House of Commons Hansard #310 of the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was c-59.
John Barlow Conservative Foothills, AB
Mr. Speaker, I find it a little ironic that the member is asking what we would like to put forward. The Liberals should give us a chance to have a full debate and discussion on these bills, rather than ramming them through with time allocation.
Are they listening? I do not believe they are. Conservatives put forward amendments on Bill C-69 that they refused, as well as on every other bill. I have just one piece of advice on how to strengthen Bill C-69: scrap it.
Richard Cannings NDP South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC
Mr. Speaker, in his speech, the member spent some time talking about the discretion the minister would have with this bill, and that is certainly one of the big concerns the NDP has: the rampant discretion at every step of the way in impact assessments.
I have to note that it was the Conservatives who brought in that ministerial cabinet discretion when they changed the way the NEB operated. It used to be that the NEB, an arm's-length regulatory body, made a decision, and that was the decision, but the Conservative government changed it so that cabinet would have the final decision. Now the Liberals have run with that and have expanded on it. Of course, the member does not like it when it is the other party that has that power and discretion, but I am concerned about any party having it. I wonder if the member would comment on that.
John Barlow Conservative Foothills, AB
Mr. Speaker, I agree. I am very concerned. The Liberals campaigned on being science based, open, and transparent. They were going to make decisions based on those criteria, but Bill C-69 shows very clearly that they are going to make decisions that are not science based. We have seen that in a larger narrative within the government. Let us look at the food guide and front-of-package labelling. All these things that are going to have a significant impact on our industries and constituents are not based on science whatsoever. In fact, we have heard from stakeholders and constituents that they are actually going in the complete opposite direction of what science would tell them to do.
Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, the member across the way said he would like the government to just get out of the way, and if the government gets out of the way, the pipelines will be built.
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
Magic, Mr. Speaker, just like that.
Having said that, we just had 10 years of Stephen Harper's magic, when the government got out of the way. How many pipelines were built to tidewater? Zero. There was not an inch to tidewater. That was under the Conservatives' theory of getting out of the way.
John Barlow Conservative Foothills, AB
Mr. Speaker, I love my colleague's enthusiasm and I am happy he asked that question. In fact, we built four major pipelines. In fact, we built 17 different pipeline projects. In fact, we built 8,000 kilometres of additional pipeline. How many have the Liberals built? Absolutely zero. They keep talking about their purchase of the Trans Mountain pipeline, which, all of a sudden, has new markets to Asia. That is absolutely false. They have not built one single centimetre of new pipeline, and the Trans Mountain expansion would not get us to those Asia markets because it does not get us to deepwater ports. The oil and energy from that pipeline will be going to Washington and Oregon, the same places it has always been going. I hope Liberals will clarify the record on the misinformation they continue to share with Canadians.
Larry Miller Conservative Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON
Mr. Speaker, I do not think I have enough time to tackle every part of this loosely put together bill, but I am going to attempt to target as much as I can.
Right off the bat, one of the things that would happen under the bill is that the Liberals would change the National Energy Board, which was created in 1959 by Prime Minister Diefenbaker. It was totally made a fool by Pierre Trudeau. He wrecked the energy industry in Alberta and the west for a generation, and Junior is about to do it for three generations. It would change the name of it to the Canadian energy regulator act as well, just to try to get rid of that family's connection to it. No inches or miles of pipeline are going to be built because of this bill. It is, “Let us wash it down, get a new face, and pretend that none of the other ever happened.”
I am going to get into the navigable waters act in a bit, but everything the government does has everything to do with virtue-signalling and nothing to do with reality or getting things done. I can give all kinds of examples.
On the Firearms Act, what did the Liberals do? They bragged during the election, and every chance they have had since, that they were going to tackle gang crime and illegal firearms. What did they do? They brought out a bill that sends a virtue signal to all Canadians who hate firearms and want to get rid of them totally, and they pretend that they are tackling gang crime and illegal firearms. It would do nothing. It would tackle law-abiding firearms owners.
Another example is that they want to send signals to environmentalists, tree squeezers. They lied to the veterans and said that they would give them everything they wanted, and then all of a sudden, they said that they were asking too much and that the government could not do that.
The reason I am mentioning this is that there is a trend here. It is all about virtue. It is not about actually doing anything.
We have to go back in history. When the environmental approval process was changed by the previous government, one of the worst examples was the Mackenzie Valley pipeline. For some 25 to 30 years, we kept leading companies along, saying we would do this or that. It was set up to basically fail. Why would any government, why would any person, want to take our companies, which want to invest in industry, whether it is the oil industry or whatever, and tie them up in a process that is made for the objector and tie them up for years?
The previous government made a process that was still a thorough approval process, but there were timelines. Do not drag companies along for years and years. Give them a timeline. If we have to tell them no, tell them no, but do not lead them along for 25 to 30 years, as happened with the Mackenzie Valley pipeline, because that is not good for anything. Aboriginal communities up there were banking on money that would have flowed to them from that job. Their hopes that were built up for 25 years or more went totally gone down the drain, and I do not mean that as a pun.
There was a 180-day planning phase. Ministerial discretion was put in and also veto power. Again, that was put in after going through the process that basically said it was done. Say yes or say no, but do not lead them along.
Why should Canadians trust this new system? It is obviously catering to different groups. It goes back to that virtue signal. There is always a process where intervenors can get in and have their say. Of course, that is a good thing. However, what the government has done with the changes it has put in is that we now have to accept all foreign intervenors. Why in the world would any government want to add that? This is about a Canadian project, not a pan-world project. To allow foreign intervenors or foreign money is totally unacceptable.
If anyone has any doubt about why this is not going to work or whether it will make things worse than they already are, all we have to do is look at the recent Kinder Morgan decision. The government created a climate so bad that Kinder Morgan basically said, “Why in the world would we take our shareholders' money and invest it in this project?” I totally get that. Why would it? It never asked any government for one red cent. However, to save face, or to tie this thing up for many more years, what did the government do? It reached into my pocket, and my kids' and grandkids' and all the members' pockets as well, to pull out $4.5 billion to give to a company that paid $550 million for that pipeline. I have to mention that it is a 65-year-old pipeline. Now that $4.5 billion of taxpayers' money is going to be spent somewhere in the United States, where it will be able to create some industry and generate some income on that investment. That is all taxpayers' money.
Under this bill, it is only going to get worse. We have not seen the tip of the iceberg. It is a trend that is certainly not going to change with this bill.
I want to talk a bit about what stakeholders are saying about this legislation.
The Canadian Environmental Law Association stated:
...Bill C-69 perpetuates the much-criticized political decision-making model found in CEAA 2012.
Unless the proposed Impact Assessment Act is substantially revised as it proceeds through Parliament, [the association] concludes that the new EA process will not restore public trust or ensure credible, participatory and science-based decision-making.
That science-based decision-making is something we should think a lot about.
The Canadian Energy Association stated:
CEPA is very concerned with the scope of the proposed new Impact Assessment process. From the outset, CEPA has stated that individual project reviews are not the appropriate place to resolve broad policy issues, such as climate change, which should be part of a Pan-Canadian Framework. Including these policy issues adds a new element of subjectivity that could continue to politicize the assessment process.
The Mining Association of Canada stated:
At first glance, the draft legislation introduces a range of new concepts related to timelines and costs, which depending on how they are implemented, could adversely impact the industry’s competitiveness and growth prospects.
I have more, which I will not get into. However, I want to touch on the Navigable Waters Protection Act.
The changes to the Navigable Waters Protection Act came about a number of years ago when the Saskatchewan Association of Rural Municipalities, SARM, came to the rural caucus I happened to chair at the time. That in itself is not significant, other than that I know the history of this act. I thought navigable waters, and the way DFO's overzealous officials handled them, was just a rural Ontario problem. It turns out it was right across Canada. SARM is the one that deserves credit for initiating the changes to that act. I am very proud of it and how the changes went.
Waterways we can float our grandkids' or kids' little rubber duckies down maybe for a couple of days of the year in the spring were deemed to be something we could paddle a canoe down. We got rid of that in the changes.
I know I am running out of time. We fixed the process.
Now the cost is going to be unbelievable, and it is not going to be good for Canadians.
Peter Schiefke LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister (Youth)
Mr. Speaker, while I would like to thank my hon. colleague for his remarks, I am dismayed. As much as I disagreed with Prime Minister Harper on several occasions, I always referred to him as Prime Minister Harper. I think it is a disgrace that the member just referred to our Prime Minister as junior. I hope he will take a moment to apologize for making those remarks in this House.
My hon. colleague spoke of how we are making it more difficult for companies to get resources to market, and so forth, because of the red tape we are putting in place. During the 10 years Stephen Harper was in government, when oil was $150 a barrel and there was lot less uncertainty and international markets were not pulling back their investments in oil like they are doing right now, why could his government, with supposedly less red tape than we are putting in place, not get one new pipeline to tidewater? I hope the hon. member can answer that question.
Larry Miller Conservative Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON
Mr. Speaker, absolutely. I believe the gentleman was in the House when my hon. colleague, the member for Foothills, explained a lot better than I can the number of pipelines that were done. There were four major ones done, and I believe it was over 8,000 kilometres' worth of pipe that went in the ground. Sure, we would like to have done more. However, for anyone to be able to sit there without smirking and distort the truth like that member just did—well, that is about all I am going to say about it.
Cheryl Hardcastle NDP Windsor—Tecumseh, ON
Mr. Speaker, I certainly cannot argue with the fact there is much distorting of the truth here. I really want to talk to the hon. member about the last Parliament, when the Conservative government did remove or gut the environmental assessment process. It also removed almost all of the protections of our waterways. That is a fact that can be looked up.
Then the Liberal government promised that it was going to restore those things. As we see with Bill C-69, it has really fallen short of the mark. Bill C-69 has done nothing. It does nothing to reverse these changes, which the Liberals promised they would do.
Do the Conservatives still believe that waterways and lakes do not need any protection? Is that what I am hearing—that we do not need any protections for water?
Larry Miller Conservative Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON
Mr. Speaker, I hope the member is saying that in jest. Of course we do.
I find that some members, including the member who just spoke, still believe the theory that lakes and rivers were not protected. In that act, the only ones mentioned were ones where changes were made. Anything else in that act remains protected, as always. I think members know that, and she probably does as well.
I hope the hon. member quits repeating mistruths like that, because that is exactly what they are.
Leona Alleslev Liberal Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for his presentation. I think it clearly outlines some of the positions and gave us a bit of insight into where we are and where we have come from. The member said that the previous government had put legislation in place and had done some significant things.
Does my hon. colleague believe that the current process is enough, that nothing more needs to be done, and that there is nothing in this bill that should actually move forward?
Larry Miller Conservative Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON
Mr. Speaker, I have had the pleasure of attending a few NATO meetings with the hon. member down the way, and I have a lot of respect for her. Maybe there is some minor stuff in here, but it is the whole target or aim of this bill. It is all about virtue-signalling and about reversing what a previous government did. That has happened so often that maybe I am a little thin-skinned about it. I will grant that. However, changing a bill because another government brought it in is not the way to govern. This thing just basically throws it wide open.
The member asked if there is nothing more left to do. I would say there is: Instead of driving investment away as happened with Kinder Morgan, her government and leadership should not buy companies out but encourage them to build, by at least having a fair and reasonable approval process.
Impact Assessment ActGovernment Orders
The Deputy Speaker Bruce Stanton
We are going to resume debate, and I will let the hon. member for Calgary Shepard know that there is not quite the full 10 minutes available to him at this point. He will have about eight minutes and then will have remaining time when the House next gets back to debate on the question.
Resuming debate, the hon. member for Calgary Shepard.
Tom Kmiec Conservative Calgary Shepard, AB
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to add my voice to this debate, obviously in opposition to the bill before us.
I will begin as I always do, because I want to get it in early, with a Yiddish proverb: “Misfortune binds together.” That is how a lot of Calgarians feel, especially in my riding.
Bill C-69 is simply more misfortune piled on other ill-advised decisions by the government that have hurt constituents and energy workers in my riding. They have spent a lifetime getting experience, an education, and then pursuing a career they were hoping would last their entire lifetime. This is something they were passionate about, producing energy in a responsible and ethical way, which they will now not be able to do.
I have been told repeatedly by executives, industry, and energy workers, including a constituent of mine, Evan, a few days ago, that when Bill C-69 passes Parliament, it will put an end to all future major energy infrastructure projects. No company will put forward major projects again, because the process will be much too complex, involve too many criteria, and will be too complicated, with too much political risk associated with satisfying a minister in order to reach the completion date of just the permitting process. The CEO of Suncor has said publicly that this will put an end to investment in the energy industry. The CEO of Sierra Energy has said exactly the same thing. Therefore, misfortune binds together.
I will explain other things that bind together as a result of this particular piece of proposed legislation, which that would damage the opportunity of energy workers and their families to continue working in this very successful sector.
We should be very proud of this sector of the economy, because we have been exporting the R and D, innovation, commercialized products, and services from it for a long time, alongside the product that we export to our friends down south. Even though we have had difficulties negotiating a successful NAFTA renewal, they are still our friends, and we are still trying to make them understand that at the end of the day, our success is their success.
We often hear government members say that the environment and the economy go hand in hand. The Liberals are making it seem like it is a zero-sum game: one unit of the environment gained is one unit of the economy lost. It is zero-sum, and there are no two ways around it. When we look at Bill C-69, that is evident. The Liberals are trying to gain many more units of environment, and we are going to be losing out on the economic side, based on commentary by both energy workers and executives, who are simply saying that there is no way that they can invest in the Canadian economy, hire energy workers in Canada, in Calgary and Alberta, with these types of rules in place.
On the misfortunes I talked about, there is the carbon tax, for instance. Often in this chamber, I hear members say things like, “We should refine it and upgrade it where we mine it, where we extract it out of the ground.” Well, the highest carbon taxes are paid by refineries and upgraders. It is a GHG-intensive industry.
Do we say the same thing to farmers who produce wheat, that we should upgrade it and refine it here? Do we say that to the farmer who produces canola? Do we say that to the farmer who produces big lentils? Maybe we should force all farmers to produce soup. They should not be allowed to export lentils outside Canada. The same idea, the same drive that says we should never export any type of bitumen or oil out of the country until it is refined and upgraded to the highest level product, could be applied to our agricultural sector.
I have heard repeatedly from energy workers that the tanker ban off the B.C. coast is damaging, because it sends a signal that there is a tanker ban now. Actually, it is just a pretend ban because it just moves tankers 100 kilometres farther off the coast to an area where there already is tanker traffic, which is going to continue as long as it does not stop in a Canadian port. However, it sends a signal that those types of workers and that sector of the economy are not wanted anymore by the government.
On the misfortune, there is a close electoral alliance between radical environmentalists, their foreign financiers, and the future electoral prospects of the Liberal government. That is the case. We know it to be true. The Liberals' success in the 2015 election was closely linked to their making promises on the environment that they absolutely could not keep. They made those promises fully knowing they would never be able to keep them. The misfortune continues.
Twice already, the Prime Minister has said he would like to phase out the oil sands. Every single time the Prime Minister says that, the first thing I get by email and phone from Albertans in my riding is, “He has done it again. He said it again.” The last time he said it was at the Assemblee Nationale in Paris.
Many workers question the sincerity of the Prime Minister when he says that he wants this sector to succeed, which is supposedly why he expropriated Kinder Morgan and purchased its pipeline for $4.5 billion. Workers do not trust him. They do not believe him when he says it. They think he is speaking from both sides of his mouth. He is saying one thing to one crowd and something completely different to another crowd. They do not trust him. However, it is their misfortune that he is the Prime Minister right now.
Bill C-69 increases the number of criteria that will be considered during the regulatory process. What logically happens is that before a company even puts in an application to consider a major new energy infrastructure project, they will do their research and due diligence. That will add months and years to the pre-regulatory process. Before even applying, one has to have more information to prove to the regulator that one meets all of the new criteria. Embedded in Bill C-69 is the opportunity for the minister to say “no” at multiple stages of the process.
I have heard Liberal caucus members say how great the bill is and that shortened timelines give certainty. The bill does no such thing because it will increase the number of criteria and datasets that one needs to collect to prove one's case.
This is exactly where I am going to come to my last point of why energy east was cancelled. Energy east and the company's executives and energy workers said they had no way of meeting the new requirements of downstream and upstream emissions. To collect that vast sum of information and provide it to the government was impossible. The company made the only wise decision on behalf of its shareholders and abandoned the permitting regulatory process. There was no other choice. However, that was a political decision by the government. The government is responsible for that and nobody else. The business decision that drove driving Kinder Morgan out of the country, which led to the government expropriating the company and purchasing the pipeline, was the same type of decision-making process Trans Canada had to use on energy east. Those decisions are deeply connected.
Obviously, I will be voting against this bill. The last point of data I want to provide is that under the government, we have seen thousands of kilometres of pipeline cancelled, whereas under in the previous government, we had thousands of kilometres of pipeline finished.
Impact Assessment ActGovernment Orders
The Assistant Deputy Speaker Anthony Rota
The hon. member will have approximately two minutes and 10 seconds when we return to Bill C-69.
It being 5:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's Order Paper.
The House resumed consideration of Bill S-210, An Act to amend An Act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, the Civil Marriage Act and the Criminal Code and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, as reported (without amendment) from the committee.
Immigration and Refugee Protection ActPrivate Members' Business
The Assistant Deputy Speaker Anthony Rota
There being no motions at report stage, the House will now proceed without debate to the putting of the question on the motion to concur in the bill at report stage.
John Aldag Liberal Cloverdale—Langley City, BC
moved that Bill S-210, an act to amend An Act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, the Civil Marriage Act and the Criminal Code and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, be concurred in.
Immigration and Refugee Protection ActPrivate Members' Business
Immigration and Refugee Protection ActPrivate Members' Business
Some hon. members
Agreed.
No.
Immigration and Refugee Protection ActPrivate Members' Business
Immigration and Refugee Protection ActPrivate Members' Business
