44th Parl. 1st Sess.

November 2, 2023 10:00AM

Mr. Greg McLean (Calgary Centre, CPC)

Nov/2/23 6:57:57 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, today I rise in the House to ask a question I asked in this House just last week about the Impact Assessment Act and the Supreme Court's ruling that overturned the federal government's move on the Impact Assessment Act, Bill C-69. The government moved ahead despite everybody it could possibly consult with, including opposition parties, every provincial legislature, 100 first nation bands across Canada and many other parties, saying the Impact Assessment Act as written was unconstitutional and treaded on their rights. So many rights are expressed in legislation, yet this was ignored for so long. The Government of Alberta was backed by nine provincial governments at various points in time throughout the process. It took four years because the reference case took two years to go through the appeal court system and then almost another two years to get to the Supreme Court of Canada. It was four years of lost economic activity and, effectively, constitutional strife in Canada. That is a long time. How many projects were held up in Canada in that time? It was hundreds of billions of dollars in projects. Right now, 42 projects have not received an environmental assessment. About half of them are under the old regime, the one before the Impact Assessment Act, called the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, which was passed by the previous government and effectively allowed a whole bunch of environmental assessments to be done. What amazed me was the response I got from the parliamentary secretary for housing when I asked a question about the federal government's involvement in this. He said at that point in time that the previous government's legislation got nothing done and had a gutted process. We cannot have it both ways. I cannot say how many times I hear from the other side of the House that they have their cake and eat it too and that the old legislation they tried to fix did not get anything done and yet was gutless. We cannot have both those things at the same time, but that is the continued narrative I hear on this all the time. It bewilders me to some degree, because it contradicts itself in so many ways, but he said that. This was supposed to deal with the fact that the Impact Assessment Act had to go back and get corrected as quickly as possible. Getting it corrected as quickly as possible would bring forward economic activity in Canada so we can get something done in this country again, including in all the provinces across Canada. This has to happen. I think about all the economic activity that has been held up because of the uncertainty created by the Impact Assessment Act and how it has affected so many project proponents across Canada. It is an embarrassment. It is an international embarrassment too that so much capital, including Canadian investments, is being deployed elsewhere and not here in Canada. That includes the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board. This is a travesty. We need to get over it as quickly as possible. How do we do that? We could put forward legislation that is constitutional very quickly; stop sitting on our hands; take some lessons from some environmental advocates, environmental experts and constitutional experts; and listen to what they are saying: Stay in our lane, abide by our jurisdiction and get some proper legislation we can abide by in this country.

577 words

Hear!
Rabble!
add
star_border
share

Context: House Hansard - 245 - Nov/2/23

Mr. Adam van Koeverden (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change and to the Minister of Sport and Physical Activity, Lib.)

Nov/2/23 7:02:03 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I would like to start by reminding the hon. member for Calgary Centre that the Supreme Court of Canada's opinion on the constitutionality of the Impact Assessment Act confirmed that there is no doubt that Parliament can enact impact assessment legislation, so this government will stay in its lane and continue the 50-year-long tradition of assessments to support the environment and the economy, while respecting the boundaries clarified in the Supreme Court's opinion. I would also remind my hon. colleague that the Impact Assessment Act was necessary to fix the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act of 2012, which created uncertainty in timelines and lacked accountability. Canadians were calling for greater transparency, trust and confidence in the environmental assessment process after the introduction of CEAA 2012, a need which the current government responded to with the Impact Assessment Act. I have some local context to this. There is a local project that was assessed under the Environmental Assessment Act, and it had a tragic outcome, I will say. The Impact Assessment Act sought to create a better set of rules that respect the environment and indigenous rights, and that ensures that projects are assessed in a timely way. In fact, the government recently approved the Cedar LNG project under the Impact Assessment Act, working closely with the Government of British Columbia. Colleagues will not hear that from the member for Calgary Centre or any Conservative who continually says that the current government never gets anything done, which is false. We are approving sustainable and renewable projects that respect environmental considerations all the time. For this assessment in particular, the federal government relied on the provincial assessment process, meeting the goal of “one project, one assessment”. Final decisions have been made in seven other projects in Alberta, Saskatchewan, Ontario and Quebec after a thorough and public planning phase, that no further impact assessment was required, allowing those projects to proceed. Attracting investment and supporting the major job-creating projects of a cleaner, 21st-century economy requires regulatory certainty from the Government of Canada, and we will continue to deliver that. That is why the government is working quickly to introduce targeted and meaningful amendments to the act that would align with the opinion of the court. In the interim, we are providing guidance to businesses, provinces, indigenous groups and stakeholders to ensure that projects currently in the assessment process have an orderly and clear path forward. To this end, we have introduced a statement on the interim administration of the Impact Assessment Act. The guidance in that statement provides clarity and continuity for proposed projects in the system or entering the system, until amendments are brought into force. Protecting the environment while growing a sustainable economy, in line with international commitments for net-zero emissions, requires robust environmental legislation, something the previous Harper government was incapable of producing. As work is undertaken to amend the Impact Assessment Act, the principles to protect the environment, respect indigenous rights and maintain public confidence in the process will remain ever central to the impact assessment process.

518 words

Hear!
Rabble!
add
star_border
share

SoVote

House Hansard - 245