Debates of June 6th, 2018

Bill C-69—Time Allocation Motion

[Catherine McKenna, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned at committee yesterday, unsurprisingly the Conservatives are once again engaging in delay tactics by moving to delete every single clause of the act with not one substantive amendment. This has happened every step of the way, including at second reading. At committee, the opposition repeatedly refused additional meetings within the timeline established, and Conservative MPs delayed consideration of clause-by-clause.

Despite these actions, our government will ensure that we restore public trust, that we protect the environment, that we introduce modern safeguards, that we advance reconciliation with indigenous peoples and, of course, that we ensure that good projects go ahead and we get our resources to market. That is why we are taking appropriate steps to ensure that Bill C-69 moves forward.

[Ben Lobb, Conservative, Huron—Bruce, ON]

Mr. Speaker, to follow up on the comments by my colleague from Alberta, with all due respect to the minister, does she believe that a municipal drain made by an excavator or a backhoe is either a navigable water or a fish habitat? I ask that with all due respect.

[Catherine McKenna, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we believe that when we make project decisions, we need to consider the impacts and make sure that good projects go ahead in a timely fashion with regulatory certainty.

Based on feedback that we heard from indigenous peoples, industry stakeholders, and the broader public during committee hearings, as well as from parliamentarians and the government, some 130 amendments were made. Amendments were a valuable part of the legislative process and the very reason the legislation was sent to committee for study. We listened to committee members. We listened to witnesses. We listened to other parliamentarians. Together, I am very proud that we helped to strengthen the bill.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a point of order. We are debating time allocation for 30 minutes. It is completely unfair that you are recognizing government members when they are supporting this. Members of the opposition have only 30 minutes to voice their concerns. Liberal members should not be getting a speaking spot during these 30 minutes.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

I thank the hon. member for his intervention. This is the convention that we use. Other hon. members in the House, even if they may sit on the government side, have an opportunity too, as I indicated at the outset.

I will ask the clock to be stopped here momentarily.

The members of the opposition are certainly given priority in posing questions, but not to the exclusion of other or government members. That is the way we are going to conduct this 30-minute question period.

We will go now to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change.

[Jonathan Wilkinson, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change]

Mr. Speaker, environmental assessment and how we actually look at these types of projects was a significant issue in the 2015 election campaign. Canadians said they had lost confidence in the processes because of the gutting of environmental assessment in 2012 under the Harper government. We said that we would restore public trust.

The critical issues that Canadians talked about were transparency and participation in these kinds of processes.

Could the minister talk a bit about what the bill does to restore confidence and transparency in how Canadians can understand how these processes are working?

[Catherine McKenna, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my parliamentary secretary for all the hard work he has done in rebuilding public trust and restoring transparency.

The amendments and Bill C-69 would provide additional clarity and safeguards so that Canadians can have confidence in reviews of major projects. When we look at transparency, the bill requires assessment reports to incorporate a broader range of information, including a summary of comments received, recommendations on mitigation measures and follow-up, and the agency's rationale and conclusions. It requires that public comments provided during a project's reviews be made available online and that the information posted online be maintained so that it can be accessed over time. It is critically important that Canadians have an opportunity to provide input, that they have an opportunity to see what folks have said about environmental assessment, and that people understand how a decision was made.

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

Mr. Speaker, going along the lines of my friend from Huron—Bruce, we are talking about farmers. We have talked a lot about navigable waters and things like that. For years, I used to do round tables with farmers, and this was one of the biggest challenges they had. I spoke to the member for Edmonton Strathcona and asked what was discussed in committee regarding navigational waters. She said, “Absolutely zero.”

I wonder if the environment minister could share the following with us, since nobody got to find out about it at committee and in the House. Could the member please advise us what the impact will be on farmers from the changes to the Navigable Waters Act?

[Catherine McKenna, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I was really pleased that the committee had time to do a thorough review of Bill C-69 and to make many thoughtful amendments. There were more than 80 witnesses and more than 100 submissions over a two-month review, and the quality of the amendments actually speaks to the rigour with which they were received. I am proud to say that our government supports the amendments.

We believe that this process is better for farmers. We believe the process is better for industry. We believe the process is better for indigenous peoples. We believe the process is better for folks who believe in science and making decisions based on evidence and facts. We believe, overall, that it will be a better process that will not only rebuild trust, but also ensure that good projects go ahead in a timely way.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, for the minister's recollection, I want to read a summary from Bill C-262, an act to ensure that the laws of Canada are in harmony with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Notice that it does not say anything about a preamble.

The minister previously mentioned that the Liberals accepted an amendment to the preamble, which, as every member in the House knows, is non-binding. I again ask the Minister of Environment, given that the Liberals rejected every single amendment by the member for Edmonton Strathcona at committee to make sure that Bill C-69 would be in harmony with UNDRIP, will she revisit her position and at least be consistent with her vote last week and accept the member for Edmonton Strathcona's amendments to Bill C-69? I am talking about the bill before us now. Will she be consistent? Will all of the Liberals be consistent with the way they voted last week?

The first nations of Canada are watching the government.

[Catherine McKenna, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I hope they are watching. We are working very closely with them.

This legislation reflects the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. I would like to clarify that it does respond to feedback from indigenous peoples and organizations. The amendments clearly referenced the UN declaration in regard to the proposed impact assessment act, and the Canadian energy regulator act requires that the government, the minister, the agency, and federal authorities exercise their powers under the impact assessment act in a way that respects the government's commitments with respect to the rights of indigenous peoples.

It requires in the Canadian energy regulator's mandate that it exercise its powers and performance, duties, and functions in the same way. It clarifies that indigenous knowledge would be considered. This would not be limited to the traditional knowledge of indigenous people. This is very important to indigenous peoples. It requires transparency about how indigenous knowledge is used in impact assessments.

We think it clearly fits with our commitment to a renewed nation-to-nation relationship with indigenous peoples based on recognition of rights, respect, co-operation, partnership, rooted in the principles of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

[Kerry Diotte, Conservative, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Energy Pipeline Association says that if Bill C-69 passes, no other major pipeline project will ever be built in Canada.

Now that we are the proud owners of a 65-year-old pipeline and that we would like to build another pipeline, how will the environment minister manage to get that built given this assessment?

[Catherine McKenna, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am a little confused about the question. The projects that the member opposite is speaking about went through an environmental assessment. We built in additional consultations and reviewed the project in light of our climate plan and the 157 conditions for the project, and in light of our historic investments in oceans protection. We then approved the project.

When it comes to environmental assessments, we really believe that this process is good for industry, because it provides certainty that was not there before. It also provides a more timely process. That was really important. We heard from industry that they wanted to be sure about how things would be done and the timelines for the process. We worked very hard on that.

[Yvonne Jones, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the minister for all her work in leading on the bill. It is long overdue that we modernize the environmental assessment process via the proposed impact assessment act and the other acts we are speaking to today in the House.

It is important to point out, and the minister has said this many times, that we in Canada today are supporting a lot of large-scale development projects, whether in mining or other natural resource sectors, hydro development, or pipelines, and we are going to continue to do that. We know that for these investments to work for Canadians, there has to be full consultation with them. There has to be full input from Canadians and there has to be input from indigenous people.

In modernizing these regulations, are we not really helping to build a stronger Canada with more input from all Canadians on how this is supposed to happen?

[Catherine McKenna, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I know my hon. colleague cares very passionately about ensuring we do things the right way, which is through listening to Canadians, listening to indigenous peoples, listening to communities, and listening to industry.

That is exactly what we are doing now. We are ensuring that there are robust consultations and we are not limiting standing to a small group. If people have views or concerns about a project, they have the opportunity to have their views heard and concerns responded to.

This is really important, because Canadians said we needed to rebuild trust, and that is exactly what we are doing.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I will return to the intervention by the member for Edmonton Griesbach. He asked how the government thought it could ever get another pipeline built under this new environmental assessment regime. The way it will that is through this bill. The minister is giving herself the power to completely ignore the new assessment process.

She talks about the Harper government having gutted the environmental review process. The gutting occurred because the decision-making procedure became totally political. It was being taken at the cabinet level, and politicians did not have any obligation to listen to scientists and heed the evidence.

The problem with this bill is that this prerogative is completely preserved. In fact, it is given only to the minister and not even to cabinet as a whole.

How can she stand in this place and say that she is approving the process when the government does not even need to apply the process to any projects, and it retains the right, initiated by the Harper government, to completely disregard the evidence and the science?

[Catherine McKenna, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we have made it clear that we need to make decisions on robust science, evidence, and facts. We have rebuilt trust by ensuring that this is key. Transparency will be there. When people see how decisions are made, they will see which evidence was used, which science was used, and which indigenous traditional knowledge was used. That is critically important. We know we have to make decisions based on science.

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I represent many rural municipalities, and there is only one taxpayer's pocket that money comes out of. Municipal councils are very concerned and have expressed to me the high costs they are facing under the proposed legislation.

There is only one taxpayer and only one pocket money comes out of, and municipal councils are looking at this as being significant because they maintain roads, ditches, bridges, and culverts. This will be an onerous addition for local taxpayers.

[Catherine McKenna, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as I said, we listened to everyone. We listened to rural municipalities, cities, indigenous peoples, and to industry. We come together to find a process that will work. It is really important that we have a robust assessment process and that we rebuild trust. That is the only way we can get good projects going ahead.

That was a real challenge under the previous government, which gutted the system. It did not have the trust of Canadians. Canadians told us we needed to do better, we needed to rebuilt trust, and we needed to consult with people. People living in rural communities should be consulted through environmental assessments. They should have the opportunity to make their concerns and views known, and they should be taken seriously.

At the end of the day, we need to make decisions based on science, evidence, and fact, and we need to do that in a transparent way. That is the only way to get good projects going ahead in the 21st century.

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, when we were in government, working responsibly to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by regulation, protecting the environment at the same time as being conscious of protecting the economy, Environment Canada scientists and economists did cost-benefit evaluations of every piece of legislation. When we brought in legislation to reduce tailpipe emissions, which was very effective, the benefits were found to outweigh the costs, and we shared that information at committee. When we brought in legislation to phase out any new construction of coal-fired generating stations, we did a cost-benefit estimate and shared those dollar figures with the industry.

Why will the minister not share the cost-benefit studies that we know the department has done with regard to how much the carbon tax will cost the average Canadian family?

[Catherine McKenna, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased the member opposite cares so greatly about climate change. It is really unfortunate that the Conservative members of the environment committee voted to remove the consideration of the impact to our climate from Bill C-69. That might have been an oversight or a mistake. However, we know that unfortunately the Conservatives do not have a plan to tackle climate change. I do not know whether they all believe climate change is a problem or real. Nor do I think they understand the huge economic opportunity.

We understand that. We understand we need to be ensure we do right by our planet, that we tackle our emissions, but that we also have a plan to get our resources to market in a sustainable way. That is exactly what we are doing with Bill C-69. We certainly hope all parties will support it.

Standing Orders—Notice of Time Allocation—Speaker's Ruling

[The Speaker, Geoff Regan]

I am now prepared to rule on the point of order raised earlier today by the member for Red Deer—Lacombe regarding the notice for time allocation given yesterday by the government House leader concerning Bill C-59, An Act respecting national security matters.

When raising the matter, the hon. member for Red Deer—Lacombe contended that nothing in the Standing Orders as written allowed a time allocation motion to cover both the report stage and third reading of a bill that had been sent to committee before second reading. To support his argument, the member referred specifically to Standing Order 78(3), which stipulates that a time allocation motion is allowed for both report stage and third reading only if the bill is sent to committee after second reading pursuant to Standing Order 76.1. Therefore, he asked the Speaker to rule the notice of time allocation motion out of order.

For guidance on this matter, I would refer members to House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, at page 673, which states:

In the case of a bill referred to committee before second reading, the motion [for time allocation] can pertain to both the report stage and second reading stage as well as the third reading stage.

The member himself acknowledged that examples existed where precisely the same approach as was proposed in this time allocation motion was adopted by the House. I want to thank the hon. member for drawing the fact of these examples to my attention. Indeed, there have been at least four instances where this has occurred. I refer members to the precedents of May 6, 1996; another from November 22, 1996; one also from February 22, 2000; and, finally, one from May 28, 2015.

These precedents demonstrate that the House has seen fit to combine more than one stage in a single time allocation motion for bills that have been referred to committee prior to second reading. This forms a solid enough basis to indicate that this is now an acceptable practice with respect to time allocation motions. For this reason, I find that the government's time allocation motion is in order.

Nonetheless, I appreciate the hon. member's point. To avoid any further confusion, I would recommend that the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs review the matter, with a view to clarifying Standing Order 78(3)(a) vis-à-vis our accepted practices.

I thank the House for its attention on this matter.

The House resumed consideration of the motion.

Bill C-69—Time Allocation Motion

[The Speaker, Geoff Regan]

It is my duty to interrupt the proceedings at this time and put forthwith the question on the motion now before the House.

The question is as follows. Shall I dispense?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.