction. DFO, thus, has the tools for monitoring, assessing, and managing cumulative effects.

However, based on our experience with CEAA 2012, the department may default to erroneously and unfairly place the burden of managing cumulative effects on a few mining projects rather than taking the steps necessary to address the root causes of cumulative fish habitat deterioration.

You recently heard from Margot Venton of Ecojustice Canada, who said:

...fish habitat is degraded not only by major projects, but also through the impact of smaller-scale works, undertakings, and activities. To stem the tide of incremental loss of habitat, DFO needs to do a better job of considering and addressing this cumulative loss of habitat....

Yes—guess what—I'm agreeing with Ecojustice, and not just with them.

The recently published “Watershed Reports: A national assessment of Canada's freshwater”, by the World Wildlife Fund, highlights the complexity and diversity of stresses on Canada's watersheds. It supports our concern that these stresses cannot be addressed by focusing the department's attention on a few mining projects. Activities affecting fish and fish habitat must be fully assessed by the party that caused the effect. Mining projects should be responsible only for project-related effects, as our industry has no control over effects related to non-mining activities, such as forestry, agriculture, hydro, and municipal works. In short, the act must be applied consistently for all works, undertakings, or activities.

Project proponents should not be held accountable for the cumulative effects of non-regulated activities, as contemplated in proposed subsection 34.1(1). As the legislation is drafted, a project proponent could be required to avoid, mitigate, or create offsets for fish habitat to compensate for the harm to fish habitat caused by other industries.

These concerns could be partly addressed by amending proposed paragraph 34.1(1)(d) as spelled out in our brief.

To conclude, if the transition provisions in subclause 53(1) are amended as requested, and if you help balance the responsibility for cumulative effects, the impacts of the revised Fisheries Act proposed by Bill C-68 on the mining sector are expected to be manageable. Of course this is contingent on how these are interpreted and implemented by DFO.

Thank you very much. I look forward to your questions.

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Fine.

Thank you, Minister.

My second question is about direct foreign investment. Back home in Calgary, we have unfortunately lost several companies following bad results. There were a lot of issues related to policies of the Department of Foreign Affairs. I'm thinking of NAFTA in particular; up till now, Canada has not been able to secure a satisfactory agreement.

With Bill C-69, it will be almost impossible to obtain authorization for future energy projects. I'm thinking also of the Trans Mountain Expansion Project. If you think that women deserve to occupy good positions, why don't you do more to keep direct foreign investment in Canada?

Oil Tanker Moratorium Act

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have been looking forward to the opportunity to engage in this debate.

I am going to frame this discussion in terms of Canada's competitiveness and our future, what our future will look like for the coming generations if we continue to go along the path of sending terrible signals to the global investment community. My comments will actually focus on how Bill C-48 is poorly thought out and really does not reflect the reality of Canada's resource economy.

I am a proud Canadian, but I am also a very proud British Columbian. Unlike many of my colleagues in this House, I have had the chance to hike many of the different remote wilderness areas of British Columbia. I have had the chance to hike the Chilkoot Trail, where one hikes out of the coastal rainforest in Alaska into the drier interior area of British Columbia and follow the trail the early gold miners took to the Yukon gold fields. I have had a chance to hike the Bowron Lakes. In fact, we canoed the Bowron Lakes, 12 lakes connected with portages, where one is almost guaranteed to see moose and bear along the way. I have had a chance to climb the Rockwall and Skyline trails in the Rocky Mountains. I have had a chance to hike in the Cathedral Lakes area outside of Keremeos, British Columbia. Also, in the northeast corner of British Columbia, there is the Muskwa watershed, Gathto Creek, and Pine River. British Columbia is an awesomely beautiful province, a place we as Canadians can be very proud of. It is a legacy that has been left to us.

Anything that would threaten our coastal areas, any threat to the marine life in our oceans, is something I take very seriously. We know oil tankers have been plying our coastal waters for many, many years. Over those years, how many crude oil spills have actually happened in British Columbia waters? Does anybody want to guess? Zero. There have been zero crude oil spills as far back as we want to go. Why? Because we have superior pilotage, and we have tankers today that are double-hulled as opposed to single-hulled to make sure if they strike something, that object does not penetrate the hull. We now have a world-class marine oil spill response, and we love the government for doing that. That is good. We want to protect our coastal areas.

What we do not want to do is undermine Canada's prosperity as we do this, so we have to be careful how we implement policy. We have to ask ourselves what the Prime Minister's motive is behind imposing a moratorium on tanker traffic off our west coast. By imposing a moratorium, we are preventing Canada from getting its oil and gas products to foreign markets where they fetch the best price. What is the motive? Well, we could just follow the Prime Minister around the world on his global travels from costume to costume, leader to leader. Guess what? We found him in France, where he thought he was safe and he started badmouthing Canada's resource sector. More specifically, he badmouthed Canada's oil sands and lamented the fact that he had not been able to phase out the oil sands by now.

There is the hidden agenda. We have a Liberal government that wants to phase out our oil industry. It wants to put all kinds of impediments in the way of our resource sector to make sure Canadians do not get the maximum dollar that they should for their products.

The Prime Minister goes so far as to pretend he is one thing in British Columbia, where of course he is the champion of the environment whenever he visits, but when he travels to Alberta of course he suddenly becomes the champion of the energy sector.

In fact, what he did in Alberta was to say, “If you impose a massive carbon price on your residents, you'll be able to get the social licence to get the Trans Mountain pipeline built.” What happened? Alberta followed suit. It trusted the Prime Minister, which is something I think Canadians are now very wary of. Premier Notley trusted the Prime Minister when he said, “Hey, a carbon tax and you'll get your pipeline to tidewater”. Well, do we have a pipeline to tidewater? Today we have protesters, no leadership from the Prime Minister, and court challenges. What happened to the social licence? It is bogus.

Along the way, this moratorium on tanker traffic off our Pacific coast is just one more nail in the coffin of completely undermining Canada's competitiveness within the global marketplace. Every day that goes by, Canada becomes less and less competitive, especially vis-à-vis our partner to the south, the United States. I will mention a few things that this government has already done. If imposed, a moratorium on offshore drilling in the north undermines prosperity, because we leave resources in the ground that could have fetched good dollars, but we leave them there.

On the massive carbon tax that Canadians are now being expected pay, members can imagine how that undermines our competitiveness as we layer tax upon tax. Foreign investors wonder why they would invest in Canada and not go to the United States where the corporate tax rate was dropped from 35% to 21% and it got rid of all the red tape. The Liberal government funds a Canada summer jobs grant to an organization that is actually organizing and protesting against the Trans Mountain pipeline. The Prime Minister publicly says that it is going to build, but then gives cash to oppose it. That is our Liberal government.

Then, of course, there is Bill C-69, the new regulations that the Prime Minister would impose on resource projects. The bill would add more discretionary powers to the minister to extend and suspend timelines. There would be longer time frames. There would be new criteria added, including upstream and downstream impacts. This is how crazy it gets. The government would impose criteria, conditions, upon our own oil and gas producers that we do not impose on those who ship gas from foreign jurisdictions like Nigeria, Saudi Arabia, Kazakhstan, and Venezuela. The oil that comes from those countries into Canada right now does not have to comply with any of those criteria, but our own homegrown producers of that product, which is the cleanest in the world, and is subject to the toughest conditions in the world, have to comply with those criteria. We wonder why we have lost 100,000 jobs in our economy. It is because of policies like that. Over 87 billion dollars' worth of capital has fled Canada because of the poorly thought out policies of the Liberal government.

As Conservatives, and the word “conservative” implies conservation, we believe that the highest environmental standards have to be complied with. When we extract our resources in Canada, whether it is mining, oil, or gas, Canadians expect that it be done to the highest environmental standards. Canadians also understand that those resources that lie in the ground represent huge opportunities for economic growth in our country, for jobs, for long-term prosperity, and for funding the programs that governments want to provide to Canadians. It is absolutely critical that moratoria, like the one the Prime Minister is trying to impose on our west coast, not proceed, because at the end of the day, Canadians will pay a very significant price for that. Quite frankly, if in fact the Prime Minister cannot get the job done, he should step aside and let the adults take over. Let someone else take over, someone who really understands the economy, someone who understands the environment, and the appropriate balance between the two.

The Environment

[Catherine McKenna, Liberal, Minister of Environment and Climate Change]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the member opposite for his long advocacy for parks in protected areas. We are absolutely committed to ensuring that the ecological integrity of our parks is a top priority. I am looking forward to announcing soon the findings of the minister's round table, wherein this is emphasized.

In terms of Bill C-69, we understand that the environment and the economy go together and that we have to rebuild trust in environmental assessments. That is exactly what we are doing.

[Wayne Stetski, NDP, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Madam Speaker, even after UNESCO has threatened to add the Wood Buffalo National Park to the list of world heritage sites in danger, the government has failed to require environmental assessments for all proposed developments within our national parks. This week, Melody Lepine of the Mikisew Cree told the environment committee that even though industrial activities are putting a national park at huge risk, there may never be another federal assessment as Bill C-69 is currently drafted.

Will the government commit to ensuring environmental assessments for all developments as a part of protecting Canada's national parks in the future?

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

Mr. Amos and I are on the environment committee and right now we're studying Bill C-69, the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. This, of course, is a key discussion as part of that act, what amendments need to occur to bring about that meaningful participation, that collaborative consent type of approach, and how we can put that within the act so it recognizes UNDRIP, and starts to work toward a rights framework.

In going forward with Bill C- 262, I would assume you would agree that we need to ensure that, as we are going through these other acts, we develop a consistent approach across legislation so we can arrive at the place you're discussing right now.

[Churence Rogers, Liberal, Bonavista—Burin—Trinity, NL]

Thank you, Madam Chair, and thanks to the panellists for appearing today.

I have a question for Brock. With my municipal background, of course, I want to talk to you a little bit about municipalities. FCM is the umbrella organization for all municipal governments across the country, big and small, some pretty tiny, some large.

How does the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, overall, view this new proposed legislation, Bill C-69? In your opinion, does it improve or hinder the future work that municipalities will have to undertake under this proposed legislation?

[Robert Sopuck, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

Thank you.

Mr. Carlton, I appreciate your comments on the Navigable Waters Protection Act. I have 36 municipalities in my constituency.

I have just a quick, little anecdote here. Spring pressure tore out a culvert. This ravine had water in it for perhaps a month a year. Well, the bureaucracy told the municipality that they had to put a bridge there because it was considered a navigable water, which is clearly ridiculous. What made it even more ridiculous was that the estimated cost of the bridge was $750,000, and the total budget of the municipality was $1 million. So we changed the stupid law that did stupid things, like I have just described. I will stand by the changes we made to the Navigable Waters Protection Act any day. It's all about the definition of what a navigable water is.

Also, on municipalities advocating for economic development and resource development, three of us here think that's a good thing, so keep up the good work in that regard.

I would like to direct my next questions to Teck Resources. Pierre Gratton, the head of the mining association, was before us a while ago, and he made the point that, in spite of the fact that commodity prices are increasing around the world, investment in mining and natural resource development in Canada is going down. It's fleeing this country.

You alluded to it, Ms. Risbud, but I think your point was far too mild. The Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers talked about how Canada is losing investments, and they see very little in Bill C-69 that will improve that. Chris Bloomer from the Canadian Energy Pipeline Association made the point that Canada has a toxic regulatory environment. He used the word “toxic” in his testimony, and he said that, if the job is to kill oil and gas production and pipelines, this bill will do a very good job. I noticed on your website.... I know you're not in the pipeline business, but you're in the steelmaking and coal business, so when pipelines are not built, your company and your employees are directly affected.

Can you comment on why investment in Canada is declining? It's in the billions of dollars, 56%, at a time when commodity prices around the world are increasing.

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

It's 3,000. Well, that's because we have a new convention centre now.

Brock, because we have multiple levels of government, that poses unique challenges for impact assessment. Every order of government is only able to regulate the matters within its own jurisdiction. We know that co-operation is imperative. We have to have co-operation.

Notwithstanding your comments and the recommendations in your testimony about explicitly listing municipalities—and I do think there are changes to this legislation from 2012 that take municipalities and some of your recommendations into play—maybe you can expand a bit on what you notice in Bill C-69 that ensures co-operation and input from all levels of government, especially from the early planning phase.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Let me ask you a more direct question on that then.

Is Bill C-69 going to speed up the review process, or is it going to slow it down?

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

That is a good preface to my question to Mr. Carlton.

Back in 2012, our previous Conservative government made a number of changes to the Navigable Waters Protection Act, and we made a distinction between minor and major projects to make sure that the minor projects weren't caught up in the incredible red tape that a full impact assessment would require.

You've now had a chance to review this Bill C-69. If the amendments that you have suggested here at the table today are not made, do you believe that Bill C-69 will make it more difficult for local projects to be approved?