Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today as part of the government's response to Bill S-245 at second reading and to do so as the new Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources.

I have said many times over the past few months that I am truly honoured by the confidence given to me by the Prime Minister and I have big shoes to fill. The member of Parliament for Northumberland—Peterborough South, who was in this position before, set the bar really high and I want to thank her for her great work.

Luckily, I learned a lot while representing Sudbury. Some things stood out as being of particular importance: developing our resources, doing things properly and ensuring that development benefits everyone, including project proponents, local communities, the environment and indigenous peoples. In everything we do, we must consider both job creation and environmental protection.

It is for these reasons that we approved the Trans Mountain expansion. The project had the potential to create thousands of good middle-class jobs. It created opportunities for the 43 indigenous communities that signed mutual benefit agreements. Expanding Trans Mountain will also strengthen our economy by generating billions in new revenue for all levels of government and allowing us to ensure that Canada gets a fair price for its resources.

I would like to share just some of the main reasons we continue to believe in the Trans Mountain project. These are some of the basic reasons we purchased the pipeline's existing assets as a secure investment in Canada's future. It is also for these reasons that we are moving the project forward properly. The bill before us today has been overtaken by events. Not only is Bill S-245 clearly obsolete, but also, passing it would bring no real benefit to Canada or Canadians. That is why our government will oppose the bill.

We know that expanding Trans Mountain is in the national interest. However, Bill S-245 contains two fundamental flaws.

First, Bill S-245 was drafted long before the government acquired the pipeline and long before the Federal Court of Appeal quashed the government's approval of the project. In other words, the bill was written for a very different time and, therefore, serves no practical use in the circumstances we find ourselves in today.

Second, the bill is legally flawed because it seeks to increase federal jurisdiction over a project that is already under federal jurisdiction. Nor does it offer any real improvements in terms of how provincial laws affect matters within federal jurisdiction or change the scope of federal jurisdiction. In short, this bill adds no value and serves no purpose.

If I may, I would like to use my time today to remind members how our government is moving forward on the TMX project in the right way, such as how our efforts make the motion before us unnecessary and how our approach ensures that we continue to create good jobs and grow the economy as we also build public confidence, advance indigenous reconciliation and enhance environmental stewardship. All of this was actually confirmed by the Federal Court of Appeal, in its August 30 ruling on the TMX project.

For example, the court acknowledged that we had made a solid start with the interim principles we introduced back in January of 2016, measures aimed at improving the way major resource projects are reviewed in Canada. The court also concluded that “...Canada acted in good faith and selected an appropriate consultation framework” for engaging indigenous groups and communities on the expansion project and, finally, the court lauded our government's efforts to protect coastal waters and communities. It even encouraged us to continue with those efforts through our historic $1.5-billion oceans protection plan.

Ultimately, the Federal Court of Appeal found that there was still more work to be done in terms of the National Energy Board's review of project-related marine shipping and the phase III portion of our indigenous consultations. Our government accepts both findings which is why we have decided not to appeal the court's decision. Instead, we are following the court's guidance and suggestions for addressing those shortcomings. We are doing so in two key ways that supersede anything found in the legislation before us today.

First, we asked the National Energy Board to reconsider its recommendations, taking into account the effects of project-related marine shipping, including the effects of additional tankers along the coast of British Columbia.

We also asked the National Energy Board to deliver its report within 22 weeks. The board will get input from Canadians and will provide participant funding so that the views of indigenous groups are well represented.

Furthermore, we will appoint a special marine technical advisor to ensure that the National Energy Board has the expertise and capacity to deliver the best advice to the government.

Then, we asked the board to consider our government's recent efforts to protect the southern resident killer whales. Our oceans protection plan is part of these efforts. This is one of the largest investments in Canadian history to protect our waters, coastlines and marine life.

Second, our government decided to start over with phase 3 consultations with the indigenous groups affected by the Trans Mountain network expansion. We will use a different and much better framework.

For example, government representatives on the ground will have a clear mandate to conduct meaningful consultations. They will also be able to discuss reasonable arrangements with indigenous groups on the issues that are important to them. We will work with first nations and Métis communities to get their views on how to run the phase 3 consultations.

We will more than double the size of our consultation teams and give them access to all of the government's expertise, internally and externally. We will also adapt the consultations to the groups we are meeting.

Let me be clear. We are not starting over. We are building on the relationships we have, the information we have gathered and the consultations we have conducted.

Finally, as we move through phase 3 consultations, we will have access to the best possible advice from within and outside our government. As part of that, we have appointed retired Supreme Court of Canada Justice Frank Iacobucci to serve as a federal representative to oversee the consultation process.

All of these initiatives represent tangible and substantial ways our government is taking action to ensure the TMX project moves forward in the right way.

That is the clear vision and the practical plan missing in the legislation before us today. That is why I will not be supporting Bill S-245.

Paul Lefebvre

Transcript

Private Members' Business

Discussions (0)