Linda Duncan

[Impact Assessment Act, February 27th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, the debate continues. All the Conservatives and Liberals care about is whose bill can fast-track pipelines faster.

It is my understanding that in Bill C-69 we are supposed to be reviewing processes that are going to address climate change, protect the environment, address transboundary rivers, and the interests, concerns, and rights of indigenous peoples. Somewhere along the way I guess we have the idea of where both those parties think this bill should go.

The member is complaining that the government is leaving the ultimate decision on approval of a project to a political level, the Minister of Environment. My recollection is that the law, as it is right now, was changed by the Conservatives so that it was no longer the review panel of the National Energy Board but was at a political level. Is the member's concern simply that it is assigned to the Minister of Environment and not the Minister of Natural Resources?

[Impact Assessment Act, February 27th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I perhaps have a different perspective on what this legislation would do. Contrary to what the member is asserting, the Navigation Protection Act does not trigger an environmental assessment. If we look at the effects within federal jurisdiction, guess what is missing in the list: the Navigation Protection Act.

We also have to note that in the bill gone is the list, even the short list, that the Conservatives created of rivers and lakes. It is up to individual citizens who care about their environment to beg to have their lake or river added. We were disappointed when the Liberal majority on committee decided to stick with the evisceration of that law by the Conservatives. Clearly the government has decided the same. This has been completely watered down. Gone is even the word “water”.

There is no guarantee of protection for indigenous peoples in the bill. I need only give the case of oil sands activities in the north and dam approvals. There is absolutely no consideration in the bill of indigenous peoples who will lose access to marshes and so forth where they practice their traditional practices. There is no guarantee in the bill that in the future they will be looked after.

[Impact Assessment Act, February 27th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I hate to cut through this love affair between the two parties about who loves the oil and gas sector the best but I would like to speak to the bill.

When the Liberals were running for office, they promised that no would mean no if indigenous people did not support a project. They promised no project approvals until a new law was enacted. Well, they approved a pipeline, a dam, and an LNG project despite the fact that indigenous people were expressing deep concerns.

We finally have this bill after two years of consultation. The minister has said that this is going to be a new and different process, that it will not be the same as the previous one, and the recommendations will no longer singularly be made by the National Energy Board. However, the bill proposes that the majority of members on an environmental assessment panel could be from the Canadian energy regulator. The Canadian energy regulator members of the panel would not have to consider climate or cumulative impacts.

Could the member explain how it is that the two parts of the bill are so different? Why is it that the energy authorities who will sit on the panel would not have to consider those matters?

[Impact Assessment Act, February 27th, 2018]

Madam Speaker, I am finding the debate most amusing, with both parties arguing over whose environmental assessment process guarantees that every project will be approved. It is not what the process is supposed to be about, but it is very revealing.

The member's colleague who sits on the committee with me has raised similar concerns to what I have about the uncertainty of the bill. Essentially, we have a framework where the details will come with regulations and rules to be implemented after the bill is finally approved.

I wonder if the member could agree with me that there is a serious problem. The decision on whether or not anything will be assessed will be left to a project list or to the discretion of the minister. Does she not agree that perhaps it would have been good to do this process at the same time that they were consulting on the bill?

[Impact Assessment Act, February 27th, 2018]

Madam Speaker, nobody is questioning that the government spent two years consulting with stakeholders outside of this place. What we are concerned about is the absolute disdain for the House of Commons.

We were elected to represent Canadians. I have been reaching out for those two years, and since the bill was tabled, to find out whether this proposed legislation addresses their interests and concerns. There are deep concerns with the bill, which hopefully we will get into.

As a result of this time allocation, we have lost three-quarters of an hour when members could have debated the bill. It is reprehensible. This is the only public opportunity where Canadians can hear their concerns being raised. We will get to the clause-by-clause in committee all right, in camera.

I am wondering if the minister would commit today to working with her members to ensure that every Canadian who requests to be heard at committee can be heard and that the committee will travel to every corner of the country. Will she commit to truly getting back to people to find out if their concerns were addressed?

[Impact Assessment Act, February 27th, 2018]

Madam Speaker, we are talking here about a 350-page omnibus bill. The government was the first to chastise the former Conservative government when it brought forward omnibus bills and when it brought forward time allocation and closure motions.

I bring to members' attention the concerns raised yesterday by our colleague from Abbotsford on a question of privilege. He recounted again that, in the mandate letter to the minister, she is to be accountable for a commitment to a different style of leadership, close collaboration with her colleagues, and meaningful engagement with opposition members of Parliament. Is this the meaningful consultation with Parliament?

This is a bill that impacts every corner of our country, every indigenous community, every farm community, every conservation organization. Yes, this is after two years of consultation with the public, but there has been absolutely no time for parliamentarians who represent Canadians to discuss this bill. What happened to a constructive Parliament? I am deeply troubled by what the minister has done. It makes a joke of the mandate letter and a joke of the Liberals' commitment to consultation.

Finally, I have heard the minister repeatedly say they brought forward this bill to finally provide rules and certainty. If there is anything that is not in the bill, it is rules and certainty.

[Impact Assessment Act, February 14th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I am listening with great interest to the debate. I am hopeful that we will get back to actually talking about the bill.

We heard from the minister. She has said several times over that she will be open to amendments. I have been talking to many people who have been poring over this bill. We now have a list of probably 30 to 40 discretionary provisions where we do not know how this process is going to be applied.

The minister claims that this is going to solve the public trust and the Liberals' great commitments to public participation, yet there is not a single word of specificity on what those rights to participate will be. They are going to be left up to the panels to decide or the regulations and we have no idea when those regulations will be promulgated.

Could my colleague speak to the fact that there is absolutely no certainty in this bill as to the right of public participation in these reviews?

[Impact Assessment Act, February 14th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure working at committee with the hon. member, although we regularly disagree.

I agree with the minister that the Conservative Party eviscerated the environmental assessment process. In the last election, her party committed to bring forward expeditiously a strengthened process. Unfortunately, and I know my colleague would agree with me, the bill is not a set of rules; it is a framework to eventually make the rules. Some people are carefully reading the bill and sending me their issues. We are now at the 40th discretion in the bill, and it is uncertain what will happen. Could the member speak to this? Surely the government could have issued the project list at the same time as it was consulting on the legislation. It is key to what will happen. We are just starting to discuss what might be on the project list

For certainty, many rules need to be enacted in the bill. Does the member agree that the process should have happened simultaneously to the consultation on the bill itself?

[Petitions, February 14th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table an e-petition by 678 residents of Alberta, calling on the Government of Canada to implement a guaranteed annual income of $1,500 a month or $18,000 a year for all Canadian citizens, 18 years or older, and that the $18,000 a year be in addition to any personal income already earned.

[The Environment, February 13th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals promised to actually strengthen the environmental assessment process gutted by the Conservatives. It is still in place. They promised to remove political considerations from assessments and base decisions on project approvals on scientific evidence, yet Bill C-69 retains the government's ability to disregard scientific evidence, traditional knowledge, identification of adverse impacts, health risks, and community concerns, and still deem the project to be in the public interest.

How can the Minister of Environment defend this bill as a strengthened law?