Skip to main content Start of content

House Publications

The Debates are the report—transcribed, edited, and corrected—of what is said in the House. The Journals are the official record of the decisions and other transactions of the House. The Order Paper and Notice Paper contains the listing of all items that may be brought forward on a particular sitting day, and notices for upcoming items.

For an advanced search, use Publication Search tool.

If you have any questions or comments regarding the accessibility of this publication, please contact us at accessible@parl.gc.ca.

Previous day publication Next day publication
Skip to Document Navigation Skip to Document Content

42nd PARLIAMENT, 1st SESSION

EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 308

CONTENTS

Tuesday, June 5, 2018




House of Commons Debates

VOLUME 148 
l
NUMBER 308 
l
1st SESSION 
l
42nd PARLIAMENT 

OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD)

Tuesday, June 5, 2018

Speaker: The Honourable Geoff Regan

    The House met at 10 a.m.

Prayer



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

[Routine Proceedings]

  (1005)  

[Translation]

Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner

    Pursuant to paragraph 90(1)(b) of the Parliament of Canada Act, it is my duty to present to the House the annual report of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner in relation to the Conflict of Interest Act for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2018.
    Pursuant to Standing Order 108(3)(h), this document is deemed to have been permanently referred to the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics.

[English]

Government Response to Petitions

    Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to 15 petitions.

Committees of the House

Liaison 

    Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 107(3), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's eighth report from the Liaison Committee on committee activities and expenditures from April 1, 2017 to March 31, 2018. This report highlights the work and accomplishments of each committee, as well as detailing the budgets that fund the activities approved by committee members.

Criminal Code

    She said: Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to rise today to introduce a bill that would reverse harmful effects brought on by the mandatory minimum sentencing. My thanks to the member for London—Fanshawe for seconding my bill.
    The bill, proposed by two students from my riding, would answer the TRC's call to action number 32. It calls upon the federal government to amend the Criminal Code to allow trial judges, upon giving reasons, to depart from mandatory minimum sentences and restrictions on conditional sentences.
    The rates of incarceration for indigenous people in Canada are a national disgrace. Canada's correctional investigator has stated that the over-incarceration of indigenous people is a human rights issue. My home province of Saskatchewan is incarcerating indigenous people at an increasing rate, when the rate of overall incarceration of non-aboriginal people is declining. The bill would allow judges to use their training and judgment to impose sentences that are reasonable, just, and based on the facts of each case, and that would not cause undue hardship.
    I am extremely proud of Brody Beuker and Camilo Silva, of Bethlehem High School in Saskatoon West. I thank them for creating a better Canada.

     (Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

Petitions

Canada Summer Jobs Program  

    Mr. Speaker, this is another of many petitions in my riding, from people who continue to express significant concerns regarding the attestation process in the Canada summer jobs program.

[Translation]

Rail Transportation  

    Mr. Speaker, they say the only constant is change, but when it comes to the high-frequency train, change is a very long time coming.
     Thousands of people from Trois-Rivières have signed the petition urging the Minister of Transport to take action and make a decision about the high-frequency train proposal. I would like to read the last line of the petition, which I think is crystal clear:
    We, the undersigned, call on the Minister of Transport...to take the interests of the people of Trois-Rivières into account and invest in undertaking construction of the high-frequency train project in 2018.
    I just want to point out that my constituents have been waiting 25 years for the passenger train to return.

[English]

Algoma Passenger Train  

    Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise again to table a petition to the Minister of Transport regarding passenger train service on the Algoma Central Railway. The petitioners are indicating the effects of train-related employment, the economic impact, and the lack of safe, reliable access, especially for small businesses. They indicate that a passenger train is more environmentally friendly, so it makes sense to put it back on track. They also indicate that it is important for regional health care and post-secondary education.
    Petitioners are asking the government to put the train back on track, and to fulfill its mandate to serve the public interest through the promotion of a safe and secure, efficient, and environmentally responsible transportation system in Canada.

[Translation]

National Park in Brome—Missisquoi  

    Mr. Speaker, most of the land in southern Canada is essentially privately owned, which is why conservation tools are needed to integrate conservation and the responsible use of forests.
    In the medium term, urban sprawl poses a real threat to our large, unique natural landscapes. That is why the petitioners are calling on the Minister of Environment and Climate Change to help us create a national park to protect and showcase Brome—Missisquoi's natural heritage for present and future generations.

  (1010)  

Protection of Gatineau Park  

    Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to present a petition initiated by the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society, or CPAWS, concerning the protection of Gatineau Park.
    This petition, signed by people from Gatineau, Ottawa, Kanata, Chelsea, and Kingston, calls for legal protections for the park, which is not currently protected under the law and does not enjoy the same protections as other national parks in Canada. The petition calls on the government to pass legislation to recognize the park's boundaries and adopt policies that are appropriate to a nationally significant protected area, thereby preserving more than 90 plant species and 50 animal species at risk.
    Gatineau Park is one of the most frequently visited parks in Canada, and the petitioners believe that we must act now to preserve it.

Guaranteed Income Supplement  

    Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to table in the House a petition signed by my constituents in Jonquière regarding automatic registration for the guaranteed income supplement. This is an important issue.
    The government recently announced that starting now, all seniors 64 and older will be automatically registered for the guaranteed income supplement. What we want is for all eligible seniors to be registered upon reaching the age of 64. This is important not just to the people of my riding, but to everyone across Canada. The guaranteed income supplement helps seniors stay at home and receive appropriate services. That is why I have the honour to table in the House this petition signed by my constituents in Jonquière.

[English]

Physician-Assisted Dying  

    Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to present this petition with respect to conscience protection. It states that coercion, intimidation, and other forms of pressure intended to force physicians, health care professionals, and health institutions to become parties to assisted suicide and euthanasia are a violation of their charter rights. The petitioners are calling on Parliament to enshrine in the Criminal Code the protection of conscience for physicians and health care institutions from coercion or intimidation to provide assisted suicide, euthanasia, or referral thereto.

Postal Banking   

    Mr. Speaker, I rise to present two petitions. My first petition is in support of postal banking. Nearly two million Canadians desperately need an alternative to payday lenders where there is no bank or credit union in the town. However, we know that 3,800 Canada Post outlets are already there and are quite capable of delivering the service, because they have the infrastructure to allow them to make a transition that would include postal banking.
    Therefore, the petitioners are asking that the Government of Canada enact Motion No. 166 to create a committee to study and propose a plan for postal banking under the Canada Post Corporation.

Survivor Pension Benefits  

    Mr. Speaker, my second petition is in support of Bill C-397. As members may recall, there is an archaic piece of legislation on the books that precludes a dying spouse from leaving his or her pension to his or her spouse if he or she is a member of Parliament, a judge, a veteran, or a member of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, and the marriage was entered into after age 60. That is ludicrous, because the caregivers and spouses of these veterans or Royal Canadian Mounted Police give so much in terms of love and care.
    Therefore, the petitioners are calling on the government to support my bill, which would enable cancellation of the legislation that denies surviving spouses their rightful pensions.

The Environment  

    Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions to present.
    The first relates to the abuse of Gulf Islands anchorages, and it is being presented for the first time.
    To summarize, earlier this year, Transport Canada put in place an interim protocol for the use of southern British Columbia anchorages. What this has, in effect, done is to say that the default decision is to send really large container ships into the pristine waters of the Gulf Islands, through my riding of Saanich—Gulf Islands and up to the riding of the member for Nanaimo—Ladysmith. Even when there are open berths available in Victoria, Vancouver, and Nanaimo, these freighters are moved into the Gulf Islands. These anchorages are essentially free parking lots for an industrial enterprise in a pristine environment. It is unacceptable.
    The petitioners are asking the House of Commons to call on the Government of Canada to urgently protect the Gulf Islands' environment and economy, suspend this interim protocol for the use of southern B.C. anchorages immediately, and consult further on a new protocol, so that our environment in and around the Gulf Islands will not be abused and threatened in this way.

  (1015)  

    The second petition is from residents throughout southern Gulf Islands.
    The petitioners call upon the government to ban the transport of crude oil, particularly dilbit, in tankers along the entire B.C. coast, to protect fisheries, tourism, coastal communities, and natural ecosystems.

Pharmacare  

    Mr. Speaker, I have many constituents who have brought forward this petition.
    The petitioners call upon the federal government to develop jointly with its provincial and territorial partners the universal, single-payer, evidence-based, and sustainable public drug plan with purchasing power to secure best available pricing, beginning with the list of essential medicines addressing priority health needs and expanding to a comprehensive permanent plan that would promote the health and well-being of all Canadians.

The Environment  

    Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise today on World Environment Day, when the global community is committed to beating plastic pollution, to table a petition to support my Motion No. 151 calling for a national strategy to combat plastic pollution from entering our waterways.
    The petitioners are from Vancouver Island, from communities like Tofino, Parksville, and Qualicum Beach. They are calling on the government to regulate single-use plastics and to come up with strategies to mitigate plastic from entering our waterways, through stormwater outfalls and education and beach cleanup campaigns. They want to make sure there is producer responsibility, and to redesign the whole plastic economy.
    The petition supports seven reforms to address plastic pollution.

Questions on the Order Paper

     Mr. Speaker, the following question will be answered today: Question No. 1669.

[Text]

Question No. 1669---
Mr. David Anderson:
    With regard to Bill C-71, An Act to amend certain Acts and Regulations in relation to firearms, and the government’s claim that over 90 % of all authorizations to transport restricted and prohibited weapons are between the owner’s residence and an approved shooting range, or between the retailer and the owner’s home directly following the purchase of a firearm: what is the source of this claim and what information does the government have to substantiate this claim?
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Lib.):
    Mr. Speaker, under the authority of the chief firearms officers, an authorization to transport is issued for the movement, or transport, of restricted and prohibited firearms. The application for an authorization to transport requires the client, the licencee, to indicate the reason for transport, which the chief firearms officer of jurisdiction will approve or refuse.
    Since December 1, 1998, with the coming into force of the Firearms Act, all authorizations to transport that have been issued—i.e., approved--are retained within the Canadian Firearms Information System.
    An analysis on all valid authorizations to transport as of August 1, 2015, established that 138,184, or 96.5%, of the 143,177 valid authorizations to transport were issued for one of two reasons for transport: first, transport of restricted firearms and/or prohibited handguns designated 12(6.1), possessed for the purpose of target practice, to and from all shooting clubs and ranges approved under section 29 of the Firearms Act; second, transport of a newly acquired restricted firearm and/or prohibited firearm from the place of acquisition to the place of registration.
    On September 2, 2015, the legislative process for authorizations to transport was altered as a result of Bill C-42, whereby six transportation provisions for restricted and prohibited firearms would now be a condition on a firearms licence as opposed to through an authorization to transport.
    Under a Bill C-71 regime, the two transportation provisions noted above would continue to be a condition on a firearms licence.

[English]

Questions Passed as Orders for Returns

     Mr. Speaker, if the government's responses to Questions Nos. 1660 to 1668 and 1670 could be made orders for return, these returns would also be tabled immediately.
     Is that agreed?
     Some hon. members: Agreed.

[Text]

Question No. 1660--
Ms. Jenny Kwan:
     With regard to the Maritime Labour Convention (MLC) (2006), which came into force in August 2013: (a) what is the yearly breakdown of ships docking in Canadian waters, broken down by (i) type of ship, (ii) flag state of the ship; (b) for ships that spend more than 30 days in Canadian waters, (i) how many have conducted labour market impact assessments (LMIA), (ii) how many are known to have avoided conducting an LMIA by exiting and re-entering Canadian waters, (iii) how many Canadian workers are employed on board, (iv) how many temporary foreign workers are employed on board; (c) for ships docking in Canadian waters, how many of these ships were inspected through port state control, broken down by (i) the agency or department that inspected the ships, (ii) the exact nature of the inspection, (iii) the outcome of the inspection, (iv) the consequences applied if inspection results did not comply with international maritime law and national labour conventions, (v) the compliance rates to MLC 2006 and national labour conventions, (vi) the amount of ships that have been found in violation of maritime and labour laws more than once over the past five years; (d) what is the yearly amount of active employees conducting inspections through port-state control, broken down by (i) type of training provided to all inspectors tasked with carrying out inspections through port state control, (ii) length of training provided to all inspectors tasked with carrying out inspections through port state control, (iii) which department they fall under, (iv) department in charge of their training, (v) amount of inspectors hired to inspect ships in Canada outside of port state control, (vi) nature of the inspections they conduct, (vii) organizations or agencies they belong to, (viii) type of training they receive; (e) what are the enforcement mechanisms at the disposition of the government and individual inspectors, including (i) rates at which these enforcement mechanisms are used or applied, (ii) effectiveness in deterring ship owners from breaking the law; (f) what is the comprehensive list of budget measures that pertain to enforcement of maritime law, including (i) those that cater specifically to the employment of temporary foreign workers, (ii) those that cater specifically to the hiring and training of inspectors; (g) what are the organizations that Transport Canada recognizes as being allowed to conduct inspections on ships in Canada, including (i) NGOs, (ii) unions; (h) when employment of temporary foreign workers on ships is known, (i) what is the average wage received daily, (ii) what is the average wage received monthly, (iii) what is the average wage received yearly, (iv) what is the average length of their contract; (i) according to data accumulated from inspections or from other sources, how much is owed to (i) temporary foreign workers, (ii) Canadian workers in unpaid wages for the past five years; (j) according to data accumulated from inspections and from other sources, how many ships that dock in Canadian waters (i) do not feed their workers adequately, (ii) do not pay their workers adequately, (iii) do not provide their workers with adequate safety and security standards in their environment; (k) based on the inspections that are made into working conditions on ships, how many are made (i) based on complaint or call placed by a temporary foreign worker on board, (ii) based on a complaint or call placed by a Canadian worker on board, (iii) routinely; (l) how many lawsuits have been filed by the Seafarers' International Union of Canada against the government over the past twelve years, including (i) the nature of the lawsuit, (ii) the outcome of the lawsuit; (m) how many lawsuits have been filed against the government by any other party over the past twelve years with regards to the treatment of workers on ships; (n) how many of the lawsuits in (l) and (m) separately have led to (i) legislative reform, (ii) investment in enforcement mechanisms, (iii) reform of enforcement mechanisms and in what way; (o) how many of the lawsuits in (l) and (m) separately dealt with a complaint or injustice of the same nature; (p) what are the government’s primary means of implementing MLC 2006; and (q) which department is responsible for infractions of MLC 2006 (i) on Canadian flag ships, (ii) in Canadian waters, (iii) on ships with Canadian workers?
    (Return tabled)
Question No. 1661--
Mr. Tom Kmiec:
     With regard to Health Canada’s Special Access Program (SAP) that considers requests for access to drugs that are otherwise unavailable to Canadians from medical practitioners to treat serious or life-threatening conditions: (a) what is the aggregate number of applications that have been received by the SAP in the 2015, 2016, and 2017 calendar years; (b) of all SAP applications received in the 2015, 2016, and 2017 calendar years, what is the number of repeat applications for the same drug or health product; (c) for drugs that have received multiple requests in the 2015, 2016, and 2017 calendar years, what are the drug names and the number of requests they have each received; (d) what is the total number of SAP applications that have been approved in the 2015, 2016, and 2017 calendar years; (e) what is the total number of SAP applications that have been rejected in the 2015, 2016, and 2017 calendar years; (f) what are the alphabetized names of all drugs and health products that have been approved by the SAP program in the 2015, 2016, and 2017 calendar years; (g) what are the alphabetized names of all drugs and health products that have been rejected by the SAP program in the 2015, 2016, and 2017 calendar years; (h) how many times has the procedures manual that assessors refer to in administration of the SAP been updated and what are these updates for the 2015, 2016, and 2017 calendar years; (i) what are the measures undertaken by Health Canada to ensure its workers have a good understanding of the medical conditions they're reviewing as part of SAP applications; and (j) what is the aggregate cost of administering the SAP to the Government of Canada for the 2016 fiscal year?
    (Return tabled)
Question No. 1662--
Mr. Ted Falk:
     With regard to the decision taken by the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Labour to apply an attestation requirement to the Canada Summer Jobs program: (a) how many applications were received in total; (b) of the number identified in (a), how many applications were deemed incomplete; (c) how many completed applications included a letter of concern from the applicant; (d) of those identified in (c), how many were (i) approved, (ii) denied or rejected; (e) for each of those identified in (d)(ii), what rationale was given for denial; (f) in the province of Manitoba, how many applications did Service Canada receive, broken down by riding; (g) of those identified in (f), how many were denied or rejected due to a failure to sign the attestation, broken down by riding; (h) how many applicants in Manitoba were requested to re-submit their application, due to a failure to sign the attestation, broken down by riding; (i) of those identified in (f), how many applicants resubmitted their application, broken down by riding; and (j) how many of the applicants identified in (i) were awarded funding, broken down by riding?
    (Return tabled)
Question No. 1663--
Mr. Peter Kent:
     With regard to the event featuring Palestinian Authority Archbishop Atallah Hannah in April 2018, in which the Member of Parliament for Mississauga-Erin Mills provided greetings on behalf of the Prime Minister: (a) did the Prime Minister authorize the greetings; (b) does the Minister of Foreign Affairs agree with the statement given at the event on behalf of the Prime Minister; and (c) if the Member was not speaking on behalf of the Prime Minister or was not authorized to provide the greetings, what disciplinary action or corrective measure has the government taken?
    (Return tabled)
Question No. 1664--
Mr. Jamie Schmale:
     With regard to government expenditures with News Canada Inc., since January 1, 2016, broken down by department, agency, Crown corporation or other government entity: (a) what are the details of each expenditure, including (i) date, (ii) amount, (iii) duration, (iv) description of goods or services provided, (v) titles of “news” stories disseminated as a result of the expenditure; (b) have any departments, agencies, Crown corporations or other government entities discontinued their relationship with News Canada Inc. as a result of the Minister of Canadian Heritage’s January 23, 2017, tweet regarding “fake news”; and (c) will the government commit to ensuring that any unattributed stories written by the government are clearly marked as government propaganda in the story and, if not, why not?
    (Return tabled)
Question No. 1665--
Mr. Dave MacKenzie:
     With regard to expenditures made by the government since December 11, 2017, under government-wide object code 3259 (Miscellaneous expenditures not Elsewhere Classified): what are the details of each expenditure, including (i) vendor name, (ii) amount, (iii) date, (iv) description of goods or services provided, (v) file number?
    (Return tabled)
Question No. 1666--
Ms. Brigitte Sansoucy:
     With regard to federal spending in the constituency of Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot in the fiscal year 2017-2018: what grants, loans, contributions and contracts were awarded by the government, broken down by (i) department and agency, (ii) municipality, (iii) name of recipient, (iv) amount received, (v) program under which expenditure was allocated, (vi) date?
    (Return tabled)
Question No. 1667--
Ms. Brigitte Sansoucy:
     With regard to the government’s infrastructure plan of $186.7 billion over 12 years: (a) what amounts have been allocated, to date, to the various infrastructure projects, broken down by (i) amount allocated to each infrastructure project, (ii) project type; (b) what are the government’s infrastructure funding criteria; (c) what are the locations, to date, where government infrastructure investments have been made, broken down by (i) city or municipality, (ii) amount allocated by city or municipality, (iii) infrastructure project type; (d) how much will be spent on infrastructure in the coming years by the government, broken down by (i) year, (ii) province, (e) how many infrastructure applications have been received by the government since the creation of the infrastructure plan, broken down by (i) number of applications received, (ii) applications approved by the government, (iii) applications rejected, (iv) expected payment date for each government-approved application; (f) why is the minister unable to say what part of infrastructure funding was allocated in budget 2015, 2016 or 2017; (g) what specific steps will the government take to ensure better data sharing with the parliamentary budget officer; (h) when will the government provide more information on the infrastructure plan; (i) have the GDP projections resulting from infrastructure expenditure been adjusted and, if so, what are they; (j) for phase two, (i) what is the government’s deadline for signing agreements with all the provinces and territories, (ii) what are the reasons for missing the March 2018 deadline; and (k) has the department identified any other possible delays and, if so, (i) what part of the funding will be delayed, (ii) what are the causes, (iii) has a plan to address these delays been developed in response?
    (Return tabled)
Question No. 1668--
Ms. Brigitte Sansoucy:
    With regard to Employment and Social Development Canada and the Social Security Tribunal: (a) how many appeals are currently waiting to be heard at the Income Security Section (ISS), in total and broken down by (i) Canada Pension Plan retirement pensions and survivors benefits, (ii) Canada Pension Plan Disability benefits, (iii) Old Age Security; (b) how many appeals have been heard by the ISS in 2016-2017, in total and broken down by (i) Canada Pension plan retirement pensions and survivors benefits, (ii) Canada Pension Plan disability benefits, (iii) Old Age Security; (c) how many appeals heard by the ISS were allowed in 2016-2017, in total and broken down by (i) Canada Pension plan retirement pensions and survivors benefits, (ii) Canada Pension Plan disability benefits, (iii) Old Age Security; (d) how many appeals heard by the ISS were dismissed in 2016-2017, in total and broken down by (i) Canada Pension plan retirement pensions and survivors benefits, (ii) Canada Pension Plan disability benefits, (iii) Old Age Security; (e) how many appeals to the ISS were summarily dismissed in 2016-2017, in total and broken down by (i) Canada Pension plan retirement pensions and survivors benefits, (ii) Canada Pension Plan disability benefits, (iii) Old Age Security; (f) how many appeals at the ISS have been heard in person in 2016-2017, broken down by (i) appeals allowed, (ii) appeals dismissed; (g) how many appeals at the ISS have been heard by teleconference in 2016-2017, broken down by (i) appeals allowed, (ii) appeals dismissed; (h) how many appeals at the ISS have been heard by videoconference in 2016-2017, broken down by (i) appeals allowed, (ii) appeals dismissed; (i) how many appeals at the ISS have been heard in writing in 2016-2017, broken down by (i) appeals allowed, (ii) appeals dismissed; (j) how many members hired in the Employment Insurance Section (EIS) are currently assigned to the ISS; (k) how many income security appeals are currently waiting to be heard by the Appeal Division (AD), in total and broken down by (i) Canada Pension plan retirement pensions and survivors benefits, (ii) Canada Pension Plan disability benefits, (iii) Old Age Security; (l) how many income security appeals have been heard by the AD in 2016-2017, in total and broken down by (i) Canada Pension plan retirement pensions and survivors benefits, (ii) Canada Pension Plan disability benefits, (iii) Old Age Security; (m) how many income security appeals heard by the AD were allowed in 2016-2017, in total and broken down by (i) Canada Pension plan retirement pensions and survivors benefits, (ii) Canada Pension Plan disability benefits, (iii) Old Age Security; (n) how many income security appeals heard by the AD were dismissed in 2016-2017, in total and broken down by (i) Canada Pension plan retirement pensions and survivors benefits, (ii) Canada Pension Plan disability benefits, (iii) Old Age Security; (o) how many income security appeals to the AD were summarily dismissed in 2016-2017, in total and broken down by (i) Canada Pension plan retirement pensions and survivors benefits, (ii) Canada Pension Plan disability benefits, (iii) Old Age Security; (p) how many income security appeals at the AD have been heard in person in 2016-2017, broken down by (i) appeals allowed, (ii) appeals dismissed; (q) how many income security appeals at the AD have been heard in by videoconference in 2016-2017, broken down by (i) appeals allowed, (ii) appeals dismissed; (r) how many income security appeals at the AD have been heard by teleconference in 2016-2017, broken down by (i) appeals allowed, (ii) appeals dismissed; (s) how many income security appeals at the AD have been heard in writing in 2016-2017, broken down by (i) appeals allowed, (ii) appeals dismissed; (t) how many appeals are currently waiting to be heard at the Employment Insurance Section (EIS); (u) how many appeals have been heard by the EIS in 2016-2017, in total and broken down by month; (v) how many appeals heard by the EIS were allowed in 2016-2017; (w) how many appeals heard by the EIS were dismissed in 2016-2017; (x) how many appeals to the EIS were summarily dismissed in 2016-2017; (y) how many appeals at the EIS have been heard in person 2016-2017, broken down by (i) appeals allowed, (ii) appeals dismissed; (z) how many appeals at the EIS have been heard by videoconference in 2016-2017, broken down by (i) appeals allowed, (ii) appeals dismissed; (aa) how many appeals at the EIS have been heard by teleconference in 2016-2017, broken down by (i) appeals allowed, (ii) appeals dismissed; (bb) how many appeals at the EIS have been heard in writing in 2016-2017, broken down by (i) appeals allowed, (ii) appeals dismissed; (cc) how many EI appeals are currently waiting to be heard by the AD; (dd) how many EI appeals have been heard by the AD in 2016-2017; (ee) how many EI appeals heard by the AD were allowed in 2016-2017; (ff) how many EI appeals heard by the AD were dismissed in 2016-2017; (gg) how many EI appeals to the AD were summarily dismissed in 2016-2017; (hh) how many EI appeals at the AD have been heard in person in 2016-2017, broken down by (i) appeals allowed, (ii) appeals dismissed; (ii) how many EI appeals at the AD have been heard by videoconference in 2016-2017, broken down by (i) appeals allowed, (ii) appeals dismissed; (jj) how many EI appeals at the AD have been heard by teleconference in 2016-2017, broken down by (i) appeals allowed, (ii) appeals dismissed; (kk) how many EI appeals at the AD have been heard in writing in 2016-2017, broken down by (i) appeals allowed, (ii) appeals dismissed; (ll) how many legacy appeals are currently waiting to be heard at the ISS; (mm) how many legacy appeals are currently waiting to be heard at the EIS; (nn) how many legacy income security appeals are currently waiting to be heard at the AD; (oo) how many legacy Employment Insurance appeals are currently waiting to be heard at the AD; (pp) how many requests has the Tribunal received for an expedited hearing due to terminal illness in 2016-2017, broken down by (i) month, (ii) requests granted, (iii) requests not granted; (qq) how many requests has the Tribunal received for an expedited hearing due to financial hardship in 2016-2017, broken down by (i) month, (ii) section, (iii) requests granted, (iv) requests not granted; (rr) when will performance standards for the Tribunal be put in place; (ss) how many casefiles have been reviewed by the special unit created within the department to review backlogged social security appeals; (tt) how many settlements have been offered; (uu) how many settlements have been accepted; (vv) how much has been spent on the special unit within the department; (ww) what is the expected end date for the special unit within the department; (xx) for 2016 and 2017, what is the average amount of time for the Department to reach a decision on an application for Canada Pension Plan Disability benefits, broken down by month; and (yy) for 2016 and 2017, what is the average amount of time for the Department to reach a decision on a reconsideration of an application for Canada Pension Plan Disability benefits, broken down by month?
    (Return tabled)
Question No. 1670--
Mr. Luc Thériault:
     With regard to the $173.2 million announced on page 211 of the budget plan to support security operations at the Canada-U.S. border and the processing of asylum claimants arriving in 2018-2019: (a) what is the breakdown of this amount by department, program and province, both financially, expressed in dollars, and in human resources, expressed in full-time equivalents; and (b) to determine that this amount can meet demand, what is the number of migrants that the government expects to be crossing the Canada-U.S. border in 2018-2019 and what is the breakdown by province?
    (Return tabled)

[English]

    Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.
     Is that agreed?
    Some hon. members: Agreed.

Government Orders

[Government Orders]

Impact Assessment Act

[English]

Speaker’s Ruling  

    There are 216 motions in amendment standing on the Notice Paper for the report stage of Bill C-69.

[Translation]

     Motions Nos. 2, 6, 7, and 80 will not be selected by the Chair, since they could have been submitted to the committee for its consideration. Motions Nos. 14, 24, and 65 will not be selected by the Chair, since they were defeated in committee.

[English]

    All remaining motions have been examined, and the Chair is satisfied that they meet the guidelines expressed in the note to Standing Order 76.1(5) regarding the selection of motions in amendment at report stage.
    Motions Nos. 1, 3 to 5, 8 to 13, 15 to 23, 25 to 64, 66 to 79, and 81 to 216 will be grouped for debate and voted upon according to the voting pattern available at the table.

  (1020)  

[Translation]

    I will now put Motions Nos. 1, 3 to 5, 8 to 13, 15 to 23, 25 to 64, 66 to 79, and 81 to 216 to the House.

[English]

Motions in Amendment  

Motion No. 1
    That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 1.
    , seconded by the hon. member for Bécancour—Nicolet—Saurel, moved:
Motion No. 3
    That Bill C-69, in Clause 1, be amended by replacing line 20 on page 28 with the following:
“(d) any impact that the designated project”

[Translation]

Motion No. 4
     That Bill C-69, in Clause 1, be amended by replacing line 22 on page 28 with the following:
“Canada recognized and affirmed by the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, adopted on September 13, 2007, and by section 35 of the”

[English]

Motion No. 5
    That Bill C-69, in Clause 1, be amended by replacing lines 32 and 33 on page 34 with the following:
“ter and only one member of the review panel may be appointed from the roster.”

[Translation]

Motion No. 8
     That Bill C-69, in Clause 1, be amended by replacing line 27 on page 45 with the following:
“tion, direction or approval issued, granted or given, as the case may be, by a federal authority other than the Agency.”
Motion No. 9
    That Bill C-69, in Clause 1, be amended by replacing line 22 on page 46 with the following:
“provided by the proponent, the public or the Indigenous peoples of Canada on the matter, establish the”
Motion No. 10
    That Bill C-69, in Clause 1, be amended by replacing line 26 on page 46 with the following:
“vided by the proponent, the public or the Indigenous peoples of Canada on the matter, extend the period”

[English]

    , seconded by the hon. member for Bécancour—Nicolet—Saurel, moved:
Motion No. 11
     That Bill C-69, in Clause 1, be amended by replacing line 28 on page 55 with the following:
“assessment, as well as any assessment of the effects of past physical activities, of alternative means of carrying out the physical activities and of options for the protection of the environment, human life or health or public safety.”

[Translation]

Motion No. 12
     That Bill C-69, in Clause 1, be amended by replacing line 28 on page 55 with the following:
“assessment, as well as any treaty rights of the Indigenous peoples of Canada, their rights under the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, adopted on September 13, 2007, and any cumulative impacts associated with other projects or activities.”
Motion No. 13
    That Bill C-69, in Clause 1, be amended by replacing line 30 on page 56 with the following:
“account the rights of the Indigenous peoples of Canada, including the rights recognized and affirmed by section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982 and their rights under the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, adopted on September 13, 2007, and used any Indigenous knowledge provided”

  (1025)  

Motion No. 15
    That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 2.
Motion No. 16
    That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 3.
Motion No. 17
    That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 4.
Motion No. 18
    That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 5.
Motion No. 19
    That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 6.
Motion No. 20
    That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 7.
Motion No. 21
    That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 8.
Motion No. 22
    That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 9.
Motion No. 23
    That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 10.
    , seconded by the hon. member for Bécancour—Nicolet—Saurel, moved:
Motion No. 25
    That Bill C-69, in Clause 10, be amended by replacing line 22 on page 105 with the following:
“protection of the rights of the Indigenous peoples of Canada.”
Motion No. 26
     That Bill C-69, in Clause 10, be amended by replacing line 34 on page 174 with the following:
“mitments in respect of climate change, the environment and biodiversity;”
Motion No. 27
    That Bill C-69, in Clause 10, be amended by replacing line 34 on page 207 with the following:
“commitments in respect of climate change, the environment and biodiversity; and”

[English]

Motion No. 28
     That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 11.
Motion No. 29
     That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 12.
Motion No. 30
     That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 13.
Motion No. 31
     That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 14.
Motion No. 32
     That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 15.
Motion No. 33
     That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 16.
Motion No. 34
     That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 17.
Motion No. 35
     That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 18.
Motion No. 36
     That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 19.
Motion No. 37
     That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 20.
Motion No. 38
     That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 21.
Motion No. 39
     That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 22.
Motion No. 40
     That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 23.
Motion No. 41
     That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 24.
Motion No. 42
     That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 25.
Motion No. 43
     That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 26.
Motion No. 44
     That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 27.
Motion No. 45
     That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 28.
Motion No. 46
     That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 29.
Motion No. 47
     That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 30.
Motion No. 48
    That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 31.
Motion No. 49
    That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 32.
Motion No. 50
    That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 33.
Motion No. 51
    That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 34.
Motion No. 52
    That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 35.
Motion No. 53
    That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 36.
Motion No. 54
    That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 37.
Motion No. 55
    That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 38.
Motion No. 56
    That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 39.
Motion No. 57
    That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 40.
Motion No. 58
    That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 41.
Motion No. 59
    That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 42.
Motion No. 60
    That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 43.
Motion No. 61
    That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 44.
Motion No. 62
    That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 45.
Motion No. 63
    That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 46.
Motion No. 64
    That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 47.
Motion No. 66
    That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 48.
Motion No. 67
    That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 49.
Motion No. 68
    That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 50.
Motion No. 69
    That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 51.
Motion No. 70
    That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 52.
Motion No. 71
    That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 53.
Motion No. 72
    That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 54.
Motion No. 73
    That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 55.
Motion No. 74
    That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 56.
Motion No. 75
    That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 57.
Motion No. 76
    That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 58.
Motion No. 77
    That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 59.
Motion No. 78
    That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 60.
Motion No. 79
    That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 61.
Motion No. 81
    That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 62.
Motion No. 82
    That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 63.
Motion No. 83
    That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 64.
Motion No. 84
    That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 65.
Motion No. 85
    That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 66.
Motion No. 86
    That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 67.
Motion No. 87
    That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 68.
Motion No. 88
    That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 69.
Motion No. 89
    That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 70.
Motion No. 90
    That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 71.
Motion No. 91
    That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 72.
Motion No. 92
    That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 73.
Motion No. 93
    That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 74.
Motion No. 94
    That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 75.
Motion No. 95
    That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 76.
Motion No. 96
    That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 77.
Motion No. 97
    That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 78.
Motion No. 98
    That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 79.
Motion No. 99
    That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 80.
Motion No. 100
    That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 81.
Motion No. 101
    That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 82.
Motion No. 102
    That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 83.
Motion No. 103
    That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 84.
Motion No. 104
    That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 85.
Motion No. 105
    That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 86.
Motion No. 106
    That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 87.
Motion No. 107
    That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 88.
Motion No. 108
    That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 89.
Motion No. 109
    That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 90.
Motion No. 110
    That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 91.
Motion No. 111
    That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 92.
Motion No. 112
    That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 93.
Motion No. 113
    That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 94.
Motion No. 114
    That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 95.
Motion No. 115
    That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 96.
Motion No. 116
    That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 97.
Motion No. 117
    That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 98.
Motion No. 118
    That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 99.
Motion No. 119
    That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 100.
Motion No. 120
    That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 101.
Motion No. 121
    That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 102.
Motion No. 122
    That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 103.
Motion No. 123
    That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 104.
Motion No. 124
    That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 105.
Motion No. 125
    That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 106.
Motion No. 126
    That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 107.
Motion No. 127
    That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 108.
Motion No. 128
    That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 109.
Motion No. 129
    That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 110.
Motion No. 130
    That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 111.
Motion No. 131
    That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 112.
Motion No. 132
    That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 113.
Motion No. 133
    That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 114.
Motion No. 134
    That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 115.
Motion No. 135
    That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 116.
Motion No. 136
    That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 117.
Motion No. 137
    That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 118.
Motion No. 138
    That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 119.
Motion No. 139
    That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 120.
Motion No. 140
    That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 121.
Motion No. 141
    That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 122.
Motion No. 142
    That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 123.
Motion No. 143
    That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 124.
Motion No. 144
    That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 125.
Motion No. 145
    That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 126.
Motion No. 146
    That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 127.
Motion No. 147
    That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 128.

  (1045)  

[Translation]

Motion No. 148
    That Bill C-69, in Clause 128, be amended by replacing line 24 on page 328 with the following:
“5.002 The Canadian Energy Regulator shall establish a”

[English]

Motion No. 149
     That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 129.
Motion No. 150
     That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 130.
Motion No. 151
    That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 131.
Motion No. 152
    That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 132.
Motion No. 153
    That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 133.
Motion No. 154
    That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 134.
Motion No. 155
    That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 135.
Motion No. 156
    That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 136.
Motion No. 157
    That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 137.
Motion No. 158
    That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 138.
Motion No. 159
    That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 139.
Motion No. 160
    That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 140.
Motion No. 161
    That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 141.
Motion No. 162
    That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 142.
Motion No. 163
    That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 143.
Motion No. 164
    That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 144.
Motion No. 165
    That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 145.
Motion No. 166
    That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 146.
Motion No. 167
    That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 147.
Motion No. 168
    That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 148.
Motion No. 169
    That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 149.
Motion No. 170
    That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 150.
Motion No. 171
    That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 151.
Motion No. 172
    That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 152.
Motion No. 173
    That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 153.
Motion No. 174
    That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 154.
Motion No. 175
    That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 155.
Motion No. 176
    That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 156.
Motion No. 177
    That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 157.
Motion No. 178
    That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 158.
Motion No. 179
    That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 159.
Motion No. 180
    That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 160.
Motion No. 181
    That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 161.
Motion No. 182
    That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 162.
Motion No. 183
    That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 163.
Motion No. 184
    That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 164.
Motion No. 185
    That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 165.
Motion No. 186
    That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 166.
Motion No. 187
    That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 167.
Motion No. 188
    That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 168.
Motion No. 189
    That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 169.
Motion No. 190
    That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 170.
Motion No. 191
    That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 171.
Motion No. 192
    That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 172.
Motion No. 193
    That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 173.
Motion No. 194
    That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 174.
Motion No. 195
    That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 175.
Motion No. 196
    That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 176.
Motion No. 197
    That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 177.
Motion No. 198
    That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 178.
Motion No. 199
    That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 179.
Motion No. 200
    That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 180.
Motion No. 201
    That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 181.
Motion No. 202
    That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 182.
Motion No. 203
    That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 183.
Motion No. 204
    That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 184.
Motion No. 205
    That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 185.
Motion No. 206
    That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 186.
Motion No. 207
    That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 187.
Motion No. 208
    That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 188.
Motion No. 209
    That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 189.
Motion No. 210
    That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 190.
Motion No. 211
    That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 191.
Motion No. 212
    That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 192.
Motion No. 213
    That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 193.
Motion No. 214
    That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 194.
Motion No. 215
    That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 195.
Motion No. 216
    That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 196.

  (1055)  

    She said: Madam Speaker, on behalf of Lakeland and communities in every corner of Canada, I strongly oppose Bill C-69, which would radically overhaul Canada's regulatory system, and by extension, hurt Canada's responsible natural resources development.
    It is rich for the Liberals to talk about transparency and for their mandate letters to instruct meaningful engagement with opposition members while they ram through legislation with this magnitude of impact on the Canadian economy. The Liberals refused to split this massive omnibus bill, which involves three big ministries; denied all but a handful of the literally hundreds of amendments proposed by members of all opposition parties; introduced 120 of their own amendments at the last minute; did not provide timely briefings or supplementary material to MPs; and ultimately ignored all the recommendations in the two expert panel reports, from months and months of consultation, rumoured to cost a million dollars each. They shut down debate in committee and are pushing the bill through the last stages with procedural tools.
    Bill C-69 would make it even harder for Canada to compete globally. More than $100 billion in energy investment has already left Canada under the Liberals. Foreign capital is leaving Canada across all sectors.
    The government should focus on market access, on streamlining regulations, and on cutting red tape and taxes in Canada, especially because the U.S. is Canada's biggest energy competitor and customer. However, the Liberals are layering on additional regulatory burdens and costs that make it more difficult for Canada's private sector to compete. The Liberals are damaging certainty and confidence in Canada, putting our own country at a disadvantage.
    Bill C-69, without a doubt, compounds red tape and costs in natural resources development. During testimony, the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers said:
    Unfortunately, today Canada is attracting more uncertainty, not more capital, and we will continue to lose investment and jobs if we do not have a system of clear rules and decisions that are final and can be relied upon.
    Unfortunately, CAPP and the investment community today see very little in Bill C-69 that would improve that status.
    CAPP went on:
    We see substantial risk that all the work undertaken today could be deemed incomplete. Therefore, they may have to restart and follow an entirely different process, which would add more time and more uncertainty for our investment community.
    That issue was addressed in committee by amendments giving proponents the option for reassessment. What I worry about is that the Liberals have now given anti-energy activists the opportunity to demand that all projects go back through that new process, because they have spent years denigrating Canada's regulatory reputation. It has already begun. The Liberals have created years of a regulatory vacuum, destabilizing the framework for Canada's responsible resource development, and have added hurdles during an already challenging time, the worst time, for prices, costs, and competitiveness. That has caused the biggest decline in Canadian oil and gas investment of any other two-year period since 1947, and hundreds of thousands of Canadians losing their jobs. This year alone, during three-year price highs, Canadian oil and gas investment is projected to drop 47% from 2016 levels. The Bank of Canada says that there will be zero new energy investment in Canada after next year.
    In committee, the Canadian Energy Pipeline Association said:
     In the two years leading up to this bill, you can pick your poison: policies, including a tanker moratorium...; proposed methane emission regulation reductions; clean fuel standards; provincial GHG emission regulation; B.C.'s restrictions on transporting bitumen; a lack of clarity regarding the government's position on the implementation of UNDRIP and FPIC; and the fierce competition from energy-supportive policies in the United States, etc. The cumulative effect of these policies has significantly weakened investor confidence in Canada. It is seriously challenging the energy sector's ability to be competitive.
    Nancy Southern, the CEO of ATCO said “our competitive edge is slipping away from us. ...it's layer upon layer [of regulatory burden]. It's increasing regulatory requirement, it's compliance, new labour laws, it's taxes—carbon tax.”
    She called it “heartbreaking”.
    What is really galling is that it makes neither economic nor environmental sense to harm Canada's ability to produce oil and gas. The IEA says that 69% of the world's oil demand growth was in the Asia-Pacific in the past five years, and global demand will grow exponentially for decades to come. Therefore, the world will keep needing oil and gas, and other countries will keep producing it, but of course, to no where near the environmental or social standards of Canadian energy.
    Right now, Canada has more oil supply that it does pipeline capacity, but if Canada had more pipelines, to both the United States and other international markets, Canada could capitalize on its almost limitless potential to be a global supplier of the most responsible oil to the world.
    Building new pipelines makes sense, but as if the Liberals have not already done enough damage, Bill C-69 would make it even harder for new major energy infrastructure to be approved. It is based more on ideology and politics than on science, evidence, and economic analysis.

  (1100)  

    The Canadian Energy Pipeline Association said:
...it is preposterous to expect that a pipeline proponent would spend upwards of a billion dollars only to be denied approval because the project must account for emissions from production of the product to consumption in another part of the world. If the goal is to curtail oil and gas production and to have no more pipelines built, this legislation has hit the mark.
     Oil and gas proponents are seeing clearly that Bill C-69 would ensure that no future major energy projects will be built in Canada.
    The Liberals claim that this bill would enhance indigenous participation. In fact, it actually would make no substantive changes to indigenous rights or duties in the approval process. Indigenous people and communities and all directly impacted communities must be consulted on major energy projects. That is the crown's duty. However, this bill plays right into the hands of anti-energy activists. It would allow distant, unaffected communities, even non-Canadians, to interfere in the review process by removing the standing test and would allow anti-energy groups to subvert the aspirations of indigenous communities that want energy and economic development.
    A hallmark of both Canada's regulatory system and Canadian oil and gas developers has long been world-leading best practices for indigenous consultation and the incorporation of traditional knowledge. Canada's energy sector is more committed to partnerships, mutual benefit agreements, and ownership with indigenous people than anywhere else in the world, so shutting down Canadian oil and gas will hurt them, too. However, the Liberals say one thing and do another when it comes to indigenous people and energy development. The tanker ban was imposed without any meaningful consultation whatsoever with directly impacted communities, such as the Lax Kw'alaams Band, which is taking the government to court over it.
    The tanker ban is also the main obstacle to the Eagle Spirit pipeline, which would run from Bruderheim in Lakeland to northern B.C., carrying oil for export. After five years of work, this $16-billion project has been called the biggest indigenous-owned endeavour in the world. Thirty-five first nations, every single one along the route, support it. The Prime Minister ordered the tanker ban less than a month after the last election, with no consultation or comprehensive economic, environmental, or safety analysis and no consultation with indigenous communities impacted by it. Just like the northern gateway pipeline, 31 first nations supported it, and indigenous partners had equity worth $2 billion. The Prime Minister could have ordered added scope and time for more consultation, but he vetoed it entirely, so both dozens of indigenous agreements and the only already-approved, new, stand-alone pipeline to export Canadian oil to the Asia-Pacific are gone.
    The Prime Minister did the same thing to the Northwest Territories when he unilaterally imposed a five-year offshore drilling ban, with no notice to the territorial government, despite intergovernmental discussions. Northwest Territories Premier Bob McLeod said, “I think for a lot of people, the prime minister took away hope from ever being able to make a long-term healthy living in the North”. This bill is part of the Liberals' pattern of enabling themselves to make political decisions about energy development in Canada.
    This bill is bad for investor confidence in Canada, it is bad for the energy sector, it is bad for the economy, and it is bad for the country as a whole. On top of ideologically driven political decisions, it would not establish timelines for certainty either, despite Liberal claims. There are multiple ways either ministers or the commissioner could stop and extend the process as long as they wanted, as many times as they wanted.
    This bill would not harm only Canadian oil and gas. The Prospectors & Developers Association of Canada said, “the Canadian mineral industry faces fierce global competition for investment. In fact, Canada is starting to fall behind its competitors in a number of areas, indicating its decline in attractiveness as a destination for mineral investment.”
    That is a major problem for Canada too, as Australia and South Africa compete directly as destinations of choice for mineral investment, exploration, and mining. Like oil and gas, Canadian mining is a world leader on all measures. The sector is the biggest employer of indigenous people. It is often the only opportunity for jobs in remote and northern regions. Any additional hurdles or costs will tip the scale in favour of other countries.
    The Liberals' decisions have provoked even former Liberal MP and premier of Quebec Jean Charest to say, “Canada is a country that can't get its big projects done. That's the impression that is out there in the world right now.”
    Although the Liberals should put Canada first, they jeopardize Canada's ability to compete, forcing Canada into a position where natural resources development, the main driver of middle-class jobs and Canada's high standard of living, is at serious risk.
    The Liberals should champion Canada's expertise, innovation, and regulatory know-how. They should be proud of Canada's track record instead of constantly attacking Canada's regulatory reputation and imposing policies and laws like Bill C-69, which would damage the future of Canada's responsible natural resources development and put very real limits on Canada's whole economy and opportunities for future generations.

  (1105)  

    Madam Speaker, when I make an overall assessment of the bill, Bill C-69 is long overdue. It makes a lot of positive changes. The best way I could summarize this legislation, which the official opposition has put forward so many amendments for, is to say that we should be looking at what it would really do. It would protect our environment, fish, and waterways; it would rebuild public trust and respect for indigenous rights; and it would strengthen our economy.
    We need to recognize that the environment and the economy go hand in hand. This is something that the former Harper government failed to do, but we are doing. The best example of that is the pipeline that will go through. For 10 years, Harper failed with that. This government is moving forward with protecting our environment, consulting with indigenous people and others, and advancing the economy with thousands of jobs. Why does the Conservative Party continue to believe that when it comes to development in Canada, it has to be one-sided?
    Madam Speaker, the Liberals need to stop attacking Canada's reputation. Canada has always been the most environmentally responsible producer of natural resources for the benefit of every community in this country and in providing for the world's needs. I hope that one day the Liberals will also let go of the myth they are spinning about the record of pipelines being built in Canada. Under the former Conservative government, four pipelines were constructed without a cent of taxpayer dollars, and they were built to the highest standards through the most rigorous regulatory process in the world. These Liberals have actually killed the only two opportunities for stand-alone pipelines to export to the Asia-Pacific, and they have just spent 4.5 billion tax dollars to give to a company that will now build pipelines in the U.S., and there is no certainty about the expansion of the old pipeline at all.
    Oil and gas and natural resources developers are throwing up red flags about the risks with this bill. Siegfried Kiefer from ATCO warns that governments in Canada “are busy” bringing in “multiple and compounding policies and regulations” that are “layering considerable costs on businesses and individuals alike, undermining the confidence of investors, eroding the attractiveness of our industries and weakening the confidence of the public.”
     That means the livelihoods of hundreds of thousands of Canadians are at risk because of these Liberals.

  (1110)  

    Madam Speaker, I still think the hon. member for Lakeland should be the hon. member for Vegreville, given her passionate defence of her community.
    We were willing to give this bill a chance. We did vote in favour of it at second reading. However, every single one of our amendments at committee was rejected by the Liberals, and the Liberals are trying to ram this bill through as quickly as possible. Given that, I would like the member to comment on this as a pattern with the Liberal government.
    The Liberals are masters of the long promise when it comes to justice reform, electoral reform, and now the environmental review process, yet it all seems to be done at the last minute in a very rushed process. I would like to hear the member's comments on that in the scope of this bill and whether or not it is following that exact same pattern.
    Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his comments about fighting for Vegreville, and I thank the NDP in joining me on that fight, including the support of every single Conservative member in here.
    I completely agree that it is galling the way the Liberals say one thing and then do another. That started from the very beginning of this bill. Opposition parties were denied a technical briefing at the same time the government provided that briefing to media and stakeholders. Over and over again, the Liberals shut down debate in committee and now they are ramming through the final stages of this bill. I know that while we all have a variety of views, all opposition members worked in good faith to try to improve this bill from our various perspectives. I know this frustrated my colleague from the NDP at committee to such a degree that she is now questioning her future involvement in the committee because of the way the Liberals ignored and rejected hundreds of amendments by opposition members.
     So much for all their talk about making Parliament a meaningful way to engage members on behalf of all Canadians right across the country. This is total baloney from these Liberals all the time.
    Madam Speaker, I rise this morning to speak of a really terrible tragedy, which is the destruction of environmental law in this country, how it was done in 2012, and how the current government, despite promises, has failed to repair the damage. I do not enjoy watching a government make mistakes, even if they cost them it in the next election. I do not enjoy saying that the Prime Minister made a promise and now has broken another promise.
    It is tragic because we could do better and we used to do better. I will briefly cover the history of environmental assessment in this country and why this bill is not acceptable as it currently stands. It could be made acceptable by accepting a lot of the amendments, particularly those put forward by the member for Edmonton Strathcona and by me. This bill is an omnibus bill that attempts to repair the damage, but first let us look at what was damaged.
    Starting back in the early 1970s, the federal Government of Canada embarked on a commitment to environmental assessment. We were late, later than the U.S. government under Richard Nixon, which brought in something called the National Environmental Policy Act, which remains to this day far superior to Canadian law on environmental review.
    By fluke, I actually participated in the very first panel review of environmental assessment in Canada in 1976. When I walked into the high school gym in Baddeck, Nova Scotia, I had no idea that it was the first time there had been a public panel review of a project, but the Wreck Cove hydroelectric plant on Cape Breton Island was the first. I participated in environmental reviews thereafter as a senior policy adviser to the federal minister of environment from 1986 to 1988.
    I worked with the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency and its then head, the late Ray Robinson, on getting permission to take the guidelines order, which was a cabinet order for environmental review, and to strengthen it by creating an environmental law, the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, which was brought in under former prime minister Brian Mulroney and received royal assent under former prime minister Jean Chrétien.
    That bill made it very clear, as did the previous guidelines order from 1973 onwards, that any time federal jurisdiction was affected, the government had an obligation to do an environmental review. Since the early guidelines order of the 1970s, federal jurisdiction was described as federal money, federal land. Any time federal jurisdiction, which over time was narrowed down to decisions made by federal ministers under certain bills, or any of those triggers were set off, there had to be at least a cursory screening of the projects. That was the state of environmental law, with many improvements, from the early 1970s until 2012.
    The previous government, under Stephen Harper, brought in amendments in 2010. I certainly know that the committee heard from industry witnesses, the Mining Association of Canada in particular, that it thought everything was just about perfect in 2010. There was an attempt to avoid duplication, there was one project one assessment, early screening, and comprehensive study. Everybody knew what was happening.
    Then in the spring of 2012, the previous government brought in Bill C-38. It was an omnibus bill. It changed 70 different laws in over 430 pages. When the Conservatives complain of lack of consultation on this one, they are right. However, they are in a glass house, and anyone who fought Bill C-38 has a huge pile of stones, because there was no consultation. We did not have briefings and the government did not accept a single amendment between first reading and royal assent. That bill repealed the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act brought in under former prime minister Brian Mulroney, and it devastated the prospect of any environmental review in this country when federal jurisdiction was impacted, unless it was a big project on a short list. That is the easiest way for me to explain what happened.
    The Conservatives changed the triggers by eliminating federal land, federal money, and federal jurisdiction. They just said that if it were a big project, and this is their short list, then they would do a review, but would exclude most of the public and keep the review fast. This was a Harper invention, and it was really diabolical to say that when it were an environmental assessment of a pipeline, the Environmental Assessment Agency would not run it, but the National Energy Board; that when it were an environmental assessment of a nuclear project, it would be run by the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission; and that if it were an environmental assessment of drilling on the offshore in Atlantic Canada and off Newfoundland, it would be the Canada-Newfoundland Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board, and if it were off Nova Scotia, it would be the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board. This collective, which I will now refer to as the “energy regulators”, had never played a role in environmental assessment before. They are part of what was broken in Bill C-38.

  (1115)  

    My hon. friend from Lakeland wants to know why the Kinder Morgan mess is such a mess. It goes back to that assessment being handed to an agency not competent to do it, and giving it very short timelines, which forced Kinder Morgan to say that it could no longer respect procedural fairness even for the few intervenors it let in the door because of the timeline. The attitude was that we have cut out cross-examination of expert witnesses; we have to move this thing fast; we are just going to barrel through and ignore most of the evidence because of the short timeline. The mess that this country is in right now over Kinder Morgan can be layed directly at the door of Bill C-38 in the spring of 2012.
    This legislation should have repaired all of that damage. That was a promise in the Liberal platform and the commitment in the mandate letter to ministers. What do we have now? We have an omnibus bill that deals with the impact assessment piece, that deals with the National Energy Board, to be renamed the Canadian energy regulator, and deals with the disaster that happened in Bill C-45 in the fall of 2012 when the government of the day gutted the Navigable Waters Protection Act.
    These three pieces of legislation are fundamental to environmental law in this country and to energy policy, and they all need fixing, but should not be fixed in one omnibus bill.
    I completely agree with the member for Lakeland that this legislation was forced through committee, but it was forced through the wrong committee. The environmental assessment piece should have gone to the environment committee. The NEB/Canadian energy regulator piece should have gone to natural resources committee. The Navigable Waters Protection Act piece should have gone to transport committee.
    The omnibus bill in front of us, Bill C-69, has been inadequately studied despite heroic efforts by the chair of the environment and sustainable development committee. She did a great job. The government committee members worked really hard to improve the bill, but no members had enough time. We had a deadline. A hammer fell at 9 o'clock at night on the last chance to look at it. By 12:30 in the morning, most of the amendments that were accepted were never debated at committee, much less adequately studied. It is a tragedy.
    Here is how “Harper-think” has survived and owns Bill C-69 in terms of environmental assessment. We have not restored the triggers. Federal funding of a project no longer triggers an environmental review, full stop. Federal lands still do, but federal jurisdiction decisions made by the Minister of Fisheries on the Fisheries Act do not trigger an environmental assessment. Decisions made by the Minister of Transport under the Navigable Waters Act do not trigger an environmental assessment. It will again be on the short list of big projects that we have still not seen because it is under consultation. The triggers are inadequate.
    The scope of the reviews will move from there being about 4,000 to 5,000 projects a year being at least given a cursory review in the pre-2012 period to the current situation bequeathed to us by former prime minister Stephen Harper of a couple of dozen a year.
     I should mention that there were two expert panels, one on the NEB and one on environmental assessment. Huge consultations were carried out. The speeches by the Liberals will probably reference the enormous level of consultation that took place before this legislation came out. It needs to be said on the record that the advice of the expert panels was ignored in both cases.
    In terms of environmental assessment, what was ignored was the call to go back to the same triggers we have had since 1974: federal land, federal money, federal jurisdiction. The Liberals did not pay attention to that recommendation. They claim to have taken into account the recommendation that it be a single agency, but the bill says that when the impact assessment agency sets out a panel review in the case of a pipeline, the members of the Canadian energy regulator, which was the NEB, have to be on that panel.
    More egregiously, despite the amendments accepted in committee, the government has rejected the one that says if it is the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board or the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum, board member of the panel can also sit as chairs. Only in those two instances were the amendments accepted at committee rejected by the government, and those boards were created by statute with the mandate to expand offshore oil and gas.

  (1120)  

    This bill is so bad that after decades of fighting for environmental assessment, I have to vote against it. That is why it is tragic. I would like to break down right now and weep for the loss of decades of experience. We know better than this.
    Madam Speaker, I appreciate the comments from the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands. She is extremely passionate about this particular topic, as we know. I will not question her wisdom in terms of the information that she brings to the table in regard to this debate.
    I will say that when the Liberal Party ran in the last election, Liberals had a lot of concerns over the way that things were previously being done with respect to engaging on our environmental commitments. I know that the member is concerned that three bills are being merged into one and has expressed her desire to vote against the bill.
    I am interested to hear more of her comments. Looking more holistically at all of it instead of drilling down into particular items, would the member not at least agree that this bill is better than what we had before, in terms of its commitment to providing the necessary safeguards we need to protect our environment?
    Madam Speaker, that is a tough question.
    When the Minister of Finance announced that we were buying a 65-year-old pipeline, I heard him claim that the Kinder Morgan environmental review was:
...the most rigorous process and environmental assessment in this country's history.
    It is, in point of fact, the worst. The very worst environmental review in Canada's history was the one the NEB did on Kinder Morgan. I have been involved in dozens of these reviews, and it is not hyperbole. It is a fact, and anybody in environmental law would tell us that.
    Is this somewhat better than what Harper left in place? Maybe, but here is the problem: if we accept a fundamental review of this many acts now in 2018, we will not get this fixed for another decade.
     This bill stinks, so I have to vote against it.

  (1125)  

[Translation]

    Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Saanich—Gulf Islands for her remarks, which are always relevant. She summarized a lot of history in 10 minutes, and that was greatly appreciated.
    I was wondering whether she saw another similarity between the previous Conservative government and the Liberals, specifically their habit of giving more and more power to ministers in their bills. That is what Liberals are doing in Bill C-69, which already proposes an inadequate solution that the environment minister can get out of when she sees fit.
    Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his comment. I wholeheartedly agree with him.
    It is clear that this part of omnibus Bill C-69 gives more discretionary powers to the environment minister. The proposed amendments make improvements in that they seek to guide the minister's decisions, but the fact remains that this bill gives the minister more powers and does not reinstate the regulations or the transparent process that were in place before Mr. Harper's changes.

[English]

    Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands for her views on this topic. They are informed and important.
    In the case of Newfoundland and Labrador, I think most Newfoundlanders and Labradorians are very proud of the Atlantic Accord. They appreciate the role the life cycle regulator plays. We understand that when the regulator says “no”, it says “no”, but it does not just say “yes”; it asks “how?”
    Why does the member not feel that the life cycle regulator has an important role to play in setting conditions at the impact assessment stage?
    Madam Speaker, we know that the expert panel recommended that the regulator not play a role. I have watched, and I know Newfoundlanders are very proud of the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board, but it has a mandate in law to expand offshore oil and gas. With all due respect, how on earth can it be seen to be unbiased when it is looking at a project to expand offshore oil and gas? This is the clearest example of an inappropriate allocation of review processes and review powers to any agency in Canada's history.
    Madam Speaker, I share the initial comments of my colleague for Saanich—Gulf Islands. We have both been involved in trying to strengthen federal, provincial, territorial, and international environmental law for many decades.
    The very reason I ran for office was because of my fear that the Harper government would do exactly what it eventually did when it got a majority government, and that was to shred all federal environmental law that I had worked with many other Canadians to strengthen during my 40 years as an environmental lawyer, both within the federal government and in a non-governmental organization. I was very instrumental in achieving the famous Supreme Court of Canada case, Friends of the Oldman, where the court ruled that the environment was shared federal-provincial jurisdiction, and as a result of that, we got strengthened enforcement of federal environmental laws through co-operation between both orders of government.
    As my colleague just said, in the 2015 election, the Prime Minister campaigned repeatedly with promises that if elected, he would immediately restore a strengthened federal environmental assessment process. He made the commitment that he would not approve any projects without first enacting that strengthened assessment process to ensure that decisions were based on science, facts, and evidence, and would serve the public interest. The Liberal election platform promised robust oversight and that any involvement of political interference in approving projects would be removed. The Liberals also promised to ensure that the rights of indigenous peoples would be upheld, and to review and restore protections lost under the previous Conservative government, including clear rights of the public to fully participate in reviews.
    Canadians actually believed the promises they were given that the previous strong federal environmental assessment and protection laws would be restored immediately if there was a Liberal government. Many voted based on those promises.
    The government also promised an open, transparent, and participatory government. As my colleague from the Conservative Party mentioned, so much for that promise of participation in the review of this omnibus bill.
    How well would Bill C-69 deliver on these Liberal promises? Well, we have two main concerns: one is over the process by which the bill has come before the government and been reviewed, and the second is in what the bill offers.
    Our foremost concern has been the perverse and undemocratic process that the Liberals imposed for the review of the bill, and the delay in enacting this law. As the parliamentary secretary just reminded us, Bill C-69 was long overdue. For Canadians who had great anticipation, finally—finally—the government has delivered on its promise, almost into the third year of its mandate.
    The government continues to approve resource projects by relying on the Harper-eviscerated review process. Examples include the Kinder Morgan pipeline, the Petronas LNG facility, and the Site C dam. We were advised at committee by the assessment agency that there are many projects in the hopper that will continue under the eviscerated Harper assessment law, even if and when the bill before us is passed, so that legacy will last for some time because of the delay in bringing forward this legislation.
    Where are we at with the enactment of a strengthened impact assessment process and the reinvention of the National Energy Board?
    The government expended millions of dollars on two expert panels on these two subjects. Despite broad efforts at consultation, many of the key findings and recommendations have been discarded by this government.
     This year, the government tabled Bill C-69, an omnibus bill of over 800 clauses, encompassing changes to three critical laws: the federal assessment of projects, establishing a new energy regulator, and a revised law on navigable waters. After waiting two and a half years, the Liberals finally tabled this law. They then imposed time allocation on debate of this massive omnibus bill. They refused our very sensible request to divide the bill and send the three parts to three separate committees. As my colleague for Saanich—Gulf Islands noted, logically the bill would have been divided into three parts and gone to the appropriate committees.

  (1130)  

    The transport committee had already reviewed the navigable waters law and made a number of recommendations. My colleague provided a very wise dissenting report to in fact deliver the strengths and protections the Liberals had promised. That could have allowed a timely and focused review of each part of the bill by the three respective committees, but no—the Liberals chose to send it all to one committee, our environment committee. Then they imposed a timeline for the review of this massive bill. Of course, it is a Liberal majority committee, so it agreed to this time restriction.
    The committee then refused my request to travel to at least Alberta and B.C., over a two-day period, to hear from those communities and industries that would be most impacted by this bill. The committee said it was too expensive, that committees never travel to review bills, and it rejected that idea.
    The committee severely reduced the witness list. As mentioned, we had two expert panels that travelled extensively. We had a list of the people who wanted to be consulted and who all wanted to be heard on this bill. The committee said we did not have time to hear from those people and substantially reduced that list.
    It then said that people could submit a brief, but guess what? We were required to submit any amendments to this bill before we even received those briefs. Over 100 briefs recommending amendments to this bill were received after the deadline to submit amendments.
    I still managed to submit over 100 amendments. I could have submitted more. They were all based on what indigenous Canadians, industry, municipalities, lawyers, and the expert panels had recommended. Over 300 were submitted by the opposition. Every last one of my amendments was voted down, regardless of where they came from and regardless of the strong recommendations from even the government's expert panel.
    The government itself tabled more than 100 amendments. Is that maybe an indication that the bill was drafted in haste?
    Only very few of the opposition amendments were accepted. One amendment on scientific integrity that both my colleague from Saanich—Gulf Islands and I had tabled was accepted. The Liberals reluctantly agreed to include a change to the bill to require scientific integrity, not by the proponent, but at least by the government.
    Madam Speaker, as you are aware, because you read all the amendments today in this place, we tabled additional amendments at report stage to strengthen the bill and to make it reflect what Canadians have called for. We are ever hopeful that the government will accept some of those amendments.
    What about the substance of the bill? Were substantive changes made to deliver on the promises by the government to restore credibility for federal assessment? Given the way the law is drafted, it is very difficult to say. Why is that? It is because it is rife with discretion. One of the intervenors listed endless lists of discretionary triggers. We have not even seen the project list, so no one, including potential proponents, has any idea what this bill will apply to. The government could simply defer to provinces and let them do the review. There is no prescribed duty to extend rights to the public to fully participate—to table evidence, to cross-examine, and so forth. That was one of the big issues of contention on the Kinder Morgan pipeline and energy east. This bill does not extend clear rights.
    A big one was that the Liberals refused to prescribe the UNDRIP, yet in this place they voted for the bill brought forward by my colleague to incorporate the UNDRIP. The Minister of Justice has promised that, going forward, every federal law will incorporate those rights accorded under the UNDRIP. However, they did not do that, so there we are: not respecting the UNDRIP, not extending clear rights to the public to participate, with no real demand for sound science, not even a specific reference to the 2030 sustainable development goals, and the problems go on and on. We just voted in this place on a bill that does not even address those measures.
    In closing, I regrettably would have to say that it is impossible for me to support this bill. We had great hope. There were huge promises that the government would restore a strong environmental law assessment process. However, it failed, which is very sad.

  (1135)  

    Madam Speaker, I appreciate the perspective brought forward by the member. From the perspective of people in St. John's East, there was a lot of concern in the bill as originally proposed with respect to transition provisions. I understand from what the member had said that she feels there should not be transition provisions and everything should be rolled into the new act.
    However, investors in Newfoundland and Labrador and those involved in multi-billion dollar investments in our offshore oil industry, which employ thousands of people in high-paying jobs and export-related jobs, want certainty, they need certainty, they demand certainty. In many respects, a process that had begun under CEAA 2012 is very important for them, but also with a path to a strategic environmental assessment that would carry them through into a new environmental law in the future.
     This flexibility and clarity was brought forward in some of the amendments, and the member was at the committee. Therefore, I would like her thoughts on whether the amendments and the transition provisions provide more clarity to industry, moving forward.
    Madam Speaker, in fact, at committee I asked the officials to clarify what the transition provisions would be. I have not said that there should not be transition provisions.
    My point is, as raised by the parliamentary secretary, that it took a long time for the government to bring forward the bill. It will have been almost three years before this bill is in place and therefore many projects are in the hopper. In fact, the Harper eviscerated law will continue to apply for many years going forward.

  (1140)  

    Madam Speaker, it is interesting that the member across the way from Alberta is very persistent in saying quite a bit about the legislation, yet on a very important issue to Alberta, she has been absolutely quiet, not a peep inside the chamber.
    The Trans Mountain expansion will now take place because of the Prime Minister and this government's efforts, and the member across the way is absolutely quiet. The NDP in British Columbia is saying absolutely not. The leader of the national NDP is saying absolutely not.
    What do the member's constituents, the constituents of Alberta, have to say about the importance of the Trans Mountain expansion?
    Madam Speaker, unlike the Liberals, I have been consistent. The entire nine-plus years I have been elected here, I have stood by the same position stood by all of my legal career. No project should be approved unless indigenous rights are respected, unless the public has a fair right to participate, and unless it is a credible review process.
    Madam Speaker, my question stems from the fact that in a previous life I was the parliamentary secretary to the minister of the environment in Ontario. As a minister, and as a government, we were absolutely clear that the government had an absolute duty to protect the environment for the people of the province, of the country. In light of that understanding, I was fascinated with the list of Liberal transgressions in regard to this bill, such as time allocation, the rejection of expert witnesses, and the refusal of amendments. The classic one is ignoring, absolutely, UNDRIP.
    Is the member able to explain all of these transgressions? What on earth is the motivation if the role of the Liberals is to protect the people and the environment of the country?
    Madam Speaker, the greatest frustration with this 800-clause omnibus bill is that there is virtually no opportunity in this place to genuinely discuss the bill. The minister made promises over and over again. In questions, the Minister of Environment promised she would genuinely consider and accept amendments to strengthen the bill, and she rejected every attempt by the opposition.
    All of the changes we brought forward were brought forward by the expert panel. Issues had been raised by the Auditor General of Canada, by the indigenous peoples of Canada, by industry in Canada, by municipalities, and by expert lawyers. We do not know why on earth the Liberals would not listen to the knowledge brought forward by Canadians. It is very sad. They could have had a historic moment. They could have brought forward a good credible environmental law.
    Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak today in support of Bill C-69.
     Our government recognizes that national resource sectors are a vital part of Canada's economy. Over $500 billion in major resource projects are planned across Canada over the next decade. Those projects have the potential to create tens of thousands of well-paying jobs to support our communities and to contribute to our economy as a whole.
    We have committed to regain public trust and get Canada's resources to market and to ensure those resources are developed in a responsible and sustainable way. Bill C-69 would put in place better rules that would provide predictable, timely project reviews and encourage investments. At the same time, it would ensure our environment would be protected and we could meet our commitments to reduce carbon emissions and transition to a clean growth economy.
    Today, I will speak about how Bill C-69 would provide certainty for proponents and would help ensure good projects could go ahead, specifically, how it would contribute to more timely reviews and clearer requirements for companies; how it would reduce duplication and red tape by achieving our goal of one project, one review; and how it would provide a clear process and rules for transitioning to the new impact assessment system.
    Throughout our extensive engagement with companies and industry groups across Canada, we heard they needed predictable, timely review processes to develop resources and get them to market. We listened, and that is exactly what the bill would provide.
    Under the proposed legislation, one agency, the new impact assessment agency of Canada, will lead all major projects reviews, working closely with regulatory bodies. With one agency as the federal lead, reviews will be more consistent and indeed more predictable. A revised project list will define the types of projects that will be subject to impact assessments, providing the certainty that companies need and expect.
    Our government is consulting with Canadians now to ensure the project list is robust and includes effective criteria such as environmental objectives and standards for clean air, water, and climate change. Through a new early planning and engagement phase, companies will be able to identify and address issues early in the process before an impact assessment begins. Early planning will result in tailored impact statement guidelines, a co-operation plan, an indigenous engagement and partnership plan, public participation plan, and, if required, a permitting plan.
    The details of these early planning products will be further articulated in the information requirements and time management regulations. We are consulting on these now and they will come into force concurrently with the IAA. This early planning stage will define requirements and clarify expectations so companies know what is expected of them and when.
    This new phase will help them design and plan their projects and more effectively engage indigenous peoples, stakeholders, and local communities. Amendments proposed by the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development will also enable the Minister of Environment and Climate Change to inform companies early on if a project is likely to have negative impacts, giving proponents an earlier opportunity to decide to continue with an impact assessment.
    Bill C-69 would also put in place stricter timeline management for impact assessments, with fewer stops of the clock. Specifically, timelines for agency-led reviews would be reduced from 365 days to 300 days. Panel reviews would be shortened from 720 days to a maximum of 600 days. In addition, panel reviews for designated projects reviewed in collaboration with a federal life cycle regulator would be shortened to 300 days, with the option to allow the minister to set the timeline up to a maximum of 600 days if warranted based on the project's complexity. Timelines for non-designated projects reviewed by life cycle regulators would be shortened from 450 days to 300 days.
    The regulations I mentioned earlier would also establish clear rules around when timelines could be paused. In addition, proposed amendments provide for a 45-day timeline for establishing a review panel. Together, these measures will result in more timely decisions and more certainty for proponents.

  (1145)  

    Companies will also know in advance what will be considered during reviews and what factors will guide decision-making. Reviews will take into account not just environmental impacts, but social, economic, and health effects, along with impacts on indigenous peoples and their rights.
    Recognizing that not all project effects are negative, the bill would ensure that both positive and negative impacts would be considered. Amendments clarify that the government's public interest decision will be based on the assessment report and the consideration of specific factors.
     The bill would also provide strong transparency measures so proponents would be informed about key decisions, as well as the reasons behind them. That includes, for example, decisions to extend the timeline for a review or to refer a final decision on a project to cabinet. Also, when final decisions are made on whether a project will go ahead, the proponent will be informed of the reasons why and will be assured that all factors were appropriately considered.
    I want to note that in considering Bill C-69, the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development heard testimony from a number of companies and industry groups. There were suggestions for improving the bill, and I want to recognize the committee for listening to that feedback and responding.
     As reported back to the House, Bill C-69 now includes stronger transparency provisions that would benefit proponents and provide more certainty and consistency across the legislation. Amendments would improve transparency by requiring 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 would also require that public comments provided during the public reviews would be made available online. That information posted online would also need to be maintained so it could be accessed over time.
    I would like to talk now about how Bill C-69 would achieve our government's goal of one project, one review. By providing for joint reviews and substitution, where a process led by another jurisdiction fulfills the requirement for a federal review, it would promote co-operation with provinces and territories, reduce red tape, and prevent duplication. In addition, we would be increasing opportunities for partnership with indigenous peoples and for indigenous governing bodies to take on key responsibilities, including taking the lead on projects.
    I commend the standing committee for further advancing our objective of one project, one review. As a result of its work, integrated review panels with federal regulators can now include other jurisdictions, making it possible to have just one assessment that meets all requirements. This is important for investor certainty. This change responds directly to testimony made before the committee and what our government has heard from industry stakeholders. It supports our goal of certainty and timelines in review processes.
    Finally, we have also heard how important it is for Bill C-69 to support a smooth transition between the current assessment regime and the new regime. Our government recognizes that this transition needs to be clear and predictable to encourage investment and keep good projects moving forward. We have also committed that no project will have to return to the beginning of the process. This legislation fulfills that promise. Under Bill C-69, projects would continue under the current rules where the assessment would already be under way.
    Thanks to the work of the standing committee, the transition process in now even clearer. Amendments would increase predictability by confirming how the transition to the new review process would work, with objective criteria to identify projects that would continue to be reviewed un CEAA 2012, giving companies the option to opt in to the new process and confirming that no one would go back to the starting line.
     We know that many companies are already adopting best practices that are in line with this legislation. Should they choose to opt in, we will provide advice and support to help them transition smoothly to the new requirement.
    Bill C-69 is designed to help good projects move forward, not stop them. Our government is committed to developing Canada's natural resources in a sustainable and environmentally supportive way.

  (1150)  

    
    Madam Speaker, multiple times in the member's speech she used the phrases “predictable, timely project reviews” and “provide certainty” as to how projects can proceed. However, in Bill C-69, the entire approval process could take 915 days, plus there are six opportunities to extend that. There would be a 180-day planning phase, which could be extended by 90 days by the minister or indefinitely by cabinet. There would be a 45-day window for the minister to refer assessment to a panel, and this could be suspended indefinitely. There is no timeline for establishing a panel, and the panel would have to submit a report to the minister within 600 days of the establishment of the panel. This could be extended by the minister until the prescribed activities are completed, and, again, it could be extended indefinitely by cabinet. There would also be a 90-day timeline for cabinet to make a decision, and this could be extended by 90 days by the minister or indefinitely by cabinet.
    My question is simple. Multiple times the member used the terms “predictability”, “timely project reviews”, and “provides certainty”. How can that be possible with the extended timelines I just referred to?

  (1155)  

    Madam Speaker, I would suggest that the math of the member opposite is a bit challenged. In this process, industry clearly told us that the early planning phase, which considers all the items up front, would allow it to decide whether the project is indeed feasible, and then industry has the opportunity to decide whether to go forward with the impact assessment or regroup and go back to look at other options and alternatives. What industry does not want to see is what happened under the previous government, which is that industry had no option but to go full bore into the process and find itself, through that process, spending millions of dollars and still not having any certainty. This bill would provide that certainty.
    Madam Speaker, last week the parliamentary secretary, and indeed the entire Liberal government, voted to support Bill C-262, which would make sure that all the laws of Canada are in harmony with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. The member for Edmonton Strathcona has brought forward some report stage amendments to the bill, which seek to do just that.
    In the context of Bill C-262 and the member's support for what that bill aims to do, will the Liberal government be consistent and, this week, vote in support of those amendments, which seek to do what the member voted for just last week?
    Madam Speaker, the hon. member's question allows me to say that as we are speaking right now, the Prime Minister is in B.C. speaking to the Indigenous Advisory and Monitoring Committee, which the member may remember is the first of its kind in Canada. This is a monitoring committee for the life cycle of the TMX project, with $64 million to support it through that process. In response to the question of the member opposite, it is really important to remember that when we look at the scope of projects that are going through Bill C-69, the indigenous engagement piece and consideration of indigenous and traditional knowledge are a key element of this bill.
    Madam Speaker, I listened to the last two speeches, by the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands and the member for Edmonton Strathcona, who talked about this bill being pushed through the environment committee and described it as omnibus legislation, which I disagree with. I am the chair of the natural resources committee. I was at the committee and participated in the process. I am wondering if the parliamentary secretary could give us some examples of how these three departments work together to make sure that this piece of legislation works.
    Madam Speaker, it is really important to note that the amendments put forward at committee included input from all three elements of the bill: natural resources, transport, and environment and climate change. Three opposition amendments were passed, and, indeed, 33 amendments were passed unanimously. That speaks so well to the way we work together to ensure that this bill has an inclusive perspective.

[Translation]

    Madam Speaker, I thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak to Bill C-69. I also thank my colleague for sharing her time with me and allowing me to have a few minutes to speak about this important bill today.
    This is an important bill that will have a significant impact on Quebec. This is not just a bill about the environment; it is also a bill that creates a problem as to how it will be enforced by provincial jurisdictions. I am particularly concerned about the Quebec government's jurisdiction, and that is the main point I want to make in my speech today.
    Nothing at the core of Bill C-69 says that the agency has the power to enter into agreements with the provinces to delegate environmental assessments to the provinces. In Quebec, we already have the Bureau d'audiences publiques en environnement, or BAPE, which has considerable expertise and has never been contradicted. There have never been any scandals surrounding its independence or its reports, unlike various federal institutions, such as the NEB, where there have been many problems recently,especially regarding the independence of the board members. Doubt surrounding the independence of the board members can cast doubt on the findings, if there is not a proper process is in place.
    Unlike the federal process, so far the process in Quebec has virtually always been respected and considered valid and credible. I think it is important to rely on credible institutions whenever possible, especially in Quebec.
    It is obvious to me that Bill C-69 should let the agency delegate its environmental assessment authority to institutions under provincial jurisdiction. These institutions are often much more knowledgeable about their territory. We know that, in Quebec, BAPE conducts such assessments. Its employees have acquired a certain expertise over the years.
    This bill will create a new institution with new people and with practices that have yet to be established. A new culture and new expertise will have to be developed, even though that already exists within the Quebec government. It is important to build on a solid foundation, and to rely on the people already in place and their knowledge of the area, because they are closer to the people of Quebec.
    There is a major element in C-69 that is problematic. It allows the federal government to disregard provincial jurisdictions and to make decisions about what it wants, how it wants it, and when it wants it. Provincial legislation and municipal bylaws are not important. They are not taken into consideration.
     This creates some big problems. Take, for example, how technology has evolved in our ridings. That may not be directly related to the environment, but there is an interesting parallel. Cell towers are being put up in our ridings, for Internet and all kinds of data transmissions that fall under federal jurisdiction. In many municipalities, these towers are being put up anywhere, in the middle of public parks, and sometimes in front of houses. This destroys the landscape, sometimes in heritage areas, even. The federal government does not work with the communities at all. Take the much-discussed issue of mailboxes, for example. Members will recall when Montreal mayor Denis Coderre infamously destroyed a mailbox. I am not condoning his actions, but I think it was an important symbolic gesture showing the federal government's failure to listen to the provinces and municipalities. When the federal government itself does not need to comply with our laws and regulations, it is even easier to completely ignore them.
    Obviously, respect for the Government of Quebec's areas of jurisdiction, including on environmental matters, should be incorporated into Bill C-69. The Government of Quebec already has jurisdiction over the environment and that must be enforced. The Government of Quebec has to be able to enforce its own laws, its own rules, and be master within its own jurisdiction. If the federal government interferes all the time, it indirectly prevents Quebec from doing its job.

  (1200)  

    Bill C-69 has a lot of room for improvement in that regard. This is such a fundamental issue that the government should act in good faith, allow these changes, and abide by them. I hope all other members of the House will support us on this. Many individuals and environmental groups in Quebec share this vision.
    We have seen instances of the provinces' rights not being respected, and we are about to see it again with the government imposing the Kinder Morgan pipeline on British Columbia in violation of the province's jurisdiction and the rights of the people who live along the pipeline route. When the government does not listen to the people, they see that as an injustice. A government that inflicts such an injustice loses legitimacy in their eyes, and that makes people cynical.
    A government that wants to avoid cynicism must respect our institutions. There is not just one institution that matters. The government has to listen to other legitimate governments' institutions, which are just as important. To forestall intergovernmental strife, the feds must at the very least respect those institutions, but that is something the federal government does not often do.
    That is one of the reasons why we in the Bloc Québécois believe that Quebec should be a country. This habit is so ingrained in this government that it can barely even function because of its arrogance and attitude of superiority. Ottawa knows best. It is always Ottawa that decides what happens and, at the end of the day, our laws and our interests are trampled on. This has to change. By amending Bill C-69, Ottawa could reach out to the provinces and try to come up with an agreement that is a little better, despite the circumstances. In short, Ottawa must respect Quebec's laws and the Bureau d'audiences publiques sur l'environnement, which is pretty important.
    In addition, the bill provides no guarantee that any public hearings will be held on major projects. Public hearings are important, because they give members of the public a chance to have their say on a project. When the public does not have a chance to do so, it is much harder to adapt the project and determine what the public really wants. It is much harder to sell a project when you do not seek public opinion, even if that opinion is positive. Public consultations are fundamental to any major project and, once again, they are not even mentioned in this bill.
    There are no parameters for appointing the commissioners. That is a major problem because it is the Minister of the Environment who has the power to appoint the commissioners of the future agency. We end up with the same problem that we had with the National Energy Board where the government appoints agency employees who are accountable to the person who appointed them and who sometimes have special interests.
    The current bill still does not address the possibility of appointing people from industry. Obviously appointing a pipeline promoter to assess a pipeline will not work because he clearly wants the pipeline built. That is his job. Similarly, if we ask a real estate agent whether the housing market is overheated, he will always say it is not, because he wants to sell houses and get a better commission. I think this leaves room for conflicts of interest and conflicts of vision.
    It is therefore important to regulate the process for appointing commissioners and appointing independent commissioners rather than having commissioners appointed by the minister who are accountable to her. We know this creates major problems with regard to perception and independence, which results in a process that does not work.
    For all those reasons, we will oppose Bill C-69. It is also important to consult first nations since they too have a right of oversight and should have their say.

  (1205)  

[English]

    Mr. Speaker, I noticed that in the beginning of his speech, if I heard him correctly, the member was talking about cellphone towers and other communication devices that are inserted into different landscapes and different areas, traditionally with very little public input. When I was involved in municipal politics in Kingston, on a number of occasions the federal government, which has jurisdiction over particular areas, would do things without proper consultation with other interested stakeholders.
    I wonder if the member could expand on how he sees that coming through in this legislation, and how it could be improved if he does not think this bill captures that.

[Translation]

    Mr. Speaker, my intention in bringing up cell towers was to give an example of a case where the federal government is disregarding both provincial laws and municipal bylaws. Urban planning is a municipal responsibility, and cities should be able to decide where towers should be installed. There is an important question in all this with regard to urban development and landscape integration. However, that goes beyond Bill C-69. In my opinion, the important thing is for the bill to respect areas of provincial jurisdiction and comply with municipal bylaws. The example of cell towers illustrates the federal government's tendency to disregard municipal bylaws and provincial laws. If we want good collaboration and well-run projects in the future, it is essential that the federal government get in the habit of complying with these provincial laws, since they are perfectly valid, having been passed by elected officials like us. These laws were passed for the benefit of the people. Furthermore, provincial elected representatives are often closer to their constituents than their federal counterparts, since Ottawa is quite far away for many people.

  (1210)  

    Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his remarks. I will admit that I share some of the views he put forward in his speech. However, I think he overlooked the biggest snag, and that is what I would like to hear him talk about in the next few minutes.
    Even though the bill allows BAPE to conduct a certain number of environmental assessments and make use of its expertise, the biggest snag in Bill C-69 is the fact that the minister ultimately gets to decide, with the stroke of a pen, whether to proceed, or not proceed, with the recommendations made to her, regardless of who made them.
    Would my colleague not agree that the major snag in Bill C-69 is the enormous powers it gives to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change?
    Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for bringing up that issue, which I did not have a chance to address in my speech.
    That is a very important point. The consultation process is not even mandatory in every situation and the government is not even required to consult the public, far from it. If there is a consultation process, we know that the people running it were appointed to do so by the minister. In fact, the minister is responsible for appointing commissioners, so there is already something wrong there. Once the consultation process is complete, the commissioners' report may not support the project, but the minister could still go ahead with it anyway. That is not good either. The process is already flawed from the outset. Basically, the process is useless because the minister can do as she pleases regardless.
    What is the point of the process if the minister can do as she pleases without taking the discussions into account? That is a major problem with this bill. It is also one of the reasons why we are opposed to it.

[English]

    Mr. Speaker, one of the criticisms of this bill is that it does not include a legal requirement for free, prior, and informed consent.
    I know that my colleague, the member for Edmonton Strathcona, tried to have that inserted at committee stage, and of course we find ourselves here today, once again trying to get the government to honour the passage of Bill C-262 that the House passed last week.
    Will my hon. colleague be supporting my colleague's amendment on that issue today?

[Translation]

    Mr. Speaker, I have not yet had the opportunity to review my colleague's amendment.
    From what she said, it seems to be a very good amendment. However, since I have not had the opportunity to read it, I cannot personally comment on it. I look forward to reading it. If it is an amendment that we deem to be beneficial to Quebec's interests, then we will obviously vote in favour of it.

[English]

    Mr. Speaker, members will hear from this side of the House just how tragic and pathetic this piece of proposed legislation really is.
    It is interesting, because the Liberals think they have found a balance. The NDP oppose it for some reasons and we oppose it for others, but typically the reason for the opposition is that it just gives way too much power to the minister, and has way too little transparency and accountability. Not only is this proposed legislation dangerous, and I use that word deliberately, but it is also going to have a very real impact on a large number of people across this country, particularly those who live in areas dependent on resource development.
    The Liberals had an opportunity to smooth out the environmental assessment process with this bill, but instead they chose to do the complete opposite. I think there is an intent here to destroy the credibility of the existing EA process in Canada, because the Liberals do not actually want to see resource development carried out. Our Prime Minister will say one thing in Alberta, and as we saw earlier this spring, go to France two days later and apologize for not getting rid of the energy industry soon enough. Therefore, I believe there is an agenda here to complicate this process and to make it basically unmanageable. Then the reality will be that it will not be possible to put in place resource projects across this country. Investors are already basically laughing at Canada and walking away. We saw an article yesterday saying that investors no longer even bother considering Canada as an option to invest in. Therefore, the Liberals are getting their way. The NDP members are getting their way.
    The problem with these big government initiatives and socialism, and those of us who live in Saskatchewan understand it, is that it takes a while for the pain to actually begin. It does not happen right away. It is not immediate, but it is profound and long-lasting. The bill before us will have a profoundly long-lasting and negative impact on Canada and our economy.
    The bill before us, Bill C-69, is called 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 main thing it would do is to set up a new impact assessment agency of Canada, replacing some other agencies. That agency will then be the lead on all federal reviews of major projects and would be expected, I guess, to work with other bodies on that.
     However, realistically, what will happen here, because of the many things that are being thrown into this mix of what will be called an environmental assessment reality, is that these projects will just not get done. It is interesting, because the bill would add a number of things that need to be considered in an environmental assessment, and things that go far beyond the environment, but it would basically give anyone who has an objection to a project the right to claim there would be some impact on them and that they have a legitimate reason to have the project stopped.
    I will talk a little about the process that would take place, because I think when Canadians see it, they will start to understand how disingenuous the government has been with this bill.
     If we want to apply for a project, we need to go through an environmental assessment on most things. The Liberals have set up the proposed legislation so that, supposedly, there will be a planning phase of up to a maximum 180 days. This could then go in a couple of directions. It could go to a joint panel, or it could go back to the assessment agency, and there would be some timelines. However, there are a variety of tracks available for it to follow. It could end up at a review panel. The agency itself would oversee the smaller projects and then would have a full review of the larger projects. After a while, when that is done, the agency or panel would submit a recommendation and the minister would have 30 days to approve or reject it.
    Well, that sounds pretty straightforward, until we start to look at the actual processes involved in this, and I want to go through three possible tracks. I will probably use most of my time doing this, but it would just point out to Canadians how bizarre this gets and how much interference the minister can play, as the NDP just pointed that out with their last questions.
    The minister basically has authority at all levels over these things. The minister can make things go ahead or stop dead, and they can stay stopped if the minister and cabinet decide to do that.
    First of all, I will talk about a decision that does not require a joint panel. It does not even require approval by cabinet. Under this proposed legislation, there would be a 180-day planning phase. This is something brand new that the government has thrown in here, which would already put a six-month delay or kind of stop on a project moving ahead. This could be extended by 90 days or it could be extended indefinitely by the minister if someone demanded that. There is no clarity around what that means.

  (1215)  

    Then there is a 300-day time limit for the impact assessment itself, almost a year, and no surprise, this can be extended by 90 days or indefinitely by cabinet. Timelines are thrown completely out. There is no certainty at all. Why would investors bother getting involved with something like this? And this is the simplest process of the few that are there.
    Then there is a 30-day time limit after the minister and cabinet have already been involved at two different levels. It then comes to the minister and cabinet to make the decision. What kind of industry organization or business is going to come forward and put themselves through this when there is absolutely no certainty?
    No surprise, that 30-day time limit can be extended by 90 days or it can be extended indefinitely. That is the simplest. A joint panel is not required. Approval by cabinet is not required. At all three levels of planning and working through the process, cabinet has authority to extend the deadline indefinitely or to whatever it chooses to extend it to. A joint panel is not required, and approval by cabinet is not required. Under Bill C-69 the total time should be about 570 days, almost a year and a half, but again, there are several opportunities to extend it.
    It starts out again with that 180-day planning phase, which can be extended by 90 days or indefinitely by the minister or cabinet. Then there is a 300-day time limit for the impact assessment itself. The proponent has to get this all done in 300 days, considering all of the different factors that the government has thrown into Bill C-69, and this can be extended by 90 days or indefinitely by the minister or cabinet. Then there is a 90-day limit for cabinet to make a decision and again, this can be extended by 90 days or indefinitely by cabinet.
    Those are two tracks.
    The third one is a decision that requires a joint panel with a cabinet decision. The time frame on this one is set at 835 days, well over two years, with at least one opportunity to extend it. There are 10 days to start a 45-day screening process, once the decision has been made that this has to go through a joint panel. Then there is 60 days from notice to referring the assessment to the panel. Then there is 24 months from the referral when a decision statement must be issued. This can be extended 90 days by the minister, or indefinitely by cabinet. That actually was the case in the past under the CEAA 2012 method, but under Bill C-69 it would go from that 800 days to 915 days, and there are six opportunities in the bill to extend it.
    There is a 180-day planning phase and a 45-day window for the minister to refer an assessment to a panel, and there is no timeline for establishing a panel at all. The panel has to submit a report to the minister within 600 days, another two years down the road, and this can be extended by the minister until anything the panel prescribes is completed, or by 90 days. Cabinet can extend it indefinitely again, and then there is another 90-day timeline for cabinet.
    This assessment process that the government has thrown into the bill is basically a game. It is a game that cabinet can play with anybody who wants to apply for a project in Canada.
    It is no surprise, as I mentioned before, that people are looking at other places to invest. They are investing in other countries. The Americans right now are making it very clear that they want to become the world's largest energy producer and exporter. They are eating our lunch right now. They are doing things: they are lowering taxes, they are easing the regulatory burden on people, and they are not imposing a massive carbon tax that will raise the price of everything. It is no surprise that money is moving out of Canada and into the United States.
    The latest version of that is the Liberal government's decision to pay $5 billion to a Texas-based company to buy a used pipeline, which is going to take another $8 billion to $10 billion at least, and probably more, knowing this government is involved. That money will be given to this project when the proponent initially did not ask for any money.
    It is unfortunate that the Liberals do not keep their promises. This is one more that has been broken. They have not fulfilled their commitments. This entire piece of legislation is just meant to hamper the industry's capacity to be able to do resource development in this country. I am sorry it has even come forward. I wish it were set aside. If this legislation is passed, it will not be a good thing for this country.

  (1220)  

    Mr. Speaker, once again we are confronted with one of those issues where the Conservatives think we are doing too much and the NDP think we are not doing enough. I cannot help but wonder, objectively speaking, that if we removed ourselves from all of the partisanship right now, if we would not perhaps think that what the government is proposing is somewhere right around where it should be, and what Canadians expect and want.
    I take particular interest in the member's comment on investment in Canada. Yes, despite the fact that the price of oil has gone down and investment throughout the world is suffering as a result, Canada still had a growth rate of 3.1% in 2017 and is on track for approximately 2.5% according to the BDC in 2018.
    Could the member not at least admit that maybe things are not as horrible and as nearly catastrophic as the Conservatives are suggesting they are?

  (1225)  

    Mr. Speaker, it is actually hilarious that, as usual, when everyone is against the government, it assumes it has found a good balance, and that is not the case. This is not a balance; it is just a mess. We have heard some varying criticisms from the New Democrats, but we have some common ones too, such as that the bill does not achieve the goals it sets out. It involves the cabinet and the minister in far too many places on far too many occasions. I guess we have concerns for different reasons on that.
    The reality is that the Liberals have cost Canada hundreds of billions of dollars in investment. We have talked about $70 billion or $80 billion on the oil and gas side. We know that the Liberals lost a $35-billion Petronas natural gas plant because they could not make a decision about pipelines. The mining industry in this country has basically gone into neutral with respect to applying for projects. There may be one in the approval process right now.
    This is not a good thing for Canada. It is not a good thing for resource development. As I mentioned earlier, the socialist policies the member for Kingston and the Islands across the way really loves to espouse are the kinds of things that actually destroy economies eventually and leave people far behind where they should have been in the first place.
    Mr. Speaker, I want to ask my Conservative colleague a question specifically in the context of the vote we had last week on Bill C-262. I know that the Conservatives did not vote for it, but the important fact is that the Liberals did.
    My colleague, the member for Edmonton Strathcona, moved a series of amendments at report stage that seek to bring Bill C-69 in harmony with what the Liberals supported last week on Bill C-262. Does the member have a reasonable expectation that the Liberals would at least remain consistent and support those amendments from the member for Edmonton Strathcona, or are we going to see a flip-flop, where they say one thing and do something completely opposite?
    Mr. Speaker, it is rare that we see any consistency from the government opposite, except where they are increasing taxes on Canadians, increasing the regulatory burden on industry, and basically dragging the economy down. I guess one of the places that would show up is the carbon tax that is being put in place. The honesty and transparency of the government is really on display when it will not tell us how much that is going to cost. We know it has the numbers in documents, but it has taken a black felt marker and crossed them all out.
    In answer to the member's question, we certainly do not expect any consistency from the Liberals. We do not see it in their votes on legislation. We do not see it in their budgets. We do not see it with respect to their keeping the promises they have made in the past.
    Mr. Speaker, I am happy to rise today to speak in support of Bill C-69. With this bill, our government is meeting our commitment to rebuild public trust and help get Canada's resources to market. In developing Bill C-69, we heard from provinces, territories, indigenous peoples, businesses, environmental groups, and Canadians from coast to coast to coast.
    Overwhelmingly, they told us that they want a modern environmental and regulatory system that protects the environment, supports reconciliation with indigenous peoples, attracts investment, and ensures that good projects can go ahead. That is exactly what our government has delivered in introducing this bill.
    Through better rules, Bill C-69 would support the responsible development of Canada's natural resources, create good middle-class jobs, and help grow our economy. Measures in this bill would provide more timely and predictable reviews, more certainty for businesses, and more opportunities for partnerships with indigenous peoples.
    Today I would like to take a step back. I want to look more closely at the question of public trust. I am going to discuss what it means to rebuild that trust, how this bill would accomplish that, and how the hard work of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development has contributed through its careful study of the bill and its thoughtful amendments.
    Where there is public trust, proponents, indigenous peoples, stakeholders, and all Canadians can have confidence that major project reviews are based on evidence, including robust science, and indigenous knowledge. It also means that when final decisions are made, Canadians can be assured that those decisions have fully considered the evidence and that they serve the public interest. That is what has been lost under the current rules, and it is what Bill C-69 would restore.
    It would do that in a few ways, which I will go on to discuss in more detail. It would do so by clearly setting out in legislation which factors would be considered in reviews of major projects; by ensuring that decisions were made in the public interest, and the reasons for them were communicated; and by ensuring that panels established to conduct project reviews were balanced and included the right people with the right expertise.
    I will begin with the factors that would guide major project reviews. Compared with CEAA 2012, Bill C-69 sets out a more comprehensive and complete set of factors for consideration in reviews. While it would provide strong protection for the environment, the bill would expand the scope of reviews beyond the environment alone. Assessments would take a broader view based on sustainability, taking into account a wide range of impacts on the economy, health, indigenous rights, and the community.
    Crucially, Bill C-69 would require consideration of a project's impact on indigenous peoples and their rights. In the words of the Prime Minister, “No relationship is more important to Canada than the relationship with Indigenous Peoples.” Considering the rights of indigenous peoples in every review fully aligns with our commitment to achieve reconciliation through a renewed relationship based on the recognition of rights, respect, co-operation, and partnership.
    Finally, the bill reflects our government's commitment to effective action on climate change. It would ensure that reviews considered the effects of major projects on Canada's ability to meet our climate change commitments as well as our obligations related to environmental challenges like air quality and biodiversity. That supports our actions to fight carbon pollution, such as working with partners to put a price on pollution that will cut 80 million to 90 million tonnes of GHG emissions by 2022.
    That is where we began when our government introduced Bill C-69 in this House in February. Since then, the standing committee has strengthened the bill by adding even more clarity on factors to consider in project reviews and by improving consistency across the legislation.
    To highlight just a few of the changes, the committee clarified that both positive and negative impacts must be considered, recognizing that not all effects of major resource projects will be negative. It amended the proposed Canadian energy regulator act to ensure that climate change is considered when making decisions about non-designated projects, including pipelines, power lines, and offshore projects. It improved consistency by requiring that the same set of factors guide the agency's decision on what information and studies are required for a project review, the review itself, and inform the impact assessment report. All these measures would support more predictable reviews, more certainty for industry, and public trust.

  (1230)  

    Over and over we have heard that a good process means nothing if the decision at the end is opaque and is based on politics, not evidence. When that happens, there can be no public trust. Bill C-69 would do the opposite. It would set up safeguards to ensure that science, indigenous knowledge, and other evidence formed the basis for important decisions on whether major projects would go ahead.
    Specifically, following amendments by the standing committee, the bill would require decisions to be based on the assessment report prepared by the impact assessment agency of Canada. Decisions would also need to consider key factors, including the project's contribution to sustainability, meaning its ability to protect the environment and contribute to the social and economic well-being of the people of Canada and preserve their health in a way that benefits present and future generations.
    To provide certainty and build trust, public decision statements would need to clearly demonstrate how the assessment report formed the basis for the decision and how those factors were considered. This clarity would benefit all parties: proponents, indigenous peoples, and stakeholders. Through transparency and accountability, it would help ensure that the decisions on projects were made in the public trust.
    In terms of further amendments that would improve transparency and help restore trust, the bill would now require that the minister consider any feedback provided by the proponent when deciding whether a decision statement for a project would expire or whether the timeline would be extended. The comments would have to be provided during a time period specified by the impact assessment agency of Canada so that meaningful public participation was assured and balanced with the need for timely assessments.
    Last, I want to talk about the safeguards Bill C-69 would provide so that panels set up to review major projects with life-cycle regulators would strike the right balance in their membership. Our government and the standing committee heard from some groups that this is a critical step toward restoring public trust. We recognize that these regulators have long-standing specialized expertise and knowledge. Their participation is essential to ensuring that Canada's resources are developed in a way that protects the environment and grows the economy. We put forward amendments in committee to strike a balance to ensure that review panels also included other voices and perspectives. The bill would require that federal regulators not constitute a majority on the panel. At the same time, regulators would continue to serve on panels and contribute their expertise.
    We cannot get Canada's resources to market without public trust. With this bill, we would rebuild that trust by introducing new, fairer processes for project reviews. Bill C-69 would define the needed safeguards so that Canadians could again have confidence that processes were fair and evidence-based, that decisions served the public interest, and that the right projects went forward. As I have described, these measures would include clearly setting out in advance the key factors that would guide major project reviews; requiring evidence-based decision-making; being transparent when final decisions were made so that Canadians would know that the process was being followed, and they could have confidence in the outcome; and ensuring balanced review panels that would bring together diverse expertise and multiple perspectives.
    I would like to conclude by once again recognizing the work of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development. As a result of its members' insight and dedication, the committee's work has produced an amended bill that would respond to the priorities of indigenous peoples, stakeholders, and Canadians and would further contribute to our goal of restoring the public trust.

  (1235)  

    Mr. Speaker, the member opposite is from Ontario, and he should know that this bill is exactly what the McGuinty and Wynne Liberals did to the Ontario Energy Board. They totally politicized it. There was a pipeline of communications going between cabinet and that particular body, supposedly a body that was regulating the industry. Everything went the way they wanted it to. Look what happened in Ontario: hydro rates exploded, and now that party is on the verge of non-party status. It is being obliterated. The one common thread between that Ontario government and the current federal government is the Prime Minister's puppet master.
     No matter how many billions of dollars they throw into Kinder Morgan, this bill would provide the kill switch. It will not be hydro bills; it will be outrageous and unaffordable gas bills people see at the pumps.
     Since the member has turned his back on his constituents, what is he going to do when they turn their backs on him?
    Mr. Speaker, I guess I should not be surprised by the comments from the member opposite. Everything that comes is fear-based hysterical propaganda. I just find it very surprising that she finds a way to politicize everything and is able to develop another fundraising clip for her Facebook page.
    Our government is focused on doing the right thing because it is the right thing to do, and that is ensuring that the economy and the environment go hand in hand. That is exactly what this bill will ensure: that good projects move forward and that we have meaningful public engagement. Of course, the opposite side would not even know what that term means, given what happened in CEAA 2012 with the undemocratic process of pushing it through in a budget bill and not even letting it get to committee.
    We have found a balance here that is going to help get our resources to market, while at the same time protecting the public trust and ensuring that our environment is protected as well.
    Mr. Speaker, one of the gaps in Bill C-69 is that it only requires a consideration of indigenous knowledge in going ahead with these assessments.
    The member for Edmonton Strathcona has moved some report stage amendments, specifically Motions Nos. 4, 7, 9, 10, 12, and 13, which seek to bring this bill in harmony with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. I checked the vote last week on May 30, and the member for Hastings—Lennox and Addington did vote in support of Bill C-262, which seeks to bring Canadian laws in harmony with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.
    Will the member be consistent with his vote last week and vote in support of these amendments when they come before the House?

  (1240)  

    Mr. Speaker, I was also on the indigenous committee that studied Bill C-262. I am a very strong supporter of UNDRIP.
    I am proud to say that we are the government that for the first time has embedded UNDRIP into a bill, even before UNDRIP was put into effect in this House, by introducing it into Bill C-69 through amendments that the Liberal members of the committee had put forward. I strove to ensure that UNDRIP was included in Bill C-69 even before Bill C-262 has fully passed in this House.
    I am very proud of what our government is doing in moving forward with Bill C-262 and I have tremendous respect for the member for the James Bay region and his work on that bill.
    Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, the member made a comment calling a member in this House “hysterical”. I think the comment was maybe made in haste, and I would ask that the comment be withdrawn.
    I will leave it to the hon. member. Do you want to respond to that?
    The tactics were hysterical.
    I have heard a lot of things go back and forth, a lot of things I would love to get up for and stop, but I think we have set a standard. Unfortunately, I am not sure that is quite over the line. He did clarify a little. I would suggest that maybe the two members could talk to each other after the session and maybe iron things out.
    Questions and comments.
    Mr. Speaker, the member serves on the environment committee, which I had the opportunity to serve on too, as did the member for Edmonton Strathcona.
     In her speech earlier, she basically all but said that she had absolutely no input, that when she put forward ideas or asked for witnesses to come forward, repeatedly her suggestions and everything she had to offer were not permitted to take place in the committee. That is certainly not what I saw in my observations in the committee.
    I am wondering if the member could comment on the value that the committee puts on the input from the member for Edmonton Strathcona.
    Mr. Speaker, I have tremendous respect for the member for Edmonton Strathcona, the knowledge that she brought to the committee, and her life experiences working on environmental issues in Alberta and throughout the assessment process. In fact, I consulted with her on a number of issues, and it even helped to inform the amendments that I myself put forward.
    I have tremendous respect for her and for all members on the committee. We have all worked exceptionally well together. I will add that Liberal members even gave up their opportunities to speak in order to enable the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands to have a voice on our committee. We will continue to do so. We are proud of the work that our committee does.
    Mr. Speaker, I first want to address the comment made to the member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke. It is not fearmongering and it is not hysteria; it is the fact that the constituents of her riding believe in her, because they know she is going to fight for what they believe in. The fact that she comes to this chamber with such passion is something we can all learn from, because she listens to her constituents and brings their voices to the chamber.
    There was a comment made regarding the member for Edmonton Strathcona having a voice at the table. I adore the member for Edmonton Strathcona. Although we are from different parties, she brings so much to the House because of her background. When I sat down with her and we talked, she let me know she felt almost demoralized. That is not her word, but she felt she could not bring anything to the committee because Liberals were not listening. She had so much to bring to that committee, and those voices were not heard. People can say, “We let you sit at the table; we just told you to shut up”, and that is basically what happened here. That is very concerning.
    UNDRIP is another thing, and I will allow the NDP members to talk about UNDRIP in this bill. The government says it will vote for something one week, and then the next week it does a total 180°.
    I will now speak on 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. I must agree that with that title, we can recognize how large this act is and how many different committees should have been looking at this bill, but instead Liberals sent it to the environment committee, where it got shut down in debate.
    There are many concerns being highlighted by the Conservative caucus, informing Canadians about concerns for Canada's economy and the decreased competitiveness in Canada on a number of issues, including reduced taxes on corporations in the U.S. and the $25-a-barrel discount on our oil.
    I want to discuss this issue to highlight how it impacts our constituents. I am from the riding of Elgin—Middlesex—London. I am not from a riding that is oceanside and there are not a lot of pipes going through my community, but this bill will impact my community of Elgin—Middlesex—London, so I want to discuss two key items.
    In late spring, a bridge collapsed in the village of Port Bruce. This bridge connected the village of Port Bruce to the rest of Aylmer on Highway 73. The first issue was how to rebuild the bridge. We had to look at so many different things, including where we were going to get the money and what we were going to do. There are great people in the municipalities and the country working on this. When the bridge collapsed, one of the first things that came to mind, other than the money, was what the government was going to do with regard to environmental impacts and what kinds of delays the community and council were going to have to deal with.
    Having worked with a former MP, I recalled some work I had done with the municipality of Thames Centre back in 2010 on species at risk. We have to understand that there are going to be obstacles, and there was about a 10-month delay in the municipality of Thames Centre because of this. I am very concerned that we will see delays like this when this new legislation proposed by the Liberal government passes. Maybe some things will work and maybe some things are better, but we will never know, because we never got the chance to debate it.
    The bridge that collapsed is near the mouth of Catfish Creek and connects the waterways from Catfish Creek to the Great Lakes, specifically Lake Erie. Although I agree with the necessity of environmental assessments, I am concerned that the reconstruction of the bridge will be hampered because of increased bureaucracy, specifically with the passage of Bill C-69. This small community needs support from all levels of government, including the Government of Canada. What will these new timelines do to the government's response and what will the government's involvement be in this project?
    Although the government states that what is in the bill would reduce the timelines, we have seen the government's track record and the raft of broken promises. I just do not have it in me to believe that this proposed legislation would create anything but obstacles for our economy and the people who live in Canada. The new planning phase would add an additional 180 days, followed by a 30-day assessment by the minister. There are so many opportunities for both major and minor projects to be slowed down because of this hierarchy and the ministerial and Governor in Council exemptions.

  (1245)  

    The village of Port Bruce will need a plan. I have reached out to all of the ministers of the government who could impact the reconstruction of this bridge. To date, all of the responses that I have received are basically a bunch of Liberal talking points. I am not seeing assistance. I am not seeing help. Rather, I see the government telling me what it is doing and patting itself on the back and saying that maybe we can go after the gas tax fund. Those are not the kinds of things that we need from the government. I do not really know if people in government understand how smaller municipalities need to work together with all levels of government and how they have to be part of this. They cannot just give us platitudes.
    Whether the township and county decide to go with a temporary bridge or go directly toward reconstructing this bridge, I fear that the government will slow things down. The village is a tourist destination and is currently being greatly impacted by the inability of people to take a direct route. We also must be concerned over the inability of the township to adequately provide emergency services. One of the biggest challenges that this community has had is that Highway 73 does not even go there, so we have had neighbouring municipalities get on board to provide those emergency services.
    However, we must move forward on our project, and I am totally concerned about what is going to happen in our next phase. Once it decides what it will do, what is the government going to be doing with new red tape approaches, both to the county and to the municipalities?
    My second point also focuses on the farmers in my riding and the change to the navigational waters act. For years, I have heard from local farmers about some of the restrictions regarding ditches and things of that sort. We all have different ways of looking at it, but the fact is that we do not have a way of discussing this issue because when we are at committee, debate gets shut down.
     For years farmers have been strongly speaking about the restrictions that they have been under, and when in 2012 there were some changes, they applauded the government because they felt that they were not going to be restricted as much. That is positive. When we are trying to work on the economy, we want to make sure that we are working with the stewards of our land and not always against them. I am always concerned with how we are going to make sure we are working forward. I believe in our farmers and I have watched them use responsible methods to improve their applications.
    What will this legislation do to impact our local farmers, as well as reconstruction of the bridge? Well, I wish I could tell members more about that, but this bill was rammed through the committee and amendments proposed by all opposition parties were ignored. The government says it is allowing people's voices to be heard, but we know that the moment nine o'clock strikes at committee, committee members can not debate anything further.
    We know that the Liberal government put in over 100 of their own recommendations when it came to amendments. Are the Liberals saying that this bill does not need amendments? By having to amend their own bill that many times, I think they have proven to the entire committee and to all Canadians that the bill is flawed.
    We may not agree on everything, but the government cut debate. Although we may not agree on everything, the most important part is to listen. As the chair of the status of women committee, I have seen some co-operation when we are talking about amendments and when we are talking about recommendations. When we are all sitting at the table and really trying to do what is best for Canadians, everyone is actually listening. There are opportunities for us to merge. When we are putting in a recommendation, we may take something from the NDP or we may take something from the Liberals and the Conservative Party and merge those thoughts together so that we can all be heard, but Canadian voices have been shut down at committee and in this House when debating this bill.
    How are Canadians supposed to know that their voices are being heard when time allocation is being imposed not only on their representatives in this House but also in the committees? How do we know that we are getting what is best for Canadians when the Liberals seem to be listening only to themselves and not listening to some of these amendments?
    I agree that Liberals may have some good suggestions but do not think that the Conservatives, the NDP, the Green Party, and the Bloc all have good suggestions. We need to work together.
    I see that part of my role as a parliamentarian is to listen. I urge the government to start to listen again. We have seen a lot of problems, but if the government can get off its talking points, maybe we can all do better. I think that is part of the issue: the questions that are being asked are taken back to government talking points. We are not talking about how it is going to impact people. We are not talking how it is going to impact the Trans Mountain pipeline. We are not talking about those things. We are talking about spending $4.5 billion without even seeing how we will get a pipeline built. We know that the government was the obstacle for Kinder Morgan, and now how is it not going to be the obstacle for itself, unless it turns 180° once again?
    The government's role is to create a positive atmosphere for businesses to succeed. New taxes, government red tape, and truly poor opportunities for Canadians to speak on legislative changes that engage Canadians are here with this government. I heard the leader of the Greens say that we can do better. With discussions and amendments actually being heard, we can do better. I urge the Liberals to start consulting with all parties.

  (1250)  

    Mr. Speaker, there has been a great deal of consultation through the ministry with many different stakeholders. Members of Parliament have been speaking to this legislation for a good period of time now, whether in the House or at committee.
     I would not have any hesitation contrasting what we have witnessed on this side compared to when Mr. Harper was prime minister. One need only look at the amendment process. If we were afforded the opportunity to have a thorough discussion, I am sure the member would retract some of those comments.
    NDP members have said they are voting against the legislation because we have gone nowhere near far enough and they want more done to protect the environment. On the other hand, the Conservatives are saying they are voting against the legislation because they believe we are putting in too much regulation. My colleague, the member for Kingston and the Islands, has put it quite well.
    Does the member not see that there is significant value, that there is an enhancement of our environment, and that there are ways in which we can have both the economy and the environment working together for the common good? We do not see that coming from either the NDP or the Conservatives.

  (1255)  

    Mr. Speaker, part of my issue is that I see these talking points, these words, as disingenuous. I have seen the government ram through things at so many different committees. It is the Liberals' ideology or nothing. As I indicated, I have huge respect for the member for Edmonton Strathcona. When she feels that her voice is being shut down on this, that speaks volumes for many Canadians.
    We may have different approaches to this, but when the government is not listening, it does not matter. It does not mean that the Liberals have found a middle balance because the left says one thing and the right says another, so the Liberals are right. They are not listening, and this has to do with the fact that they shut down debate at committee and they ram through legislation. There is just no honesty here.

[Translation]

    Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to my colleague's speech. I would like to address the comments that were just made. When the Conservative Party and the NDP say they will vote against the bill for different reasons, there is one that jumps out at me. The NDP is clearly concerned that the minister's new powers will allow her to approve projects that should not be approved. The Conservatives have the exact opposite position. I respect both these positions.
    Does that not clearly demonstrate the arbitrary nature of this flawed bill?

[English]

    Mr. Speaker, we discussed the fact that there should have been three different committees looking at this. The natural resources committee should have been looking at this. The environment committee should have been looking at this. There should have been a variety of different groups and committees working on this to make sure that we are doing what is best for Canadians.
     I really do not think the Liberal government listens. It is the Liberals' way or the highway, and that is what we are seeing with this piece of legislation. They are ramming something through, where if there are proper alternatives that are going to work for businesses, as well as for people who have environmental concerns, we can find some balance.
    Just because the left and the right are disagreeing, that does not make the centre right for the Liberals' big omnibus bill. That is exactly what it is. When the Conservatives and the NDP are agreeing and nodding heads, one knows there is a problem, and maybe the government should recognize that it is not listening.
    Mr. Speaker, I know the member remembers a time when we were in government and we streamlined and fixed the problems. DFO was getting involved in municipal drains. There were navigable water issues in my riding, where there are no boats going up any rivers. There were double environmental assessments for infrastructure projects, which created duplication and waste. It was 10 years to get a hydroelectric project completed, with environmental screenings for cedar benches in Parks Canada. We made improvements to get rid of that waste and redundancy. I wonder if the member could talk about that for a minute.
    Mr. Speaker, we needed to get rid of duplication, and that is exactly what the former government did. For 14 years, I have been meeting with farmers and farmers groups, and one of the biggest things I heard from grain and oilseed farmers in Elgin—Middlesex—London was about their concerns with the navigable waters act. There are times when we need to trigger an environmental assessment, but there are times when the Liberals have gone way too far. About the DFO, we have to work on that and fix it because this is only going to get worse.
    Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise today to speak in support of Bill C-69. The bill fulfills a core commitment our government made to rebuild public trust in the environmental assessment system. It is based on 14 months of consultation with provinces and territories, indigenous peoples, companies, environmental groups, and Canadians from coast to coast to coast.

  (1300)  

[Translation]

    Today, I will start by outlining why we created this bill and what it will accomplish. I will then discuss how our government and the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development have engaged in dialogue with indigenous communities and other partners throughout this process. I will also speak about what we heard.

[English]

    Finally, I will describe how the standing committee's hard work in studying and amending the bill responds to the comments that have been received, and how it supports our government's commitment to a clean environment and a strong economy.
    Before I begin, I would like to congratulate the standing committee and recognize what has been accomplished. Consideration of such a complex and significant bill is a challenging task. I commend the committee for its openness in hearing diverse witness testimony and for making thoughtful amendments that address important issues and significantly strengthen the original bill.
    I would like to start my comments by providing some background about Bill C-69: why it is before us today and why it is so important for the future of Canada's economy and environment.
    Public trust was eroded as a result of changes made by the Harper government in 2012. Canadians lost confidence in how decisions about major resource projects were made. Bill C-69 aims to restore that trust, put in place better rules to protect our environment, and build a stronger economy. It reflects our conviction that a clean environment and a strong economy can and must go hand in hand in the modern world, something that has guided all of our actions since forming government. It takes a balanced approach: providing certainty for industry while upholding the rights of indigenous peoples, protecting our environment, and facilitating the generation of economic benefits for all Canadians.
    I would like to thank indigenous peoples, stakeholders, and Canadians who contributed their knowledge and perspectives. The proposed legislation provides many important improvements. Decisions would be transparent and guided by robust science and indigenous knowledge. Project reviews would consider a wide range of impacts on the economy, health, indigenous rights, and the community, not simply the environment. Reviews would be more timely and more predicable. Measures are included to advance reconciliation and partnership with indigenous peoples. Duplication and red tape would be reduced through a “one project, one review” approach.

[Translation]

    As I was saying, during months of consultation, indigenous peoples, stakeholders, and Canadians across the country helped us develop Bill C-69. Since the bill was introduced, our government has continued to ensure that they participate fully in the process at every opportunity.

[English]

    Hearing from Canadians directly was also central to the standing committee's consideration of the bill. In recent months, the committee heard from more than 80 witnesses with diverse perspectives and expertise. I would like to share some of the valuable input that we heard from stakeholders during this process.
    First, indigenous peoples and organizations have said that Bill C-69 must fully support our government's goal of advancing reconciliation and a renewed relationship based on the recognition of rights, respect, co-operation, and partnership, as well as our commitment to implement the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. This is critically important.

[Translation]

    As the Prime Minister said, no relationship is more important to Canada than the one with indigenous peoples.

[English]

    Environmental organizations have stressed the importance of public participation and accessible, transparent information. In particular, they told us that the bill must ensure not just participation, but meaningful participation that has an influence on project reviews and decision-making. From industry and other stakeholders, we heard that the legislation must provide certainty and clarity about what would be considered in project reviews and in decision-making.

[Translation]

    The project proponent and other participants should feel confident that the decisions are evidence-based and are made in the public interest.

[English]

    I am pleased that the standing committee has made a number of amendments to the bill that respond to many of the comments and concerns highlighted by stakeholders and indigenous peoples. Finding appropriate ways to address these issues is not easy, and I want to recognize the committee for its dedication and its collaborative approach.

[Translation]

    I would now like to mention some amendments made by the committee and explain how they support our goals for a sound environment and a strong economy.

[English]

    As a result of the committee's work and feedback from indigenous peoples, the bill now clearly states our government's commitment to the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. The declaration would now be reflected in the preamble to both the proposed impact assessment act and the proposed Canadian energy regulator act. The government, the minister, the agency, the Canadian energy regulator, and other federal authorities would also need to exercise their powers under the impact assessment act and the Canadian energy regulator act in a manner that respects the government's commitments with respect to the rights of indigenous peoples.

  (1305)  

[Translation]

    The amendments also add to the existing provisions, to ensure that indigenous knowledge is taken into account along with the science when projects are being assessed. The bill will now require more transparency in how the indigenous knowledge is used and will implement strong measures to protect this knowledge.

[English]

    The standing committee has strengthened the public participation and transparency provisions across the legislation. The bill now clarifies that Canadians would have opportunities for meaningful participation throughout assessments. To support meaningful participation, a broad range of project information would need to be posted online, and there would be a requirement to maintain this information so that it stays accessible over time.

[Translation]

    Furthermore, in response to reactions from environmental organizations, amendments would establish new safeguards so that Canadians can have confidence that the process is fair. For example, the bill clarifies that the project would be based on the impact assessment report and that decisions would also have to consider the main factors of public interest, including the project's contribution to sustainability.

[English]

    The committee has also responded to industry's calls for more certainty. Amendments have been made to clarify that the government's public interest decision will be based on the assessment report and the consideration of specific factors, including positive and negative consequences. Other amendments include clarifying that comments must be provided during a time period specified by the impact assessment agency of Canada so that meaningful participation is ensured and balanced with a need for timely assessments. They would also enable the Minister of Environment and Climate Change to inform companies early on if a project is likely to have negative impacts, giving proponents an earlier opportunity to decide whether to continue with an impact assessment. Finally, the committee's amendments would improve the transition provisions set out in the bill.

[Translation]

    The committee has strengthened Bill C-69 with these changes and others. By maintaining a balanced approach, the bill will further support environmental protection and reconciliation, and will also help increase investor confidence.

[English]

    I am very proud of our government's work on this bill.

[Translation]

    Bill C-69 addresses a key commitment we made during the 2015 election campaign. Our best rules adopt a balanced approach that takes into account the interests of people across Canada.

[English]

    Once again, I want to recognize the essential contributions made by the standing committee, as well as the many Canadians who participated in consultations and made their voices heard. Thanks to their passion and commitment, I am confident that this bill will support the goals that I believe all of my colleagues share: a clean environment for our children, and a strong and growing economy.
    I hope that all members of the House will join me in supporting this bill.
    Mr. Speaker, it is clear that the Liberal government is out to destroy our natural resources sector, not only with this bill but with the introduction of carbon taxes.
    In terms of looking at advancements in how we process these things, Bill C-69 proposes a 180-day planning phase, which can be extended by 90 days by the minister or indefinitely by cabinet. There is actually no timeline for establishing the panel. Once it is finally established, the panel has to submit its report within 600 days, and that, again, can be extended by the minister for 90 days or indefinitely by cabinet.
    How can my colleague stand in this place and actually imply that the bill would enhance the capability of bringing projects online?
    Mr. Speaker, obviously, it is important to restore public trust in the processes so that projects can move forward. That was the primary focus of all the work that was done on Bill C-69.
    One very important measure that has been introduced is related to the early planning phase. It is something that many resource-based organizations have called for to try to set the parameters and scope of when the environmental assessment would take place so that we can flag issues that need to be addressed early on and not flag them far down the road when they are much more difficult to address. Therefore, I would suggest that the hon. member may want to reflect that comment back to some of the natural resource organizations that asked for this.
    With respect to the timelines, there are specific timelines that will provide certainty for proponents going forward. One of the amendments that the member has perhaps not seen is the lowering of the 600-day limit to 300 days. However, the focus is very much on providing timelines that will give certainty to proponents as to how this will proceed in a timely way.

  (1310)  

[Translation]

    Mr. Speaker, I thank the parliamentary secretary for his speech.
    The NDP deplores that the Liberal government waited so long to propose a new environmental assessment process. What worries me about this new version is that the government did not explicitly state which projects must be assessed by the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency. Furthermore, Bill C-69 does not set out the criteria that will be used to determine whether an assessment is required. It is like buying a Ferrari that can only get up to second gear. What a shame.
    Why did the government decide to do this?

[English]

    Mr. Speaker, the hon. member raised two separate issues. The first is that it did take time to bring this law forward. That is precisely because, knowing how important this is from an economic and environmental perspective, we knew we needed to have appropriate consultation with communities, individuals, companies, first nations, and environmental organizations. Therefore, we took the time to ensure that we actually got this right.
    With respect to the question around projects, my hon. colleague is exactly right, in that there does need to be a definition that provides clarity about which projects will be included from a federal perspective, because, of course, there are projects that fall out of federal jurisdiction and are managed by the provinces. That regulatory piece is being managed through the project list that is out for consultation right now. I would certainly encourage the hon. member to weigh-in with his thoughts about what should be on and off the project list.
    Mr. Speaker, earlier in his address, the member mentioned that this gave the Minister of Environment an opportunity to tell proponents quickly whether or not the projects could go ahead. Therefore, it is very similar to the process the government had with northern gateway, where it would quickly tell them that it was not going ahead. The same thing happened with energy east when it indicated it could go upstream and downstream. That was put it in there so that we would find out whether it could go ahead.
    Then the government decided that it was going to put money into a project that was not necessary. Therefore, we have a situation where I am sure the government said, “Houston, we no longer have a problem”, and this money will go into other countries so that we will import oil from the east coast. Has the government done an environmental assessment of the effects worldwide of the actions it has just taken?
    Mr. Speaker, the focus of the conversation today is Bill C-69. I do not think the hon. member was actually speaking to the bill.
    The focus is really very much on enhancing the integrity and transparency of the process, and restoring the public trust that was destroyed in 2012 by the Harper government when it introduced significant changes to the environmental assessment process, the Fisheries Act, and the Navigable Waters Act. This government is very focused on ensuring that we are in a position to address legitimate environmental concerns so that good projects can move forward in an expedited way to ensure that we are creating good middle-class jobs for Canadians.

[Translation]

    Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to Bill C-69 at report stage. It has been a long time coming, since it was one of the major promises the Liberal Party made to Canadians during the last election.
     In 2012, the environmental assessment process was scrapped, which undermined Quebeckers’ and other Canadians’ confidence in an independent, transparent, fair, balanced and scientific process based on facts. It was absolutely necessary that we change course and repair the damage done, but, unfortunately, the attempt is a bit late and, once again, half-hearted.
     The parliamentary secretary said that the delay was in large part due to the consultations the Liberal government conducted and the fact that it created expert committees that made their own recommendations. I might believe that if the government had listened to the recommendations made by the experts and by the citizens of Canada. Unfortunately, that is not the case. It received a number of good suggestions and recommendations from the panels it created, but it rejected practically all of the suggestions from the environmental and scientific communities.
     Despite the Liberals’ rhetoric and their boasting about having collaborated, they rejected 99% of all amendments proposed by the opposition parties in committee in an effort to improve the bill. Almost all of the 33 amendments that were accepted in committee were proposed by Liberal members. I wanted to set the record straight.
     We in the NDP believe that the Liberals took their time because they were actually pleased to be able to use the old Conservative system to quickly and quietly pass certain projects that they did not want people to look at too closely. I am thinking in particular of Kinder Morgan’s Trans Mountain pipeline project. As luck would have it, it is too late for the project to be assessed under the new system.
     They tried to tinker with the existing process by adding criteria, some of which are not being met. Contrary to the clear promise made by the Prime Minister in British Columbia during the election campaign that no new pipeline projects would be accepted under Stephen Harper’s environmental assessment process, the Liberals were far from thorough. Astonishingly, once again, they broke their promise and approved the project under an obsolete system that they criticized and said they did not trust.
     Today, we are wondering how we can trust the government’s decision. I do not even want to talk about the fact that we are spending who knows how many billions of dollars to purchase a pipeline that no one will want in 30 or 40 years because it will be worthless.
     If we are in trouble up to our necks today because of the Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain pipeline scandal, it is in large part because, from the get-go, the Liberals did not fulfill their promise, did not do their job, and rushed the project through without the people’s consent. They did not respect the first nations’ territories, and the first nations are challenging the legitimacy of the pipeline in court and complaining that they are not getting their due respect and that no one is listening to them.
     Last week, everyone, Liberal and New Democrat alike, was pleased with the support for my colleague’s bill making the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples law in Canada. Just five days later, however, the Liberal government was already breaking its commitment by refusing to incorporate the declaration's principles into the Trans Mountain pipeline project. That is a betrayal. I have never seen a government flip-flop in such a way in under a week.
     To get back to Bill C-69, we believe that there are three key issues. The first concerns how we determine which projects will be assessed.

  (1315)  

     The second is how we choose the expert panels to do the assessment, and whether they are truly independent. The third involves the minister’s discretion when it comes to accepting or refusing the experts’ recommendations and the results of the environmental assessment. We have a problem with these three issues.
     First, and this is critical, there is no definition or criteria for determining which economic or energy development project will be subject to the new environmental assessment process. Astonishingly, the parliamentary secretary just conceded the point to me. If a project is not assessed, we can have the best process in the world, but it will not do us any good. If I buy a new computer and I leave it in the box in the corner of my office, I will not derive any benefit from it. We now fear the worst. The absence of clear criteria, commitments or a list of projects means that projects that will have an impact on territories and communities might very well not be subject to the new Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency process.
     This discretion, this willingness to select projects as it sees fit in a seemingly random fashion is a huge problem for us as environmentalists, and for people who want to do serious work.
     Second, there are many in the community who have serious doubts about the political independence of the panels that will be appointed to consult scientists, indigenous peoples and Canadians in general. Will these experts not simply be political hacks that will become complacent or shut their eyes to certain issues instead of doing their job?
     We have seen the credibility of the National Energy Board suffer because of this type of cronyism. The Centre québécois du droit de l’environnement shares our concern; it made two statements that I would like to share. The first is, and I quote, “In order to restore confidence, project assessment panels must be truly independent from both industry and the government”, and the second, “Bill [C-69] contains no mechanism for ensuring independence from political interference or avoiding partisan appointments or complacency in assessment panels, on whose recommendations the government now bases its final decisions.”
     We are not the only ones to say so. There is a fundamental problem with the fact that there is no guarantee, no structure for preventing politics and partisanship from affecting the assessments. There could be a considerable loss of credibility. That would be a shame, because it is really an institution based on trust. Here is a good example: the BAPE is a respected institution in Québec, and Quebeckers have confidence in it. We would like to see that model used, and we do not understand why, in its bill, the federal government did not include anything about accepting environmental assessment processes carried out in some of the provinces, including Québec, since the BAPE is recognized by all of the stakeholders and groups at the table.
     The third issue involves the end of the process. Decisions are made regarding which projects will be assessed, experts are appointed to engage in consultations, scientists and local populations are listened to, the general mood is gauged and the indigenous peoples involved are given a chance to express themselves but, at the end of the day, the sitting minister is not bound by the assessment panel’s recommendation. An assessment panel could say that there are too many dangers, too many risks, that the project is not acceptable to the population and that it is dangerous for the environment but, in the end, the minister could order that the project go ahead anyway.
     Today, we have a Minister of Environment who says she is concerned about the environment. In my opinion, sometimes she is, sometimes she is not. However, this legislative provision will remain on the books for many Parliaments down the road. We think that this is extremely dangerous, because in the past we have seen a minister dismiss indigenous peoples, scientists and Canadians in general and opt for projects that pose a danger to our environment, our ecosystems and public health.

  (1320)  

    Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie for his work on this issue and the speech he just gave.
    I must admit that, as I read bills, as an opposition member, I too try to find positive points. Our role is to try to improve bills, not simply oppose them. I was thrilled to see that the traditional knowledge of first nations would be taken into consideration in the assessment process moving forward. However, I must also admit that I am deeply concerned about the Liberal government's decision to purchase a $4.5-billion pipeline this week and how it voted on a motion we moved last week.
    Why should we believe that first nations' traditional knowledge really will be taken into account in the environmental assessment process?

  (1325)  

    Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Trois-Rivières for his question.
    I share his concern and his apprehension, because this government has said one thing and done the opposite all too often. Therefore, yes, this might look good on paper, but when we consider the decisions this government has actually made, it simply does not pass a reality check. It is constantly contradicting itself.
    It is troubling, because if we do not have a mechanism in place to ensure that expert panels really are free of all political influence, it means that the government could easily ignore the lofty principles set out in Bill C-69, just as it is now ignoring the principle of informed, clear, and transparent consultation with indigenous peoples regarding the Trans Mountain pipeline, which the government just bought with our money.

[English]

    Mr. Speaker, my colleague has highlighted many of the challenges Bill C-69 presents. We also have concerns with Bill C-69, but they are concerns that investment in Canada is fleeing. In fact, over the last two years, we have seen the most dramatic drop in foreign investment the country has ever seen. We have seen it drop in half. That is because the investment environment in Canada is one that is no longer attractive and welcoming to the people who want to invest, especially in our resource industry.
     Recently, the Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain was purchased by the government, which shocked all of us. The last time that happened was under the Prime Minister's father, who was prime minister at the time. We know how that played out. Eventually Petro-Canada was returned to the private sector. It always should have been in private hands.
    The member clearly is not a big supporter of the Kinder Morgan pipeline, yet we still have a robust oil industry in Canada. Canada has the third-largest oil reserves in the world. The world still is beating a path to our doorstep, wanting to buy our oil. Therefore, if the member is not supportive of the Kinder Morgan pipeline, does he then propose that we continue to use and increase the use of rail to transport oil? His own province has had a big problem at Lac-Mégantic with oil being transported by rail. Is that his solution to the way we get oil to markets outside of Canada?

[Translation]

    Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question.
    Obviously, I think that we do not share the same perspective. To the NDP, the energy sector is more than just oil and gas. We think that instead of debating pipelines or trains we should be changing the channel and looking at alternatives.
    I thank my colleague for pointing out that the Liberal government foolishly decided out of the blue to spend billions of dollars of Canadians' money on a project that it never said it would undertake. Let us be clear, the $4.5 billion is just the beginning. No jobs will be created; this is just to buy existing equipment and infrastructure. Kinder Morgan was talking about investing at least an additional $7.4 billion to expand the pipeline. That brings us to $11.9 billion.
    We are more interested in what we might do with renewable energies and future investments in jobs for today and tomorrow. The NDP is interested in being able to invest in an energy transition that is fair to workers.
    Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-69, which is very important.
    Following the debate on the previous government's reform of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, I was very pleased to see that we are moving forward with this bill, which is the product of extensive consultation over the past two years.
    I would like to recognize the hard work that the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development did on this file. The committee heard from more than 50 witnesses and received 150 briefs. Several hundred amendments were proposed, 130 of which were adopted. It is therefore clear that this was a very robust process, and I would like to commend my colleagues for the work they did in committee. I was very impressed by their willingness to consider possible improvements.

  (1330)  

[English]

    I would like to focus a bit on that aspect in particular. I note our chair and vice-chair are sitting opposite having a discussion, likely on topics related to the committee's work. This committee was charged with an important assignment, which was to ensure democracy functioned in the context of reviewing complex legislation.
    If we rewind to 2012, the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012 was incorporated into the previous Conservative government's budget bill. It was an entire replacement of the previous Environmental Assessment Act. It was brought through the omnibus budget bill and there were no hearings specifically on the bill to reform the environmental assessment rules. That was criticized across the country, from indigenous communities to environmental groups. Even municipal actors were literally appalled at the anti-democratic approach taken to amend that law.
    Therefore, the pendulum swings back a bit. We knew and committed in the previous campaign to reforming that legislation. Thankfully, pursuant to many months of consultation, a better starting point, which was Bill C-69, was achieved. However, when it went to committee, to the committee's great credit, all sorts of analysis was brought to bear from members opposite , from the New Democratic Party, the Green Party, and the Conservative Party. Every party that participated, with the possible exception of the Bloc, independent Bloc, and the CCF, brought forward an amendment that was voted upon and approved, which is a remarkable achievement.
    It is also important to note that the government, in particular the Minister of Environment, the Minister of Transport, and the Minister of Natural Resources have commented positively on the amendments brought forward by the committee, on which we will subsequently be voting.
     One hundred and fifty amendments were made. The government is responding positively to the fact that these changes are being brought in to ensure openness and transparency, improve public participation, better engage indigenous communities, and to provide greater predictability and certainty for our businesses and those who wish to bring good projects forward. The fact that agreement could be reached on 150 amendments is a tremendous statement and says a lot about the state of democracy right now. That is a really important thing.

[Translation]

    I would like to first look at some of the amendments, particularly those related to reconciliation and navigable waters.
    With regard to reconciliation, I was very proud to work with my colleagues, including opposition members, to propose amendments that would incorporate the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples into the bill. That is very important and our government supports enshrining the declaration in law through Bill C-262, which will soon become law.
    I would like to congratulate those who worked on Bill C-69, because including the declaration in future impact assessments across the country will be very good for reconciliation and for the development of nation-to-nation relationships.
    I would also like to mention how the bill now provides for calling on indigenous peoples' knowledge and expertise when impact assessments are conducted. That will help to improve future project analyses. We need to improve our way of working with indigenous peoples on impact assessments.
    Protection of waterways is another very important aspect, and we all know the former government scrapped several provisions protecting navigable waters. Since 2015, the government has been working very hard to improve those protections because waterways and navigation rights are protected not only by statute but also under common law.

  (1335)  

[English]

    The protections for navigable waters are of crucial importance to Canadians, and certainly to the constituents I represent in the Pontiac.
    With respect to navigation, very important changes were brought by the committee to ensure water flows would be protected. That is a really crucial piece of the puzzle. Why? Because many Canadian communities, indigenous groups, and paddling groups were concerned that projects might move forward and would not receive the necessary scrutiny, that the law would not necessarily enable protection of the flows of water that would go down various waterways, whether that is the Ottawa River, the Gatineau River, the St. Lawrence Seaway, or other major waterways. That is a key point, and I am very proud our committee brought forward those amendments.
     Overall, I would like to conclude by suggesting that beyond the hyperbole, beyond all of the easy, partisan criticism that has been lobbed from the other side, at the end of the day, Canadians are looking for a stronger process that builds trust when good projects come forward and ensures the independence of decision-makers in the context of evaluating projects. We need the public to not only know that a good analysis is being done, but that this analysis is being done independently, on the basis of solid, hard evidence, and on the basis of the engagement of Canada's indigenous peoples.
    I am really proud of the work our government has done. Bill C-69 is a good starting point. The committee worked very hard to achieve improvements on it. I commend the government for its positive reaction to the changes brought forward by the standing committee.
    Mr. Speaker, that member is an invaluable member of our environment committee, and I enjoy working with him.
    He did mention the navigable waters piece in Bill C-69. We need to make it very clear in the House that navigable waters is about navigation. It has nothing to do with the environment.
    The previous government made those changes to the navigable waters act because government officials with sidearms were accosting farmers in fields who had dug a ditch that was classified as a waterway. They told our farmers not to touch or clean that ditch because they would be breaking the law. Imagine how farmers reacted. In my City of Abbotsford, the community I represent, farmers were livid about how the government approached this.
    Another reason we moved forward with changes to the navigable waters legislation was because it was about navigation, not about the environment. The Liberal government seems to conflate those and has taken the navigable waters legislation and thrown it in the middle of Bill C-69, which is essentially an environmental piece of legislation. Does the member not understand that navigable waters is about protecting navigation? It should not cover minor waterways.
    Why is his government so intent on changing and trying to remediate a piece of legislation that was actually working very well for those impacted by it?

  (1340)  

    Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to work with the member opposite who represents Abbotsford. I have enjoyed many positive moments on our standing committee and have great respect for the work he does.
    With all due respect, I would refer the member to an opinion editorial that I had published in The Globe and Mail in 2012, where I laid out the critique of the previous government's changes to navigation law in Canada. When the changes were made, Canadians' ability to navigate was still protected by the common law, but most of their statutory rights previously protected by Transport Canada were stripped away. The statutory protections for navigation were stripped away, leaving the public with common law protections only.
    I take the point that there is a distinction to be drawn between navigation protections and environmental protections. That is an absolutely valid point to make. However there is no doubt that in past, environmental assessment laws, which Canadian waters were subject to prior to the previous government, the required navigational permitting triggered an environmental assessment. That is how it used to work. The Conservative government stripped all of that away, so we needed to find a new way to bring back navigation protections and a robust impact assessment regime. That is what Bill C-69 seeks to achieve.
    Mr. Speaker, the member for Pontiac mentioned that the committee had agreed to make an amendment to Bill C-69 with regards to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People. It amended the preamble, but that preamble is non-binding, so it was a meaningless gesture by the government.
    I will bring to the attention of all members that the member for Edmonton Strathcona has brought forward report stage amendments, notably, Motions Nos. 4, 7, 9, 10, 12, and 13. Given that the member across the way voted last week in support of Bill C-262, which strives to bring the laws of Canada into harmony with UNDRIP, will he be consistent this week and support those amendments and live up to what he did last week?
    Mr. Speaker, the issue of incorporating the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples into Bill C-69 was an important one. We had lengthy discussions during the committee proceedings. We on this side of the House most certainly feel that incorporating indigenous rights and ensuring they are respected and that the constitutional protections afforded to indigenous rights are given pride of place in this legislation is of absolutely fundamental importance. That is exactly what we achieved.
    Many amendments were brought to Bill C-69 in relation to indigenous rights, including but not limited to UNDRIP, and I mentioned others related to traditional knowledge. Members on this side of the House are extremely proud of how that was achieved.

  (1345)  

[Translation]

    Mr. Speaker, I want to go back to that brief exchange about including the Navigation Protection Act in Bill C-69 and changes made to the act.
    During a previous term here in the House of Commons, I had the opportunity to be a member of the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, where we discussed the Navigation Protection Act and the waterways that were protected by the previous government's bill to amend the Navigation Protection Act. At the time, nobody complained or called for changed. The government decided to make changes in response to pressure from groups that thought the law was lacking, but it was not actually lacking.
    There were no complaints, no requests to add new waterways to the list that had been authorized and announced in the Navigation Protection Act. Sometimes, people want to make changes for reasons other than protecting waterways. They might be trying to please certain lobby groups. That is what happened at the time, and we need to remember that.
     Bill C-69 is an omnibus bill that enacts the Impact Assessment Act and the Canadian Energy Regulator Act, amends the Navigation Protection Act and makes amendments to several other acts. It is another major bill, because it has a considerable impact on how large projects will be environmentally assessed in Canada.
     Despite the government's promises of openness and transparency, Bill C-69 is one of the 38 bills for which the government decided to cut short discussions, muzzle the opposition and refuse to hear each of the members of the opposition express his or her intentions. We reached the pinnacle this week but, last week, in the House, in just three days, the government introduced three motions to cut debate short by gagging members who had something to say and wanted to represent their fellow citizens.
    A similar thing happened in the committee that studied Bill C-69. They refused to discuss the opposition's amendments, then rejected them and proposed almost identical amendments so that they could say that they were the government's idea and not that of the opposition. If that is not arrogance, I do not know what arrogance is. We see it all the time in the House, and it is only getting worse.
     I remind the House that the opposition was gagged 38 times, including 5 times in three days last week. If the trend continues, the same thing will happen in the coming weeks, even if there are only a few weeks left in this session. The government is simply incapable of working together with the opposition parties to pass its bills.
    Consequently, it is left to support Bill C-69 all by itself. The Conservatives, the NDP and the Green Party are all against the bill—not for the same reasons, but they are all against it. Once again, everything is about optics with this government. Despite its promises of openness and transparency, it refuses to hear the recommendations of elected members on this side of the House, and it is alone in passing a bill that will have a major impact on the economy.
     I would like to remind my colleagues that, on this side of the House, even if we make up less than half of all elected members, we represent more than half of the country's electorate, so when the government constantly breaks its promises, it is disrespecting all of those Canadians we represent as members of the opposition. It can say whatever it wants to make itself look good, but when it comes time to do the work, it fails across the board.
    The words fade away and the Liberals' true nature emerges. The Liberals' promise to run small deficits: gone; the Liberals' promise to bring in electoral reform and change the voting system: gone; the Liberals' promise to increase transparency: gone; the Liberals' promise to no longer muzzle the opposition: gone; and the Liberals' promise not to concede one more litre of milk to the Americans through NAFTA: gone.

  (1350)  

    We learned about this on the weekend. In a speech on NBC, which has a large American audience, the Prime Minister, perhaps thinking that we would not see the show, declared that the Canadian government was prepared to be more flexible, to give Americans access to Canada's milk market. Unfortunately, some Canadians watch NBC and heard the Prime Minister make this promise. It was rather shocking, because Liberals on the other side of the House have been repeating, over and over, since 2015 and even earlier that they will fully protect supply management.
     The Liberals will protect supply management, since they created it. The Prime Minister said that they would unanimously protect supply management. I am not sure what “unanimously” means, but the Prime Minister is the one who said it. Meanwhile, when he thinks that Canadians are not listening, he says the opposite.
    After all that, the government is asking for our trust with respect to Bill C-69. Since this morning, the Liberals have repeated their talking points so many times that, in my opinion, they do not see the real consequences of the bill. They are too busy repeating their talking points to dig deeper and identify what is wrong with Bill C-69.
    The first big problem is that the Liberals are creating new regulatory burdens for project proponents and adding a carbon tax, which makes Canada less and less competitive when it comes to attracting investment. None of this has improved environmental protection one bit. We know that $100 billion in planned investments have already left Canada. I will repeat today, in this chamber, that the Conservatives will continue to oppose costly regulations that negatively impact Canada's jobs, economic growth, and international competitiveness.
    There is nothing in Bill C-69 to help increase investors' confidence or to attract new investment to Canada, especially in the resource sector. We know that Canadian firms are already facing significant challenges, whereas the United States is moving forward with its plan to reduce regulations, cut taxes, and invest in coal-fired and natural-gas-fired electricity in order to cut energy costs.
    Canadian businesses deserve a government that works with them, not against them. Canadian businesses deserve a government that will work with them to protect the environment, and not against them by ensuring that there are no projects. The government would not have to worry about the environment if there were no projects. That is the reality.
    The government's approach to fighting climate change needs to be realistic. It needs to restore a balance between protecting the environment and growing the economy.
    Another source of concern is the fact that cabinet is giving itself life-and-death powers over major projects, such as the power to appoint people and the power to say yes or no to projects throughout the process. We know what the Liberals can do when they manage a project, or rather, when they mismanage one. I am referring to Kinder Morgan. The project was approved 18 months ago, but the Liberals sat on their hands all that time instead of putting it in motion.
    The Liberal government has known for 11 months that British Columbia is opposed to this project. However, the Prime Minister only dropped by briefly on his way to England, probably so his jet could fill up on fuel for the rest of the trip.
     He took advantage of his layover to meet with two premiers. What was the result? Diddly-squat. This government's solution was to nationalize Kinder Morgan, making all Canadians joint owners of a pipeline for which they paid $4.5 billion.
    Does this mean that the project will go ahead? No, because we have only bought some pipes. We have bought $4.5 billion in pipes. The company's executives were so proud of what they pulled off that they received $1.5 million each for the fast one they pulled on the Government of Canada, and I could have used a different word. This means that we will have to invest even more in order for the project to go ahead, if it ever does.
    I believe it is clear that something crucial was overlooked in Bill C-69. Yes, we have to protect the environment. Yes, we have to ensure that projects go ahead while respecting our environment so that our young people will have an environment in the future that they can enjoy and will benefit from our natural resources. However, the bill should not thwart further investment in Canada by ensuring environmental protection while doing absolutely nothing else.

[English]

    Mr. Speaker, I would like to bring the discussion back to Bill C-69. It is great to work together with my friend, the member for Mégantic—L'Érable, on the agriculture committee, but today we are talking about energy.
    This morning, I met with Alectra and the City of Guelph to discuss a technology and smart grid opportunity that can help us move toward our goal of having 90% renewable energy generated by 2030. However, we have to coordinate with the Department of Environment and Climate Change, with Natural Resources Canada, and with Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada. Therefore, an integrated all-of-government approach needs to be taken, such as what is being proposed in the legislation.
    Could the hon. member comment on how this legislation could help bring forward clean technology projects with a complex basis, connecting different departments, versus the omnibus legislative rhetoric we have been hearing from the other side?

  (1355)  

[Translation]

    Mr. Speaker, that is exactly what I have been saying from the start. When businesses want to innovate, when they have to innovate, when they want to take concrete steps toward reducing greenhouse gas emissions and helping us meet our greenhouse gas reduction targets, the government needs to step up and help them. The government needs to take regulatory obstacles out of their way. It needs to get rid of the notorious carbon tax, which might deter people from ever investing in Canada because they are going to figure out pretty quickly that they can make more money investing where there is less regulation, where it is easier, and where there are lower taxes, by which I mean in the United States. I really do not see how Bill C-69 offers any incentive to businesses or makes it attractive to invest in Canada. The people we have been consulting and talking to about Bill C-69 all say that it will make the process take longer and increase the regulatory burden. That will make it harder to accomplish projects like the one my Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-food colleague just talked about.

[English]

    Mr. Speaker, my fellow vice-chair of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food went through some of the trials and tribulations that the opposition parties had with the bill at committee. The member for Edmonton Strathcona moved many amendments. There was a situation where the amendment deadline passed before the committee could receive all the submissions. It was a really rushed process for such a very important bill. The theme of the bill is very important.
    According to the way the Liberals voted last week, does the member think they will be consistent on Bill C-262 and support the report stage amendments that incorporated UNDRIP provisions into the bill?

[Translation]

    Mr. Speaker, I doubt I will have a better answer for my colleague, but I can talk about another of this government's inconsistencies.
    Bill C-57 is another bill that was kind of rammed down parliamentarians' throats. It includes a definition of sustainability that reads as follows:

[English]

    Sustainability is defined as “the ability to protect the environment, contribute to the social and economic well-being of the people of Canada and preserve their health in a manner that benefits present and future generations.”

[Translation]

    That was in Bill C-57.

[English]

    Sadly, in Bill C-69, direct economic consideration is now missing from the extensive list of factors to consider.

[Translation]

    That is therefore not the first inconsistency we see from the Liberals, and I somehow doubt it will be the last.

STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS

[Statements by Members]

[English]

Biosphere Reserves

    Mr. Speaker, this afternoon, I am pleased to be co-hosting, with members from all parties, a reception on the Hill recognizing Canada's 18 UNESCO biosphere reserves. These 18 biosphere reserves have the distinction of including both some of the most pristine ecosystems in our country and incredibly dedicated stewards of our lands and waters.
    Located on the southwest shore of the Great Bear Lake in the Northwest Territories, the community of Deline is home to our country's newest biosphere reserve, Tsá Tué. Designated by UNESCO in 2016, Tsá Tué is the first biosphere reserve in the world to be 100% indigenous governed.
     I invite all of my colleagues to join me in the Speaker's lounge after question period in celebration of our country's great biosphere reserves from coast to coast to coast.
     Mahsi cho .

Justice

    Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice claims that Bill C-75 has nothing to do with sentencing. Bill C-75 makes serious indictable offences prosecutable by way of summary conviction. Therefore, instead of a sentence of up to 10 years if prosecuted by way of summary conviction, the maximum sentence would be two years less a day or as little as a mere fine. That is right. Under Bill C-75, a maximum sentence could go from 10 years to two years less a day.
    Contrary to the minister's claims, Bill C-75 has everything to do with sentencing and everything to do with watering down sentences for the most serious of offences.
     Bill C-75 is a terrible bill for victims, it is a terrible bill for public safety, and it is why Conservatives will work to defeat Bill C-75.

  (1400)  

Sea Cadet Program

    Mr. Speaker, as a proud former Royal Canadian sea cadet who attended for five summers HMCS Quadra with the Royal Canadian Sea Cadet Corps Undaunted and NLCC Captain Jackson, I am honoured to stand and celebrate one of the greatest youth programs in Canada.
     This year is the 100th anniversary of the sea cadet program with the Navy League of Canada. It continues to train young Canadians from ages 12 to19 in seamanship, music, discipline, leadership, and life.
    I would like to thank the thousands of volunteers who make this program possible in the Royal Canadian Sea Cadet Corps, like JTCVC, Qu'appelle, Daerwood, Swiftsure, Dawson, Transcona, Crusader, and Navy League Cadet Corps JRK Millen, Stan Hawitt, and Lord Selkirk. These volunteers give up free time, including weeknights and weekends, so young people from all social backgrounds can enjoy and learn together in this significant life-changing program.
     I thank them for their contributions to Canadian society and helping to make Canada a better place.
    Ready, Aye, Ready.

World Oceans Day

    Mr. Speaker, today I rise to recognize World Oceans Day. This past weekend, I was pleased to celebrate World Oceans Day on the Gorge Waterway in my riding, and I offer my congratulations to the organizers of this great annual event.
    The recovery of the Gorge offers both inspiration from the success of volunteer-led efforts to restore both salmon runs and swimming to the Gorge, but also a cautionary tale in the ongoing vigilance so necessary to protect this inlet. However, now, when we are facing a future with more plastic than fish in the water, it is time for the federal government to act to protect our oceans, starting with an immediate phase-out of single-use plastics.
     If we are to stop global warming, we must end subsidies to fossil fuels, like the government's wrong-headed decision to buy the Kinder Morgan pipeline. This project is not just an impending climate change calamity, but also a major threat to west coast marine life and ecosystems on which our local economy and our very future depend.
    On World Oceans Day, I stand with my constituents in their commitment to protecting our oceans and ask the Liberals to do the world to do the same.

[Translation]

Ernest Gasser

    Mr. Speaker, Ernest Gasser, a pioneer in sustainable farming and a great businessman in the Pike River region, passed away on April 12, at the age of 84.
    He arrived and settled in Quebec in 1951, where he founded his farm. Today, Fermes Gasser is owned and operated by the fourth generation of his family. He founded what is today one of the largest farms in Quebec.
    Ernest was forward-thinking and always on the lookout for new farming techniques. He was very attuned to the changes in mentality in the industry and was especially sensitive to the potential environmental impact of farming. Ernest was chairman of the board of the Bedford Credit Union and member of the board of the Greater Bedford Coopérative de solidarité santé.
    On behalf of the Brome—Missisquoi community, I offer my condolences to his wife, Ilse, his children Michael, Ernest, William, Doris, and Carol, and all his family and friends. We thank Ernest for his devotion and his vision for the community, the region, the province, and the country.

[English]

Ramadan

    Mr. Speaker, Ramadan is the ninth month in the Islamic calendar. Muslims across the world approach this holiday with much devotion and sincerity.
     Ramadan is the time for thoughtfulness, spiritual reflection, and acts of kindness. Those who are able will fast, dusk to dawn, as one of the five pillars of Islam while devoting themselves to worship and prayer.
     Let this be a time for all Canadians, regardless of their cultural or religious background, to join with those celebrating Ramadan by remembering the less fortunate and celebrating acts of kindness and charity.
    For everyone in Canada and around the world observing the holy month of Ramadan, I wish them a Ramadan Mubarak.

  (1405)  

[Translation]

Italian National Day

     Mr. Speaker, a country is above all the expression of a people. Today, we are celebrating a nation with ancient roots transposed into a civilization spanning millennia. Its people used their knowledge, ingenuity, creativity, dedication, and emotions to create the biggest brands in the world.
    Italians have built an astounding number of globally beloved brands, including Ducati, Ferrari, Vespa, La Molisana, Carrozzeria Ghia, Nutella, Campagnolo, Loro Piana, Cinzano, Armani, Barilla, Beretta, Mapei, Gianfranco Ferré, Ermenelgido Zegna, Tic Tac, Prada, Panerai, Piaggio, and Pirelli, to name just a few.
    As I pay tribute to them today, I invite all my colleagues to celebrate the Festa della Repubblica.
    Viva l'Italia.

[English]

World Environment Day

    Mr. Speaker, by 2050, there will be more plastic than fish in the world's oceans. Stark examples exist of the damage plastic causes to our ecosystems. Just this past weekend, a pilot whale in Thailand died from starvation, having swallowed 80 plastic bags. Unfortunately, this is not an isolated incident.
    Today, on World Environment Day, we can all commit to taking action to beat plastic pollution.
     As Canadians, we know the importance of protecting our beautiful oceans and our pristine rivers and lakes for future generations. As Canada hosts the G7 summit later this week, I am proud we are taking leadership by putting environment and climate change at the forefront of the agenda.
     I encourage all Canadians to join the conversation this World Environment Day and share online the actions they are taking by using #beatplasticpollution. Here is a challenge for you, Mr. Speaker, and for all Canadians: “If you can’t reuse it, refuse it”.

[Translation]

Canada Summer Jobs Program

    Mr. Speaker, in 2009, a certain organization lost its federal funding due to its support for the terrorist groups Hamas and Hezbollah. That decision was upheld by the Federal Court of Canada in 2014.
    However, we learned today that the Canadian Arab Federation is receiving funding through the federal Canada summer jobs program, with the help of a Liberal MP from Toronto. What troubles me is that this is apparently not an isolated case. Many Liberal MPs and even some ministers have approved funding for such organizations.

[English]

    The fact is that many Liberal MPs and ministers have approved organizations with ties to terrorism, anti-Semitism, and violent homophobia, this is despite introducing their attestation.

[Translation]

    Are the Liberals condoning this unacceptable situation, or are they just grossly incompetent?

[English]

Ovarian Cancer

    Mr. Speaker, every day in Canada, five women die from ovarian cancer. Women diagnosed with ovarian cancer and their families deserve to have access to new therapies to improve their odds of survival. With no screening test and symptoms that can easily be confused with less serious conditions, ovarian cancer is usually detected at later stages.

[Translation]

    The harmful impact of this disease can no longer be ignored. It is time to give ovarian cancer sufferers in Canada a better chance of survival.
    We can change the course of this disease and even stop it in its tracks, but we need help to ensure that women living with ovarian cancer today get to live better, longer lives.

[English]

    Please join me in helping Ovarian Cancer Canada and the women for whom it works by raising awareness and by joining the parliamentary women's caucus immediately after question period in the parliamentary dining room for a reception.

SHAD

    Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the work being done by an exceptional non-profit. Since 1980, SHAD has provided an award-winning enrichment and entrepreneurial program that develops critical skills for young Canadians. SHAD builds leaders within our communities. Its program focuses on science, technology, and civic engagement.
    A few alumni of this program include entrepreneur Michele Romanow, the youngest person to appear on Dragons' Den; Darlene Lim, a NASA scientist currently studying the exploration of Mars; and Jason Farris, an executive for the NHL's Dallas Stars. SHAD has prepared these young leaders at many universities, including the University of Waterloo.
    Today is SHAD's day on the Hill, and I hope many parliamentarians will meet with its representatives and talk about its programs.
    I congratulate SHAD on its continued contribution towards the leadership development of Canadian youth.

  (1410)  

Taiwan

    Mr. Speaker, as the World Health Assembly meetings concluded last week, I rise to call for Taiwan to be included once again in all World Health Organization events moving forward. I believe that the enjoyment of good health is a universal right of every human being, which is why I successfully lobbied for Taiwan's inclusion in WHO events during my term as minister of health.
    Epidemics know no borders. Taiwan's absence from the WHO creates a significant gap in global co-operation on public health safety and disease prevention. Taiwan hosts 60,000 Canadians on its soil, so any outbreak of infectious diseases, such as SARS in 2003, would affect Taiwanese as well as Canadians living in the country.
    It is morally wrong for any country or organization to ignore the health and well-being of the 23 million Taiwanese people and prevent them from sharing health information. Therefore, I call upon the Minister of Health to end her silence and to start to advocate for the inclusion of Taiwan in the World Health Assembly.

[Translation]

Gender Equality

    Mr. Speaker, as it hosts the G7 in Charlevoix, our government continues to show it is a leader on gender equality.
    We are presiding over the 2018 summit, and one innovation is the new Gender Equality Advisory Council. This council will work to advance gender equality and women's empowerment across all areas of the G7's work.
    Canada is one of the fastest-growing economies in the G7, so we must ensure that Canadians' talents are put to good use. We know that investing in women strengthens the economy for everyone.
    I am very proud to be part of a government that places so much importance on feminist issues, and I believe that through this G7 summit, our government will inspire all the countries to follow suit and embrace feminist policies.

[English]

Ovarian Cancer

    Mr. Speaker, I had no idea that ovarian cancer was the most fatal women's cancer until Ovarian Cancer Canada told me that virtually no one lives long enough to lobby or fundraise for it. The fatality rate is terrible. More than half the women diagnosed die in five years. There is no screening and no vaccine, and there have been no treatment breakthroughs for 25 years and no outcome improvements for 50 years.
    Katrina died of it this spring. She was a professional geologist and the best, most grounded young woman ever. She made waves, got things done, and brought people together. On Sunday, her son Calvin turned three. Before she died, she said to her mom, Sabine Jessen, “Don't let Calvin forget me.”
    That is up to us. Research funding is a fraction of what other cancers get, and few survive this disease in order to lobby and fundraise for it. Let us give the $10-million budget that Ovarian Cancer Canada is asking for. Let us donate and find a cure.

Workers with Disabilities

    Mr. Speaker, let me quote the Canadian National Institute for the Blind.
    Unfortunately, so often when persons with disabilities get a job, receive a raise or work extra hours, taxes and clawbacks of income-tested benefits leave them poorer.
    This is why the CNIB supports the opportunity for workers with disabilities act:
    It would require Finance Canada to calculate how much workers with disabilities lose for every $1,000 they earn. If they lose more than they gain, the Finance Minister would be required to consider changes to federal tax and benefits to fix the problem. Also, the bill would require provinces do the same, as a condition of receiving billions in federal transfers.
     Federal conditions for federal money are nothing new. To get federal health transfers, provinces must honour the five principles of the Canada Health Act. To get the Canada Social Transfer, provinces are banned from imposing minimum residency requirements on social assistance.
    The CNIB further notes that infrastructure transfers even come with the requirement that provinces put up federal government signage at project sites, and concludes by asking that members vote in favour of this legislation in order to enhance work opportunities “for people with all abilities”.

  (1415)  

[Translation]

Canada-Italy Day

    Mr. Speaker, I invite all of my colleagues to come celebrate the third Canada-Italy day on Parliament Hill this evening and to participate in Italian Heritage Month this June.

[English]

    I would like to pay tribute to the sacrifices of the trailblazers who came before us, including the nearly 2,000 men listed on the Italian Fallen Workers Memorial, and to my parents and that generation of immigrants who sacrificed so much.
    I am fortunate that, along with my wife Rose, we can pass this pride on to our daughters Eliana and Natalia, and the entire Italian-Canadian community can continue to educate, reflect, and celebrate our heritage. I look forward to celebrating my Italian heritage with everyone this evening, and to recognizing the community's vast contributions to Canada.
    [Member spoke in Italian]

ORAL QUESTIONS

[Oral Questions]

[Translation]

International Trade

    Mr. Speaker, we understand that the government wants to consult Canadians on countermeasures for the U.S. steel and aluminum tariffs, but Canadian manufacturers are already losing business opportunities because of trade decisions being made in Washington. They are having to put some of their activities on hold.
    Why is the Prime Minister waiting three weeks to impose these retaliatory measures when U.S. tariffs are already in effect?

[English]

    Mr. Speaker, U.S. steel and aluminum tariffs are completely unacceptable, even more so because they are imposed on the preposterous pretext of national security. Canada is fighting back to support Canadian workers and the businesses that employ them.
    From coast to coast, a very strong team Canada effort is pulling together, except, apparently, for the Leader of the Opposition. Let me quote The Hamilton Spectator, which states, “Apparently nothing, not even pulling together in a national crisis, tops partisan sniping” for the Conservative leader. I invite him here and now—
    The hon. Leader of the Opposition.
    Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister told steelworkers all across the country that he had got them a reprieve on steel tariffs in March. However, he knew then that it was only a reprieve. He has had three months to prepare countermeasures, but now he claims that he needs more time to consult.
    Canada's steel industry employs over 23,000 workers and supports 100,000 indirect jobs. The U.S. tariffs on steel are affecting those workers today.
    I will ask again. Why is the Prime Minister waiting three weeks to impose steel and aluminum countermeasures, when those U.S. tariffs are in effect right now?
    Mr. Speaker, the criticism of Conservative partisanship is universal. This matter is deeply personal to the 1,200 workers at Evraz steel in Saskatchewan. As the Regina Leader-Post said today,
“in the face of what could be a serious threat to the national and provincial economies, one might hope someone who aspires to be prime minister would holster petty partisanship for the sake of nation.” That is good advice.

  

    Mr. Speaker, pointing out the Liberals' failure to implement these tariffs today is in the national interest. It is always in the national interest for the opposition to hold the government to account when it does not stand up for Canadian workers. We will never apologize for doing our job holding it to account.
    It is not just on trade that the Liberals are letting Canadians down. We have learned this weekend that executives at Kinder Morgan will receive over a million dollars in bonuses for leaving Canada's energy sector. Why is the Prime Minister giving bonuses to U.S. executives for pulling out of Canada's economy?

  (1420)  

    Mr. Speaker, not only will the opposition leader not defend Canada, but he will not defend Canadian workers. We are building an economy and creating thousands of jobs by helping to get our resources to international markets. That is exactly what we want to do to make sure this project goes forward with the great people who need to actually deliver on this project.
     We stand behind Canadian workers. We wish the Conservatives would too.
    Mr. Speaker, when Kinder Morgan first applied for this project, it was one of four proposed pipelines committed to investing billions of dollars in Canada. Now, after just two and a half years of Liberal mismanagement, there is only one left. I could understand an American politician paying executives bonuses for taking investment out of Canada into the U.S., but can the Prime Minister explain why he is paying those very same executives $1.5 million in bonuses to pull out of Canada?
    Mr. Speaker, to be clear, I will not comment on what a private company does with its employees.
    What I will say, which is particularly important, is that this project needs to get done. This is another example of the Conservatives actually not caring about workers in Alberta and workers in British Columbia, and not caring about the up to $15 billion a year we could add to our economy.
    The Conservatives did not get it done when they were in power; we are going to get it done.

[Translation]

International Trade

    Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister likes to pretend to stand up for supply management, but he is all talk.
    In an interview broadcast in the United States last weekend, the Prime Minister said he is willing to allow Americans greater access to markets that are currently supply managed. Clearly, the Prime Minister is incapable of standing up for our farmers, including our farmers in Saguenay.
    Why is he willing to make concessions on supply management as soon as he gets the chance?
    Mr. Speaker, I can assure you that our government is strongly committed to protecting supply management.
    The Prime Minister, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, our entire cabinet, and our trade negotiators have always been very clear on this: we will protect supply management. We will protect the interests of our rural communities.

Natural Resources

    Mr. Speaker, that flexibility seems like a major step backward and we are scared.
    Yesterday was a national day of action to stop the Kinder Morgan buyout. Thousands of Canadians showed up in front of Liberal members' offices to send a clear message: our money should be invested in a fair energy transition, for the jobs of today and tomorrow, and not to buy an old pipeline and give bonuses to the CEOs of a Texan company.
    Why is the Prime Minister insisting on moving forward with this risky project despite growing opposition from the public and first nations communities?
    Mr. Speaker, it is because it is in our national interest. It is truly something that is very important for our economy. We can improve our economy to the tune of $15 billion a year with opportunities to access international markets for our national resource and, in the meantime, we can create roughly 15,000 jobs across the country. It is very important for our economy and it is very important for our future.
    Mr. Speaker, the Liberals supported the NDP's bill to harmonize our laws with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. However, when it comes to applying the principles of that logic to a pipeline, the Liberals do what they do best: break their word. We cannot pick and choose when indigenous peoples have rights or not.
    Why is the government insisting on going against the nations that are taking a stand against this pipeline that is hazardous to their communities?

[English]

    Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, there was unprecedented consultation with indigenous communities, layered on month after month, because of the failure of the Harper government to consult indigenous communities in the northern gateway case.
    Not only was there consultation, there was real accommodation. The accommodation takes the form of an unprecedented $1.5 billion oceans protection plan that will be world class. We are proud of that. Why are they not?

Indigenous Affairs

    Mr. Speaker, throughout history, the crown has always found an excuse to ignore indigenous peoples.
    The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples is our chance to finally put an end to that history. Last week, the Prime Minister championed this declaration, which includes free, prior, and informed consent.
    Why, then, is his government voting against honouring that historic declaration today?

  (1425)  

    Mr. Speaker, I am sure that the hon. member will also know that for the first time in Canadian history, there will be co-development with indigenous communities along the Trans Mountain line.
    This co-development will mean that the prosperity that will come to all of Canada, because of the energy development that is so important for the future of the nation, will be shared with indigenous communities. A better life for their children, better education, better access to skills, and community investments, we believe in all of those things. Why do they not?
    Mr. Speaker, do you see what they are doing? Do you see how they are trying to pit one first nation group against another?
    Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
    Mr. Nathan Cullen: Watch, watch. It is the oldest trick in the colonial book, the oldest trick that has been used—
    Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
    Order. Do I have to remind members that they will often hear things from other members, sometimes from other parties, sometimes from their own party perhaps, that they do not like? Of course, we want to have one person speak at a time. Therefore, we need a little order so that I can hear the question. Then I look forward to hearing the answer, and so forth.
    The hon. member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley has the floor.
    Mr. Speaker, watch what the Liberals just did. They said they believe in indigenous rights and title, but only if indigenous people agree with them. They believe in this as a principle, but only when the principle works out for Liberals.
    What we have seen done through generations to indigenous peoples in this country is government pitting one group against another and respecting rights only when it is convenient for the government. In just a few minutes we are going to vote on the application of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples in this House. What are the Liberals actually going to do about it?
    Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows that these projects are, by their very nature, divisive. They are even divisive within political parties. Are you sowing dissent between the premiers of Alberta and British Columbia?
    Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
    Order. I have to remind the hon. Minister of Natural Resources that when you say “you” in this place, normally you are referring to the Speaker. I hope he was not meaning to do that. At any rate, I would ask him to direct his comments to the Chair.
    Mr. Speaker, I was not intending to do that. However, the hon. member knows that there will be different views within communities.
    May I ask the hon. member if he has consulted with the 43 communities up and down the line, including 33 communities in British Columbia who stand to benefit from this project?

[Translation]

International Trade

    Mr. Speaker, when the Prime Minister and his ministers are in Quebec, they tell anyone who will listen that they are going to protect supply management.
    In Saguenay, the Prime Minister said, “We will not make any concessions when it comes to supply management.”
    However, the Prime Minister said on NBC that he had suggested concessions around giving Americans access to the dairy market. In his words, “We were moving towards flexibility in those areas that I thought was very, very promising.”
    Can the Prime Minister tell us just how flexible he was? Did he give up 2%, 3%, 4%, or even 10% to the Americans at the expense of our dairy, egg, and poultry producers?
    Mr. Speaker, our government is firmly committed to defending supply management.
    The Prime Minister, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, the Minister of Agriculture, and our entire caucus are staunch defenders of supply management. Unlike the Conservative Party's innovation critic, we believe in it.
    We will continue to protect the interests of our rural communities.
    Mr. Speaker, last week's talking points are old news. Claiming to want to protect supply management is one thing. Committing to not opening new loopholes is another.
    In Saguenay, the Prime Minister said, “The Liberal Party created supply management and it will always unanimously defend it”.
    Why say one thing to voters in Saguenay and another thing to the Americans?
    My question is simple. Did the Liberal government abandon Canada's dairy producers and break its promise to fully support supply management, yes or no?

  (1430)  

    Mr. Speaker, our government remains fully committed to defending supply management.
    The Minister of Agriculture, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, the Prime Minister, and our entire team are staunch defenders of supply management.
    I urge my colleague from Mégantic—L'Érable to have a long chat with his colleague from Beauce on supply management. Whether the Conservatives believe in it or not, we believe in it and will continue to stand up for it.

[English]

Carbon Pricing

    Mr. Speaker, agricultural producers in Canada have spoken up loud and clear to tell the Liberals that they do not support their carbon tax. In fact, the President of the Agricultural Producers Association of Saskatchewan said that a carbon tax adds a huge cost to producers who are already facing tight margins. The agriculture minister's failure to recognize farmers' opposition to this carbon tax is troubling and is undermining his already diminished credibility.
    Why can the minister not admit that he is wrong? Farmers do not want your Liberal carbon tax.
    Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
    The opposition House leader, I think, is acknowledging that she is supposed to direct her comments to the Chair. I appreciate that.
    The hon. Minister of Agriculture.
    Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague is well aware that farmers are great stewards of the land. In fact, farmers have always been protecting the environment and have played a vital role in the fight against climate change. That is why gasoline and diesel fuel for on-farm use is exempt under the federal backstop. Unlike the previous Conservative government, the Harper government, which cut over $700 million from agriculture, our government has invested hundreds of millions of dollars in agriculture and agricultural research.
    Mr. Speaker, every time I talk to farmers they are telling me how much they miss Gerry Ritz.
    Let us face the facts. Farmers do not want a carbon tax because it is going to hurt them and their families. It is going to add a cost to everything, and the minister does not seem to understand that. From the price of seed and input supplies, to simply driving into town to pick up groceries, or taking their kids to the dentist, the family farm is going to hurt. Therefore, will the minister tell farmers how much the carbon tax is going to cost their families?
    Mr. Speaker, farmers and ranchers are responsible stewards of the land, developing best management practices and innovative technologies, such as zero-till farming to reduce carbon pollution. They are on the front line of seeing and dealing with the effects of climate change.
    Under our plan to price pollution, provinces and territories can establish a system and use the revenues in the ways that work for them. In British Columbia, primary producers have exemptions from a direct price on pollution for farm fuel and vehicles that transport the food we buy and that farmers sell on international markets. The same is true with respect to the federal backstop. Our government is working hard to address the issues of climate change in thoughtful and substantive ways.

Taxation

    Mr. Speaker, Trump tariffs will hurt Canadian workers, and so will Liberal tax increases. Those tax increases will apply to companies that employ people here, but if those companies move south of the border, we will lose those jobs and they will not have to pay the taxes over there.
    With this trade war now waging, will the government announce a full and complete moratorium on Liberal tax increases on workers affected by American protectionism?
    Mr. Speaker, maybe we should start with the idea that small businesses in Canada actually have the lowest tax rate among G7 countries, including the United States. Then there is the fact that corporations in this country have roughly comparable tax rates to those in the United States, rates that are competitive with G7 countries. What we know is that as international norms change, we need to listen and understand these changes, so we are listening to Canadian corporations to make sure that we consider those U.S. tax changes and that our tax system remains competitive.
    Mr. Speaker, the finance minister is imposing higher payroll taxes on employers and workers. He is imposing a carbon tax on Canadian factories, a tax that companies will not have to pay in competitor jurisdictions south of the border. Of course, we know he has raised taxes on 80% of middle-class Canadians, and that is coming right at a time when we are facing new attacks on our workers from south of the border.
    My question once again is this: Will he cancel all planned Liberal tax increases on Canadian workers affected by this trade war?

  (1435)  

    Mr. Speaker, when a fictional question is asked with fictional information, we need to actually react with the facts. The facts are that nine out of 10 families are better off because of the middle-class tax breaks that we introduced together with the Canada child benefit. These are important facts. On average, that is $2,300 more in after-tax income for Canadian families. This is an important change. It is actually what brought us to a situation where we had significant growth in 2017, unlike the growth experienced through the Harper Conservative years. Canadians are doing better, with more jobs and better growth. It is working.

International Trade

    Mr. Speaker, the Liberals continually claim that they fully support our supply managed sectors, but Canadians are having a hard time believing it. First, the Liberals signed CETA, which created a breach. Then they signed the CPTPP, which threatens to blow the sector wide open, and on Sunday the Prime Minister said he is flexible to making concessions in these sectors as a part of NAFTA renegotiations. Which is it, because they cannot have it both ways? When will the Liberals stop compromising our supply managed system and actually support Canadian farmers?
    Mr. Speaker, we have been very clear on this. We have continued to support and are committed to maintaining the supply management system in this country. The Prime Minister, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, and many cabinet ministers have indicated this. The negotiators at the NAFTA table have indicated this. It is important to note that it is the Liberal government that put supply management in place, and it is the Liberal government that will support supply management.

[Translation]

    Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister stated in an interview that he is flexible on the subject of dairy products, one of our supply managed sectors, in the NAFTA negotiations. The Canadian dairy product market would therefore be on the table in order to reach a deal.
    The government cannot say it supports preserving supply management in its entirety here in the House and then enter into agreements that have negative effects on our communities, especially our dairy producers.
    Can the government explain to our farmers what exactly this flexibility is all about?
    Mr. Speaker, once again, our government is firmly committed to defending supply management. We are the ones who created it, we believe in it, and we will protect it. In addition, to support our rural communities, we have invested $250 million for dairy producers and $100 million for dairy processors, funding that has already begun to be distributed throughout the regions.
    We believe in supply management and we will continue to stand up for it.

[English]

Natural Resources

    Mr. Speaker, Kinder Morgan did not need any taxpayer money for the Trans Mountain expansion, just stability and certainty, but the Liberals funded anti-energy activists to stop it and did nothing for a year and a half while opponents attacked relentlessly. Now they have paid 4.5 billion tax dollars to buy the old pipeline. Kinder Morgan is taking its planned $7.4 billion out of Canada. The Liberals are making Canadians pay for the mess the Liberals made.
    How can the Prime Minister justify using tax dollars to give executives millions in bonuses for his own failures?
    Mr. Speaker, the only failure on this file was the failure of the Harper Conservatives to get any way for our resources to get to international markets. What we have moved forward with is dealing with political uncertainty that the private sector cannot deal with. We have purchased these assets so we can actually create the jobs, create the advantage for our economy, so that we can move forward in a better situation. We will eventually move it back to the private sector after we de-risk the project, a way the previous government was not willing to do.
    Mr. Speaker, in actual reality-land, Kinder Morgan is the latest in a long list of energy companies divesting from Canada because of the Liberals. They attack Canada's regulatory track record and add red tape and costs to Canadian oil and gas. They have killed more than $100 billion in private sector energy investments, and hundreds of thousands of Canadians have lost their jobs.
    Now the Liberals are putting taxpayers on the hook for their utter and predictable failure. Why is the Prime Minister risking Canada's energy sector and giving money to millionaires, while Canadian energy workers and their families struggle to make ends meet?

  (1440)  

    Mr. Speaker, I thought the members opposite were in favour of the pipeline. For months and months, the problem was that we were not doing enough. It is only rhetoric, only words, and now that we decide to de-risk the project, making sure that these jobs will stay in Canada, all of a sudden, we have done too much. We have not done enough; we have done too much.
    We want the pipeline built, and by the way, one to export markets is better than zero.
    An hon. member: You guys just bought a huge pile of risk.
    Order. I almost always enjoy hearing from the hon. member for Battle River—Crowfoot, but I prefer it when he has the floor.
    The hon. member for Louis-Saint-Laurent.

[Translation]

The Economy

    Mr. Speaker, I would like to reassure the minister and all Canadians that the Conservatives are in favour of the Trans Mountain project, but we are against nationalization. Why? Nationalization means taking 4.5 billion in taxpayers' money and sending it to Texas. Not one penny of that money will remain in Canada. What is worse, nationalization often inflates prices. By way of evidence, I have here Kinder Morgan's financial statements. On page 134 of the financial statements of Kinder Morgan Canada, the total value of property is listed as $2.5 billion. That means the old pipeline is worth only $2.5 billion.
    Why then did we pay $4.5 billion for it?
    Mr. Speaker, we know that it is very important for our economy to have the pipeline and the expansion. That is why we decided to do something that, down the road, will be good for both our economy and jobs across Canada. That is a very important decision for our country. The pipeline will be there. That will be very important for the economy and for the people of Alberta and British Columbia.
    Mr. Speaker, Canadians will all realize that the minister did not answer the question. One thing is certain. Nationalization inflates prices. Did we pay too much? That is the problem. Kinder Morgan's financial statements indicate that the property owned by Kinder Morgan Canada is worth $2.5 billion, and you paid $4.5 billion.
    Order. I must once again remind the member to direct his comments to the Chair.
    The hon. Minister of Finance.
    Mr. Speaker, we decided that it was vital to do something for our economy. We feel it is very important to have an international commercial pipeline. It is essential. We know that this pipeline is going to add about 15,000 jobs.
    Furthermore, it will add roughly $15 billion to our economy each year, which is incredibly important. That is why we support the Trans Mountain pipeline.

[English]

The Environment

    Mr. Speaker, today is World Environment Day, and with the G7 meeting in Quebec just days away, Canadians agree that ocean plastics are one of the most important environmental issues. The minister has said that Canada will play a leadership role with G7 countries, yet the Liberals still have failed to take any concrete action on this critical environmental concern here at home.
    Will the Prime Minister finally start being a leader for the environment and support my motion to combat plastic pollution in our waterways, or is he just going to keep talking about it?
    Mr. Speaker, plastic pollution is an important and growing problem in Canada and around the world, and our government is taking action. We appreciate very much the constructive discussions that are happening around the country, including with municipal leaders, around how we can actually reduce plastic waste and keep it from polluting our environment.
    This week, as the hon. member likely knows, Canada will be proposing a plastics charter at the G7 leaders meeting to align international efforts to reduce plastic pollution. We are working with the provinces and territories to develop an approach.
    A national consultation is under way, and we encourage Canadians, including the hon. member, to come forward and voice their thoughts and their recommendations on how we should proceed.

[Translation]

    Mr. Speaker, the Liberals promised to be a leader on pollution and environmental protection. Clearly, they are not doing enough. People across Quebec and Canada demand that the government take action. My petition supporting the motion of my colleague from Courtenay—Alberni, which calls on the government to combat plastic pollution in our oceans, has been signed by 105,000 Canadians.
    Will the parliamentary secretary support my colleague's motion so that we can finally take meaningful action against the scourge of plastic pollution?

  (1445)  

    Mr. Speaker, plastic pollution is a growing problem in Canada and around the world. Our government is taking concrete action to address this problem. We appreciate the constructive discussions that are happening at every level around the country on how we can reduce plastic waste and keep it from polluting the environment.
    This week, we will be proposing a plastics charter at the G7 leaders' meeting to align international efforts to reduce plastic pollution. We are also working with the provinces and territories.

[English]

Telecommunications

    Mr. Speaker, the Internet is not a luxury but a necessity in today's world. We need net neutrality to ensure the free flow of information. This is vital to our freedom of expression, our digital economy, and our democracy.
     In my Motion No. 168, I call on the government to have net neutrality as a guiding principle in the telecommunications and broadcasting acts review and to enshrine it in legislation.
    Can the Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development please provide an update on his progress to date?
    Mr. Speaker, as the member for Oakville mentioned, today we officially launched a review of the broadcasting and the telecommunications acts. This is very timely and very important because of the changing technology. We need to make sure that we have modern legislation in place to keep pace with the changes that are occurring, specifically around net neutrality, as the member mentioned. This is going to be a guiding principle in the review.
    I want to congratulate the member for his leadership and hard work. Make no mistake, our government firmly believes in an open Internet.

[Translation]

Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship

     Mr. Speaker, in January 2017, the Prime Minister invited the entire world to come live in Canada. Our customs officers are expecting up to 400 illegal migrants to come to Canada every day this summer, and that is just in Quebec.
    We also know that many of these immigrants never come back for their second interview with immigration officials and the government does not know where they are living.
    In the midst of all this chaos, can the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship tell us how many people have illegally crossed our border since January 2017?
    Mr. Speaker, those numbers are available if my colleague wants them. We are not hiding them. As members know, we are working with the provinces and the American government. What is more, my colleague, the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship, was recently in contact with the U.S Secretary of Homeland Security. We are continuing to work on this file, and the numbers related to border crossers are made public. The member can consult them.
    It is understandable that the Minister of Transport would not know these numbers. It is the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship who should know them, but perhaps he does not. Once again, border services officers are strongly encouraged to speed up the security check process for illegal migrants and complete it in two hours instead of eight. Not only does the Prime Minister lack the courage to enforce our immigration laws, but he is playing with fire by reducing the amount of time required for the security process for those who do not respect our laws and enter our country illegally.
    I have another question for the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship. How long does it take to process illegal migrants and to deport those who are ineligible for asylum?

[English]

    Mr. Speaker, the border operation is a three-part process. First of all, for those who cross the border outside of ports of entry, they are arrested by the RCMP. When the RCMP has done its security check, they are turned over to the CBSA for further processing. If they pass that security check, they proceed to Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada officials for consideration of their eligibility. It is a very detailed process, and security is not compromised.

[Translation]

    Mr. Speaker, the management of asylum seekers is currently inefficient. It is time to implement concrete measures to resolve a situation that has become systemic. From January to April of this year, there were 9,615 illegal entries in Quebec alone.
    Can the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship tell us how many immigrants crossed the border illegally and were deported after their cases were reviewed?