QUESTION PERIOD — Intergovernmental Affairs
Provincial and Territorial Concerns on Government Legislation
June 12, 2019
My question is for the Leader of the Government in the Senate, and it concerns the topic I raised yesterday: the letter to the Prime Minister from six premiers regarding Bill C-48 and Bill C-69.
Yesterday, Senator Harder told us the Government of Canada is always welcoming of views expressed by first ministers. The Prime Minister does not appear to share this opinion.
He told the other place that the letter from the premiers outlining their concerns with these bills was “completely irresponsible.”
These six premiers are not alone in their concerns. Every province asked the Senate for amendments to Bill C-69 and, as I said yesterday, nine out of ten provinces asked for significant amendments.
Senator Harder, are all provinces completely irresponsible in the eyes of the Prime Minister simply for seeking changes to a badly flawed bill?
I thank the honourable senator for his question. He will know — and I will repeat my answer of yesterday, that the role of the Government of Canada is not to represent any one province but to represent the national interest while working, as a confederation must, with the provincial premiers that are elected by their own jurisdictions.
I thank you for the answer. As people have said, I think 60 per cent of the population was represented and over 50 per cent of the GDP in our country.
Now the government has apparently rejected the majority of amendments from CAPP, Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, the Canadian Energy Pipeline Association and the nuclear industry.
Senator Harder, first, what positive progress has been made? Second, how is this process open and transparent? Third, what does this mean to the future of oil and gas projects, hydroelectric projects and nuclear projects in Canada?
I thank the honourable senator for his question. Let me simply respond to his preamble, which suggests that there is a legitimacy higher than that accorded to a national government elected by the public at large, if you aggregate provincial elections.
As a resident of Ontario, I do not view the Premier of Ontario as representing the best interests of Canada in the federation.
Others will dispute that. That is their right, but let’s not pretend that it is the provinces that represent the national interest.
With respect to the question being asked about the amendments, which the government has provided careful and considered reflection on, the government’s overall focus remains on the overarching objectives of the bill: ensuring projects move ahead in a timely fashion, rebuilding public trust in our assessment processes, protecting Canada’s environment and providing added certainty to industry and investors alike.
The government has accepted a wide range of Senate amendments, which build on the objectives. Let me enumerate several of them. First, limiting ministerial discretion by giving added power to the impact assessment agency in project decision-making, such as determining time limits, where appropriate, and appointing individuals to the review panels. Second, enforcing the importance of economic considerations in impact assessments and project decision-making, including the purpose statement of the impact assessment act. Third, added clarity as to what is expected of companies in the initial stages of an impact assessment process — so-called scoping — and how the impact assessment agency and/or review panels can best engage with the public. Fourth, the role of life cycle regulators and offshore boards has been enhanced. Fifth, acknowledging Indigenous concerns and rights, namely of Indigenous women. Sixth, the agency has been empowered to outline how the public participation process would work.
Canada’s competitiveness and attractiveness for investment dollars is top of mind and it is why the new assessment system focuses on clear expectations, legislating timelines and an approach based on one project, one review.
The final point I would make, honourable senators, is that what is important to me, institutionally, is that the Senate is neither a rival nor a rubber stamp of the other place.
