Debates of June 6th, 2018

Impact Assessment Act

[Deb Schulte, Liberal, King—Vaughan, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for being so generous with his comments. I too really appreciate the work he does at committee. Generally, we have a very co-operative and collaborative approach. Lately, it has been a little rockier, but, overall, some amazing work has been done at committee and I appreciate his work greatly.

When it comes to the process, I know that my colleague will acknowledge that there was a lot of interest in this bill and that as a result, we invited a tremendous number of people from across the country. Indigenous groups, industry groups, union groups, specialists, and NGOs were very interested in speaking to us. We set a criterion for how to assess which groups would come. We chose those that speak for the country and then asked everyone else identified by the committee, more than 150 witnesses, to provide briefs. We went through those individually and brought forward over 400 amendments, which we discussed and voted on.

I specifically asked the committee many times to provide more time by extending the hours and days of consideration, and that was refused, so I think we did a pretty thorough job.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, one of the realities in my riding of North Island—Powell River is just how much people care about the environment. We live in an amazing and beautiful area and need to know that the environment will be protected, because it means jobs and the well-being of indigenous communities, families, and people in the community.

One of the concerns I heard again and again, and continue to hear, is that there is a lack of trust and faith in the process. During the election campaign, the Liberal platform stated, “We will end the practice of having federal Ministers interfere in the environmental assessment process.” However, we know that in clause 17 of Bill C-69, we see the very opposite.

I would like the member to explain to me why the environment minister will still have a lot of power to make decisions. If we looking at a process that is going to meet the scientific evidence, and that is how decisions are going to be made, why is it that the minister will still have this incredible power and how will that allow communities to trust the process? When I talk to people in my riding, this just raises the concern again.

[Deb Schulte, Liberal, King—Vaughan, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that is a good question.

As we have already heard from some members today, the bill will strengthen some fundamentals. The amendments sought to provide certainty, respect for indigenous rights, clarity, and to restore trust.

The other issue I want to touch on is science. We wanted to make sure that there was a clear commitment to science. Science will inform the work that is being done. At the end of the process, we need to be accountable as members and accountable to the people of Canada. We have heard many times that science is important and has to be the basis of decisions, and if the minister is going to intervene, she will have to explain why she does what she does. That was not done before. We have put measures in the bill to make sure that if the minister and cabinet make a decision, they will have to justify why they made it. This strengthens and improves what we have today, for sure.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as the member of Parliament for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, I am pleased to be given this opportunity, on the eve of the Ontario provincial election, to deliver a warning to voters about Bill C-69 about why they need to elect a majority Doug Ford Conservative government.

While there are many aspects of this government legislation that I find objectionable, the greatest cause for concern is the politicization of the Canadian energy board. The decision to move from a fact-based, scientific decision-making process to one based on greed is a regressive move that Ontario electricity ratepayers are all too familiar with.

Whereas under the previous Conservative government Canadians had an environmental and regulatory system that commanded the confidence of all Canadians, the Liberal strategy to invoke a culture war to deflect from the true fallacy of what is being proposed can only end badly for all Canadians.

Under the Conservatives, the National Energy Board was an arm's-length regulatory agency in the way the Ontario Energy Board used to be. The decision by the Toronto Liberal Party to stack the Ontario Energy Board with political appointees, which is similar to what is being proposed federally in Bill C-69, has resulted in the highest electricity prices in North America. Energy poverty in this province has become the new normal, particularly among seniors, anyone on a fixed income, and the working poor.

What is so very unfortunate is the support given by the NDP for these same failed energy policies, failed policies that are being repeated at the federal level in misguided legislation like Bill C-69, which we are discussing today.

Let me be clear: There is a direct link between the failed policies of Kathleen Wynne and the NDP, which supports those same policies. The direct link is Gerald Butts, the Prime Minister's principal assistant. He is the most powerful unelected, unaccountable, technocrat in Ottawa today. He is in the same position he held in Toronto when he set up the greedy policies that have resulted in Ontario being the most indebted subnational government in the world today.

As for the green hustle, anytime anyone questioned the “Greed” Energy Act, the environment was used as an excuse, with zero facts to back up the claim.

For the benefit of all Canadians watching this debate, I encourage voters in Ontario to go to the Global News website for stories from June 1, and watch its investigative story exposing the corruption that has reduced Ontario to a have-not province.

Global News obtained 4,000 pages of internal emails and documents from the now-defunct Ontario Power Authority showing billions of dollars in unnecessary spending that could have been avoided had the government followed the early advice of the Ontario Power Authority, which was tasked with designing many of Ontario's energy policies. In fact, according to Global News, when it comes to the FIT and microFIT programs, which are a key component of the province's greed energy act, documents show that decisions made by the Liberal government in 2009 and 2010, when Liberal Party insider Gerald Butts was in Toronto, as well as design flaws in the programs themselves, put Ontario on a collision course with rising electricity costs.

Brady Yauch, an economist and executive director at the Consumer Policy Institute, independently reviewed all 4,000 pages of documents and shared his views with Global News. According to the director of the Consumer Policy Institute, “The province hijacked the [FIT and Micro-FIT] programs from the very expert agencies it established to handle these types of technical, complicated energy policies. Worse still, [the Liberal Party ignored]...concerns of those experts [about] overpaying [electricity] generators.” Mr. Yauch observed, “That’s very concerning, because now you have a political electricity system, as opposed to one that’s based on economics or cost-effectiveness.”

This is what Bill C-69, the federal legislation we have before us now, will do at the federal level.

Further quoting Global News, the man responsible for designing the FIT and microFIT programs, Jim MacDougall, also said that the government “ignored” expert advice that could have saved Ontarians billions of dollars in greed energy spending. So much for fact-based, scientific decision-making. The Liberal Party refused to answer specific questions about the FIT and microFIT programs in relation to the Global story.

As Global News reported, “Independent Electricity System Operator (IESO), which merged with the Ontario Power Authority in 2015, also refused to answer specific questions about design and implementation of” the failed programs. “Instead, it provided a written statement to [Global News] saying the OPA 'worked closely'” with its political masters “to make sure that the programs met the government's 'broader economic and environmental policy objectives.'”

On October 1, 2009, the OPA started receiving applications through the renewable energy programs it was directed to create. Unlike the main program, designed for large-scale commercial projects, such as big solar farms, industrial wind turbine installations, and hydroelectric dams, the microFIT program was supposedly “created so homeowners could put a solar panel on their roofs to 'offset' electricity use and lower hydro bills.”

The Global News report continues:

What ended up happening, however, is the [Ontario Power Authority] was quickly overwhelmed by the number of Micro-FIT applications it received.

Electricity bills started to skyrocket.

By mid-November, about six weeks after the program was launched, emails show the [Ontario Power Authority] was worried some applicants were “gaming” the system—meaning that people were submitting multiple applications for small solar projects on the same property, which, though technically not against the rules, violated the “spirit” of the program.

“Aggregators”, as they became known, submitted hundreds of Micro-FIT applications with plans to set up solar panels on “vacant lots” or on farmers' fields. This was a problem, because Micro-FIT contracts were to pay nearly double what large solar projects received.

And because the cost of building larger projects was significantly lower than what a homeowner might pay to put a solar panel on a roof, aggregators received higher government payouts than the...OPA initially intended.

One of the worst abusers of the greed energy program was the Ontario president of the Liberal Party of Canada, Mike Crawley. His company received a contract that guaranteed $66,000 a day for 20 years, or $475 million over the life of the contract. During the bidding process, he even had the nerve to send out an email encouraging various other parties to attend an infamous pay-to-play soirée, at $5,000 a pop. Liberal Party—

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

Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a point of order. I know the member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke is very entertaining, and I hate to interrupt the flow of the narrative, but it has nothing to do with Bill C-69.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Anthony Rota]

I want to thank the hon. member for her point of order, but normally what happens is I leave it to the individual members to come to it. I am sure the hon. member will bring it around to tie into what we are talking about.

The hon. member.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the $475 million payout for the solar panel company he was with was even more astounding when we consider the fact that most of the power electricity consumers are forced to pay for from that contract is sold at a loss to American border states.

People gaming the system could have been avoided. However, this is what happens when a regulatory body is stacked with partisan political appointees, which is what Bill C-69 would do.

Consumer watchdog Brady Yauch said this was a big mistake and that the OPA was ignoring the issue of aggregators. How many billions of dollars the greed energy policy actually ends up costing us remains to be seen.

The email said:

It's one thing to keep...government in the loop with changes and issues. But it's another thing to take direction from government—especially on very detailed programs.

These are technical issues that the government does not fully understand

Mr. MacDougall said,

Like I said, I no longer know where the lines are between [the Ontario Power Authority] and government.

I think the government didn't trust the OPA to launch and roll out this program as aggressively as they wanted us to.

When we would give advice they would consider it, but they would make their own decisions and largely ignore some of the key policy recommendations that we were trying to put into place.

The Global News article continued, “The government refused to answer specific questions about whether the policy advice was being ignored.”

If government members want to understand why Kathleen Wynne conceded the election to Doug Ford last weekend, they should heed the Global News story I have been quoting from. The parallel is the pipeline debacle that is unfolding as I speak. There is real anger in Ontario over the mismanagement of Ontario—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Anthony Rota]

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Louis.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am so pleased that the previous Harper government never made any political appointments, nor tried to tell institutions like the Supreme Court what to do.

The bill talks about streamlining the process, creating a one-project, one-review model, allowing for equivalency with provinces to eliminate duplication. It would allow companies greater certainty and would permit companies to save money by being able to plan better, because they would know what was expected of them. I wonder if the hon. member does not think those are good things, from a business point of view.

Second, we know that the northern gateway pipeline failed in the court because the process did not properly consult indigenous peoples. This bill would allow for greater consultation. Would that not make those projects more court-proof?

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we are not seeing any certainty, and certainly the Kinder Morgan people did not when they just left and made us pay for an old pipeline. We still have to pay out billions of dollars to get one going.

The Liberal Party thought everyone would see solar panels and industrial wind turbines and think that Ontario made the right decision. Instead, every time electricity ratepayers in this province see an industrial wind turbine or a solar panel, it reminds them how badly they are being fleeced on their electricity bills.

The same thing will happen at the gas pumps. Consumers will be reminded every time they fill up at the pump of the government's carbon taxes. On behalf of all Canadians, keep politics out of the National Energy Board.

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

Mr. Speaker, with all due respect, I do not think the hon. member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke is interested in the bill we have before us, Bill C-69. Bill C-69 does not include anything about carbon taxes. The bill actually does not apply in any way to the issues she has raised about Ontario's policies for energy.

Personally, I cannot vote for Bill C-69, because it is so terribly weak and fatally flawed because of the persistence of the philosophy that is now embedded in the Government of Canada, left behind by the previous Harper government. Therefore, while I suppose I share the way I will vote with her, I cannot share anything else.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I was talking specifically to Ontario voters, but I am hoping that voters from across Canada will learn from our experience. That is the lesson we learned when we thought everything was supposed to be renewable and good for the environment, but we opened up our hydro bills, and they were ten times the amount they had been a few months before. That was a price shock. Once burned, twice shy. When they go to the pumps, and they are burned at the pumps, they will have that same anger for the federal Liberals they are currently feeling provincially.

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am really excited when I hear the Liberals talk about past governments. If we want to talk about Liberal DNA, it is just entangled in corruption. That is exactly what we have heard about tonight.

Earlier the minister said we need to have trust, but when we look at the bill and what has happened around it, we see that there is absolutely no interest in science. It is going to create a massive bureaucracy. The Liberals have lost hundreds of billions of dollars of investment in the country already, based on their approach to the environment and energy assessment.

We have the same people doing the same initiatives that were done in Toronto. Does the member expect that they will have the same results and the same disaster replicated across Canada?

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that is exactly what I am trying to say. They drained the treasury in Ontario. Now they have come to the federal government and are working on draining it here. There are billions of dollars for a pipeline someone else was willing to build. They put in this legislation for redundancy and study after study when they had already been done. All these are roadblocks and a kill switch for any pipeline ever to be built as long as the Liberals are in power, or the NDP.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am not sure if this is an appropriate time to do so, but I would like to correct something I said that was erroneous. I believe I said that the Supreme Court overturned the approval of the northern gateway pipeline project, but it was in fact the Federal Court of Appeal. I apologize. I attribute this to the late hour of the debate.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Anthony Rota]

We have a correction. I thank the hon. member.

[Churence Rogers, Liberal, Bonavista—Burin—Trinity, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join today's debate on Bill C-69. The proposed changes are important, because they build on and strengthen the legislation that has been described as historic, groundbreaking, and a major turning point for resource development in Canada.

There is a good reason for all these superlatives, because Bill C-69, even more so now that it has been amended, is a potential game changer in the way Canada reviews new major resource projects by creating greater investment certainty; restoring public confidence; advancing indigenous reconciliation; strengthening protections for our environment, fish, and waterways; and establishing better rules for co-operation among the various levels of government and federal regulatory agencies.

For example, there is a proposed early engagement and planning phase that would bring the proponents of new projects together with local communities and indigenous peoples to identify priorities and concerns. This would have two immediate benefits. First, project proponents and their investors would get a clearer lay of the land before they spent a lot of money advancing their proposals. Second, by identifying the key issues early, the project reviews would be shorter and more focused.

These kinds of results would be transformational for Canada's resource industries. They would enhance our competitiveness at the same time that we are ensuring sustainability, demonstrating yet again that economic prosperity and environmental protection are not competing interests but equal components in a single engine that will drive clean growth.

Bill C-69 features many other innovative measures that are equally significant. I am pleased to see that the amendments proposed at committee are consistent with the spirit and intent of the legislation. They include amendments that would further advance the recognition of indigenous rights, amendments that would enhance public participation and transparency, amendments to improve timelines and predictability, and amendments to clarify both ministerial discretion and the factors to be considered during impact assessments and regulatory reviews.

Many of these amendments extend across all acts within the bill, but I would like to focus my time on how the proposed changes would reinforce the goals of the Canadian energy regulator act.

For those who may be watching at home and are new to Bill C-69, the proposed new Canadian energy regulator would replace the National Energy Board. Our aim is to create a more modern federal regulator, with the required independence and the proper accountability to oversee a strong, safe, and sustainable Canadian energy sector in this clean-growth century.

The Canadian energy regulator act proposes to do this in these five key areas: more modern and effective governance; greater certainty and timelier decisions for project proponents; better public consultations; greater indigenous participation; and stronger safety and environmental protections. The amendments before us would move the yardsticks in each of these areas.

For example, we have a proposal from committee to clarify the factors to be considered by the Canadian energy regulator to ensure that climate change is considered when the regulator is making decisions about non-designated projects, such as pipelines, powerlines, and offshore projects.

I am disappointed in the opposition for how it has treated this historic piece of legislation. During the committee review, opposition members attempted to completely remove the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board from the review panel process. This was quite shocking, as it was proposed despite massive objections from Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, as well as the experts.

In fact, the biggest single criticism of the 2012 changes by the previous government in Newfoundland and Labrador was that it left the CNLOPB out of the entire process. It is clear that the opinion of the Conservatives has not changed. I am proud that Bill C-69 incorporates the critical role of the CNLOPB.

In its appearance before the environment committee, the CNLOPB said that Bill C-69 would provide for improvements over the current process and would allow it to work more closely and more collaboratively with federal agencies and regulators. It also said that regional assessments allowed for in Bill C-69 would strengthen the process.

Other amendments propose ways to enhance the new energy regulator's transparency and to provide for more meaningful opportunities for Canadians to participate in the regulatory process. This includes a requirement for processes and funding to support indigenous and public engagement. Further, there is an important amendment stipulating that whenever a project proponent issues a notice, which means that it has submitted information to the Canadian energy regulator, that the regulator would be required to put that notice on its website. This is an important step to inform the public about projects.

As for discretionary powers, the only exemption orders that would now be allowed under the Canadian energy regulator act would be to ensure safety and security or for the protection of property or the environment.

Other proposed changes build on the principle of one project, one review. For example, we see an amendment proposing that integrated review panels be allowed to include other jurisdictions, thereby ensuring a single impact assessment that still meets all requirements.

Also, other amendments that would provide greater certainty about the transition to a new review process. This includes adding objective criteria to determine which projects would continue to be reviewed under CEAA 2012, as well as a provision to encourage proponents to opt in to Bill C-69's new process. Of course, there are further clarifications that no project proponent will be asked to return to the starting line.

These are all good amendments that our government welcomes.

These changes will help to create an even better Canadian energy regulator. They will ensure good energy projects go ahead with timely and transparent decisions reflecting common values and shared benefits. They would lead to smarter resources, more effective reviews, and better results.

Taken together, Bill C-69 and its amendments are appropriately ambitious and historic. They reflect the adage that one has to swing for the fences if one wants to hit a home run. Bill C-69, as amended, does that.

I hope all members will support Bill C-69 and its changes so we can get on with the business of building an even better Canada, one where the way we manage and develop our natural resources truly reflects who we are as Canadians and the values we cherish most.

[Karen Vecchio, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Mr. Speaker, earlier today I had the opportunity to ask the Minister of Environment a question, specifically looking at the Navigable Waters Act. Unfortunately, I was not able to get any information. I also indicated that I had spoken to the member for Edmonton Strathcona regarding the Navigable Waters Act. It was not discussed nor were those amendments discussed in committee.

I am from a rural community. One of the important factors is about farmers being able to get onto their fields to do the work that needs to be done. We can we look at municipal sewers as well as different systems.

Could the member share with us the impact the bill would have on farmers? From everything I am hearing, it is going to be negative. I am very concerned that all of this is going pull back on the abilities that had transpired for our farmers in the last six years.

[Churence Rogers, Liberal, Bonavista—Burin—Trinity, NL]

Mr. Speaker, during my tenure on the environment committee as the member of Parliament for Bonavista—Burin—Trinity and working with other members of Parliament, I found it to be a great exercise.

As other hon. members have said, the committee worked extremely hard on the legislation. We accepted many briefs, and a lot of witnesses presented to our committee. During that entire process, we listened to experts, people from the environmental community, people from indigenous communities, industry, and Canadians from across the country on this issue. Based on the presentations and the information we heard from them, we brought forward a bill with these amendments, which we believe will marry the economy and the environment.

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

Mr. Speaker, I hope the member for Bonavista—Burin—Trinity will forgive me for correcting some of what he may believe actually happened but is revisionist history.

In 2012, it was the previous Conservative government that, for the first time ever, proposed that the offshore boards, the NEB, and the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission should oversee environmental assessments. The Conservatives did not get around to the regulatory changes to put the offshore boards in that position.

I never thought I would see the day that the Liberals, who had railed against those changes in opposition and voted against them, would come into power and then proceed to make the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board and the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board responsible authorities under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act.

My friend will know I disagree with this step. It is not with disrespect for the Newfoundland agency. It is because, by law, that regulator has a responsibility and a mandate to expand offshore oil and gas. It has a statutory conflict of interest, and it is probably the most objectionable part of an objectionable act that the regulator is playing a role in environmental assessment.

[Churence Rogers, Liberal, Bonavista—Burin—Trinity, NL]

Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member is well aware, I totally disagree with her perspective on that issue. These organizations, the CNLOPB and the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board, bring to this process of future development a lot of experience, expertise, and knowledge.

For all the years of work that have gone on in Newfoundland and Labrador, the CNLOPB has made a tremendous contribution to the offshore oil and gas industry. We all want to protect our environment, but that experience cannot just be tossed aside. We need these people at the table.

[Dan Ruimy, Liberal, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to thank my parliamentary colleagues for their careful review and analysis of our navigation protection legislation.

Many Canadians told us they were unhappy that the previous government's changes were made without an opportunity for them to participate and voice their concerns about the changes. My parliamentary colleagues changed that. They heard from Canadians and responded with recommendations and legislation that would protect Canadians' right to travel on all navigable waters in Canada.

This journey started almost two years ago when the government launched a broader review of environmental and regulatory processes. The broader review included the review of environmental assessment processes, the modernization of the National Energy Board, and the restoration of lost protections for the Fisheries Act and Canada's navigation protection legislation.

Reviewing the Navigation Protection Act is important to parliamentarians, so important that the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities carried its own study of the act. The committee tabled its report in March 2017, taking into the account the views of witnesses and the many submissions received from interested Canadians. The committee's reported findings and recommendations helped supplement our review.

Consultations have been at the heart of this review. I would like to take this opportunity to also thank Canadians who contributed to the committee's study.

The committee's work opened the dialogue on the protections Canadians wanted to see for navigation in Canada. What did we hear? We heard that Canadians wanted to see protections for all waterways in Canada, including those left unprotected by the current law. We also heard that Canadians wanted a smarter way of protecting navigation, one that would put resources where they were needed most.

In June 2017, the government responded to the committee's report, accepting all of its recommendations. Shortly thereafter, the government released a discussion paper, setting out proposals for all four components of the broader review. This kicked off a second phase of consultations.

Consultations were held with other levels of government, indigenous peoples, voters, environmental non-governmental organizations, and industry. What we heard through the summer and early fall of 2017 helped us shape the proposed Canadian navigable waters act introduced in Parliament in February of this year as part of Bill C-69.

I would like to take this opportunity to recognize the work done by the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development. I would also like to thank the committee, the witnesses, and those who made written submissions for their time spent studying the new Canadian navigable waters act and providing their views.

Bill C-69 delivers on the government's commitment to restore lost protections by providing oversight for all works on all navigable waters in Canada. The Canadian navigable waters act in Bill C-69 would keep the minor works order. This order allows works with minor interference to navigation to be built, provided they meet the terms and conditions set out in the order.

The bill also introduces a new major works order. This order would require anyone building a major work with significant interference to navigation to apply to Transport Canada for an approval before building on any navigable water in Canada. Similarly, the bill would also require anyone building works, except minor works, on waters listed on the schedule to apply to Transport Canada for approval.

Works under the new Canadian navigable waters act not covered above would be subject to the new dispute resolution processes set out in the act. This process would require builders to notify the public before starting construction and to resolve any navigation related concerns. If these concerns are not resolved, the builder may be required to apply to Transport Canada for an approval. This process would allow local communities to have a say in the projects that could have an impact on their navigation. This is a good step forward.

I am pleased to see the committee has made important improvements to the new Canadian navigable waters act, including clarifications to the provisions related to indigenous knowledge, the sale of obstructions, and the regulatory power that allows the Governor in Council to exclude small bodies of water from the definition of navigable waters.

Perhaps the most important amendment is the one that makes it clear that changes to water levels and water flows will be considered when assessing the interference that works will have on navigation. Clearly navigation cannot continue if water levels are too low. The impact of works on water levels or water flows will be considered when works are assessed, and conditions can be put in place to mitigate these impacts.

I come from the riding of Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge. We are a watershed community. When I was elected, one of the first things I did was gather a diverse group of people in the community who cared about the environment, who were interested in what was going on, and I listened to them. As a result, we spent almost two years talking to local stream keepers, talking to the municipality, talking to folks who care about the salmon and the connected waters. Through that we were able to put together a report on the Fisheries Act and on making amendments to it.

The one thing I kept hearing over and over again from everyone in my community was that the previous government had gutted not only the Fisheries Act but a lot of acts as well that were supposed to protect our environment. These steps that we are taking now are to restore those lost protections.

I would like to conclude by highlighting the extensive consultations that led us to this bill. Canadians truly had a say in restoring lost protections.

We have built on the foundation of the initial review by the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities and the recent review by the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development with what Canadians told us they would like to see in navigation protection. Both committees have provided a key forum for ensuring that the views of Canadians are heard, and the bill responds to these concerns.

I cannot stress enough that I keep hearing from the opposition members that there was nothing wrong with their act, that everything was fine, everything was great, yet that is not what my community was telling me. That is not what I saw in my community. It is not what I see today when I see the challenges we face with fish and fish habitats and our waterways.

Before summer it is possible to canoe on the Katzie Slough with no problems whatsoever, but then halfway through the summer invasive species of plant life take over the entire slough, and people cannot even canoe over it. Those are real problems. They are not problems made up in the House. That is what is happening in our communities right now.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have been looking for an opportunity to ask one of the Liberal members this question.

We have a very large elephant in the room here tonight. While we talk about whether this impact assessment will apply to how indigenous people participate or whether the energy regulators will get in the door, the reality is that it is a failure because it no longer applies to the thousands of projects across Canada that were routinely reviewed before 2012.

Between 1975 and 2012, anything under federal jurisdiction required a review. Harper changed that from 4,000 to 5,000 projects a year to fewer than 100. In this bill, restricting reviews to a project list means that the Conservative Harper approach guides this legislation and that we will never see it applied to more than big, major projects, ignoring the advice of the expert panel that reported to the government.

I am heartsick about it. I ask my hon. colleague if there is any chance that amendments can be accepted to allow the bill to do what it should do and apply to all federal jurisdictions.

[Dan Ruimy, Liberal, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC]

Mr. Speaker, when I look at this situation, I ask myself, “How did we get to where we are?” It did not happen overnight. It is a cumulative effect that has gone on for generations and generations.

The connected waters are no longer connected, so where is our starting point? We have to have a starting point. For me, one of the starting points was the Fisheries Act. How do we strengthen our Fisheries Act? How do we strengthen fish habitat? These are the things that allow us to start to move forward. For me, the navigable waters act is one of those things that can at least help us start to move forward and turn back the clock.

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Surrey—Newton, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I had the opportunity to go to the riding of Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, and I have seen the hon. member having extensive consultations on other subjects. When it comes to this bill, I would like to know from the hon. member if he has done consultations in his riding and if he feels this vigorous and clear process will help the businesses and people in British Columbia.