Catherine McKenna

[Carbon Pricing, June 13th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, the answer is no, and the member is misleading Canadians.

[Carbon Pricing, June 13th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, once again, the party opposite continues to mislead Canadians. I want to know if the member opposite cashed his climate active incentive rebate of $307. That is for a family of four; he may only have a family of three.

We need to take serious action on climate change. It is not, as Jason Kenney says, the flavour of the month. We have Doug Ford cutting flood management and forest fire management programs during floods and forest fires. We have the Leader of the Opposition, who seems to doubt the link between climate change and extreme weather. He wants to make it free to pollute, and Doug—

[Impact Assessment Act, June 12th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his tireless work on the environment. I know he works extremely hard in his riding, but he also works very hard in the House to make sure we are doing everything we can to protect the environment and tackle climate change. I also want to recognize Senator Mitchell and the senators who worked really hard to improve the bill.

I absolutely agree that this shows that the way we reformed the Senate is working. We have listened to amendments that improve and strengthen legislation, which is a very good thing. Look at the opportunity we have. We have an opportunity to attract $500 billion in investment to this country. Last year, we had the largest foreign direct investment in our history on record. We created a million jobs. We have the lowest unemployment rate in four decades.

Now we have an environmental assessment process that will help attract the investment we want to create jobs and opportunities all over the country. Having independence in the way decisions are made, the approach taken with an impact assessment agency, makes a huge difference. It increases the certainty, predictability and respect for the system. It creates a system that, quite frankly, is going to do a much better job than the system that was gutted under the Harper government, where good projects could not go ahead. They just ended up in court.

[Impact Assessment Act, June 12th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, it is very important to work with the provinces and territories. That is why our bill recognizes the principle of one project, one review.

There is no question that we must work with the provinces, but the federal government also has the duty to review projects under federal jurisdiction.

We always work together with the provinces and territories.

[Impact Assessment Act, June 12th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, I am trying to understand the question in relation to the most important changes we are making to environmental assessments in a decade. I like riding my bike, if that is what the member of Parliament would like to hear.

However, I will talk to the people in his riding because this is such an important piece of legislation. I agree that we need to get our resources to market. That is critically important. We have a $500-billion opportunity to develop our natural resources. The only way one will be able to develop one's resources in the 21st century is to do it in a way that has the trust of the public. One has to engage and consult in accordance with our constitutional obligations with indigenous peoples, make sure to look at the environmental and economic impacts, and of course have a system that ensures good projects can go ahead in a timely way.

That is exactly what we have done with the bill. We think it is a very good bill for the residents of his riding and residents across Canada.

[Impact Assessment Act, June 12th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank my hon. colleague for his question.

I appreciate his acknowledgement that we accept amendments that make sense, and not those from Conservative politicians, who would take the process back to the Harper era. I know that the NDP does not want that either.

We have always said that the environmental assessment system would consider the federal projects with the greatest impacts. That is exactly what we are doing. In addition, we are working with the provinces and territories, which are also responsible for assessing projects through an environmental lens. We are working very closely with the Quebec government. I think that what we have done, much like the list of projects that will be considered, is part of this approach. This approach makes sense. It will protect the environment and grow our economy.

[Impact Assessment Act, June 12th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, before I begin, I wish to acknowledge that we are on the traditional territory of the Algonquin and Anishinabe peoples.

Today, I am pleased to address the chamber in support of our government's bill for better rules for the review of major projects, Bill C-69. The act would put in place better rules that would restore trust, protect the environment, advance reconciliation and would ensure that good projects could go ahead in a timely way.

I want to thank senators and members of Parliament for their careful consideration of this bill, in particular those senators who have worked productively to strengthen and improve the bill.

I would reserve special thanks for Senator Grant Mitchell, who has worked tirelessly as a sponsor of the bill throughout the Senate process.

Thousands of people across Canada have come forward to share their perspectives since January 2016. This is extremely important legislation, and I appreciate how engaged everyone has been.

Hundreds of major resource projects, worth an estimated $500 billion over the next decade, are possible across Canada, creating jobs from coast to coast to coast. It is imperative that we get this right.

These better rules are designed to protect our environment while restoring public trust in the process and improving investor confidence. These rules will also make the Canadian energy and resource sectors more competitive. They will build on Canada's strong economic growth and historic job numbers.

We are keeping our promise to Canadians, a promise we made in 2015 to fix our broken environmental impact assessment system.

In 2012, Stephen Harper's Conservative government gutted the rules for major projects, ignored science, trampled on indigenous rights and removed environmental protection. Those changes eroded public trust in how decisions were made and ultimately led to the polarization and paralysis we see today. It also ended up with us in court.

When good projects cannot get built because the process is in court, we have to admit the system is broken.

Our bill for better rules for the review of major projects, along with the amendments that we are proposing to accept, will change that. We will put in place better rules for major projects, like mines, pipelines and hydro projects, to protect our environment, improve investor confidence, strengthen our economy and create good, middle-class jobs.

Since we have formed government, we have worked very hard to restore public trust while providing certainty to business. Better rules are the key to rebuilding trust and confidence in how decisions about major projects are made. The amendments we are proposing to accept will enhance that effort.

Our bill for better rules reflect public input, respect indigenous rights, increase transparency and ensure that decisions are made by robust science, evidence and indigenous traditional knowledge.

The new impact assessment process will look at a project's potential impacts not just on our environment, but also its health, social and economic impacts over the long term, and the potential impacts to indigenous peoples.

We will also consider how projects are consistent with our environmental obligations and national climate plan. We will do proactive regional assessments to evaluate big picture issues and the cumulative effects of development. When making decisions, we will consider whether companies are using the best available technologies and practices to reduce impacts on the environment.

Project reviews will be completed through a more efficient and predictable process, with shorter legislated timelines that will lead to more timely decisions.

By increasing coordination with other jurisdictions, we will cut red tape and avoid duplication and delays.

Our goal is one project, one review.

We first introduced the bill after 14 months of consultations with provinces and territories, indigenous peoples, companies, environmental groups and Canadians across the country. We heard loud and clear that Canadians wanted a modern environmental and regulatory system that protected the environment, supported reconciliation with indigenous peoples, attracted investment and ensured that good projects go ahead in a timely way to create new jobs and economic opportunities for the middle class. We heard from investors and companies that they wanted a clear, predictable and timely process.

That is what our bill for better rules and the proposed amendments provide.

In January 2016, we introduced interim principles to guide how our government would review major projects until we could put better rules in place. We knew we could not keep approving projects under the Harper government's flawed rules, but we also knew that we could not put our economic development on hold for two years while we worked on new rules.

Our interim principles were the first step toward delivering on one of our high-priority platform commitments, which was to review and fix Canada's broken environmental assessment process and to restore confidence in how decisions about major resource projects were made.

Those interim principles made it clear that decisions would be based on robust science, evidence and indigenous traditional knowledge, that we would listen to the views of Canadians and communities that could be affected by proposed projects, that indigenous peoples would be consulted in a meaningful and respectful manner, that decisions would take into account the climate impacts of proposed projects and that no project already under review would be set back to the starting line.

Since we have formed government, we have worked very hard to restore public trust while providing certainty to business.

Today, we are putting before the House a bill that expands those interim principles into better rules.

This bill has gone through months of consultation and expert review. People across the country have provided input, including industry, academia, environmentalists and our indigenous, provincial and territorial partners. We held hundreds of meetings, received hundreds of written submissions and considered thousands of comments from individual Canadians.

Expert panels and parliamentary committees have conducted studies, heard witnesses and reviewed comments from the public. Senators themselves took the rare step of criss-crossing the country to hear a diversity of views on how to improve the broken system we inherited.

This bill has attracted attention across the country. Last September, someone hired a plane to fly over my office with a flag that read “Kill Bill C-69”. Then, in April, students in Quebec City gathered with signs that read “Go C-69”, decorated with hearts.

There are those who say this bill goes too far, and then there are those who say this bill does not go far enough. Our task as a government is to listen carefully to all voices and find a reasonable middle ground, moving us all forward together.

While we have been working hard to develop better rules, there has been a concerted misinformation campaign from the opposition. Members of the Conservative opposition have used this bill to stoke conflict, pitting one region against another, as if we are not one country, Canada, trying to build the best possible future for our kids and grandkids.

Conservatives in the House and the Senate want to replace environmental reviews with pipeline approvals. They want to replace legitimate public discussion with unilateral decisions. They do not want a better review process; they want to hand decisions over to oil lobbyists, ignore climate change and make the consideration of indigenous peoples' constitutional rights optional. Their goal has been to weaken the rules, and we all know where that road leads.

The opposition would pursue economic development at all costs and put the interests of oil lobbyists ahead of the interests of Canadians. That is exactly why we need better rules, ones designed to measure the impacts of major projects on all Canadians: environmental impacts, climate impacts, community impacts, economic impacts, impacts on indigenous peoples' rights, and impacts on Canada's reputation as a country where good projects can move ahead in a timely and transparent way that protects the environment and helps to build a better future for all Canadians.

The Senate has proposed 229 amendments to this bill. Of these, we are accepting 62 and amending 37, for a total of 99 amendments.

That leaves 130 amendments that we cannot accept, ones that would, for instance, make public consultation optional, remove consideration of a project's impacts on climate change, undermine the rule of law and make it more difficult for Canada to attract investment.

Here is a little parliamentary history for my colleagues. Going back to 1940, when the Library of Parliament began consistently indexing information, the highest number of Senate amendments ever concurred in by the House was 67, in 1946, to Bill No. 195, An Act respecting the Control of the Acquisition and Disposition of Foreign Currency and the Control of Transactions involving Foreign Currency or Non-Residents. In other words, this bill will be one for the history books.

I think it is fair to say that this has been a long and careful process and that we have worked diligently to create better rules. We thank the Senate for providing a variety of thoughtful improvements to the bill. We are accepting amendments that maintain the integrity of the bill and make it stronger.

For example, we are accepting amendments that increase the independence of the agency and minimize the potential for political interference. Instead of ministerial discretion on timelines, or who would be on a review panel, this power will be transferred to the agency.

We also support an amendment to make it clear that the minister cannot direct the head of the agency. We also support additional clarity on how the impact assessment agency will look at the environmental, health, economic and social factors to ensure that the focus is on the most significant issues.

We will make sure that the biggest projects with the biggest potential impacts are the ones requiring a federal impact assessment. We are supporting improvements to regional assessments and how we work with provinces to get to one project, one assessment.

These amendments would protect our environment and put sustainability at the heart of how we approach growing our economy and creating good, middle-class jobs. They would reduce the potential for political interference introduced by the Harper government's changes, and they would give companies and investors the certainty they need with a more timely process, clear timelines and transparent decisions. Together, these amendments would help to rebuild public trust, respect indigenous people's rights and protect our environment, while strengthening our economy and attracting investment to Canada.

We will be rejecting changes that weaken the act, including those that limit Canadians' access to the courts, increase political interference in decision-making, limit Canadians' input into the process, make it optional to consider how a project would affect Canada's ability to meet its environmental commitments, such as fighting climate change, and make it easy for future governments to ignore our constitutional duty to consult indigenous peoples, an approach that would land us exactly where we are today: in court.

The changes we are not accepting would take us backward, increase polarization and make it harder to get good projects built.

Conservatives want to keep the same system, the one that led to so many challenges, including with the Trans Mountain expansion, as an example. It is a system that weakened environmental protections, failed to properly consult indigenous peoples and limited public discussion. Canadians know that the environment and the economy go together, but these amendments would mean pursuing economic development at all costs. We cannot accept them, because they are, quite frankly, unacceptable to us and to Canadians.

Stephen Harper's approach put both the environment and the economy at risk. It failed to protect the environment. It destroyed the public trust. It paralyzed major projects. It is the system that created all the problems and polarization we see today.

Meanwhile, the current Leader of the Opposition has told oil lobbyists that he would kill this bill for better rules if he is elected. That is a recipe for economic risk, increased conflict and environmental damage. It is the same recipe that Stephen Harper tried. It did not work then and it will not work now.

As leading resource companies know, in the 21st century, we have to protect the environment and grow the economy at the same time. Canadians expect no less. It is not just the sustainable way forward; it is the smart way.

As I mentioned before, hundreds of major resource projects, worth an estimated $500 billion, are being planned across Canada. We want to see good projects get built. These are projects that grow our economy and represent tens of thousands of good, middle-class jobs.

Our government is committed to building a strong economy. One million jobs have been created since we took office, and unemployment is at historic lows. Last year, Canada's foreign direct investment grew by 60%.

The official opposition has been talking down Canada's economic success, stoking fear and uncertainty, an act that I remind members has real consequences for investment in Canadian companies. Meanwhile, our government has been working to attract and promote investment in Canada. We know that these better rules will provide investors with the certainty they need and will lead to more good jobs for Canadians.

In 2019, we cannot have a plan for the economy without having a plan for the environment. It is essential to be competitive and attract investment in today's world.

Investment in Canada is rising, and jobs are being created in Canada, in part because businesses want to invest in countries that see the future, countries that take sustainability seriously. Customers expect it. Our trading partners expect it. Canadians expect it.

Combined, the amendments we are accepting will produce better rules for major projects in Canada, rules that are clear, fair and predictable, with shorter legislated timelines and sustainability at their core. These rules will make sure that Canada remains a great place to live, to work and to invest.

To vote for the bill for better rules is to vote for strong environmental protection, transparent science- and evidence-based decision-making, predictable and timely reviews that create certainty for companies and for investors, recognition and respect for indigenous peoples' rights and knowledge and advancing reconciliation, less red tape and better coordination with provinces, a single agency that will provide consistent and efficient assessments, and a full package of measures that will protect our environment, support good, middle-class jobs and attract new investment to Canada.

With better rules, we will restore Canadians' trust in how decisions about major projects are made. We will restore investors' confidence in Canada as a great place to do business. We will restore our reputation as a country that knows we can fight climate change, protect the environment and respect indigenous rights, while growing the economy and creating good jobs.

We are so lucky to live in Canada. There is so much opportunity before us. Now is the time for all of us to reach out to investors around the world and say, “Canada is the place to invest. We have fair, predictable rules with legislated timelines.”

These better rules will make that possible. Any politician or company saying otherwise is, quite frankly, undermining the opportunity we have to attract investment. That is not in the interest of Canada and that is not in the interests of Canadians.

We are extremely lucky to live in Canada. Now is the time for all of us to reach out to investors around the world and tell them that Canada is the place to invest. In the 21st century, as leading resource companies know, we can protect the environment and grow the economy at the same time if we work together to make that happen.

Please join me in voting to pass the bill. We owe it to Canadians. We owe it to our economy. We owe it to our environment and we owe it to our kids and grandkids.

[Impact Assessment Act, June 12th, 2019]

moved:

That a Message be sent to the Senate to acquaint Their Honours that, in relation to Bill C-69, An Act to enact the Impact Assessment Act and the Canadian Energy Regulator Act, to amend the Navigation Protection Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, the House:

agrees with amendments 1(b)(i), 1(c)(vi), 1(g)(iv), 1(g)(v), 1(h)(iii), 1(h)(iv), 1(i)(i), 1(i)(iii), 1(k)(x), 1(o)(iv), 1(p)(ii), 1(q)(i), 1(q)(ii), 1(r)(i), 1(t)(i), 1(t)(ii), 1(t)(iii), 1(u)(i), 1(u)(ii), 1(v)(i), 1(v)(iii), 1(w)(i), 1(w)(ii), 1(w)(iii), 1(y)(iii), 1(y)(iv), 1(ab)(iv), 1(ac)(i), 1(ad), 1(ae), 1(af)(i), 1(af)(iii), 1(ai)(i), 1(aj)(ii), 1(ak)(ii), 1(ak)(iii), 1(al), 1(an)(ii), 1(aq), 1(ar), 1(as), 1(at)(i), 1(at)(ii), 1(au)(i), 1(au)(ii), 1(aw)(i), 1(aw)(ii), 1(ax), 1(ay)(i), 1(bb), 1(bc), 6(l), 6(o)(i), 6(p)(i), 6(p)(ii), 6(q), 6(r), 10, 11(a), 11(d)(i), 11(e)(ii) and 16 made by the Senate;

respectfully disagrees with amendments 1(a)(i),1(a)(ii), 1(a)(iii), 1(a)(iv), 1(b)(ii), 1(c)(i), 1(c)(ii), 1(c)(iii), 1(c)(v), 1(d)(i), 1(d)(ii), 1(d)(iii), 1(e)(i), 1(e)(ii), 1(g)(i), 1(g)(iii), 1(h)(i), 1(h)(ii), 1(h)(v), 1(i)(ii), 1(j)(i), 1(j)(ii), 1(j)(iii), 1(k)(i), 1(k)(ii), 1(k)(iii), 1(k)(iv), 1(k)(v), 1(k)(vi), 1(k)(vii), 1(k)(viii), 1(l)(iii), 1(l)(iv), 1(m)(i), 1(m)(ii), 1(m)(iii), 1(m)(iv), 1(m)(v), 1(m)(vi), 1(n)(i), 1(n)(ii), 1(n)(iii), 1(n)(iv), 1(n)(v), 1(o)(i), 1(o)(ii), 1(o)(iii), 1(p)(i), 1(p)(iii), 1(r)(ii), 1(s)(i), 1(s)(ii), 1(v)(ii), 1(x), 1(y)(ii), 1(z)(i), 1(z)(ii), 1(z)(iii), 1(aa)(i), 1(aa)(ii), 1(ac)(ii), 1(ac)(iii), 1(ac)(iv), 1(ag)(ii), 1(ag)(iii), 1(ag)(iv), 1(ag)(vi), 1(ag)(vii), 1(ag)(viii), 1(ah)(i), 1(ah)(ii), 1(ah)(iii), 1(ah)(iv), 1(ah)(v), 1(ai)(ii), 1(aj)(i), 1(aj)(iii), 1(ak)(i), 1(am), 1(an)(i), 1(an)(iv), 1(av)(i), 1(av)(ii), 1(ay)(ii), 1(ay)(iii), 1(az)(i), 1(az)(ii), 1(ba), 6(a), 6(b), 6(c), 6(d)(i), 6(d)(ii), 6(e), 6(f), 6(g)(i), 6(g)(ii), 6(g)(iii), 6(h)(i), 6(h)(ii), 6(h)(iii), 6(i)(i), 6(i)(ii), 6(i)(iii), 6(i)(iv), 6(j)(i), 6(j)(ii), 6(k), 6(m)(i), 6(n), 6(o)(ii), 6(s), 7, 8, 9, 11(b), 11(c)(i), 11(c)(ii), 11(d)(ii), 11(e)(i), 12(a), 12(b), 13, 14(a), 14(b), 15(a), 15(b), 17(a), 17(b) and 17(c) made by the Senate;

proposes that amendment 1(c)(iv) be amended by replacing the text of the amendment with the following:

“(b.1) to establish a fair, predictable and efficient process for conducting impact assessments that enhances Canada’s competitiveness, encourages innovation in the carrying out of designated projects and creates opportunities for sustainable economic development;”;

proposes that amendment 1(f) be amended by deleting subsections (4.1) and (4.2);

proposes that amendment 1(g)(ii) be amended by deleting the amendments to subsection 9(1) and deleting subsection 9(1.1);

proposes that amendment 1(k)(ix) be amended by replacing the text of the amendment with the following:

“sessment of the project that sets out the information or studies that the Agency requires from the proponent and considers necessary for the conduct of the impact assessment; and”;

proposes that amendment 1(k)(xi) be amended by replacing the text of the amendment with the following:

“(1.1) The Agency must take into account the factors set out in subsection 22(1) in determining what information or which studies it considers necessary for the conduct of the impact assessment.

(1.2) The scope of the factors referred to in paragraphs 22(1)(a) to (f), (h) to (l) and (s) and (t) that are to be taken into account under subsection (1.1) and set out in the tailored guidelines referred to in paragraph (1)(b), including the extent of their relevance to the impact assessment, is determined by the Agency.”;

proposes that amendment 1(l)(i) be amended by replacing the text of the amendment with the following:

“(3) The Agency may, on request of any jurisdiction referred to in paragraphs (c) to (g) of the definition jurisdiction in section 2, extend the time limit referred to in subsection (1) by any period up to a maximum of 90 days, to allow it to cooperate with that jurisdiction with respect to the Agency’s obligations under subsection (1).

(4) The Agency must post a notice of any extension granted under subsection (3), including the reasons for granting it, on the Internet site.

(5) The Agency may suspend the time limit within which it must provide the notice of the com-”;

proposes that amendment 1(l)(ii) be amended by renumbering subsection (7) as subsection (6);

proposes that amendment 1(o)(v) be amended by replacing the text of the amendment with the following:

“(2) The Agency’s determination of the scope of the factors made under subsection 18(1.2) applies when those factors are taken into account under subsection (1).”;

proposes that, as a consequence of Senate amendment 1(q)(ii), the following amendment be added:

“1. Clause 1, page 24: Delete lines 8 and 9”;

proposes that amendment 1(r)(iii) be amended to read as follows:

“(iii) replace lines 20 to 26 with the following:

(8) The Agency must post on the Internet site a notice of the time limit established under subsection (5) and of any extension granted under this section, including the reasons for estblishing that time limit or for granting that extension.

(9) The Agency may suspend the time limit within which it must submit the report until any activi-”;

proposes that amendment 1(r)(iv) be amended by deleting section 28.1;

proposes that amendment 1(y)(i) be amended by replacing the text of the amendment with the following:

“of reference and the Agency must, within the same period, appoint as a member one or more persons who are unbiased and free from any conflict of in-”;

proposes that amendment 1(z)(iv) be amended by replacing the text of the amendment with the following:

“net site — establish the panel’s terms of reference in consultation with the President of the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission and the Agency must, within the same period, ap-”;

proposes that amendment 1(z)(v) be amended by replacing the text of the amendment with the following

“President of the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission.

(4) The persons appointed from the roster must not”;

proposes that amendment 1(aa)(iii) be amended by replacing the text of the amendment with the following:

“net site — establish the panel’s terms of reference in consultation with the Lead Commissioner of the Canadian Energy Regulator and the Agency must, within the same period, ap-”;

proposes that amendment 1(aa)(iv) be amended by replacing the text of the amendment with the following:

“Lead Commissioner of the Canadian Energy Regulator.

(4) The persons appointed from the roster must not”;

proposes that amendment 1(ab)(i) be amended by replacing the text of the amendment with the following:

“referred to in section 14.

50 (1) The Minister must establish the following rosters:”;

proposes that amendment 1(ab)(ii) be amended by replacing the text of the amendment with the following:

“(2) In establishing a roster under paragraph (1)(b), the Minister must consult with the Minister of Natural Resources or the member of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada that the Governor in Council designates as the Minister for the purposes of the Nuclear Safety and Control Act.

(3) In establishing a roster under paragraph (1)(c), the Minister must consult with the member of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada that the Governor in Council designates as the Minister for the purposes of the Canadian Energy Regulator Act.”;

proposes that amendment 1(ab)(iii) be amended to read as follows:

“(iii) replace lines 30 and 31 with the following:

opportunity to participate meaningfully, in the manner that the review panel considers appropriate and within the time period that it specifies, in the im-”;

proposes that amendment 1(af)(ii) be amended to read as follows:

“(ii) replace lines 20 to 23 with the following:

(a) determine whether the adverse effects within federal jurisdiction — and the adverse direct or incidental effects — that are indicated in the report are, in light of the factors referred to in section 63 and the extent to which those effects are significant, in the public inter-”;

proposes that, as a consequence of the amendment to amendment 1(af)(ii), the following amendment be added:

“1. Clause 1, page 41: Replace lines 25 to 27 with the following:

(b) refer to the Governor in Council the matter of whether the effects referred to in paragraph (a) are, in light of the factors referred to in section 63 and the extent to which those effects are significant, in the public interest.”;

proposes that amendment 1(af)(iv) be amended by replacing the text of the amendment with the following

“the Minister under section 59, the Minister, in consultation with the responsible Minister, if any, must refer to”;

proposes that amendment 1(af)(v) be amended to read as follows:

“(v) replace lines 36 to 39 with the following:

whether the adverse effects within federal jurisdiction — and the adverse direct or incidental effects — that are indicated in the report are, in light of the factors referred to in section 63 and the extent to which those effects are significant, in the public interest.”;

proposes that amendment 1(af)(vi) be amended by replacing the text of the amendment with the following:

“(1.1) For the purpose of subsection (1), responsible Minister means the following Minister:

(a) in the case of a report prepared by a review panel established under subsection 44(1), the Minister of Natural Resources or the member of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada that the Governor in Council designates as the Minister for the purposes of the Nuclear Safety and Control Act;

(b) in the case of a report prepared by a review panel established under subsection 47(1), the member of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada that the Governor in Council designates as the Minister for the purposes of the Canadian Energy Regulator Act.

(2) If the report relates to a designated project that includes activities that are regulated under the Canadian Energy Regulator Act, the responsible Minister must, at the same time as the referral described in subsection (1) in respect of that report is made,

(a) submit the report to the Governor in Council for the purposes of subsection 186(1) of that Act; or

(b) submit the decision made for the purposes of subsection 262(4) of that Act to the Governor in Council if it is decided that the certificate referred to in that subsection should be issued.”;

proposes that amendment 1(ag)(i) be amended to read as follows

“(i) replace lines 6 to 9 with the following:

whether the adverse effects within federal jurisdiction — and the adverse direct or incidental effects — that are indicated in the report are, in light of the factors referred to in section 63 and the extent to which those effects are significant, in the public interest.”;

proposes that amendment 1(ag)(v) be amended to read as follows:

“(v) replace lines 19 to 22 with the following:

(b) the extent to which the adverse effects within federal jurisdiction and the adverse direct or incidental effects that are indicated in the impact assessment report in respect of the designated project are significant;”;

proposes that amendment 1(an)(iii) be amended by renumbering subsection 94(1) as section 94;

proposes that amendment 1(ao)(i) be amended by replacing the text of the amendment with the following:

“95 (1) The Minister may establish a committee – or autho-”;

proposes that amendment 1(ao)(ii) be amended by replacing the text of the amendment with the following:

“(2) The Minister may deem any assessment that provides guidance on how Canada’s commitments in respect of climate change should be considered in impact assessments and that is prepared by a federal authority and commenced before the day on which this Act comes into force to be an assessment conducted under this section.”;

proposes that amendment 1(ao)(iii) be amended by replacing the text of the amendment with the following:

“may be, must take into account any scientific information and Indigenous knowledge — including the knowledge of Indigenous women — provided with respect to the assessment.”;

proposes that amendment 1(ap) be amended by replacing the text of the amendment with the following:

“meaningfully, in a manner that the Agency or committee, as the case may be, considers appropriate, in any assess-”;

proposes that amendment 1(at)(iii) be amended by replacing the text of the amendment with the following:

“(a.2) designating, for the purposes of section 112.1, a physical activity or class of physical activities from among those specified by the Governor in Council under paragraph 109(b), establishing the conditions that must be met for the purposes of the designation and setting out the information that a person or entity — federal authority, government or body — that is referred to in subsection (3) must provide the Agency in respect of the physical activity that they propose to carry out;

(a.3) respecting the procedures and requirements relating to assessments referred to in section 92, 93 or 95;”;

proposes that amendment 2 be amended by replacing the text of the amendment with the following:

“site — establish the panel’s terms of reference in consultation with the Chairperson of the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board and the Agency must, within the same period, ap-”;

proposes that amendment 3(a) be amended by replacing the text of the amendment with the following:

“tablish the panel’s terms of reference in consultation with the Chairperson of the Canada–Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board and the Agency must, within the same period, appoint the”;

proposes that amendment 3(b) be amended by deleting subsection (3.1);

proposes that, as a consequence of the amendment to amendment 3(b), the following amendment be added:

“1. Clause 6, page 94: Replace lines 32 and 33 with the following:

Petroleum Board.”;

proposes that amendment 4(a) be amended to read as follows:

“(a) On page 95, replace lines 33 to 36 with the following:

(b.1) a roster consisting of persons who may be appointed as members of a review panel established under subsection 46.1(1) and

(i) who are members of the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board and who are selected by the Minister after consultation with the Minister of Natural Resources, or

(ii) who are selected by the Minister after consultation with the Board and the Minister of Natural Resources;”;

proposes that amendment 4(b) be amended to read as follows:

“(b) On page 96, replace lines 3 to 7 with the following:

(d) a roster consisting of persons who may be appointed as members of a review panel established under subsection 48.1(1) and

(i) who are members of the Canada–Newfoundland and Labrador Petroleum Board and who are selected by the Minister after consultation with the Minister of Natural Resources, or

(ii) who are selected by the Minister after consultation with the Board and the Minister of Natural Resources;”;

proposes that amendment 5 be amended by replacing the text of the amendment with the following:

“8.1 (1) Subsection 61(1.1) of the Act is amended by adding the following after paragraph (a):

(a.1) in the case of a report prepared by a review panel established under subsection 46.1(1), the Minister of Natural Resources;

(2) Subsection 61(1.1) of the Act is amended by adding the following after paragraph (b):

(c) in the case of a report prepared by a review panel established under subsection 48.1(1), the Minister of Natural Resources.”;

proposes that, as a consequence of Senate amendment 6(l), the following amendment be added:

“1. Clause 10, page 208: Replace line 39 with the following:

section 37.1 of that Act;”;

proposes that amendment 6(m)(ii) be amended by replacing the text of the amendment with the following:

“within 90 days after the day on which the report under section 183 is submitted or, in the case of a designated project, as defined in section 2 of the Impact Assessment Act, 90 days after the day on which the recommendations referred to in paragraph 37.1(1)(b) of that Act are posted on the Internet site referred to in section 105 of that Act. The Governor in Council may,”;

proposes that, as a consequence of the amendment to amendment 6(m)(ii), the following amendment be added:

“1. Clause 10, page 208: Replace line 7 with the following:

ter the day on which the Commission makes that recommendation or, in the case of a designated project, as defined in section 2 of the Impact Assessment Act, 90 days after the day on which the recommendations referred to in paragraph 37.1(1)(b) of that Act are posted on the Internet site referred to in section 105 of that Act, either approve”

proposes that, as a consequence of Senate amendment 1(bb), the following amendment be added:

“1. New clause 36.1, page 281: Add the following after line 24:

36.1 For greater certainty, section 182.1 of the Impact Assessment Act applies in relation to a pending application referred to in section 36.”.

She said: Mr. Speaker, before I begin today, I wish to acknowledge that we are on the traditional territory of the Algonquin—

[The Environment, June 11th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, we have been clear. We need to take action on climate change. We need to grow our economy. What is also clear is that the party opposite is taking its marching orders from oil lobbyists. Conservatives do not believe that we need to take action on climate change. They want to kill Bill C-69, which would ensure that we are making decisions on environmental assessments on major projects based on science, based on indigenous consultation and ensuring that good projects go ahead in a timely way.

When will they get it that the environment and the economy go together in the 21st century?

[The Environment, June 11th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, it is shocking to hear a Quebec member speak out against environmental action and climate change action.

We are working with the Quebec government, which has imposed a price on pollution. What is happening in Quebec? The economy is growing, there are good jobs and the clean technology industry is expanding. Quebec is doing the right thing for our children and grandchildren, which is to tackle climate change.