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?