Debates of Feb. 27th, 2018

Impaired Driving

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

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to present two petitions.

The first petition, sadly, highlights the issue of impaired driving. Families for Justice is a group of Canadians who have lost a loved one killed by an impaired driver. They believe that Canada's impaired driving laws are much too lenient. They want the crime called what it is, vehicular homicide. It is the number one cause of criminal death in Canada. Over 1,200 Canadians are killed every year by impaired drivers. The petitioners are calling for mandatory sentencing for vehicular homicide, and they wish that Parliament had supported Kassandra's law.

Sex Selection

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

The second petition, Mr. Speaker, highlights the issue of sex selection. Gender-based violence against girls begins before they are born. A CBC documentary revealed that ultrasound is being used to determine the sex of the unborn child, and if it is a girl the pregnancy is tragically ended. The petitioners are calling on Parliament to condemn the practice of sex selection discrimination against girls.

The Environment

[Anne Minh-Thu Quach, NDP, Salaberry—Suroît, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition signed by more than 1,000 people in my riding, especially in and around Soulanges. Given that more than 80% of Canada's original wetlands have disappeared and that global warming is increasing, the importance of protecting wetlands is becoming very clear. Wetlands have great ecological value in terms of flood prevention, buffer zones, and threatened and vulnerable plant species. The signatories therefore call upon the Government of Canada to take a firm position in order to ensure compliance with the 1996 federal policy on wetland conservation, which aims to improve and preserve the environment so as to prevent increasing natural disasters by designating the wetlands bordering Lake Saint-François as a protected area.

Great Lakes

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

Mr. Speaker, I am rising today with an e-petition calling on the Government of Canada and the Parliament of Canada. It is a petition from indigenous and non-indigenous people from the Great Lakes region, first nations, Métis, and Inuit, calling on the House to confer legal status as a person to each of the Great Lakes in order that they be recognized as living entities and have powers under our laws as such. This is not as extreme as it may seem. This has been done in many countries around the world, granting legal rights to nature. The petitioners support the formation of a multi-interest Great Lakes tribunal led by indigenous people to act as the voice for these newly created persons.

Indigenous Affairs

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, today I would like to present two petitions from my constituents.

The first petition is from the West Hill United Church first nations study group. This petition contains 240 signatures and calls upon our government to correct many historically rooted injustices of indigenous communities, most notably overcrowded housing, long-term boil water advisories, funding shortfalls in child welfare, as well as the high prevalence of suicide in first nations communities.

Human Rights

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge Park, ON]

Second, Mr. Speaker, I am presenting a petition from Open Doors Canada. It is a petition that calls on the government to work with the UN to ensure equal rights protection for Christians and other minority groups in Syria.

Health Care

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, today I present a petition signed by many of my constituents in Winnipeg North, asking the government to recognize the importance of providing for and assisting with quality health care and palliative care, and the importance of that very issue for all Canadians.

Questions on the Order Paper

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

Mr. Speaker, I would ask that all questions be allowed to stand at this time.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Bill C-69—Time Allocation Motion

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister of Small Business and Tourism]

moved:

That, in relation to Bill C-69, An Act to enact the Impact Assessment Act and the Canadian Energy Regulator Act, to amend the Navigation Protection Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, not more than one further sitting day after the day on which this Order is adopted shall be allotted to the consideration at second reading stage of the Bill; and

That, 15 minutes before the expiry of the time provided for Government Orders on the day allotted to the consideration at second reading stage of the said Bill, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required for the purpose of this Order, and, in turn, every question necessary for the disposal of the said stage of the Bill shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Pursuant to Standing Order 67.1, there will now be a 30-minute question period. I invite hon. members who wish to ask questions to rise in their places so the Chair has some idea of the number of members who wish to participate in this question period.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am so disappointed that the Liberals are limiting debate on second reading of this bill. I want to note the implicit hypocrisy in shutting down debate and input on a bill about which one of the Liberals' key claims is consultation.

This bill is major. It would create three new, distinct legislative acts; a new environmental impact assessment agency; a new life cycle regulator for natural resources projects like pipelines, LNG, and mines; and a new system for navigable waters. This bill demands full, thorough, and meaningful debate on its merits and flaws, especially because of the importance of responsible natural resources development to the Canadian economy, to every community right across the country, to the nearly one million Canadians whose livelihoods depend on this sector, and to the thousands of Canadians beyond that who work in spinoff and indirect employment fuelled by responsible natural resources development in Canada. Members of Parliaments owe Canadians nothing less than full due diligence in exploring this bill.

Why will the Liberals not let MPs do their jobs and debate and discuss this bill, as long as it takes, at second reading?

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

Madam Speaker, I absolutely agree that this bill is of critical importance. It is really important that we rebuild trust for lost protections when it comes to our environment, fish, and waterways. We need to make sure that we engage with indigenous peoples. We also need to make sure that we attract investment. It is very important that the environment committee have the appropriate time to review, hear witnesses, and work through the clause-by-clause of Bill C-69. I really hope that the party opposite will join in detailed questions at committee.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to stress my disappointment with this government's use of time allocation for Bill C-69. This is an incredibly important bill that is over 400 pages long and affects 36 acts.

The bill was tabled quite recently, on February 8, and was called for debate the following Wednesday, less than a week later. Bill C-69 has been debated for just two hours so far. We still have a chance to debate it today, but our discussion will be curtailed by the government's time allocation motion and the tabling of the budget. Our only other opportunity to debate this bill will be Friday. That means the mammoth Bill C-69 will be debated for less than 10 hours total in the House of Commons.

We just heard the Minister of Environment say that this is a critical bill and it is really important. I just want to ask the government why it is forcing us to have less time to look at this bill and debate this important piece of legislation. It is important to engage in this House of Commons. It is important to make sure that we have the time necessary to evaluate this bill.

[Catherine McKenna, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, our government knows how important it is to establish better rules for reviewing environmental processes to protect this country's environment, fish, and waterways, restore public confidence, respect indigenous rights, strengthen our economy, and attract investment.

We agree that this is very important, and that is why it is important for the Standing Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development to have enough time to complete its study, hear from witnesses, and work on Bill C-69. I hope the NDP will work with us to make sure we have good laws to protect environmental processes.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to commend the minister for the huge effort she, her staff, and the department have put forward in order to bring about this bill.

The question I have follows up on the questions coming from the other side of the House. Could the minister please tell this House how much consultation actually went into creating this bill in the first place, to help inform this bill?

[Catherine McKenna, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, these better rules are based on 14 months of engagement. This was engagement with provinces and territories, with indigenous peoples, with businesses, with environmental groups, and with companies across the country.

We understand how important it is to get this right. When we look at the major resources projects planned, over $500 billion over the next 10 years, we know that we need to ensure that we have better rules to protect our environment and communities while making sure that good projects get built to create jobs for the middle class. We also need to be working in partnership with indigenous peoples.

I cannot express how pleased I am that we were able to come together. In my job, it is important that we work with environmentalists, provinces and territories, industry, and indigenous peoples. That is exactly what we are doing. We understand that the only way in the 21st century we will get good resource projects to go ahead is if we recognize that the environment and the economy go together.

I look forward to answering questions at committee.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I hear quite a bit of heckling. I just want to remind members that when a member has the floor, the member is to be afforded the respect that he or she deserves. If members have questions or comments, those individuals can stand up to be recognized.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Madam Speaker, I agree with my colleagues that it is totally hypocritical that the government would be shutting down effective consultation on a bill that is supposed to be about effective consultation. Clearly, the Liberals do not want to consult with fellow parliamentarians.

This is happening at a very bad time. We see that the Liberals have already killed two pipeline projects, energy east and NorthWest, and are in the process of killing Kinder Morgan by slow death. At the same time, our neighbours to the south are actually reducing regulations and moving on promoting the oil and gas industry.

This process is going to add 180 days to the consultation, and at any time, the minister, on a whim, could veto a project. Could the minister let me know how this adds any certainty to the building of these kinds of pipeline projects in Canada?

[Catherine McKenna, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, as I said, I am very pleased that we are bringing forward better rules for reviewing major projects. That is not just pipelines. That is hydro projects. That is mines. We know that we need to be doing better.

In terms of getting resources to market, we also appreciate the importance of that. That is why we have worked so hard to understand the concerns of industry, as well as looking at how we make sure that we also protect the environment and work with indigenous peoples.

I am very pleased that we will have a single agency, the impact assessment agency of Canada, which will lead all impact assessments for major projects. That will ensure the approach is consistent and efficient. That is something the industry made very clear that it needed. Also, our goal is one project, one review. We need to streamline the process and coordinate with provinces and territories to reduce red tape for companies and avoid duplicating efforts in reviewing proposed projects. We have also reduced the timelines.

We think that we have done the right thing that will ensure that we get good projects going ahead in a way that protects our environment.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, we are talking here about a 350-page omnibus bill. The government was the first to chastise the former Conservative government when it brought forward omnibus bills and when it brought forward time allocation and closure motions.

I bring to members' attention the concerns raised yesterday by our colleague from Abbotsford on a question of privilege. He recounted again that, in the mandate letter to the minister, she is to be accountable for a commitment to a different style of leadership, close collaboration with her colleagues, and meaningful engagement with opposition members of Parliament. Is this the meaningful consultation with Parliament?

This is a bill that impacts every corner of our country, every indigenous community, every farm community, every conservation organization. Yes, this is after two years of consultation with the public, but there has been absolutely no time for parliamentarians who represent Canadians to discuss this bill. What happened to a constructive Parliament? I am deeply troubled by what the minister has done. It makes a joke of the mandate letter and a joke of the Liberals' commitment to consultation.

Finally, I have heard the minister repeatedly say they brought forward this bill to finally provide rules and certainty. If there is anything that is not in the bill, it is rules and certainty.

[Catherine McKenna, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, this is absolutely not an omnibus bill. This brings together four pieces of legislation that are interconnected. We cannot look at how we are going to protect our environment and our fisheries, make sure that we work in partnership with indigenous people, and also ensure that good projects go ahead without bringing coherence.

This is what is very clear in my mandate letter. It was discussed in our platform. It was clear in the interim principles that this was the approach, and when I heard from Canadians, that is what they wanted. They expected us to bring it all together and that is what we have done.

There were consultations over 14 months. We introduced the interim principles in January 2016. We have been at this for a long time. We had expert panel reports and parliamentary committees. We brought together all of this through a discussion paper. We did more consultations and now I am very pleased that it is going to go to the parliamentary committee and I will be there to answer any questions on the bill. We also need to hear from witnesses and we need to do clause-by-clause. This is exactly the way we are moving forward on this.

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

Madam Speaker, I must say I am astonished that the minister is so unfamiliar with the content of the bill she is attempting to rush through the House on this day. This is an omnibus bill, but it is not, as she claims, a bill that brings together four pieces of legislation. If she were aware, Bill C-68 is the Fisheries Act and it was not lumped together with Bill C-69, which is an omnibus bill and requires proper study. It is offensive. If it were good legislation, I might get behind rushing it through, but it is decidedly not good legislation and it must not be rushed. Bill C-68 is good legislation and the fisheries minister, lucky for him, does not have to wear the rest of this package of hybrid Harper-Liberal strategy that will make a mess of our environmental assessment.

Here is some gender analysis on this day that we are expecting a gender budget. For an omnibus bill including legislation that would normally be presented by the male Minister of Transport and another piece of legislation that would normally be presented by the male Minister of Natural Resources, why does she suppose they picked the Minister of Environment and Climate Change to wear the whole thing? They are eroding her political capital by having an omnibus bill where she is the only target.

[Catherine McKenna, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to be the one who is introducing this legislation. The environment and the economy go together. I am pleased that I am a strong woman in doing that. I am also pleased that we have a gender-based analysis so that, for any major project that goes ahead, we need to have a gender-based analysis. We said that is part of the approach our government is taking.

I am actually very excited today because we know that there is going to be a gender focus in the bill. Let us be clear that there is coherence. The major projects that impact on fish will also be captured by this. This is a really important piece of legislation.

I appreciate the member opposite's commitment to the environment, understanding that we need to make progress on ensuring that good projects go ahead in a way that protects our waters, our environment, and our fish. It also ensures that we gain public trust and respect indigenous rights, and I certainly hope that the member will be actively engaged through the committee process.