House of Commons Hansard #267 of the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was environmental.
Bill C-69—Time Allocation MotionImpact Assessment ActGovernment Orders
Halifax Nova Scotia
Liberal
Andy Fillmore LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Democratic Institutions
Madam Speaker, there are some who have expressed concern over the role of the offshore petroleum boards and the process of environmental assessments. I wonder what the minister might tell them to help them feel better about the bill.
Catherine McKenna Liberal Ottawa Centre, ON
Madam Speaker, throughout the process we heard from a variety of different groups. As I have said, we heard from industry, offshore boards, and also from environmentalists, provinces, and indigenous peoples. What we heard was the importance of bringing coherence. We need to have a single agency, the impact assessment agency, that leads the assessment of major projects. We know that it needs to be working with life-cycle regulators, whether that is the offshore boards or the National Energy Board, because they have expertise throughout the life of the project. However, we also heard clearly that we need one agency that is going to bring coherence, make sure we protect the environment, do the necessary consultations with communities, and partner with indigenous peoples.
Shannon Stubbs Conservative Lakeland, AB
Madam Speaker, one of my concerns is that the minister just seems utterly unaware of Canada's long-standing reputation as the most environmentally and socially responsible oil, gas, and energy producer in the world, with the highest standards and a long track record of consultation, transparency, and robust rules and processes. She mentioned the word “trust” a number of times. The Liberals taking action like this is exactly what undermines trust among Canadians and public representatives.
As my colleague from the NDP pointed out, it flies in the face of exactly what the Prime Minister said in his mandate letters to ministers about working meaningfully with opposition MPs. Canadians deserve to know exactly what the Liberals have done on this bill so far, as well as limiting debate right now.
They offered a briefing in the morning the day this legislation was introduced only for stakeholders and media. In fact, my office, staff, and I were explicitly told we could not attend that technical briefing, as was every other opposition MP in the House of Commons. A technical briefing was finally offered but it was at 4 p.m., well after the legislation had been introduced and well after media and stakeholders were already making comment on the legislation.
Now the Liberals are invoking time allocation, shutting down debate and our ability to provide input on this legislation. Opposition members are getting blocked from effectively and fully participating. Will we get blocked from effectively and fully participating on behalf of the Canadians who sent us here to do this job in committee, in third reading, and for the rest of this legislation?
Bill C-69—Time Allocation MotionImpact Assessment ActGovernment Orders
February 27th, 2018 / 10:25 a.m.
Liberal
Catherine McKenna Liberal Ottawa Centre, ON
Madam Speaker, to be clear, we provided copies of the bill to the opposition lobby immediately after the bill was tabled. That met our parliamentary obligations. We were also very pleased that members of the opposition were able to attend a briefing, which was over an hour and 15 minutes. My office is always available to answer any questions. Of course when this goes to committee, there will be an opportunity to ask full questions. I am available to do that.
In terms of recognizing the importance of the oil and gas sector, we absolutely recognize the importance but if we want to have good projects go ahead, we need to have the trust of the public. Unfortunately, what happened under the changes of the previous government, which gutted how we do environmental assessments and removed protections for waters and fish, was that it eroded public trust. As a result, it was much more challenging to get projects to go ahead. That is what we heard.
We have also responded to concerns about having a timely process and having one project with one assessment. What we have done is introduced legislation that meets those requirements. This is all about making sure we protect the environment and that good projects go ahead.
Anne Minh-Thu Quach NDP Salaberry—Suroît, QC
Madam Speaker, I am quite taken aback by the time allocation motion moved this morning.
It is ridiculous that we are being muzzled after only two hours of debate on this bill. This document is over 350 pages long and amends 36 pieces of legislation, as my colleague said.
The Liberals are saying there has been adequate consultation. We have debated this bill for only two hours. I have not had time to consult civil society, the young people in my riding, and other youth across Canada.
We know that future generations are going to be affected by climate change, and yet the Liberals are giving us only two hours of debate. They are going to give parliamentarians a maximum of 10 hours to debate this issue. What do the Liberals have to hide?
Somewhere in these 350 pages, the bill talks about an agency that can make recommendations, but they would not necessarily be binding, because the minister would have an enormous amount of discretion. No one knows how the minister might use his or her discretionary and veto powers. What are the criteria? We do not have that information.
Is this really meant to protect the environment, or is it more about protecting the Liberals' interests and making it easier for Liberal supporters to develop their energy projects?
We have no information on this. It is incredibly difficult to get any information, even though the Liberals promised transparency. When debate on a bill is limited to 10 hours, that signals a real problem in terms of transparency, information, and intent. There must be something hidden in the bill. That is problematic.
Catherine McKenna Liberal Ottawa Centre, ON
Madam Speaker, I am very happy to say that we are going to do what the opposition party member wants to do.
We have very clear criteria guiding our decision-making. Obviously, we need clear criteria, and we need to look at how major projects impact the environment. Climate change is real, and we have to consider greenhouse gas emissions.
As I said, we have had a lot of discussions. In January 2016, we introduced the interim principles. We held consultations. I put together an expert panel, as did the Minister of Natural Resources, the Minister of Transport, and the Minister of Fisheries. Two committees looked at their issues. Then we had a discussion paper, and everyone had a chance to provide feedback. We had lots of consultations with indigenous peoples, we met with industry, and we talked to the provinces and territories and environmental groups.
Obviously, we all have the same interests. The Liberal Party's interests are the same as Canadians' interests. We want to make sure we have laws in place and rules for reviewing environmental processes that will protect the environment. We want to restore public confidence and respect indigenous rights. Those laws and rules also have to strengthen our economy and attract investment.
John Nater Conservative Perth—Wellington, ON
Madam Speaker, I have a simple question for the minister. She mentioned that she is happy to appear before a committee and answer any questions. How many hours is she committed to appearing before a committee?
Catherine McKenna Liberal Ottawa Centre, ON
Madam Speaker, this is a very important piece of legislation. We understand that we need to get this right. The committee process is extraordinarily important. I have said I am happy to appear before a committee. The committee also needs to hear from witnesses. There needs to be clause-by-clause.
I have great confidence in the committee. I want to commend everyone on the committee, from all parties, because they have done excellent work on a whole variety of files that are critical to protecting the environment. I know they are well up to the task.
Christine Moore NDP Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC
Madam Speaker, I am quite stunned to see the Minister of the Environment move a time allocation motion when we have been debating the bill for only two hours.
I represent five first nations communities and people who are concerned about the environment. I am here to share their concerns and their proposals for improving the bill. If I am prevented from speaking at second reading, then I cannot share those concerns before the committee meets to propose and make amendments to the bill. I therefore cannot talk about all the corrections that should be made to the bill at the appropriate stage of the process, before the bill goes to committee. That is a big deal. The bill is being referred to committee without input from members about the corrections they would like to see made. Committee members will not have input from all members of the House on what needs to be done.
The Minister of the Environment needs to understand the problem she is creating by sending the bill to committee when members have not had the chance to speak to it or ask any questions. I am very disappointed in this attitude, especially considering that this bill amends 36 statutes. For example, as far as the Navigable Waters Protection Act is concerned, I spent over 60 hours on my own bill for Abitibi—Témiscamingue. The government, however, seems to think that two hours of debate on a vastly broader bill is enough. The French version of the bill is 400 pages long. I am stunned and absolutely disappointed with the attitude of the Minister of the Environment.
Catherine McKenna Liberal Ottawa Centre, ON
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question.
Indeed, it is very important to work in partnership with indigenous peoples. This is clearly the number one concern in my mandate letter, and I have taken this very seriously.
We worked together with indigenous peoples in drafting this bill, and we visited the communities. I spoke directly with a number of communities and national organizations representing the Inuit, Métis, and first nations peoples. That is also true for my other colleagues who worked on the process.
We want to hear from indigenous peoples. The committee will have the opportunity to hear witnesses, and that is very important. We also have a process to work with national indigenous organizations when we review the environmental assessment process. This is very important. This is what the Prime Minister asked me to do, and I take this very seriously.
Joël Godin Conservative Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC
Madam Speaker, this is a sad day for democracy. There are 338 members of Parliament here who were elected to represent their constituents. Canadians chose us to defend our laws and advance society.
I do want to commend the environment minister, for whom I have the utmost respect, on her excellent French. I urge her to share her knowledge and encourage her colleagues to speak more often in French. I truly appreciate it.
That said, could the minister explain why she is proposing a time allocation motion on such an important bill? She has a vision and speaks positively about this bill. She has a good mission and good values, so why does she want to muzzle parliamentarians?
Is the minister a victim of her government? I think that is what is happening.
Catherine McKenna Liberal Ottawa Centre, ON
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague. I try hard to speak French. I am from Hamilton. My father is Irish and decided that the four McKenna children would go to a French-language school. I therefore thank my father for making that decision. I always try to learn more French and not to make mistakes.
That said, I take this matter very seriously. As I said, we held consultations across the country. We spoke with indigenous peoples, the industry, the provinces and territories, and all Canadians who wanted to participate in the process. It is very important that the Standing Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development, which I highly respect, have the time it needs to hear from witnesses and to study the bill clause by clause. It is an important process. I am there to answer the detailed questions put by my colleague and all committee members.
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
Madam Speaker, nobody is questioning that the government spent two years consulting with stakeholders outside of this place. What we are concerned about is the absolute disdain for the House of Commons.
We were elected to represent Canadians. I have been reaching out for those two years, and since the bill was tabled, to find out whether this proposed legislation addresses their interests and concerns. There are deep concerns with the bill, which hopefully we will get into.
As a result of this time allocation, we have lost three-quarters of an hour when members could have debated the bill. It is reprehensible. This is the only public opportunity where Canadians can hear their concerns being raised. We will get to the clause-by-clause in committee all right, in camera.
I am wondering if the minister would commit today to working with her members to ensure that every Canadian who requests to be heard at committee can be heard and that the committee will travel to every corner of the country. Will she commit to truly getting back to people to find out if their concerns were addressed?
Catherine McKenna Liberal Ottawa Centre, ON
Madam Speaker, let me be clear. Over the 14 months, we travelled across the country. We heard from Canadians. We heard from environmentalists. We heard from industry. We heard from provinces and territories. We heard from indigenous peoples.
When Bill C-69 gets to environment committee, we need to make sure it has time to hear from witnesses, to review the bill, to go clause by clause. As I said, I would be very happy to answer detailed questions at committee.
The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes
It is my duty to interrupt the proceedings at this time and put forthwith the question on the motion now before the House.
The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Bill C-69—Time Allocation MotionImpact Assessment ActGovernment Orders
Some hon. members
Agreed.
No.
The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes
All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.
Bill C-69—Time Allocation MotionImpact Assessment ActGovernment Orders
Some hon. members
Yea.
Bill C-69—Time Allocation MotionImpact Assessment ActGovernment Orders
Some hon. members
Nay.
The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes
In my opinion, the yeas have it.
And five or more members having risen:
Call in the members.
The Speaker Liberal Geoff Regan
I declare the motion carried.
The hon. member for Berthier—Maskinongé is rising on a point of order.
Ruth Ellen Brosseau NDP Berthier—Maskinongé, QC
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order regarding the omnibus nature of the most recent government bill, 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 do so somewhat reluctantly because the government has just finished passing a time allocation motion that will limit the debate on this enormous important and sensitive bill. There will be fewer than 10 hours of debate. The time is at such a premium here that I will do my best to be very brief.
I also note, Mr. Speaker, that in your ruling of November 7 of last year on a similar request, you said, “I would encourage them to raise their arguments as early as possible in the process, especially given that the length of debate at a particular stage can be unpredictable.”
I doubt even you could have foreseen the government would have shut the door on debate here after just two hours, but I trust that you will still have enough time to rule on this request before the debate wraps up this Friday.
Standing Order 69.1 states:
In the case where a government bill seeks to repeal, amend or enact more than one act, and where there is not a common element connecting the various provisions or where unrelated matters are linked, the Speaker shall have the power to divide the questions, for the purposes of voting, on the motion for second reading and reference to a committee and the motion for third reading and passage of the bill. The Speaker shall have the power to combine clauses of the bill thematically and to put the aforementioned questions on each of these groups of clauses separately, provided that there will be a single debate at each stage.
Mr. Speaker, as you can see, Bill C-69 repeals two laws, enacts three new laws, and amends 31 existing laws. In total, Bill C-69 will affect 36 statutes. Bill C-69 enacts the impact assessment act, which will replace the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. As a result, the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act and the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, which were put in place by Mr. Harper in 2012, will be replaced by the new impact assessment act and the new impact assessment agency of Canada. This agency will now be responsible for any assessments requiring federal review—
The Speaker Liberal Geoff Regan
Order. Apparently there is a problem with the interpretation. It is not the interpreters' fault; there seems to be some construction noise.
It seems to be resolved now. The hon. member for Berthier—Maskinongé.