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.

Trans Mountain Expansion Project

[Jonathan Wilkinson, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to participate in this emergency debate.

The Prime Minister has said repeatedly, and reaffirmed on Sunday, that the Trans Mountain pipeline will be constructed.

Interprovincial pipelines are the responsibility of the federal government, and when making decisions on interprovincial pipeline projects, it is the Government of Canada's duty to act in the national interest. That is exactly what happened when we approved the $7.4 billion Trans Mountain expansion pipeline.

It is worth reviewing the process that was undertaken in order to remind Canadians that the decision to approve the project was taken only after careful review, extensive consultations, and thoughtful deliberation based on sound science and Canada's best interests. I would like to highlight some of that tonight.

When our government took office, we committed to reviewing and reforming the way the federal government makes decisions with respect to major projects. In February of this year, we introduced Bill C-69, the impact assessment act, which would accomplish exactly that through better rules to protect our environment, fish, and waterways; rebuild public trust and respect indigenous rights; strengthen our economy; and encourage investment.

We also committed not to send projects already under review back to the starting line.

That is why we implemented an interim approach to address projects that were then in the queue, such as Trans Mountain. That interim approach was based on five guiding principles, principles such as expanding public consultations, enhancing indigenous engagement, and assessing upstream greenhouse gas emissions associated with projects.

As part of this, our government appointed a special ministerial panel of distinguished Canadians, who travelled the length of the proposed pipeline route, ensuring indigenous peoples and local communities were thoroughly canvassed and heard.

On the TMX expansion, we also completed the most in-depth consultations with rights holders ever undertaken on a major project in Canada. To date, 43 first nations have negotiated impact benefit agreements with the project, 33 of those in British Columbia. In the end, the project was approved with 157 conditions that reflected these consultations, robust scientific evidence, and the national interest.

The economic benefits of this project are clear. It would create thousands of construction jobs and countless more spinoff jobs in every part of the country. It would generate billions of dollars in new government revenues over 20 years of operation, new tax dollars to help pay for our hospitals and our schools, build new roads and safer bridges, and help fund Canada's transition to a low carbon future. The project would also open up new economic opportunities for the 43 indigenous communities that have signed more than $300 million in impact benefit agreements along the pipeline's route.

However, we should not look at the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion in isolation. We also need to consider how the pipeline will fit in with our government's overall vision for Canada in this clean growth century and how this government has responded to legitimate concerns of Canadians, in particular those who live in the British Columbia Lower Mainland, those being issues relating to spill prevention and climate change.

We have signed the Paris Accord on climate change. We have worked hard with the provinces and territories to develop the pan-Canadian framework on clean growth and climate change, a plan that lays out Canada's clear path to achieving our targets under the Paris Accord.

At the same time, our government is putting a price on carbon, accelerating the phase-out of coal, promoting energy efficiency, regulating methane emissions, creating a low carbon fuel standard, and making generational investments in clean technology, renewable energy, and green infrastructure.

The pan-Canadian framework incorporates all of the upstream and direct emissions associated with the Trans Mountain pipeline. Its greenhouse gases are also well within the 100-megatonne cap on oil sands that was brought in by Alberta's NDP government. It is complemented by the most ambitious oceans protection plan in our country's history, a $1.5 billion investment to protect our waters, coastline, and marine life.

The oceans protection plan builds on and maximizes every possible safeguard against an oil spill happening in the first place. Measures include air surveillance, double-hulled tankers, and double pilotage.

Kinder Morgan must provide enhanced tanker escorts using tethered and un-tethered tugboats beyond the Lions Gate Bridge into the Strait of Juan de Fuca to Canada's 12-mile nautical limit. New, larger vessels are being purchased for this purpose, as tugs of this size are not currently available on the west coast.

We have made the largest investment in the Canadian Coast Guard in years, strengthening its eyes and ears to ensure better communication with vessels and making navigation safer by putting more enforcement officers on the coast and adding new radar sites in strategic locations.

An important example of this was our decision to reopen the Kitsilano Coast Guard base with new rescue boats and specialized pollution response capabilities, and we are funding more scientific research and new technologies to make cleanups even more effective.

The House should note that it was the previous Harper Conservative government that announced the immediate closure of the only Coast Guard station located in Canada's busiest harbour in Vancouver. That is their record when it comes to protecting B.C.'s coasts.

Our approach is world class, an approach that meets or exceeds the gold star standards set by places such as Norway. Our government has been very clear about the path forward regarding this project. We can and must protect our environment and communities while growing our economy. Our approval of the Trans Mountain expansion project, along with measures that will enable our oceans and coastal communities to remain healthy and safe, achieves these goals.

As we have said before, federal jurisdiction with respect to the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion project is very clear, and we are actively pursuing options to provide the certainty required for this project to move ahead. As the Prime Minister said yesterday, we will have more to say in the coming weeks.

Some will take issue with our government's approach, and we respect that. We are lucky to live in an open society where people with different views can debate them respectfully and choose to protest peacefully and lawfully.

Our government will continue to listen and work hard on behalf of all Canadians to ensure that the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion is completed and that it moves forward safely and responsibly.

Budget Implementation Act, 2018, No. 1

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

Mr. Speaker, it is always an honour to rise in this place, even during difficult times such as today when it is with somewhat of a heavy heart one rises after the tributes we heard on the terrible tragedy in Saskatchewan.

It is also sometimes difficult to rise in trying times such as these when so much is at stake for the future of our country, even as we grapple with the ongoing crisis over the Trans Mountain expansion and the implications that a failure of that project would have for all future projects in Canada.

This budget implementation act necessarily brings us back to the budget that it implements. The bottom line of any budget, and really the first thing that anyone wants to know about a budget, is whether it is going to be a surplus budget or a deficit budget. Any analysis, criticism, or commentary has to take place in the context of the size and scope of any surplus or deficit. All the choices of inclusion or omission from a budget have to be viewed through that lens.

In the case of a deficit, it is customary to address the question of when the budget will return to surplus. I say this is customary because indeed it is. In fact, all 13 provincial and territorial governments either have a balanced budget or have a specific timeline or projection for when their budget will be balanced, and it is contained in their budget.

The finance minister is currently running a significant deficit, and neither the budget nor this implementation act make any mention of the means or timing of a return to balance. I raised this with the minister when he appeared before the finance committee last month. I asked him why he is the only finance minister in Canada who has no plan for a balanced budget, and why he did not even address the issue in a 400-page budget document. He said, “No matter how many times the Conservative members ask us to follow the playbook of the previous Conservative government, we won't do it.” I may disagree with the minister on the point of whether or not he should follow the Conservative playbook, but at this point I think most Canadians would settle for this government merely following its own playbook.

On page 12 of the 2015 Liberal platform, its playbook, it reads:

We will run modest short-term deficits of less than $10 billion in each of the next two fiscal years to fund historic investments in infrastructure....

After the next two fiscal years, the deficit will decline and our investment plan will return Canada to a balanced budget in 2019.

On page 72 under the fiscal plan and costing chapter it reiterates, “We will run modest deficits for three years so that we can invest in growth for the middle class and credibly offer a plan to balance the budget in 2019.” Later on in the same chapter it says, “After the next two fiscal years, the deficit will decline and our investment plan will return Canada to a balanced budget....” The Liberal playbook refers to balanced budgets, and in fact, the Liberals promised balanced budgets. They promised small deficits and a return to a balanced budget.

Given that the Liberals promised a balanced budget by 2019 in the 2015 election, given that they promised only short-term deficits of less than $10 billion, and given that they promised these short-term deficits only to fund historic investments in infrastructure, the question is why they are now implementing a structural deficit in a budget with over a $20-billion deficit. Why does the finance minister repeatedly refuse to give any timeline for a balanced budget at all? Why does he bizarrely criticize the Conservatives for even asking about a balanced budget when he ran on an election platform that contained that very promise?

In fact, the finance minister got lucky this past year. The Canadian economy benefited from a whole host of factors, for none of which the finance minister can take any credit. Commodity prices were better than forecast. The world economy has had perhaps its best year since the great recession. The American economy was positively booming with a record-setting stock market run. Real estate price inflation has continued in Canada. Interest rates have remained low. Even with all of these factors in his favour, the finance minister still ran a promise-breaking deficit in this budget following what will surely be one of the strongest economic years in this Parliament.

If the minister promised to return to balanced budgets, he has completely failed to deliver, and it is more than reasonable for opposition members to ask if not now, then when. Given that a return to balance was a huge part of the Liberals' election promise, we would not be doing our jobs as an opposition holding the government to account without asking that question and no answer has been given so far. Still, there really is nothing in the bill to address that question either.

There is, however, in the original budget a troubling item contained on page 290, and that is a recognition of the fact that Canadian oil sells at a significant discount to world prices due to a lack of pipeline capacity in general and the routing of existing pipeline capacity mostly to the oversupplied Cushing, Oklahoma hub rather than to tidewater or to other refinery areas with spare capacity. This discount from world prices, which the government commented on in the budget itself, has grown significantly worse in the past few months.

This difference between the price that our producers get and world prices has a significant impact on business profits and jobs in the industry. The discount has an enormous impact on tax revenues to both the oil-producing provinces and to the federal government itself and it dictates the viability or non-viability of future projects. Simply put, this discount means that we are actually exporting tax revenue and public services to the United States.

Using round numbers, Canadian exports are about three million barrels a day. If Canadian producers take a $20 discount, that means the industry loses $60 million a day, or roughly $22 billion per year. A significant portion of that $22 billion will be taxable income at both the federal and provincial levels. The federal government loses billions in tax revenue because of this price differential, so it cannot be ignored as a factor in the budget.

What is truly alarming today, given the debacle over the Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain expansion, is that the finance minister, in his budget, assumes that both Trans Mountain and Keystone XL will be built at a reduced price discount. We obviously know that these assumptions are being challenged right now. Both projects at best will delay projected revenue from profitable oil production, but in typical fashion, the finance minister has just assumed that the pipelines will be built even though a host of opponents are doing everything they can, including breaking the law, to prevent these pipelines from getting built.

The finance minister surely knows that he has cabinet colleagues who oppose the energy industry, that he has caucus colleagues who campaigned in the last election against the Trans Mountain expansion, and that the most senior unelected adviser to the Prime Minister is notoriously anti-pipeline. Therefore, it was a fairly bold assertion for him to simply assume the Trans Mountain and Keystone XL pipelines would be built. Both projects are behind schedule. Both continue to be opposed by extremists committed to everything from vexatious litigation to violent clashes with police while defying court orders, trespassing, and destroying private property.

Given the government's track record, what credibility does it really think it deserves on pipelines? The finance minister's budget assumes the pipelines are going to be built, and yet one of the first things the government did after it was elected was to kill the northern gateway project, which was a pipeline to tidewater approved previously. The proponent was working through the conditions and the concerns that had been raised about the project when the Liberal government used an arbitrary tanker ban to ensure that it could never be built.

Then the Prime Minister completely failed to get Barack Obama to approve Keystone XL, which added another couple of years to the delay of that project. The finance minister is counting on this project to reduce the differential that has to be taken into account in his tax revenue projections.

We know energy east was killed by the government's decision to move the goalposts on its proponent by absurdly deciding to make both upstream and downstream emissions part of the criteria. I say absurd because the emissions from fossil fuels moved through a pipe are mostly determined by the type of vehicle the fossil fuel is put into by the end consumer.

Now the government is even pushing through Bill C-69. At the environment committee, the president of the Canadian Energy Pipeline Association said, “It is hard to imagine that any pipeline project proponent would be prepared to test this new process or have a reasonable expectation of a positive outcome at the end of it.” He went on to say, “If the goal is to curtail oil and gas production and to have no more pipelines built, this legislation may have hit the mark.”

What is the finance minister going to do if the capital flight that has been under way for months cannot be reversed? What is he going to do if nobody will invest and create jobs in the resource sector? What is he going to do if interest rates exceed his expectations? What is he going to do if there is a real estate price correction? What is he going to do if the NAFTA renegotiations end in trade restrictions that damage Canadian access to the American market? Even with everything going his way he cannot balance the budget. Was he going to do it if any of these eventualities happen or any of the hundred other unforeseen events should happen? Now is the time to establish a fiscal cushion to prepare for the inevitability of difficult times ahead.

The budget is not balanced. There is no plan to balance it. There is no date for the budget to be balanced. There is no plan that will get pipelines built, which has a significant impact on the finance minister's ability to balance future budgets. There is no apology by the Liberals to Canadian voters for breaking their promise on the deficit in the first place. There is nothing in the budget implementation act to address any of these issues.

What does this bill do? It makes certain changes to the Income Tax Act to implement changes announced by the Minister of Finance last summer on the taxation of Canadian-controlled private corporations, and other tax changes that we are now getting to the point where the CRA has to actually implement them.

We know that on July 17, the Minister of Finance dropped his bombshell announcing that too many wealthy Canadians were using complex corporate structures to avoid taxes. He went on to announce, following a brief summertime sham consultation, that the Liberals would ram through private corporate tax changes to severely restrict dividend payments between related shareholders, the so-called sprinkling, eliminate the dividend tax credit, which would create the double taxation of passive income with rates at about 73%, and make it virtually impossible to sell a business to a relative, among other things.

I am sure that every member of this House heard from small business owners who do not have a pension, do not have a minimum wage, do not have the protections of employment law, and cannot collect employment insurance. They have to be 100% liable for the conduct of their own employees, who they also cannot sue for gross negligence. What all of these people, these hard-working business owners, heard in the summer was the wealthy finance minister called them tax cheaters.

What happened after that announcement was remarkable. Business owners and tax experts all across Canada spontaneously rose up and with diverse voices unanimously spoke in opposition to every aspect of the minister's proposals. This grassroots opposition did cause the government to partially backpedal on some of its plans contained in this bill. The part of last summer's announcement that many found the most egregious was the double taxation of passive income. Therefore, in December, the finance minister backpedalled and said there would be a limit under which the double tax would not apply. What he did instead in the budget, was he said there would now be a tie-in between passive income and access to the small business rate, which will now be reduced or eliminated for small business owners who have passive incomes of greater than $50,000.

My suggestion to addressing the problem that he created back in the summer was simply a complete retraction of what the Liberals had announced then, and an apology to all of the hard-working small business owners across Canada who were deeply wounded by the bold assertions the finance minister made. Let us face it. The reason the finance minister and the Prime Minister believe that small businesses are really just tax dodges for the wealthy is that they themselves use private corporations to dodge taxes. All the while he was pointing his finger at shopkeepers, farmers, plumbers, realtors, accountants, doctors, lawyers, engineers, taxi drivers, and restaurant owners, the finance minister, that wealthy-born one percenter, was found to have failed to disclose the private corporation he used for tax planning purposes to shelter income and future gains on his French villa. Contrary to his past statements and all expectations of a minister of the crown, much less a finance minister, the finance minister still owned millions of dollars of Morneau Shepell shares.

How was that fact concealed from the public for almost two years? The shares were held in a private numbered company the finance minister registered in Alberta, presumably for tax-planning purposes. It was owned by him, his wife, and another Ontario numbered company. For the first time in the span of a few months, the finance minister was found not only to be personally using complex corporate structures to avoid paying tax but was using them to avoid requirements of the Conflict of Interest Act.

It is high time for this finance minister to end his war on small-business owners and to apologize for his own hypocrisy instead of proceeding with changes to the Income Tax Act contained in this bill.

If passed, this bill would also hand over to the CRA responsibility for dealing with the changes to the tax on split income and the reduction of the limit on the small-business tax rate for small businesses with over $50,000 in passive income.

As shadow minister for national revenue, I could not help but notice that 2017 was a particularly tough year for the Minister of National Revenue and her agency. Every time we turned around, it seemed the agency had a half-baked plan to raise additional tax revenue at the expense of some vulnerable group or another, such as when the minister spent the entire months of October and November insisting that the CRA had done nothing to deny the disability tax credit to type 1 diabetics, despite the fact that it was obvious to everyone except her, and perhaps her parliamentary secretary, that of course the CRA had changed its forms in May 2017 to make it harder to qualify.

The agency also changed its folio to state that after 2017, it would tax employee discounts and meals, but the minister again seemed to be the last person at the agency to be aware that this was being done, before she ordered a reversal. The agency also appeared to be targeting single parents, restaurant-server tips, and disabled Canadians, who suddenly had problems qualifying for the disability tax credit.

On top of that, tax preparers complained about an ever-increasing backlog of corrections and appeals caused by sloppy or incompetent assessments, and a scathing Auditor General's report confirmed that the agency's call centre hangs up on people 64% of the time and gives incorrect information to 30% of the rest who get through.

To an agency already struggling, and a minister who is clearly not in control of her department, this bill would now add a complex reasonableness test for dividends paid to related shareholders of private corporations. Let us think about that. An agency that hangs up on people and is wrong almost a third of the time when it speaks to taxpayers would now have to answer questions about things like the reasonableness of the payment of dividends, questions about share classes, questions about labour contributions, questions about property contributions, questions about the financial risks assumed, and a great catch-all, questions about such other factors as may be relevant.

How on earth can Canadians expect that they will get reliable answers to these questions, given the track record of both the current government and the CRA's call centre? These questions have been asked here in this House and at committee meetings and even at public meetings attended by the minister, and nobody from the government has been able to give anything but the most vague and hypothetical answers to these questions. Canadians might be forgiven if they are a bit worried that nobody knows the answers to these questions and that the legality of thousands of Canadians' tax planning is going to be at the mercy of future court decisions.

It would be very easy to go on for a lot longer about different aspects of this act, such as the implementation of the higher taxes on beer, wine, and spirits and the escalator clause; and certainly about the carbon tax, which is also part of the government's horrific mismanagement of its natural resources policy and an outrageously regressive tax on the poorest and most vulnerable members of society. However, time marches on, so I will wrap up.

I would like to conclude by urging members to vote against this bill, given that it would increase taxes; would fail to even address the very concept of a balanced budget; would do absolutely nothing to get pipelines built, the very same pipelines the budget needs for its own tax revenue; would help facilitate this minister's war on small business through the changes to the taxation of private corporations, and of course, would enable the job-destroying, poverty-inducing carbon tax. Therefore, I will be voting against this act, and I urge all other members to do so as well.

The Environment

[Jonathan Wilkinson, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change]

Mr. Speaker, our government has brought forward in Bill C-69 better rules for the review of major projects that will protect our environment, fish, and waterways; will restore public trust and respect indigenous rights; and will strengthen our economy and encourage investment. Reforms to these laws were important because of the gutting of environmental assessment procedures undertaken in 2012 under the previous Conservative government. We are committed to changing the way decisions on projects are made so that they are guided by science, evidence, and indigenous traditional knowledge.

Natural Resources

[Andrew Scheer, Conservative, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, the reason the stakes are so high for Trans Mountain is because of the government's disastrous energy policy from start to finish.

It vetoed northern gateway, something that had gone through an independent, evidence-based analysis. It killed energy east. It has driven out $87 billion worth of investment in the energy sector. It has brought in Bill C-69, which has further shaken confidence in Canada's economy.

Why is that the Trans Mountain project had to become a crisis before the Prime Minister finally took action?

Fisheries Act

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by acknowledging we are on the traditional territory of the Algonquin people, and express gratitude to them for their generosity and patience. Meegwetch.

I also want to thank the hon. member for Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook for sharing his time with me, and acknowledge this shows a spirit of respect toward opposition benches from the current Liberal government. I am grateful for the opportunity to speak, although I still must object to the use of time allocation and reducing time for debate in this place. However, the respect shown in shortening time but still allowing a member such as me to have at least one crack in second reading to this very important legislation is appreciated. It is particularly appreciated when I stand to speak, with shared time from a Liberal member, with the intention of attacking Liberal legislation, which I have done recently with shared time.

Today is a different occasion. Bill C-68 would repair the damage done to the Fisheries Act under former budget implementation omnibus bill, Bill C-38, in the spring of 2012, as the hon. member for Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook was just referencing. This bill goes a long way. Within the ambit of what the Minister of Fisheries can do, it would repair the damage done by omnibus budget bill, Bill C-38, in relation to the Fisheries Act. I want to speak to that, as well as the one aspect where it would not fully repair the damage.

This is definitely a historic piece of legislation. The Fisheries Act was brought in under Sir John A. Macdonald. Canada has had a fisheries act for 150 years. That act traditionally dealt with what is constitutionally enshrined as federal jurisdiction over fish, and some people may wonder where the environment landed in the Constitution of Canada and the British North America Act. Where was the environment? The fish are federal. The water is provincial if it is fresh water, and federal if it is ocean water, so there has always been a mixed jurisdiction over the environment.

Over fish, there has been no question. Fish are federal. In the early 1980s, this act received a significant improvement, which was to recognize that fish move around and they cannot be protected without protecting their habitat. The Fisheries Act was modernized with a real degree of environmental protection. It had always been a strong piece of environmental legislation, because if we protect fish then we tend to protect everything around them.

In this case, the Fisheries Act was improved in the early eighties by a former minister of fisheries, who by accident of history, happened to be the father of the current Minister of Fisheries. It was the Right. Hon. Roméo LeBlanc. We use the term “right honourable” because he went on to be our Governor General. He amended the Fisheries Act in the 1980s to include protection of fish habitat, requiring a permit from the federal Minister of Fisheries if that habitat was either temporarily or permanently harmed or damaged. This piece of legislation is the significant pillar upon which much of Canada's environmental regulation rested.

What happened in Bill C-38 in the spring of 2012 was a travesty that remains in the annals of parliamentary history as the single worst offence against environmental legislation and protection by any government ever. It was followed up with a second omnibus budget bill in the fall of 2012, Bill C-45, which took an axe to the Navigable Waters Protection Act. In the spring, Bill C-38 repealed the Environmental Assessment Act and replaced it with a bogus act, which I will return to and discuss. Bill C-38 also repealed the Kyoto Protocol Implementation Act, the National Roundtable on Environment and the Economy, and gutted the Fisheries Act.

Rather than go on about that, the hon. member who was just speaking referenced the changes made. I can tell people some of the changes that were made, and I was so pleased to see them repealed. When one opens a copy of Bill C-68, the first thing one sees is subclause 1(1), “The definitions commercial, Indigenous and recreational in subsection 2(1) of the Fisheries Act are repealed.” This is not a scientific thing. This is what Bill C-38 did to our Fisheries Act. Fish were no longer fish. They were only fish if they were commercial, indigenous, or recreational. That language came straight from a brief from industry. It did not come from civil servants within the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. It came from the Canadian Electricity Association. That is repealed.

This bill would bring back protections for habitat. It goes back to looking at some of the foundational pieces of how the Fisheries Act is supposed to work, and then it goes farther.

I have to say I was really surprised and pleased to find in the bill, for the first time ever, that the Fisheries Act will now prohibit the taking into captivity of whales. That was a very nice surprise. It is proposed section 23.1. I asked the minister the other day in debate if he would be prepared to expand this section with amendments, because over on the Senate side, the bill that was introduced by retired Senator Wilfred Moore and is currently sponsored by Senator Murray Sinclair, and I would be the sponsor of this bill if it ever makes it to the House, Bill S-203, would not only ban the taking of whales into captivity but the keeping of whales in captivity. I am hoping when this bill gets to the fisheries committee. We might be able to expand that section and amend it so that we can move ahead with the protection of whales.

This bill is also forward-looking by introducing more biodiversity provisions and the designation of areas as ecologically sensitive, work that can continue to expand the protection of our fisheries.

I will turn to where there are gaps. Because I completely support this bill, while I do hope for a few amendments, they come down to being tweaks.

Where does this bill fail to repair the damage of Bill C-38? It is in a part that is beyond the ability of the Minister of Fisheries to fix. That is the part about why Harper aimed at the Fisheries Act, the Navigable Waters Protection Act, and the Environmental Assessment Act.

There was not random violence in this vandalism; it was quite focused. It was focused on destroying the environmental assessment process so that we would no longer be reviewing 4,000 projects a year. Of those 4,000 projects a year that were reviewed under our former Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, most of them, about 95% of them, were reviewed through screenings that were paper exercises, that did not engage hearings, and so forth. However, it did mean that, at a very preliminary level, if there was a problem with a project, a red flag could go up, and it could be booted up for further study.

There is a reason that the Fisheries Act habitat provisions were repealed. They were one of the sections listed in our former Environmental Assessment Act under what was called the “law list”, where a minister giving a permit under section 35 of our former Fisheries Act automatically triggered that the decision was subject to an environmental assessment.

Similarly, why did the former government take a hatchet to the Navigable Waters Protection Act? Like the Fisheries Act, it is an act we have had around for a long time, since 1881. It was not an act that had impeded the development of Canada or we would never have had a railroad. Since 1881, we have had the Navigable Waters Protection Act. The previous government took a real axe to it. The current Minister of Transport has gone a long way toward fixing it under one portion of Bill C-69.

This is why. Navigable waters permits also were a trigger under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. Do members see where I am going here? This was synchronized action. It was not random.

The current government has pledged to fix all of the damage done by the previous government to environmental laws. Where the failure to fix things is evident is in what is called the “impact assessment act” in Bill C-69. It has abandoned the concept of a law list altogether. It has abandoned the concept of having permits and environmental assessments required whenever federal money is engaged. In other words, the Harper imprint of going from 4,000 projects reviewed a year to a couple of dozen will remain the law of the land without significant improvement to Bill C-69. In particular, the decisions the Minister of Fisheries makes should be subject to an EA, just as the decisions of the Minister of Transport should be subject.

In my last minute, I want to turn our attention to something I hope the Minister of Fisheries will take up next, because he is doing a great job. I hope he will take up looking at open-pen salmon aquaculture. It must end. It is a threat to our wild salmon fishery on the Pacific coast. It is a threat to the depleted wild Atlantic salmon stocks on the Atlantic coast, where I am originally from. There is no Atlantic salmon fishery because it has been destroyed. However, there are still Atlantic salmon, which could restore themselves if they did not have to compete with the escapement of Atlantic salmon from fish farms in Atlantic Canada, and the destruction of habitat by those farms. On the west coast, these are not even indigenous species that are escaping and threatening our wild salmon.

Let us close down open-pen fisheries, give aquaculture to the Minister of Agriculture, have fish in swimming pools on land, and let the Minister of Fisheries protect our coastal ecosystems.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

The specific concern was raised that they thought Bill C-69 does not have enough emphasis on the economic advantages or benefits.

What I'm asking is this. Should we not be doing a balance? My recollection is that, at every hearing I've been at, we hear lots about the economic benefits. The local county comes in, the local towns, and so forth. Should we not also be hearing about the other side, possible economic costs?

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

Following up on that, one of the things that were novel...and I think for a lot of people who are looking at Bill C-69, their only experience was with CEAA 2012. It's not to say that they don't have background and experience, but some people are relatively newer to the process than are some of us who have been through this a few times.

Prior to CEAA 2012 there wouldn't have been the problem for your industry of the National Energy Board, the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, or the offshore boards having a role. You worked exclusively with one agency. I don't want to answer the question for you, but what is your experience with the energy regulators' introduction to the process?

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

Okay, so you have a lot of experience.

I wanted to ask is that, given your experience, on behalf of the mining industry, interacting with several different iterations of environmental assessment law in Canada.... You've experienced the environmental assessment process up to 2012, under the previous CEAA. You've experienced CEAA 2012. I know you haven't experienced Bill C-69 because it isn't in place yet, but from what you're experienced, Mr. Gratton, which would you say was the form of EA that was fairest and easiest to work with from the point of view of MAC?

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

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

Thank you, folks, for being here. It's very good testimony, and I truly appreciate the very pointed recommendations that you're all making.

The first question is going to go to the Canadian Electricity Association, Francis or Terry.

Bill C-69 has shortened timelines for decision-making, both for project reviews and for cabinet. With the new early planning phase, which will include outreach with stakeholders, indigenous communities, and others, do you think the time frames are going to be reasonable to get all this done?

I'm looking at Terry only because I know him, but, Francis, perhaps you...?

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

Thank you very much, Madam Chair and members of the committee. It's a pleasure for the Mining Association of Canada to be with you today.

Members of the committee, I'm mad.

Last week, you heard from Minister Carr, who said:

All projects that are currently under review will be reviewed under the National Energy Board

Even after the legislation is proclaimed, these projects that began under the current system will remain under the current system unless the proponent makes the choice to move to the new one. It would be a decision that the proponent would make.

It makes sense. Such logic befits a democratic country such as ours, where rule of law is respected.

What he didn't tell you is that for mining projects and all others subject to agency assessment, the rule of law will be ignored by this bill. In the case of mining, only projects at the very end of their reviews, awaiting final decisions, will remain under CEAA 2012. All other projects that are any earlier in the process will transfer to the new IA act and essentially start again in some way, shape, or form to be determined by officials on a case-by-case basis, however they think best, at a date we don't yet know.

When we asked why this is, we were told that the government is concerned that there would be projects a few years after the act came into force that would still be governed by CEAA 2012, and that these assessments would lack public confidence. They said they wanted to clean house and bring all assessments forward under one act, to make their workload a little less complicated. The fact that it will make the workload of mining companies wanting to invest billions of dollars in Canada a whole lot more complicated didn't seem to matter.

I ask this committee: Why is it that the government feels there will be a lack of public confidence in mining reviews but not pipelines? Why the double standard in Bill C-69?

Shouldn't the government be more concerned about the lack of international investor confidence in Canada's respect for the rule of law?

To be clear, it is not fear or opposition to the IA act that makes me say this. As will be evident in a minute, we believe that the proposed legislation, implemented well, may result in an improved review process for mining over CEAA 2012. The problem is the uncertainty. Proponents making billion-dollar investments need to know what the rules are and how they will be implemented. You can't have this certainty knowing that the rules may change midstream in some way.

Thus MAC strongly recommends that the committee support the proposed amendment in our submission that would change the transition provisions by amending proposed section 181 so that projects undergoing CEAA 2012 agency assessment will continue under CEAA 2012, but allow the proponent to request transition of the assessment to the IAA or impact assessment act; i.e., the same as for NEB projects.

Now let me turn to comments on the rest of the proposed legislation. A number of measures, implemented well, as I said, hold the promise of an improved review process for mines.

Mining is constitutionally the responsibility of provinces, and each of Canada's provinces has its own environmental assessment regime. In addition to the requirements for building and operating a mine, provinces require companies to develop reclamation plans and provide financial assurance for their implementation. Co-operation with other jurisdictions on project review is, therefore, critical for the mining sector.

Although CEAA 2012 introduced the possibility of substitution to other jurisdictions, in practice this has only been taken up by one province, British Columbia.

CEAA 2012 also introduced legislated timelines, which are critical for industry and the smooth functioning of assessment. However, CEAA 2012's timelines are rigid and have had the unintended effect of making co-operation more difficult and at times unworkable with other jurisdictions that have not pursued substitution.

The proposed IAA maintains timelines but provides for flexibility to better align with other jurisdictions, plus it contains a number of other measures that should improve co-operation with provincial governments. As well, we are encouraged that the proposed legislation provides for extending co-operation with indigenous governments.

There is one notable exception with regard to uranium mines and mills, and that is the one my colleague and friend Liam Mooney just mentioned. I won't repeat what he just said—I think he made exactly the same point I was going to make—except to emphasize that while, as I've just said, there are measures in this proposed legislation that promise to improve coordination for mining projects with other levels of government, it takes a step backwards when it comes to uranium mines and mills. That needs to be addressed in the way that Liam Mooney just outlined. We urge this committee to take that recommendation extremely seriously. It's our understanding as well that this is an inadvertent measure, so I'm hopeful this committee will recognize that and correct it.

Beyond provincial assessments and permitting and federal assessment, many mines require other federal approvals. Inadequate interdepartmental coordination has been a source of duplication and delays for mining for years. MAC, therefore, is encouraged by proposed subsection 13(2) and related provisions, which hold the promise of improved coordination and shorter timelines, though I might add that the different treatment of NEB projects and CEAA suggests there is still work to do to improve coordination between two parts of government.

Perhaps our greatest concern with CEAA 2012 has been how it has disproportionately applied the responsibility for cumulative effects to proposed mining projects and not to the sources of most environmental effects. The project-by-project approach to addressing cumulative effects in CEAA 2012 is dysfunctional, penalizing responsible project proponents while failing to address cumulative effects resulting from activities that are not designated projects under the act.

The mining industry is not the only user of the land base. Its impacts are localized and, on most metrics of environmental effects, dwarfed by other activities.

We're encouraged, therefore, by the approach proposed in the IAA, which includes cumulative effects as a factor to consider in decision-making, but not as a sole factor. The IAA also proposes to strengthen provisions for regional and strategic assessments.

Governments are best placed to undertake cumulative effects assessment on a regional basis. We've been advocating these measures for over 15 years, so we are pleased to see them incorporated in Bill C-69, An Act to enact the Impact Assessment Act.

It is critical, however, that the completion of regional assessments not be a prerequisite to individual project assessments. It would be unreasonable and prohibitive to Canada's investment climate to delay projects while awaiting governments to address all relevant gaps.

It will take many years to complete regional studies across the country, and we can't wait for all of those to be completed before we allow projects to move forward.

Related to these issues is the project list, where mining makes up the vast majority of CEAA projects despite a relatively small footprint. While the revision of the regulations designating physical activities is subject to separate consultations, we are concerned that the IAA will remain arbitrarily and disproportionately applied to mining. Should this be the case, it will hamper our sector while not achieving the sustainability, public trust, and indigenous reconciliation goals the act is purported to advance.

Let me conclude with the following message. Our sector has entered a new period of strong commodity prices, and decisions are being made around the world on where to invest. Unfortunately, pipeline politics and the general politicization of natural resources development, in a country that is a recognized leader in natural resources, are putting our country's future at serious risk.

Canada's relative share of global mineral exploration investment has fallen by half in the past five years, and the number of projects submitted for review has hit record lows since the original CEAA was proclaimed in 1992.

Sadly, most of my members are not choosing Canada right now, and I fear that, unless the situation I described improves quickly, Canada is going to largely miss the current cycle. This will impact a sector with nearly 400 agreements with indigenous communities across Canada, which has become the largest employer of indigenous people and one of the largest clients of indigenous businesses.

Canada is in desperate need of some stability and predictability in the regulatory environment governing natural resources. It is in this spirit that we submit our comments on this proposed legislation. The proposed legislation, while not perfect, addresses some long-standing concerns we've had with federal environmental assessment and some more recent problems we've experienced with CEAA 2012. If implemented well—this is a critical “if”—and if you support our two critical amendments, the proposed legislation could bring some certainty and predictability back to the federal project review of mining projects.

Thank you.

[Liam Mooney, Vice-President, Cameco Corporation, Canadian Nuclear Association]

Thank you, John.

One specific amendment that the CNA would like to propose is on the multiple scoping phases in the proposed process. The planning phase was intended, in part, to improve certainty and predictability by determining the requirements that the proponent would have to meet early in the process. In our view, the bill's process does not achieve that goal.

The proposed bill sets out an initial scoping by the agency as informed by federal authorities, all other jurisdictions, the public, and indigenous groups. However, the bill also allows for two additional scoping phases: one at the sole discretion of the agency, and one by the review panel, which is appointed later. These final two potential scoping phases are well into the process. They could change the scope of the project after the proponent has spent years and millions of dollars to comply with the original scoping decision.

For panel reviews, a “one project, one review” process can only occur if the scoping stage is coordinated amongst the agency, the review panel, and all federal regulators, as well as harmonized with provincial or other jurisdictional requirements. For this to occur, two overarching amendments must be made: first, the chronology of the provisions in the proposed bill must be changed, and second, successive scoping stages throughout the assessment process must be replaced by a consolidated, single, harmonized scoping early in the process, which is led by the review panel.

The CNA would also like to propose an amendment with respect to uranium mining. Similar amendments have been proposed by the Mining Association of Canada and the Prospectors & Developers Association of Canada. More specifically, designated projects that are related to uranium mines and mills, like any other designated mining project, should undergo agency assessments with full access to provisions with co-operation with provinces and indigenous governing bodies.

Uranium mines and mills, like all other mines and mills, are subject to provincial regulatory and permitting frameworks, but they are also regulated by the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission. Federal environmental assessment legislation has historically allowed the CNSC to co-operate with a province in the ongoing oversight of uranium mines and mills. However, Bill C-69 would preclude this co-operation and prevent agency-led assessments, joint review panel assessments, and substitution for all designated projects that are regulated by the CNSC. As a result, the opportunity for co-operation with a province and using a “one process, one assessment” approach is lost by treating all such projects as exclusively in federal jurisdiction.

There's no justification for such different treatment, because the complexity and impacts of uranium mines and mills are not in a different category from those of other mines and mills. Co-operative assessment processes across jurisdictions increase efficiency and decrease timelines and costs, and should be available to uranium mines and mills. The CNSC, like other federal regulatory bodies, would have the opportunity to be engaged in an agency-led assessment as provided for in the proposed process to encourage coordination within the federal government.

The CNA urges the committee to recommend changes to the provisions dealing with CNSC-regulated projects to permit designated projects related to uranium mines and mills to access the agency assessment provisions of the bill, including the suite of provisions related to co-operation with provinces and indigenous governing bodies. Further, we would propose that mines and mills be specifically excluded from the automatic panel review created by proposed section 43, by adding “other than a uranium mine or mill” after each reference to the Nuclear Safety and Control Act.

[Dr. John Barrett, President and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Nuclear Association]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

My name is John Barrett, and I am president and CEO of the Canadian Nuclear Association. With me today is Liam Mooney, vice-president of safety, health, environment quality, and regulatory relations with Cameco Corporation.

The Canadian Nuclear Association has approximately 100 members, representing more than 60,000 Canadians employed directly or indirectly in uranium mining and exploration, fuel processing, electricity generation, and the production and advancement of nuclear medicine.

Today, nuclear energy produces approximately 20% of Canada's non-emitting clean electricity, including 63% of Ontario's electricity. Of note is that, when the Ontario government committed to phasing out coal generation across the province, a major part of this commitment was made possible through the refurbishment of six reactors. Looking to the future, nuclear energy will play an increasingly important role in the overall low-carbon energy mix, as well as in nuclear medicine, advanced manufacturing, and electronics.

Canada's nuclear industry also works closely with indigenous peoples and communities, not only to enable proactive engagement but also to create mutually beneficial opportunities. As one example, Cameco has worked closely with indigenous communities in northern Saskatchewan for decades on environmental stewardship, community investment, employment, education and training, and contracting opportunities. Cameco has demonstrated the power of such partnerships in improving the economic and social well-being for communities and the benefits of working together to bring about real change.

I would like to preface our feedback today by highlighting, first, the concept of cumulative impact, which is a key issue not only with respect to the environment but also with respect to investment in Canada. Large energy projects require large amounts of capital, capital is fluid, and investors do not like uncertainty, so any new legislation, no matter how well intentioned, creates initial uncertainty.

Against this backdrop, CNA would like to offer the following comments and amendments for your consideration on Bill C-69.

Let's start with joint panels. The draft bill proposes that a single government agency be responsible for impact assessment reviews. In the case of the nuclear industry, the bill only provides for the option of an agency-led joint panel review. While joint panels are not new—we've had them in the past—CNA does not believe this will be an improvement over the current process.

Most of the potential impacts considered in relation to nuclear projects are related to radiation protection and international commitments on safeguards and non-proliferation. That work must be overseen by an agency with significant and specialized scientific expertise. The Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, CNSC, is the only place in government with that expertise. The CNA believes that assessment should remain at the CNSC, as the most efficient and effective way of conducting reviews.

As a full life-cycle regulator, the CNSC licensing regime and regulatory framework already covers the entire life cycle of the project and is subject to the Nuclear Safety and Control Act and its regulations. This allows CNSC, the commission, not only to conduct the impact assessment in the planning phase of the project, but also to ensure that monitoring programs and follow-up conditions required by the impact assessment are directly integrated into the licensing process throughout the various stages of the projects. In this regard, our industry is unique, and the CNSC uniquely has the expertise to best manage our projects.

I'll turn now to the designated project list. Bill C-69 makes provisions for a designated project list to be created by regulation. This list determines what projects are subject to review by the new agencies, and by default, what projects will be reviewed by the life-cycle regulator, as is the case in the nuclear industry. It is difficult to fully consider the impact and consequences of the impact assessment agency without fully understanding what projects will come under the IAA review.

The CNA believes a facility or project should undergo one impact assessment for its life cycle. As drafted, proposed section 43 could be interpreted as to require an impact assessment for any activity at a facility regulated under the Nuclear Safety and Control Act. However, maintenance, technological, and capital upgrades are fully regulated by the life-cycle regulator, by provincial regulators, or by other federal authorities, and thus, there is no need for a new IA. Therefore, this could be clarified.

In addition, many of our sites are large and with significant space for new facilities, including new reactors and research facilities that could require an IA under the new agency. Most nuclear sites have undergone full environmental assessments. They have had continuous environmental monitoring and their environmental impact is well understood. If a new project were to occur on one of these existing sites, it should not require a full impact assessment, but rather, an assessment of the delta between what has already been done and what is now required. In our view, the delta assessment could be best done by the life-cycle regulator.

On timelines, CNA members have significant concerns over the proposed timelines. We understand and we appreciate the government's intention with an early planning phase, but are somewhat skeptical of the potential effectiveness.

As the early planning phase occurs after the proponent has provided an initial project description, the proponent will have already undertaken stakeholder engagement to ensure the business case and to have some degree of confidence that the issues can be mitigated. The CNA believes the current process already allows for the important early input and engagement from local communities, indigenous groups, and public stakeholders.

In addition to the uncertainty caused by creating a new agency-run early engagement process, Bill C-69 dramatically increases the scope of assessment, by adding several new elements of review. While the criteria, aims, and goals of environmental assessment are well understood and measurable, there is a great deal of uncertainty around some of the new elements of assessment. We would like to work with the government to provide greater definition on how the various elements are weighted in decision-making. Are all elements weighted equally? Is there a minimum weighting level that must be met?

Answers to such questions will help proponents factor these elements into their project descriptions and their early engagement with stakeholders. Also, our members have concerns about how closure will be achieved with respect to issues raised through the review process. It is our view that, without some decision-making procedure that allows closure on contentious issues, the new IA process will simply add uncertainty and increased timelines, create additional work with minimal project benefits, and result in multiple legal challenges.

I will now hand it over to Liam Mooney for our recommendations.

[Francis Bradley]

In conclusion, the real test of this legislation will be whether good, sustainable projects that are in the interest of Canadians move through the process and get built in a timely fashion.

Currently, seven of Canada's 10 largest infrastructure projects are in the electricity sector. There are four hydro dams, two nuclear refurbishments, and a transmission line. Every one of these projects represents emissions-free energy for Canada.

Transitioning to a clean energy future won't just happen. We must decide as a nation to build it.

Developers must have a predictable, credible federal process to work through. New and innovative technologies must not be stifled.

Electricity is Canada's clean energy future. How Bill C-69 is framed and implemented will go a long way to determining whether we achieve our national aspirations.

Thank you for your attention, and we would be pleased to respond to any questions.

[Terry Toner, Director, Environmental Services, Nova Scotia Power, Canadian Electricity Association]

Thank you, Francis.

I'd like to begin by acknowledging that this bill contains a lot of progressive provisions. However, the following adjustments that we'll be talking about would further improve the intent of the impact assessment act and the Canadian energy regulator act. For the sake of brevity, I will be focusing my comments on the impact assessment portion.

Speaking about clarity and predictability, Minister McKenna and Minister Carr spoke to the need for project proponents to know what is required of them from the beginning of the regulatory process. We would suggest that some simple yet important modifications are necessary to meet this objective. Minister McKenna has made it clear that this act is focused on major projects. We support this, and we look forward to that being reflected in the project list.

The project list, to be developed by regulation, must firmly establish the scope of application of the impact assessment act. The power of the minister to designate other projects for review must be circumscribed and used only in exceptional circumstances, based on the criteria used to develop the list in the first place. The consideration of alternatives to a project should be limited to ones that are technically and economically feasible. Transitional provisions should also make clear that existing projects already on a regulatory path are not brought under the ambit of the impact assessment act.

In the quest for clarity and focus, we welcome strategic and regional assessments. It is our hope that these may ensure that individual project reviews are not burdened with analysis of impacts well beyond their scope. Too often now, project reviews are the place where we debate and litigate national policy in such domains as climate or indigenous reconciliation. A project review should be just that: a project review.

Speaking about timelines, while the timelines in the bill provide some guidance for project proponents, the government's goal of process predictability is significantly diluted by provisions in the acts that permit limitless extensions and suspensions. Time is of critical value, and it can make the difference between a project built and a project abandoned. We accept that there must be some flexibility, but there must also be discipline and transparency in order to ensure investor confidence in Canadian infrastructure projects.

Extensions decided by the Governor in Council should be published with reasons. There should be limits for the time taken by the minister to establish the terms of reference and the composition of a panel. Once a decision is made at the end of the process, there should be a firm timeline to issue the decision and no capacity for the Governor in Council to delay.

We also propose, for your consideration, a provision that could quite importantly give proponents and all participants some confidence that closure may be achieved at the end of an authoritative process, a privative clause that would narrowly contain the scope for legal challenges. There must be proper deference by all parties, including the courts, to the judgment exercised by the authorities entrusted with the administration of this legislation. A project decision must not be the beginning of a new process played out in the courts. There are precedents for such clauses in other federal and provincial acts.

Speaking about balance, it is critically important that the impact assessment act ensure balanced consideration of environmental and economic factors. The current draft is deficient in that it can easily be recalibrated as per the following recommendations.

The requirement to take into account whether the project hinders or contributes to the government's environmental obligations and commitments in respect of climate change is welcomed by our sector. We expect to make positive contributions to the pan-Canadian framework for clean growth and climate change, yet there must be as explicit a requirement to take into account economic benefits, which is currently implied only by reference to a broad concept of sustainability.

In speaking of cost recovery and proponents' obligations, any regulatory process must be subject to cost discipline. Costs charged to proponents should not exceed amounts reasonably incurred by the crown. For predictability and good management, there should also be provided to the proponent at the beginning of the process an estimate of projected costs—in effect, a budget.

Our full submission to the committee next week will summarize the intent and wording of our proposed amendments. We commend them to your attention.

[Francis Bradley, Chief Operating Officer, Canadian Electricity Association]

Thank you, Madam Chair and members of the committee, for inviting the Canadian Electricity Association, or CEA short, to appear before you on this important review of Bill C-69.

I am pleased to represent the association this morning, as our CEO, Sergio Marchi, had a prescheduled commitment outside Ottawa. I am accompanied by Terry Toner, director of environmental services with Nova Scotia Power.

Together, we will provide you with the electricity sector's perspective on the bill, specifically the Impact Assessment Act.

Before I do so, I'd like to say a few words about the association. The CEA is the national voice and forum for the Canadian electricity sector. Our membership is comprised of major generation, transmission, and distribution companies from across Canada, as well as manufacturers, technology companies, and consulting firms representing the full spectrum of electricity suppliers.

Electricity is indispensable to the quality of life of Canadians and to the competitiveness of our economy.

Indeed, the electricity sector is also uniquely positioned to contribute to a cleaner and greener energy era. For us to realize this opportunity, two conditions are critical. Our business environment must be competitive, and the regulatory framework must provide confidence that good projects will get built.

As an industry we are deeply preoccupied by the accumulation of wide-scoping federal and provincial-territorial legislative and regulatory changes. This pancaking effect challenges the economics of needed investments in energy projects.

The ministers who appeared before this committee last week spoke of their intent with Bill C-69, to ensure good projects get built. We applaud the intent; however, we believe that absent constructive amendments, Bill C-69 has the potential to discourage worthy investments.

As a committee, you have an opportunity and obligation to restore public trust and create more predictable, balanced, and workable legislation.

Let me turn to Terry Toner, who will share our specific recommendations.