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.
Celina Caesar-Chavannes LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Development
Mr. Speaker, I want to ask my hon. colleague to go back to the creation of the single agency, the impact assessment agency of Canada. I am wondering if she could expand a bit on how having this single agency will streamline processes, reduce costs, and increase efficiency, as well as build trust.
Jennifer O'Connell Liberal Pickering—Uxbridge, ON
Mr. Speaker, what we have heard for the last number of years when consulting with stakeholders and provinces and territories is that Canadians want a one-approach type process. We all know that in order for good projects to move forward there has to be trust and by limiting regulation, by doing everything up front and having questions and concerns addressed up front, it helps to reduce regulations and it helps to get rid of duplication in provincial and local regulatory processes.
Terry Duguid LiberalParliamentary Secretary for Status of Women
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to 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. This important piece of legislation fulfills some of our earliest campaign promises from the 2015 election: restore credibility to environmental assessments, modernize and rebuild trust in the National Energy Board, conduct a wholesale review of the previous government's amendments to the Fisheries Act and the elimination of the Navigable Waters Protection Act with the intent to restore lost protections and incorporate more modern safeguards.
We made this commitment because we recognized that the economy and the environment go hand in hand. By putting in place better rules that protect our environment, fish, and waterways, by rebuilding public trust and respect for indigenous rights, and by strengthening our economy, these new rules will ensure good projects can go ahead and create new jobs and economic opportunities for the middle class. They provide clarity and consistency when it comes to impact assessments by creating a single agency, the impact assessment agency of Canada, which will lead all impact assessments for major projects. It will draw on the lessons learned through other agencies, such as the National Energy Board, the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, and offshore boards.
The Minister of Environment and cabinet will have final say over decisions. Our government prioritizes accountability on issues of national interest, and this will allow Canadians to hold our government to account on decisions of importance. The manner in which these decisions are made will be vastly improved by this legislation. Decisions will be made based on science and evidence, not politics, like the previous government's process. We will create more publicly available data to allow Canadians to be informed and involved in these decisions. We are expanding the scope of these reviews to assess their impacts on health, society, and the economy. As the Parliamentary Secretary for Status of Women, I am pleased to see that we will be conducting gender-based analysis as part and parcel of these assessments as well.
We will advance Canada's commitment to reconciliation by recognizing indigenous rights and working in partnership from the start with indigenous communities across the country. We will integrate traditional knowledge into the process, and promote active participation from indigenous communities to ensure their voices are heard.
We will maintain a professional approach to these reviews by creating a predictable, streamlined process. Shorter legislated timelines for the project review phase will be rigorously managed to keep the process on track. Our goal, as the previous speaker mentioned, will be one project, one review.
The bill also seeks to amend the navigable waters act. Water is an issue of utmost importance to me. Lake Winnipeg is one of my home province's most important and treasured resources, and I am incredibly pleased to see this bill recognize and prioritize the importance of water. The Canadian navigable waters act would restore navigation protection for every navigable waterway in Canada. Changes to the Fisheries Act will add important new safeguards for our fisheries, including measures to rebuild damaged fish stocks and restore degraded habitat, ensuring that our fisheries and environment are protected for future generations.
This is not our first effort to protect water in this country. The historic investments we made with the oceans protection plan is a testament to our commitment to this essential natural resource. Canada has the longest coastline in the world. Our coasts support traditional indigenous and coastal community livelihoods, attract tourism, and enable the export and import of goods overseas. They are home to an abundance of Canadian fisheries, and play a key role in strengthening the economy and growing our middle class. That is why our government launched the oceans protection plan, the OPP. It is a historic $1.5 billion investment that will create a world-leading marine safety system, restore and protect Canada's marine ecosystems, and strengthen partnerships with indigenous communities.
Similarly, I am proud of the investment we are making in protecting and rehabilitating the water in the Great Lakes. The Government of Canada is committed to protecting fresh water through science, action, and collaboration with Canadian and American partners and, importantly, indigenous peoples. This includes the freshwater resources of the Lake Winnipeg basin. Budget 2017 allocated $70.5 million over five years to protect Canada's freshwater resources, including the Lake Winnipeg basin at $25.7 million and the Great Lakes at $44.8 million.
Through the $25.7 million allocated to protecting freshwater quality in Lake Winnipeg and its basin, Environment and Climate Change Canada will continue to support research, as well as provide financial support aimed at reducing nutrients, enhancing collaboration, and supporting enhanced engagement of indigenous peoples on freshwater issues in Lake Winnipeg and its basin.
I am extremely proud of the legislation we are debating before the House today. When we first came to office, we knew we had to act swiftly on this file, and did so by implementing the interim principles, offering a glimpse of our vision, and ensuring that projects could continue to be assessed. Now, after thorough consultation with the public and stakeholders, 14 months all told, and the parliamentary input of two committees, we are moving forward with the next steps.
Bill C-69 would ensure that the economy and the environment can both continue to thrive and that good middle-class jobs are created in our resource sector. We are providing clarity and certainty for development projects and ensuring that our natural treasures will be protected for generations to come.
Harold Albrecht Conservative Kitchener—Conestoga, ON
Mr. Speaker, there are two glaring issues here today. One is that my colleague referred to extensive consultation, yet here in the House we have had two hours of debate on this very extensive omnibus bill, 370 pages, and the government chose to invoke closure on a bill of this magnitude. That is very unfortunate. I wonder if my colleague could comment as to how he can square that circle.
Second, he spoke at length about his pride and how the government has protected and is protecting our water. Just last week, we had 50 million litres of raw sewage dumped from Quebec City into the St. Lawrence River. I wonder if he has seen the aerial photos of that beautiful scene. In 2015, it was eight billion litres of raw sewage from Montreal. How can the member stand here and say that he is proud of his government's record in protecting the water, one of our most precious resources?
Terry Duguid Liberal Winnipeg South, MB
Mr. Speaker, to reiterate, we had 14 months of consultation with indigenous people, environmental groups, industry, and others because we wanted to get this right. We know that the previous government undermined confidence in the system, and I think we have the balance right.
I was the environment commissioner for my home province of Manitoba, and I made my living by doing environmental assessments. I know that the folks in my home province would agree that we have achieved the right balance in the bill: clarity for business as well as protecting the environment, the environment and the economy going hand in hand, as our environment minister likes to say.
To the second issue, we have $180 billion of infrastructure money that we are going to be spending. We are going to be attacking the sewage treatment issue from coast to coast to coast. We know it is an issue, partially because the previous government starved our municipalities of funds.
Sheila Malcolmson NDP Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC
Mr. Speaker, this is a hard debate for us on the B.C. coast because we have a government that is now indicating, by repairing the legislation two years into its term, that it concedes that the legislation was completely inadequate to review the Kinder Morgan pipeline, which has serious risks for jobs that already exist on the B.C. coast. The trade-off is 50 permanent jobs offered by the pipeline for British Columbia by Kinder Morgan.
Particularly in the area of oil spill response, the previous environmental review and National Energy Board review blocked evidence about whether bitumen spilled in the marine environment would sink or float. The National Energy Board found that hearing such evidence would be prejudicial to Kinder Morgan.
Is the government now willing to redo that part of the environmental review to make sure that Bill C-69 is applied to protecting marine environment in the likely event of a bitumen spill in the Salish Sea?
Terry Duguid Liberal Winnipeg South, MB
Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member knows full well that we introduced interim principles, which we used to assess the Kinder Morgan pipeline project. Additional consultation efforts were made with indigenous people, environmental groups, and the industry itself. We felt, and I think the nation felt, that it would not be fair to start from square one.
From now on, any project that comes before us would be subject to this new legislation, which we hope the House will pass in due course. As well, I think the hon. member knows that an additional $1.5 billion will be spent on the oceans protection plan to ensure that our coastlines are protected in perpetuity.
The Deputy Speaker Conservative Bruce Stanton
We have time for one short question and response.
The hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands.
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Mr. Speaker, it is hard to put forward a brief question when we have an omnibus bill in front of us: three different bills, 350 pages. My heart is breaking over this. The Liberals promised no more omnibus bills, no time allocations, and to fix environmental assessment. Today, they score zero on all three promises.
To the point made by my friend from Nanaimo—Ladysmith, my quick question to the hon. parliamentary secretary is whether he can point me to any evidence, because there is none but I do not want to give away the answer, that the government reviewed the bitumen and diluent science and how they behave in marine environments.
Terry Duguid Liberal Winnipeg South, MB
Mr. Speaker, we are investing record amounts of money in science, and I am sure issues like that have been and will continue to be studied. I once again point to the oceans protection plan and the $1.5 billion, a record investment in protecting our ocean environment.
I think the hon. member will be pleased with some of the things that are going to be in the budget this afternoon.
John Barlow Conservative Foothills, AB
Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with my colleague from Provencher.
I want to start by reading a couple of quotes about the response to the Liberals' new Bill C-69:
In reality, it’s unlikely that any major project would proceed under the new rules.... [It] contains a good deal of political posturing and seems to lean to the side of attempting to please the most extreme critics.... [It puts] the wants of a small number ahead of what is best for Canada’s economy as a whole.
That came from the research team at GMP FirstEnergy.
Here is a second quote:
By diminishing independent, quasi-judicial regulatory processes for expert tribunals, cabinet risks drifting further into the dangerous political shoals where science and economics are eclipsed by the darker forces of opportunism and favouritism.
This is by a former National Energy Board chair and Jack Mintz, who is president's fellow at the University of Calgary's school of public policy.
These are very esteemed people who have researched the energy sector, and they are telling us what Canada is facing when it comes to the changes the Liberals have brought forward. It strikes me how disingenuous the Liberals are about the impacts of this bill, or how much they really do not understand the impacts these changes would have on the energy sector.
There was a good example earlier today, when the Minister of Natural Resources said that the only reason energy east did not go forward was that TransCanada abandoned energy east when the price of oil dropped.
I am pretty sure that companies do not base multi-billion dollar projects on what the price of oil was on Thursday. They are going to be making a long-term, major investment into that piece of infrastructure. TransCanada walked away from energy east because of the changes and regulatory burdens the Liberals put on it, and the downstream emissions, unprecedented. No other industry in the country has to deal with those types of regulations. How can we expect a company to be putting those types of things into its decisions?
The same thing is happening with Trans Mountain. Our colleagues across the way kept talking about all the wonderful pipelines they have built that are going to tidewater. I would like to remind them that not one single inch of pipeline that they profess to have approved has been built. I suspect that Trans Mountain is a long way from getting a shovel in the ground.
I think the Liberals are waiting for Kinder Morgan to just walk away in pure frustration. Then, once again, they can say, just as they did with TransCanada and energy east, that it was not them but a business decision the company made. It was a decision based on Liberal ideology and regulations that make it literally impossible for a major piece of infrastructure to get built in this country.
That is certainly the case with Bill C-69, an omnibus bill, as many of my colleagues have shown, that has more than 400 pages. I would argue, as a Canadian, that this bill would have an incredibly profound impact on Canadians across the country.
We are no longer on the verge of being an energy superpower that develops its natural resources under the most stringent environmental stewardship in the world. We are now becoming a non-factor. Under these regulations, there is no capital investor in the world who looks at Canada as a place open to do business. In fact, investors look at Canada as a place where they are not welcome. There is no clear line to success for an infrastructure project.
What really bothers me is that Bill C-69 would open the door for non-Canadians to have an influence on Canada's natural resource sector and our future, whatever that may be under these new regulations. A portion of Bill C-69 allows non-Canadians to have an influence on Canadian infrastructure projects. Let us think about that for a minute.
Under the previous Conservative regime, we made sure that anybody who wanted to have intervenor status on a project had a very good reason to be there, and would be impacted in some way by this project. By eliminating those rules, we are now going to open wide the doors for anyone to influence these decisions.
This could include extreme anti-oil activists, who would now have a seat at the table. It could also include energy companies in the United States, which would benefit a great deal from crippling Canada's energy sector. They are also going to have a seat at the table.
Therefore, these people who are trying to negatively impact Canada's economy would have the same standing as those energy companies, pipeline companies, and first nations who want our energy sector to succeed. Who are the Liberals going to be listening to when they are making these decisions?
We have seen the impact of these activists across the country, and they have been doing this through subterfuge. However, now they could not only be blocking roads, highways, mining operations, and drilling operations, but they would be invited to the table to help the Liberals make these decisions. I find it extremely disconcerting that they would have an active role in defining who we are as Canadians when it comes to our natural resource sector.
How is it possibly going to make this process shorter or those timelines definitive, when the Minister of Environment and Climate Change could invite a countless number of witnesses to provide testimony? Also, as it is written in black and white in the bill, as much as the Liberals would like to deny it, throughout the process the minister would have the ability to stop this process multiple times at every single stage, and it stops the clock. Therefore, these comments about 45 days, 185 days, 300 days, 475 days, are a bunch of bunk. The minister could stop any process indefinitely and as many times as she wants.
Let us talk about another aspect of that. Time and again today our colleagues across the floor have said that this is going to be a science-based decision process. They would take it out of the hands of politics. How can the Liberals say that with a straight face when, again, in Bill C-69, it says, in black and white, that the Minister of Environment and Climate Change would have the sole responsibility of deciding if a project is in the public interest? She alone would decide if a project moves from the assessment stage on to the main study stage. How can the Liberals possibly say that this is science based? It is not. There is political influence at every single stage.
How can proponents or investors possibly make the decision to invest billions of dollars in a project when they know that one person would decide if their project is worthwhile? It would not matter how many studies were done. It would not matter how much support there was from communities, first nations, or businesses. It would not matter what kinds of environmental studies were done or what science was there. It would come down to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change, who has been extremely vocal about her position on Canada's natural resource sector. She wants the gas and oil production, mining operations, and LNG projects to absolutely cease. She does not want those things. She wants to be a non-carbon-based economy, despite the demand for oil and gas increasing over the next 50 to 100 years. The oil would be coming from somewhere, but our Minister of Environment and Climate Change is saying as long as it does not come from us, and we are paying the price.
Let us talk about the price we are paying, even before the bill makes it through to legislation. More than $50 billion in capital has left Canada. Hundreds of thousands of energy jobs have been lost. I will put it into a perspective that I think every Canadian can understand. I talked about the price of oil a few minutes ago. It is at $60 a barrel, or maybe $57 a barrel, which is for West Texas Intermediate. Canadian crude is being sold at half that, at $30 a barrel. As a result, we sell our oil to the United States because we do not have international market access, because pipelines are not being built, and they will never be built under this proposed legislation. The United States buys our oil and sells it at a premium. That is a hospital being built every week and a school being built every day in the United States instead of Canada, and we are subsidizing it because of these decisions of the Liberal government.
It is absolutely wrong. We will fight it in every single way.
Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, the member across the way is completely wrong. The argument he presents is that we are exporting oil to the United States, which then sells it abroad, because we do not have the markets.
The current government is the one that actually got the job done. The Harper government, over 10 years, did not build even an inch of pipeline to tidewater. As a direct result of that, we do not have the market that we could have had if Harper had gotten the job done in the first place. Rather, by recognizing the importance of indigenous people, the environment, and energy needs, we were able to get a pipeline approval, which is something Harper could not do.
When we talk about this debate, members have to know we are doing something right here, because we have NDP members saying we are not going far enough. They want more. Then we have the Conservatives saying that we have gone too far. We listen to Canadians. The Prime Minister responds to what Canadians have to say. We are in touch with what the people have to say.
Why does the member believe that the Harper government was more successful at tidewater when in fact they did not get an inch of pipeline there?
John Barlow Conservative Foothills, AB
Mr. Speaker, I love the member's imaginative memory. In fact, the Conservatives had 17 pipelines built. I love how they put that part in there about “to tidewater”. Well, let us look back. The Liberals have not had one new pipeline approved to tidewater. Not one has done their construction.
Let us be clear. The one we did approve was northern gateway. It would have gotten our oil to the Asian market, which would have gotten us off the United States as our one customer. The Liberals denied that pipeline. The other that was going to benefit our getting to the European market was energy east. They also made sure that did not happen.
In their fairy tale imagination, they have done all these wonderful things to ensure we get oil into pipelines, yet not one centimetre has been built under the current government.
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
Mr. Speaker, the debate continues. All the Conservatives and Liberals care about is whose bill can fast-track pipelines faster.
It is my understanding that in Bill C-69 we are supposed to be reviewing processes that are going to address climate change, protect the environment, address transboundary rivers, and the interests, concerns, and rights of indigenous peoples. Somewhere along the way I guess we have the idea of where both those parties think this bill should go.
The member is complaining that the government is leaving the ultimate decision on approval of a project to a political level, the Minister of Environment. My recollection is that the law, as it is right now, was changed by the Conservatives so that it was no longer the review panel of the National Energy Board but was at a political level. Is the member's concern simply that it is assigned to the Minister of Environment and not the Minister of Natural Resources?
John Barlow Conservative Foothills, AB
Mr. Speaker, my colleague has to understand the difference in terms of what was in place before. There was never a political decision made on any pipeline approval that was there. It was based strictly on the National Energy Board, which is a non-partisan, arm's length decision process. That is how those decisions were made.
However, let us understand what would be in place now with Bill C-69. At every single step of the way, there would be an opportunity for political interference from the Minister of Environment and Climate Change, where she could step in and ask for a delay, stop the clock, or even ask for an entire new study to be done. That is significantly different from the quasi-judicial system we had under the National Energy Board that ensured we had the best record in the world when it came to environmental standards for natural resource development.
John Brassard Conservative Barrie—Innisfil, ON
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member talked about evidence-based science. Would he agree with me that the Liberals only agree with evidence-based science as long as it agrees with their ideology?
John Barlow Conservative Foothills, AB
Mr. Speaker, I completely agree, except in this case I do not think there is any room in Bill C-69 for any science-based decision-making. It is quite clear that there would be one person making the decision moving forward on any infrastructure project when it comes to our natural resources. That is mining, LNG, oil and gas, and 7% of our economy is based on these sectors. One person only would be making the decision, not based on any science, environmental stewardship, reports, or analysis. It would be the minister who decides if a project is in the public interest or not.
Ted Falk Conservative Provencher, MB
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague, the member for Foothills for his most inspiring, factual, and authentic speech.
Bill C-69, part 2, is the part I want to expand on a bit further. It is the part of the bill that replaces the National Energy Board and proposes a Canadian energy regulator. The entire process is supposed to increase clarity, predictability, and transparency. However, it fails on all three counts.
Of course this does not come as much of a surprise since the Liberal government has an outstanding record when it comes to breaking its campaign promises. We have seen numerous commitments, both big and small, meet untimely ends before ever achieving the goals set forth by the Liberals. Bill C-69 offers the same failing formula. The Liberal platform claims to “make environmental assessments credible again.” For one to make that promise, one has to start with the premise that the entire environmental assessment process had lost credibility somewhere along the way.
We recognize that there are always room for improvements to be made to existing processes, ways of doing things more simply and more effectively. However, when I look back over these last two years of so-called Liberal improvements, I wonder how much differently things would look if the Liberals were intentionally trying to sabotage the process. It's probably not much. I do not think it could get much worse.
Far from making the process more credible, the Liberals have mismanaged this file to such an extent that nothing can get built in this country. In particular, the Liberals have pushed the view that by building social licence, somehow all of the roadblocks to responsible resource development will disappear. In reality, attempts to improve social trust and build social licence have not increased resource or national infrastructure development.
Before I go any further, I want to turn back the clock to consider what was being said about Canada's environmental review process several years ago. Before the lack of leadership that we are witnessing today, Canada had long been recognized internationally and by experts as the most responsible and transparent producer of oil and gas. A 2014 WorleyParsons report compared the environmental assessment processes and policies around oil and gas development across the globe. When it came to environmental assessments, the report concluded:
The results of the current review re-emphasized that Canada's [Environmental Assessment] Processes are among the best in the world. Canada [has] state of the art guidelines for consultation, [traditional knowledge], and cumulative effects assessment. Canadian practitioners are among the leaders in the areas of Indigenous involvement, and social and health impact assessment. Canada has the existing frameworks, the global sharing of best practices, the government institutions and the capable people to make improvements to [environmental assessment] for the benefit of the country and for the benefit of the environment, communities and the economy.
It goes on to state:
In summary, the review found that [environmental assessment] cannot be everything to everyone. In Canada, however, it is a state of the art, global best practice, with real opportunities for public input, transparency in both process and outcomes, and appeal processes involving independent scientists, stakeholders...and courts
That was in 2014. Looking back at 2014, Canada was considered a world leader in environmental assessment. We had the most stringent standards and most rigorous review process in the world. As I said earlier, no system is perfect, and just like with any other statute or regulation, there are always sections that could be improved. The regulatory system tries to strike a balance between projects and the environment, between predictability and social factors. It is not a perfect system. However, it is far better than the regime we are going to have under the imposement of Bill C-69. Instead of making the system better, the Liberals have simply made it worse. Under the Liberal government, the environmental assessment system lacks clarity, predictability, and transparency.
Let us look at what Bill C-69 does to clarity. The changes proposed in the bill would make the regulatory process more unclear. This does not serve anyone, whether we are talking about investors looking to participate in responsible resource development or Canadians who care deeply about this process. What is proposed is a move away from science-based decision-making processes.
For example, references to sustainability, identity, and gender-based analysis are difficult to quantify in a standardized test. This is, much like a great deal of Liberal policy, more of a virtue-signalling smokescreen to give the illusion of modernization to a bill that ultimately takes Canada backwards.
Furthermore, the proposed legislation makes a point of treating major and minor projects differently, but it provides no clear list of criteria which would make a project either a minor project or a major project. Leaving so much to guesswork is just plain irresponsible.
That leads me to my next point. Predictability will suffer under this legislation. The Liberals claim that Bill C-69 creates concrete timelines for review, saying that the process will take 450 days for major projects and 300 days for minor projects. However, the timer only begins when the Governor in Council determines that the applicant has submitted a complete application, which seems to be an entirely discretionary process. According to the proposed legislation at this time, that will be the criteria to set the clock in motion. Furthermore, the process may be stopped at a number of different points to add additional studies or submissions. Finally, the Minister of Environment and Climate Change may extend the timeline indefinitely with repeat orders.
The Liberals call the system more predictable. It is not more predictable. It is more uncertain. It is a process where the outcome rests entirely in the hands of the minister, one minister, the Minister of Environment and Climate Change. She will be the sole individual deciding which projects will go forward in the national interest. It seems that rather than making the process more open and democratic, the Liberals' proposed legislation has concentrated power in the minister's office. This does not lend itself to predictability in any way, shape, or form.
One of the difficulties that Canada faces is a decline in major capital investments in energy. The decline has occurred since the Liberals were elected in 2015 and it is directly related to the regulatory uncertainty created as a result of their poor leadership in this area. We are bound to see this sad trend continue as the Liberals try once again to fix a system that worked better before they took their tool box out. This again is a solution in search of a problem.
Energy investment has to be a priority. We are a natural resource country. These investments are directly and indirectly responsible for employment and revenue for all three levels of government, yet in just two short years, which actually seem very long, energy investment in Canada is lower than any other two-year period in the last 70 years. Ensuring a stable, predictable process has to be a priority in order to attract these essential investments.
Let us talk about transparency as well. Bill C-69 claims to change the framework of indigenous consultation. However, in reality, all it does is codify something that already exists. The practices are already in place which allow for indigenous consultation.
A significant change in the regulatory process would be the elimination of the standing test. This will affect the predictability of the process, as any individual would be able to challenge the process, whether or not they have a connection to the project. Under the proposed new regulations this would include non-Canadians. Bill C-69 would allow Canadian decisions made about Canadian resources in Canada to potentially be influenced by non-Canadians. That is not right.
The Liberal government talks about the importance of restoring public trust to the regulatory system, but allowing non-Canadians or foreign special interest groups to influence the outcome of Canadian energy projects does not inspire trust in the proposed new system. It will not inspire trust from potential applicants that are seeking to develop our resources further.
Bill C-69 is not clear, predictable, or transparent. It adds vague criteria to the process, more uncertainty to the process, and eliminates a standing test from the process. The Liberals are just adding more burden to the already heavily regulated energy sector, and the industry has taken notice. That is why we have seen, as I mentioned earlier, that investment in the energy sector over the last two years has been lower than any two-year period in the previous 70 years.
The Liberals took the existing Canadian system and managed to change it into a system which is discouraging capital investment in our country. Those capital dollars are now flowing into the United States, funding projects there. The United States has a competitive advantage over Canada, in terms of regulatory and tax regimes and access to markets. Investors are putting their dollars into the U.S. market, which is fast becoming a world leader in energy.
If Bill C-69 becomes law, Canada will continue its downward trend in global competitiveness rankings. Both foreign and domestic investors will find other countries for their investments.
While the bill certainly leaves much to be desired, I want to conclude on a positive note. The new process under the proposed Canadian energy regulator will not apply to projects already approved under the National Energy Board. That means the already approved energy projects which are in our national interest will go ahead. I hope that the Liberal government will make sure to follow through on its promise and build the Trans Mountain pipeline. Get it done.
Lloyd Longfield Liberal Guelph, ON
Mr. Speaker, the member for Provencher and the member for Foothills both talked about the social licence and the need to have society at the table when we are having discussions around pipelines, yet the previous government had selective hearing and really did not listen to society, did not listen to indigenous people, did not listen to provinces and territories, did not listen to municipalities. What has changed?
Ted Falk Conservative Provencher, MB
Mr. Speaker, the member is asking about social licence and what has changed.
The previous Conservative government always had social responsibility built into its policies. We listened to the stakeholders. We provided a forum for stakeholders, a forum for indigenous communities to get involved in the process whenever natural resource development projects were being proposed.
When it comes to social licence, I am thinking of the Canada summer jobs program and the values test which the Liberal government is subjecting every single Canadian to sign onto to get government funding. Is that his idea of social responsibility, to get Canadians to compromise their beliefs, conscience, and positions on social issues? Is that his idea of social responsibility?
Marilyn Gladu Conservative Sarnia—Lambton, ON
Mr. Speaker, I agree with my colleague that this is a terrible bill that will certainly guarantee that no major projects ever get built. However, there is one good thing about the bill and that is the government talks about the need to protect people's navigable rights. The Sombra ferry in my riding has lost its navigable rights because the Coast Guard in its icebreaking operation crushed the border crossing causeway.
Would my colleague agree that it is the government's responsibility to restore the navigable rights to the Sombra ferry?
Ted Falk Conservative Provencher, MB
Mr. Speaker, the member's question raises a very important issue. The government has not taken up its corporate responsibility in fixing a port that was damaged by the federal government's vessels. This has created a lack of opportunity now and it will be ongoing for the next season for cross-border trade between Canada and the U.S. I am glad that the member has spoken up for her constituents and is concerned about economic activity, concerned about the businesses that are going to be facing extreme hardship because the government refuses to live up to its obligations.
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Mr. Speaker, I would remind my hon. friend from Provencher that the State of Washington was allowed to intervene in the National Energy Board process relating to Kinder Morgan and we have on occasion international reasons that intervenors come from other jurisdictions. That is as it should be. What worries me about the bill is the time limits are even shorter and I do not know how much access intervenors will actually have, for instance, to be able to cross-examine witnesses.
I did want to take up with the member foreign influence over Canadian decisions. For me, nothing is more terrifying than the Canada-China investment treaty which in secret gives the People's Republic of China the right to challenge any decision, municipal, provincial, or federal. That was put through by the Harper cabinet in secret. I wonder if the member wants to comment.
Ted Falk Conservative Provencher, MB
Mr. Speaker, I always appreciate the member's deep concern for the environment and her thoughtful presentations. Her thoughtful question raises the whole issue of Chinese investment in Canada.
I want to point out that the government has a dismal track record when allowing the Chinese government to invest in Canadian companies, like Cedar Tree, for example. The rent payments of our seniors in British Columbia will now be going to fund a Chinese government. That is totally irresponsible. We have to be very careful that we do proper vetting of any opportunities we are going to consider of having Chinese investors here in Canada.
Kevin Sorenson Conservative Battle River—Crowfoot, AB
Mr. Speaker, later today the finance minister will present the 2018 budget. So far in their budgets, we have seen the Liberals run massive deficits, waste billions of dollars on pet projects, and rack up our national debt. Our growth here in Canada lags behind that of the United States. The member talked about the capital that is leaving not just Alberta and Saskatchewan but Canada. It is one thing for them to rack up the national debt when growth is dragging and yet capital is coming into Canada, investment is wanted in Canada, but that is not happening now. There is $15 billion of lost investment.
Could the member expand on that thought and the negative impacts this has on growing an economy?