House of Commons Hansard #308 of the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was budget.

Topics

Motions in AmendmentImpact Assessment ActGovernment Orders

10:20 a.m.

NDP

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.”

Motions in AmendmentImpact Assessment ActGovernment Orders

10:20 a.m.

NDP

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”

Motions in AmendmentImpact Assessment ActGovernment Orders

10:20 a.m.

Green

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.”

Motions in AmendmentImpact Assessment ActGovernment Orders

10:20 a.m.

NDP

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”

Motions in AmendmentImpact Assessment ActGovernment Orders

10:25 a.m.

Conservative

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.

Motions in AmendmentImpact Assessment ActGovernment Orders

10:25 a.m.

Green

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”

Motions in AmendmentImpact Assessment ActGovernment Orders

10:25 a.m.

Conservative

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.

Motions in AmendmentImpact Assessment ActGovernment Orders

10:45 a.m.

NDP

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”

Motions in AmendmentImpact Assessment ActGovernment Orders

10:45 a.m.

Conservative

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.

Motions in AmendmentImpact Assessment ActGovernment Orders

11:05 a.m.

Winnipeg North Manitoba

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary 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?

Motions in AmendmentImpact Assessment ActGovernment Orders

11:05 a.m.

Conservative

Shannon Stubbs Conservative Lakeland, AB

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

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

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

Motions in AmendmentImpact Assessment ActGovernment Orders

11:10 a.m.

NDP

Alistair MacGregor NDP Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC

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

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

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

Motions in AmendmentImpact Assessment ActGovernment Orders

11:10 a.m.

Conservative

Shannon Stubbs Conservative Lakeland, AB

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

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

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

Motions in AmendmentImpact Assessment ActGovernment Orders

11:10 a.m.

Green

Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Motions in AmendmentImpact Assessment ActGovernment Orders

June 5th, 2018 / 11:20 a.m.

Liberal

Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON

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

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

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

Motions in AmendmentImpact Assessment ActGovernment Orders

11:20 a.m.

Green

Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC

Madam Speaker, that is a tough question.

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

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

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

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

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

Motions in AmendmentImpact Assessment ActGovernment Orders

11:25 a.m.

NDP

Robert Aubin NDP Trois-Rivières, QC

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

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

Motions in AmendmentImpact Assessment ActGovernment Orders

11:25 a.m.

Green

Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC

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

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

Motions in AmendmentImpact Assessment ActGovernment Orders

11:25 a.m.

Liberal

Nick Whalen Liberal St. John's East, NL

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

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

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

Motions in AmendmentImpact Assessment ActGovernment Orders

11:25 a.m.

Green

Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC

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

Motions in AmendmentImpact Assessment ActGovernment Orders

11:25 a.m.

NDP

Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Motions in AmendmentImpact Assessment ActGovernment Orders

11:35 a.m.

Liberal

Nick Whalen Liberal St. John's East, NL

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

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

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

Motions in AmendmentImpact Assessment ActGovernment Orders

11:35 a.m.

NDP

Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB

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

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

Motions in AmendmentImpact Assessment ActGovernment Orders

11:40 a.m.

Winnipeg North Manitoba

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

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

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

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

Motions in AmendmentImpact Assessment ActGovernment Orders

11:40 a.m.

NDP

Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB

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