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.

The House proceeded to the 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, as reported (with amendments) from the committee.

Speaker’s Ruling

[The Speaker, Geoff Regan]

There are 216 motions in amendment standing on the Notice Paper for the report stage of Bill C-69.

Motions Nos. 2, 6, 7, and 80 will not be selected by the Chair, since they could have been submitted to the committee for its consideration. Motions Nos. 14, 24, and 65 will not be selected by the Chair, since they were defeated in committee.

All remaining motions have been examined, and the Chair is satisfied that they meet the guidelines expressed in the note to Standing Order 76.1(5) regarding the selection of motions in amendment at report stage.

Motions Nos. 1, 3 to 5, 8 to 13, 15 to 23, 25 to 64, 66 to 79, and 81 to 216 will be grouped for debate and voted upon according to the voting pattern available at the table.

I will now put Motions Nos. 1, 3 to 5, 8 to 13, 15 to 23, 25 to 64, 66 to 79, and 81 to 216 to the House.

Motions in Amendment

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

moved:

Motion No. 1

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 1.

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

, seconded by the hon. member for Bécancour—Nicolet—Saurel, moved:

Motion No. 3

That Bill C-69, in Clause 1, be amended by replacing line 20 on page 28 with the following:

“(d) any impact that the designated project”

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

moved:

Motion No. 4

That Bill C-69, in Clause 1, be amended by replacing line 22 on page 28 with the following:

“Canada recognized and affirmed by the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, adopted on September 13, 2007, and by section 35 of the”

[Ruth Ellen Brosseau, NDP, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

moved:

Motion No. 5

That Bill C-69, in Clause 1, be amended by replacing lines 32 and 33 on page 34 with the following:

“ter and only one member of the review panel may be appointed from the roster.”

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

moved:

Motion No. 8

That Bill C-69, in Clause 1, be amended by replacing line 27 on page 45 with the following:

“tion, direction or approval issued, granted or given, as the case may be, by a federal authority other than the Agency.”

Motion No. 9

That Bill C-69, in Clause 1, be amended by replacing line 22 on page 46 with the following:

“provided by the proponent, the public or the Indigenous peoples of Canada on the matter, establish the”

Motion No. 10

That Bill C-69, in Clause 1, be amended by replacing line 26 on page 46 with the following:

“vided by the proponent, the public or the Indigenous peoples of Canada on the matter, extend the period”

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

, seconded by the hon. member for Bécancour—Nicolet—Saurel, moved:

Motion No. 11

That Bill C-69, in Clause 1, be amended by replacing line 28 on page 55 with the following:

“assessment, as well as any assessment of the effects of past physical activities, of alternative means of carrying out the physical activities and of options for the protection of the environment, human life or health or public safety.”

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

moved:

Motion No. 12

That Bill C-69, in Clause 1, be amended by replacing line 28 on page 55 with the following:

“assessment, as well as any treaty rights of the Indigenous peoples of Canada, their rights under the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, adopted on September 13, 2007, and any cumulative impacts associated with other projects or activities.”

Motion No. 13

That Bill C-69, in Clause 1, be amended by replacing line 30 on page 56 with the following:

“account the rights of the Indigenous peoples of Canada, including the rights recognized and affirmed by section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982 and their rights under the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, adopted on September 13, 2007, and used any Indigenous knowledge provided”

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

moved:

Motion No. 15

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 2.

Motion No. 16

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 3.

Motion No. 17

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 4.

Motion No. 18

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 5.

Motion No. 19

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 6.

Motion No. 20

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 7.

Motion No. 21

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 8.

Motion No. 22

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 9.

Motion No. 23

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 10.

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

, seconded by the hon. member for Bécancour—Nicolet—Saurel, moved:

Motion No. 25

That Bill C-69, in Clause 10, be amended by replacing line 22 on page 105 with the following:

“protection of the rights of the Indigenous peoples of Canada.”

Motion No. 26

That Bill C-69, in Clause 10, be amended by replacing line 34 on page 174 with the following:

“mitments in respect of climate change, the environment and biodiversity;”

Motion No. 27

That Bill C-69, in Clause 10, be amended by replacing line 34 on page 207 with the following:

“commitments in respect of climate change, the environment and biodiversity; and”

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

moved:

Motion No. 28

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 11.

Motion No. 29

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 12.

Motion No. 30

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 13.

Motion No. 31

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 14.

Motion No. 32

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 15.

Motion No. 33

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 16.

Motion No. 34

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 17.

Motion No. 35

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 18.

Motion No. 36

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 19.

Motion No. 37

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 20.

Motion No. 38

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 21.

Motion No. 39

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 22.

Motion No. 40

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 23.

Motion No. 41

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 24.

Motion No. 42

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 25.

Motion No. 43

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 26.

Motion No. 44

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 27.

Motion No. 45

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 28.

Motion No. 46

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 29.

Motion No. 47

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 30.

Motion No. 48

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 31.

Motion No. 49

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 32.

Motion No. 50

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 33.

Motion No. 51

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 34.

Motion No. 52

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 35.

Motion No. 53

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 36.

Motion No. 54

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 37.

Motion No. 55

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 38.

Motion No. 56

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 39.

Motion No. 57

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 40.

Motion No. 58

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 41.

Motion No. 59

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 42.

Motion No. 60

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 43.

Motion No. 61

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 44.

Motion No. 62

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 45.

Motion No. 63

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 46.

Motion No. 64

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 47.

Motion No. 66

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 48.

Motion No. 67

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 49.

Motion No. 68

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 50.

Motion No. 69

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 51.

Motion No. 70

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 52.

Motion No. 71

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 53.

Motion No. 72

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 54.

Motion No. 73

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 55.

Motion No. 74

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 56.

Motion No. 75

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 57.

Motion No. 76

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 58.

Motion No. 77

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 59.

Motion No. 78

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 60.

Motion No. 79

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 61.

Motion No. 81

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 62.

Motion No. 82

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 63.

Motion No. 83

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 64.

Motion No. 84

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 65.

Motion No. 85

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 66.

Motion No. 86

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 67.

Motion No. 87

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 68.

Motion No. 88

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 69.

Motion No. 89

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 70.

Motion No. 90

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 71.

Motion No. 91

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 72.

Motion No. 92

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 73.

Motion No. 93

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 74.

Motion No. 94

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 75.

Motion No. 95

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 76.

Motion No. 96

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 77.

Motion No. 97

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 78.

Motion No. 98

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 79.

Motion No. 99

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 80.

Motion No. 100

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 81.

Motion No. 101

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 82.

Motion No. 102

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 83.

Motion No. 103

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 84.

Motion No. 104

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 85.

Motion No. 105

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 86.

Motion No. 106

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 87.

Motion No. 107

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 88.

Motion No. 108

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 89.

Motion No. 109

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 90.

Motion No. 110

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 91.

Motion No. 111

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 92.

Motion No. 112

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 93.

Motion No. 113

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 94.

Motion No. 114

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 95.

Motion No. 115

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 96.

Motion No. 116

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 97.

Motion No. 117

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 98.

Motion No. 118

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 99.

Motion No. 119

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 100.

Motion No. 120

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 101.

Motion No. 121

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 102.

Motion No. 122

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 103.

Motion No. 123

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 104.

Motion No. 124

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 105.

Motion No. 125

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 106.

Motion No. 126

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 107.

Motion No. 127

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 108.

Motion No. 128

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 109.

Motion No. 129

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 110.

Motion No. 130

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 111.

Motion No. 131

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 112.

Motion No. 132

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 113.

Motion No. 133

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 114.

Motion No. 134

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 115.

Motion No. 135

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 116.

Motion No. 136

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 117.

Motion No. 137

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 118.

Motion No. 138

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 119.

Motion No. 139

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 120.

Motion No. 140

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 121.

Motion No. 141

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 122.

Motion No. 142

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 123.

Motion No. 143

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 124.

Motion No. 144

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 125.

Motion No. 145

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 126.

Motion No. 146

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 127.

Motion No. 147

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 128.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

moved:

Motion No. 148

That Bill C-69, in Clause 128, be amended by replacing line 24 on page 328 with the following:

“5.002 The Canadian Energy Regulator shall establish a”

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

moved:

Motion No. 149

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 129.

Motion No. 150

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 130.

Motion No. 151

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 131.

Motion No. 152

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 132.

Motion No. 153

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 133.

Motion No. 154

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 134.

Motion No. 155

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 135.

Motion No. 156

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 136.

Motion No. 157

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 137.

Motion No. 158

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 138.

Motion No. 159

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 139.

Motion No. 160

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 140.

Motion No. 161

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 141.

Motion No. 162

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 142.

Motion No. 163

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 143.

Motion No. 164

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 144.

Motion No. 165

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 145.

Motion No. 166

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 146.

Motion No. 167

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 147.

Motion No. 168

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 148.

Motion No. 169

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 149.

Motion No. 170

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 150.

Motion No. 171

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 151.

Motion No. 172

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 152.

Motion No. 173

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 153.

Motion No. 174

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 154.

Motion No. 175

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 155.

Motion No. 176

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 156.

Motion No. 177

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 157.

Motion No. 178

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 158.

Motion No. 179

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 159.

Motion No. 180

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 160.

Motion No. 181

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 161.

Motion No. 182

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 162.

Motion No. 183

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 163.

Motion No. 184

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 164.

Motion No. 185

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 165.

Motion No. 186

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 166.

Motion No. 187

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 167.

Motion No. 188

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 168.

Motion No. 189

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 169.

Motion No. 190

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 170.

Motion No. 191

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 171.

Motion No. 192

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 172.

Motion No. 193

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 173.

Motion No. 194

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 174.

Motion No. 195

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 175.

Motion No. 196

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 176.

Motion No. 197

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 177.

Motion No. 198

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 178.

Motion No. 199

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 179.

Motion No. 200

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 180.

Motion No. 201

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 181.

Motion No. 202

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 182.

Motion No. 203

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 183.

Motion No. 204

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 184.

Motion No. 205

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 185.

Motion No. 206

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 186.

Motion No. 207

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 187.

Motion No. 208

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 188.

Motion No. 209

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 189.

Motion No. 210

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 190.

Motion No. 211

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 191.

Motion No. 212

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 192.

Motion No. 213

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 193.

Motion No. 214

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 194.

Motion No. 215

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 195.

Motion No. 216

That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 196.

Madam Speaker, on behalf of Lakeland and communities in every corner of Canada, I strongly oppose Bill C-69, which would radically overhaul Canada's regulatory system, and by extension, hurt Canada's responsible natural resources development.

It is rich for the Liberals to talk about transparency and for their mandate letters to instruct meaningful engagement with opposition members while they ram through legislation with this magnitude of impact on the Canadian economy. The Liberals refused to split this massive omnibus bill, which involves three big ministries; denied all but a handful of the literally hundreds of amendments proposed by members of all opposition parties; introduced 120 of their own amendments at the last minute; did not provide timely briefings or supplementary material to MPs; and ultimately ignored all the recommendations in the two expert panel reports, from months and months of consultation, rumoured to cost a million dollars each. They shut down debate in committee and are pushing the bill through the last stages with procedural tools.

Bill C-69 would make it even harder for Canada to compete globally. More than $100 billion in energy investment has already left Canada under the Liberals. Foreign capital is leaving Canada across all sectors.

The government should focus on market access, on streamlining regulations, and on cutting red tape and taxes in Canada, especially because the U.S. is Canada's biggest energy competitor and customer. However, the Liberals are layering on additional regulatory burdens and costs that make it more difficult for Canada's private sector to compete. The Liberals are damaging certainty and confidence in Canada, putting our own country at a disadvantage.

Bill C-69, without a doubt, compounds red tape and costs in natural resources development. During testimony, the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers said:

Unfortunately, today Canada is attracting more uncertainty, not more capital, and we will continue to lose investment and jobs if we do not have a system of clear rules and decisions that are final and can be relied upon.

Unfortunately, CAPP and the investment community today see very little in Bill C-69 that would improve that status.

CAPP went on:

We see substantial risk that all the work undertaken today could be deemed incomplete. Therefore, they may have to restart and follow an entirely different process, which would add more time and more uncertainty for our investment community.

That issue was addressed in committee by amendments giving proponents the option for reassessment. What I worry about is that the Liberals have now given anti-energy activists the opportunity to demand that all projects go back through that new process, because they have spent years denigrating Canada's regulatory reputation. It has already begun. The Liberals have created years of a regulatory vacuum, destabilizing the framework for Canada's responsible resource development, and have added hurdles during an already challenging time, the worst time, for prices, costs, and competitiveness. That has caused the biggest decline in Canadian oil and gas investment of any other two-year period since 1947, and hundreds of thousands of Canadians losing their jobs. This year alone, during three-year price highs, Canadian oil and gas investment is projected to drop 47% from 2016 levels. The Bank of Canada says that there will be zero new energy investment in Canada after next year.

In committee, the Canadian Energy Pipeline Association said:

In the two years leading up to this bill, you can pick your poison: policies, including a tanker moratorium...; proposed methane emission regulation reductions; clean fuel standards; provincial GHG emission regulation; B.C.'s restrictions on transporting bitumen; a lack of clarity regarding the government's position on the implementation of UNDRIP and FPIC; and the fierce competition from energy-supportive policies in the United States, etc. The cumulative effect of these policies has significantly weakened investor confidence in Canada. It is seriously challenging the energy sector's ability to be competitive.

Nancy Southern, the CEO of ATCO said “our competitive edge is slipping away from us. ...it's layer upon layer [of regulatory burden]. It's increasing regulatory requirement, it's compliance, new labour laws, it's taxes—carbon tax.”

She called it “heartbreaking”.

What is really galling is that it makes neither economic nor environmental sense to harm Canada's ability to produce oil and gas. The IEA says that 69% of the world's oil demand growth was in the Asia-Pacific in the past five years, and global demand will grow exponentially for decades to come. Therefore, the world will keep needing oil and gas, and other countries will keep producing it, but of course, to no where near the environmental or social standards of Canadian energy.

Right now, Canada has more oil supply that it does pipeline capacity, but if Canada had more pipelines, to both the United States and other international markets, Canada could capitalize on its almost limitless potential to be a global supplier of the most responsible oil to the world.

Building new pipelines makes sense, but as if the Liberals have not already done enough damage, Bill C-69 would make it even harder for new major energy infrastructure to be approved. It is based more on ideology and politics than on science, evidence, and economic analysis.

The Canadian Energy Pipeline Association said:

...it is preposterous to expect that a pipeline proponent would spend upwards of a billion dollars only to be denied approval because the project must account for emissions from production of the product to consumption in another part of the world. If the goal is to curtail oil and gas production and to have no more pipelines built, this legislation has hit the mark.

Oil and gas proponents are seeing clearly that Bill C-69 would ensure that no future major energy projects will be built in Canada.

The Liberals claim that this bill would enhance indigenous participation. In fact, it actually would make no substantive changes to indigenous rights or duties in the approval process. Indigenous people and communities and all directly impacted communities must be consulted on major energy projects. That is the crown's duty. However, this bill plays right into the hands of anti-energy activists. It would allow distant, unaffected communities, even non-Canadians, to interfere in the review process by removing the standing test and would allow anti-energy groups to subvert the aspirations of indigenous communities that want energy and economic development.

A hallmark of both Canada's regulatory system and Canadian oil and gas developers has long been world-leading best practices for indigenous consultation and the incorporation of traditional knowledge. Canada's energy sector is more committed to partnerships, mutual benefit agreements, and ownership with indigenous people than anywhere else in the world, so shutting down Canadian oil and gas will hurt them, too. However, the Liberals say one thing and do another when it comes to indigenous people and energy development. The tanker ban was imposed without any meaningful consultation whatsoever with directly impacted communities, such as the Lax Kw'alaams Band, which is taking the government to court over it.

The tanker ban is also the main obstacle to the Eagle Spirit pipeline, which would run from Bruderheim in Lakeland to northern B.C., carrying oil for export. After five years of work, this $16-billion project has been called the biggest indigenous-owned endeavour in the world. Thirty-five first nations, every single one along the route, support it. The Prime Minister ordered the tanker ban less than a month after the last election, with no consultation or comprehensive economic, environmental, or safety analysis and no consultation with indigenous communities impacted by it. Just like the northern gateway pipeline, 31 first nations supported it, and indigenous partners had equity worth $2 billion. The Prime Minister could have ordered added scope and time for more consultation, but he vetoed it entirely, so both dozens of indigenous agreements and the only already-approved, new, stand-alone pipeline to export Canadian oil to the Asia-Pacific are gone.

The Prime Minister did the same thing to the Northwest Territories when he unilaterally imposed a five-year offshore drilling ban, with no notice to the territorial government, despite intergovernmental discussions. Northwest Territories Premier Bob McLeod said, “I think for a lot of people, the prime minister took away hope from ever being able to make a long-term healthy living in the North”. This bill is part of the Liberals' pattern of enabling themselves to make political decisions about energy development in Canada.

This bill is bad for investor confidence in Canada, it is bad for the energy sector, it is bad for the economy, and it is bad for the country as a whole. On top of ideologically driven political decisions, it would not establish timelines for certainty either, despite Liberal claims. There are multiple ways either ministers or the commissioner could stop and extend the process as long as they wanted, as many times as they wanted.

This bill would not harm only Canadian oil and gas. The Prospectors & Developers Association of Canada said, “the Canadian mineral industry faces fierce global competition for investment. In fact, Canada is starting to fall behind its competitors in a number of areas, indicating its decline in attractiveness as a destination for mineral investment.”

That is a major problem for Canada too, as Australia and South Africa compete directly as destinations of choice for mineral investment, exploration, and mining. Like oil and gas, Canadian mining is a world leader on all measures. The sector is the biggest employer of indigenous people. It is often the only opportunity for jobs in remote and northern regions. Any additional hurdles or costs will tip the scale in favour of other countries.

The Liberals' decisions have provoked even former Liberal MP and premier of Quebec Jean Charest to say, “Canada is a country that can't get its big projects done. That's the impression that is out there in the world right now.”

Although the Liberals should put Canada first, they jeopardize Canada's ability to compete, forcing Canada into a position where natural resources development, the main driver of middle-class jobs and Canada's high standard of living, is at serious risk.

The Liberals should champion Canada's expertise, innovation, and regulatory know-how. They should be proud of Canada's track record instead of constantly attacking Canada's regulatory reputation and imposing policies and laws like Bill C-69, which would damage the future of Canada's responsible natural resources development and put very real limits on Canada's whole economy and opportunities for future generations.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, when I make an overall assessment of the bill, Bill C-69 is long overdue. It makes a lot of positive changes. The best way I could summarize this legislation, which the official opposition has put forward so many amendments for, is to say that we should be looking at what it would really do. It would protect our environment, fish, and waterways; it would rebuild public trust and respect for indigenous rights; and it would strengthen our economy.

We need to recognize that the environment and the economy go hand in hand. This is something that the former Harper government failed to do, but we are doing. The best example of that is the pipeline that will go through. For 10 years, Harper failed with that. This government is moving forward with protecting our environment, consulting with indigenous people and others, and advancing the economy with thousands of jobs. Why does the Conservative Party continue to believe that when it comes to development in Canada, it has to be one-sided?

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Madam Speaker, the Liberals need to stop attacking Canada's reputation. Canada has always been the most environmentally responsible producer of natural resources for the benefit of every community in this country and in providing for the world's needs. I hope that one day the Liberals will also let go of the myth they are spinning about the record of pipelines being built in Canada. Under the former Conservative government, four pipelines were constructed without a cent of taxpayer dollars, and they were built to the highest standards through the most rigorous regulatory process in the world. These Liberals have actually killed the only two opportunities for stand-alone pipelines to export to the Asia-Pacific, and they have just spent 4.5 billion tax dollars to give to a company that will now build pipelines in the U.S., and there is no certainty about the expansion of the old pipeline at all.

Oil and gas and natural resources developers are throwing up red flags about the risks with this bill. Siegfried Kiefer from ATCO warns that governments in Canada “are busy” bringing in “multiple and compounding policies and regulations” that are “layering considerable costs on businesses and individuals alike, undermining the confidence of investors, eroding the attractiveness of our industries and weakening the confidence of the public.”

That means the livelihoods of hundreds of thousands of Canadians are at risk because of these Liberals.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Madam Speaker, I still think the hon. member for Lakeland should be the hon. member for Vegreville, given her passionate defence of her community.

We were willing to give this bill a chance. We did vote in favour of it at second reading. However, every single one of our amendments at committee was rejected by the Liberals, and the Liberals are trying to ram this bill through as quickly as possible. Given that, I would like the member to comment on this as a pattern with the Liberal government.

The Liberals are masters of the long promise when it comes to justice reform, electoral reform, and now the environmental review process, yet it all seems to be done at the last minute in a very rushed process. I would like to hear the member's comments on that in the scope of this bill and whether or not it is following that exact same pattern.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his comments about fighting for Vegreville, and I thank the NDP in joining me on that fight, including the support of every single Conservative member in here.

I completely agree that it is galling the way the Liberals say one thing and then do another. That started from the very beginning of this bill. Opposition parties were denied a technical briefing at the same time the government provided that briefing to media and stakeholders. Over and over again, the Liberals shut down debate in committee and now they are ramming through the final stages of this bill. I know that while we all have a variety of views, all opposition members worked in good faith to try to improve this bill from our various perspectives. I know this frustrated my colleague from the NDP at committee to such a degree that she is now questioning her future involvement in the committee because of the way the Liberals ignored and rejected hundreds of amendments by opposition members.

So much for all their talk about making Parliament a meaningful way to engage members on behalf of all Canadians right across the country. This is total baloney from these Liberals all the time.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise this morning to speak of a really terrible tragedy, which is the destruction of environmental law in this country, how it was done in 2012, and how the current government, despite promises, has failed to repair the damage. I do not enjoy watching a government make mistakes, even if they cost them it in the next election. I do not enjoy saying that the Prime Minister made a promise and now has broken another promise.

It is tragic because we could do better and we used to do better. I will briefly cover the history of environmental assessment in this country and why this bill is not acceptable as it currently stands. It could be made acceptable by accepting a lot of the amendments, particularly those put forward by the member for Edmonton Strathcona and by me. This bill is an omnibus bill that attempts to repair the damage, but first let us look at what was damaged.

Starting back in the early 1970s, the federal Government of Canada embarked on a commitment to environmental assessment. We were late, later than the U.S. government under Richard Nixon, which brought in something called the National Environmental Policy Act, which remains to this day far superior to Canadian law on environmental review.

By fluke, I actually participated in the very first panel review of environmental assessment in Canada in 1976. When I walked into the high school gym in Baddeck, Nova Scotia, I had no idea that it was the first time there had been a public panel review of a project, but the Wreck Cove hydroelectric plant on Cape Breton Island was the first. I participated in environmental reviews thereafter as a senior policy adviser to the federal minister of environment from 1986 to 1988.

I worked with the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency and its then head, the late Ray Robinson, on getting permission to take the guidelines order, which was a cabinet order for environmental review, and to strengthen it by creating an environmental law, the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, which was brought in under former prime minister Brian Mulroney and received royal assent under former prime minister Jean Chrétien.

That bill made it very clear, as did the previous guidelines order from 1973 onwards, that any time federal jurisdiction was affected, the government had an obligation to do an environmental review. Since the early guidelines order of the 1970s, federal jurisdiction was described as federal money, federal land. Any time federal jurisdiction, which over time was narrowed down to decisions made by federal ministers under certain bills, or any of those triggers were set off, there had to be at least a cursory screening of the projects. That was the state of environmental law, with many improvements, from the early 1970s until 2012.

The previous government, under Stephen Harper, brought in amendments in 2010. I certainly know that the committee heard from industry witnesses, the Mining Association of Canada in particular, that it thought everything was just about perfect in 2010. There was an attempt to avoid duplication, there was one project one assessment, early screening, and comprehensive study. Everybody knew what was happening.

Then in the spring of 2012, the previous government brought in Bill C-38. It was an omnibus bill. It changed 70 different laws in over 430 pages. When the Conservatives complain of lack of consultation on this one, they are right. However, they are in a glass house, and anyone who fought Bill C-38 has a huge pile of stones, because there was no consultation. We did not have briefings and the government did not accept a single amendment between first reading and royal assent. That bill repealed the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act brought in under former prime minister Brian Mulroney, and it devastated the prospect of any environmental review in this country when federal jurisdiction was impacted, unless it was a big project on a short list. That is the easiest way for me to explain what happened.

The Conservatives changed the triggers by eliminating federal land, federal money, and federal jurisdiction. They just said that if it were a big project, and this is their short list, then they would do a review, but would exclude most of the public and keep the review fast. This was a Harper invention, and it was really diabolical to say that when it were an environmental assessment of a pipeline, the Environmental Assessment Agency would not run it, but the National Energy Board; that when it were an environmental assessment of a nuclear project, it would be run by the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission; and that if it were an environmental assessment of drilling on the offshore in Atlantic Canada and off Newfoundland, it would be the Canada-Newfoundland Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board, and if it were off Nova Scotia, it would be the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board. This collective, which I will now refer to as the “energy regulators”, had never played a role in environmental assessment before. They are part of what was broken in Bill C-38.

My hon. friend from Lakeland wants to know why the Kinder Morgan mess is such a mess. It goes back to that assessment being handed to an agency not competent to do it, and giving it very short timelines, which forced Kinder Morgan to say that it could no longer respect procedural fairness even for the few intervenors it let in the door because of the timeline. The attitude was that we have cut out cross-examination of expert witnesses; we have to move this thing fast; we are just going to barrel through and ignore most of the evidence because of the short timeline. The mess that this country is in right now over Kinder Morgan can be layed directly at the door of Bill C-38 in the spring of 2012.

This legislation should have repaired all of that damage. That was a promise in the Liberal platform and the commitment in the mandate letter to ministers. What do we have now? We have an omnibus bill that deals with the impact assessment piece, that deals with the National Energy Board, to be renamed the Canadian energy regulator, and deals with the disaster that happened in Bill C-45 in the fall of 2012 when the government of the day gutted the Navigable Waters Protection Act.

These three pieces of legislation are fundamental to environmental law in this country and to energy policy, and they all need fixing, but should not be fixed in one omnibus bill.

I completely agree with the member for Lakeland that this legislation was forced through committee, but it was forced through the wrong committee. The environmental assessment piece should have gone to the environment committee. The NEB/Canadian energy regulator piece should have gone to natural resources committee. The Navigable Waters Protection Act piece should have gone to transport committee.

The omnibus bill in front of us, Bill C-69, has been inadequately studied despite heroic efforts by the chair of the environment and sustainable development committee. She did a great job. The government committee members worked really hard to improve the bill, but no members had enough time. We had a deadline. A hammer fell at 9 o'clock at night on the last chance to look at it. By 12:30 in the morning, most of the amendments that were accepted were never debated at committee, much less adequately studied. It is a tragedy.

Here is how “Harper-think” has survived and owns Bill C-69 in terms of environmental assessment. We have not restored the triggers. Federal funding of a project no longer triggers an environmental review, full stop. Federal lands still do, but federal jurisdiction decisions made by the Minister of Fisheries on the Fisheries Act do not trigger an environmental assessment. Decisions made by the Minister of Transport under the Navigable Waters Act do not trigger an environmental assessment. It will again be on the short list of big projects that we have still not seen because it is under consultation. The triggers are inadequate.

The scope of the reviews will move from there being about 4,000 to 5,000 projects a year being at least given a cursory review in the pre-2012 period to the current situation bequeathed to us by former prime minister Stephen Harper of a couple of dozen a year.

I should mention that there were two expert panels, one on the NEB and one on environmental assessment. Huge consultations were carried out. The speeches by the Liberals will probably reference the enormous level of consultation that took place before this legislation came out. It needs to be said on the record that the advice of the expert panels was ignored in both cases.

In terms of environmental assessment, what was ignored was the call to go back to the same triggers we have had since 1974: federal land, federal money, federal jurisdiction. The Liberals did not pay attention to that recommendation. They claim to have taken into account the recommendation that it be a single agency, but the bill says that when the impact assessment agency sets out a panel review in the case of a pipeline, the members of the Canadian energy regulator, which was the NEB, have to be on that panel.

More egregiously, despite the amendments accepted in committee, the government has rejected the one that says if it is the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board or the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum, board member of the panel can also sit as chairs. Only in those two instances were the amendments accepted at committee rejected by the government, and those boards were created by statute with the mandate to expand offshore oil and gas.

This bill is so bad that after decades of fighting for environmental assessment, I have to vote against it. That is why it is tragic. I would like to break down right now and weep for the loss of decades of experience. We know better than this.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the comments from the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands. She is extremely passionate about this particular topic, as we know. I will not question her wisdom in terms of the information that she brings to the table in regard to this debate.

I will say that when the Liberal Party ran in the last election, Liberals had a lot of concerns over the way that things were previously being done with respect to engaging on our environmental commitments. I know that the member is concerned that three bills are being merged into one and has expressed her desire to vote against the bill.

I am interested to hear more of her comments. Looking more holistically at all of it instead of drilling down into particular items, would the member not at least agree that this bill is better than what we had before, in terms of its commitment to providing the necessary safeguards we need to protect our environment?

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

Madam Speaker, that is a tough question.

When the Minister of Finance announced that we were buying a 65-year-old pipeline, I heard him claim that the Kinder Morgan environmental review was:

...the most rigorous process and environmental assessment in this country's history.

It is, in point of fact, the worst. The very worst environmental review in Canada's history was the one the NEB did on Kinder Morgan. I have been involved in dozens of these reviews, and it is not hyperbole. It is a fact, and anybody in environmental law would tell us that.

Is this somewhat better than what Harper left in place? Maybe, but here is the problem: if we accept a fundamental review of this many acts now in 2018, we will not get this fixed for another decade.

This bill stinks, so I have to vote against it.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Saanich—Gulf Islands for her remarks, which are always relevant. She summarized a lot of history in 10 minutes, and that was greatly appreciated.

I was wondering whether she saw another similarity between the previous Conservative government and the Liberals, specifically their habit of giving more and more power to ministers in their bills. That is what Liberals are doing in Bill C-69, which already proposes an inadequate solution that the environment minister can get out of when she sees fit.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his comment. I wholeheartedly agree with him.

It is clear that this part of omnibus Bill C-69 gives more discretionary powers to the environment minister. The proposed amendments make improvements in that they seek to guide the minister's decisions, but the fact remains that this bill gives the minister more powers and does not reinstate the regulations or the transparent process that were in place before Mr. Harper's changes.

[Nick Whalen, Liberal, St. John's East, NL]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands for her views on this topic. They are informed and important.

In the case of Newfoundland and Labrador, I think most Newfoundlanders and Labradorians are very proud of the Atlantic Accord. They appreciate the role the life cycle regulator plays. We understand that when the regulator says “no”, it says “no”, but it does not just say “yes”; it asks “how?”

Why does the member not feel that the life cycle regulator has an important role to play in setting conditions at the impact assessment stage?

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

Madam Speaker, we know that the expert panel recommended that the regulator not play a role. I have watched, and I know Newfoundlanders are very proud of the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board, but it has a mandate in law to expand offshore oil and gas. With all due respect, how on earth can it be seen to be unbiased when it is looking at a project to expand offshore oil and gas? This is the clearest example of an inappropriate allocation of review processes and review powers to any agency in Canada's history.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, I share the initial comments of my colleague for Saanich—Gulf Islands. We have both been involved in trying to strengthen federal, provincial, territorial, and international environmental law for many decades.

The very reason I ran for office was because of my fear that the Harper government would do exactly what it eventually did when it got a majority government, and that was to shred all federal environmental law that I had worked with many other Canadians to strengthen during my 40 years as an environmental lawyer, both within the federal government and in a non-governmental organization. I was very instrumental in achieving the famous Supreme Court of Canada case, Friends of the Oldman, where the court ruled that the environment was shared federal-provincial jurisdiction, and as a result of that, we got strengthened enforcement of federal environmental laws through co-operation between both orders of government.

As my colleague just said, in the 2015 election, the Prime Minister campaigned repeatedly with promises that if elected, he would immediately restore a strengthened federal environmental assessment process. He made the commitment that he would not approve any projects without first enacting that strengthened assessment process to ensure that decisions were based on science, facts, and evidence, and would serve the public interest. The Liberal election platform promised robust oversight and that any involvement of political interference in approving projects would be removed. The Liberals also promised to ensure that the rights of indigenous peoples would be upheld, and to review and restore protections lost under the previous Conservative government, including clear rights of the public to fully participate in reviews.

Canadians actually believed the promises they were given that the previous strong federal environmental assessment and protection laws would be restored immediately if there was a Liberal government. Many voted based on those promises.

The government also promised an open, transparent, and participatory government. As my colleague from the Conservative Party mentioned, so much for that promise of participation in the review of this omnibus bill.

How well would Bill C-69 deliver on these Liberal promises? Well, we have two main concerns: one is over the process by which the bill has come before the government and been reviewed, and the second is in what the bill offers.

Our foremost concern has been the perverse and undemocratic process that the Liberals imposed for the review of the bill, and the delay in enacting this law. As the parliamentary secretary just reminded us, Bill C-69 was long overdue. For Canadians who had great anticipation, finally—finally—the government has delivered on its promise, almost into the third year of its mandate.

The government continues to approve resource projects by relying on the Harper-eviscerated review process. Examples include the Kinder Morgan pipeline, the Petronas LNG facility, and the Site C dam. We were advised at committee by the assessment agency that there are many projects in the hopper that will continue under the eviscerated Harper assessment law, even if and when the bill before us is passed, so that legacy will last for some time because of the delay in bringing forward this legislation.

Where are we at with the enactment of a strengthened impact assessment process and the reinvention of the National Energy Board?

The government expended millions of dollars on two expert panels on these two subjects. Despite broad efforts at consultation, many of the key findings and recommendations have been discarded by this government.

This year, the government tabled Bill C-69, an omnibus bill of over 800 clauses, encompassing changes to three critical laws: the federal assessment of projects, establishing a new energy regulator, and a revised law on navigable waters. After waiting two and a half years, the Liberals finally tabled this law. They then imposed time allocation on debate of this massive omnibus bill. They refused our very sensible request to divide the bill and send the three parts to three separate committees. As my colleague for Saanich—Gulf Islands noted, logically the bill would have been divided into three parts and gone to the appropriate committees.

The transport committee had already reviewed the navigable waters law and made a number of recommendations. My colleague provided a very wise dissenting report to in fact deliver the strengths and protections the Liberals had promised. That could have allowed a timely and focused review of each part of the bill by the three respective committees, but no—the Liberals chose to send it all to one committee, our environment committee. Then they imposed a timeline for the review of this massive bill. Of course, it is a Liberal majority committee, so it agreed to this time restriction.

The committee then refused my request to travel to at least Alberta and B.C., over a two-day period, to hear from those communities and industries that would be most impacted by this bill. The committee said it was too expensive, that committees never travel to review bills, and it rejected that idea.

The committee severely reduced the witness list. As mentioned, we had two expert panels that travelled extensively. We had a list of the people who wanted to be consulted and who all wanted to be heard on this bill. The committee said we did not have time to hear from those people and substantially reduced that list.

It then said that people could submit a brief, but guess what? We were required to submit any amendments to this bill before we even received those briefs. Over 100 briefs recommending amendments to this bill were received after the deadline to submit amendments.

I still managed to submit over 100 amendments. I could have submitted more. They were all based on what indigenous Canadians, industry, municipalities, lawyers, and the expert panels had recommended. Over 300 were submitted by the opposition. Every last one of my amendments was voted down, regardless of where they came from and regardless of the strong recommendations from even the government's expert panel.

The government itself tabled more than 100 amendments. Is that maybe an indication that the bill was drafted in haste?

Only very few of the opposition amendments were accepted. One amendment on scientific integrity that both my colleague from Saanich—Gulf Islands and I had tabled was accepted. The Liberals reluctantly agreed to include a change to the bill to require scientific integrity, not by the proponent, but at least by the government.

Madam Speaker, as you are aware, because you read all the amendments today in this place, we tabled additional amendments at report stage to strengthen the bill and to make it reflect what Canadians have called for. We are ever hopeful that the government will accept some of those amendments.

What about the substance of the bill? Were substantive changes made to deliver on the promises by the government to restore credibility for federal assessment? Given the way the law is drafted, it is very difficult to say. Why is that? It is because it is rife with discretion. One of the intervenors listed endless lists of discretionary triggers. We have not even seen the project list, so no one, including potential proponents, has any idea what this bill will apply to. The government could simply defer to provinces and let them do the review. There is no prescribed duty to extend rights to the public to fully participate—to table evidence, to cross-examine, and so forth. That was one of the big issues of contention on the Kinder Morgan pipeline and energy east. This bill does not extend clear rights.

A big one was that the Liberals refused to prescribe the UNDRIP, yet in this place they voted for the bill brought forward by my colleague to incorporate the UNDRIP. The Minister of Justice has promised that, going forward, every federal law will incorporate those rights accorded under the UNDRIP. However, they did not do that, so there we are: not respecting the UNDRIP, not extending clear rights to the public to participate, with no real demand for sound science, not even a specific reference to the 2030 sustainable development goals, and the problems go on and on. We just voted in this place on a bill that does not even address those measures.

In closing, I regrettably would have to say that it is impossible for me to support this bill. We had great hope. There were huge promises that the government would restore a strong environmental law assessment process. However, it failed, which is very sad.

[Nick Whalen, Liberal, St. John's East, NL]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the perspective brought forward by the member. From the perspective of people in St. John's East, there was a lot of concern in the bill as originally proposed with respect to transition provisions. I understand from what the member had said that she feels there should not be transition provisions and everything should be rolled into the new act.

However, investors in Newfoundland and Labrador and those involved in multi-billion dollar investments in our offshore oil industry, which employ thousands of people in high-paying jobs and export-related jobs, want certainty, they need certainty, they demand certainty. In many respects, a process that had begun under CEAA 2012 is very important for them, but also with a path to a strategic environmental assessment that would carry them through into a new environmental law in the future.

This flexibility and clarity was brought forward in some of the amendments, and the member was at the committee. Therefore, I would like her thoughts on whether the amendments and the transition provisions provide more clarity to industry, moving forward.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, in fact, at committee I asked the officials to clarify what the transition provisions would be. I have not said that there should not be transition provisions.

My point is, as raised by the parliamentary secretary, that it took a long time for the government to bring forward the bill. It will have been almost three years before this bill is in place and therefore many projects are in the hopper. In fact, the Harper eviscerated law will continue to apply for many years going forward.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, it is interesting that the member across the way from Alberta is very persistent in saying quite a bit about the legislation, yet on a very important issue to Alberta, she has been absolutely quiet, not a peep inside the chamber.

The Trans Mountain expansion will now take place because of the Prime Minister and this government's efforts, and the member across the way is absolutely quiet. The NDP in British Columbia is saying absolutely not. The leader of the national NDP is saying absolutely not.

What do the member's constituents, the constituents of Alberta, have to say about the importance of the Trans Mountain expansion?

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, unlike the Liberals, I have been consistent. The entire nine-plus years I have been elected here, I have stood by the same position stood by all of my legal career. No project should be approved unless indigenous rights are respected, unless the public has a fair right to participate, and unless it is a credible review process.

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Madam Speaker, my question stems from the fact that in a previous life I was the parliamentary secretary to the minister of the environment in Ontario. As a minister, and as a government, we were absolutely clear that the government had an absolute duty to protect the environment for the people of the province, of the country. In light of that understanding, I was fascinated with the list of Liberal transgressions in regard to this bill, such as time allocation, the rejection of expert witnesses, and the refusal of amendments. The classic one is ignoring, absolutely, UNDRIP.

Is the member able to explain all of these transgressions? What on earth is the motivation if the role of the Liberals is to protect the people and the environment of the country?

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, the greatest frustration with this 800-clause omnibus bill is that there is virtually no opportunity in this place to genuinely discuss the bill. The minister made promises over and over again. In questions, the Minister of Environment promised she would genuinely consider and accept amendments to strengthen the bill, and she rejected every attempt by the opposition.

All of the changes we brought forward were brought forward by the expert panel. Issues had been raised by the Auditor General of Canada, by the indigenous peoples of Canada, by industry in Canada, by municipalities, and by expert lawyers. We do not know why on earth the Liberals would not listen to the knowledge brought forward by Canadians. It is very sad. They could have had a historic moment. They could have brought forward a good credible environmental law.

[Kim Rudd, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak today in support of Bill C-69.

Our government recognizes that national resource sectors are a vital part of Canada's economy. Over $500 billion in major resource projects are planned across Canada over the next decade. Those projects have the potential to create tens of thousands of well-paying jobs to support our communities and to contribute to our economy as a whole.

We have committed to regain public trust and get Canada's resources to market and to ensure those resources are developed in a responsible and sustainable way. Bill C-69 would put in place better rules that would provide predictable, timely project reviews and encourage investments. At the same time, it would ensure our environment would be protected and we could meet our commitments to reduce carbon emissions and transition to a clean growth economy.

Today, I will speak about how Bill C-69 would provide certainty for proponents and would help ensure good projects could go ahead, specifically, how it would contribute to more timely reviews and clearer requirements for companies; how it would reduce duplication and red tape by achieving our goal of one project, one review; and how it would provide a clear process and rules for transitioning to the new impact assessment system.

Throughout our extensive engagement with companies and industry groups across Canada, we heard they needed predictable, timely review processes to develop resources and get them to market. We listened, and that is exactly what the bill would provide.

Under the proposed legislation, one agency, the new impact assessment agency of Canada, will lead all major projects reviews, working closely with regulatory bodies. With one agency as the federal lead, reviews will be more consistent and indeed more predictable. A revised project list will define the types of projects that will be subject to impact assessments, providing the certainty that companies need and expect.

Our government is consulting with Canadians now to ensure the project list is robust and includes effective criteria such as environmental objectives and standards for clean air, water, and climate change. Through a new early planning and engagement phase, companies will be able to identify and address issues early in the process before an impact assessment begins. Early planning will result in tailored impact statement guidelines, a co-operation plan, an indigenous engagement and partnership plan, public participation plan, and, if required, a permitting plan.

The details of these early planning products will be further articulated in the information requirements and time management regulations. We are consulting on these now and they will come into force concurrently with the IAA. This early planning stage will define requirements and clarify expectations so companies know what is expected of them and when.

This new phase will help them design and plan their projects and more effectively engage indigenous peoples, stakeholders, and local communities. Amendments proposed by the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development will also enable the Minister of Environment and Climate Change to inform companies early on if a project is likely to have negative impacts, giving proponents an earlier opportunity to decide to continue with an impact assessment.

Bill C-69 would also put in place stricter timeline management for impact assessments, with fewer stops of the clock. Specifically, timelines for agency-led reviews would be reduced from 365 days to 300 days. Panel reviews would be shortened from 720 days to a maximum of 600 days. In addition, panel reviews for designated projects reviewed in collaboration with a federal life cycle regulator would be shortened to 300 days, with the option to allow the minister to set the timeline up to a maximum of 600 days if warranted based on the project's complexity. Timelines for non-designated projects reviewed by life cycle regulators would be shortened from 450 days to 300 days.

The regulations I mentioned earlier would also establish clear rules around when timelines could be paused. In addition, proposed amendments provide for a 45-day timeline for establishing a review panel. Together, these measures will result in more timely decisions and more certainty for proponents.

Companies will also know in advance what will be considered during reviews and what factors will guide decision-making. Reviews will take into account not just environmental impacts, but social, economic, and health effects, along with impacts on indigenous peoples and their rights.

Recognizing that not all project effects are negative, the bill would ensure that both positive and negative impacts would be considered. Amendments clarify that the government's public interest decision will be based on the assessment report and the consideration of specific factors.

The bill would also provide strong transparency measures so proponents would be informed about key decisions, as well as the reasons behind them. That includes, for example, decisions to extend the timeline for a review or to refer a final decision on a project to cabinet. Also, when final decisions are made on whether a project will go ahead, the proponent will be informed of the reasons why and will be assured that all factors were appropriately considered.

I want to note that in considering Bill C-69, the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development heard testimony from a number of companies and industry groups. There were suggestions for improving the bill, and I want to recognize the committee for listening to that feedback and responding.

As reported back to the House, Bill C-69 now includes stronger transparency provisions that would benefit proponents and provide more certainty and consistency across the legislation. Amendments would improve transparency by requiring assessment reports to incorporate a broader range of information, including a summary of comments received, recommendations on mitigation measures and follow-up, and the agency's rationale and conclusions. It would also require that public comments provided during the public reviews would be made available online. That information posted online would also need to be maintained so it could be accessed over time.

I would like to talk now about how Bill C-69 would achieve our government's goal of one project, one review. By providing for joint reviews and substitution, where a process led by another jurisdiction fulfills the requirement for a federal review, it would promote co-operation with provinces and territories, reduce red tape, and prevent duplication. In addition, we would be increasing opportunities for partnership with indigenous peoples and for indigenous governing bodies to take on key responsibilities, including taking the lead on projects.

I commend the standing committee for further advancing our objective of one project, one review. As a result of its work, integrated review panels with federal regulators can now include other jurisdictions, making it possible to have just one assessment that meets all requirements. This is important for investor certainty. This change responds directly to testimony made before the committee and what our government has heard from industry stakeholders. It supports our goal of certainty and timelines in review processes.

Finally, we have also heard how important it is for Bill C-69 to support a smooth transition between the current assessment regime and the new regime. Our government recognizes that this transition needs to be clear and predictable to encourage investment and keep good projects moving forward. We have also committed that no project will have to return to the beginning of the process. This legislation fulfills that promise. Under Bill C-69, projects would continue under the current rules where the assessment would already be under way.

Thanks to the work of the standing committee, the transition process in now even clearer. Amendments would increase predictability by confirming how the transition to the new review process would work, with objective criteria to identify projects that would continue to be reviewed un CEAA 2012, giving companies the option to opt in to the new process and confirming that no one would go back to the starting line.

We know that many companies are already adopting best practices that are in line with this legislation. Should they choose to opt in, we will provide advice and support to help them transition smoothly to the new requirement.

Bill C-69 is designed to help good projects move forward, not stop them. Our government is committed to developing Canada's natural resources in a sustainable and environmentally supportive way.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Madam Speaker, multiple times in the member's speech she used the phrases “predictable, timely project reviews” and “provide certainty” as to how projects can proceed. However, in Bill C-69, the entire approval process could take 915 days, plus there are six opportunities to extend that. There would be a 180-day planning phase, which could be extended by 90 days by the minister or indefinitely by cabinet. There would be a 45-day window for the minister to refer assessment to a panel, and this could be suspended indefinitely. There is no timeline for establishing a panel, and the panel would have to submit a report to the minister within 600 days of the establishment of the panel. This could be extended by the minister until the prescribed activities are completed, and, again, it could be extended indefinitely by cabinet. There would also be a 90-day timeline for cabinet to make a decision, and this could be extended by 90 days by the minister or indefinitely by cabinet.

My question is simple. Multiple times the member used the terms “predictability”, “timely project reviews”, and “provides certainty”. How can that be possible with the extended timelines I just referred to?

[Kim Rudd, Liberal, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would suggest that the math of the member opposite is a bit challenged. In this process, industry clearly told us that the early planning phase, which considers all the items up front, would allow it to decide whether the project is indeed feasible, and then industry has the opportunity to decide whether to go forward with the impact assessment or regroup and go back to look at other options and alternatives. What industry does not want to see is what happened under the previous government, which is that industry had no option but to go full bore into the process and find itself, through that process, spending millions of dollars and still not having any certainty. This bill would provide that certainty.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Madam Speaker, last week the parliamentary secretary, and indeed the entire Liberal government, voted to support Bill C-262, which would make sure that all the laws of Canada are in harmony with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. The member for Edmonton Strathcona has brought forward some report stage amendments to the bill, which seek to do just that.

In the context of Bill C-262 and the member's support for what that bill aims to do, will the Liberal government be consistent and, this week, vote in support of those amendments, which seek to do what the member voted for just last week?

[Kim Rudd, Liberal, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member's question allows me to say that as we are speaking right now, the Prime Minister is in B.C. speaking to the Indigenous Advisory and Monitoring Committee, which the member may remember is the first of its kind in Canada. This is a monitoring committee for the life cycle of the TMX project, with $64 million to support it through that process. In response to the question of the member opposite, it is really important to remember that when we look at the scope of projects that are going through Bill C-69, the indigenous engagement piece and consideration of indigenous and traditional knowledge are a key element of this bill.

[James Maloney, Liberal, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

Madam Speaker, I listened to the last two speeches, by the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands and the member for Edmonton Strathcona, who talked about this bill being pushed through the environment committee and described it as omnibus legislation, which I disagree with. I am the chair of the natural resources committee. I was at the committee and participated in the process. I am wondering if the parliamentary secretary could give us some examples of how these three departments work together to make sure that this piece of legislation works.

[Kim Rudd, Liberal, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is really important to note that the amendments put forward at committee included input from all three elements of the bill: natural resources, transport, and environment and climate change. Three opposition amendments were passed, and, indeed, 33 amendments were passed unanimously. That speaks so well to the way we work together to ensure that this bill has an inclusive perspective.

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak to Bill C-69. I also thank my colleague for sharing her time with me and allowing me to have a few minutes to speak about this important bill today.

This is an important bill that will have a significant impact on Quebec. This is not just a bill about the environment; it is also a bill that creates a problem as to how it will be enforced by provincial jurisdictions. I am particularly concerned about the Quebec government's jurisdiction, and that is the main point I want to make in my speech today.

Nothing at the core of Bill C-69 says that the agency has the power to enter into agreements with the provinces to delegate environmental assessments to the provinces. In Quebec, we already have the Bureau d'audiences publiques en environnement, or BAPE, which has considerable expertise and has never been contradicted. There have never been any scandals surrounding its independence or its reports, unlike various federal institutions, such as the NEB, where there have been many problems recently,especially regarding the independence of the board members. Doubt surrounding the independence of the board members can cast doubt on the findings, if there is not a proper process is in place.

Unlike the federal process, so far the process in Quebec has virtually always been respected and considered valid and credible. I think it is important to rely on credible institutions whenever possible, especially in Quebec.

It is obvious to me that Bill C-69 should let the agency delegate its environmental assessment authority to institutions under provincial jurisdiction. These institutions are often much more knowledgeable about their territory. We know that, in Quebec, BAPE conducts such assessments. Its employees have acquired a certain expertise over the years.

This bill will create a new institution with new people and with practices that have yet to be established. A new culture and new expertise will have to be developed, even though that already exists within the Quebec government. It is important to build on a solid foundation, and to rely on the people already in place and their knowledge of the area, because they are closer to the people of Quebec.

There is a major element in C-69 that is problematic. It allows the federal government to disregard provincial jurisdictions and to make decisions about what it wants, how it wants it, and when it wants it. Provincial legislation and municipal bylaws are not important. They are not taken into consideration.

This creates some big problems. Take, for example, how technology has evolved in our ridings. That may not be directly related to the environment, but there is an interesting parallel. Cell towers are being put up in our ridings, for Internet and all kinds of data transmissions that fall under federal jurisdiction. In many municipalities, these towers are being put up anywhere, in the middle of public parks, and sometimes in front of houses. This destroys the landscape, sometimes in heritage areas, even. The federal government does not work with the communities at all. Take the much-discussed issue of mailboxes, for example. Members will recall when Montreal mayor Denis Coderre infamously destroyed a mailbox. I am not condoning his actions, but I think it was an important symbolic gesture showing the federal government's failure to listen to the provinces and municipalities. When the federal government itself does not need to comply with our laws and regulations, it is even easier to completely ignore them.

Obviously, respect for the Government of Quebec's areas of jurisdiction, including on environmental matters, should be incorporated into Bill C-69. The Government of Quebec already has jurisdiction over the environment and that must be enforced. The Government of Quebec has to be able to enforce its own laws, its own rules, and be master within its own jurisdiction. If the federal government interferes all the time, it indirectly prevents Quebec from doing its job.

Bill C-69 has a lot of room for improvement in that regard. This is such a fundamental issue that the government should act in good faith, allow these changes, and abide by them. I hope all other members of the House will support us on this. Many individuals and environmental groups in Quebec share this vision.

We have seen instances of the provinces' rights not being respected, and we are about to see it again with the government imposing the Kinder Morgan pipeline on British Columbia in violation of the province's jurisdiction and the rights of the people who live along the pipeline route. When the government does not listen to the people, they see that as an injustice. A government that inflicts such an injustice loses legitimacy in their eyes, and that makes people cynical.

A government that wants to avoid cynicism must respect our institutions. There is not just one institution that matters. The government has to listen to other legitimate governments' institutions, which are just as important. To forestall intergovernmental strife, the feds must at the very least respect those institutions, but that is something the federal government does not often do.

That is one of the reasons why we in the Bloc Québécois believe that Quebec should be a country. This habit is so ingrained in this government that it can barely even function because of its arrogance and attitude of superiority. Ottawa knows best. It is always Ottawa that decides what happens and, at the end of the day, our laws and our interests are trampled on. This has to change. By amending Bill C-69, Ottawa could reach out to the provinces and try to come up with an agreement that is a little better, despite the circumstances. In short, Ottawa must respect Quebec's laws and the Bureau d'audiences publiques sur l'environnement, which is pretty important.

In addition, the bill provides no guarantee that any public hearings will be held on major projects. Public hearings are important, because they give members of the public a chance to have their say on a project. When the public does not have a chance to do so, it is much harder to adapt the project and determine what the public really wants. It is much harder to sell a project when you do not seek public opinion, even if that opinion is positive. Public consultations are fundamental to any major project and, once again, they are not even mentioned in this bill.

There are no parameters for appointing the commissioners. That is a major problem because it is the Minister of the Environment who has the power to appoint the commissioners of the future agency. We end up with the same problem that we had with the National Energy Board where the government appoints agency employees who are accountable to the person who appointed them and who sometimes have special interests.

The current bill still does not address the possibility of appointing people from industry. Obviously appointing a pipeline promoter to assess a pipeline will not work because he clearly wants the pipeline built. That is his job. Similarly, if we ask a real estate agent whether the housing market is overheated, he will always say it is not, because he wants to sell houses and get a better commission. I think this leaves room for conflicts of interest and conflicts of vision.

It is therefore important to regulate the process for appointing commissioners and appointing independent commissioners rather than having commissioners appointed by the minister who are accountable to her. We know this creates major problems with regard to perception and independence, which results in a process that does not work.

For all those reasons, we will oppose Bill C-69. It is also important to consult first nations since they too have a right of oversight and should have their say.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I noticed that in the beginning of his speech, if I heard him correctly, the member was talking about cellphone towers and other communication devices that are inserted into different landscapes and different areas, traditionally with very little public input. When I was involved in municipal politics in Kingston, on a number of occasions the federal government, which has jurisdiction over particular areas, would do things without proper consultation with other interested stakeholders.

I wonder if the member could expand on how he sees that coming through in this legislation, and how it could be improved if he does not think this bill captures that.

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my intention in bringing up cell towers was to give an example of a case where the federal government is disregarding both provincial laws and municipal bylaws. Urban planning is a municipal responsibility, and cities should be able to decide where towers should be installed. There is an important question in all this with regard to urban development and landscape integration. However, that goes beyond Bill C-69. In my opinion, the important thing is for the bill to respect areas of provincial jurisdiction and comply with municipal bylaws. The example of cell towers illustrates the federal government's tendency to disregard municipal bylaws and provincial laws. If we want good collaboration and well-run projects in the future, it is essential that the federal government get in the habit of complying with these provincial laws, since they are perfectly valid, having been passed by elected officials like us. These laws were passed for the benefit of the people. Furthermore, provincial elected representatives are often closer to their constituents than their federal counterparts, since Ottawa is quite far away for many people.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his remarks. I will admit that I share some of the views he put forward in his speech. However, I think he overlooked the biggest snag, and that is what I would like to hear him talk about in the next few minutes.

Even though the bill allows BAPE to conduct a certain number of environmental assessments and make use of its expertise, the biggest snag in Bill C-69 is the fact that the minister ultimately gets to decide, with the stroke of a pen, whether to proceed, or not proceed, with the recommendations made to her, regardless of who made them.

Would my colleague not agree that the major snag in Bill C-69 is the enormous powers it gives to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change?

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for bringing up that issue, which I did not have a chance to address in my speech.

That is a very important point. The consultation process is not even mandatory in every situation and the government is not even required to consult the public, far from it. If there is a consultation process, we know that the people running it were appointed to do so by the minister. In fact, the minister is responsible for appointing commissioners, so there is already something wrong there. Once the consultation process is complete, the commissioners' report may not support the project, but the minister could still go ahead with it anyway. That is not good either. The process is already flawed from the outset. Basically, the process is useless because the minister can do as she pleases regardless.

What is the point of the process if the minister can do as she pleases without taking the discussions into account? That is a major problem with this bill. It is also one of the reasons why we are opposed to it.

[Sheri Benson, NDP, Saskatoon West, SK]

Mr. Speaker, one of the criticisms of this bill is that it does not include a legal requirement for free, prior, and informed consent.

I know that my colleague, the member for Edmonton Strathcona, tried to have that inserted at committee stage, and of course we find ourselves here today, once again trying to get the government to honour the passage of Bill C-262 that the House passed last week.

Will my hon. colleague be supporting my colleague's amendment on that issue today?

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have not yet had the opportunity to review my colleague's amendment.

From what she said, it seems to be a very good amendment. However, since I have not had the opportunity to read it, I cannot personally comment on it. I look forward to reading it. If it is an amendment that we deem to be beneficial to Quebec's interests, then we will obviously vote in favour of it.

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Mr. Speaker, members will hear from this side of the House just how tragic and pathetic this piece of proposed legislation really is.

It is interesting, because the Liberals think they have found a balance. The NDP oppose it for some reasons and we oppose it for others, but typically the reason for the opposition is that it just gives way too much power to the minister, and has way too little transparency and accountability. Not only is this proposed legislation dangerous, and I use that word deliberately, but it is also going to have a very real impact on a large number of people across this country, particularly those who live in areas dependent on resource development.

The Liberals had an opportunity to smooth out the environmental assessment process with this bill, but instead they chose to do the complete opposite. I think there is an intent here to destroy the credibility of the existing EA process in Canada, because the Liberals do not actually want to see resource development carried out. Our Prime Minister will say one thing in Alberta, and as we saw earlier this spring, go to France two days later and apologize for not getting rid of the energy industry soon enough. Therefore, I believe there is an agenda here to complicate this process and to make it basically unmanageable. Then the reality will be that it will not be possible to put in place resource projects across this country. Investors are already basically laughing at Canada and walking away. We saw an article yesterday saying that investors no longer even bother considering Canada as an option to invest in. Therefore, the Liberals are getting their way. The NDP members are getting their way.

The problem with these big government initiatives and socialism, and those of us who live in Saskatchewan understand it, is that it takes a while for the pain to actually begin. It does not happen right away. It is not immediate, but it is profound and long-lasting. The bill before us will have a profoundly long-lasting and negative impact on Canada and our economy.

The bill before us, Bill C-69, is called an act to enact the impact assessment act and the Canadian energy regulator act, to amend the Navigation Protection Act and to make consequential amendments to other acts. The main thing it would do is to set up a new impact assessment agency of Canada, replacing some other agencies. That agency will then be the lead on all federal reviews of major projects and would be expected, I guess, to work with other bodies on that.

However, realistically, what will happen here, because of the many things that are being thrown into this mix of what will be called an environmental assessment reality, is that these projects will just not get done. It is interesting, because the bill would add a number of things that need to be considered in an environmental assessment, and things that go far beyond the environment, but it would basically give anyone who has an objection to a project the right to claim there would be some impact on them and that they have a legitimate reason to have the project stopped.

I will talk a little about the process that would take place, because I think when Canadians see it, they will start to understand how disingenuous the government has been with this bill.

If we want to apply for a project, we need to go through an environmental assessment on most things. The Liberals have set up the proposed legislation so that, supposedly, there will be a planning phase of up to a maximum 180 days. This could then go in a couple of directions. It could go to a joint panel, or it could go back to the assessment agency, and there would be some timelines. However, there are a variety of tracks available for it to follow. It could end up at a review panel. The agency itself would oversee the smaller projects and then would have a full review of the larger projects. After a while, when that is done, the agency or panel would submit a recommendation and the minister would have 30 days to approve or reject it.

Well, that sounds pretty straightforward, until we start to look at the actual processes involved in this, and I want to go through three possible tracks. I will probably use most of my time doing this, but it would just point out to Canadians how bizarre this gets and how much interference the minister can play, as the NDP just pointed that out with their last questions.

The minister basically has authority at all levels over these things. The minister can make things go ahead or stop dead, and they can stay stopped if the minister and cabinet decide to do that.

First of all, I will talk about a decision that does not require a joint panel. It does not even require approval by cabinet. Under this proposed legislation, there would be a 180-day planning phase. This is something brand new that the government has thrown in here, which would already put a six-month delay or kind of stop on a project moving ahead. This could be extended by 90 days or it could be extended indefinitely by the minister if someone demanded that. There is no clarity around what that means.

Then there is a 300-day time limit for the impact assessment itself, almost a year, and no surprise, this can be extended by 90 days or indefinitely by cabinet. Timelines are thrown completely out. There is no certainty at all. Why would investors bother getting involved with something like this? And this is the simplest process of the few that are there.

Then there is a 30-day time limit after the minister and cabinet have already been involved at two different levels. It then comes to the minister and cabinet to make the decision. What kind of industry organization or business is going to come forward and put themselves through this when there is absolutely no certainty?

No surprise, that 30-day time limit can be extended by 90 days or it can be extended indefinitely. That is the simplest. A joint panel is not required. Approval by cabinet is not required. At all three levels of planning and working through the process, cabinet has authority to extend the deadline indefinitely or to whatever it chooses to extend it to. A joint panel is not required, and approval by cabinet is not required. Under Bill C-69 the total time should be about 570 days, almost a year and a half, but again, there are several opportunities to extend it.

It starts out again with that 180-day planning phase, which can be extended by 90 days or indefinitely by the minister or cabinet. Then there is a 300-day time limit for the impact assessment itself. The proponent has to get this all done in 300 days, considering all of the different factors that the government has thrown into Bill C-69, and this can be extended by 90 days or indefinitely by the minister or cabinet. Then there is a 90-day limit for cabinet to make a decision and again, this can be extended by 90 days or indefinitely by cabinet.

Those are two tracks.

The third one is a decision that requires a joint panel with a cabinet decision. The time frame on this one is set at 835 days, well over two years, with at least one opportunity to extend it. There are 10 days to start a 45-day screening process, once the decision has been made that this has to go through a joint panel. Then there is 60 days from notice to referring the assessment to the panel. Then there is 24 months from the referral when a decision statement must be issued. This can be extended 90 days by the minister, or indefinitely by cabinet. That actually was the case in the past under the CEAA 2012 method, but under Bill C-69 it would go from that 800 days to 915 days, and there are six opportunities in the bill to extend it.

There is a 180-day planning phase and a 45-day window for the minister to refer an assessment to a panel, and there is no timeline for establishing a panel at all. The panel has to submit a report to the minister within 600 days, another two years down the road, and this can be extended by the minister until anything the panel prescribes is completed, or by 90 days. Cabinet can extend it indefinitely again, and then there is another 90-day timeline for cabinet.

This assessment process that the government has thrown into the bill is basically a game. It is a game that cabinet can play with anybody who wants to apply for a project in Canada.

It is no surprise, as I mentioned before, that people are looking at other places to invest. They are investing in other countries. The Americans right now are making it very clear that they want to become the world's largest energy producer and exporter. They are eating our lunch right now. They are doing things: they are lowering taxes, they are easing the regulatory burden on people, and they are not imposing a massive carbon tax that will raise the price of everything. It is no surprise that money is moving out of Canada and into the United States.

The latest version of that is the Liberal government's decision to pay $5 billion to a Texas-based company to buy a used pipeline, which is going to take another $8 billion to $10 billion at least, and probably more, knowing this government is involved. That money will be given to this project when the proponent initially did not ask for any money.

It is unfortunate that the Liberals do not keep their promises. This is one more that has been broken. They have not fulfilled their commitments. This entire piece of legislation is just meant to hamper the industry's capacity to be able to do resource development in this country. I am sorry it has even come forward. I wish it were set aside. If this legislation is passed, it will not be a good thing for this country.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, once again we are confronted with one of those issues where the Conservatives think we are doing too much and the NDP think we are not doing enough. I cannot help but wonder, objectively speaking, that if we removed ourselves from all of the partisanship right now, if we would not perhaps think that what the government is proposing is somewhere right around where it should be, and what Canadians expect and want.

I take particular interest in the member's comment on investment in Canada. Yes, despite the fact that the price of oil has gone down and investment throughout the world is suffering as a result, Canada still had a growth rate of 3.1% in 2017 and is on track for approximately 2.5% according to the BDC in 2018.

Could the member not at least admit that maybe things are not as horrible and as nearly catastrophic as the Conservatives are suggesting they are?

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it is actually hilarious that, as usual, when everyone is against the government, it assumes it has found a good balance, and that is not the case. This is not a balance; it is just a mess. We have heard some varying criticisms from the New Democrats, but we have some common ones too, such as that the bill does not achieve the goals it sets out. It involves the cabinet and the minister in far too many places on far too many occasions. I guess we have concerns for different reasons on that.

The reality is that the Liberals have cost Canada hundreds of billions of dollars in investment. We have talked about $70 billion or $80 billion on the oil and gas side. We know that the Liberals lost a $35-billion Petronas natural gas plant because they could not make a decision about pipelines. The mining industry in this country has basically gone into neutral with respect to applying for projects. There may be one in the approval process right now.

This is not a good thing for Canada. It is not a good thing for resource development. As I mentioned earlier, the socialist policies the member for Kingston and the Islands across the way really loves to espouse are the kinds of things that actually destroy economies eventually and leave people far behind where they should have been in the first place.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask my Conservative colleague a question specifically in the context of the vote we had last week on Bill C-262. I know that the Conservatives did not vote for it, but the important fact is that the Liberals did.

My colleague, the member for Edmonton Strathcona, moved a series of amendments at report stage that seek to bring Bill C-69 in harmony with what the Liberals supported last week on Bill C-262. Does the member have a reasonable expectation that the Liberals would at least remain consistent and support those amendments from the member for Edmonton Strathcona, or are we going to see a flip-flop, where they say one thing and do something completely opposite?

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it is rare that we see any consistency from the government opposite, except where they are increasing taxes on Canadians, increasing the regulatory burden on industry, and basically dragging the economy down. I guess one of the places that would show up is the carbon tax that is being put in place. The honesty and transparency of the government is really on display when it will not tell us how much that is going to cost. We know it has the numbers in documents, but it has taken a black felt marker and crossed them all out.

In answer to the member's question, we certainly do not expect any consistency from the Liberals. We do not see it in their votes on legislation. We do not see it in their budgets. We do not see it with respect to their keeping the promises they have made in the past.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to rise today to speak in support of Bill C-69. With this bill, our government is meeting our commitment to rebuild public trust and help get Canada's resources to market. In developing Bill C-69, we heard from provinces, territories, indigenous peoples, businesses, environmental groups, and Canadians from coast to coast to coast.

Overwhelmingly, they told us that 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. That is exactly what our government has delivered in introducing this bill.

Through better rules, Bill C-69 would support the responsible development of Canada's natural resources, create good middle-class jobs, and help grow our economy. Measures in this bill would provide more timely and predictable reviews, more certainty for businesses, and more opportunities for partnerships with indigenous peoples.

Today I would like to take a step back. I want to look more closely at the question of public trust. I am going to discuss what it means to rebuild that trust, how this bill would accomplish that, and how the hard work of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development has contributed through its careful study of the bill and its thoughtful amendments.

Where there is public trust, proponents, indigenous peoples, stakeholders, and all Canadians can have confidence that major project reviews are based on evidence, including robust science, and indigenous knowledge. It also means that when final decisions are made, Canadians can be assured that those decisions have fully considered the evidence and that they serve the public interest. That is what has been lost under the current rules, and it is what Bill C-69 would restore.

It would do that in a few ways, which I will go on to discuss in more detail. It would do so by clearly setting out in legislation which factors would be considered in reviews of major projects; by ensuring that decisions were made in the public interest, and the reasons for them were communicated; and by ensuring that panels established to conduct project reviews were balanced and included the right people with the right expertise.

I will begin with the factors that would guide major project reviews. Compared with CEAA 2012, Bill C-69 sets out a more comprehensive and complete set of factors for consideration in reviews. While it would provide strong protection for the environment, the bill would expand the scope of reviews beyond the environment alone. Assessments would take a broader view based on sustainability, taking into account a wide range of impacts on the economy, health, indigenous rights, and the community.

Crucially, Bill C-69 would require consideration of a project's impact on indigenous peoples and their rights. In the words of the Prime Minister, “No relationship is more important to Canada than the relationship with Indigenous Peoples.” Considering the rights of indigenous peoples in every review fully aligns with our commitment to achieve reconciliation through a renewed relationship based on the recognition of rights, respect, co-operation, and partnership.

Finally, the bill reflects our government's commitment to effective action on climate change. It would ensure that reviews considered the effects of major projects on Canada's ability to meet our climate change commitments as well as our obligations related to environmental challenges like air quality and biodiversity. That supports our actions to fight carbon pollution, such as working with partners to put a price on pollution that will cut 80 million to 90 million tonnes of GHG emissions by 2022.

That is where we began when our government introduced Bill C-69 in this House in February. Since then, the standing committee has strengthened the bill by adding even more clarity on factors to consider in project reviews and by improving consistency across the legislation.

To highlight just a few of the changes, the committee clarified that both positive and negative impacts must be considered, recognizing that not all effects of major resource projects will be negative. It amended the proposed Canadian energy regulator act to ensure that climate change is considered when making decisions about non-designated projects, including pipelines, power lines, and offshore projects. It improved consistency by requiring that the same set of factors guide the agency's decision on what information and studies are required for a project review, the review itself, and inform the impact assessment report. All these measures would support more predictable reviews, more certainty for industry, and public trust.

Over and over we have heard that a good process means nothing if the decision at the end is opaque and is based on politics, not evidence. When that happens, there can be no public trust. Bill C-69 would do the opposite. It would set up safeguards to ensure that science, indigenous knowledge, and other evidence formed the basis for important decisions on whether major projects would go ahead.

Specifically, following amendments by the standing committee, the bill would require decisions to be based on the assessment report prepared by the impact assessment agency of Canada. Decisions would also need to consider key factors, including the project's contribution to sustainability, meaning its ability to protect the environment and contribute to the social and economic well-being of the people of Canada and preserve their health in a way that benefits present and future generations.

To provide certainty and build trust, public decision statements would need to clearly demonstrate how the assessment report formed the basis for the decision and how those factors were considered. This clarity would benefit all parties: proponents, indigenous peoples, and stakeholders. Through transparency and accountability, it would help ensure that the decisions on projects were made in the public trust.

In terms of further amendments that would improve transparency and help restore trust, the bill would now require that the minister consider any feedback provided by the proponent when deciding whether a decision statement for a project would expire or whether the timeline would be extended. The comments would have to be provided during a time period specified by the impact assessment agency of Canada so that meaningful public participation was assured and balanced with the need for timely assessments.

Last, I want to talk about the safeguards Bill C-69 would provide so that panels set up to review major projects with life-cycle regulators would strike the right balance in their membership. Our government and the standing committee heard from some groups that this is a critical step toward restoring public trust. We recognize that these regulators have long-standing specialized expertise and knowledge. Their participation is essential to ensuring that Canada's resources are developed in a way that protects the environment and grows the economy. We put forward amendments in committee to strike a balance to ensure that review panels also included other voices and perspectives. The bill would require that federal regulators not constitute a majority on the panel. At the same time, regulators would continue to serve on panels and contribute their expertise.

We cannot get Canada's resources to market without public trust. With this bill, we would rebuild that trust by introducing new, fairer processes for project reviews. Bill C-69 would define the needed safeguards so that Canadians could again have confidence that processes were fair and evidence-based, that decisions served the public interest, and that the right projects went forward. As I have described, these measures would include clearly setting out in advance the key factors that would guide major project reviews; requiring evidence-based decision-making; being transparent when final decisions were made so that Canadians would know that the process was being followed, and they could have confidence in the outcome; and ensuring balanced review panels that would bring together diverse expertise and multiple perspectives.

I would like to conclude by once again recognizing the work of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development. As a result of its members' insight and dedication, the committee's work has produced an amended bill that would respond to the priorities of indigenous peoples, stakeholders, and Canadians and would further contribute to our goal of restoring the public trust.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite is from Ontario, and he should know that this bill is exactly what the McGuinty and Wynne Liberals did to the Ontario Energy Board. They totally politicized it. There was a pipeline of communications going between cabinet and that particular body, supposedly a body that was regulating the industry. Everything went the way they wanted it to. Look what happened in Ontario: hydro rates exploded, and now that party is on the verge of non-party status. It is being obliterated. The one common thread between that Ontario government and the current federal government is the Prime Minister's puppet master.

No matter how many billions of dollars they throw into Kinder Morgan, this bill would provide the kill switch. It will not be hydro bills; it will be outrageous and unaffordable gas bills people see at the pumps.

Since the member has turned his back on his constituents, what is he going to do when they turn their backs on him?

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

Mr. Speaker, I guess I should not be surprised by the comments from the member opposite. Everything that comes is fear-based hysterical propaganda. I just find it very surprising that she finds a way to politicize everything and is able to develop another fundraising clip for her Facebook page.

Our government is focused on doing the right thing because it is the right thing to do, and that is ensuring that the economy and the environment go hand in hand. That is exactly what this bill will ensure: that good projects move forward and that we have meaningful public engagement. Of course, the opposite side would not even know what that term means, given what happened in CEAA 2012 with the undemocratic process of pushing it through in a budget bill and not even letting it get to committee.

We have found a balance here that is going to help get our resources to market, while at the same time protecting the public trust and ensuring that our environment is protected as well.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, one of the gaps in Bill C-69 is that it only requires a consideration of indigenous knowledge in going ahead with these assessments.

The member for Edmonton Strathcona has moved some report stage amendments, specifically Motions Nos. 4, 7, 9, 10, 12, and 13, which seek to bring this bill in harmony with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. I checked the vote last week on May 30, and the member for Hastings—Lennox and Addington did vote in support of Bill C-262, which seeks to bring Canadian laws in harmony with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

Will the member be consistent with his vote last week and vote in support of these amendments when they come before the House?

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

Mr. Speaker, I was also on the indigenous committee that studied Bill C-262. I am a very strong supporter of UNDRIP.

I am proud to say that we are the government that for the first time has embedded UNDRIP into a bill, even before UNDRIP was put into effect in this House, by introducing it into Bill C-69 through amendments that the Liberal members of the committee had put forward. I strove to ensure that UNDRIP was included in Bill C-69 even before Bill C-262 has fully passed in this House.

I am very proud of what our government is doing in moving forward with Bill C-262 and I have tremendous respect for the member for the James Bay region and his work on that bill.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, the member made a comment calling a member in this House “hysterical”. I think the comment was maybe made in haste, and I would ask that the comment be withdrawn.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Anthony Rota]

I will leave it to the hon. member. Do you want to respond to that?

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

The tactics were hysterical.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Anthony Rota]

I have heard a lot of things go back and forth, a lot of things I would love to get up for and stop, but I think we have set a standard. Unfortunately, I am not sure that is quite over the line. He did clarify a little. I would suggest that maybe the two members could talk to each other after the session and maybe iron things out.

Questions and comments.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member serves on the environment committee, which I had the opportunity to serve on too, as did the member for Edmonton Strathcona.

In her speech earlier, she basically all but said that she had absolutely no input, that when she put forward ideas or asked for witnesses to come forward, repeatedly her suggestions and everything she had to offer were not permitted to take place in the committee. That is certainly not what I saw in my observations in the committee.

I am wondering if the member could comment on the value that the committee puts on the input from the member for Edmonton Strathcona.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have tremendous respect for the member for Edmonton Strathcona, the knowledge that she brought to the committee, and her life experiences working on environmental issues in Alberta and throughout the assessment process. In fact, I consulted with her on a number of issues, and it even helped to inform the amendments that I myself put forward.

I have tremendous respect for her and for all members on the committee. We have all worked exceptionally well together. I will add that Liberal members even gave up their opportunities to speak in order to enable the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands to have a voice on our committee. We will continue to do so. We are proud of the work that our committee does.

[Karen Vecchio, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I first want to address the comment made to the member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke. It is not fearmongering and it is not hysteria; it is the fact that the constituents of her riding believe in her, because they know she is going to fight for what they believe in. The fact that she comes to this chamber with such passion is something we can all learn from, because she listens to her constituents and brings their voices to the chamber.

There was a comment made regarding the member for Edmonton Strathcona having a voice at the table. I adore the member for Edmonton Strathcona. Although we are from different parties, she brings so much to the House because of her background. When I sat down with her and we talked, she let me know she felt almost demoralized. That is not her word, but she felt she could not bring anything to the committee because Liberals were not listening. She had so much to bring to that committee, and those voices were not heard. People can say, “We let you sit at the table; we just told you to shut up”, and that is basically what happened here. That is very concerning.

UNDRIP is another thing, and I will allow the NDP members to talk about UNDRIP in this bill. The government says it will vote for something one week, and then the next week it does a total 180°.

I will now speak on 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 must agree that with that title, we can recognize how large this act is and how many different committees should have been looking at this bill, but instead Liberals sent it to the environment committee, where it got shut down in debate.

There are many concerns being highlighted by the Conservative caucus, informing Canadians about concerns for Canada's economy and the decreased competitiveness in Canada on a number of issues, including reduced taxes on corporations in the U.S. and the $25-a-barrel discount on our oil.

I want to discuss this issue to highlight how it impacts our constituents. I am from the riding of Elgin—Middlesex—London. I am not from a riding that is oceanside and there are not a lot of pipes going through my community, but this bill will impact my community of Elgin—Middlesex—London, so I want to discuss two key items.

In late spring, a bridge collapsed in the village of Port Bruce. This bridge connected the village of Port Bruce to the rest of Aylmer on Highway 73. The first issue was how to rebuild the bridge. We had to look at so many different things, including where we were going to get the money and what we were going to do. There are great people in the municipalities and the country working on this. When the bridge collapsed, one of the first things that came to mind, other than the money, was what the government was going to do with regard to environmental impacts and what kinds of delays the community and council were going to have to deal with.

Having worked with a former MP, I recalled some work I had done with the municipality of Thames Centre back in 2010 on species at risk. We have to understand that there are going to be obstacles, and there was about a 10-month delay in the municipality of Thames Centre because of this. I am very concerned that we will see delays like this when this new legislation proposed by the Liberal government passes. Maybe some things will work and maybe some things are better, but we will never know, because we never got the chance to debate it.

The bridge that collapsed is near the mouth of Catfish Creek and connects the waterways from Catfish Creek to the Great Lakes, specifically Lake Erie. Although I agree with the necessity of environmental assessments, I am concerned that the reconstruction of the bridge will be hampered because of increased bureaucracy, specifically with the passage of Bill C-69. This small community needs support from all levels of government, including the Government of Canada. What will these new timelines do to the government's response and what will the government's involvement be in this project?

Although the government states that what is in the bill would reduce the timelines, we have seen the government's track record and the raft of broken promises. I just do not have it in me to believe that this proposed legislation would create anything but obstacles for our economy and the people who live in Canada. The new planning phase would add an additional 180 days, followed by a 30-day assessment by the minister. There are so many opportunities for both major and minor projects to be slowed down because of this hierarchy and the ministerial and Governor in Council exemptions.

The village of Port Bruce will need a plan. I have reached out to all of the ministers of the government who could impact the reconstruction of this bridge. To date, all of the responses that I have received are basically a bunch of Liberal talking points. I am not seeing assistance. I am not seeing help. Rather, I see the government telling me what it is doing and patting itself on the back and saying that maybe we can go after the gas tax fund. Those are not the kinds of things that we need from the government. I do not really know if people in government understand how smaller municipalities need to work together with all levels of government and how they have to be part of this. They cannot just give us platitudes.

Whether the township and county decide to go with a temporary bridge or go directly toward reconstructing this bridge, I fear that the government will slow things down. The village is a tourist destination and is currently being greatly impacted by the inability of people to take a direct route. We also must be concerned over the inability of the township to adequately provide emergency services. One of the biggest challenges that this community has had is that Highway 73 does not even go there, so we have had neighbouring municipalities get on board to provide those emergency services.

However, we must move forward on our project, and I am totally concerned about what is going to happen in our next phase. Once it decides what it will do, what is the government going to be doing with new red tape approaches, both to the county and to the municipalities?

My second point also focuses on the farmers in my riding and the change to the navigational waters act. For years, I have heard from local farmers about some of the restrictions regarding ditches and things of that sort. We all have different ways of looking at it, but the fact is that we do not have a way of discussing this issue because when we are at committee, debate gets shut down.

For years farmers have been strongly speaking about the restrictions that they have been under, and when in 2012 there were some changes, they applauded the government because they felt that they were not going to be restricted as much. That is positive. When we are trying to work on the economy, we want to make sure that we are working with the stewards of our land and not always against them. I am always concerned with how we are going to make sure we are working forward. I believe in our farmers and I have watched them use responsible methods to improve their applications.

What will this legislation do to impact our local farmers, as well as reconstruction of the bridge? Well, I wish I could tell members more about that, but this bill was rammed through the committee and amendments proposed by all opposition parties were ignored. The government says it is allowing people's voices to be heard, but we know that the moment nine o'clock strikes at committee, committee members can not debate anything further.

We know that the Liberal government put in over 100 of their own recommendations when it came to amendments. Are the Liberals saying that this bill does not need amendments? By having to amend their own bill that many times, I think they have proven to the entire committee and to all Canadians that the bill is flawed.

We may not agree on everything, but the government cut debate. Although we may not agree on everything, the most important part is to listen. As the chair of the status of women committee, I have seen some co-operation when we are talking about amendments and when we are talking about recommendations. When we are all sitting at the table and really trying to do what is best for Canadians, everyone is actually listening. There are opportunities for us to merge. When we are putting in a recommendation, we may take something from the NDP or we may take something from the Liberals and the Conservative Party and merge those thoughts together so that we can all be heard, but Canadian voices have been shut down at committee and in this House when debating this bill.

How are Canadians supposed to know that their voices are being heard when time allocation is being imposed not only on their representatives in this House but also in the committees? How do we know that we are getting what is best for Canadians when the Liberals seem to be listening only to themselves and not listening to some of these amendments?

I agree that Liberals may have some good suggestions but do not think that the Conservatives, the NDP, the Green Party, and the Bloc all have good suggestions. We need to work together.

I see that part of my role as a parliamentarian is to listen. I urge the government to start to listen again. We have seen a lot of problems, but if the government can get off its talking points, maybe we can all do better. I think that is part of the issue: the questions that are being asked are taken back to government talking points. We are not talking about how it is going to impact people. We are not talking how it is going to impact the Trans Mountain pipeline. We are not talking about those things. We are talking about spending $4.5 billion without even seeing how we will get a pipeline built. We know that the government was the obstacle for Kinder Morgan, and now how is it not going to be the obstacle for itself, unless it turns 180° once again?

The government's role is to create a positive atmosphere for businesses to succeed. New taxes, government red tape, and truly poor opportunities for Canadians to speak on legislative changes that engage Canadians are here with this government. I heard the leader of the Greens say that we can do better. With discussions and amendments actually being heard, we can do better. I urge the Liberals to start consulting with all parties.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, there has been a great deal of consultation through the ministry with many different stakeholders. Members of Parliament have been speaking to this legislation for a good period of time now, whether in the House or at committee.

I would not have any hesitation contrasting what we have witnessed on this side compared to when Mr. Harper was prime minister. One need only look at the amendment process. If we were afforded the opportunity to have a thorough discussion, I am sure the member would retract some of those comments.

NDP members have said they are voting against the legislation because we have gone nowhere near far enough and they want more done to protect the environment. On the other hand, the Conservatives are saying they are voting against the legislation because they believe we are putting in too much regulation. My colleague, the member for Kingston and the Islands, has put it quite well.

Does the member not see that there is significant value, that there is an enhancement of our environment, and that there are ways in which we can have both the economy and the environment working together for the common good? We do not see that coming from either the NDP or the Conservatives.

[Karen Vecchio, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Mr. Speaker, part of my issue is that I see these talking points, these words, as disingenuous. I have seen the government ram through things at so many different committees. It is the Liberals' ideology or nothing. As I indicated, I have huge respect for the member for Edmonton Strathcona. When she feels that her voice is being shut down on this, that speaks volumes for many Canadians.

We may have different approaches to this, but when the government is not listening, it does not matter. It does not mean that the Liberals have found a middle balance because the left says one thing and the right says another, so the Liberals are right. They are not listening, and this has to do with the fact that they shut down debate at committee and they ram through legislation. There is just no honesty here.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to my colleague's speech. I would like to address the comments that were just made. When the Conservative Party and the NDP say they will vote against the bill for different reasons, there is one that jumps out at me. The NDP is clearly concerned that the minister's new powers will allow her to approve projects that should not be approved. The Conservatives have the exact opposite position. I respect both these positions.

Does that not clearly demonstrate the arbitrary nature of this flawed bill?

[Karen Vecchio, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we discussed the fact that there should have been three different committees looking at this. The natural resources committee should have been looking at this. The environment committee should have been looking at this. There should have been a variety of different groups and committees working on this to make sure that we are doing what is best for Canadians.

I really do not think the Liberal government listens. It is the Liberals' way or the highway, and that is what we are seeing with this piece of legislation. They are ramming something through, where if there are proper alternatives that are going to work for businesses, as well as for people who have environmental concerns, we can find some balance.

Just because the left and the right are disagreeing, that does not make the centre right for the Liberals' big omnibus bill. That is exactly what it is. When the Conservatives and the NDP are agreeing and nodding heads, one knows there is a problem, and maybe the government should recognize that it is not listening.

[Ben Lobb, Conservative, Huron—Bruce, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I know the member remembers a time when we were in government and we streamlined and fixed the problems. DFO was getting involved in municipal drains. There were navigable water issues in my riding, where there are no boats going up any rivers. There were double environmental assessments for infrastructure projects, which created duplication and waste. It was 10 years to get a hydroelectric project completed, with environmental screenings for cedar benches in Parks Canada. We made improvements to get rid of that waste and redundancy. I wonder if the member could talk about that for a minute.

[Karen Vecchio, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we needed to get rid of duplication, and that is exactly what the former government did. For 14 years, I have been meeting with farmers and farmers groups, and one of the biggest things I heard from grain and oilseed farmers in Elgin—Middlesex—London was about their concerns with the navigable waters act. There are times when we need to trigger an environmental assessment, but there are times when the Liberals have gone way too far. About the DFO, we have to work on that and fix it because this is only going to get worse.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise today to speak in support of Bill C-69. The bill fulfills a core commitment our government made to rebuild public trust in the environmental assessment system. It is based on 14 months of consultation with provinces and territories, indigenous peoples, companies, environmental groups, and Canadians from coast to coast to coast.

Today, I will start by outlining why we created this bill and what it will accomplish. I will then discuss how our government and the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development have engaged in dialogue with indigenous communities and other partners throughout this process. I will also speak about what we heard.

Finally, I will describe how the standing committee's hard work in studying and amending the bill responds to the comments that have been received, and how it supports our government's commitment to a clean environment and a strong economy.

Before I begin, I would like to congratulate the standing committee and recognize what has been accomplished. Consideration of such a complex and significant bill is a challenging task. I commend the committee for its openness in hearing diverse witness testimony and for making thoughtful amendments that address important issues and significantly strengthen the original bill.

I would like to start my comments by providing some background about Bill C-69: why it is before us today and why it is so important for the future of Canada's economy and environment.

Public trust was eroded as a result of changes made by the Harper government in 2012. Canadians lost confidence in how decisions about major resource projects were made. Bill C-69 aims to restore that trust, put in place better rules to protect our environment, and build a stronger economy. It reflects our conviction that a clean environment and a strong economy can and must go hand in hand in the modern world, something that has guided all of our actions since forming government. It takes a balanced approach: providing certainty for industry while upholding the rights of indigenous peoples, protecting our environment, and facilitating the generation of economic benefits for all Canadians.

I would like to thank indigenous peoples, stakeholders, and Canadians who contributed their knowledge and perspectives. The proposed legislation provides many important improvements. Decisions would be transparent and guided by robust science and indigenous knowledge. Project reviews would consider a wide range of impacts on the economy, health, indigenous rights, and the community, not simply the environment. Reviews would be more timely and more predicable. Measures are included to advance reconciliation and partnership with indigenous peoples. Duplication and red tape would be reduced through a “one project, one review” approach.

As I was saying, during months of consultation, indigenous peoples, stakeholders, and Canadians across the country helped us develop Bill C-69. Since the bill was introduced, our government has continued to ensure that they participate fully in the process at every opportunity.

Hearing from Canadians directly was also central to the standing committee's consideration of the bill. In recent months, the committee heard from more than 80 witnesses with diverse perspectives and expertise. I would like to share some of the valuable input that we heard from stakeholders during this process.

First, indigenous peoples and organizations have said that Bill C-69 must fully support our government's goal of advancing reconciliation and a renewed relationship based on the recognition of rights, respect, co-operation, and partnership, as well as our commitment to implement the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. This is critically important.

As the Prime Minister said, no relationship is more important to Canada than the one with indigenous peoples.

Environmental organizations have stressed the importance of public participation and accessible, transparent information. In particular, they told us that the bill must ensure not just participation, but meaningful participation that has an influence on project reviews and decision-making. From industry and other stakeholders, we heard that the legislation must provide certainty and clarity about what would be considered in project reviews and in decision-making.

The project proponent and other participants should feel confident that the decisions are evidence-based and are made in the public interest.

I am pleased that the standing committee has made a number of amendments to the bill that respond to many of the comments and concerns highlighted by stakeholders and indigenous peoples. Finding appropriate ways to address these issues is not easy, and I want to recognize the committee for its dedication and its collaborative approach.

I would now like to mention some amendments made by the committee and explain how they support our goals for a sound environment and a strong economy.

As a result of the committee's work and feedback from indigenous peoples, the bill now clearly states our government's commitment to the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. The declaration would now be reflected in the preamble to both the proposed impact assessment act and the proposed Canadian energy regulator act. The government, the minister, the agency, the Canadian energy regulator, and other federal authorities would also need to exercise their powers under the impact assessment act and the Canadian energy regulator act in a manner that respects the government's commitments with respect to the rights of indigenous peoples.

The amendments also add to the existing provisions, to ensure that indigenous knowledge is taken into account along with the science when projects are being assessed. The bill will now require more transparency in how the indigenous knowledge is used and will implement strong measures to protect this knowledge.

The standing committee has strengthened the public participation and transparency provisions across the legislation. The bill now clarifies that Canadians would have opportunities for meaningful participation throughout assessments. To support meaningful participation, a broad range of project information would need to be posted online, and there would be a requirement to maintain this information so that it stays accessible over time.

Furthermore, in response to reactions from environmental organizations, amendments would establish new safeguards so that Canadians can have confidence that the process is fair. For example, the bill clarifies that the project would be based on the impact assessment report and that decisions would also have to consider the main factors of public interest, including the project's contribution to sustainability.

The committee has also responded to industry's calls for more certainty. Amendments have been made to clarify that the government's public interest decision will be based on the assessment report and the consideration of specific factors, including positive and negative consequences. Other amendments include clarifying that comments must be provided during a time period specified by the impact assessment agency of Canada so that meaningful participation is ensured and balanced with a need for timely assessments. They would also enable the Minister of Environment and Climate Change to inform companies early on if a project is likely to have negative impacts, giving proponents an earlier opportunity to decide whether to continue with an impact assessment. Finally, the committee's amendments would improve the transition provisions set out in the bill.

The committee has strengthened Bill C-69 with these changes and others. By maintaining a balanced approach, the bill will further support environmental protection and reconciliation, and will also help increase investor confidence.

I am very proud of our government's work on this bill.

Bill C-69 addresses a key commitment we made during the 2015 election campaign. Our best rules adopt a balanced approach that takes into account the interests of people across Canada.

Once again, I want to recognize the essential contributions made by the standing committee, as well as the many Canadians who participated in consultations and made their voices heard. Thanks to their passion and commitment, I am confident that this bill will support the goals that I believe all of my colleagues share: a clean environment for our children, and a strong and growing economy.

I hope that all members of the House will join me in supporting this bill.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is clear that the Liberal government is out to destroy our natural resources sector, not only with this bill but with the introduction of carbon taxes.

In terms of looking at advancements in how we process these things, Bill C-69 proposes a 180-day planning phase, which can be extended by 90 days by the minister or indefinitely by cabinet. There is actually no timeline for establishing the panel. Once it is finally established, the panel has to submit its report within 600 days, and that, again, can be extended by the minister for 90 days or indefinitely by cabinet.

How can my colleague stand in this place and actually imply that the bill would enhance the capability of bringing projects online?

[Jonathan Wilkinson, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

Mr. Speaker, obviously, it is important to restore public trust in the processes so that projects can move forward. That was the primary focus of all the work that was done on Bill C-69.

One very important measure that has been introduced is related to the early planning phase. It is something that many resource-based organizations have called for to try to set the parameters and scope of when the environmental assessment would take place so that we can flag issues that need to be addressed early on and not flag them far down the road when they are much more difficult to address. Therefore, I would suggest that the hon. member may want to reflect that comment back to some of the natural resource organizations that asked for this.

With respect to the timelines, there are specific timelines that will provide certainty for proponents going forward. One of the amendments that the member has perhaps not seen is the lowering of the 600-day limit to 300 days. However, the focus is very much on providing timelines that will give certainty to proponents as to how this will proceed in a timely way.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the parliamentary secretary for his speech.

The NDP deplores that the Liberal government waited so long to propose a new environmental assessment process. What worries me about this new version is that the government did not explicitly state which projects must be assessed by the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency. Furthermore, Bill C-69 does not set out the criteria that will be used to determine whether an assessment is required. It is like buying a Ferrari that can only get up to second gear. What a shame.

Why did the government decide to do this?

[Jonathan Wilkinson, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member raised two separate issues. The first is that it did take time to bring this law forward. That is precisely because, knowing how important this is from an economic and environmental perspective, we knew we needed to have appropriate consultation with communities, individuals, companies, first nations, and environmental organizations. Therefore, we took the time to ensure that we actually got this right.

With respect to the question around projects, my hon. colleague is exactly right, in that there does need to be a definition that provides clarity about which projects will be included from a federal perspective, because, of course, there are projects that fall out of federal jurisdiction and are managed by the provinces. That regulatory piece is being managed through the project list that is out for consultation right now. I would certainly encourage the hon. member to weigh-in with his thoughts about what should be on and off the project list.

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer—Mountain View, AB]

Mr. Speaker, earlier in his address, the member mentioned that this gave the Minister of Environment an opportunity to tell proponents quickly whether or not the projects could go ahead. Therefore, it is very similar to the process the government had with northern gateway, where it would quickly tell them that it was not going ahead. The same thing happened with energy east when it indicated it could go upstream and downstream. That was put it in there so that we would find out whether it could go ahead.

Then the government decided that it was going to put money into a project that was not necessary. Therefore, we have a situation where I am sure the government said, “Houston, we no longer have a problem”, and this money will go into other countries so that we will import oil from the east coast. Has the government done an environmental assessment of the effects worldwide of the actions it has just taken?

[Jonathan Wilkinson, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the focus of the conversation today is Bill C-69. I do not think the hon. member was actually speaking to the bill.

The focus is really very much on enhancing the integrity and transparency of the process, and restoring the public trust that was destroyed in 2012 by the Harper government when it introduced significant changes to the environmental assessment process, the Fisheries Act, and the Navigable Waters Act. This government is very focused on ensuring that we are in a position to address legitimate environmental concerns so that good projects can move forward in an expedited way to ensure that we are creating good middle-class jobs for Canadians.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to Bill C-69 at report stage. It has been a long time coming, since it was one of the major promises the Liberal Party made to Canadians during the last election.

In 2012, the environmental assessment process was scrapped, which undermined Quebeckers’ and other Canadians’ confidence in an independent, transparent, fair, balanced and scientific process based on facts. It was absolutely necessary that we change course and repair the damage done, but, unfortunately, the attempt is a bit late and, once again, half-hearted.

The parliamentary secretary said that the delay was in large part due to the consultations the Liberal government conducted and the fact that it created expert committees that made their own recommendations. I might believe that if the government had listened to the recommendations made by the experts and by the citizens of Canada. Unfortunately, that is not the case. It received a number of good suggestions and recommendations from the panels it created, but it rejected practically all of the suggestions from the environmental and scientific communities.

Despite the Liberals’ rhetoric and their boasting about having collaborated, they rejected 99% of all amendments proposed by the opposition parties in committee in an effort to improve the bill. Almost all of the 33 amendments that were accepted in committee were proposed by Liberal members. I wanted to set the record straight.

We in the NDP believe that the Liberals took their time because they were actually pleased to be able to use the old Conservative system to quickly and quietly pass certain projects that they did not want people to look at too closely. I am thinking in particular of Kinder Morgan’s Trans Mountain pipeline project. As luck would have it, it is too late for the project to be assessed under the new system.

They tried to tinker with the existing process by adding criteria, some of which are not being met. Contrary to the clear promise made by the Prime Minister in British Columbia during the election campaign that no new pipeline projects would be accepted under Stephen Harper’s environmental assessment process, the Liberals were far from thorough. Astonishingly, once again, they broke their promise and approved the project under an obsolete system that they criticized and said they did not trust.

Today, we are wondering how we can trust the government’s decision. I do not even want to talk about the fact that we are spending who knows how many billions of dollars to purchase a pipeline that no one will want in 30 or 40 years because it will be worthless.

If we are in trouble up to our necks today because of the Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain pipeline scandal, it is in large part because, from the get-go, the Liberals did not fulfill their promise, did not do their job, and rushed the project through without the people’s consent. They did not respect the first nations’ territories, and the first nations are challenging the legitimacy of the pipeline in court and complaining that they are not getting their due respect and that no one is listening to them.

Last week, everyone, Liberal and New Democrat alike, was pleased with the support for my colleague’s bill making the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples law in Canada. Just five days later, however, the Liberal government was already breaking its commitment by refusing to incorporate the declaration's principles into the Trans Mountain pipeline project. That is a betrayal. I have never seen a government flip-flop in such a way in under a week.

To get back to Bill C-69, we believe that there are three key issues. The first concerns how we determine which projects will be assessed.

The second is how we choose the expert panels to do the assessment, and whether they are truly independent. The third involves the minister’s discretion when it comes to accepting or refusing the experts’ recommendations and the results of the environmental assessment. We have a problem with these three issues.

First, and this is critical, there is no definition or criteria for determining which economic or energy development project will be subject to the new environmental assessment process. Astonishingly, the parliamentary secretary just conceded the point to me. If a project is not assessed, we can have the best process in the world, but it will not do us any good. If I buy a new computer and I leave it in the box in the corner of my office, I will not derive any benefit from it. We now fear the worst. The absence of clear criteria, commitments or a list of projects means that projects that will have an impact on territories and communities might very well not be subject to the new Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency process.

This discretion, this willingness to select projects as it sees fit in a seemingly random fashion is a huge problem for us as environmentalists, and for people who want to do serious work.

Second, there are many in the community who have serious doubts about the political independence of the panels that will be appointed to consult scientists, indigenous peoples and Canadians in general. Will these experts not simply be political hacks that will become complacent or shut their eyes to certain issues instead of doing their job?

We have seen the credibility of the National Energy Board suffer because of this type of cronyism. The Centre québécois du droit de l’environnement shares our concern; it made two statements that I would like to share. The first is, and I quote, “In order to restore confidence, project assessment panels must be truly independent from both industry and the government”, and the second, “Bill [C-69] contains no mechanism for ensuring independence from political interference or avoiding partisan appointments or complacency in assessment panels, on whose recommendations the government now bases its final decisions.”

We are not the only ones to say so. There is a fundamental problem with the fact that there is no guarantee, no structure for preventing politics and partisanship from affecting the assessments. There could be a considerable loss of credibility. That would be a shame, because it is really an institution based on trust. Here is a good example: the BAPE is a respected institution in Québec, and Quebeckers have confidence in it. We would like to see that model used, and we do not understand why, in its bill, the federal government did not include anything about accepting environmental assessment processes carried out in some of the provinces, including Québec, since the BAPE is recognized by all of the stakeholders and groups at the table.

The third issue involves the end of the process. Decisions are made regarding which projects will be assessed, experts are appointed to engage in consultations, scientists and local populations are listened to, the general mood is gauged and the indigenous peoples involved are given a chance to express themselves but, at the end of the day, the sitting minister is not bound by the assessment panel’s recommendation. An assessment panel could say that there are too many dangers, too many risks, that the project is not acceptable to the population and that it is dangerous for the environment but, in the end, the minister could order that the project go ahead anyway.

Today, we have a Minister of Environment who says she is concerned about the environment. In my opinion, sometimes she is, sometimes she is not. However, this legislative provision will remain on the books for many Parliaments down the road. We think that this is extremely dangerous, because in the past we have seen a minister dismiss indigenous peoples, scientists and Canadians in general and opt for projects that pose a danger to our environment, our ecosystems and public health.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie for his work on this issue and the speech he just gave.

I must admit that, as I read bills, as an opposition member, I too try to find positive points. Our role is to try to improve bills, not simply oppose them. I was thrilled to see that the traditional knowledge of first nations would be taken into consideration in the assessment process moving forward. However, I must also admit that I am deeply concerned about the Liberal government's decision to purchase a $4.5-billion pipeline this week and how it voted on a motion we moved last week.

Why should we believe that first nations' traditional knowledge really will be taken into account in the environmental assessment process?

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Trois-Rivières for his question.

I share his concern and his apprehension, because this government has said one thing and done the opposite all too often. Therefore, yes, this might look good on paper, but when we consider the decisions this government has actually made, it simply does not pass a reality check. It is constantly contradicting itself.

It is troubling, because if we do not have a mechanism in place to ensure that expert panels really are free of all political influence, it means that the government could easily ignore the lofty principles set out in Bill C-69, just as it is now ignoring the principle of informed, clear, and transparent consultation with indigenous peoples regarding the Trans Mountain pipeline, which the government just bought with our money.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague has highlighted many of the challenges Bill C-69 presents. We also have concerns with Bill C-69, but they are concerns that investment in Canada is fleeing. In fact, over the last two years, we have seen the most dramatic drop in foreign investment the country has ever seen. We have seen it drop in half. That is because the investment environment in Canada is one that is no longer attractive and welcoming to the people who want to invest, especially in our resource industry.

Recently, the Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain was purchased by the government, which shocked all of us. The last time that happened was under the Prime Minister's father, who was prime minister at the time. We know how that played out. Eventually Petro-Canada was returned to the private sector. It always should have been in private hands.

The member clearly is not a big supporter of the Kinder Morgan pipeline, yet we still have a robust oil industry in Canada. Canada has the third-largest oil reserves in the world. The world still is beating a path to our doorstep, wanting to buy our oil. Therefore, if the member is not supportive of the Kinder Morgan pipeline, does he then propose that we continue to use and increase the use of rail to transport oil? His own province has had a big problem at Lac-Mégantic with oil being transported by rail. Is that his solution to the way we get oil to markets outside of Canada?

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question.

Obviously, I think that we do not share the same perspective. To the NDP, the energy sector is more than just oil and gas. We think that instead of debating pipelines or trains we should be changing the channel and looking at alternatives.

I thank my colleague for pointing out that the Liberal government foolishly decided out of the blue to spend billions of dollars of Canadians' money on a project that it never said it would undertake. Let us be clear, the $4.5 billion is just the beginning. No jobs will be created; this is just to buy existing equipment and infrastructure. Kinder Morgan was talking about investing at least an additional $7.4 billion to expand the pipeline. That brings us to $11.9 billion.

We are more interested in what we might do with renewable energies and future investments in jobs for today and tomorrow. The NDP is interested in being able to invest in an energy transition that is fair to workers.

[William Amos, Liberal, Pontiac, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-69, which is very important.

Following the debate on the previous government's reform of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, I was very pleased to see that we are moving forward with this bill, which is the product of extensive consultation over the past two years.

I would like to recognize the hard work that the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development did on this file. The committee heard from more than 50 witnesses and received 150 briefs. Several hundred amendments were proposed, 130 of which were adopted. It is therefore clear that this was a very robust process, and I would like to commend my colleagues for the work they did in committee. I was very impressed by their willingness to consider possible improvements.

I would like to focus a bit on that aspect in particular. I note our chair and vice-chair are sitting opposite having a discussion, likely on topics related to the committee's work. This committee was charged with an important assignment, which was to ensure democracy functioned in the context of reviewing complex legislation.

If we rewind to 2012, the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012 was incorporated into the previous Conservative government's budget bill. It was an entire replacement of the previous Environmental Assessment Act. It was brought through the omnibus budget bill and there were no hearings specifically on the bill to reform the environmental assessment rules. That was criticized across the country, from indigenous communities to environmental groups. Even municipal actors were literally appalled at the anti-democratic approach taken to amend that law.

Therefore, the pendulum swings back a bit. We knew and committed in the previous campaign to reforming that legislation. Thankfully, pursuant to many months of consultation, a better starting point, which was Bill C-69, was achieved. However, when it went to committee, to the committee's great credit, all sorts of analysis was brought to bear from members opposite , from the New Democratic Party, the Green Party, and the Conservative Party. Every party that participated, with the possible exception of the Bloc, independent Bloc, and the CCF, brought forward an amendment that was voted upon and approved, which is a remarkable achievement.

It is also important to note that the government, in particular the Minister of Environment, the Minister of Transport, and the Minister of Natural Resources have commented positively on the amendments brought forward by the committee, on which we will subsequently be voting.

One hundred and fifty amendments were made. The government is responding positively to the fact that these changes are being brought in to ensure openness and transparency, improve public participation, better engage indigenous communities, and to provide greater predictability and certainty for our businesses and those who wish to bring good projects forward. The fact that agreement could be reached on 150 amendments is a tremendous statement and says a lot about the state of democracy right now. That is a really important thing.

I would like to first look at some of the amendments, particularly those related to reconciliation and navigable waters.

With regard to reconciliation, I was very proud to work with my colleagues, including opposition members, to propose amendments that would incorporate the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples into the bill. That is very important and our government supports enshrining the declaration in law through Bill C-262, which will soon become law.

I would like to congratulate those who worked on Bill C-69, because including the declaration in future impact assessments across the country will be very good for reconciliation and for the development of nation-to-nation relationships.

I would also like to mention how the bill now provides for calling on indigenous peoples' knowledge and expertise when impact assessments are conducted. That will help to improve future project analyses. We need to improve our way of working with indigenous peoples on impact assessments.

Protection of waterways is another very important aspect, and we all know the former government scrapped several provisions protecting navigable waters. Since 2015, the government has been working very hard to improve those protections because waterways and navigation rights are protected not only by statute but also under common law.

The protections for navigable waters are of crucial importance to Canadians, and certainly to the constituents I represent in the Pontiac.

With respect to navigation, very important changes were brought by the committee to ensure water flows would be protected. That is a really crucial piece of the puzzle. Why? Because many Canadian communities, indigenous groups, and paddling groups were concerned that projects might move forward and would not receive the necessary scrutiny, that the law would not necessarily enable protection of the flows of water that would go down various waterways, whether that is the Ottawa River, the Gatineau River, the St. Lawrence Seaway, or other major waterways. That is a key point, and I am very proud our committee brought forward those amendments.

Overall, I would like to conclude by suggesting that beyond the hyperbole, beyond all of the easy, partisan criticism that has been lobbed from the other side, at the end of the day, Canadians are looking for a stronger process that builds trust when good projects come forward and ensures the independence of decision-makers in the context of evaluating projects. We need the public to not only know that a good analysis is being done, but that this analysis is being done independently, on the basis of solid, hard evidence, and on the basis of the engagement of Canada's indigenous peoples.

I am really proud of the work our government has done. Bill C-69 is a good starting point. The committee worked very hard to achieve improvements on it. I commend the government for its positive reaction to the changes brought forward by the standing committee.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, that member is an invaluable member of our environment committee, and I enjoy working with him.

He did mention the navigable waters piece in Bill C-69. We need to make it very clear in the House that navigable waters is about navigation. It has nothing to do with the environment.

The previous government made those changes to the navigable waters act because government officials with sidearms were accosting farmers in fields who had dug a ditch that was classified as a waterway. They told our farmers not to touch or clean that ditch because they would be breaking the law. Imagine how farmers reacted. In my City of Abbotsford, the community I represent, farmers were livid about how the government approached this.

Another reason we moved forward with changes to the navigable waters legislation was because it was about navigation, not about the environment. The Liberal government seems to conflate those and has taken the navigable waters legislation and thrown it in the middle of Bill C-69, which is essentially an environmental piece of legislation. Does the member not understand that navigable waters is about protecting navigation? It should not cover minor waterways.

Why is his government so intent on changing and trying to remediate a piece of legislation that was actually working very well for those impacted by it?

[William Amos, Liberal, Pontiac, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to work with the member opposite who represents Abbotsford. I have enjoyed many positive moments on our standing committee and have great respect for the work he does.

With all due respect, I would refer the member to an opinion editorial that I had published in The Globe and Mail in 2012, where I laid out the critique of the previous government's changes to navigation law in Canada. When the changes were made, Canadians' ability to navigate was still protected by the common law, but most of their statutory rights previously protected by Transport Canada were stripped away. The statutory protections for navigation were stripped away, leaving the public with common law protections only.

I take the point that there is a distinction to be drawn between navigation protections and environmental protections. That is an absolutely valid point to make. However there is no doubt that in past, environmental assessment laws, which Canadian waters were subject to prior to the previous government, the required navigational permitting triggered an environmental assessment. That is how it used to work. The Conservative government stripped all of that away, so we needed to find a new way to bring back navigation protections and a robust impact assessment regime. That is what Bill C-69 seeks to achieve.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Pontiac mentioned that the committee had agreed to make an amendment to Bill C-69 with regards to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People. It amended the preamble, but that preamble is non-binding, so it was a meaningless gesture by the government.

I will bring to the attention of all members that the member for Edmonton Strathcona has brought forward report stage amendments, notably, Motions Nos. 4, 7, 9, 10, 12, and 13. Given that the member across the way voted last week in support of Bill C-262, which strives to bring the laws of Canada into harmony with UNDRIP, will he be consistent this week and support those amendments and live up to what he did last week?

[William Amos, Liberal, Pontiac, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the issue of incorporating the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples into Bill C-69 was an important one. We had lengthy discussions during the committee proceedings. We on this side of the House most certainly feel that incorporating indigenous rights and ensuring they are respected and that the constitutional protections afforded to indigenous rights are given pride of place in this legislation is of absolutely fundamental importance. That is exactly what we achieved.

Many amendments were brought to Bill C-69 in relation to indigenous rights, including but not limited to UNDRIP, and I mentioned others related to traditional knowledge. Members on this side of the House are extremely proud of how that was achieved.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to go back to that brief exchange about including the Navigation Protection Act in Bill C-69 and changes made to the act.

During a previous term here in the House of Commons, I had the opportunity to be a member of the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, where we discussed the Navigation Protection Act and the waterways that were protected by the previous government's bill to amend the Navigation Protection Act. At the time, nobody complained or called for changed. The government decided to make changes in response to pressure from groups that thought the law was lacking, but it was not actually lacking.

There were no complaints, no requests to add new waterways to the list that had been authorized and announced in the Navigation Protection Act. Sometimes, people want to make changes for reasons other than protecting waterways. They might be trying to please certain lobby groups. That is what happened at the time, and we need to remember that.

Bill C-69 is an omnibus bill that enacts the Impact Assessment Act and the Canadian Energy Regulator Act, amends the Navigation Protection Act and makes amendments to several other acts. It is another major bill, because it has a considerable impact on how large projects will be environmentally assessed in Canada.

Despite the government's promises of openness and transparency, Bill C-69 is one of the 38 bills for which the government decided to cut short discussions, muzzle the opposition and refuse to hear each of the members of the opposition express his or her intentions. We reached the pinnacle this week but, last week, in the House, in just three days, the government introduced three motions to cut debate short by gagging members who had something to say and wanted to represent their fellow citizens.

A similar thing happened in the committee that studied Bill C-69. They refused to discuss the opposition's amendments, then rejected them and proposed almost identical amendments so that they could say that they were the government's idea and not that of the opposition. If that is not arrogance, I do not know what arrogance is. We see it all the time in the House, and it is only getting worse.

I remind the House that the opposition was gagged 38 times, including 5 times in three days last week. If the trend continues, the same thing will happen in the coming weeks, even if there are only a few weeks left in this session. The government is simply incapable of working together with the opposition parties to pass its bills.

Consequently, it is left to support Bill C-69 all by itself. The Conservatives, the NDP and the Green Party are all against the bill—not for the same reasons, but they are all against it. Once again, everything is about optics with this government. Despite its promises of openness and transparency, it refuses to hear the recommendations of elected members on this side of the House, and it is alone in passing a bill that will have a major impact on the economy.

I would like to remind my colleagues that, on this side of the House, even if we make up less than half of all elected members, we represent more than half of the country's electorate, so when the government constantly breaks its promises, it is disrespecting all of those Canadians we represent as members of the opposition. It can say whatever it wants to make itself look good, but when it comes time to do the work, it fails across the board.

The words fade away and the Liberals' true nature emerges. The Liberals' promise to run small deficits: gone; the Liberals' promise to bring in electoral reform and change the voting system: gone; the Liberals' promise to increase transparency: gone; the Liberals' promise to no longer muzzle the opposition: gone; and the Liberals' promise not to concede one more litre of milk to the Americans through NAFTA: gone.

We learned about this on the weekend. In a speech on NBC, which has a large American audience, the Prime Minister, perhaps thinking that we would not see the show, declared that the Canadian government was prepared to be more flexible, to give Americans access to Canada's milk market. Unfortunately, some Canadians watch NBC and heard the Prime Minister make this promise. It was rather shocking, because Liberals on the other side of the House have been repeating, over and over, since 2015 and even earlier that they will fully protect supply management.

The Liberals will protect supply management, since they created it. The Prime Minister said that they would unanimously protect supply management. I am not sure what “unanimously” means, but the Prime Minister is the one who said it. Meanwhile, when he thinks that Canadians are not listening, he says the opposite.

After all that, the government is asking for our trust with respect to Bill C-69. Since this morning, the Liberals have repeated their talking points so many times that, in my opinion, they do not see the real consequences of the bill. They are too busy repeating their talking points to dig deeper and identify what is wrong with Bill C-69.

The first big problem is that the Liberals are creating new regulatory burdens for project proponents and adding a carbon tax, which makes Canada less and less competitive when it comes to attracting investment. None of this has improved environmental protection one bit. We know that $100 billion in planned investments have already left Canada. I will repeat today, in this chamber, that the Conservatives will continue to oppose costly regulations that negatively impact Canada's jobs, economic growth, and international competitiveness.

There is nothing in Bill C-69 to help increase investors' confidence or to attract new investment to Canada, especially in the resource sector. We know that Canadian firms are already facing significant challenges, whereas the United States is moving forward with its plan to reduce regulations, cut taxes, and invest in coal-fired and natural-gas-fired electricity in order to cut energy costs.

Canadian businesses deserve a government that works with them, not against them. Canadian businesses deserve a government that will work with them to protect the environment, and not against them by ensuring that there are no projects. The government would not have to worry about the environment if there were no projects. That is the reality.

The government's approach to fighting climate change needs to be realistic. It needs to restore a balance between protecting the environment and growing the economy.

Another source of concern is the fact that cabinet is giving itself life-and-death powers over major projects, such as the power to appoint people and the power to say yes or no to projects throughout the process. We know what the Liberals can do when they manage a project, or rather, when they mismanage one. I am referring to Kinder Morgan. The project was approved 18 months ago, but the Liberals sat on their hands all that time instead of putting it in motion.

The Liberal government has known for 11 months that British Columbia is opposed to this project. However, the Prime Minister only dropped by briefly on his way to England, probably so his jet could fill up on fuel for the rest of the trip.

He took advantage of his layover to meet with two premiers. What was the result? Diddly-squat. This government's solution was to nationalize Kinder Morgan, making all Canadians joint owners of a pipeline for which they paid $4.5 billion.

Does this mean that the project will go ahead? No, because we have only bought some pipes. We have bought $4.5 billion in pipes. The company's executives were so proud of what they pulled off that they received $1.5 million each for the fast one they pulled on the Government of Canada, and I could have used a different word. This means that we will have to invest even more in order for the project to go ahead, if it ever does.

I believe it is clear that something crucial was overlooked in Bill C-69. Yes, we have to protect the environment. Yes, we have to ensure that projects go ahead while respecting our environment so that our young people will have an environment in the future that they can enjoy and will benefit from our natural resources. However, the bill should not thwart further investment in Canada by ensuring environmental protection while doing absolutely nothing else.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to bring the discussion back to Bill C-69. It is great to work together with my friend, the member for Mégantic—L'Érable, on the agriculture committee, but today we are talking about energy.

This morning, I met with Alectra and the City of Guelph to discuss a technology and smart grid opportunity that can help us move toward our goal of having 90% renewable energy generated by 2030. However, we have to coordinate with the Department of Environment and Climate Change, with Natural Resources Canada, and with Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada. Therefore, an integrated all-of-government approach needs to be taken, such as what is being proposed in the legislation.

Could the hon. member comment on how this legislation could help bring forward clean technology projects with a complex basis, connecting different departments, versus the omnibus legislative rhetoric we have been hearing from the other side?

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that is exactly what I have been saying from the start. When businesses want to innovate, when they have to innovate, when they want to take concrete steps toward reducing greenhouse gas emissions and helping us meet our greenhouse gas reduction targets, the government needs to step up and help them. The government needs to take regulatory obstacles out of their way. It needs to get rid of the notorious carbon tax, which might deter people from ever investing in Canada because they are going to figure out pretty quickly that they can make more money investing where there is less regulation, where it is easier, and where there are lower taxes, by which I mean in the United States. I really do not see how Bill C-69 offers any incentive to businesses or makes it attractive to invest in Canada. The people we have been consulting and talking to about Bill C-69 all say that it will make the process take longer and increase the regulatory burden. That will make it harder to accomplish projects like the one my Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-food colleague just talked about.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my fellow vice-chair of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food went through some of the trials and tribulations that the opposition parties had with the bill at committee. The member for Edmonton Strathcona moved many amendments. There was a situation where the amendment deadline passed before the committee could receive all the submissions. It was a really rushed process for such a very important bill. The theme of the bill is very important.

According to the way the Liberals voted last week, does the member think they will be consistent on Bill C-262 and support the report stage amendments that incorporated UNDRIP provisions into the bill?

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I doubt I will have a better answer for my colleague, but I can talk about another of this government's inconsistencies.

Bill C-57 is another bill that was kind of rammed down parliamentarians' throats. It includes a definition of sustainability that reads as follows:

Sustainability is defined as “the ability to protect the environment, contribute to the social and economic well-being of the people of Canada and preserve their health in a manner that benefits present and future generations.”

That was in Bill C-57.

Sadly, in Bill C-69, direct economic consideration is now missing from the extensive list of factors to consider.

That is therefore not the first inconsistency we see from the Liberals, and I somehow doubt it will be the last.

The House resumed from June 5 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, as reported (with amendments) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.

Impact Assessment Act

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak tonight in support of Bill C-69. Before I begin, I would like to acknowledge that we are on the traditional territory of the Algonquin and Anishinaabe peoples.

This bill provides the framework for a modern assessment process that would protect the environment, attract investment, and ensure that good projects go ahead in a timely way to create new jobs and economic opportunities.

Today, I am going to focus specifically on how it supports our government's commitment to reconciliation and a renewed relationship with indigenous peoples. Meeting this commitment is challenging, but it is also necessary. I will discuss how Bill C-69 would advance reconciliation and partnership with indigenous peoples. I will also describe what the government has heard from indigenous peoples in recent months, and how their input has helped strengthen this bill.

From the very beginning, our government has been clear that no relationship is more important to Canada than its relationship with its indigenous peoples. We committed to a renewed relationship based on the recognition of rights, respect, co-operation, and partnership as the foundation for transformative change, and we have taken important steps to fulfill that commitment.

In 2016, Canada announced its full support of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples without qualification, with a commitment to its full and effective implementation. This February, the Prime Minister announced that we will work in partnership with indigenous peoples to develop a new recognition and implementation of rights framework to realign the relationship between the Government of Canada and indigenous peoples based on the UN declaration.

Development of the framework builds on steps we have already taken along this path. That includes launching a review of laws and policies to ensure that the crown is meeting its constitutional obligations with respect to aboriginal and treaty rights, guided by 10 principles rooted in section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, guided by the UN declaration, and informed by the report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples and the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's calls to action.

We have begun to make institutional changes to support the renewed relationship. In particular, we have announced the dissolution of Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada and the creation of two new departments: Indigenous Services Canada and Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs. This will accelerate work already begun to renew the relationship with indigenous peoples and better enable them to build capacity that supports the implementation of their vision of self-determination.

We have announced our support for Bill C-262, the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples act, as a strong first step in the process of implementation. More legislation will be needed in order to fully implement the declaration in Canada. Our government has also made historic investments in indigenous education, health, infrastructure, and communities, including to improve primary and secondary education on reserve, improve health facilities, build housing, and ensure access to clean and safe drinking water.

Finally, recognizing that indigenous peoples have long been stewards of the environment and have knowledge of the land that spans generations, we continue to work closely with them as we take action to protect and enhance Canada's environment and respond to the threat of climate change.

Meaningful participation of indigenous peoples informed the development of the pan-Canadian framework on clean growth and climate change, and our government is working in partnership with the Assembly of First Nations, Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami, and the Métis National Council to implement it. Given the indigenous coastal communities' deep ties to Canada's oceans, we are partnering with them to implement our $1.5-billion oceans protection plan, for example in developing training programs to increase the participation of indigenous community members and women in marine safety jobs.

Finally, the bill before us today is built on a foundation of engagement with indigenous peoples, along with industry, stakeholders, and a broad range of Canadians from coast to coast to coast.

This bill is an important step, which would advance reconciliation and produce better project decisions by recognizing indigenous rights and working in partnership from the start. It would make it mandatory to consider indigenous knowledge alongside science and other evidence, including when the assessment is led by another jurisdiction.

Under the new impact assessment act, indigenous jurisdictions would also have more opportunities to exercise powers and duties, including taking the lead on impact assessments through substitution. Through measures such as the new early planning and engagement phase, the bill would ensure that indigenous peoples have opportunities to participate from the very beginning and throughout the assessment process.

Finally, it would place consideration of impacts on indigenous peoples and their rights at the centre of the decision-making process by including this as one of the key factors that must be taken into account when making a decision following an impact assessment.

Going forward, we are committed to working with indigenous peoples to define processes aimed at securing consent and collaborating with them as we develop regulations under this legislation.

Since the introduction of Bill C-69, our government has continued to engage with indigenous peoples at every opportunity. The Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development also heard testimony from a number of indigenous peoples and organizations during the study of the bill. In response to that testimony, the committee made several key amendments that enhanced the bill's potential to advance reconciliation and a renewed relationship.

Indigenous peoples have said that it is important that the bill fully reflect our government's commitment to implement the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Through amendments, the standing committee has ensured this commitment is at the forefront of the bill and will guide its implementation.

The bill now references the UN declaration in the preamble to both the impact assessment act and the Canadian energy regulator act. The purposes clause of the IAA now specifies that the government, the minister, the agency, and federal authorities will need to exercise their powers in a manner that respects the government's commitments with respect to the rights of indigenous peoples. Similarly, the mandate of the Canadian energy regulator would include exercising its powers in performing its duties and functions in the same way.

We have heard about the importance of taking a distinctions-based approach, one of the 10 key principles guiding our review of laws and policies. This is needed to ensure that the unique rights, interests, and circumstances of first nations, Metis, and Inuit peoples are acknowledged, affirmed, and implemented. In response to this feedback, the committee has amended the bill to ensure that membership of key committees under the legislation reflect a distinctions-based approach.

Indigenous peoples have told us that considering indigenous knowledge in impact assessments is critical. At the same time, they have called for better protection of this knowledge. The standing committee's amendments would strengthen both its use and protection of indigenous knowledge.

The bill would now require that assessment reports clearly show how indigenous knowledge has been taken into account. It also provides more safeguards across all acts to ensure appropriate protection for indigenous knowledge, while also recognizing that proponents may, at times, need to have access to it. Consultation would be required before indigenous knowledge could be disclosed, and ministers would then be able to place conditions on the disclosure of this information in light of those consultations.

In line with feedback from indigenous organizations, the committee has also clarified that indigenous knowledge would be considered, that this would not be limited to “traditional” knowledge of indigenous peoples.

Finally, throughout the bill, the committee has taken steps to further emphasize the commitment to meaningful participation in assessment processes for indigenous peoples as well as the public.

I am pleased to see that many of the amendments made by the standing committee directly respond to issues raised by indigenous peoples and will further ensure the bill can support reconciliation.

As I have described, our government is committed to advancing reconciliation and a renewed relationship in all of our actions, including this bill.

I want to recognize the contributions made to Bill C-69 by indigenous peoples and organizations across Canada. It is truly a privilege to work with indigenous peoples and to hear their perspectives and priorities. Our government looks forward to working collaboratively with indigenous peoples to implement the legislation.

I would once again like to recognize the committee for listening and responding to the testimony of indigenous peoples and organizations. This is a challenging process but, ultimately, a rewarding one as we work together to protect the environment, create economic opportunities, and advance reconciliation.

On a personal note, I would like to mention that I am a member of the environment and sustainable development committee. It was a great honour to be part of the considerations and the amendments on this legislation.

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Regina—Wascana, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to table the government's answers to Questions Nos. 1671 to 1683.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Cloverdale—Langley City, with whom I have the privilege of serving on the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development.

I like to remind the House every chance I get that Conservative Party members do not wake up every morning looking for ways to destroy the planet. On the contrary, we took very meaningful action when we were in power, and we are proud to work hard every day to make the environment a priority.

As I mentioned at the outset, I have the privilege of serving with my colleague on the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development, and we have been under tremendous pressure from the government to fast-track the study of Bill C-69.

I must say that we have received a great deal of written evidence because we did not have time to hear from witnesses in committee. We even heard a presentation from a Quebec organization, and the representative told us she was the only person from her province who was able to testify. A number of Quebec organizations would have liked to take part in the debate. Their participation was important to us.

I would like to ask my colleague whether the Liberal government's process for Bill C-69 is adequate and whether we have done everything we possibly can to improve Bill C-69 so as to replace the 2012 legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I truly value the work my hon. colleague from across the way does on the environment committee.

On Bill C-69, I would like to go back. One of the issues that was the driver behind it was that Canadians had lost trust in the process. We heard that clearly during the 2015 election campaign. That was why it was part of our campaign platform. I am pleased with the changes that our government has made in Bill C-69 to the legislation that we saw prior to it.

To the member's question on process, this was a very robust consultation process that our government employed in coming up with the legislation. Consultations were held across the country, from province to territory, indigenous organizations to industry. It was a very robust set of consultations.

When it came to committee, we had opportunities to discuss it, to bring in witnesses. On many occasions, the opposition members did speak to the need to have more time to hear from witnesses. The public record will show, time after time, that our side said we would add days and hours, and that we would come in during constituency week. There was a very robust process at the committee stage, as we moved to report stage, looking at amendments and the testimony, and reflecting those changes in a very meaningful way in the legislation before us today.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I do not doubt at all the commitment of my fellow British Columbian across the way to indigenous rights. I have spoken to him privately about this.

What I am worried about, though, is the commitment of his government. I acknowledge that the Liberals did vote in favour of Bill C-262 last week, and I commend them for doing that.

Now we have an opportunity before us to put that vote into action with Bill C-69. The member will know that the member for Edmonton Strathcona has several report stage amendments on the bill. I will specifically reference Motions Nos. 12 and 13, which would insert language into Bill C-69 to recognize indigenous rights, and make specific reference to the Constitution of Canada and to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

Will the member be consistent with his vote last week and vote in support of these report stage amendments so we can make the bill come into compliance, as per the instructions of Bill C-262, that the laws of Canada be brought into harmony with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples? I would like to see the member's commitment, right here and now, to support these amendments.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague his comments about Bill C-262 and how that will be reflected in Bill C-69.

As I stated in my comments today, we are dedicated to the idea of reconciliation, and not just the idea but actions of reconciliation. Through the amendments that were made, we have been able to reflect a commitment in the preamble to the legislation that the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples is a key principle that needs to guide the legislation and how it is implemented.

Many pieces of the legislation deal with how indigenous knowledge will be used, how we will consult in a meaningful way with indigenous peoples. This really moves the principles and ideas of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples forward in a meaningful manner. I am quite happy that this is reflected here.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lévis—Lotbinière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak 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, introduced by the Liberal government.

As members no doubt know, this bill would create a new impact assessment agency of Canada to replace the Canadian Environmental Protection Agency. This agency will be responsible for all federal reviews of major projects and will have to collaborate with other agencies, like the new Canadian energy regulator, currently known as the National Energy Board, the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, and offshore offices.

As a citizen and as member of Parliament for Lévis—Lotbinière, I have always taken an interest in protecting our waterways and keeping them safe. The prestigious St. Lawrence runs not too far from my home, and all of these issues are close to my heart. This is one of the reasons our Conservative government amended the Canadian Environmental Protection Act in 2012.

I obviously have many concerns about Bill C-69, in particular about the merits of these amendments and the Liberal government's flexible ethics. The government claims to be accountable and transparent. In reality, the Liberals keep showing that all they care about is helping Liberal cronies and promoting Liberal partisanship by filling their party's coffers, from coast to coast, under some guise or other.

On the surface, this bill has the noble goal of ensuring that all projects will be assessed on the basis of their impact on the environment and health, and on social issues. However, we may need to cry foul on the practices of these good old Liberals, masters of all that is crooked and scandalous. Take, for example, the Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard and fishery allocations for a highly valued shellfish.

Where things go downhill with the Liberal government is that it puts forward these bills that give ministers more discretionary power, and then issues around the economy and so-called gender and indigenous rights take a back seat to the financial interests of the highest bidders and people with Liberal connections.

The government loves nothing more than a taxpayer-funded spending spree and thinks it can reinvent the wheel. This bill lays out its plan to spend up to $1 billion over five years on the new regime, on necessary changes, and, ostensibly, on increasing the participation of indigenous peoples and the general public.

Let me once again point out that these objectives look very similar to those of the Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard, who we hope will soon be under investigation.

We all know that the former Conservative government knew how to make things better without raising Canadians' taxes. Canada's Conservatives understand how important certainty, predictability, and regulatory clarity are to ensuring the viability of major energy projects.

We know that these projects create tens of thousands of jobs and benefit communities across Canada, without any political favouritism. With the Conservatives, solid economic policies do not come at the expense of solid environmental policies, or vice versa.

Greater prosperity and better environmental performance always go hand in hand, but all the Liberal government sees are enticing opportunities to dole out goodies to friends and family members.

Bill C-69 will create two new regulatory burdens that, combined with the pointless federal carbon tax, will hurt Canada's global competitiveness even more without improving environmental protection in any way. This is scandalous.

These fresh repercussions are troubling, as are so many others we have suffered since this perpetually failing Liberal government took office.

The Liberals have a very long way to go before the next election if they want to start defending Canada's natural resource industry properly, instead of throwing up one roadblock after another.

Fortunately, in accordance with our values and commitments, we, Canada's Conservatives, will continue to oppose costly regulations that hurt jobs, economic growth, and global competitiveness.

Bill C-69 does not in any way meet the Conservative Party's objective of always striking a balance between protecting the environment and growing the economy.

When we look at what is happening with our neighbours, it is appalling to see that, while the American administration is relaxing regulations, lowering taxes, and encouraging energy production from natural gas or coal, Canada is regressing.

We cannot hamper our competitiveness by tightening regulations and creating uncertainty around the environmental assessment process. We need to stand up against and do away with any bill like this one that would harm Canada's economic competitiveness.

On this side of the House, we firmly believe that, in order to be effective, economic and environmental policies must not contradict each other, undermine each other, or cancel each other out. All the empirical evidence shows that prosperity brings with it a better environmental record. It is one thing for the Prime Minister to embarrass us and lose all credibility in our eyes and the eyes of the world, as he did on his trip to India, for example; it is quite another, however, for him to put Canada at a political disadvantage and jeopardize our position in the global economy. We will not allow him to do that.

We have repeatedly seen his picture in every situation and costume imaginable, but what we are interested in and concerned about on this side of the House is not Superman, it is Canada's image, its role, its prosperity, and the well-being of all Canadian families.

I am worried about how this bill will be used to determine whether a project should undergo an assessment by the agency or a panel. Beyond the process that has been set out, the answer is very easy and predictable. The assessment process will remain very political because it is the minister who will determine whether it is in the public interest for a project to be submitted to a panel instead of the agency's shorter impact assessment.

I am also concerned about why the government is saying that the bill will shorten the assessment process for resource projects. The government is misleading Canadians by saying that project assessments will be shorter. The planning phase adds 180 days to the process, even if the impact assessment is a bit shorter.

What is more, Bill C-69 provides for broad ministerial discretion to extend or suspend the process. In the Consultation Paper on Information Requirements and Time Management Regulations, a proposed impact assessment system, the Liberal government recognizes that in some cases, the proposed time limits in the legislation will not be met. In light of this discretionary power that will undoubtedly be abused, there is very little we can support in this legislative measure.

We support in principle the process providing for one assessment per project, as well as the commitment on the time limits proposed under the legislation. However, the bill puts up regulatory barriers and additional criteria that will invariably lengthen the assessment period.

We oppose Bill C-69 for many reasons, including the fact that it establishes a number of new criteria for impact assessment, in particular the impact that the project will have on Canada's climate change commitments. From now on we will have to consider the environmental impact upstream and downstream. The bill also substantially increases the number of people that could intervene in a review even if they do not have specific expertise. Finally, at the end of the planning phase and at the end of the impact assessment, the minister or the cabinet will make the final decision. The process remains political in nature, which creates ongoing uncertainty for investors.

There is nothing in today's announcement that would increase investor confidence or attract new investment to Canada's resource sector. We know that Canadian companies are already facing stiff competition even as the United States implements its plan to reduce regulations, cut taxes, and invest in coal-fired and natural-gas-fired electricity in order to cut energy costs.

Canadian businesses deserve a government that works with them, not against them. Canada's approach to fighting climate change must be realistic and strike the right balance between protecting the environment and growing the economy. The Conservatives support regulation, investment in clean technologies, and the mitigation of climate change if these initiatives produce concrete and measurable results for businesses and the environment.

We do not see any guarantees here.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, during the last Parliament, the Conservative government gutted the environmental assessment process, removing protections of almost all of Canada's lakes and rivers. Bill C-69 does very little or nothing to reverse those changes.

Do the Conservatives still believe Canada's lakes and rivers should remain unprotected?

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lévis—Lotbinière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

Yes, we have always fought for our lakes and rivers. Canada's bodies of water are extremely important.

We were the only government to invest in renewable energies. We invested in hydroelectricity and wind energy. We even asked the auto industry as a whole to work on decreasing fuel consumption, eventually reducing it from 10 litres to 5 litres per 100 kilometres in the long term.

Through our efforts, we managed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions while also growing Canada's economy. That is our record.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Lévis—Lotbinière.

I am confused because my colleague is talking about a bill that does not exist. We are deliberating Bill C-69 today. It is a very weak bill that includes the same principles as under the Conservative government. It does not contain any measures that will actually strengthen the environmental assessment process or protect our bodies of water.

I am astonished to hear that he opposes this bill, because it contains the same principles as under the Conservative government.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lévis—Lotbinière, QC]

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

In the bill before us, there is one major fundamental difference: it gives the Minister of Environment and Climate Change of the day the final say. This could prove to be extremely dangerous for the future of our country if we have a minister whose ideology privileges approaches that work against the Canadian economy. This bill could lead to serious problems in the future.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, this is a piece of legislation that advances a number of issues in terms of protecting the environment, fish, and waterways, and it rebuilds public confidence and trust with respect to indigenous rights and so forth. It ultimately will strengthen the economy as we strive to achieve balance in advancing both the economy and the environment, all of which supports Canada's middle class.

I wonder why the Conservatives would not see the merit in advancing legislation of this nature, which will restore public confidence in the balancing of the environment and the economy.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lévis—Lotbinière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, there is absolutely nothing in this bill to guarantee that indigenous communities will have their fair share in the future, especially judging by the actions of the Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard, who practically completely excluded indigenous communities from a tendering process.

This bill gives final say to the minister of the day, who could do exactly the same thing on a discretionary basis. We find that extremely troubling. That is one of the reasons why we will definitely not be supporting this bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I was on the fisheries committee and the environment committee, where we asked witness after witness if they could detail in quantitative ways how the legislation in 2012 affected the environment. Not a single witness could provide any proof that the changes we made in 2012 had any effect on the environment. As we say back home, the Liberal and NDP comments about our legislation are simply wind and rabbit tracks and nothing else.

I want to ask my colleague how our government improved the economic situation in Canada with our changes to environmental legislation.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lévis—Lotbinière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. He is absolutely right. We, on this side of the House, did our job when we were in government. We improved Canada's economic situation while reducing greenhouse gas emissions. As soon as we return to power, we will continue that work, which is being bungled at present.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today in support of Bill C-69. As chair of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development, I found it a privilege to be able to study this bill and report it back to the House with important amendments. These amendments were developed after listening to over 55 witnesses and receiving over 150 briefs from NGOs, indigenous peoples, unions, experts, and industry representatives. The amendments adopted were to bring more predictability, transparent decision-making, clarity on expectations, and timely reviews.

Our government is committed to regaining public trust in the review of projects and to getting Canada's resources to market. That is what this bill will do.

Since 2012, we have seen that weaker rules have hurt Canada's economy and our environment. Without public trust and support, projects cannot move forward and investment is put at risk. This bill would result in better rules to govern major project reviews, helping ensure that Canadians can benefit from over $500 billion in major resource projects planned over the next decade. It would provide predictable, timely project reviews to encourage investment. At the same time, it would ensure that our environment is protected and that we can meet our commitments to reduce carbon pollution and transition to a clean-growth economy.

Engagement with industry as well as with indigenous peoples, provinces and territories, stakeholders, and Canadians has been instrumental in the development of this bill. Over 14 months leading up to its introduction, the government heard from companies about what they need to keep good projects moving forward. Since then, the government has continued to stay engaged with companies, indigenous peoples, and stakeholders. Consistently, companies have told us that they need certainty about the process, about what is required and when, and about how decisions on project approvals are made. Bill C-69 would provide that certainty.

To begin with, one agency, the new impact assessment agency of Canada, would act as a federal lead for all major project reviews. This will result in reviews that are more consistent and more predictable. We have consulted with Canadians on the criteria that will form the basis for a revised project list, which will provide clarity on how our new rules will apply.

Through a new early planning and engagement phase, companies would be able to identify and address issues early on, before an impact assessment begins. The bill provides clarity on the scope and outputs of this new phase. It would result in tailored impact statement guidelines that reflect factors and requirements relevant to the project, as well as a co-operation plan, an indigenous engagement and partnership plan, a public participation plan, and, if required, a permitting plan.

Details on these products will be set out in regulations, which the government is consulting on now, and which would come into force at the same time as the impact assessment act. The early planning stage would define requirements and clarify expectations so that companies would know what was expected of them, and when. It would help them design and plan their projects and more effectively engage indigenous peoples, stakeholders, and local communities.

The minister would also be able to inform companies early on if a project is likely to have negative impacts, without stopping the process. This would give companies an earlier opportunity to decide whether to continue with an impact assessment.

Bill C-69 would ensure that companies know in advance what would be considered in a project review and in decision-making. Reviews would take into account not just environmental impacts, but also social, economic, and health effects, as well as impacts on indigenous peoples and their rights.

This bill would also provide strong transparency measures so that proponents are informed about key decisions, as well as the reasons behind them. That includes, for example, decisions to extend the timeline for a review or to refer a final decision on a project to cabinet.

When final decisions are made on whether a project will go ahead, the proponent would be informed of the reasons for the decision and would be assured that all key factors were appropriately considered.

Bill C-69 would also respond to what we have heard from industry by providing more timely assessments. Our better rules would include stricter timeline management, with shorter timelines for assessments. Specifically, timelines for agency-led reviews would be reduced from 365 to 300 days; panel reviews would be shortened from 720 days to a maximum of 600 days; and, in addition, panel reviews for designated projects reviewed in collaboration with a federal life-cycle regulator would be shortened to 300 days, with the option to allow the minister to set the timeline up to a maximum of 600 days if warranted, based on the project's complexity. As well, timelines for non-designated projects reviewed by life-cycle regulators would be shortened from 450 to 300 days.

Regulations would require clear rules around when timelines could be paused. When there is a decision to extend a timeline, the proponent would need to be informed about the reasons why.

I would like to briefly mention how Bill C-69 would support one project, one review, and how this would contribute to our goal of getting our resources to market. The bill would provide for joint reviews and substitution, in which a review process led by another jurisdiction would fulfill the requirement for a federal review. Those provisions would help promote co-operation with provinces and territories, reduce red tape, and prevent duplication. We are also increasing opportunities for partnership with indigenous peoples and for indigenous governing bodies to take on key responsibilities. That could include taking the lead on assessments through the bill's substitution provisions.

Our government has heard from industry how important it is for Bill C-69 to provide a smooth transition between the current assessment regime and the new regime. Transition provisions must be clear and predictable to encourage investment and keep good projects moving forward. Bill C-69 would provide that clarity by setting out objective criteria to identify projects that would continue to be reviewed under CEAA 2012, giving companies the option to opt into the new process, and confirming that no one would go back to the starting line.

I would just like to emphasize that as a result of the committee's work, Bill C-69 now includes stronger transparency provisions that would benefit proponents and provide more certainty and consistency across the legislation. For example, assessment reports would be required to incorporate a broader range of information, including a summary of comments received, recommendations on mitigation measures and follow-up, and the agency's rationale and conclusions. Public comments would have to be made available on the Internet, and information posted online would need to be maintained so that it could be accessed over time.

The standing committee also addressed feedback from industry that some smaller projects with federal life-cycle regulators, such as offshore renewable energy projects, could face longer reviews than they do now. The amendments address this by establishing a new timeline of 300 days for reviews of projects with a life-cycle regulator, with the possibility of setting the timeline to a maximum of 600 days, if warranted.

Complementing the existing provisions to support timeliness, the amended bill would set a clear 45-day timeline for establishing a review panel. The committee's amendments would clarify that public comments must be provided during a time period specified by the agency, so that meaningful participation would be ensured and balanced with the need for timely assessments.

The standing committee further advanced the objective of one project, one review. As a result of the committee's amendments, integrated review panels involving federal regulators would also be able to include other jurisdictions, making it possible to have just one assessment that meets all of the requirements. Finally, the standing committee responded to feedback from companies by making the bill's transitional provisions even clearer.

To conclude, the bill responds to what we have heard from companies, providing clarity on expectations and requirements, predictable timely reviews, and transparent decision-making. By rebuilding public trust, it would encourage investment and help create new jobs and opportunities for Canadians.

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

Mr. Speaker, first, I would like to thank my colleague from King—Vaughan, who is a very generous and extraordinary individual. She does excellent work as the chair of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development. I wanted to acknowledge that and thank her for it.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear!

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

Members are right to applaud, Mr. Speaker. She does great work, but as I mentioned earlier, the process was expedited. I am not entirely convinced that, as parliamentarians, we did an excellent job, that our work was thorough and effective, and that it will really remedy the problems with the bill from 2012. I must say that I heard an expert in committee, a professor from Dalhousie University, suggest that we scrap this bill and start from scratch. I am not sure we were effective enough.

Could my colleague answer this question. Could we have been more effective and taken the time needed to, once again, really make the environment a priority?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for being so generous with his comments. I too really appreciate the work he does at committee. Generally, we have a very co-operative and collaborative approach. Lately, it has been a little rockier, but, overall, some amazing work has been done at committee and I appreciate his work greatly.

When it comes to the process, I know that my colleague will acknowledge that there was a lot of interest in this bill and that as a result, we invited a tremendous number of people from across the country. Indigenous groups, industry groups, union groups, specialists, and NGOs were very interested in speaking to us. We set a criterion for how to assess which groups would come. We chose those that speak for the country and then asked everyone else identified by the committee, more than 150 witnesses, to provide briefs. We went through those individually and brought forward over 400 amendments, which we discussed and voted on.

I specifically asked the committee many times to provide more time by extending the hours and days of consideration, and that was refused, so I think we did a pretty thorough job.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, one of the realities in my riding of North Island—Powell River is just how much people care about the environment. We live in an amazing and beautiful area and need to know that the environment will be protected, because it means jobs and the well-being of indigenous communities, families, and people in the community.

One of the concerns I heard again and again, and continue to hear, is that there is a lack of trust and faith in the process. During the election campaign, the Liberal platform stated, “We will end the practice of having federal Ministers interfere in the environmental assessment process.” However, we know that in clause 17 of Bill C-69, we see the very opposite.

I would like the member to explain to me why the environment minister will still have a lot of power to make decisions. If we looking at a process that is going to meet the scientific evidence, and that is how decisions are going to be made, why is it that the minister will still have this incredible power and how will that allow communities to trust the process? When I talk to people in my riding, this just raises the concern again.

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

Mr. Speaker, that is a good question.

As we have already heard from some members today, the bill will strengthen some fundamentals. The amendments sought to provide certainty, respect for indigenous rights, clarity, and to restore trust.

The other issue I want to touch on is science. We wanted to make sure that there was a clear commitment to science. Science will inform the work that is being done. At the end of the process, we need to be accountable as members and accountable to the people of Canada. We have heard many times that science is important and has to be the basis of decisions, and if the minister is going to intervene, she will have to explain why she does what she does. That was not done before. We have put measures in the bill to make sure that if the minister and cabinet make a decision, they will have to justify why they made it. This strengthens and improves what we have today, for sure.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as the member of Parliament for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, I am pleased to be given this opportunity, on the eve of the Ontario provincial election, to deliver a warning to voters about Bill C-69 about why they need to elect a majority Doug Ford Conservative government.

While there are many aspects of this government legislation that I find objectionable, the greatest cause for concern is the politicization of the Canadian energy board. The decision to move from a fact-based, scientific decision-making process to one based on greed is a regressive move that Ontario electricity ratepayers are all too familiar with.

Whereas under the previous Conservative government Canadians had an environmental and regulatory system that commanded the confidence of all Canadians, the Liberal strategy to invoke a culture war to deflect from the true fallacy of what is being proposed can only end badly for all Canadians.

Under the Conservatives, the National Energy Board was an arm's-length regulatory agency in the way the Ontario Energy Board used to be. The decision by the Toronto Liberal Party to stack the Ontario Energy Board with political appointees, which is similar to what is being proposed federally in Bill C-69, has resulted in the highest electricity prices in North America. Energy poverty in this province has become the new normal, particularly among seniors, anyone on a fixed income, and the working poor.

What is so very unfortunate is the support given by the NDP for these same failed energy policies, failed policies that are being repeated at the federal level in misguided legislation like Bill C-69, which we are discussing today.

Let me be clear: There is a direct link between the failed policies of Kathleen Wynne and the NDP, which supports those same policies. The direct link is Gerald Butts, the Prime Minister's principal assistant. He is the most powerful unelected, unaccountable, technocrat in Ottawa today. He is in the same position he held in Toronto when he set up the greedy policies that have resulted in Ontario being the most indebted subnational government in the world today.

As for the green hustle, anytime anyone questioned the “Greed” Energy Act, the environment was used as an excuse, with zero facts to back up the claim.

For the benefit of all Canadians watching this debate, I encourage voters in Ontario to go to the Global News website for stories from June 1, and watch its investigative story exposing the corruption that has reduced Ontario to a have-not province.

Global News obtained 4,000 pages of internal emails and documents from the now-defunct Ontario Power Authority showing billions of dollars in unnecessary spending that could have been avoided had the government followed the early advice of the Ontario Power Authority, which was tasked with designing many of Ontario's energy policies. In fact, according to Global News, when it comes to the FIT and microFIT programs, which are a key component of the province's greed energy act, documents show that decisions made by the Liberal government in 2009 and 2010, when Liberal Party insider Gerald Butts was in Toronto, as well as design flaws in the programs themselves, put Ontario on a collision course with rising electricity costs.

Brady Yauch, an economist and executive director at the Consumer Policy Institute, independently reviewed all 4,000 pages of documents and shared his views with Global News. According to the director of the Consumer Policy Institute, “The province hijacked the [FIT and Micro-FIT] programs from the very expert agencies it established to handle these types of technical, complicated energy policies. Worse still, [the Liberal Party ignored]...concerns of those experts [about] overpaying [electricity] generators.” Mr. Yauch observed, “That’s very concerning, because now you have a political electricity system, as opposed to one that’s based on economics or cost-effectiveness.”

This is what Bill C-69, the federal legislation we have before us now, will do at the federal level.

Further quoting Global News, the man responsible for designing the FIT and microFIT programs, Jim MacDougall, also said that the government “ignored” expert advice that could have saved Ontarians billions of dollars in greed energy spending. So much for fact-based, scientific decision-making. The Liberal Party refused to answer specific questions about the FIT and microFIT programs in relation to the Global story.

As Global News reported, “Independent Electricity System Operator (IESO), which merged with the Ontario Power Authority in 2015, also refused to answer specific questions about design and implementation of” the failed programs. “Instead, it provided a written statement to [Global News] saying the OPA 'worked closely'” with its political masters “to make sure that the programs met the government's 'broader economic and environmental policy objectives.'”

On October 1, 2009, the OPA started receiving applications through the renewable energy programs it was directed to create. Unlike the main program, designed for large-scale commercial projects, such as big solar farms, industrial wind turbine installations, and hydroelectric dams, the microFIT program was supposedly “created so homeowners could put a solar panel on their roofs to 'offset' electricity use and lower hydro bills.”

The Global News report continues:

What ended up happening, however, is the [Ontario Power Authority] was quickly overwhelmed by the number of Micro-FIT applications it received.

Electricity bills started to skyrocket.

By mid-November, about six weeks after the program was launched, emails show the [Ontario Power Authority] was worried some applicants were “gaming” the system—meaning that people were submitting multiple applications for small solar projects on the same property, which, though technically not against the rules, violated the “spirit” of the program.

“Aggregators”, as they became known, submitted hundreds of Micro-FIT applications with plans to set up solar panels on “vacant lots” or on farmers' fields. This was a problem, because Micro-FIT contracts were to pay nearly double what large solar projects received.

And because the cost of building larger projects was significantly lower than what a homeowner might pay to put a solar panel on a roof, aggregators received higher government payouts than the...OPA initially intended.

One of the worst abusers of the greed energy program was the Ontario president of the Liberal Party of Canada, Mike Crawley. His company received a contract that guaranteed $66,000 a day for 20 years, or $475 million over the life of the contract. During the bidding process, he even had the nerve to send out an email encouraging various other parties to attend an infamous pay-to-play soirée, at $5,000 a pop. Liberal Party—

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

Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a point of order. I know the member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke is very entertaining, and I hate to interrupt the flow of the narrative, but it has nothing to do with Bill C-69.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Anthony Rota]

I want to thank the hon. member for her point of order, but normally what happens is I leave it to the individual members to come to it. I am sure the hon. member will bring it around to tie into what we are talking about.

The hon. member.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the $475 million payout for the solar panel company he was with was even more astounding when we consider the fact that most of the power electricity consumers are forced to pay for from that contract is sold at a loss to American border states.

People gaming the system could have been avoided. However, this is what happens when a regulatory body is stacked with partisan political appointees, which is what Bill C-69 would do.

Consumer watchdog Brady Yauch said this was a big mistake and that the OPA was ignoring the issue of aggregators. How many billions of dollars the greed energy policy actually ends up costing us remains to be seen.

The email said:

It's one thing to keep...government in the loop with changes and issues. But it's another thing to take direction from government—especially on very detailed programs.

These are technical issues that the government does not fully understand

Mr. MacDougall said,

Like I said, I no longer know where the lines are between [the Ontario Power Authority] and government.

I think the government didn't trust the OPA to launch and roll out this program as aggressively as they wanted us to.

When we would give advice they would consider it, but they would make their own decisions and largely ignore some of the key policy recommendations that we were trying to put into place.

The Global News article continued, “The government refused to answer specific questions about whether the policy advice was being ignored.”

If government members want to understand why Kathleen Wynne conceded the election to Doug Ford last weekend, they should heed the Global News story I have been quoting from. The parallel is the pipeline debacle that is unfolding as I speak. There is real anger in Ontario over the mismanagement of Ontario—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Anthony Rota]

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Louis.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am so pleased that the previous Harper government never made any political appointments, nor tried to tell institutions like the Supreme Court what to do.

The bill talks about streamlining the process, creating a one-project, one-review model, allowing for equivalency with provinces to eliminate duplication. It would allow companies greater certainty and would permit companies to save money by being able to plan better, because they would know what was expected of them. I wonder if the hon. member does not think those are good things, from a business point of view.

Second, we know that the northern gateway pipeline failed in the court because the process did not properly consult indigenous peoples. This bill would allow for greater consultation. Would that not make those projects more court-proof?

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we are not seeing any certainty, and certainly the Kinder Morgan people did not when they just left and made us pay for an old pipeline. We still have to pay out billions of dollars to get one going.

The Liberal Party thought everyone would see solar panels and industrial wind turbines and think that Ontario made the right decision. Instead, every time electricity ratepayers in this province see an industrial wind turbine or a solar panel, it reminds them how badly they are being fleeced on their electricity bills.

The same thing will happen at the gas pumps. Consumers will be reminded every time they fill up at the pump of the government's carbon taxes. On behalf of all Canadians, keep politics out of the National Energy Board.

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

Mr. Speaker, with all due respect, I do not think the hon. member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke is interested in the bill we have before us, Bill C-69. Bill C-69 does not include anything about carbon taxes. The bill actually does not apply in any way to the issues she has raised about Ontario's policies for energy.

Personally, I cannot vote for Bill C-69, because it is so terribly weak and fatally flawed because of the persistence of the philosophy that is now embedded in the Government of Canada, left behind by the previous Harper government. Therefore, while I suppose I share the way I will vote with her, I cannot share anything else.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I was talking specifically to Ontario voters, but I am hoping that voters from across Canada will learn from our experience. That is the lesson we learned when we thought everything was supposed to be renewable and good for the environment, but we opened up our hydro bills, and they were ten times the amount they had been a few months before. That was a price shock. Once burned, twice shy. When they go to the pumps, and they are burned at the pumps, they will have that same anger for the federal Liberals they are currently feeling provincially.

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am really excited when I hear the Liberals talk about past governments. If we want to talk about Liberal DNA, it is just entangled in corruption. That is exactly what we have heard about tonight.

Earlier the minister said we need to have trust, but when we look at the bill and what has happened around it, we see that there is absolutely no interest in science. It is going to create a massive bureaucracy. The Liberals have lost hundreds of billions of dollars of investment in the country already, based on their approach to the environment and energy assessment.

We have the same people doing the same initiatives that were done in Toronto. Does the member expect that they will have the same results and the same disaster replicated across Canada?

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that is exactly what I am trying to say. They drained the treasury in Ontario. Now they have come to the federal government and are working on draining it here. There are billions of dollars for a pipeline someone else was willing to build. They put in this legislation for redundancy and study after study when they had already been done. All these are roadblocks and a kill switch for any pipeline ever to be built as long as the Liberals are in power, or the NDP.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am not sure if this is an appropriate time to do so, but I would like to correct something I said that was erroneous. I believe I said that the Supreme Court overturned the approval of the northern gateway pipeline project, but it was in fact the Federal Court of Appeal. I apologize. I attribute this to the late hour of the debate.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Anthony Rota]

We have a correction. I thank the hon. member.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join today's debate on Bill C-69. The proposed changes are important, because they build on and strengthen the legislation that has been described as historic, groundbreaking, and a major turning point for resource development in Canada.

There is a good reason for all these superlatives, because Bill C-69, even more so now that it has been amended, is a potential game changer in the way Canada reviews new major resource projects by creating greater investment certainty; restoring public confidence; advancing indigenous reconciliation; strengthening protections for our environment, fish, and waterways; and establishing better rules for co-operation among the various levels of government and federal regulatory agencies.

For example, there is a proposed early engagement and planning phase that would bring the proponents of new projects together with local communities and indigenous peoples to identify priorities and concerns. This would have two immediate benefits. First, project proponents and their investors would get a clearer lay of the land before they spent a lot of money advancing their proposals. Second, by identifying the key issues early, the project reviews would be shorter and more focused.

These kinds of results would be transformational for Canada's resource industries. They would enhance our competitiveness at the same time that we are ensuring sustainability, demonstrating yet again that economic prosperity and environmental protection are not competing interests but equal components in a single engine that will drive clean growth.

Bill C-69 features many other innovative measures that are equally significant. I am pleased to see that the amendments proposed at committee are consistent with the spirit and intent of the legislation. They include amendments that would further advance the recognition of indigenous rights, amendments that would enhance public participation and transparency, amendments to improve timelines and predictability, and amendments to clarify both ministerial discretion and the factors to be considered during impact assessments and regulatory reviews.

Many of these amendments extend across all acts within the bill, but I would like to focus my time on how the proposed changes would reinforce the goals of the Canadian energy regulator act.

For those who may be watching at home and are new to Bill C-69, the proposed new Canadian energy regulator would replace the National Energy Board. Our aim is to create a more modern federal regulator, with the required independence and the proper accountability to oversee a strong, safe, and sustainable Canadian energy sector in this clean-growth century.

The Canadian energy regulator act proposes to do this in these five key areas: more modern and effective governance; greater certainty and timelier decisions for project proponents; better public consultations; greater indigenous participation; and stronger safety and environmental protections. The amendments before us would move the yardsticks in each of these areas.

For example, we have a proposal from committee to clarify the factors to be considered by the Canadian energy regulator to ensure that climate change is considered when the regulator is making decisions about non-designated projects, such as pipelines, powerlines, and offshore projects.

I am disappointed in the opposition for how it has treated this historic piece of legislation. During the committee review, opposition members attempted to completely remove the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board from the review panel process. This was quite shocking, as it was proposed despite massive objections from Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, as well as the experts.

In fact, the biggest single criticism of the 2012 changes by the previous government in Newfoundland and Labrador was that it left the CNLOPB out of the entire process. It is clear that the opinion of the Conservatives has not changed. I am proud that Bill C-69 incorporates the critical role of the CNLOPB.

In its appearance before the environment committee, the CNLOPB said that Bill C-69 would provide for improvements over the current process and would allow it to work more closely and more collaboratively with federal agencies and regulators. It also said that regional assessments allowed for in Bill C-69 would strengthen the process.

Other amendments propose ways to enhance the new energy regulator's transparency and to provide for more meaningful opportunities for Canadians to participate in the regulatory process. This includes a requirement for processes and funding to support indigenous and public engagement. Further, there is an important amendment stipulating that whenever a project proponent issues a notice, which means that it has submitted information to the Canadian energy regulator, that the regulator would be required to put that notice on its website. This is an important step to inform the public about projects.

As for discretionary powers, the only exemption orders that would now be allowed under the Canadian energy regulator act would be to ensure safety and security or for the protection of property or the environment.

Other proposed changes build on the principle of one project, one review. For example, we see an amendment proposing that integrated review panels be allowed to include other jurisdictions, thereby ensuring a single impact assessment that still meets all requirements.

Also, other amendments that would provide greater certainty about the transition to a new review process. This includes adding objective criteria to determine which projects would continue to be reviewed under CEAA 2012, as well as a provision to encourage proponents to opt in to Bill C-69's new process. Of course, there are further clarifications that no project proponent will be asked to return to the starting line.

These are all good amendments that our government welcomes.

These changes will help to create an even better Canadian energy regulator. They will ensure good energy projects go ahead with timely and transparent decisions reflecting common values and shared benefits. They would lead to smarter resources, more effective reviews, and better results.

Taken together, Bill C-69 and its amendments are appropriately ambitious and historic. They reflect the adage that one has to swing for the fences if one wants to hit a home run. Bill C-69, as amended, does that.

I hope all members will support Bill C-69 and its changes so we can get on with the business of building an even better Canada, one where the way we manage and develop our natural resources truly reflects who we are as Canadians and the values we cherish most.

[Karen Vecchio, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Mr. Speaker, earlier today I had the opportunity to ask the Minister of Environment a question, specifically looking at the Navigable Waters Act. Unfortunately, I was not able to get any information. I also indicated that I had spoken to the member for Edmonton Strathcona regarding the Navigable Waters Act. It was not discussed nor were those amendments discussed in committee.

I am from a rural community. One of the important factors is about farmers being able to get onto their fields to do the work that needs to be done. We can we look at municipal sewers as well as different systems.

Could the member share with us the impact the bill would have on farmers? From everything I am hearing, it is going to be negative. I am very concerned that all of this is going pull back on the abilities that had transpired for our farmers in the last six years.

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

Mr. Speaker, during my tenure on the environment committee as the member of Parliament for Bonavista—Burin—Trinity and working with other members of Parliament, I found it to be a great exercise.

As other hon. members have said, the committee worked extremely hard on the legislation. We accepted many briefs, and a lot of witnesses presented to our committee. During that entire process, we listened to experts, people from the environmental community, people from indigenous communities, industry, and Canadians from across the country on this issue. Based on the presentations and the information we heard from them, we brought forward a bill with these amendments, which we believe will marry the economy and the environment.

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

Mr. Speaker, I hope the member for Bonavista—Burin—Trinity will forgive me for correcting some of what he may believe actually happened but is revisionist history.

In 2012, it was the previous Conservative government that, for the first time ever, proposed that the offshore boards, the NEB, and the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission should oversee environmental assessments. The Conservatives did not get around to the regulatory changes to put the offshore boards in that position.

I never thought I would see the day that the Liberals, who had railed against those changes in opposition and voted against them, would come into power and then proceed to make the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board and the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board responsible authorities under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act.

My friend will know I disagree with this step. It is not with disrespect for the Newfoundland agency. It is because, by law, that regulator has a responsibility and a mandate to expand offshore oil and gas. It has a statutory conflict of interest, and it is probably the most objectionable part of an objectionable act that the regulator is playing a role in environmental assessment.

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

Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member is well aware, I totally disagree with her perspective on that issue. These organizations, the CNLOPB and the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board, bring to this process of future development a lot of experience, expertise, and knowledge.

For all the years of work that have gone on in Newfoundland and Labrador, the CNLOPB has made a tremendous contribution to the offshore oil and gas industry. We all want to protect our environment, but that experience cannot just be tossed aside. We need these people at the table.

[Dan Ruimy, Liberal, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to thank my parliamentary colleagues for their careful review and analysis of our navigation protection legislation.

Many Canadians told us they were unhappy that the previous government's changes were made without an opportunity for them to participate and voice their concerns about the changes. My parliamentary colleagues changed that. They heard from Canadians and responded with recommendations and legislation that would protect Canadians' right to travel on all navigable waters in Canada.

This journey started almost two years ago when the government launched a broader review of environmental and regulatory processes. The broader review included the review of environmental assessment processes, the modernization of the National Energy Board, and the restoration of lost protections for the Fisheries Act and Canada's navigation protection legislation.

Reviewing the Navigation Protection Act is important to parliamentarians, so important that the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities carried its own study of the act. The committee tabled its report in March 2017, taking into the account the views of witnesses and the many submissions received from interested Canadians. The committee's reported findings and recommendations helped supplement our review.

Consultations have been at the heart of this review. I would like to take this opportunity to also thank Canadians who contributed to the committee's study.

The committee's work opened the dialogue on the protections Canadians wanted to see for navigation in Canada. What did we hear? We heard that Canadians wanted to see protections for all waterways in Canada, including those left unprotected by the current law. We also heard that Canadians wanted a smarter way of protecting navigation, one that would put resources where they were needed most.

In June 2017, the government responded to the committee's report, accepting all of its recommendations. Shortly thereafter, the government released a discussion paper, setting out proposals for all four components of the broader review. This kicked off a second phase of consultations.

Consultations were held with other levels of government, indigenous peoples, voters, environmental non-governmental organizations, and industry. What we heard through the summer and early fall of 2017 helped us shape the proposed Canadian navigable waters act introduced in Parliament in February of this year as part of Bill C-69.

I would like to take this opportunity to recognize the work done by the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development. I would also like to thank the committee, the witnesses, and those who made written submissions for their time spent studying the new Canadian navigable waters act and providing their views.

Bill C-69 delivers on the government's commitment to restore lost protections by providing oversight for all works on all navigable waters in Canada. The Canadian navigable waters act in Bill C-69 would keep the minor works order. This order allows works with minor interference to navigation to be built, provided they meet the terms and conditions set out in the order.

The bill also introduces a new major works order. This order would require anyone building a major work with significant interference to navigation to apply to Transport Canada for an approval before building on any navigable water in Canada. Similarly, the bill would also require anyone building works, except minor works, on waters listed on the schedule to apply to Transport Canada for approval.

Works under the new Canadian navigable waters act not covered above would be subject to the new dispute resolution processes set out in the act. This process would require builders to notify the public before starting construction and to resolve any navigation related concerns. If these concerns are not resolved, the builder may be required to apply to Transport Canada for an approval. This process would allow local communities to have a say in the projects that could have an impact on their navigation. This is a good step forward.

I am pleased to see the committee has made important improvements to the new Canadian navigable waters act, including clarifications to the provisions related to indigenous knowledge, the sale of obstructions, and the regulatory power that allows the Governor in Council to exclude small bodies of water from the definition of navigable waters.

Perhaps the most important amendment is the one that makes it clear that changes to water levels and water flows will be considered when assessing the interference that works will have on navigation. Clearly navigation cannot continue if water levels are too low. The impact of works on water levels or water flows will be considered when works are assessed, and conditions can be put in place to mitigate these impacts.

I come from the riding of Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge. We are a watershed community. When I was elected, one of the first things I did was gather a diverse group of people in the community who cared about the environment, who were interested in what was going on, and I listened to them. As a result, we spent almost two years talking to local stream keepers, talking to the municipality, talking to folks who care about the salmon and the connected waters. Through that we were able to put together a report on the Fisheries Act and on making amendments to it.

The one thing I kept hearing over and over again from everyone in my community was that the previous government had gutted not only the Fisheries Act but a lot of acts as well that were supposed to protect our environment. These steps that we are taking now are to restore those lost protections.

I would like to conclude by highlighting the extensive consultations that led us to this bill. Canadians truly had a say in restoring lost protections.

We have built on the foundation of the initial review by the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities and the recent review by the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development with what Canadians told us they would like to see in navigation protection. Both committees have provided a key forum for ensuring that the views of Canadians are heard, and the bill responds to these concerns.

I cannot stress enough that I keep hearing from the opposition members that there was nothing wrong with their act, that everything was fine, everything was great, yet that is not what my community was telling me. That is not what I saw in my community. It is not what I see today when I see the challenges we face with fish and fish habitats and our waterways.

Before summer it is possible to canoe on the Katzie Slough with no problems whatsoever, but then halfway through the summer invasive species of plant life take over the entire slough, and people cannot even canoe over it. Those are real problems. They are not problems made up in the House. That is what is happening in our communities right now.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have been looking for an opportunity to ask one of the Liberal members this question.

We have a very large elephant in the room here tonight. While we talk about whether this impact assessment will apply to how indigenous people participate or whether the energy regulators will get in the door, the reality is that it is a failure because it no longer applies to the thousands of projects across Canada that were routinely reviewed before 2012.

Between 1975 and 2012, anything under federal jurisdiction required a review. Harper changed that from 4,000 to 5,000 projects a year to fewer than 100. In this bill, restricting reviews to a project list means that the Conservative Harper approach guides this legislation and that we will never see it applied to more than big, major projects, ignoring the advice of the expert panel that reported to the government.

I am heartsick about it. I ask my hon. colleague if there is any chance that amendments can be accepted to allow the bill to do what it should do and apply to all federal jurisdictions.

[Dan Ruimy, Liberal, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC]

Mr. Speaker, when I look at this situation, I ask myself, “How did we get to where we are?” It did not happen overnight. It is a cumulative effect that has gone on for generations and generations.

The connected waters are no longer connected, so where is our starting point? We have to have a starting point. For me, one of the starting points was the Fisheries Act. How do we strengthen our Fisheries Act? How do we strengthen fish habitat? These are the things that allow us to start to move forward. For me, the navigable waters act is one of those things that can at least help us start to move forward and turn back the clock.

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Surrey Newton, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I had the opportunity to go to the riding of Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, and I have seen the hon. member having extensive consultations on other subjects. When it comes to this bill, I would like to know from the hon. member if he has done consultations in his riding and if he feels this vigorous and clear process will help the businesses and people in British Columbia.

[Dan Ruimy, Liberal, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Surrey—Newton is right. The time that I spent has been educational for me.

I grew up in Montreal. I am a city boy. Worms and fish and hooks are not my thing, but I had to learn a lot about fish. I had to learn about the community that I live in, and I was blessed to have people who were ready to show me.

I cannot tell members how many times they kept telling me, “My God, somebody is listening to us. Somebody is paying attention. Somebody is actually bringing us to the table and having these conversations.” To me, it meant I was going in the right direction.

What we have before us is just another extension of all the consultations we had, and not only in my riding; the committee also heard from over 80 witnesses and reviewed over 150 submissions. There were 14 months of consultations. They are the reason we are doing this. They help guide us to where we are today.

[Tony Clement, Conservative, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise in the House. It is late in the evening, but it is good to see members of the House here to debate this very important issue. I am delighted that I am following the member for Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, because I was in his wonderful community just last week. He may have been aware of that.

I had a wonderful session with the local chamber of commerce, as well as other constituents of his. Funnily enough, this bill never came up. Others topics came up, like this decision by the Liberals to buy a pipeline. A lot of his constituents were very concerned about the financial cost of that decision. A lot of other issues about economic growth and opportunity came up. The issue of affordability of housing came up and how the Liberal government was not addressing it. Therefore, I commend him for his constituents, but they did not talk about the same issues the hon. member has talked about this evening.

I come from Parry Sound—Muskoka. Navigable waters is an important issue in my riding as it is in many other ridings in the country. I have 8,000 lakes in my riding, as you well know, Mr. Speaker, when you drive through it, at the speed limit, on your way to your constituency. However, these issues are important. I think we can all agree in the House that we want sustainable waterways that can be used for generations to come, that we can all enjoy, that are available to citizens.

The issue is this: Is the bill helping us get to where we want to get to? We have heard a lot from the Liberal members about how wonderful the bill is, how it will make a difference. Let us look at some of the actual provisions of the bill and what they would do. When we do that, I think we will come away with a very different impression about how the rhetoric of the bill is one thing, but the actual impact of the bill is something very different.

I draw attention to the fact that the bill is riddled with ministerial exemptions that will delay development of Canada's natural resources, which has an impact on jobs and opportunity and the ability of our society to pay for the sustainability of our waterways and other environmental goals that we have. There is an extension of ministerial authority over the process. I am sure there have been comments on that at committee and at other stages of the debate of the bill.

Some environmental lawyers have opined that the bill would do nothing to enhance the environmental protections. Therefore, that is a significant flaw. That is not just a minor amendment issue. It goes to the heart, to the pith and substance, as we used to say, of the bill. That in itself is a reason for a second thought on it. When Governor in Council and ministerial exemptions can be exercised, this slows down approvals.

I have heard the hon. members on the other side say that we should not worry, that everything will be fine, that they will get approvals through, that they will protect the environment. However, that is not the way it works when we look at the legislation. The ability of the Governor in Council—that is to say the cabinet, the executive council of the government—to slow down the process is very clear.

The addition of the planning process and the associated timelines means that the overall review process is actually longer than what it was under the prior legislation. It will take longer to get a decision. Things will be slower. Red tape will be strangling. That is not good. That certainly is not good for the economy. It actually goes against the idea that we, as a civil society, have the means by which we can come to a negotiated solution to protect our waterways. The government always says it wants economic growth and development. This is a case where it is making it tougher to get the economic growth and development it claims it wants.

This is an issue. With the addition of a joint panel requirement, the end result will be more panels than before. More projects will have longer timelines.

We on this side of the House, in the Conservative Party, do not see an appropriate and sage balance between environmental protection and economic growth. That is the mantra of the government, but when we look at the bill, we are not getting that proper balance. We are in a competitive situation. We know that other jurisdictions are not waiting for Canada to get its act together. They are trying to be more competitive. They are trying to lower taxes and regulation for their citizens to increase economic growth and opportunity, particularly for young people, but this bill is going 180° in the opposite direction.

I know that the government is committed to investing over $1 billion over five years for the new Canadian energy regulator, but, again, we have not heard from government members on how this money will be spent. Where are the details for us, as legislators, to understand how that money will be spent to actually help the new Canadian energy regulator? As I have said, we are quite worried that this would decrease Canadian economic competitiveness without increasing environmental protection. That is the key problem I find with this piece of legislation.

We know that it is part of our responsibilities as members of Parliament to seek out sound economic and environmental policies and to make sure that one is not at the expense of the other. This does not have to be a zero-sum game. On this side of the House, we understand that increased prosperity does lead to better environmental outcomes.

In 2016, Canada's natural resources sector accounted for 16% of economic activity here in Canada and 38% of our non-residential capital investment, but what will kill that is regulatory uncertainty, red tape. That is what has been happening, to an exponential degree, over the last couple of years, to such an extent that Canadian energy investment has declined in the past two years more than in any other two-year period in the last 70 years. I think another hon. member mentioned an elephant in the room. This is the elephant in the room, and this is why this bill is not a solution to Canada's problems.

We urge the government to champion Canadian energy projects and provide regulatory certainty, predictability, and clarity to ensure the viability of these major projects. There are lots of assurances and rhetoric that go with this bill, but we have no real assurance that future projects of national and, indeed, local significance can and would proceed. It does build, unfortunately, on the growing Liberal record of increasing red tape and over-regulation.

On this side of the House, Canada's Conservatives will continue to stand against onerous regulations that destroy jobs, destroy economic growth, and lower our global competitiveness. We will continue to stand for the taxpayer, for the citizen, for the average person who seeks a better life in this country, and for growth and opportunity in Canada, because that is the solution to any environmental challenges. That is the solution for economic growth in the future.

[Dan Ruimy, Liberal, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for coming to my riding. It is too bad he did not invite me over. We could have had a good conversation. I feel the need to mention that we are here talking about the navigable waters act, for instance, not other issues that the member may have asked questions about.

I keep hearing, time and time again, “less regulation”, but where is the climate change piece that is missing from less regulation? Where is the piece that says we have to be able to solve the problem of climate change? Less regulation opens the door to what we have had: the destruction of our coastal areas, fish passages, and fish habitats. That is the result of less regulation.

I would like to know how the member can come to terms with less regulation while protecting the environment.

[Tony Clement, Conservative, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that is an important question. I am not diminishing the question in the least, but it is a bit of a red herring. In no part of my speech did I say “no regulation” and in no part of my remarks did I say “under-regulation”. Of course, we have to protect our natural environment. That is part of our duty as citizens of this great country, and of the planet.

However, let me get back to my point. This bill promises to do something that will not happen. Liberals say that we can protect the environment and increase economic growth, and yet this bill will make it tougher, and it will take longer to get legitimate projects through the system. It is because of ministerial discretion, not because of science or some highfalutin principle.

It will be the cabinet that will be able to slow things down. That is a major point of contention in this bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to pick up on something the member said, because it gets repeated so often in this place, that somehow the current Liberal government has hurt investment in the energy sector.

That is not the case. We have to look globally, and what we find is that investors are fleeing fossil fuel investments. They are divesting. We can look at the many speeches by Mark Carney, who used to be the Governor of the Bank of Canada and is now the Governor of the Bank of England, where he says there is a carbon bubble, and smart companies want to avoid having stranded assets in the oil sands.

That is why ConocoPhillips has left; that is why Shell left; that is why Statoil left; that is why Total left. At the height of the oil sands, it amounted to 2% of our GDP. Large multinationals are leaving because they are investing in renewable energy, because that is where the profits are.

[Tony Clement, Conservative, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I do concede that there has been some investment in renewable energy, and that is, of course, a good thing. Certainly, if business leaders see that as a growth area, far be it for me to second guess that.

However, the fact of the matter is that there has been a lot of uncertainty in the Canadian marketplace, which has seen a disproportionate number of companies fleeing it because of the uncertainty and red tape over the last couple of years. That point is undeniable. When we see a 70% drop in a two-year period of that kind of investment in Canada, that is not a worldwide trend. There is no worldwide 70% drop.

It is clear that it is the actions of the current government and its policies, of its saying one thing and doing something very different, that have caused this crisis in natural resources development. It can be a sustainable development, but not when the government puts so many onerous preconditions on this kind of development.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to Bill C-69. I want to take a moment to talk specifically about some of the deficiencies of the bill. Then I would like to talk a bit more about a general pattern of behaviour that the bill fits into, which is problematic in and of itself.

With respect to the bill, Canadians were upset with the previous government and its approach to environmental assessment, if we can call it that. The previous government really gutted the existing environmental assessment process. The key feature of that gutting in my opinion and the opinion of many Canadians across the country was that the Harper government essentially made the final approval of large natural resource projects a political decision at the cabinet table. It became a decision that was not inherently tied to evidence, to science, to predictable impacts with respect to the effect of these projects on the climate. It was not tied to the rights of indigenous peoples to have a say over what happens on their own land. It was simply a political decision to be taken by cabinet. Therefore, one would think that a party that ran against the Harper Conservatives, in part because the latter had gutted environmental assessments and the Liberals committed to Canadians in the election that they would fix that, would have to address the issue of that approval becoming essentially just a prerogative of the government to make according to its own reasons.

The problem with Bill C-69 is that after waiting well over two years for the government to present its fix to the Harper approach to approving these projects, the bill does not in fact do that. It maintains the absolute prerogative of the government to plow ahead, irrespective of the facts, the science on a particular project, or the views of many first nations that may be affected by a particular project. To me, that is a clear and obvious deficiency in the legislation. It does not meet the commitment the Liberals made in the last election to Canadians who are really concerned about this issue. One of the clearest and most obvious things those Canadians wanted was to try to depoliticize the approval process for many of these projects and to have decisions based on science and evidence. It was not to allow the government a choice as to whether or not to go along with the science and the evidence, but to bake it into the process so that the government would not have a choice other than make decisions based on that evidence, or to have an independent body make that decision based on that evidence and science. That is a clear deficiency with the bill, and one that is very disappointing.

With regard to the rights of indigenous people being respected in the approval of these kinds of projects, my colleague, the member for Edmonton Strathcona, presented a number of amendments that would not have put that commitment in the preamble alone, which is what the government ultimately decided to do. The government's decision to put that commitment in the preamble gives us a measure of how strong its commitment to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples really is, because the preamble is non-binding. That, of course, is the kind of commitment that Liberals seem to prefer, the non-binding ones. That was evidenced in their rejection of a number of amendments that would have given UNDRIP real force and effect in the environmental review process. Putting that commitment in the preamble does not give UNDRIP real effect. They are nice words, but they do not get the job done when we have a government that is not interested in respecting the rights of indigenous people. What indigenous people needed was something with the force of law that they could take to court when the government trampled on their rights. The Liberals opted not to do that, and it really does not do it a service to say that it was a missed opportunity.

It is wrong for them not to have done that. It is wrong in principle, but it is also wrong in light of the commitment they just made in voting in support of Bill C-262 last week, which is essentially all about trying to implement UNDRIP within Canadian law. It is wrong, according to the claims of the Prime Minister, who often says that the nation-to-nation relationship is one of the most important relationships.

In light of all those things, it was clearly wrong for the government to do that.

It is part of a theme on a number of files within the government, where the attitude is that we should just trust the government. The government admits there is a lot of discretion, but it says discretion allows it to do the right thing, and it wants to do the right thing. It does not think it has to put the right thing in law or require itself to do the right thing, because it really wants to do it, so we should just take its word for it. That is what is happening with Bill C-69. That is what it means to maintain ministerial prerogative to decide on a project regardless of the evidence.

We heard the minister say something to that effect in the debate on time allocation earlier, when she said that the government cares about science and evidence and therefore it does not need to put a requirement in the law to make decisions based on science and evidence. She said that if we wait and look at the decisions the government makes, we will see, in hindsight, that they were based on science and evidence.

I do not think that this is what Canadians were asking for when they elected a government that said it was going to create a new process based on science and evidence. It is a bad way of making law. It means that a future government that comes in will not be required to do that, just as the current government is not.

Frankly, I do not think the Liberals are really committed, in many cases, to evidence-based decision-making. They would not have bought a 65-year-old leaky pipeline for far more than it is worth if they were actually serious about making information-based decisions. We could go down that road, but even if we do not, it is very clear that if one's commitment is to build a good process, this process should not rely on the goodwill of the government of the day. It should be a process that requires the government of the day to do the right thing, notwithstanding who is in power. This bill obviously fails that test.

We saw something similar with Bill C-49 with respect to voice and video recording devices in locomotives. The government said that we need not worry because it has no interest in invading the privacy rights of workers, and that it would look after it, but without putting it into law; it would just put it in regulations. The government asked us, when voting on the legislation, to trust that it would do the right thing later in regulation.

Never mind the fact that even if the current government does the right thing, and we have not seen that yet, it is still up to some future government to simply change the regulations by order in council without coming to Parliament, because it is not in the law. I do not think the government has done any great favour to workers in that industry by setting up a law that could be so easily abused.

We have seen a similar thing from the government when it comes to approving funding for all its new budget initiatives for 2018-19. It is asking for approval of over $7 billion up front. Department officials and ministers have been very clear in committee that they do not actually have a plan for the money yet. They do not know what they are going to do with that money yet. They have not designed the program, and it has not been to the Treasury Board. They do not know how many people they are going to hire. They do not know whether they will build a building, rent an office, or use existing space. They do not know if they will be travelling across the country. The government does not know what it is going to be spending the money on, but its answer is clear: We should just trust it that things are going to work out and that everything will be okay.

Canadians are looking to the government for leadership on a number of issues, whether it be fiscal responsibility, or being open and accountable, or the very important issues that Bill C-69 is at least nominally meant to address. I have given some indication that I am not convinced it actually addresses those issues.

Regardless of the issue, when Canadians are looking for leadership, they are looking for legislation that holds the government to account. If the government of the day is sincere in giving its word, it should not mind being held to a higher standard, allowing Canadians to test that in court if they have to. Hopefully it will not come to that and the government will keep its word, which remains to be seen.

Canadians deserve to have the tools to hold the government to its word. They also deserve to have future governments bound by those things. At the very least, if a future government wants to change that, it should have to come to Parliament to make the case to Canada's elected representatives, instead of being able to do it fly-by-night through regulation. That is the problem with Bill C-69.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to read a quote about Bill C-69 from the National Post. It reads:

Bill C-69 outlines a number of factors that the minister must consider before approving a project including sustainability and impacts on indigenous groups and on Canada's ability to meet its climate change commitments. That's an improvement over the existing system where the government's reasons for project approvals are often 'mysterious' according to Jamie Mean, spokesperson for Mining Watch Canada.

I would just like the member's comments on that quote. Could he say whether or not he feels this quote reflects the fact that we have a bill that is an improvement on the existing process brought in by the Conservatives?

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the problem is that notwithstanding any virtues of the process proposed in Bill C-69, if the minister is the one who will decide whether the process will be applied to a project or not, because the process itself is not mandatory, and if at the end of it the minister is able to simply ignore the outcomes of the process, then no, we would not have a process that is fundamentally better than the one the Harper government had, because the government could ignore it at will.

The major problem with the Harper process as far as I am concerned is that at the end of the day, the government, for whatever reason, could simply ignore the science and the evidence. That fundamentally has not changed.

Incidentally, members looking to the National Post to validate whether or not their policies are progressive are probably barking up the wrong tree.

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

Mr. Speaker, in fairness, the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Louis was quoting the National Post in reference to Jamie Mean of Mining Watch Canada, who is not the usual go-to sources for the National Post.

I happen to be struggling with this legislation because it is, without question, marginally better than Bill C-38 in 2012. The Liberals promised in their platform to restore what we had been in place before, that it would restore public trust and repair the damage done when the original Canadian Environmental Assessment Act brought in by Brian Mulroney was repealed by Bill C-38. This has not been restored. This has not been repaired. This has largely been entrenched.

Does my friend from Elmwood—Transcona have any theories as to why the Liberal government spent over $1 million on a National Energy Board expert panel and over $1 million on a separate environmental assessment expert panel that held hearings across the country? The expert panel on EA by the way went to 21 cities, heard from over 1,000 witnesses, produced a terrific report, and its recommendations were thrown under the proverbial bus.

What on earth was going on? I really cannot answer the question, but maybe my friend from Elmwood—Transcona could speculate.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it would be speculation indeed, because it does not seem to make a lot of sense to have commissioned that work, have it done, and then largely ignore it.

We saw something similar with the Special Committee on Electoral Reform. There was a budget for that committee too. It did a lot of travel, heard from a number of witnesses, and produced a really great report. Everybody put a bit of water in their wine to clear the path for the government to move forward and make good on its election commitment. Without really even taking time to consider that report, the government decided to throw it in the wastepaper bin. It is a theme, but the motivation behind that theme is not exactly clear.

On the issue of electoral reform, by way of analogy to Bill C-69, one could imagine the government creating a really good proportional representation voting system that actually satisfied Canadians who voted for change, but putting in a caveat in the bill that the government of the day could decide in advance of an election whether it would use that process or the old process. I do not think anybody would say that made sense. Right?

Effectively, the ministerial discretion to decide whether to apply this framework to a project and then to ignore it afterwards would be a further caveat. We would be saying, “If we had the election and we do not like the results, we will actually just rescind it and then will redo the election under the old process.” Nobody would think that was a good idea, and effectively that is what is happening here.

There may be virtues in the change to the process, but the real problem is whether the process will be applied and whether it has to be respected once it is seen through.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, whether it is the Prime Minister, the Minister of Environment, or the minister responsible for natural resources, we hear time and time again that we need to recognize that the environment and the economy go hand in hand, and it needs to be repeated. If we say it enough, maybe the Conservatives and the NDP will begin to understand that there is a great deal of merit in that idea.

Canadians understand that idea. If the Conservatives and the New Democrats would listen to what Canadians have to say about the issue, they would find that they are in fact offside on what I believe is very important legislation.

It is interesting that it appears that both opposition parties are going to vote against the legislation. I am not 100% sure about the New Democrats, but I believe they are going to be voting against it too, and possibly the Green Party will be voting against it as well.

They have different reasons. The Conservatives are saying that we are putting in too much regulation and are being too hard on free enterprise. My New Democratic friends are on the other end. They are saying that we need to put in more regulation and more restrictions.

The reality is that if the NDP cannot get onside or understand the true national interest with respect to the Trans Mountain expansion project, then it is very clear that they do not support pipelines, because if they cannot support this one, then they cannot support any pipeline, as far as I am concerned. I suspect that after listening to what the NDP has to say, that is the conclusion that a vast majority of Canadians would reach.

Then we have my Conservative friends, who are on the other end. They are great in opposition, far better in opposition than they ever were in government. I can tell members that much. If I look at what the Conservatives are saying, I see that at first they were saying that the Liberal government was not doing enough and that they wanted to see a pipeline, even though for 10 years they could not build an inch of pipeline to tidewater.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

We built four. We built four pipelines.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

The Conservatives can heckle whatever they want. The reality is that they did not build one inch of pipeline to tidewater. They failed. There were 10 years of failure on that front. What they asked for was to see a pipeline built, because they could not do it.

Now we have a government that is actually making it happen. One would think the Conservatives would be happy to see that, but no. Now they are asking why the government is buying a pipeline. Do I need to remind them that it was Harper who bought automobile shares to protect an industry? Imagine the thousands of jobs that were saved because of the Harper decision to invest in the automobile industry. That money was ultimately returned. Need I remind them they cashed out a billion dollars on it in the last budget they presented? Why are they saying no to Alberta, and to Canada as a whole? That is the challenge I put to my Conservative friends, because it just does not make any sense.

What does Bill C-69 do? It protects our environment, fish, and waterways. This is good stuff. We are re-establishing public confidence in the environment and in economic development because they can go hand in hand. We are also respecting indigenous rights.

If I go back to my New Democratic friends, they will point out that there is a group that is in opposition to it. The logic of the NDP, which at times can be a challenge, is that if we do not get 100% buy-in, then we should kill the project, no matter what the project is. That seems to be the New Democrats' approach to economic development. I think they owe it to Canadians to be a little more clear and transparent.

I believe we have seen political parties on all sides recognize exactly what we have been able to accomplish with regard to the Trans Mountain expansion project. It is something the Conservatives could not accomplish. Whenever you have a major project, there are divisions, even within the NDP ranks. Take a look at the premier of Alberta. What does she have to say? She is very encouraging and very positive that we finally have a national government able to get the job done. On the other hand, we have the NDP in British Columbia who are determined to kill the project, and now we have the national party, whose position is a little harder to peg, but I think in the last week or so it has become very clear that it does not see the value of pipelines.

I will tell members why it is in Canada's national best interest from the narrow perspective of my province of Manitoba. We can talk about the thousands of jobs that will be created and the endless opportunities for indigenous people and communities in all regions of our country. We will all benefit from it. However, I want to focus on something that does not get talked about very often, which is that the Province of Manitoba will spend roughly $6 billion on health care, and probably quite a bit more than that. It has been awhile since I was a member of the Manitoba legislature, but we are very dependent on equalization payments, transfer payments, and so forth. A province like Alberta, for example, contributes billions of dollars towards equalization. If Manitoba did not receive that kind of funding, we would be unable to provide the type of services we do in health care, education, and many of the social programs that are so very important and part of what I believe Manitobans and all Canadians would like to see.

When I first learned that we were acquiring the Trans Mountain expansion project, I felt very good about it. I thought this is what it means to be in government, which is to have a vision that would ultimately see Canada continuing to grow. Our middle class today will be healthier tomorrow as a direct result of this acquisition. At the end of the day, that was a commitment we made to voters back in 2015. We committed to looking at ways to build Canada's middle class and those aspiring to be a part of it, and to look at ways to strengthen our economy.

However, those naysayers, the New Democrats, do not understand or appreciate the importance of energy and getting our commodities to market, and would rather say no to anything and everything. The Conservatives do not appreciate the importance of our environment and respecting indigenous rights.

On this side of the House, this Prime Minister and this caucus understand the value of a government that is prepared to make tough decisions that will have a profoundly positive impact in many different ways in every region of the country. I am so proud to be part of a government that does not shy away from acting in the national best interest. That, to me, is one reason we should all be getting behind the Trans Mountain project and, specifically, this proposed legislation.

This proposed legislation would reinforce that trust by having, for example, the Canadian energy regulator ensure that on the issues the agencies are addressing, the required conditions are in fact being met. That would be a good thing. There would be more efficiency. At the end of the day, we will be better off with the passage of this legislation.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Wetaskiwin, AB]

Mr. Speaker, as always, it was very interesting to hear the hon. member speak. He talked about the billions and billions of dollars that my province has contributed through equalization. Of course, folks in my province are very concerned about the approach of the Liberal government and will be particularly interested in the member expressing his excitement at the possibility that his government would acquire a pipeline. He said, “this is what it means to be in government”. I wonder if the hon. member realizes how ridiculous that sounds.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I fully disagree with the question. One can twist and take words out and try to manipulate a situation. The reality is that Stephen Harper and his government failed Albertans, the Prairies, and in fact all of Canada by not being able to get the job done. Within two and a half years, this government was able to get the job done and is prepared to generate—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Anthony Rota]

I just want to point out that for the last part of what the hon. parliamentary secretary said, the microphones were not on. I was trying to hear because of the shouting. I just want to remind everyone that I am trying to hear what is being said. We are all tired. I just want to make sure that we remember what the rules are: One person speaks at a time. It is a difficult concept, but I am sure we can figure it out.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Winnipeg North is an absolute master of hyperbole and revisionist history. When I look at the Liberal platform of 2015, I fail to see a commitment to buy a pipeline for $4.5 billion, but what I do see in there and what I clearly remember is the Prime Minister making a promise to British Columbians on August 20, 2015 that we would have a redone process. The ministerial panel was very flawed. There were so many problems with it, and that is why British Columbians and many other Canadians had problems with this process. Despite the problems of that panel, it still came out with a recommendation saying that Kinder Morgan’s Trans Mountain pipeline proposal cannot proceed without a serious reassessment of its impacts on climate change commitments, indigenous rights, and marine mammal safety.

Given all the criticism of what is going on, and all the factual evidence, surely even the member for Winnipeg North can admit that the reason there is so much opposition to this is that there was a flawed process and his government fundamentally failed to repair the damage of the previous government. The Liberals failed to live up to their promise, and that is why people are protesting. They do not have faith in the current government.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I disagree with the member opposite. I was hoping my New Democratic friend would provide his thoughts when I made the statement, not only once or twice but on several occasions, even tonight and earlier in the week, in terms of the position of the NDP on the whole issue of pipelines. Canadians have a right to know that the NDP does not support pipelines, period. That is a fairly strong statement that I have made, and I have never had a New Democrat stand in his or her place and say that I was wrong in that assertion.

In following the debates of this chamber over the years, I have found that the New Democrats would just as soon not see one pipeline built, and yet they talk about trying to work with the energy sector and so forth. However, their actions speak louder than words. It is almost as if they oppose government intervention at times. I believe government intervention at times is a good thing. That is the reason why this government got involved. If the government had not gotten involved, there is a very good chance that the pipeline would not have gone through. Maybe that would have made the New Democrats happy. I suspect it might even have made the Conservatives happy. However, it would not have been in the best national interest. That is why this government took it seriously and we wanted to make sure the job got done.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Anthony Rota]

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Battlefords—Lloydminster. I just want to remind the hon. member that she has about five minutes, and then she will be able to resume when this takes place again.

[Rosemarie Falk, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening, and almost tomorrow, to speak 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 appreciate this opportunity to speak to this legislation, as the measures proposed in it would have a significant impact on the constituents in my riding. The energy sector is a central industry in my riding of Battlefords—Lloydminster, and ensuring the industry's viability and growth going forward is crucial to my constituents. While the responsible development of our natural resources is important to my riding, it is equally as important to all Canadians.

Our country owes a lot of its prosperity to our natural resources, a fact that even the Prime Minister has admitted. In his mandate letter to the Minister of Natural Resources, he wrote, “Throughout Canada’s history, our prosperity has been built on our natural resources.” It is a fact that he cannot and should not forget. Our development of natural resources creates jobs in Canada and economic development, and through taxes, it contributes significant revenues to the government.

The energy sector is a key natural resource sector in Canada. It creates over 800,000 Canadian jobs and represents nearly 10% of Canada's nominal GDP. Those figures are nothing to scoff at. Unfortunately, despite the Prime Minister's acknowledgement of the importance of our natural resources, both his actions and inactions have come with a tremendous price tag.

The Liberal government has a terrible record when it comes to Canada's energy sector. While the members across the aisle may want to claim that this legislation is a positive step for the future of our energy sector, that is just not the case, and the Liberals simply cannot be trusted on this file.

This legislation proposes a one project, one review system for approving proposed projects. In principle this looks very positive, but a closer look at this bill quickly reveals that it is full of measures that could be taken to slow down the approval process. In actuality, the process that has been outlined is lengthier.

This perhaps comes as no surprise to many, as we have repeatedly seen the Prime Minister make promises to Canadians and then fail to deliver on them. In fact, since forming government, the Prime Minister has repeatedly failed our energy sector. The recent taxpayer purchase of the Kinder Morgan pipeline is a great example of the Prime Minister's failure, a failure with a $4.5-billion price tag and one that puts Canadian taxpayers on the hook for billions more in costs.

I remind my colleagues that Kinder Morgan never asked for a single dollar of taxpayer money. All it asked for was that the government provide certainty that a pipeline could be built. Even though the Liberals approved the expansion of the Kinder Morgan pipeline, they sat on their hands and did not champion it. Kinder Morgan was not given the certainty it asked for. Instead, it saw delay after delay after delay.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Anthony Rota]

The hon. member will have five minutes and 45 seconds the next time Bill C-69 comes up for debate.

The House resumed from June 6 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, as reported (with amendment) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.

[The Speaker, Geoff Regan]

The hon. member for Battlefords—Lloydminster has five minutes remaining in her speech.

[Rosemarie Falk, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to rise again today to finish my remarks. I started them at five minutes to midnight last night, so I am glad that I have this opportunity to continue.

I want to remind my colleagues that Kinder Morgan never asked for a single dollar of taxpayers' money. It asked the government to provide certainty that its pipeline could be built. Even though the Liberals approved the expansion of the Kinder Morgan pipeline, they sat on their hands and did not champion it. Kinder Morgan was not given the certainty it had asked for. Instead, it got delay after delay. That failure led to the nationalization of the pipeline, and as I have said, it has come at a significant cost to Canadian taxpayers.

Of the bailout, Aaron Wudrick, the federal director of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, said it is “both a colossal failure of the [Prime Minister's] government to enforce the law of the land, and a massive, unnecessary financial burden on Canadian taxpayers.”

Pipeline projects can be built without taxpayer money. The former Conservative government approved 4,500 kilometres of new pipeline through four major pipeline projects.

The role of the government should be to ensure that projects that are scientifically determined to be safe for the environment, and in the interests of Canadians, receive approval. Through low taxes and a clear and less burdensome regulatory system, the government could achieve some success. More than halfway through their mandate, the Liberals have not learned that lesson. That is why Trans Canada pulled out of the energy east pipeline project.

That was not the only energy sector loss. The Liberals' poor management of our energy sector has chased away over $80 billion of investment. As I am sure every member in this place will remember, just recently the Liberal government passed the oil tanker moratorium act through the House. This legislation, when enacted, will prevent an entire region from accessing economic opportunities in the oil and gas sector.

Chris Bloomer, president and CEO of the Canadian Energy Pipeline Association, said, “Projects require clarity and predictability, and once approved should not be subject to costly delay tactics that thwart Canada's economic and social prosperity.” It is really quite a simple ask from Canada's energy industry. It wants to know the rules, know that they are fair, and know that they will not change erratically.

Bill C-69 would not provide that assurance to those working in the energy sector. First, it would provide a slew of ministerial and Governor in Council exemptions that could be used to slow down the approval process. It would also add a planning phase to the process, a brand new process that would be an added 180 days.

The legislation we have in front of us does not provide me with any measure of confidence that it would decrease project timelines or improve certainty for investors. Rather, it would do just the opposite. This legislation would not make investment in Canada more appealing. Rather, it would make it more complicated and more uncertain.

Bill C-69 proposes increased consultation and would expand the criteria to be considered in the assessment of a project. It would seek social license, but it would not increase scientific analysis of the project.

Let us not forget the fact that the minister would have a veto right at the end of the planning phase. This would certainly not instill confidence in investors. It would tell potential investors that decisions on the approval of a project could be decided on a political whim.

We have to also remember that this is happening while the United States is cutting regulations and lowering its taxes. Canada has lost significant business investment. We cannot afford the cost of increased regulation and increased uncertainty. This legislation would not strike the appropriate balance between protecting the environment and growing our economy.

This legislation, like the Liberal government's policies, is flawed. It would propose new regulatory burdens that, when combined with other measures the Liberals have introduced, such as the carbon tax, would drive investment away from Canada.

If Canada wants to compete globally, we need to lower taxes and streamline the regulation system. We need a government that works with Canadians and not against them.

Bill C-69 would result in a loss of jobs, a loss of economic growth, and a loss in global competitiveness. I cannot support the Liberal government's continued efforts to undermine Canada's long-term prosperity.

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I had the opportunity to catch some comments from the hon. member for Carleton on the radio the other night, and it brought up a very clear question about how the Conservative Party would handle a situation like this. I got a very clear message from the member that it would basically use all the constitutional powers of the federal government to simply drive it through, which sends a signal to the provinces about the character of a potential government in dealing with issues on which a province and the federal government may disagree. Therefore, I would ask the hon. member whether she would subscribe to the notion of simply driving it through.

[Rosemarie Falk, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it is quite interesting that I am being asked this question right now, because in Saskatchewan, the province I am from, we have a made-in-Saskatchewan climate plan. It is a plan to tackle climate change. We did that, and the Liberal government will not allow Saskatchewan to do that. Instead, it is forcing the Government of Saskatchewan to tax the people of Saskatchewan, when they do not want that tax. I find that ironic, because I do not see this government respecting provincial jurisdiction whatsoever.

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

Mr. Speaker, we are debating Bill C-69, which is an omnibus bill that affects the new Canadian energy regulator, which was the National Energy Board; the Impact Assessment Act, which was the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act; and the navigable waters act. Having practised environmental law for most of my life, I do not suppose she will believe me when I tell her, but I will try to tell her, that this bill is incredibly weak and does nothing to make development more difficult. It cannot possibly drive away investors unless they only want to put their money in countries where environmental assessment meets the minimum standards of rigour that Canada used to have between the early 1970s and 2012.

I do not suppose she is reassured, but I am voting against Bill C-69 because it is absolutely weak. I wonder if she has read it in detail and recognizes that it keeps in place most of what the previous government had done.

[Rosemarie Falk, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I find my colleague's question very interesting because of what just happened with Kinder Morgan. The government made it such an uncertain area of investment that it had to pay off Kinder Morgan to build the pipeline, or else it will not be done. I am not going to accuse the government of not building the pipeline. It has not been done yet. We have not seen anything happen to promote that, except that the government has thrown taxpayers' money at companies that will take that investment elsewhere.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, on Kinder Morgan, the government has solved a problem that did not exist. It is not that we did not have a company to own the pipeline or a company to build the pipeline. It is that we did not have governmental approvals for the pipeline. Today we still do not have governmental approvals for that pipeline. That is exactly why I suggested that the government should use its constitutional powers to take control of the permitting process for all aspects of the project, which would be to the net benefit of Canada, as is provided for in section 92 of the British North American Act.

The fact that the Liberals have not done that means not only that we might not get the pipeline expansion but that we might be on the hook for billions of dollars for that failure. Could the member comment on whether this nationalization of a 65-year-old pipeline was in the national interest?

[Rosemarie Falk, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I had an opportunity to read something written by a Canadian citizen. It is their opinion of the government buying a pipeline worth $4.5 billion. That person said that governments should not be in the investment business. The government's role is to encourage and create environments for others to take risks, they emphasized. The government should be there to provide a social safety net for the most vulnerable, not investing taxpayer money in projects that private investors already have money for.

I am receiving emails and phone calls from residents in my riding who are very upset that the current government is using their tax dollars to spend on a $4.5-billion pipeline that investors were already willing to do.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

Mr. Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to speak 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. My remarks this afternoon will focus on part 3 of this misguided bill.

Part 3 is the section of the bill that makes amendments to the Navigation Protection Act. This section of the bill continues the Prime Minister and the Liberals' assault on common sense laws and regulations that promote jobs and economic growth. The only people calling for the changes proposed in the bill are those opposed to resource projects that create economic development and jobs. They are representatives of the same people who have been protesting the Trans Mountain pipeline, the pipeline the Liberals recently purchased for $4.5 billion in taxpayers' money.

It is rather ironic that the Liberals are burning the bridge, so to speak, with the very voter pool they had hoped to pacify with the bill.

Bill C-69 proposes to change the name of the Navigation Protection Act to the Canadian navigable waters act. While seemingly cosmetic, this change reflects a substantial refocusing of the act on the protection of waters rather than the protection of navigation.

Canada is a large country, the second-largest in the world. In the 1800s, waterways were often the primary means of transporting goods across our vast geography. The legislative forerunners of the Navigation Protection Act were designed to protect the navigability of waterways for the sake of our economy.

With the advent of Canada's rail and road systems, as well as our transportation system, Canada's transportation system has become less reliant on water navigation. However, that said, waterways remain an important element of our transportation system in many regions of the country.

As I said a moment ago, the changes in Bill C-69, including changing the act's name, demonstrate the Liberals' complete disregard for the original intent of the Navigation Protection Act, and instead reflect their misguided attempt to virtue signal in order to obtain the obscure idea of social licence. Without definition or boundaries, social licence is no more real than a pot of gold at the end of a rainbow.

The Liberals' fixation on this abstract idea is costing Canadians dearly. Again, just consider the $4.5 billion, and counting, that the Liberals have spent to buy the old Trans Mountain pipeline. Now consider the substantial changes to the Navigation Protection Act contained within this bill.

The current Navigation Protection Act includes a schedule of waters to which the act applies. This schedule was created by the previous Conservative government because we realized that not every seasonal creek, tiny river, or stream was used for the purpose of commercial navigation. We also realized that these seasonal creeks or tiny rivers were already protected by other environmental legislation and that when economic development was planned on or near them, it was duplicative and redundant to make these projects subject to the NPA when in fact these small bodies of water were not used for navigation.

Our changes were strongly supported by a broad range of stakeholders and organizations across Canada. They ranged from the construction industry, to the resource development industry, to municipalities and their associations. These organizations recognized that Canada needed prudent, careful environmental laws and regulations, but not duplicative ones. They realized that applying the NPA to projects where navigation was not a consideration was a waste of time and money and led to increased project costs.

On this point, the opposition by municipal organizations and the construction industry was highlighted to parliamentarians at the Standing Committee on Transportation, Infrastructure and Communities when we undertook a study in 2016 of the former Conservative government's changes to the NPA. The genesis of that study by the committee was very interesting and should be noted.

What prompted the committee's study of the NPA was twofold. First, I believe there was a misguided eagerness on the part of Liberal and NDP MPs to do the bidding of the Prime Minister, rather than focusing on the real issues, which would have had a more meaningful and positive impact on Canadians and our economy. The committee's study of the NPA was a case of the legislative branch taking its marching orders from the executive branch.

Second, and connected to my first point, the transport, infrastructure and communities committee undertook the study of the NPA as a result of an inadvisable letter from the Minister of Transport, co-authored by the Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard, which was sent to the chair of the transportation committee. In this letter, the Minister of Transport, in effect, directed the committee to undertake this study to provide political cover for introducing changes to the previous Conservative government's legislation. Add to that the fact that the instructions contained within the Minister of Transport's ministerial mandate letter directed him to reverse the changes that were made when the NPA became law.

By directing the committee to undertake the study, the minister was foisting upon a parliamentary committee an instruction that he, himself, had been given. It is no wonder, then, that the conclusions of the committee study were pre-determined. To this day, I find this invasion by the executive branch into the workings of a committee of the legislative body to be a very egregious act on the part of the Minister of Transport and this Prime Minister.

Getting back to Bill C-69 and the new provisions it contains, if passed, the bill will maintain the schedule of waters to be covered by the bill, but it will change the rules and regulations for any work on any navigable water listed in the schedule. Additionally, the bill will create new rules and regulations that will apply to all navigable waters, not just those listed in the schedule.

When I say “navigable water”, it is important to note that this term is code for any body of water or seasonal stream that can float a petroleum-produced canoe or kayak. These new rules include providing an opportunity for the public to express concerns over a work's impact on navigation.

While noble in concept, we all know that this new provision has the potential to be abused by individuals and organizations ideologically opposed to certain projects. This bill is about undoing the good work of our previous Conservative government for spite, rather than implementing policy for the good of the country.

In conclusion, I believe that Bill C-69 is a bad bill and completely unnecessary. While I have only touched on a small part of this bill, I know that its other elements, which my colleague, the member for Abbotsford and others have articulated, will have an equally damaging effect on the Canadian economy and the investment environment in Canada as a whole. This damaging bill is just another piece of bad policy that is causing investment and job creators to look at other countries and/or leave Canada.

It is my sincere hope that the Liberals will reconsider what they are doing to Canada's economy and reputation with misguided pieces of legislation like this one.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, at the outset of her speech, the member said she believes that legislation, or amendments to legislation, today, in 2018, should reflect the original intent of legislation from over 100 years ago.

I appreciate that original intent is an important component, but as the member knows, society evolves, concepts evolve, and that at the time the original act was passed, the notion of the environment did not exist. If we had spoken to somebody back then about the environment, they would have looked puzzled.

Today the environment does matter. The new bill, in terms of assessing projects, will look at impacts on water levels. As a member of Parliament whose riding went through terrible flooding last spring, I would like to ask the member whether she believes that the added component of looking at impacts on water levels is a good thing?

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the Navigation Protection Act and its predecessors were created to protect navigation, not to protect the environment. We have many other pieces of legislation that protect the environment, including the environment of our lakes, rivers and oceans.

I do not believe I said that the changes to the current act were meant to reflect what was happening when our country became a nation. I was speaking to the Navigation Protection Act and the changes we made in 2012.

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

Mr. Speaker, I heard my friend's comments loud and clear with respect to the Navigable Waters Protection Act. Canada had the legislation since 1867, originally under our first prime minister. It remained virtually unchanged until the very significant changes in 2012.

My friend and I will disagree. The omnibus budget bill, Bill C-45 in the fall of 2012, really did damage to our ability to protect navigable waters across Canada. This version in Bill C-69 represents a real improvement. The tragedy is that although the Minister of Transport has done a really good job in repairing that damage, because the impact assessment law does not create a requirement for a review of permits being given by the Minister of Transport, the whole system remains rather shattered, as it was by the budget bill and Bill C-38.

Has she looked at the definition and not recognized that this new definition in Bill C-69 does in fact take into account that waterways that can be used only part of the year and are not actually used for human navigation will not trigger any governmental involvement in navigable waters?

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

Mr. Speaker, we would have noted this. A schedule was put in place when the previous government made changes to the act. What the current government has done is kept the schedule and has now indicated that every other waterway will also be subject to the same regulations as the waterways on the schedule. Therefore, it begs the question as to why we have a schedule if it will encompass every waterway in the country.

I will quote what my colleague, who was the lead on this bill made, had to say: “The proposed Impact Assessment Act adds a new planning phase that extends consultations and provides the Minister with the power to kill a project before it has been evaluated based on science.” It gives the minister the discretion to add whatever waterways to the schedule even though it seems a little redundant should he choose to use that discretion.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I have heard from many farmers and ranchers in rural Canada about the changes in Bill C-69 and the impact they will have, especially when it comes to working on their own land. When they are working in spring runoff areas, little waterways and ditches, they will be forced to work with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, even if someone cannot even get a raft or a balloon down that waterway. They are going to be treated like the last pirate of Saskatchewan is going to be sailing down the plain in his ship. It is going to cause a lot of burden and red tape for these farmers when they are trying to produce food and work on their land.

Could my colleague talk about the impact the changes in Bill C-69 will have on the agriculture sector?

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for the very good work he does on behalf of our producers and agriculture across our country.

When I made my remarks, I commented that it was important to note that “navigable water” was a code for any body of water or seasonal stream that could float a canoe or a kayak. I think that is very concerning to farmers across our country, certainly in Saskatchewan.

We heard from SARM when we were studying the bill at committee. It was deeply concerned about the implications it would have for farmers and municipalities to do the work they needed to do in order to continue to provide for Canadians and to provide services to the people they represented.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to have this opportunity to join the debate on Bill C-69. It is an opportunity that unfortunately many colleagues in the House will not be able to have. We are currently debating it under time allocation, so we have a limit of five hours to debate it.

I want to walk the House through a little history lesson.

If we go back to the 2015 election, the Liberals, particularly the Prime Minister, made a lot of promises during that campaign. One of them was a repeated promise that if the Liberals were elected, they would immediately restore a strengthened federal environmental assessment process. They made a commitment that they would not approve any projects without first enacting that strengthened assessment process to ensure decisions were based on science, facts, and evidence, and that they would serve the public interest.

In fact, the Prime Minister made a visit to British Columbia. He came to Vancouver Island to the community of Esquimalt on August 20, 2015. People will know Esquimalt, because that is the home of the main Pacific naval base for Canada. He was asked specifically about the promise in the context of Kinder Morgan. He said, quite clearly, that the Kinder Morgan pipeline review process would have to be redone under stronger and more credible rules.

However, what we have before us today, with Bill C-69, is a gargantuan bill, clocking in at 364 pages. It is too little too late, because we are now debating a bill after the government has approved Kinder Morgan and after it has announced the purchase of the pipeline.

The bill comes to us roughly 28 months since the Liberals were elected. I have heard other members of Parliament express in this place that the bill should have gone to three separate committees. It should have gone to the transport committee, the natural resources committee, and the environment committee so each of those collective bodies, with the experience and knowledge that members attain while working on them, could have studied the constituent parts and called forth the appropriate witnesses.

Instead, one committee was entrusted to this monumental task, this herculean task. I know the efforts of the member for Edmonton Strathcona in listening to the evidence and in trying to put forward amendments to see that the bill lived up to the promises the Liberal government had made. Unfortunately, due to the time constraints and the Liberal members on the committee not really listening to her, most of those amendments were defeated, and here we are at the report stage of the bill.

I also want to go back to the time before Bill C-69 was introduced. The Liberals keep on saying that Kinder Morgan did go through a renewed review process. Well, let us just examine what they in fact set up.

The Liberals had set up what was known as a “ministerial review panel”. In fact, that panel admitted that it lacked the time, the technical expertise, and the resources to fill the gaps in the National Energy Board process. It ended up with little more than questions that remained unanswered. They kept no public records of hearings, admitted that the meetings were hastily organized, and confirmed that they had a serious lack of public confidence in the National Energy Board and its recommendations.

I attended one of those meetings when it came to Victoria. I remember the room unanimously coming out against Kinder Morgan. It was kind of a slapdash piece of work.

Despite all of the setbacks of the ministerial review panel, its members still came out and acknowledged that Kinder Morgan's Trans Mountain pipeline proposals could not proceed without a serious reassessment of its impacts on climate change commitments, indigenous rights, and marine mammal safety. Therefore, they, in a sense, were acknowledging the huge problems that existed with this project.

The Liberals keep on openly wondering why there is such passionate opposition to this project, specifically in British Columbia where the risks are very much concentrated. It is because people did not have faith in the previous process. Many of them were lured to vote Liberal. They had hoped that the new Liberal government would actually live up to its promises.

Instead what they got was a ministerial review panel, judgment passed by the Liberal government before the facts, and now this bill, Bill C-69, which still has many problematic elements. One of the big ones is that the Minister of Environment will still have an arbitrary right to monitor environmental projects. It leaves them open to political influences instead of scientific evidence.

Governments come and go. We may have an environment minister in one government whom the public can trust and know that the person's heart is in the right place, but if a new government comes in that has completely different leanings and gives that kind of power to ministers, it can sway its decisions according to which way the political winds blow. That is not the way to enact strong, scientific, consensus-based decision-making.

I want to start framing this debate a bit more in the context of Kinder Morgan and the very fact that the government has made promises to get rid of subsidies to the oil and gas sector, that we are now last in the G7, and that the government has tried to strive to a 2025 goal.

The Liberals have paid $4.5 billion for a 65-year-old pipeline, one that exports diluted bitumen, and this is just the cost of the existing infrastructure and not of anything that will come from it. I hear members from all sides talking about a national energy strategy, but this pipeline serves foreign interests. It is not accumulating the best value for our product.

Diluted bitumen is the lowest grade of crude we can export. That is why it fetches the lowest prices. Expanding Kinder Morgan's capacity will not change the price. I see no incentive and I have seen no evidence that customers will be willing to pay more for the same product just because we can ship more volume. The existing pipeline exports 99% of it to California, so I would like to see evidence of all the buyers from Asia lining up at the door. They are currently not buying what Kinder Morgan is exporting today.

The Liberals like to use a favourite phrase that the environment and the economy go hand in hand. There are a few things that are wrong with this. It supposes that the environment and the economy are equal partners. That is not the case. I would argue that there is a relationship, but the economy is very much the junior partner. When we start affecting our environment, when we start polluting the waterways, and we see the effects of climate change, the economic ravages that can have far outweigh any of the benefits we can get.

There are economic opportunities in keeping in line with our environmental goals if we start to make the right investments into renewable energy. We have to see the way the world is going. This is 2018, and there is a trend. I want our country to take advantage of the economic opportunities of the 21st century economy, not invest in something that rightfully belongs in the 20th century.

Along the way, we have to be speaking to current energy workers. We have to ensure they come along with us. Everyone acknowledges that the oil sands will not stop production tomorrow, but we need to have a plan where we talk about the just transition of those workers to bring them with us into the new energy economy, so Canada is best placed for the 21st century.

I also want to talk about the Liberals' vote for Bill C-262 last week and how little those commitments mean this week.

The member for Edmonton Strathcona tried repeatedly, both at committee and now at report stage, to insert language into Bill C-69 that would live up to what Bill C-262 would do. Bill C-262 seeks to bring the laws of Canada into harmony with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. If we look at all the report stage motions, we can see that the member for Edmonton Strathcona has tried to insert language in there that acknowledges the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and acknowledges the Constitution Act, 1982 and all of our commitments. I have been questioning Liberals repeatedly on this. Will they at least have some consistency and vote in support of those amendments, following their support for Bill C-262?

This bill is too little too late. There are gaps in it that we could drive a bus through. While we appreciate some elements of the bill, we have to look at the whole thing.

When it is this large, there are just far too many negatives. They outweigh the positives. That is why the NDP is going to withhold its support for the bill. We were hoping for a lot more, and frankly, so were the Canadian people.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciated the member's speech. He delivered it with great clarity.

It is often very difficult to ascertain exactly what subsidies to the fossil fuel industry are, because in some cases investments made with the help of government are aimed at greening that industry. That counts as support, I suppose, for a greener economy. However, often when people talk about the way we subsidize the fossil fuel industry, what they mean is that the industry is not paying for the externalities, for the contributions it makes to greenhouse gas emissions. Would the member not agree that the government's intent to place a price on carbon across the country is one way of eliminating probably the most important fossil fuel industry, which is the fact that we do not really yet have a polluter pay principle when it comes to greenhouse gas emissions?

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with my Liberal colleague across the way that we need to put a price on pollution. That is why, when we were debating Bill C-74, we were very much in support of separating the new carbon tax act out of that bill so it could be properly studied at its own committee. That way, the government could have done the House a service in bringing forward the appropriate witnesses who could have laid clearly on the table the evidence that this approach works.

My Conservative colleagues also have concerns that need to be addressed. I very much acknowledge that there are farmers and certain low-income individuals and industries that are still very fossil fuel dependent, so we need to construct the tax in a way that acknowledges the current fossil fuel users and helps them transition out of that situation. We need to structure the tax in a way that provides some benefit to low-income people while in the overall picture we try to transition our country to a fossil fuel-free future.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I have great respect for my colleague. We work very well together on the agriculture committee. He touched on something when he pointed out that although we are talking about Bill C-69, this really is about a larger narrative.

The government is making making significant decisions that will impact almost every aspect of our economy, whether it is energy, farming, ranching, or small business. As we have seen over the last few days, and certainly over the last couple of weeks, the Liberals are trying to ram these decisions through with little to no consultation either from members or from Canadians who are going to be impacted by this decision.

I would like my colleague to talk about some of the things he is hearing in his constituency about the impact, or about the frustration from his residents as a result of the decisions being made by the Liberal government with no consultation with Canadians.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. friend from Foothills. I enjoy working with him as well. I return the compliment.

When we look at how the Liberal government has treated the parliamentary process over the last few weeks, it has again lived up to another broken promise. The Liberal government came to power with a promise to respect how Parliament works, thus ensuring that members of the opposition and the constituents we represent would get to raise our voices. There has been increasing use of time allocation on huge bills, including the justice reform bill, a democratic reform bill, and an environmental assessment review bill. Limiting debate to five hours really does a disservice not only to us but to the Canadian public we represent.

The Liberals were elected with 39% of the vote. We in the opposition collectively represent 61% of Canadians. They deserve to have their voices heard, and we should not be paying the price for the Liberals' mismanagement of the parliamentary calendar over the last few months.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, many people in Vancouver Kingsway have great concerns about the government's purchase of the Kinder Morgan pipeline with $4.5 billion of their money. We know as well that the pipeline itself will cost at least another $7.5 billion to build and another $3 billion in indemnities. We are talking about using at least $15 billion of taxpayer dollars to build expanded fossil fuel infrastructure.

If Canada has to meet our Paris Agreement commitments and if our job is to reduce fossil fuel emissions and greenhouse gas emissions, can the member square that idea with the notion of expanding fossil fuel infrastructure by using the Kinder Morgan pipeline to triple bitumen exports through the port of Vancouver? Also, could he comment briefly on whether he thinks it is reasonable for the government to be in its third year of government and still not have any price on pollution?

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I think my friend from Vancouver Kingsway has hit on the point: This decision to expand Kinder Morgan makes a mockery of the government's climate change commitments if we look at some of the key facts and figures associated with climate change and the economic costs that will come to Canada.

We are seeing increased natural disasters, flooding, droughts, forest fires. These all have very real impacts on the Canadian economy. Over the next few decades, they will far outweigh the kinds of economic impacts anyone hopes to gain from approving projects like this. I would argue that the greatest economic input comes from looking ahead to the end of the 21st century and where we want Canada to be at that point and starting to invest in those technologies today.

[David Yurdiga, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to debate Bill C-69.

It is obvious that Bill C-69 would ensure that major private sector pipelines will never see the light of day. This Liberal Bill C-69 will forever be known as a black death to the oil and gas sector, killing jobs from coast to coast to coast. The Liberal government has enacted a series of anti-resource policies and has sent signals that discourage economic growth. The hikes in tax rates, increased capital gains taxes, which entrepreneurs are averse to, and the carbon tax all affect investment in Canada. We have witnessed that Liberal policies and lack of action on the energy file have chased over $80 billion out of our country, taking with them hundreds of thousands of jobs.

When I was first elected, anyone across the country who was willing to work could find a job in Alberta. Those willing to work hard, often more than 40 hours a week, could support their families, send their kids for post-secondary education, and still save for the future. Small businesses across Alberta were also booming from the economic activity that the industry brought into almost every town and community in the province. That is not the case today. An oil crash later, a provincial government change, and a federal government change have all Albertans concerned for their future.

The global price of oil will always fluctuate, but what many Canadians do not know is that we do not receive the price per barrel that is commonly reported. The price reported is the North American benchmark, West Texas Intermediate. Our oil is traded as Western Canadian Select. The difference between the two prices is about $34 a barrel, on average. The good news is that pipelines can help to close that gap in prices. The more access we have to markets other than the United States, the better the deal we can obtain.

Instead of supporting the building of these pipelines, the Liberal government has introduced regulation after regulation to cripple the industry and deter investment. Today we are talking about the unpopular move that the Liberal government has struck against the west and our oil industry by robbing the National Energy Board of most of its powers through the creation of the Canadian energy regulator.

The National Energy Board has served as a world-class regulator for the natural resource sector since its creation in 1959. Since then, it has reviewed and approved major energy projects across Canada. Over the last decade, the NEB has approved the pipelines Alberta desperately needs, which made it a target for political interference. When the Liberal government took power, the natural resource minister's mandate letter called on him to “Modernize the National Energy Board to ensure that its composition reflects regional views and has sufficient expertise in fields such as environmental science, community development, and Indigenous traditional knowledge.”

While the government believes Bill C-69 would complete this mandate, I would like to cover how this bill would drive investment out of Canada.

One of the changes the bill would bring in is the establishment of timelines. The government claims that there will be timelines of 450 days for major projects and 300 days for minor projects, respectively, pursuant to subclauses 183(4) and 214(4). While many Conservatives are in favour of timelines for projects, the devil is in the details, and unfortunately we did not have time or enough witnesses at our round tables to go over these details. The application process can be dragged out, and that will not be considered in the timelines. The lead commissioner will be given the ability to exclude time. Lastly and most importantly, the minister can approve or deny an application before it even gets to the assessment phase. We only have to look at the cancelled northern gateway pipeline to see that the government has no problem putting national interests on hold and dismissing a pipeline for political reasons.

I am also concerned about the changes to the NEB standing test. Currently, individuals and organizations directly affected by the project or capable of providing valuable knowledge are heard by the National Energy Board. The new rules would allow anyone to participate and be heard. This would ensure that groups who oppose all energy projects across Canada will be given a bigger voice. Groups outside of Canada will be given a voice as well, and they do not have our best interests at heart.

I can only imagine what our global competitors think of this legislation. It would give them the opportunity to fund groups that will oppose every project that has the ability to threaten their market share. To think that this will not occur in the future is foolish and short-sighted.

Briefly, I would like to bring your attention to the projects that have died under the Liberals' watch.

The Prime Minister imposed offshore drilling bans in the Northwest Territories without notice to the territorial governments, which killed exploration and future development, and the Petronas-backed NorthWest LNG megaproject on the west coast was cancelled. The Liberal government has ever-changing policies and roadblocks, which led to the cancellation of energy east. The Liberals also cancelled the Conservative-approved pipeline project known as the northern gateway, which would have brought our oil to tidewater. They legislated the northern B.C. coastline tanker ban, which will ensure projects like the northern gateway and Eagle Spirit will never be possible.

In addition, many Canadians and experts are concerned over the purchase of a 65-year-old pipeline at twice its book value, but the biggest concern is the current condition of the pipeline.

Some of the questions I have are these: What is the life expectancy of the 65-year-old pipeline? What is the projected cost of the maintenance and upgrade of the 65-year-old infrastructure? Will the newly created crown corporation be self-sufficient or end up like the CBC, dependent on taxpayer handouts? Will the construction of the twinning of the pipeline be subject to Bill C-69? Did the government assume all liability from Kinder Morgan, including liabilities from the past?

We should all recognize that the natural resource sector has brought tremendous wealth to my riding, all of Alberta, and Canada. The oil sands alone have brought $7.4 billion to the Canadian economy outside of Alberta: $3.9 billion to Ontario, $1.3 billion to British Columbia, $1.2 billion to Quebec, $333 million to Newfoundland, $143 million to Manitoba, $142 million to Saskatchewan, $96.7 million to Nova Scotia, $50.8 million to New Brunswick, $11.4 million to the Northwest Territories, $6.3 million to Prince Edward Island, $1.6 million to Yukon, and the list goes on. These figures include everything from especially made overalls to high technology for reducing global emissions.

Members need to consider that if we keep our resources in the ground, as environmentalist David Suzuki wants us to do, we are not saving the environment; we are just moving resource development to countries around the world that have lower safety standards and lower environmental protections. I believe that if resources are needed, it is better that they come from here and not from human rights abusers and dictators.

I know that many members of Parliament have voted for regulations of every type and will continue to do so. What they need to consider before voting on this bill is that we are part of a global market. Right now we are competing with countries across the world to sell our goods and attract investment.

We only need to look across the border to see a government intent on bringing in billions of dollars of investments and the jobs that come with them. Since taking office, the Trump administration has given the energy industry a tremendous amount of confidence to invest by cutting regulations and taxes. Future natural resource jobs in my riding, in Alberta, and across Canada are at stake if this bill passes, and that is why my Conservative colleagues and I stand against this bill.

[Bob Bratina, Liberal, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments from my friend from Fort McMurray—Cold Lake. I am a little puzzled, and I wonder if he could share with us the current numbers for employment and business activity.

In Hamilton, we are very proud to have one of the lowest unemployment rates of all Canadian cities, at 4.2%, and we have two new orders of 1,000 grain cars each from CN and CP at the railcar facility in my riding. Those grain cars will be applied to the economy of the west.

I have limited knowledge of northern B.C., and my friend will know why. The unemployment rate in the cities I have some familiarity with dropped drastically over the past year or so, to half of what it was. Could my friend be clear on just what the employment activity is like in the Fort McMurray—Cold Lake area?

[David Yurdiga, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I can tell you which industries are doing great and flourishing. The Food Bank is up 340%, which is wonderful. We have overcrowded homeless shelters. We have families living in cars because they cannot afford their mortgages. That is our reality. Just because your region is doing well, that does not mean mine is—

[An hon. member]

Oh, oh!

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

We sometimes switch from a third person to a second person scenario. I do try to stay alert to those times when the “you” word is used in a rhetorical sense, as opposed to when it is directed to a particular member. Having said that, I do try to let members finish their thought, and if I sense that an intervention is required, I will do that.

The hon. member for Fort McMurray—Cold Lake.

[David Yurdiga, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I apologize. I wanted to differentiate between two regions. If members want to take issue with it, they can send me an email. I would appreciate that.

However, I am looking at businesses shutting their doors. We have businesses that base their business model on certain criteria that are not there any longer. Our economy in Fort McMurray—Cold Lake is suffering. We have to look at getting our product to market, and the pipeline is very important. It is unfortunate, but I believe we are going to have ribbon-cutting and then a new study, and nothing is going to happen for years.

[Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet, NDP, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, if the member wants to talk about the economy and jobs, let us do that. It is estimated that governments around the world will invest $5,000 billion in clean, renewable energy by 2030. That translates into many good and well-paid jobs.

In the meantime, what is Canada investing in? We just invested $4.5 billion in a pipeline. We are investing in non-renewable energy, dirty energy, with existing jobs that unfortunately will not last very long.

Does my colleague not think that we should instead have a greater vision, one that will have more longer-term benefits for the people of his region, and not the short-sighted vision of investing in non-renewable energy?

[David Yurdiga, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB]

Mr. Speaker, why can green energy and carbon-related energy not go hand in hand? Eventually, one industry will overtake the other, but it is going to take time. Currently, there is a great demand for oil. We have abundant oil. It is a very important part of our economy. Let us invest in both.

I do not believe that taxpayers should be on the hook to get this done. We have private corporations willing to put the pipeline in, but the Liberal government did nothing for a long time, not clearing the way for the private sector to get this pipeline constructed.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to rise here today to speak to Bill C-69, one of the most important attempts to modernize our environmental protection laws in Canada.

In large part, I think it was meant to deal with some of the actions of the Conservative government, which gutted a lot of our environmental protection laws in the previous Parliament through changes to the Navigable Waters Protection Act, the Fisheries Act, et cetera. We dealt with fisheries in Bill C-68, but Bill C-69 is an answer to try to fix some of the other acts that were radically changed by the previous government.

I have to say, off the top, how disappointed I am that the government not only brought in this bill as an omnibus bill, a huge bill, well over 300 pages long, but it moved time allocation in the first debate after only two hours. It moved time allocation on the bill yesterday as well. This is a bill that really should get full debate. I am disappointed that not only did the government move time allocation, but it took so long to bring in this bill.

The NDP originally asked the Speaker to rule this an omnibus bill so that we could deal with it separately. The government agreed that we could vote on the navigable waters section separately. We also asked that the bill be split up for committee study. The first section, on the impact assessment, is ideally suited for study by the environment committee. The central part, which deals with the National Energy Board and the Canadian energy regulator, belongs with the natural resources committee. The navigation protection section, obviously, should have gone to the transport committee.

That division of labour would have provided for a thorough and efficient study. Instead, the whole bill was thrust onto the environment committee, where, with impossible deadlines, many important witnesses could not testify. I was contacted early on by a consortium of Canadian scientists who had studied this and wanted to present evidence before the committee. This was not a single scientist; these were a lot of the important environment scientists in Canada. They were denied access to the committee simply because, I imagine, there were too many witnesses trying to testify before the committee in those tight timelines.

At committee, the NDP submitted over 100 amendments, none of which were accepted. Tellingly, the government submitted over 100 amendments of its own. This tells me that the legislation was clearly rushed into the House and should have been written with more care.

The Liberals are hashtagging this bill #BetterRules, but the Canadian Environmental Law Association, the legal experts who arguably know more about this subject than most Canadians and most politicians, has said that this legislation in neither better, nor rules.

I will quote from a briefing note prepared by Richard Lindgren of the Canadian Environmental Law Association:

[T]he IAA is not demonstrably “better” than CEAA 2012. To the contrary, the IAA replicates many of the same significant flaws and weaknesses found within the widely discredited CEAA 2012....

[T]he IAA does not establish a concise rules-based regime that provides clarity, consistency, and accountability during the information-gathering and decision-making process established under the Act. Instead, the key stages of the proposed impact assessment process are subject to considerable (if not excessive) discretion enjoyed by various decision-makers under the IAA.

At the most fundamental level, for example, it currently remains unclear which projects will actually be subject to the IAA.... [It] contains no benchmarks or criteria to provide direction on the type, scale, or potential effects of projects that should be designated under the new law.

I would like to spend a little while speaking more to the second part of the bill, the energy regulator section.

This section disbands the National Energy Board and creates a new but rather similar body called the Canadian energy regulator. The section opens with a preamble and a statement of purpose. Surprisingly, in this day and age of a brave new world of energy, neither makes reference to linkages between energy and climate. In fact, there is no mention at all of climate in this entire section.

Much of the public work of the old NEB was about regulating pipelines. One could easily come to the conclusion that this is a case of closing the barn door after the horses have left, since it seems unlikely that the new regulator will ever have to review an application for a major new oil pipeline.

The Minister of Natural Resources has risen countless times in this place declaring that the government has restored confidence in the energy regulation system, and that is why the Kinder Morgan pipeline can be built. Unfortunately, he is deeply misinformed.

A couple of months ago, I met with Dr. Monica Gattinger of the Positive Energy group at the University of Ottawa, who studies this very issue of public confidence in energy issues, and Nik Nanos, whose polling firm had asked Canadians about that confidence. Perhaps not surprisingly, Mr. Nanos found that public confidence in the Canadian energy regulation system was at an all-time low. If we thought it was low during the Harper government, it has continued to decline, and now only 2% of Canadians have strong confidence in the energy regulation system. That lack of confidence is shared by members of the public on both sides of the issue: it is lowest in both Alberta and British Columbia. It results in situations like the Kinder Morgan impasse. I should mention that the last time I heard the minister speak on this subject, he did admit that confidence was suddenly a problem in this area.

The Liberals promised during the last election to put the Kinder Morgan proposal through a new, stronger review system, but instead sent a three-member ministerial panel on a quick tour along the pipeline route, giving communities, first nations, governments, and the concerned public almost no advance warning to prepare their presentations. No record was made of the proceedings.

Despite the serious shortcomings of this process, the panel came up with six questions that it said the government would have to answer before making its decision about Kinder Morgan. I will mention only the first three.

First, can the construction of the Trans Mountain expansion be reconciled with Canada's climate commitments?

Second, how can pipeline projects be properly assessed in the absence of a comprehensive national energy strategy?

Third, how can the review of this pipeline project be squared with the government's commitment to the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples?

I would suggest that none of these questions was answered, even in part, before the government made its decision to approve the Kinder Morgan expansion, and none of them were answered before the government bought the pipeline, which was actually the old pipeline. This leaves a lot of questions about how the government is to regulate itself in getting that pipeline built.

Amazingly, none of those questions are properly answered in the legislation before us, which comes two years after the Kinder Morgan decision. After the government has accepted Bill C-262, which calls for government legislation to be consistent with the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, there is no mention of this in the body of Bill C-69. Only after much pressure did the government agree to put it in the preamble, where it would have no legal effect.

We need to restore the confidence of Canadians in our energy regulatory system and in our environmental impact processes. Without that confidence, it will be increasingly difficult for Canadian companies to develop our natural resources, which are at the heart of our national economy.

The Liberals continue to pretend they are doing good, but they are all talk and no action, or as we say in the west, all hat and no cattle. We need bold action to build a new regulatory system that gives voice to all concerned Canadians.

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I was listening carefully to what my hon. colleague was saying. It raises the question of how we go forward. Clearly, the intent of the work that was done, partially in the committee on which I sit, was to try to improve public confidence and strike a balance between what the Conservatives had tried to do and had not done very well, and what was necessarily needed.

If we were to follow what we have heard from the NDP so far, would we basically be what I would call a banana republic—i.e., build absolutely nothing, absolutely nowhere, at any time, because the hurdles the member suggests we would have to clear in order to build something like a pipeline would be impossible?

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Mr. Speaker, let us go back to the polling done by Positive Energy. It found that Canadians have very low confidence. Nanos Research found that Canadians felt that the way to move forward was to listen to first nations peoples and to communities. We have to listen to those people and put their messages into our decisions, and that will restore Canadians' confidence.

For instance, a lot of people across the country are concerned about Kinder Morgan and how it squares with our climate action plan. The government talks a good talk about taking action on climate change, but in reality it could move forward much more boldly. It could have put that $4.5 billion into climate action. A lot of Canadians would have more confidence in the oil and gas industry if they knew it were squared with our climate action. That is the way we have to go.

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

Mr. Speaker, as much as I want to join in the conversation and keep discussing climate, in looking at Bill C-69 I really want to make a point and ask the hon. member for his commentary.

We had an expert panel on EA. The government spent over $1 million to get its advice, and that advice was very clear: the projects subject to review must include much more than the large controversial projects, and we must ensure that all areas of federal jurisdiction are covered. Smaller projects can do serious environmental damage. I want to ask my hon. colleague from South Okanagan—West Kootenay about this, as he has an extensive scientific background. Smaller projects are not going to be caught at all by Bill C-69.

This is about the review of a couple of dozen projects a year, all big ones. That is a fatal mistake for a federal government to make. It will be fatal to our environment. Smaller projects can destroy a species and wipe out a key ecosystem, and we will never even know about it. That is what I would like to ask my hon. colleague to comment on.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government did a lot of consultation on this legislation, and that is a good thing, I suppose. It did delay the introduction of the bill. As the member said, the advice from all that consultation was largely ignored. This kind of action does not help to gain public confidence in our regulatory systems or in our impact assessments.

I hear complaints from industry about some industries being subject far more often to these impact assessments, the mining industry especially, than other industries, like the oil and gas industry, which is largely exempt. That is how we sow the seeds of discontent on many sides.

[Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet, NDP, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, earlier, in my question for a Conservative member from Cold Lake, I stated that billions and billions of dollars are being invested in renewable energy around the world and those investments are creating good jobs. In Canada, however, we are still investing in non-renewable energy such as petroleum. Then my colleague asked why can we not invest in both.

I will put that question for my NDP colleague: why should we not invest in both?

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we are going to invest in both, to some extent, but if we are going to put up government investment, we should invest for the future. We just bought a pipeline for $4.5 billion. Pipelines are infrastructure and they are meant to last for as long as 50 years.

We should have invested in the energy of the future, in renewable energies. We agreed on the world stage to stop subsidizing the oil and gas industry, to stop subsidizing the fossil fuel industry, and yet Canada has become the biggest world subsidizer of fossil fuel.

We are moving entirely in the wrong direction.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Saskatoon—Grasswood, Justice; the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, Child Care; and the hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, Foreign Affairs.

Resuming debate. The hon. member for Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier.

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

Mr. Speaker, this is a first for me. I am using my tablet to deliver my speech. We all need to row in the same direction, and every Canadian must be part of the effort to protect our planet. Today I am pleased to rise to debate 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 believe in taking action and building on what we have already done to ensure that Canada remains an environmental leader. Those of us on this side of the House believe that. As I often say, the Liberal Party likes labelling the Conservative Party as anti-environment. Nothing could be further from the truth. I will keep saying that as long as the Liberals keep slapping a label on us that in no way reflects how hard Conservative men and women are working for the environment.

My Green Party colleague called this bill incredibly weak earlier today. This, from a party whose primary focus is the environment. I find this surprising coming from that member, but I completely agree with her. I agree that this massive bill is weak and unacceptable, and it does not meet the objective of protecting the environment for our children and grandchildren.

I am a member of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development, and I want to work. This committee has good intentions, and we would like to implement measures to improve the environment. However, I would guess that this government probably forced the chair, who is from the governing party, to pressure the committee to introduce a bill quickly. This is irresponsible.

It is irresponsible because the environment is important to all Canadians and to the members of the Conservative Party of Canada. These kinds of actions are unacceptable.

I will explain what happened in committee. We received 150 briefs totalling 2,250 pages within a month and a half. Fifty organizations appeared before the committee, 100 were not able to appear but submitted briefs, and 400 amendments were moved, including about 100 by the Liberal Party of Canada.

I would like to point out that, just like all Canadians, all MPs are human beings. If we want to do a good job, we need time to do research and to read, so that we are not saying just anything. We have to be rigorous and conscientious. If this government really intended to put together something to protect the environment, it would not have acted this way.

On another matter, in the 2015 election campaign, the Liberal Party of Canada had this to say on page 39 of its platform:

Canadians want a government they can trust to protect the environment and grow the economy. Stephen Harper has done neither. Our plan will deliver the economic growth and jobs Canadians need, and leave to our children and grandchildren a country even more beautiful, more sustainable, and more prosperous than the one we have now.

It seems important to them to talk about Stephen Harper, who was our prime minister and someone I am very proud of. What was our economy like when the Liberal government took over? It was doing very well. We introduced a balanced budget in 2015, and we left the Liberals with the tools they needed to keep it going, but this spendthrift government managed to create a structural deficit.

The 2019 election cannot come soon enough. This government is going to run a deficit of over $80 billion during its term, so let us hurry up and put the Conservatives back in power so that we can provide sound economic management.

With regard to the previous Conservative government's supposed failure, as I mentioned, here are some of the practical measures that it put in place. The Liberals like to say that we are anti-environment, but that is completely false. I will set out the facts and give concrete examples.

We created the clean air regulatory agenda. We established new standards to reduce car and light truck emissions. We established new standards to reduce emissions from heavy-duty vehicles and their engines. We proposed regulations to align ourselves with the U.S. Working Group III standards for vehicle emissions and sulphur in gasoline. We sought to limit HFCs, black carbon, and methane. We established new rules to reduce emissions from carbon-based electricity generation. We implemented measures to support the development of carbon capture technologies. We implemented measures to support the development of alternative energy sources. We enhanced the government's annual report on the main environmental indicators, including greenhouse gases. We, the big bad conservatives, even abolished tax breaks for the oil sands. In 2007, we invested $1.5 billion in the ecotrust program. It was not a centralist program like the Liberals tend to introduce. Rather, it was a program that worked well with the provinces.

Do you know who sang our praises? Greenpeace, that is who. Wow. We must not be as bad as all that when it comes to the environment. Maybe someday the Liberals will realize that we Conservatives are not here to destroy the planet.

I would like to point out that I, a Conservative MP, established a circular economy committee in my riding of Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier. Why would I waste time doing that if I were anti-environment? That is real action. In my view, and in the view of all the witnesses I had the privilege of hearing at the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development, Bill C-69 is unacceptable. The witnesses told me and the rest of the committee that this bill is nothing but the usual Liberal window dressing.

I am obliged to say that I personally, along with the other members of the Conservative Party, cannot accept this bill. We want to move things forward, but the government across the aisle does not.

We are willing and able to contribute and help the people across the aisle implement proactive, productive, efficient, and rigorous measures. However, it takes time to do that. Let us give ourselves the tools we need to respect the environment instead of defiling it. Let us implement a process that will protect the environment.

In their electoral platform, the Liberals said they wanted to leave a legacy for our children and grandchildren. First of all, environmentally speaking, this bill accomplishes nothing. Secondly, financially speaking, we are going to mortgage the lives of our children and grandchildren. That is unacceptable.

On that note, I know my time is running out. I am now ready to take questions from my colleagues here in the wonderful House of Commons.

[Darrell Samson, Liberal, Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his fine speech. He is always so full of energy and enthusiasm. He had an opportunity to talk about what he sees as positive things that happened under the Conservative government. I work with him on the Assemblée parlementaire de la Francophonie, and we have a good rapport. However, we do not agree on the ideology and key principles that separate the Liberal Party and the Conservative Party.

Canadians are very smart, and they saw how the Conservatives work. One thing Canadians really wanted was a pipeline to transport our oil from its source to markets all over the world. Since we came to power, the Conservatives have been asking us incessantly to guarantee a way to get our oil to market. They were in power for 10 years and did not build a single kilometre of pipeline.

Can my colleague tell us why the Conservatives were unable to solve this problem for 10 years?

Perhaps he should be congratulating us on ensuring the success of this major project while also making changes to protect the environment.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my excellent colleague from Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, whom I like as a person. We have the privilege of sitting together on the Assemblée parlementaire de la Francophonie. He is quite a character, and we get along well because we are both very expressive.

What he needs to understand is that we left private enterprise to do its job. We put the necessary measures in place so that oil companies could make investments. We do not believe that the party in power promised voters during the election that it would nationalize the oil sector.

The Liberals claim to have created jobs. They did not create any jobs, they added something that already existed. They merely protected jobs. Instead of investing $4.5 billion in a pipeline, I would have liked them to invest in sustainable development, innovation, and green technologies. That $4.5 billion is now stuck in a pipeline.

To me it is unacceptable to invest in something that has no added value. Let us not forget that the second pipeline that is supposed to run alongside the Trans Mountain pipeline has not yet been built.

My colleague needs to understand that it makes no sense to invest $4.5 billion in this pipeline.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is good to hear my colleague's very passionate speech about the environment.

In the previous government, the Conservatives took away the final say in the decision-making process on these projects from the regulator, the National Energy Board, and gave it to cabinet. Bill C-69 would entrench that in law, and would expand it. The minister would have tremendous discretion, throughout this document, at every step of the regulatory process. Does he agree with that decision to give the minister so much discretion?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from South Okanagan—West Kootenay for his question. We had breakfast together this morning to talk about an environmental issue, and it was great. We were invited by people who care about the environment.

The committee was told that this bill is worthless and will not improve the process. I have to tell my colleague that I agree with him. This bill accomplishes nothing and gives the Minister of Environment even more powers. She has final say, but her Liberal buddies and the government will be giving her instructions to approve a pipeline project or other environmental project.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately it is not an honour for me to rise to speak to Bill C-69, which would create some burdensome regulation and red tape and add additional uncertainty to our natural resource sector.

Over the last few months, we have seen the impact the policies of the Liberal government on this industry and the jobs that go with it.

Bill C-69 has not even gone through the House yet, has not been given third reading, but we have already seen the ramifications of it. The private sector has seen the writing on the wall and is divesting itself of their interests in Canada: Statoil, Shell, BP, and certainly Kinder Morgan, which has made a substantial profit from the Canadian taxpayers of $4.5 billion on the purchase of an existing pipeline. As part of those companies divesting themselves of their interests in Canada, they have also taken $86 billion in new investment and new opportunities to other jurisdictions.

Let us be clear: these companies are not going to stop investing in the energy sectors, but they are going to stop investing in the Canadian energy sector. They are taking those dollars to other jurisdictions. They are going to be investing in places like Kazakhstan, Texas, and the Middle East, not in Canada. Unfortunately, we will suffer the consequences when it comes to our economic opportunities.

I want to take an opportunity to clarify something we heard again in question period today. The Liberals keep touting themselves as somehow building a pipeline to tidewater. All this $4.5 billion has done is purchased an existing pipeline. It does not remove any of the obstacles to the building of the Trans Mountain expansion. In fact, the Liberal purchase of this pipeline, which we heard is closer to $2 billion in market value than $4.5 billion, does not build one inch of new pipeline to tidewater. They should be very clear that this purchase does nothing. It removes none of the obstacles that the provincial Government of B.C. has put forward. It does not remove any of the protesters who will be blocking the construction of the pipeline. It does not remove any of the judicial challenges that opponents of the pipeline have put forward.

When the Liberal Prime Minister had opportunity to show some leadership, stand with Canada's energy sector, and use section 92 of the British North America Act, the constitutional tools he had to ensure the project was done, he did none of those things. This will cost our economy thousands of jobs.

I want to make another thing very clear, and I think my colleagues across the floor do not quite understand this. These jobs are not for wrench monkeys and roughnecks, which are also extremely important, as they are the backbone of our energy sector, but they are for highly skilled individuals. They are engineers, geophysicists, and geologists. I have spoken to many of them in western Canada. Some of them have been without jobs for more than two years. These are highly skilled individuals who will go to other areas of the world to find work, and they will not come back. It will be very hard to attract these highly skilled individuals back to Canada.

I have spoken about the impact this has had on western Canada. I have certainly spoken to many of these unemployed energy sector workers in Saskatchewan, Alberta, and B.C. However, the Liberal government also needs to understand that the implications of its decisions on the energy sector ripple right across the country. I would like to talk about just one example.

A General Electric plant in Peterborough, Ontario, made turbines for the pipelines across Canada. General Electric had announced plans to expand that facility should energy east, Trans Mountain, or northern gateway be approved and move forward. However, when energy east was killed on a political decision by the Liberal government, and after the foot-dragging and mismanagement of the Trans Mountain decision, General Electric announced it would close its plant in Peterborough, costing 350 jobs.

Therefore, the ramifications of the Liberal decisions, lack of action on Canada's energy sector, and the Prime Minister saying we are going to phase out the oil sands have real consequences across the country. These 350 jobs in Peterborough, Ontario, are now gone because of the Liberal decision on the energy sector. These families in Peterborough are now going to have to find new work.

I do not think our colleagues across the floor really do understand that. In fact, the Liberal member of Parliament for Peterborough—Kawartha supported killing energy east and supported Bill C-69. She is not fighting for her own constituents. She is not fighting for the jobs of those families in her own riding. The Liberals are making an ideological decision to listen to the vocal minority of activists.

Even today, my colleague from Hamilton East—Stoney Creek talked about how great things were in Hamilton because it was building all these grain cars. I am not too sure how all these new grain cars help the energy sector. They will not be hauling oil in grain cars because we do not have a pipeline. Maybe he is anticipating that the hundreds of thousands of Canadians who have lost their jobs in the energy sector are all of a sudden going to start farming. I do not think that is a real solution.

The solution is standing behind our energy sector, championing it and the jobs it creates and the social infrastructure it supports. That is the direction we should be supporting, not trying to find new jobs for those who have lost their positions. These are very well-paying middle-class jobs across the country, jobs that have now been lost in places like Fort McMurray, Calgary, Leduc, and certainly in Peterborough, Ontario, because of these ideological decisions. Bill C-69 would simply make matters worse.

We have heard from stakeholders and employees in the energy sector. They say that one of the most important drivers of investment in Canada has been that confidence, that reliability, and that regulatory certainty in Canada. Bill C-69 would do everything it possibly could to dismantle that certainty in our regulatory process.

The process is being politicized. The Minister of Environment and Climate Change would have the sole responsibility to decide whether a project would be for the greater good or in the national interest. One person, one minister, would have that decision.

Let us say an investor or a large energy company has an opportunity to apply for a project in Canada. It goes through all the regulatory processes and does all of its environmental assessment studies and financial assessments. However, as part of Bill C-69, the Minister of Environment and Climate Change will have the authority to say no even before it has its foot in the door. Even if it has passed all those environmental assessments, even if it has the support of first nations and communities along the way, even if it is proven to be in the national interest, the Minister of Environment and Climate Change has the authority to say that it is not something the government supports. That is what happened with energy east. The government put so many double standard burdens upon that project that there was no way the stakeholder would go ahead with it. That is what we are seeing as part of this process.

I spoke earlier about the ramifications this had on the sector and how we saw a government make ideological decisions, not decisions made on consultation with Canadians, not decisions based on science, not decisions that are fiscally based, and certainly not decisions based on economics. For example, let us look at agriculture.

This week or last week the Minister of Agriculture said that the vast majority of Canadian farmers supported the carbon tax. That was patently false, and we have heard that it is false. The Liberals are making decisions contrary to what Canadians are asking them to do. That is where this becomes extremely frustrating.

Farmers have reduced their use of diesel fuel by 200 million litres a year. Our energy sector now takes a third of the carbon footprint to produce one barrel of oil than it took 10 years ago. Members are going ask why the government is not investing in renewable energy and fossil fuels. Who do they think has been doing all the investing in renewable resources? It is our fossil fuel companies. Those are the ones which have the funds to invest, and they have been doing it for decades.

Why does the taxpayer have to be doing this when the private sector has already been doing it, and doing it successfully for decades? What the sector is asking for is for the government to get out of its way. It wants the government to let it do what it has been doing successfully, better than anybody in the world for generations. It just wants to do its job and get back to work.

[Leona Alleslev, Liberal, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there was certainly a lot in that presentation. I am not so sure, though, what was relevant to the topic at hand. If we are here to debate a bill and find ways to make it better so it achieves the goals and objectives we collectively, as a nation and certainly as a government have set out, what would be the three key things my hon. colleague would like to put forward to strengthen the bill to ensure it achieves what the Conservatives believe it should achieve?

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I find it a little ironic that the member is asking what we would like to put forward. The Liberals should give us a chance to have a full debate and discussion on these bills, rather than ramming them through with time allocation.

Are they listening? I do not believe they are. Conservatives put forward amendments on Bill C-69 that they refused, as well as on every other bill. I have just one piece of advice on how to strengthen Bill C-69: scrap it.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Mr. Speaker, in his speech, the member spent some time talking about the discretion the minister would have with this bill, and that is certainly one of the big concerns the NDP has: the rampant discretion at every step of the way in impact assessments.

I have to note that it was the Conservatives who brought in that ministerial cabinet discretion when they changed the way the NEB operated. It used to be that the NEB, an arm's-length regulatory body, made a decision, and that was the decision, but the Conservative government changed it so that cabinet would have the final decision. Now the Liberals have run with that and have expanded on it. Of course, the member does not like it when it is the other party that has that power and discretion, but I am concerned about any party having it. I wonder if the member would comment on that.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I agree. I am very concerned. The Liberals campaigned on being science based, open, and transparent. They were going to make decisions based on those criteria, but Bill C-69 shows very clearly that they are going to make decisions that are not science based. We have seen that in a larger narrative within the government. Let us look at the food guide and front-of-package labelling. All these things that are going to have a significant impact on our industries and constituents are not based on science whatsoever. In fact, we have heard from stakeholders and constituents that they are actually going in the complete opposite direction of what science would tell them to do.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, the member across the way said he would like the government to just get out of the way, and if the government gets out of the way, the pipelines will be built.

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Magic.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Magic, Mr. Speaker, just like that.

Having said that, we just had 10 years of Stephen Harper's magic, when the government got out of the way. How many pipelines were built to tidewater? Zero. There was not an inch to tidewater. That was under the Conservatives' theory of getting out of the way.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I love my colleague's enthusiasm and I am happy he asked that question. In fact, we built four major pipelines. In fact, we built 17 different pipeline projects. In fact, we built 8,000 kilometres of additional pipeline. How many have the Liberals built? Absolutely zero. They keep talking about their purchase of the Trans Mountain pipeline, which, all of a sudden, has new markets to Asia. That is absolutely false. They have not built one single centimetre of new pipeline, and the Trans Mountain expansion would not get us to those Asia markets because it does not get us to deepwater ports. The oil and energy from that pipeline will be going to Washington and Oregon, the same places it has always been going. I hope Liberals will clarify the record on the misinformation they continue to share with Canadians.

[Larry Miller, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I do not think I have enough time to tackle every part of this loosely put together bill, but I am going to attempt to target as much as I can.

Right off the bat, one of the things that would happen under the bill is that the Liberals would change the National Energy Board, which was created in 1959 by Prime Minister Diefenbaker. It was totally made a fool by Pierre Trudeau. He wrecked the energy industry in Alberta and the west for a generation, and Junior is about to do it for three generations. It would change the name of it to the Canadian energy regulator act as well, just to try to get rid of that family's connection to it. No inches or miles of pipeline are going to be built because of this bill. It is, “Let us wash it down, get a new face, and pretend that none of the other ever happened.”

I am going to get into the navigable waters act in a bit, but everything the government does has everything to do with virtue-signalling and nothing to do with reality or getting things done. I can give all kinds of examples.

On the Firearms Act, what did the Liberals do? They bragged during the election, and every chance they have had since, that they were going to tackle gang crime and illegal firearms. What did they do? They brought out a bill that sends a virtue signal to all Canadians who hate firearms and want to get rid of them totally, and they pretend that they are tackling gang crime and illegal firearms. It would do nothing. It would tackle law-abiding firearms owners.

Another example is that they want to send signals to environmentalists, tree squeezers. They lied to the veterans and said that they would give them everything they wanted, and then all of a sudden, they said that they were asking too much and that the government could not do that.

The reason I am mentioning this is that there is a trend here. It is all about virtue. It is not about actually doing anything.

We have to go back in history. When the environmental approval process was changed by the previous government, one of the worst examples was the Mackenzie Valley pipeline. For some 25 to 30 years, we kept leading companies along, saying we would do this or that. It was set up to basically fail. Why would any government, why would any person, want to take our companies, which want to invest in industry, whether it is the oil industry or whatever, and tie them up in a process that is made for the objector and tie them up for years?

The previous government made a process that was still a thorough approval process, but there were timelines. Do not drag companies along for years and years. Give them a timeline. If we have to tell them no, tell them no, but do not lead them along for 25 to 30 years, as happened with the Mackenzie Valley pipeline, because that is not good for anything. Aboriginal communities up there were banking on money that would have flowed to them from that job. Their hopes that were built up for 25 years or more went totally gone down the drain, and I do not mean that as a pun.

There was a 180-day planning phase. Ministerial discretion was put in and also veto power. Again, that was put in after going through the process that basically said it was done. Say yes or say no, but do not lead them along.

Why should Canadians trust this new system? It is obviously catering to different groups. It goes back to that virtue signal. There is always a process where intervenors can get in and have their say. Of course, that is a good thing. However, what the government has done with the changes it has put in is that we now have to accept all foreign intervenors. Why in the world would any government want to add that? This is about a Canadian project, not a pan-world project. To allow foreign intervenors or foreign money is totally unacceptable.

If anyone has any doubt about why this is not going to work or whether it will make things worse than they already are, all we have to do is look at the recent Kinder Morgan decision. The government created a climate so bad that Kinder Morgan basically said, “Why in the world would we take our shareholders' money and invest it in this project?” I totally get that. Why would it? It never asked any government for one red cent. However, to save face, or to tie this thing up for many more years, what did the government do? It reached into my pocket, and my kids' and grandkids' and all the members' pockets as well, to pull out $4.5 billion to give to a company that paid $550 million for that pipeline. I have to mention that it is a 65-year-old pipeline. Now that $4.5 billion of taxpayers' money is going to be spent somewhere in the United States, where it will be able to create some industry and generate some income on that investment. That is all taxpayers' money.

Under this bill, it is only going to get worse. We have not seen the tip of the iceberg. It is a trend that is certainly not going to change with this bill.

I want to talk a bit about what stakeholders are saying about this legislation.

The Canadian Environmental Law Association stated:

...Bill C-69 perpetuates the much-criticized political decision-making model found in CEAA 2012.

Unless the proposed Impact Assessment Act is substantially revised as it proceeds through Parliament, [the association] concludes that the new EA process will not restore public trust or ensure credible, participatory and science-based decision-making.

That science-based decision-making is something we should think a lot about.

The Canadian Energy Association stated:

CEPA is very concerned with the scope of the proposed new Impact Assessment process. From the outset, CEPA has stated that individual project reviews are not the appropriate place to resolve broad policy issues, such as climate change, which should be part of a Pan-Canadian Framework. Including these policy issues adds a new element of subjectivity that could continue to politicize the assessment process.

The Mining Association of Canada stated:

At first glance, the draft legislation introduces a range of new concepts related to timelines and costs, which depending on how they are implemented, could adversely impact the industry’s competitiveness and growth prospects.

I have more, which I will not get into. However, I want to touch on the Navigable Waters Protection Act.

The changes to the Navigable Waters Protection Act came about a number of years ago when the Saskatchewan Association of Rural Municipalities, SARM, came to the rural caucus I happened to chair at the time. That in itself is not significant, other than that I know the history of this act. I thought navigable waters, and the way DFO's overzealous officials handled them, was just a rural Ontario problem. It turns out it was right across Canada. SARM is the one that deserves credit for initiating the changes to that act. I am very proud of it and how the changes went.

Waterways we can float our grandkids' or kids' little rubber duckies down maybe for a couple of days of the year in the spring were deemed to be something we could paddle a canoe down. We got rid of that in the changes.

I know I am running out of time. We fixed the process.

Now the cost is going to be unbelievable, and it is not going to be good for Canadians.

[Peter Schiefke, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister (Youth)]

Mr. Speaker, while I would like to thank my hon. colleague for his remarks, I am dismayed. As much as I disagreed with Prime Minister Harper on several occasions, I always referred to him as Prime Minister Harper. I think it is a disgrace that the member just referred to our Prime Minister as junior. I hope he will take a moment to apologize for making those remarks in this House.

My hon. colleague spoke of how we are making it more difficult for companies to get resources to market, and so forth, because of the red tape we are putting in place. During the 10 years Stephen Harper was in government, when oil was $150 a barrel and there was lot less uncertainty and international markets were not pulling back their investments in oil like they are doing right now, why could his government, with supposedly less red tape than we are putting in place, not get one new pipeline to tidewater? I hope the hon. member can answer that question.

[Larry Miller, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Mr. Speaker, absolutely. I believe the gentleman was in the House when my hon. colleague, the member for Foothills, explained a lot better than I can the number of pipelines that were done. There were four major ones done, and I believe it was over 8,000 kilometres' worth of pipe that went in the ground. Sure, we would like to have done more. However, for anyone to be able to sit there without smirking and distort the truth like that member just did—well, that is about all I am going to say about it.

[Cheryl Hardcastle, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly cannot argue with the fact there is much distorting of the truth here. I really want to talk to the hon. member about the last Parliament, when the Conservative government did remove or gut the environmental assessment process. It also removed almost all of the protections of our waterways. That is a fact that can be looked up.

Then the Liberal government promised that it was going to restore those things. As we see with Bill C-69, it has really fallen short of the mark. Bill C-69 has done nothing. It does nothing to reverse these changes, which the Liberals promised they would do.

Do the Conservatives still believe that waterways and lakes do not need any protection? Is that what I am hearing—that we do not need any protections for water?

[Larry Miller, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I hope the member is saying that in jest. Of course we do.

I find that some members, including the member who just spoke, still believe the theory that lakes and rivers were not protected. In that act, the only ones mentioned were ones where changes were made. Anything else in that act remains protected, as always. I think members know that, and she probably does as well.

I hope the hon. member quits repeating mistruths like that, because that is exactly what they are.

[Leona Alleslev, Liberal, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for his presentation. I think it clearly outlines some of the positions and gave us a bit of insight into where we are and where we have come from. The member said that the previous government had put legislation in place and had done some significant things.

Does my hon. colleague believe that the current process is enough, that nothing more needs to be done, and that there is nothing in this bill that should actually move forward?

[Larry Miller, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have had the pleasure of attending a few NATO meetings with the hon. member down the way, and I have a lot of respect for her. Maybe there is some minor stuff in here, but it is the whole target or aim of this bill. It is all about virtue-signalling and about reversing what a previous government did. That has happened so often that maybe I am a little thin-skinned about it. I will grant that. However, changing a bill because another government brought it in is not the way to govern. This thing just basically throws it wide open.

The member asked if there is nothing more left to do. I would say there is: Instead of driving investment away as happened with Kinder Morgan, her government and leadership should not buy companies out but encourage them to build, by at least having a fair and reasonable approval process.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

We are going to resume debate, and I will let the hon. member for Calgary Shepard know that there is not quite the full 10 minutes available to him at this point. He will have about eight minutes and then will have remaining time when the House next gets back to debate on the question.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Calgary Shepard.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to add my voice to this debate, obviously in opposition to the bill before us.

I will begin as I always do, because I want to get it in early, with a Yiddish proverb: “Misfortune binds together.” That is how a lot of Calgarians feel, especially in my riding.

Bill C-69 is simply more misfortune piled on other ill-advised decisions by the government that have hurt constituents and energy workers in my riding. They have spent a lifetime getting experience, an education, and then pursuing a career they were hoping would last their entire lifetime. This is something they were passionate about, producing energy in a responsible and ethical way, which they will now not be able to do.

I have been told repeatedly by executives, industry, and energy workers, including a constituent of mine, Evan, a few days ago, that when Bill C-69 passes Parliament, it will put an end to all future major energy infrastructure projects. No company will put forward major projects again, because the process will be much too complex, involve too many criteria, and will be too complicated, with too much political risk associated with satisfying a minister in order to reach the completion date of just the permitting process. The CEO of Suncor has said publicly that this will put an end to investment in the energy industry. The CEO of Sierra Energy has said exactly the same thing. Therefore, misfortune binds together.

I will explain other things that bind together as a result of this particular piece of proposed legislation, which that would damage the opportunity of energy workers and their families to continue working in this very successful sector.

We should be very proud of this sector of the economy, because we have been exporting the R and D, innovation, commercialized products, and services from it for a long time, alongside the product that we export to our friends down south. Even though we have had difficulties negotiating a successful NAFTA renewal, they are still our friends, and we are still trying to make them understand that at the end of the day, our success is their success.

We often hear government members say that the environment and the economy go hand in hand. The Liberals are making it seem like it is a zero-sum game: one unit of the environment gained is one unit of the economy lost. It is zero-sum, and there are no two ways around it. When we look at Bill C-69, that is evident. The Liberals are trying to gain many more units of environment, and we are going to be losing out on the economic side, based on commentary by both energy workers and executives, who are simply saying that there is no way that they can invest in the Canadian economy, hire energy workers in Canada, in Calgary and Alberta, with these types of rules in place.

On the misfortunes I talked about, there is the carbon tax, for instance. Often in this chamber, I hear members say things like, “We should refine it and upgrade it where we mine it, where we extract it out of the ground.” Well, the highest carbon taxes are paid by refineries and upgraders. It is a GHG-intensive industry.

Do we say the same thing to farmers who produce wheat, that we should upgrade it and refine it here? Do we say that to the farmer who produces canola? Do we say that to the farmer who produces big lentils? Maybe we should force all farmers to produce soup. They should not be allowed to export lentils outside Canada. The same idea, the same drive that says we should never export any type of bitumen or oil out of the country until it is refined and upgraded to the highest level product, could be applied to our agricultural sector.

I have heard repeatedly from energy workers that the tanker ban off the B.C. coast is damaging, because it sends a signal that there is a tanker ban now. Actually, it is just a pretend ban because it just moves tankers 100 kilometres farther off the coast to an area where there already is tanker traffic, which is going to continue as long as it does not stop in a Canadian port. However, it sends a signal that those types of workers and that sector of the economy are not wanted anymore by the government.

On the misfortune, there is a close electoral alliance between radical environmentalists, their foreign financiers, and the future electoral prospects of the Liberal government. That is the case. We know it to be true. The Liberals' success in the 2015 election was closely linked to their making promises on the environment that they absolutely could not keep. They made those promises fully knowing they would never be able to keep them. The misfortune continues.

Twice already, the Prime Minister has said he would like to phase out the oil sands. Every single time the Prime Minister says that, the first thing I get by email and phone from Albertans in my riding is, “He has done it again. He said it again.” The last time he said it was at the Assemblee Nationale in Paris.

Many workers question the sincerity of the Prime Minister when he says that he wants this sector to succeed, which is supposedly why he expropriated Kinder Morgan and purchased its pipeline for $4.5 billion. Workers do not trust him. They do not believe him when he says it. They think he is speaking from both sides of his mouth. He is saying one thing to one crowd and something completely different to another crowd. They do not trust him. However, it is their misfortune that he is the Prime Minister right now.

Bill C-69 increases the number of criteria that will be considered during the regulatory process. What logically happens is that before a company even puts in an application to consider a major new energy infrastructure project, they will do their research and due diligence. That will add months and years to the pre-regulatory process. Before even applying, one has to have more information to prove to the regulator that one meets all of the new criteria. Embedded in Bill C-69 is the opportunity for the minister to say “no” at multiple stages of the process.

I have heard Liberal caucus members say how great the bill is and that shortened timelines give certainty. The bill does no such thing because it will increase the number of criteria and datasets that one needs to collect to prove one's case.

This is exactly where I am going to come to my last point of why energy east was cancelled. Energy east and the company's executives and energy workers said they had no way of meeting the new requirements of downstream and upstream emissions. To collect that vast sum of information and provide it to the government was impossible. The company made the only wise decision on behalf of its shareholders and abandoned the permitting regulatory process. There was no other choice. However, that was a political decision by the government. The government is responsible for that and nobody else. The business decision that drove driving Kinder Morgan out of the country, which led to the government expropriating the company and purchasing the pipeline, was the same type of decision-making process Trans Canada had to use on energy east. Those decisions are deeply connected.

Obviously, I will be voting against this bill. The last point of data I want to provide is that under the government, we have seen thousands of kilometres of pipeline cancelled, whereas under in the previous government, we had thousands of kilometres of pipeline finished.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Anthony Rota]

The hon. member will have approximately two minutes and 10 seconds when we return to Bill C-69.

It being 5:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's Order Paper.

The House resumed 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, as reported (with amendment) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Anthony Rota]

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Calgary Shepard has two minutes and 10 seconds left.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Mr. Speaker, that was a very unusual interruption for private members' business.

In the last two and a half minutes I have left, I will speak about the misfortune that I mentioned in the Yiddish proverb.

Misfortune is connected together. It comes in a series. It sticks together. Oftentimes I have heard government caucus members saying things like “The previous government never built any pipelines to tidewater.” I want to address that.

Four major pipelines were built in North America, all of which eventually led to a coastal market. To say otherwise is like saying, “There are no flights from Calgary to Ottawa, so there are no direct flights from Calgary to Ottawa.” I suppose I can fly from Calgary to Toronto, then Toronto to Ottawa. I will get there. It is like saying there is no highway in the community I live in, completely ignoring the fact that I can take Auburn Bay Drive to get onto the on-ramp to get onto the highway. The same principle applies here.

Every major pipeline project built in Canada, including toward the United States for export, follows the exact same principle, whether it is Keystone XL, the TMX Anchor Loop, or Enbridge's Line 3. All of them eventually lead to a coastal market, because most of North America's refineries are located on a coast, and a great deal of them are located in Texas.

Speaking of Texas, next year Texas is on track to become the largest producer of oil in the world. Next year Texas will also build more kilometres of pipeline than the rest of the United States and Canada combined. That is just one state, and it is about to achieve what I would call energy dominance in North America.

Those are the facts, and now we have this piece of legislation before us that will add more misfortune to Canada's energy industry.

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have seen some histrionics before, but those could have given me whiplash.

The point is this, and I will ask the member to comment on it. Sending oil to the United States and the United States alone is costing our economy, conservatively, $15 billion a year. We are sending oil at a deep discount to a country that does not like to trade with us very much anymore.

Building something to tidewater in Canada is what the previous Conservative government failed to do, and that failure has cost us dearly. Could the member comment on that?

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Mr. Speaker, that member's government is responsible for the cancellation of energy east, which would have led directly to an east coast market. The price differential issue has been a point of conversation in politics in Alberta for the past 15 years, because it has been a deep cost to the Alberta treasury. It is nice of the Liberals to finally notice this fact. It is nice of the Liberals to finally notice that there is something like a price costing Albertans a huge amount of money.

Why do they encourage radical environmentalists and foreign financiers to finance opposition to our major energy infrastructure projects when they know this to be the fact?

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his speech, and especially for his Yiddish proverb. We all wait for that with bated breath each time he rises.

We have heard a lot of concern from the Conservatives about the excessive powers the minister would have to intervene at any stage of the impact assessment process and to put a stop to it, or create an extra process.

I am wondering if the member could comment on the fact that it was the Conservatives who initially gave the minister and cabinet that power with the National Energy Board. Previously, National Energy Board decisions were final, but the previous Conservative government gave that final say to cabinet, and now those members are concerned that the Liberals have run with this and made it rampant throughout Bill C-69 and will put it into law. Could he comment on that?

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member both for his question and his appreciation of Yiddish proverbs. We sometimes share them in the lobby.

Some ministerial accountability for the decisions Liberals make and the activities of the department should be expected by the House of Commons. It should be an expectation. Excessive amounts of ministerial oversight, such as an ability to overrule or redirect decisions and impose one's own personal political views on a process or individual projects, is the wrong way to go. The balance between having just enough regulatory and ministerial oversight and too much burdensome regulation with ministerial discretion is the balance that we are trying to find, and it is not in Bill C-69.

[Peter Schiefke, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister (Youth)]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague talks a lot about regulation and how that is going to stifle growth. I am wondering if he could comment on the fact that the four provinces that currently have a price on carbon—Ontario, Quebec, Alberta, and British Columbia—have all seen the strongest growth in the country. British Columbia, which has some of the strongest environment regulations in place, is one of the fastest growing economies in the country while, at the same time, protecting the environment. I am wondering if the hon. member knows something that I do not. Perhaps he has some secret sauce that he would like to share with me.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the member must know that the Parliamentary Budget officer wrote a report on the fact that the carbon tax alone will cost the Canadian economy between 0.4% to 0.5% of GDP growth. When I asked the representatives of the PBO if there were any other government policy that would purposefully damage our economy, they could not answer the question. They said they could not think of one at the table and would to come back to me with an answer, which leads me to believe this is a self-inflicted injury by the government.

There is an Ontario election today. By the end of today, my hope is that Ontario voters will send a very strong signal to the federal government to abandon this carbon tax fiasco.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very proud to rise in response to Bill C-69, the government's environmental and regulatory bill, one that is supposed to be revolutionary. This just brings us to another long list of broken promises that the Prime Minister made when he campaigned in 2015 as the member for Papineau at the time. He made some great promises to Canadians.

We heard a lot about sowing the seeds of fear, that Canadians had lost confidence in some things like our environmental assessment plan. The groups that were promoting that had a sole purpose. There was a lot of talk about foreign-funded groups and how they had influenced elections, both on this side of the border as well as the other side of the border recently.

We know very well that during the 2015 election, and I know because I was one of the candidates who was targeted, groups were targeting Conservative members of Parliament. They were talking about how damaging Mr. Harper was to our environment. We heard people say how we were fearmongering with respect to Bill C-59. If we looked at it and followed where the dollar started, these groups started in other jurisdictions, and perhaps not in Canada.

What would be the sole purpose for those groups to sow the seed of fear or perhaps put doubt in the minds of Canadians in the industry or in the government of the day. It would be to really shake up the economy. Why would they do that? Probably because the money they get comes from big oil or big energy groups in the U.S. This is the fact. We know this. To some extent, the Prime Minister, the Liberals, and perhaps the NDP have bought into those groups. I know about the NDP candidate who I ran against in my region, the one who had probably the best photography team I have ever seen. Again, my riding was one of those targeted because ridings they thought they would win, but I proved them wrong.

Let us talk about the growing list of broken promises, and this is so relevant to Bill C-69.

The Prime Minister talked about a small deficit of $10 billion at that time, and the budget would be balanced. There is a record and a history with this. He also said that under his government, the Liberals would be the most open and transparent government in Canadian history. There is a smattering of applause on the other side, but we know it is not true. When he created the mandate letters, he said that the ministers would be more accountable and more open to Canadians. He also said that he would let the debate reign, yet today we are in the 41st closure of debate.

During the campaign, the member for Papineau said that under his government the Harper government's way of doing omnibus bills would be in the past, that it would never happen again. Today, we are speaking to a 400-page bill.

We know the Prime Minister is not really very happy. He is not a very strong champion of our energy sector. We know this from one of his very first speeches to the world, when he said that under his government Canada would be known more for our resourcefulness rather than our resources. We know he has gotten himself into a little trouble for some of the comments he made on the world stage, when he said that he wished the energy sector could be phased out a little faster. We also know he got himself into trouble when he went into Alberta, during a time when we were facing some terrible issues, to speak to the out-of-work oil workers. There is that famous clip where a gentleman asked “What am I going to do? I'm out of work. I don't know whether I'm going to have a home. I don't know how I'm going to feed my children.” What was his comment? “Hang in there.”

The Liberals hated our Navigable Protection Act. The reason I bring this up is because the fisheries, oceans and Canadian Coast Guard committee, FOPO, studies some of the changes to legislation brought forward by government. The Liberals said that Prime Minister Harper had a war on the environment, and the changes he made to the Navigable Waters Protection Act were because the Conservatives did not care.

The Liberals like to bring in academics, NGOs, and environmental groups. Witness after witness, when asked to provide proof if any of the changes from 2012 to the Fisheries Act and Navigable Waters Protection Act would cause any harmful death or damage to our waterway, not one witness could provide proof. In fact, one of our hon. colleagues was part of the group that wrote the changes to the legislation. He talked about why some of these navigable waterway regulations were changed. He said that it was because of our farmers. If farmers had a drainage ditch that had been washout and repairs had to be made, whether to accommodate their livestock or their crops, it took a lot of time, waiting to get that done. Also, if a municipality was isolated because a road had been washed out, there were a lot of challenges in getting the repairs done.

I could go on and on.

The Prime Minister and all of his ministers like to stand and with their hands on their hearts, they pledge they will consult with Canadians from coast to coast to coast. They tell us that every Canadian will have a say. We know the consultations are not true. In fact, they are shutting down debate.

As I like to do every chance I get, I want to remind folks on the other side, and all Canadians, that the House is theirs. Shutting down debate means the 338 members of Parliament who were elected to be the voices of all Canadians do not have their say. They are not able to bring their constituents' voices to Ottawa. The Prime Minister, his cabinet, the other Liberals want to bring the voice of Ottawa to those communities. We know that the only voice that seems to matter is the Prime Minister's voice.

[Celina Caesar-Chavannes, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Development]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member spoke about the Stephen Harper government and how it was accused of fearmongering and sowing doubt. The Conservatives are still doing that.

The hon. member spoke about the economy and jobs and how the ministers needed to be accountable. Under this government, we have had the fastest growth in the G7. Over 600,000 jobs have been created by Canadians. We have a robust oceans protection plan. We have Bill C-69. We have a $1.3 billion investment in biodiversity and conservation.

What would the hon. colleague across the way say to his constituents, who have benefited from the fact that our government has taken the growth of the economy and the environment hand in hand?

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Mr. Speaker, many of my constituents are still waiting for a softwood lumber deal. They cannot get it. We have been waiting and we have been shouting and screaming. We have offered to help the Liberal team lead the way. Team Canada holding hands, trying to get the deal done is not going to do it. The Prime Minister and his cabinet's charm is not working.

With the ever-increasing protectionist environment to the south and with its policies, investment is fleeing Canada by the billions. By the way, part of that investment was announced last week, the $4.5 billion or more for a 65-year-old piece of aging infrastructure. We did not have to buy it. It is not doing anything. The Liberals have not built it. That investment is flowing south of the border thanks to the Prime Minister.

[Cheryl Hardcastle, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague to expand on the concept in Bill C-69 with regard to a minister's arbitrary powers. We saw a little of that when the Conservatives changed the process. I would like to know if there are concerns now with respect to some of the explicit powers which will not be based on science.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I know our hon. colleagues have been waiting for me to mention this. We have talked a lot about it for the last little while.

With respect to the surf clam, a minister has arbitrarily taken a quota from an established company, and that has shaken the investment of a whole sector. This is an example of a minister having the sole discretion to make these decisions arbitrarily. We can talk about the precautionary principle and a minister's ability to make a decision in the absence of science.

The Liberals promoted the precautionary principle. The ministers talked about applying the precautionary principle to documents, which would make things better with respect to marine protected areas and the ability of the minister to step in right away and make a decision. I will go back to my previous comment.

When one minister has that power, without consultation, that impacts the communities. I see it in Grand Bank, Newfoundland, where jobs will be lost. I see it in the marine protected areas being introduced by the Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard and how that is impacting our fishing communities and fishers on the east coast as well as on the west coast. I see it with the tanker moratorium. The Liberals talked about all the consultation that went into that. First nations are launching lawsuits against the federal government because they have not consulted. I have deep concern when a minister has that much power.

[Nick Whalen, Liberal, St. John's East, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to rise in the House today to speak in support of Bill C-59, the government's proposed legislation to update and modernize the country's national security framework.

This landmark bill covers a number of measures that were informed by the views and opinions of a broad range of Canadians during public consultations in 2016. It was in that same spirit of openness, engagement, and transparency that Bill C-59 was referred to the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security before second reading.

The committee recently finished its study of the bill. I want to thank the committee for its diligent and thorough examination of this comprehensive legislation. An even stronger bill, with over 40 adopted amendments, is now back in the House. The measures it contains would do two things at once: strengthen Canada's ability to effectively address and counter 21st-century threats, while safeguarding the rights and freedoms we cherish as Canadians—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Anthony Rota]

The hon. member for Calgary Shepard is rising on a point of order.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Mr. Speaker, as much as I am interested in the member's speech right now, I think we are still talking about Bill C-69. I believe the member is referring to Bill C-59 in his statement, which is not germane to the discussion we are having in the House.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Anthony Rota]

Is the member speaking to Bill C-69?

[Nick Whalen, Liberal, St. John's East, NL]

No, Mr. Speaker, Bill C-59.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Anthony Rota]

The hon. member is absolutely right.

[Nick Whalen, Liberal, St. John's East, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to talk about Bill C-69. It is an important piece of legislation.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Anthony Rota]

I am glad we clarified that. I will let the hon. member continue, then.

[Nick Whalen, Liberal, St. John's East, NL]

Mr. Speaker, in my riding, St. John's East, people are very keen on both. I hear this from people in all parts of my riding. People are very concerned about the environment and also very concerned about the jobs that go along with natural resource extraction. They are concerned about whales, and we had a motion about whales earlier this week in the House, under private members' business. At the same time, they are concerned about the jobs of their neighbours who work in oil and gas extraction, and those issues. They are concerned about the people who work at the C-NLOPB and the Atlantic Accord. They think our government has struck the right balance with this current legislation in making sure that the economy and the environment go hand in hand.

When we look at the types of court challenges that were brought against the NEB and against previous environmental assessment projects that were put forward under CEAA 2012 and previous legislation, we see that the balance that was required by the courts had not been struck. We had a situation where the level of consultation with indigenous peoples and first nations was not met, so decisions were struck down. In other cases they were challenged, which led to uncertainty in the process. What we have now is a piece of legislation that allows the government to address not just environmental assessment but also impact assessment in a much more comprehensive and holistic way.

It is the role of the federal government not just to make sure that environmental assessment for nationally regulated projects is done right, but also to make sure that there are consultations with scientists and that the economic benefits of projects of national benefit are spread evenly and enjoyed by the broadest variety of people possible. It is also to make sure that our consultations with indigenous people are undertaken in a way that is comprehensive and thoughtful and meets our obligations, whatever those standards of obligation happen to be.

If it is a situation that affects indigenous land rights, then the consent of those groups will be sought and considered. When the rights of multiple groups are contested, those need to be balanced. If some type of fishing right or fishing interest is ancillary to the development of an offshore oil and gas project, we need to make sure that all the groups whose fishing rights might be affected by the project are appropriately consulted, that they are given the resources they need to do their job, and that the right people are on the panels to make sure this is the case.

[Celina Caesar-Chavannes, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Development]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for his ability to switch gears midway and to reconcile two pieces of legislation.

We on this side of the House, as a government, believe that it is important to have a whole-of-government approach to every single piece of legislation that we move forward with. When we are talking about public safety, it in fact has a link to climate change and ensuring that people can live prosperous lives in this country. Protecting our country is just as important as protecting our individual citizens.

I would like to ask my colleague across the way whether he believes that when we look at the comprehensiveness of the legislation we have put forward, with the budgets we have put forward, the oceans protection plan, and investments in conservation and biodiversity, and when we think about the investments we have made in people and in ensuring that we are protecting them, is it not a full, comprehensive plan that this government has put forward for Canadians?

[Nick Whalen, Liberal, St. John's East, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I would go one step further to say that the government has done it in a way that takes into account the views of so many different Canadians.

It was a very comprehensive consultation process. There were multiple task forces engaged on the fisheries, transport, natural resources, and environment files, to make sure that the right ideas were at the table and would be considered in crafting the legislation.

Then, throughout the legislative review process, the committee undertook the tremendous task of bringing together hundreds of different potential amendments that brought the thoughts of different environmental groups, industry groups, and regulators across the country to make sure that this was the most comprehensive piece of legislation we could have so that we could get this right. Not only will industry have the certainty it needs to move its projects forward in tighter timelines, but environmental groups and indigenous groups will know that they will be heard, and that the conditions placed on future projects will protect our environment.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we have just very clearly seen that members on this side of the House want to talk about bills. We want to talk about Bill C-59. We want to talk about Bill C-69. All the parliamentarians on this side of the House want to express their views. Unfortunately, the Liberals have cut parliamentarians' speaking time so much that some members have to talk about two bills at once.

I would like my colleague who spoke about both Bill C-59 and Bill C-69 in the same speech to tell me whether he sometimes feels forgotten by the government because he sits on this side of the House. The Conservatives, the NDP, the Bloc Québécois, and the Green Party all represent our constituents here in the House, and they want to hear us speak about all of these bills.

I commend my colleague over here for wanting to speak about two bills, because he knows that we will not have time to talk about all of these things and that the members on the other side of the House often prevent us from speaking. I would like to hear what my colleague has to say about that.

[Nick Whalen, Liberal, St. John's East, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his comments. I was in the middle of preparing my remarks on Bill C-59 and I am planning on speaking to Bill C-69 next week. I will have a chance to talk about it at third reading. I may have lost it, I am not sure. I have already said half of what I intended to say on the matter.

At the same time, I know that our sitting hours have been extended because we cannot fit all the members who want to speak into the limited time that the House has to implement all of our legislation and amendments. It is a shame we do not have thousands of hours to speak in the House. These are the hours we have, and we have only four years to fulfill all our election promises.

Now, we are working on fulfilling our promises, and I think I will get a chance to speak on Bill C-69 next week and Bill C-59 a few minutes from now.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Anthony Rota]

It being 6:05 p.m., pursuant to an order made on Wednesday, June 6, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the report stage of the bill now before the House.

The question is on Motion No. 1. A vote on this motion also applies to Motions Nos. 15 to 23, 28 to 61, 100 to 103, 105 to 147, 149 to 205, 208 to 214, and 216. A negative vote on Motion No. 1 requires the question to be put on Motions Nos. 3, 4, 5, and 11.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Anthony Rota]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Anthony Rota]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Anthony Rota]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

The recorded division on the motion stands deferred.

The question is on Motion No. 62. A vote on this motion also applies to Motions Nos. 63, 64, 66 to 79, 81 to 99, 104, 206, 207, and 215.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Anthony Rota]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Anthony Rota]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Anthony Rota]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

The recorded division on this motion stands deferred.

Normally at this time, the House would proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division at the report stage of the bill. However, pursuant to order made on Tuesday, May 29, the divisions stand deferred until Monday, June 11, at the expiry of the time provided for oral questions.

The House resumed from June 7 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, and of the motions in Group No. 1.

[The Speaker, Geoff Regan]

It being 3:12 p.m., pursuant to order made on Tuesday, May 29, 2018, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motions at report stage of Bill C-69.

The question is on Motion No. 1. A vote on this motion also applies to Motions Nos. 15 to 23, 28 to 61, 100 to 103, 105 to 147, 149 to 205, 208 to 214, and 216.

A negative vote on Motion No. 1 requires the question to be put on Motions Nos. 3, 4, 5, and 11.

(The House divided on Motion No. 1, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #739

[The Speaker, Geoff Regan]

I declare Motion No. 1 defeated. I therefore declare Motions Nos. 15 to 23, 28 to 61, 100 to 103, 105 to 147, 149 to 205, 208 to 214, and 216 defeated.

The next question is on Motion No. 3. A vote on this motion also applies to Motion No. 25.

The hon. Chief Government Whip on a point of order.

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I believe that if you seek it, you will find agreement to apply the results from the previous vote to this vote, with Liberal members voting no.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives agree to apply the vote and will vote no.

[Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet, NDP, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the NDP agrees to apply the vote and will vote yes.

[Luc Thériault, Québec debout, Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the members of Québec Debout agree to apply the vote and will vote in favour of the motion.

[Simon Marcil, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois agrees to apply the vote and will vote yes.

[Erin Weir, Independent, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I vote yes.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Green Party agrees to apply the vote and will vote yes on the Green Party amendment.

[Hunter Tootoo, Independent, Nunavut, NU]

Mr. Speaker, I agree to apply the vote and I will be voting no.

[Darshan Singh Kang, Independent, Calgary Skyview, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I do agree to apply the vote and I will be voting no.

[The Speaker, Geoff Regan]

Do members agree to proceed in this manner?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

(The House divided on Motion No. 3, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #740

[The Speaker, Geoff Regan]

I declare Motion No. 3 defeated. I therefore declare Motion No. 25 defeated.

The question is on Motion No. 4. A vote on this motion also applies to Motions Nos. 9, 10, 12, and 13.

(The House divided on Motion No. 4, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #741

[The Speaker, Geoff Regan]

I declare Motion No. 4 defeated. I therefore declare Motions Nos. 9, 10, 12, and 13 defeated.

The question is on Motion No. 5. A vote on this motion also applies to Motions Nos. 8 and 148.

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I believe that if you seek it, you will find agreement to apply the results of the previous vote to the current vote, with Liberal members voting no.

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

Mr. Speaker, we agree to apply, and Conservatives will be voting no.

[Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet, NDP, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the NDP agrees to apply the vote and will vote yes.

[Luc Thériault, Québec debout, Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Québec Debout agrees to apply the vote and will vote yes.

[Simon Marcil, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois agrees to apply the vote and will vote yes.

[Erin Weir, Independent, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I agree, and vote yes.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Green Party agrees to apply, and is voting yes.

[Hunter Tootoo, Independent, Nunavut, NU]

Mr. Speaker, I agree to apply and I will be voting no.

[Darshan Singh Kang, Independent, Calgary Skyview, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I agree to apply, and will be voting no.

(The House divided on Motion No. 5, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #742

[The Speaker, Geoff Regan]

I declare Motion No. 5 defeated. I therefore declare Motions Nos. 8 and 148 defeated.

The next question is on Motion No. 11. A vote on this motion also applies to Motions Nos. 26 and 27.

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I believe if you seek it, you would find agreement to apply the result of the previous vote to this vote, with Liberal members voting no.

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

Mr. Speaker, we agree to apply the vote, and the Conservatives will vote no.

[Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet, NDP, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the NDP agrees to apply the vote and will vote yes.

[Luc Thériault, Québec debout, Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Québec Debout agrees to apply the vote and will vote yes.

[Simon Marcil, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois agrees to apply the vote and will vote yes.

[Erin Weir, Independent, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I agree and vote yes.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Green Party agrees to apply the vote and votes yes for important amendments.

[Hunter Tootoo, Independent, Nunavut, NU]

Mr. Speaker, I agree to apply and will be voting no.

[Darshan Singh Kang, Independent, Calgary Skyview, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I agree to apply and will be voting no.

(The House divided on Motion No. 11, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #743

[The Speaker, Geoff Regan]

I declare Motion No. 11 defeated. I therefore declare Motions Nos. 26 and 27 defeated.

The question is on Motion No. 62. A vote on this motion also applies to Motions Nos. 63, 64, 66 to 79, 81 to 99, 104, 206, 207, and 215.

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I believe that if you seek it, you will find agreement to apply the results of the previous vote to the current vote, with Liberal members voting no.

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

Mr. Speaker, we agree to apply, with Conservatives voting yes.

[Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet, NDP, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the NDP agrees to apply and will vote no this time.

[Luc Thériault, Québec debout, Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the members of Québec Debout agree to apply the vote, but we will vote no.

[Simon Marcil, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois agrees to apply the vote and will vote no.

[Erin Weir, Independent, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I agree to apply and vote no.

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

Mr. Speaker, we agree to apply the vote and will vote no.

[Hunter Tootoo, Independent, Nunavut, NU]

Mr. Speaker, I agree to apply and will be voting no.

[Darshan Singh Kang, Independent, Calgary Skyview, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I agree to apply and will be voting no.

(The House divided on Motion No. 62, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #744

[The Speaker, Geoff Regan]

I declare Motion No. 62 defeated. I therefore declare Motions Nos. 63, 64, 66 to 79, 81 to 99, 104, 206, 207, and 215 defeated.

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

moved that the Bill, as amended, be concurred in.

[The Speaker, Geoff Regan]

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Speaker, Geoff Regan]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Speaker, Geoff Regan]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Speaker, Geoff Regan]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And five or more members having risen:

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #745

[The Speaker, Geoff Regan]

I declare the motion carried.