Catherine McKenna

[Impact Assessment Act, June 13th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, we have accepted a historic number of amendments from the Senate, 43%. Do members know what we are not going to accept? We are not going to accept amendments from Conservative politicians, written by oil lobbyists, who are trying to limit the consultation that is constitutionally required by indigenous peoples. We are not going to limit consultations by the public. We are not going to do something that I imagine would allow the provinces to veto projects in the federal jurisdiction.

We need to get this right, but we do not want to end up in court again. We need a better system, which is exactly what we are working on, so that we protect the environment and do what is required by law, which is to consult with indigenous peoples so good projects can go ahead in a timely way.

[Impact Assessment Act, June 13th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, I find that very confusing. My background is actually in corporate law. I am just trying to get a good system that makes sense.

I feel very badly for the people in the member's riding who are losing jobs. That is a very big concern. However, that is why need a better system to ensure that major projects do not end up in court, that we do not end up having polarization around major projects, that we can figure out a way to move forward, because we need to do that.

We have created a million jobs with Canadians. I am sorry that there are these instances in his riding, which I think is really important. Every Canadian should have a good job, and that is what we work on every day. We have raised 300,000 kids out of poverty and families have $2,000 more every year.

We are continuing to work hard, but the only way we will be able to get projects ahead, including in Alberta, is if we have a system that does not end up in court as opposed to projects going ahead.

[Impact Assessment Act, June 13th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member opposite for his advocacy on the environment. I know how much he cares about the environment, and I have seen his actions.

This is a priority piece of legislation. We have listened to Canadians from coast to coast to coast. We have had two parliamentary committees, two expert panels, but this bill languished in the Senate for almost a year, because Conservative politicians did not want it to continue to move forward. They did not understand that the environment and the economy go together.

The good news is that there were very conscientious senators who recognized that we have the opportunity to get this bill right. They proposed amendments. We accepted the amendments that would strengthen the bill, and we need to move forward now.

[Impact Assessment Act, June 13th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, I cannot tell you how much I will miss this hon. member in the House. He knows what it means to be a great parliamentarian. He knows that we should have good debate and that we should not have name-calling. He knows that we should work together to build this great country.

We have a $500-billion opportunity to take advantage of, and instead of fighting, we should come together. We should say that we understand that the environment and the economy go together. We should say that we understand that climate change is real and that we need to take serious action, including putting a price on pollution, because it is the most efficient way to reduce emissions. We should say that we need good projects to go ahead in a timely way. That is what I have been working tirelessly to do day in and day out with this amazing Liberal caucus, and I am going to continue to do that.

[Impact Assessment Act, June 13th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, those were a lot of great talking points, except the reality is that under the gutted system under Stephen Harper, those workers' jobs were put at risk. Good projects could not go ahead in a timely way. We ended up in court far too often. The Trans Mountain expansion is a great example. There were not proper protections for the environment and consultation with indigenous peoples was not there.

Stephen Harper gutted a system and as a result, we ended up in court. That is the truth. We really need to move forward as a country. We need to ensure we take action to protect the environment and to grow the economy. That is why we are doing this. We want good projects to go ahead in a timely way, but they will not go ahead if we end up in court, if we do not consult with indigenous people, if we do not protect the environment. In the 21st century, we will not get good projects going ahead.

[Impact Assessment Act, June 13th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, I am quite surprised to hear that the member opposite, who cares greatly about the environment, would like to go back to the system that was gutted under Stephen Harper, the system that did not protect the environment, the system that did not properly consult with indigenous peoples, the system that did not have the trust of Canadians.

I share her passion for taking action to protect the environment. I share her concern that we properly consult with indigenous peoples. I also believe we need good projects to go ahead in a timely way, that we need to get it right and that we need to ensure the environment and the economy go together.

We have seriously considered the recommendations. We are very pleased to see broad support among many groups, including environmentalists who were extremely concerned about the amendments being proposed by Conservative politicians. First nations support the bill because they understand that the gutted system under Stephen Harper did not work for the environment, did not work for the economy and did not work for Canadians.

[Impact Assessment Act, June 13th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, I am quite surprised that, in the opportunity to speak, issues were not raised.

Let me talk about why we have better rules. We have better rules because we listen to Canadians. We spent the time that was required. We had two expert panels, but also two parliamentary committees, which included members of Parliament. The bill went through the House process. It was supported by the House. We have made amendments, working with senators who wanted to improve the bill. We have accepted amendments. We have accepted 43% of the amendments, because we believe in democracy and we believe in a better process.

However, we need to move forward. We need to create the regulatory certainty that will ensure that good projects go ahead in a timely way, while protecting the environment and ensuring we meet our constitutional obligations to indigenous peoples, and, most of all, that has the trust of Canadians.

[Impact Assessment Act, June 13th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, we have a problem in our country. We have polarization. We end up in courts. We cannot ensure that good projects go ahead. What system are we working under? We are working under the system that was gutted under Stephen Harper, that has reduced the trust of the public in how we review major projects, that has not met the constitutional requirement of engaging and consulting with indigenous peoples and, ironically, that did not ensure that good projects went ahead in a timely fashion.

We listened to industry. Industry stakeholders said that they wanted shorter timelines; we have shorter timelines under Bill C-69. They said they wanted certainty about what permits would be required; we said that we would give them certainty about the permits that were required. They asked about what indigenous consultation was required; we said that we would work with them to provide that.

We have created a system that would do a much better job to keep us out of court and make sure that good projects go ahead in a timely way. That should be everyone's goal. Companies and provinces should be saying that they are open for business, that this is a great opportunity to take advantage of the $500-billion investment opportunity, that Canada is a great country to invest in and that they are going to continue creating good jobs for Canadians.

[Impact Assessment Act, June 13th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to hear that the NDP will be supporting this motion and Bill C-69 and that it knows we need better rules to protect our environment, to engage properly and meet our constitutional requirement with indigenous people, and to ensure that good projects go ahead in a timely way with regulatory certainty.

I would point out that I had the opportunity to be here while the NDP House leader was speaking about his own piece of legislation, and he said that two hours of debate was the threshold for him, so we are also very similar in thinking that this is enough. We have been having discussions around this legislation for about three years: two expert panels, two parliamentary committees, consultations from coast to coast to coast. Canadians have written in. We have had formal submissions from businesses, environmentalists, provinces and territories. We have had meetings.

We believe that we have very good legislation that would enable us to take advantage of the $500-billion economic opportunity of getting our natural resources to market. That would help grow our economy, and we can do it in a way that protects the environment.

[Impact Assessment Act, June 13th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to correct the record. We are accepting just under half of the amendments proposed by the Senate. We have always believed that we need better rules, because under the process gutted by Stephen Harper, we were not protecting the environment; we were not meeting our constitutional obligations to indigenous peoples; and good projects were not going ahead in a timely way.

We can all agree that we should protect the environment, that we should properly consult with indigenous peoples and that good projects should go on in a timely way. We have spent three and a half years working on this piece of legislation. It has gone through two House committees. It has gone through two expert panels. There have been consultations from coast to coast to coast. We have heard from business leaders. We have heard from environmental leaders. We have heard from indigenous leaders. We have heard from provinces and territories, and we have heard from Canadians. They want better rules, because they want to take advantage of the $500-billion opportunity in the next decade.

We have a huge opportunity to get our resources to market, but we need to do it in a sustainable way, because in the 21st century the environment and the economy have to go together. Canadians know this. Responsible businesses know this. We have seen too often that we are ending up in court. We are seeing too often polarization. That is bad for the environment, and that is bad for the economy. We can do a lot better.

I would encourage the members opposite to join us, to say yes, we want to get our resources to market in a sustainable way; yes, we want to make sure we protect our environment; yes, we want to make sure we do right in consultations with indigenous peoples; yes, we want to make sure we have the trust of the public so we can do what we need to do.

We want to grow our economy, and that is exactly what we are doing. We have created one million jobs with Canadians. We have historic levels of foreign direct investment in our country. We have reduced child poverty, and 300,000 kids are out of poverty now. The typical Canadian family has $2,000 more in its pocket at the end of every year, and we are doing right by the environment.