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.

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

I would add that this is a different world from what it was in 1959 when the National Energy Board was first established. This is a different world even from what it was when the first idea of building pipelines was developed by proponents and the process of regulatory review was established a number of years ago.

This bill reflects that changing world, and we believe it reflects it in a way that recognizes and honours the three pillars of responsible economic development in the energy sector, and that is that we want good projects to go through. We understand that the expansion of export markets is of vital Canadian interest. Ninety-nine per cent of Canada's exports of oil and gas go to one country, the United States. We don't think that's healthy in the short term or the long term.

We started looking at what results we want and we concluded that we want responsible, good projects to go through in a timely way while respecting the environmental realities and our international and domestic obligations and our constitutional and moral obligations to indigenous peoples. We think that all three of those pillars and the values that underlie them are reflected in Bill C-69.

[John Aldag, Liberal, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

Ministers McKenna and Carr, thank you for coming to our environment and sustainable development committee to speak to Bill C-69. Like many of my colleagues, I believe this may be the most important piece of legislation that our government passes, and we have passed some very important legislation since forming office.

As a British Columbian with strong roots in the Prairies, I feel strongly that the current legislative and regulatory framework for projects has in the past decade failed our country, including our economy, our environment, and, as importantly, our indigenous peoples. We're seeing this through the conflict that's arisen, as an example, under the Kinder Morgan pipeline project that affects British Columbians, Albertans, and Canadians.

As a government, we added interim principles to address the shortcomings of the legislative and regulatory process left by the previous government for the Kinder Morgan pipeline project, and yet conflict remains.

Can each of you summarize for our committee and for Canadians who are following these hearings how Bill C-69 will provide clarity and certainty in the process for assuring future projects under federal jurisdiction, how this legislation will provide better protection for our environment, and how future assessments will include the input of Canadians, including indigenous Canadians with whom we, as a country, have a special relationship that requires special consideration? If you could each take about two minutes to provide your summary, that would be appreciated.

[Jim Carr, Liberal, Minister of Natural Resources]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Good morning, everybody.

Let me begin by thanking you for your work. Really, the work of committees is at the heart of our democracy. The fact that it's in the centre of this building is a metaphor for how important it is.

I want to say that for ministers to come together and be accountable in front of members of Parliament from all parties is one of the most important things that we ever do. I look forward to the exchange, which I am sure might have its spirited moments, and that's the way it should be.

I also want to begin by picking up on something that Minister McKenna said, right at the end of her remarks. That's the importance of Bill C-69, to ensure that the economy and the environment continue to go hand in hand.

It makes sense for us to appear together. I'm sure both Conservative and Liberal members will remember that it wasn't always this way. There was a time when ministers of the environment and natural resources would probably not sit at the same table. When they sat around even their own partisan tables, things were always a bit tense. We believe in 2018 that there is one conversation.

Also, the minister and I were together in Vancouver last week at the GLOBE conference, giving keynote addresses and participating in panel discussions during round tables with indigenous people, with environmentalists, with leaders of industry and clean technology. It didn't matter in front of what audience, our message was always the same, the message that we're delivering this morning.

I think it is a powerful message that Canadians see the Minister of Natural Resources and the Minister of the Environment and Climate Change sharing the same table, demonstrating that the economy and the environment are not competing interests, but equal components of a single engine that drives innovation, jobs, and economic growth. That has been our government's vision from day one, and the results speak for themselves.

Last year, Canada added more than 420,000 jobs, most of them full-time positions, and many of them in our resource sectors.

Alberta, a province hit hard by three years of low oil and gas prices, is among those posting large job gains, adding 55,000 new positions. Its economic output per capita is again leading the country.

As one University of Calgary professor told the Canadian Press last month, Alberta's economy is recovering faster than almost anyone could have expected. On the other side of the country, Quebec is essentially at full employment, with labour shortages reported in some parts of the province.

It's not surprising, then, that Canada led all G7 countries with 3% growth last year and that our unemployment rate has been hovering around 40-year lows. Such robust growth is difficult to duplicate year after year; we know that. We also know that governments are a part of it; job creation is really due to the actions of individual Canadians.

Economies have their cycles, but the message is clear: we can create good jobs for the middle class and those working hard to join it, with a future built on the three pillars of economic prosperity, environmental protection, and indigenous participation.

Bill C-69 is a big part of our vision. It has the potential to transform our natural resources sector by providing project proponents with clearer rules and greater certainty, by allowing local communities to have more input, and by ensuring indigenous people have more opportunities in the development and oversight of our nation's vast resources.

That includes our energy sector, which is why we are proposing a new Canadian energy regulator, or CER, to replace the existing National Energy Board. We want to create a new federal energy regulator with the necessary independence and the proper accountability to oversee a strong, safe, and sustainable Canadian energy sector in the 21st century.

It would be a federal regulator with a modern, effective governance structure, one that includes a chief executive officer who would be separate from the chair; a board of directors that would provide strategic direction, distinct from a group of independent commissioners responsible for adjudication; and at least one member of both the board and the commissioners who would be first nation, Inuit, or Métis.

That's what the Canadian energy regulator act proposes to do.

Under our plan, timelines for reviews would also be shorter, more predictable, and better managed. Project reviews would not exceed two years for major new projects, and not more than 300 days for smaller ones, all the while continuing to recognize the expertise of the offshore boards and the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission.

At the same time, the CER act would make public engagement more inclusive. For example, the NEB's existing “test for standing” would be eliminated to ensure every Canadian has an opportunity to express his or her views during project reviews. Participant funding programs would be expanded to support new activities.

We also want to advance reconciliation by building and funding the capacity of indigenous peoples to participate more meaningfully in project reviews, as well as recognizing indigenous rights up front, confirming the government's duty to consult, requiring consideration of traditional indigenous knowledge, and aiming to secure free, prior, and informed consent.

The new CER would have more powers to enforce stronger safety and environmental protections, including new powers for federal inspection officers.

All of these enhancements would ensure that good projects can proceed without compromising the environment or engagement, allowing our energy resources to get to markets in responsible, timely, and transparent ways.

Canadians have painted a similar picture for our country in this clean growth century through the hundreds of thousands who joined our ongoing Generation Energy discussion to imagine Canada's energy future, the hundreds more who travelled to Winnipeg last fall for our two-day Generation Energy forum, and the thousands who participated in 14 months of public consultation to draft this legislation. Canadians have told us that they want a thriving, low-carbon economy. They want us to be a leader in clean technology, and they want an energy system that provides equal opportunities to Canadians, while minimizing harm to the environment. They also understand that we're not there yet. We need to prepare for the future, but we must also deal with the present by providing energy that they can count on when they flick on a light or fill up their cars.

A modern energy regulator is essential to that, and to ensuring all Canadians have continued access to a safe, affordable, and reliable supply of energy. That has been the role of the National Energy Board since 1959. Under its almost 60-year-old mandate, the NEB has been responsible for making recommendations and decisions on projects, overseeing the safety and environmental performance of facilities, and engaging Canadians.

Today the NEB regulates approximately 73,000 kilometres of international and interprovincial pipelines and another 1,400 kilometres of international power lines, as well as all of our Canadian imports and exports of energy.

Unfortunately, the NEB's structure, role and mandate have remained relatively unchanged since the National Energy Board Act was first introduced in 1959.

That has created some challenges at a time when energy regulation should be evolving and adapting with the changing times, and when a modern energy regulator is central to integrating Canada's energy, economic, and climate goals. The new CER would help to address all of that.

For example, it would introduce a more inclusive approach to reviewing energy projects by incorporating a full impact assessment of key factors. As well, the CER's mandate would cover emerging energy developments such as the regulation of offshore renewable energy, and with legislative timelines, the new CER would significantly strengthen investment certainty. So will the new transition period that is based on clear rules, the earlier engagement to identify public priorities, the clearer direction on indigenous consultations, the coordinated activities between the CER and the new impact assessment agency, and the continued government responsibility for final decisions.

Bill C-69 is ambitious, but achievable. It is legislation designed for the Canada we know today, and the Canada we want for tomorrow, a Canada where we create the growing middle class we all want, while protecting the planet we all cherish for generations to come.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

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

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I certainly appreciate the opportunity to speak today about this important piece of legislation, and I really appreciate the hard work of all the committee members.

The legislation we introduced earlier this year aims to restore public trust in how the federal government makes decisions about such major projects as mines, pipelines, and hydro dams. These better rules are designed to protect our environment, improve investor confidence, strengthen our economy, and create good middle-class jobs. They will also make the Canadian energy and resource sectors more competitive.

With these better rules, we are working to build on Canada's strong economic growth and historic job numbers.

Together with my ministerial colleagues, I have been working very hard to deliver this government's promise to regain public trust in environmental assessment and regulatory processes to help get resources to market in a sustainable way and introduce new, fair processes. As a first step, in January 2016 we introduced an interim approach and principles that will guide decision-making for projects that were already in the system.

These interim principles clearly show the following.

First, decisions will be based on scientific and probative data as well as on sound traditional indigenous knowledge.

Second, we are going to listen to the opinion of Canadians and of their communities.

Third, indigenous people will be consulted in a significant and respectful way.

Fourth, decisions will consider the effects of the various projects on the climate.

Fifth, no project that has already been assessed will have to start the process from scratch.

Our government did not stop at interim principles. In June 2016, we launched a comprehensive process to review existing laws and seek Canadians' input on how to improve our environmental and regulatory system. This review was guided by two expert panels, two parliamentary committees, as well as extensive consultations with indigenous peoples, industry, provinces and territories, and the public.

The expert panel established in August 2016 and tasked with examining environmental assessment processes, travelled for four months to consult Canadians across the country. After that, the committee submitted to me a report that included a summary of the comments received and the way in which they had been examined, together with recommendations to improve federal environmental assessment processes.

The government then held a public comment period on that report and engaged with stakeholders and indigenous peoples. Over 1,000 online comments and 160 submissions were received, and over 100 in-person meetings were held with thousands of Canadians from across the country.

We then took all the information and input that we heard and released a discussion paper that outlined the government's proposed path forward, based on the feedback from the expert report and the submissions provided. This too was the subject of extensive consultations, both online and in person.

On February 8, I introduced Bill C-69, which is the culmination of all that input. The proposed legislation responds to what we heard from provinces and territories, indigenous peoples, industry stakeholders, environmental groups, and the public, addressing what matters to Canadians. Bill C-69 will introduce a modern assessment process that protects the environment, supports reconciliation with indigenous peoples, attracts investment, and ensures that good projects go ahead in a timely way to create new jobs and economic opportunities.

First, assessments will consider not just environmental impacts of projects, but also the social, health, and economic impacts they may cause. When making decisions, we will consider whether companies are using the best available technologies and practices to reduce impacts on the environment, and a gender-based analysis will ensure any potential impacts unique to women, men, or gender-diverse people are identified and addressed.

Under the proposed framework, decisions will be based on whether a project with adverse effects is in the public interest. A public interest determination will be guided by several factors, including the project's contribution to sustainability, impacts on indigenous peoples and their rights, and mitigation measures that are proposed to reduce the project's impacts on Canada's ability to meet its environmental obligations and climate change commitments.

Proactive strategic and regional assessments will allow the potential cumulative effects of development projects to be evaluated. In addition, the decision-making process will be more enlightened.

We also heard that project reviews need to be predictable, provide regulatory certainty, and work across multiple jurisdictions. The new legislation proposes to have one agency, the impact assessment agency of Canada, lead all major project reviews and coordinate with indigenous peoples. One project, one assessment, is a guiding principle to drive co-operative reviews and avoid duplication.

New tools are available for the impact assessment agency to work collaboratively with jurisdictions and with life-cycle regulators such as the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission and the proposed Canadian energy regulator to ensure this principle is met.

A new early planning phase will engage jurisdictions, potentially affected indigenous peoples and communities, to ensure that key issues are raised early so that project proponents know at the outset what is expected from them.

Thanks to this early planning and participation stage, we will also be able to encourage the public on the front lines to participate in the dialogue. That stage will also allow us to simplify the process, something that is positive for everyone.

For the first time, there will now be a legislated timeline for decision-making for assessment. These timelines will ultimately shorten project assessments, allowing proponents to spend more time investing in project development to build the Canadian economy.

Indigenous peoples are leaders in conservation. They've long been stewards of the environment and have rights related to the management of land, waters, and wildlife. They have knowledge of the land that spans generations. We will advance Canada's commitment to reconciliation and get to better project decisions by recognizing indigenous rights and working in partnership from the start.

We will require traditional indigenous knowledge to be considered, as well as available scientific and other data.

Indigenous governing bodies will have more opportunities to exercise their powers and responsibilities under the Act to enact the Impact Assessment Act.

In addition, we will increase funding to the Participant Funding Program to support indigenous participation and to strengthen capacities linked to impact assessments.

We also heard that Canadians want to ensure that assessments are grounded in science and that the process is transparent and accessible. The bill proposes a number of measures to address these issues. Greater public participation opportunities will be provided, including during the early planning phase and during the impact assessment process. All Canadians will be assured the ability to participate.

An online registry will provide access to information on specific environmental assessments of projects, including the scientific data used in the impact assessment.

Summaries of the facts supporting the assessments, written in plain language, will be made available in order to ensure strong participation.

Assessments and decisions will be informed by the best available science, evidence, and indigenous traditional knowledge. Scientific evidence will be tested, and where findings are uncertain, third party reviews will be available.

The bill also proposes to increase transparency by requiring that decisions, with detailed reasons, are made public so that Canadians can better understand the rationale behind the decisions.

As you know, the proposed impact assessment act was informed by extensive consultation, and I am committed to continuing the dialogue.

Since the bill was tabled in the House of Commons, I have met with stakeholders from industry and from environmental groups, with representatives of indigenous peoples, and with my provincial counterparts in order to obtain their reactions on what has been proposed in the bill.

The better rules we announced this year reflect what we have heard overwhelmingly and consistently from Canadians over the past year and a half.

They want a modern environmental and regulatory system that protects the environment, supports reconciliation with indigenous peoples, attracts investment, and ensures that good projects can go ahead, which creates good, middle-class jobs and grows our economy. As we always say, the environment and the economy go together.

Thank you, Madam Chair, for the opportunity to speak to the committee today. I would like to thank the committee for the collaborative approach that you have taken in your work around this table to date, and I look forward to the outcome of your review of this important piece of legislation.

[The Chair, Liberal, Deb Schulte]

That's great. We'll take those on board, and we'll put that for consideration at subsequent meetings. Thank you very much.

I want to welcome the ministers to the environment and sustainable development committee. We are kicking off our evaluation of Bill C-69, an act to enact the Impact Assessment Act and the Canadian Energy Regulator Act, to amend the Navigation Protection Act and to make consequential amendments to other acts. We're very, very appreciative of having both ministers here with us today.

I will turn the floor over to you for 10 minutes each. Then we'll go into our rounds of questioning.

Minister McKenna, I think you would like to go first. The floor is yours.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

I am giving notice of a motion that I think you will find interesting:

That, with regard to the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development's consideration of Bill C-69, an act to enact the Impact Assessment Act and the Canadian Energy Regulator Act, to amend the Navigation Protection Act and to make consequential amendments to other acts (a) the Chair of the Committee write, as promptly as possible, to the Chairs of the following standing committees inviting them to consider the subject-matter of the following provisions of the said Bill: (i) the Standing Committee on Natural Resources, Part 2 Canadian Energy Regulator Act, Part 3 Pipelines, Part 4 International and Interprovincial Power Lines, Part 5 Offshore Renewable Energy Projects and Offshore Power Lines, Part 6 Lands, Part 7, Exports and Imports, Part 8 Oil and Gas Interests, Production and Conservation, Part 9 and Part 4 at General; (ii) the Standing Committee on Transport and Infrastructure, Part 3 Navigation Protection Act; (iii) the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development, Standing Committee on Natural Resources,Standing Committee on Transport and Infrastructure, Part 4, Consequential and Coordinating Amendments and Coming into Force as the provisions may be relevant to each respective parts of bill C-69; (b) each of the standing committees, listed in paragraph (a), be requested to convey recommendations, including any suggested amendments, in both official languages, in relation to the provisions considered by them, in a letter to the Chair of the Standing Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development, in both official languages, no later than 9 a.m. on Monday, April 30 2018; and (c) any amendments suggested pursuant to paragraphs (b) shall be deemed to be proposed during the clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-69, and further provided that the members of the Standing Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development may propose amendments notwithstanding the recommendations received pursuant to paragraphs (b).

Thank you very much. I have copies that I can circulate.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

I would like to table a motion.

The motion is as follows:

That, with regard to the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development's consideration of Bill C-69, an act to enact the Impact Assessment Act and the Canadian Energy Regulator Act, to amend the Navigation Protection Act and to make consequential amendments to other acts—

Financial Statement of Minister of Finance

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for Beaches—East York for splitting his time with me. More specifically, I would like to thank the government House leader. As one can imagine, it has been a difficult thing for me over the years to obtain speaking slots on important bills. I went too quickly on my last occasion, where the Liberals offered me a speaking slot, because it was on the application of time allocation on Bill C-69, an omnibus bill. It was certainly egregious to have applied time allocation and to have made the bill omnibus in the first place. However, there is no question, and it bears repeating, that the spirit of co-operation to members on the other side such as myself, who are not likely to give a speech cheering the government on, means even more when the decision is made that a Liberal member of Parliament will split speaking time to allow me to speak to the issues before us.

In the instance of this budget speech, there is much to like in this budget. Before I get to that, let me just step back.

This is a concern I have been raising for years, going back to my election in 2011. It has been some time since we have had a budget that one could honestly describe as a budget. By this, I mean in the old days, say before 2006, when I would go to budget lock ups on behalf of Sierra Club of Canada. I would open the budget and would be able to find a budget for every department in the Government of Canada. I would be able to see what it spent last year and what it would spend next year. It would be easy to verify if there was an announcement in the budget for x hundreds of millions of dollars for thus and such, if it was new money or reprofiled old money. We no longer know any of these things. There is no budget in the budget.

It is a fundamental principle of Westminster parliamentary democracy that Parliament controls the public purse. That is now a laughable anachronism. It is anachronistic to imagine we actually control the public purse because we cannot see into it. I started describing this in the Harper era, but the budget every spring should be called the “annual, thick, spring brochure”. It is very thick and it is full of good ideas and lots of good rhetoric. However, it does not tell us the revenue coming in, the expenses going out, and the bottom line. This is something a basic budget in every household knows.

We know we have a deficit and we know the bottom line. Beyond that, we have to wait for supplementary estimates and other things that receive very cursory review in this place.

I make the plea again. I have noted things in this budget that are truly puzzling, but they are not explained. At page 324, the Government of Canada is projecting virtually no increase in spending over a five-year period. There is no explanation for it, but it is almost magical that right now there will be $95 billion in spending this year. In 2023, it will be $97 billion. There is no explanation offered for how, over a five-year period, spending stays virtually flat.

I could be wrong, and we need to dive into this as there may be more explanations, but it appears to me, from reading the charts on page 311, as if there are $20 billion found in savings to pay for some of the new programs in this budget, but it is not explained. There really is not much budget in the budget.

However, there are good things that will be funded, and I welcome those.

Let me mention the good things before I dive into the things that worry me.

The most important to the conscience of the nation is the commitment to fully implement the order of the Human Rights Tribunal in relation to the treatment of first nations children. This is fundamental, it is important, and it is stated in the budget that it is $1.4 billion in new money.

I congratulate the Minister of Indigenous Services, our former minister of health. I hope she has all our support in the task ahead. She has been very candid in laying out the challenges of providing clean drinking water, ensuring every indigenous person has access to affordable housing, that every indigenous child has the same access to health care and educational opportunities as non-indigenous children. This budget goes a long way to make that so. Money alone will not do this. We need to see this in a non-partisan light as fundamental.

Another thing I was pleased to see, after two years of Liberal administration, is this. I have been disheartened to see our commitment to overseas development assistance falling. We have a commitment, which came to us from our former prime minister, Lester B. Pearson, that every country on earth that is a donor country should contribute 0.7% of its GDP, gross domestic product, to overseas development assistance. The closest we ever got to that was under former Prime Minister Mulroney. We went to 0.45%. When the new Prime Minister came in 2015, we were at 0.26%, and we dropped to 0.24%. Therefore, I am really pleased to see in this budget the first new money to overseas development assistance, a $2 billion commitment over the next five years.

I am pleased to see changes to reverse some of the damage done by the Conservatives to those recipients of seasonal employment insurance. Many industries are seasonal, and people who have to get employment insurance more than once in their lifetime are not recidivists who need to be punished. They are people who work in the tourism or forest industries. We need to revisit that, and I would encourage the government to go further than it has.

Of course, we have seen a substantial commitment to the expansion of biodiversity protection to nature, and some money to the science of studying whales. I hope we are not studying them as they move to extinction. However, $1.3 billion over five years certainly must be noted and noted with approval.

We have seen improvements in this budget in commitments to actual science.

I will never forget the words of the 2012 budget. It is terrible that I remember verbatim the words of Harper's budgets. In 2012, it was stated that money from the federal government to science must be for projects that were “business, land, and industry-friendly”, in other words, no such thing as intellectual inquiry and basic fundamental research. Therefore, I am pleased to see that is gone by the board.

Most important, I am pleased to see a commitment, with no money, to pursue pharmacare for Canada. However, the Minister of Finance's comments immediately afterward suggests the Liberals do not understand the commitment.

Where am I disheartened, and I am fundamentally disheartened by this budget?

One thing we had been promised for small business was more clarity around the change in rules. It is true, and credit where credit is due to the Minister of Finance, that the controversial anti-small business provisions were eliminated. However, there is still a lot of uncertainty for small business about how income sprinkling will work. It said to not apply to those in the service sector, but that is not defined. Therefore, I would urge the government to consider giving the one-year delay in implementation so family businesses can sort this out, because it is not all that clear. They could be penalized a few years down the road when they are audited.

A second area where it was not quite what was promised is this. In October there had been a commitment that past savings accumulated by small business and family-held businesses would not be prejudiced by this, that there would not be retroactivity. However, when we really look at these passive investments, they are not really grandfathered, because they can boot that small business out of the small business tax rate and have a really large impact on their effective taxes. That needs to be revisited.

However, I am really horrified by the fact that in the year 2018 we have a budget with nothing new to address the climate crisis. In fact, we have some weakening of resolve. We were told initially that there would be a carbon price in place by 2018. The language we now find on page 151 of the budget is, “The Government will review each system”, referring to provincial systems, “and implement the federal system in whole or in part on January 1, 2019.” This is a very significant commitment, virtually the only one made by the Liberals in their election platform, and it is slipping into the distant horizon.

I also worry because another commitment made in the platform has not been acted on, which is to eliminate fossil fuel subsidies. We cannot keep subsidizing with tax dollars the very thing we are trying to reduce, which is the emissions of fossil fuels.

I was disappointed with respect to the budgets in 2016 and in 2017. In 2018, I am almost giving up. The Liberal government is capable of looking back to the budget of 2005, which was full of great climate programs, such as eco-energy retrofits, very popular job creators to fight greenhouse gases. We need to have an energy-efficiency revolution. I cannot find it here. We should be building the east-west electricity grid. It is not mentioned here. We are not seeing the programs to incentivize getting renewable energy for homeowners and small business, or for energy-efficient vehicles and electric vehicles. I ask the government to look again. It has to do more on climate.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Minister, in those bills that were put forward in Parliament, Bill C-68 and Bill C-69, the language around free, prior, and informed consent was specifically not in there. This is language you're committing to that will be committed to in law. That would actually change even the work that's been done in Bill C-68 and Bill C-69. If you're committed to the implementation and putting that language in, why is that language of free, prior, and informed consent not in Bill C-68 and not in Bill C-69?

Access to Briefing on Bill C-69—Speaker's Ruling

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

I am now prepared to rule on the question of privilege raised on February 26 by the hon. member for Abbotsford concerning briefings held by the Minister of Environment and Climate Change in relation to Bill C-69, an act to enact the Impact Assessment Act and the Canadian Energy Regulator Act, to amend the Navigation Protection Act and to make consequential amendments to other acts.

I would like to thank the member for Abbotsford for having raised this matter, as well as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and the member for Berthier—Maskinongé for their comments.

In raising the matter, the member for Abbotsford explained that within an hour of having introduced Bill C-69 in the House on February 8, a briefing on the bill was offered to the media and to stakeholders. This briefing was more than five hours before members of Parliament were offered the same. With members unable to respond immediately to media and stakeholder inquiries, he contended that this was a profound act of disrespect on the part of the minister that constituted a contempt of the House.

The parliamentary secretary disagreed, saying that the minister had not deliberately tried to impede members’ access to information on the bill and would offer additional briefings, if requested. Noting that the bill was not debated in the House until days later and that departmental briefings are beyond the purview of the Chair, the parliamentary secretary said that no breach of privilege had occurred.

As I already noted, the Chair is concerned that this question of privilege was not brought up at the earliest opportunity. Members know that in determining a question of privilege prima facie, the Speaker must consider whether the two requisite conditions have been met; that is, whether the matter was raised at the earliest opportunity and whether, in the Speaker's view, it constitutes, at first view, a breach of a parliamentary privilege.

With respect to timeliness, House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, states at page 145:

...the Member must satisfy the Speaker that he or she is bringing the matter to the attention of the House as soon as practicable after becoming aware of the situation. When a Member has not fulfilled this important requirement, the Speaker has ruled that the matter is not a prima facie question of privilege.

In this particular case, I note that between February 8, the date of the alleged contempt, and February 14, the date on which the member raised his complaint in the House, several sitting days had elapsed during which the member was aware of the situation that gave rise to his question of privilege. This is cause for concern for the Chair, particularly as the member did not provide an explanation as to why the condition of timeliness was not satisfied. While I am prepared to be flexible on this point this time and not dismiss his question of privilege for this reason alone, it is a condition that must be taken into account in assessing the alleged question of privilege.

Now, turning to the substantive elements of the member’s question of privilege, there have been past instances where members have raised concerns about departmental briefings. Speaker Milliken, in a ruling on November 21, 2002, stated, at page 1742 of the Debates:

It is very difficult for the Chair to intervene in a situation where a minister has chosen to have a press conference, or a briefing or a meeting and release material when the Speaker has nothing to do with the organization of that....The same thing goes for those who are invited to meetings and for the way people are notified of meetings. Whether there is one meeting, or three or four, makes no difference. In my opinion, it is impossible for me to intervene in this case.

It is equally important to understand that the House’s right to first access to legislation was respected in this instance since, as the member acknowledged, Bill C-69 was introduced in the House before either of the briefings in question took place. Thus, this situation cannot be characterized as one of premature disclosure of a bill, even if Members were excluded from the first briefing, that of the media.

The member stated that a contempt may occur if, by diminishing the respect it is due, the House’s ability to perform its functions is impeded. Speaker Sauvé, in a ruling on October 29, 1980, at page 4214 of the Debates, said:

…while our privileges are defined, contempt of the House has no limits. When new ways are found to interfere with our proceedings, so too will the House, in appropriate cases, be able to find that a contempt of the House has occurred.

This points to an essential truth that to constitute a contempt, it is necessary to demonstrate that a proceeding in the House, or the ability of members to fulfill their parliamentary duties, was in some way impeded. In response to a similar complaint, on December 4, 2014, at page 10168 of the Debates, my predecessor reminded the House:

That is not to say, however, that every proceeding or activity related to delivering or accessing information by members implicitly involves their parliamentary duties.

He also had cause to state on March 3, 2014, at pages 3429 and 3430 of Debates:

When a situation is brought to the Chair’s attention, it must be assessed within the somewhat narrow confines of parliamentary procedure and precedents. ...the Chair must assess whether the member has been obstructed in the discharge of his responsibilities in direct relation to proceedings in Parliament. ...a member who is preparing to participate in proceedings—whether through a technical briefing or some other means—is not participating in the proceedings themselves. While such preparation is no doubt important, it remains ancillary to, rather than part of, Parliament's proceedings.

That being said, as Speaker, I understand the member for Abbotsford's frustration and the sense of disrespect that he feels in not having had priority access to a briefing on such a complex piece of legislation. In fact, the Chair not only finds this matter to be unfortunate, but also entirely avoidable. While no parliamentary rules may have been broken or privileges breached, respecting members’ needs for timely and accurate information remains essential. There is no question that the work of members of Parliament is made more difficult without expeditious access to legislative information. Given this reality, there is a rightful expectation that those responsible for the information should do their utmost to ensure members’ access to it. Not respecting this expectation does a disservice to all. It is particularly disconcerting when the government gives priority to the media over the members of Parliament.

Having examined the evidence and given the limited parameters of the Chair in this matter, I cannot conclude that the House or its members were unable to fulfill their parliamentary duties. Accordingly, I cannot find that the question raised constitutes a prima facie contempt of the House, and thus there is no case of privilege.

I thank all honourable members for their attention.

Impact Assessment Act

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Hope, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I noticed that the member for Kildonan—St. Paul was not in the House for the previous vote on the Canada summer jobs, and came into the House well after the vote on the motion on Bill C-69 had started. I believe if you check with the member, she would indicate her vote should not count for this vote.

The House resumed from March 2 consideration of the motion that Bill C-69, An Act to enact the Impact Assessment Act and the Canadian Energy Regulator Act, to amend the Navigation Protection Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-69 is the latest monstrosity to come out of the Liberal government, a bill that will cripple Canada's energy industry and eliminate tens of thousands of good-paying jobs across communities in Canada, particularly in my home province of Alberta. This entire process is yet another concession made by the Liberal government to radical environmental groups that will not stop until Canada's oil and gas industry is eliminated.

I reject the argument that Canada's National Energy Board was not capable of making independent decisions based upon critical public evidence and public interest. Canada's environmental assessment process is among the best in the world, because for generations, Canadians have placed a high emphasis on environmental stewardship and responsible energy development. This symbiotic relationship has allowed Canada to be innovative with environmental regulation and solutions. Our energy industry as regulated under the National Energy Board has resulted in such benefits as hundreds of billions in investments, tax revenue, jobs, and long-term prosperity in our country.

The new Liberal environmental review process threatens that foundation and our long-term prosperity. In fact, we are already seeing that happen today. Our oil prices have doubled over the past year and yet Bloomberg reports that in 2017, foreign direct investment dropped by 27%. This is primarily due to the toxic political environment that has scared away investment from Canada's energy sector.

The always shifting goalposts of the Liberals' social licence requirements are dictated by a United States funded radical environmental lobbies. They are not acting in our country's interests; they are acting in their own self-interest. While Canada appears to have been assigned to the role of a national park for the enjoyment of Americans, the United States has pushed forward with groundbreaking LNG projects and a rapidly expanding export market for shale petroleum. Canada is a hostage to American interests as our lifeblood flows down into America at a dramatic discount, only to be repackaged on American tankers at a premium market price. Canadians are doing the work and we are letting Americans get all the profits.

We live in an age of globalization and our decisions affect our neighbours. However, the Liberals have gone too far and I do not believe that other countries have the right to interfere in our energy regulation. Would the Americans, the Chinese, or the Russians entertain delegations from Canada that opposed their energy development? Never, and yet the Liberal government has eliminated the standing test, which allows only those with a direct connection to the project to have a say. Allowing foreign citizens and foreign interests to influence our energy industry policies and whether or not our regulators will allow infrastructure to be built is an attack on Canadian sovereignty.

In closing, Bill C-69 undermines our nation. It would consign us to the status of a national park for the enjoyment of people around the world, to the detriment of Canadian citizens, people who need jobs and the prosperity and stability that is created by a responsible energy sector.

It is time for the Liberals to go back to the drawing board and create policies and regulations that will actually get shovels in the ground so that our critical LNG and pipeline projects can get the support they deserve.

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech.

I gather that my colleague analyzed Bill C-69 through the lens of her own bill, which I hope I will get a chance to speak on, because it has some interesting aspects and raises questions.

To come back to the essence of Bill C-69, at the beginning of her speech, my colleague welcomed the idea of the Liberal government putting or wanting to put more emphasis on science. However, what happened under the Conservatives and is now continuing to happen under the Liberals is that every bill gives the ministers additional powers. In this case, although we do want to put more emphasis on science, the minister will have the power to save or kill a project with a snap of her fingers.

Is there not something of a disconnect between intention and execution?

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Mr. Speaker, during the member's speech, she alluded to the fact that the minister could, on a whim, essentially approve or veto a pipeline project. That seems to be part of the problem. In as much as Bill C-69 is a framework, what it is lacking are rules that would apply consistently to all major pipeline projects, and this creates uncertainty and a whole host of other issues.

I was wondering if the hon. member could comment on that.