Bill C-69 (Historical)

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

Part 1 enacts the Impact Assessment Act and repeals the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012. Among other things, the Impact Assessment Act
(a) names the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada as the authority responsible for impact assessments;
(b) provides for a process for assessing the environmental, health, social and economic effects of designated projects with a view to preventing certain adverse effects and fostering sustainability;
(c) prohibits proponents, subject to certain conditions, from carrying out a designated project if the designated project is likely to cause certain environmental, health, social or economic effects, unless the Minister of the Environment or Governor in Council determines that those effects are in the public interest, taking into account the impacts on the rights of the Indigenous peoples of Canada, all effects that may be caused by the carrying out of the project, the extent to which the project contributes to sustainability and other factors;
(d) establishes a planning phase for a possible impact assessment of a designated project, which includes requirements to cooperate with and consult certain persons and entities and requirements with respect to public participation;
(e) authorizes the Minister to refer an impact assessment of a designated project to a review panel if he or she considers it in the public interest to do so, and requires that an impact assessment be referred to a review panel if the designated project includes physical activities that are regulated under the Nuclear Safety and Control Act, the Canadian Energy Regulator Act, the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Resources Accord Implementation Act and the Canada–Newfoundland and Labrador Atlantic Accord Implementation Act;
(f) establishes time limits with respect to the planning phase, to impact assessments and to certain decisions, in order to ensure that impact assessments are conducted in a timely manner;
(g) provides for public participation and for funding to allow the public to participate in a meaningful manner;
(h) sets out the factors to be taken into account in conducting an impact assessment, including the impacts on the rights of the Indigenous peoples of Canada;
(i) provides for cooperation with certain jurisdictions, including Indigenous governing bodies, through the delegation of any part of an impact assessment, the joint establishment of a review panel or the substitution of another process for the impact assessment;
(j) provides for transparency in decision-making by requiring that the scientific and other information taken into account in an impact assessment, as well as the reasons for decisions, be made available to the public through a registry that is accessible via the Internet;
(k) provides that the Minister may set conditions, including with respect to mitigation measures, that must be implemented by the proponent of a designated project;
(l) provides for the assessment of cumulative effects of existing or future activities in a specific region through regional assessments and of federal policies, plans and programs, and of issues, that are relevant to the impact assessment of designated projects through strategic assessments; and
(m) sets out requirements for an assessment of environmental effects of non-designated projects that are on federal lands or that are to be carried out outside Canada.
Part 2 enacts the Canadian Energy Regulator Act, which establishes the Canadian Energy Regulator and sets out its composition, mandate and powers. The role of the Regulator is to regulate the exploitation, development and transportation of energy within Parliament’s jurisdiction.
The Canadian Energy Regulator Act, among other things,
(a) provides for the establishment of a Commission that is responsible for the adjudicative functions of the Regulator;
(b) ensures the safety and security of persons, energy facilities and abandoned facilities and the protection of property and the environment;
(c) provides for the regulation of pipelines, abandoned pipelines, and traffic, tolls and tariffs relating to the transmission of oil or gas through pipelines;
(d) provides for the regulation of international power lines and certain interprovincial power lines;
(e) provides for the regulation of renewable energy projects and power lines in Canada’s offshore;
(f) provides for the regulation of access to lands;
(g) provides for the regulation of the exportation of oil, gas and electricity and the interprovincial oil and gas trade; and
(h) sets out the process the Commission must follow before making, amending or revoking a declaration of a significant discovery or a commercial discovery under the Canada Oil and Gas Operations Act and the process for appealing a decision made by the Chief Conservation Officer or the Chief Safety Officer under that Act.
Part 2 also repeals the National Energy Board Act.
Part 3 amends the Navigation Protection Act to, among other things,
(a) rename it the Canadian Navigable Waters Act;
(b) provide a comprehensive definition of navigable water;
(c) require that, when making a decision under that Act, the Minister must consider any adverse effects that the decision may have on the rights of the Indigenous peoples of Canada;
(d) require that an owner apply for an approval for a major work in any navigable water if the work may interfere with navigation;
(e)  set out the factors that the Minister must consider when deciding whether to issue an approval;
(f) provide a process for addressing navigation-related concerns when an owner proposes to carry out a work in navigable waters that are not listed in the schedule;
(g) provide the Minister with powers to address obstructions in any navigable water;
(h) amend the criteria and process for adding a reference to a navigable water to the schedule;
(i) require that the Minister establish a registry; and
(j) provide for new measures for the administration and enforcement of the Act.
Part 4 makes consequential amendments to Acts of Parliament and regulations.

Budget Implementation Act, 2021, No. 1

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Madam Speaker, I want to begin my speech by addressing some of the things that we heard from the Green Party member just before this. He was talking about stranded assets. The eastern part of Canada could be significantly stranded if Line 5 gets shut down, and that is the reality.

He was talking about oil and gas being a sunset industry. That may be true, but that sunset is not likely to happen until several hundred years from now. We are still seeing an increase in demand for oil production around the world. Even if one believes all the projections, that increase in demand, not a reduction in demand, will continue for the next 30 years at a minimum.

What better place to get those hydrocarbons from than Canada? We have some of the most ethically produced oil on the face of the planet, with some of the lowest-carbon-intensity oil, right here in Canada. Never mind the fact that we are importing hydrocarbons from around the world to continue to supply Canada. That alone seems to be ridiculous, in my opinion. We are an energy-rich country. We have endless amounts of natural resources in this country, yet we rely on other countries to supply our energy.

In the case of Line 5, we are relying on another country to keep the licensing going for that particular pipeline. As far as I know, right now that pipeline is operating illegally. The most recent Line 5 news is that the easement through the State of Michigan has been revoked, but the pipeline continues to operate. We are hanging in limbo as we go forward.

I am speaking to Bill C-30, which is the budget implementation act. It has been fascinating to listen to all of the discussion around this particular budget. We hear repeatedly from folks about the subsidization of the oil and gas industry. I was just discussing with one of the Bloc members how the government subsidizes oil and gas, but does not subsidize the forestry industry. I have not seen any direct subsidies to the oil and gas industry, with the exception of buying a pipeline.

The Trans Mountain pipeline was being built by private industry. Due to the actions of the government, the pipeline was no longer to be built. The government subsequently bought that project. If that is what the Bloc member meant by subsidizing oil and gas, I get it. I do not think we need to be publicly funding pipelines either. Pipelines have been built successfully in this country for generations by private industry, and I would assume that would continue.

The Bloc member was commenting about the forestry industry in Quebec. In Northern Alberta, the forestry industry is a big contributor to jobs and the economy. Oil and gas are a shiny spot in our economy, but Alberta's economy is diversified. Where I come from, we do the three Fs: forestry, farming and fracking. Those are the big job creators in my area, and they are basically what support all of the population in the area. I am always interested in the challenges we see.

One aspect of this budget implementation act is the removal of interest on the apprenticeship loans that have been given out. I think that is a noble cause. I am the product of one of the apprenticeship programs in Alberta. I was one of the first to go through the rapid apprenticeship program when it was introduced back in 2003. I got my automotive ticket from Northern Alberta Institute of Technology.

The apprenticeship programs we have developed in Alberta are world-renowned and recognized. There is also the good work of NAIT, the Northern Alberta Institute of Technology. I went through there in classes full of apprentices.

Many of my friends have been apprentices. I got my journeyman's ticket back in 2007, so I know about the life of an apprentice. The beauty of apprenticeship programs is that people typically get to work while they are getting their training. Believe me, all of the apprentices I know are tradesmen. They are proud of what they do. They work with their hands. They would all very much appreciate having jobs right now, rather than having the interest on their loans waived. While I appreciate that in this particular bill, I do not see a lot in this bill that will get these people back to work.

I call Line 5 the magic pipeline because it has changed the Liberal rhetoric on pipelines dramatically. The Liberals are now starting to sound like Conservatives: Pipelines are the safest way to move petroleum products. If we did not have this pipeline there would be 8,000 rail cars and 15,000 tanker trucks on the road.

There is one way to get all of these apprentices back to work, and that is to start building some of the pipeline projects that had been proposed and were ready to be built back in 2015. One, in particular, runs parallel to Line 5 and is called energy east. That pipeline was ready to be built back in 2015 when I was first elected. The Liberals kiboshed that project, but we do not see anything. We do not see a repeal of Bill C-69: the “no more pipelines” bill. That would have been something they could have put in the budget to promote the development of our natural resources, promote jobs and promote private industry spending its own capital to get folks back to work and get us back to the lifestyle we were used to before COVID.

This seems like a prime opportunity to get us all back to work. It would ensure that we would have apprentices across the country making paycheques and being able to pay the interest on their student loans by going back to work. They could be raising their families, making money and doing all of the things that they do. I do not see a lot of those kinds of initiatives in this particular bill.

One thing that I saw in the budget was around the home renovation tax credit. I was hopeful we would get some details on it in this bill, but they are not evident. It was an initiative that the Conservatives undertook during the last great recession. We rapidly passed the home renovation tax credit, which allowed people to update their windows, insulation and other kinds of things. It could also be thought of as a green initiative. It was in the budget. We were talking about a particular $5,000 tax credit on a $40,000 loan. We do not see details of that in this particular bill, so I am disappointed about that.

Lastly, I want to talk a little about equalization. This bill touches on equalization, and on what is called the federal-provincial transfer act. One of the things that Albertans have been requesting for a number of years is the removal of the cap on that financial stabilization program. It is currently capped at $60. The Liberals have moved that cap to $166. That is a movement in the right direction, but there still is no logic as to why there is a cap on the equalization stabilization program.

Why is there a cap? If a province is suffering under duress and having less revenue than it had in the past, the stabilization program is there to maintain funding for programs while we go through a dip in revenue. Nobody can explain the logic for why there is a cap on that. We see that the government has acknowledged that maybe the cap is too low and it is going to raise the cap to $166, but the Liberals do not provide us with any logic whatsoever as to why there needs to be a cap on that program. If government revenues in a particular province are suffering in a major depression, the stabilization program is supposed to balance that out and ease the pain of that. Why would it have a cap on it? There has been no logic whatsoever provided for that. I am also quite frustrated by that.

I see that my time is up. I am always grateful to represent the people of Peace River—Westlock.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

Madam Speaker, after waiting two long years for the Liberals to table a budget, they have instead presented a massive new debt burden for Canadians rather than a hopeful plan for a path forward post-pandemic—in a word, failure.

Unemployed Canadians wanted to see a plan to create new jobs. Workers who had their wages cut and their hours slashed had hoped to see a plan to reopen the economy. Families that simply cannot afford more taxes were looking for relief. Instead, this costly plan will add over $100 billion in new spending and will increase Canada's debt to a whopping $1.2 trillion. Yes, that is trillion with a “t", for the very first time in Canadian history.

It is a staggering amount that most Canadians cannot even begin to comprehend: $1.2 trillion. It is equivalent to every single Canadian being responsible for $33,000 of federal debt. Canadians and their children, their children's children and their children's children's children and on and on will be forced to pay off this massive debt of the government.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer recently released a report saying that this budget even underestimates the size of the federal deficits by about $5.6 billion per year. To quote the PBO, it “puts Ottawa on a long-term path of higher debt”.

What about fiscal anchors? No, there are none of those in there. There is only a vague mention on page 53, which says, “The government is committed to unwinding COVID-related deficits and reducing the federal debt as a share of the economy over the medium-term.” That sure sounds reassuring, does it not?

Canadians are right to be concerned about this Liberal spending. They will be footing the bill of $40 billion in taxes every year to pay the interest expenses on that debt alone. This is all predicated on a very risky assumption that interest rates and inflation will continue to remain low.

With all this spending and fiscal risk, one would expect some actual substance, but many Canadians are being simply left behind or ignored in this budget. How about a plan to unleash the prosperity-producing, economy-boosting Alberta energy? No, that one is definitely not in the budget. The government has been abundantly clear on its plan to landlock Canadian oil with Bill C-48 and Bill C-69 in the previous Parliament and the Prime Minister's comment that the oil sands need to be phased out.

The Liberal government already stood by idly while the U.S. administration cancelled Keystone XL, and of course it itself caused the cancellation of things like northern gateway and energy east. With Enbridge's Line 5, of course we know about the jeopardy it is in, and it is responsible for supplying half of the oil needs of Ontario and Quebec. The closure of that pipeline would literally create an energy crisis here in Canada, and then of course we would see more of Alberta's oil stranded, when Alberta's economy is already suffering. Instead, that biases it toward oil from places with far less environmentally friendly records elsewhere in the world.

All of that is due to the Liberals strangling Alberta oil in favour of that less environmentally friendly oil from other countries, which certainly do not share our commitment to environmental protection or to human rights. Again, the budget is completely silent on Alberta energy.

Despite this deafening silence by the Liberals, Conservatives will always continue to advocate for pipelines and projects that end our dependence on foreign oil and that will unleash our energy sector. Energy- and job-killing legislation from the Liberals has only decreased Canada's ability to produce and trade environmentally sustainable energy resources and to create more jobs.

Alberta's energy sector could be the key to economic growth and to success post-pandemic in Canada, but the Liberals have chosen instead to denigrate and ignore it. Its absence is glaringly obvious and Albertans will not forget it. Instead, this budget proposes a reimagined Canadian economy that dabbles in risky economic ideas that will leave the Canadian economy in a very precarious position.

However, so much more is also missed in the budget. For start-up businesses that are in desperate positions and do not meet the government's narrow rules of assistance programs, there is nothing either. For small businesses, there are major gaps and issues with federal programming that the Liberals continue to ignore. The CFIB said of the budget that “the government did not deliver on many of the major program gaps affecting thousands of small businesses facing restrictions, closures and huge amounts of COVID-related debt.”

Many of those small businesses are tourism businesses, and tourism businesses are desperate to have the government table a safe plan with metrics and targets to be able to open their businesses for the key summer season. I am sorry; there is nothing for them in the budget, either.

In my beautiful riding of Banff—Airdrie, tourism is a key economic driver that has been devastated by the pandemic. Lockdowns and border restrictions have stifled businesses. Many have been forced to lay off employees and in some cases, unfortunately, have closed down altogether.

This is happening everywhere, right across Canada. Tourism and travel-related businesses lost approximately $19.4 billion in revenue last year from the absence of international visitors. However, the government just extended, once again, the U.S.-Canada border closure well into the key summer tourist season without any kind of plan or any metrics on how or when it might be willing to safely reopen that border. Now, tourism businesses are looking at losing another key summer, and the budget is completely silent on a safe plan for reopening and for a safe way forward.

The government has unfortunately chosen winners and losers in this budget and unfortunately left many people out to dry. The Liberal government loves to tout the saying “We are all in this together,” but recently I heard another metaphor about the pandemic, which I thought was very apt to the chosen winners and losers in this debt-heavy Canadian Liberal budget. It is this: We are all in the same storm, but some are in yachts and others are in leaky rowboats. The Liberal government should not be waving to Canadians struggling in the pandemic storm in leaky rowboats while the Liberals are drinking champagne from the deck of their taxpayer debt-paid yacht. Spending without a proper plan is failure.

To the government, I say this: Fix this budget and give Canadians a hopeful path forward for economic recovery post-pandemic, not a lifetime of taxes and debt. That is what we see with this budget. We see a lot of money being spent, but a lot of people still being left behind, and what we then see is people being burdened. Canadians, their children, their grandchildren and their great-great-great-grandchildren will be seeing that burden of debt to pay for all of this spending.

That is the thing I think the Prime Minister and the Liberal government fail to understand. Money does not grow on trees. The government does not just manufacture the ability to spend money. That money comes from hard-working Canadian taxpayers who have earned that money, and it takes away from their ability to meet the needs of their families, to meet their own needs, to keep their businesses running and to keep their employees with jobs. That is not just now, but it is well into the future, to pay for the kind of debt burden that we have seen put on by the government.

It is just staggering to imagine the amount of money being spent and how there are still so many people being left behind. I talked about our oil and gas industry in Alberta. I talked about our important tourism industry across this country, about the small business owners, about the many people who have started new businesses and are left out of many of the government programs. The Liberals have been able to spend a lot of money, but they have not been able to help so many of the people who actually need it, and those are the same people who are going to have to pay for the burden being left by the government and all of its massive spending.

I say to the government that it has to try to do things to make sure it is not leaving people behind and that it is creating a hopeful and optimistic future, instead of burdening people with massive amounts of debt that will do the exact opposite.

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB]

Madam Speaker, today I am speaking to something very historic, which is the budget implementation act for the largest and most anticipated Liberal deficit budget in Canadian history. Usually when history is being made, there are those who will be remembered well and those who will not be.

Judging by this budget, it is clear that the current government will not be well thought of by future generations. These generations will be the ones tasked with the consequences of this massive Liberal deficit budget, one that will mean higher taxes than what we pay today, fewer services, higher inflation and bigger debt servicing costs. All of these factors will vary based on the policy choices made in the years to come, but as a whole, they represent a much higher likelihood that future generations will not be as well off as folks are today.

I know how hard my great-grandparents and grandparents worked to make this country as strong and prosperous as it is today. They sacrificed through two world wars and a depression, building their families while keeping our country's finances under control. I think of my parents' more recent generation, which sacrificed so much in the late 1980s and early 1990s, when the last Liberal government drastically cut spending and services for Canadians while leaving their tax burden the highest in Canadian history to date. All of these sacrifices are at threat of being made in vain because of the lack of fiscal accountability and responsibility shown by the Liberal government over the past five and a half years, particularly in its new plan for future years.

We are facing unique challenges, and the Liberals have proven in this budget that they are not up to dealing with them. The fact is that we cannot count on the factors that previous generations counted on to make and keep our country prosperous. There is no postwar baby boom around the corner, and the steady flow of skilled immigrants to this country is likely to tail off in the near future, as the rest of the world wakes up to the demographic aging crisis and the implications of mass population decline. Fewer and fewer productive taxpayers will be around to service the ever-increasing annual deficits and debts.

Many of the commodities and goods that have made Canada an economic powerhouse are at risk of being phased out by the policies of the World Economic Forum and our own Liberal government. Goods such as oil, automobiles and minerals are at risk of facing drastic reductions in production because of demand destructive policies implemented by woke governments.

Even with the growth in electric vehicles, the scarcity of necessary raw materials such as copper, cobalt and lithium, among others, will make these transportation solutions less accessible for working families. With Liberal legislation like Bill C-69 in the previous Parliament, it is unlikely we will even get new mines permitted in time to benefit from any green commodity booms, making us beholden to foreign global competitors such as China, which will set prices for our consumers and control market supply.

The confluence of factors that made our country prosperous, such as a young population, high immigration, fiscal responsibility and increasing consumption of resources, has been inverted. Now we have an aging population, out-of-control debt, and soon-to-be-more-limited immigration prospects, and the resources that have made our country prosperous in the past are being phased out. Nowhere in this Liberal budget did I see a direct plan to address these challenges. It is a failure.

On the environment, which makes up a significant part of this Liberal budget, I see other key failures. The natural resources committee is studying low-carbon and renewable fuels. I agree with the consensus that we need to do more in this area in order to be competitive economically and lower carbon emissions. I was interested to learn that the Liberals have launched a new tax credit to promote carbon capture utilization and storage. There is a big catch, however. On page 168 of the budget, the Liberals make clear, “It is not intended that the investment tax credit be available for Enhanced Oil Recovery projects.”

This is a slap in the face to my constituency. It basically means that Alberta and Saskatchewan should not bother applying. It will significantly undermine investment in carbon capture, which is already effectively being used in my riding at the Sturgeon Refinery, which has sequestered over one megatonne of carbon dioxide in under a year. We could create tens of thousands of jobs and produce the lowest diesel emissions in the world, but the Liberals have essentially barred them from accessing this tax credit.

It is out of line with our trading competitors in the U.S., where under the 45Q policy, a more limited tax credit is available for enhanced oil recovery producers. Why are the Liberals turning their backs yet again on the energy industry of this country, especially when they are taking the important step of decarbonizing their operations with expensive investments in carbon capture?

Is the real reason that the Liberals cannot stand to see a successful, sustainable hydrocarbon industry in this country? That is the only reason I can see, and it is shameful. It is shameful because it exposes that the Liberals are not really interested in finding the most cost-effective solutions for carbon emissions. They are only interested in looking for solutions that come from groups that are not interested in working with our oil and gas sector.

The government claims it is not picking winners and losers in this industry, but its actions speak differently. I am proud that, under a Conservative government, we would support carbon capture across all industries, regardless of whether they are engaged in enhanced recovery or not. Under the Conservatives, our emissions would be significantly lower, while growing jobs in our oil and gas sector.

I am over halfway through my speech and I have not even mentioned the government's failure during the COVID-19 pandemic. We all recognize that Canada is going through a tough time. We have been in and out of lockdowns for over a year now, and it is taking a huge toll on families and small businesses. That is exactly why, over the past year, the Conservatives have supported the government by allowing it to pass massive income support measures on an expedited basis.

We trusted that the Liberals would take that goodwill and do the job right, or at least that, if they did the job wrong the first time, they would make it right as soon as possible. Unfortunately, they did the opposite. They have used this pandemic and the political logjam in this Parliament to govern as if they had a majority, threatening a snap election in a health crisis rather than working with opposition parties to do what is best for Canada.

We see it in question period on a daily basis. Our basic questions are met with disgust. Ministers do not even bother to listen to the questions and choose to throw around unparliamentary language accusing the opposition of lying or misleading Canadians. They have no interest in hearing constructive criticism or implementing our proposals for positive change.

For example, let us look at the Canada emergency wage subsidy. In theory, it is a great program aimed at protecting jobs and our economy, yet as I read through the company quarterly reports, I am shocked by how many profitable businesses have been using taxpayer dollars, delivered on a silver platter by the Liberals, to pad their bottom lines. Many of these companies took these benefits while laying off hundreds of workers, yet the Liberals put no strings attached. There is no accountability for these businesses.

I read in the budget that the Liberals have a big solution for this. They will claw back the wage subsidy for companies that raise executive pay. I thought it was a joke. These companies are spending billions on share buybacks and dividends, and the Liberals are saying that, if they raise executive compensation, they will claw it back. It is laughable. It is a feast for big business and government relations executives put on by the Prime Minister, and the taxpayer is footing the bill.

We need to chart a new course to maximizing growth in the years to come while returning to fiscal responsibility by setting a clear plan to get our country back to a balanced budget and address the rising debt load and face the challenges of tomorrow. We have faced them before, as in the 2008 financial crisis. Under Conservative leadership, this country came out stronger than ever, and we are ready to do the hard work to get our country back on track to secure our future.

In my short time to speak today, I have raised serious problems with the Liberals' economic mismanagement, whether it be their poorly designed programs, or their programs designed to outright exclude important industries and regions in this country. I have highlighted some deeply concerning trends, such as the threat of a reduced population, lower immigration and an aging population. These are challenges that would be difficult for governments to face even at the best of times.

What we have seen from the Liberal government is that it has a willingness to spend whatever it takes to get re-elected rather than spending to face the challenges of the future today. It is clear that only a Conservative government can get our country back on track and secure our future.

Bill C-10

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB]

Madam Speaker, the heritage minister has dismissed and insulted critics of Bill C-10 as “extremist” while peddling his own tin-hatted conspiracy theory about big tech being in cahoots with Canadian academics just to spread disinformation about his bill.

Despite all the backlash and the minister's vague promises of future clarity amid his own incoherent and contradictory statements, the bill remains “a full-blown assault” on freedom of expression.

Remember, this minister is a lifelong, radical, anti-energy activist. He admits that the whole point of Bill C-69 was to ensure that no Canadian energy project ever gets built again, and now he wants the power to regulate online content to be, in his words, consistent with the government's vision.

To the energy workers who have lost their jobs at the hands of this government's vision, the prospect of this minister and his government regulating their posts should be terrifying. However, if this deeply flawed bill passes in this Parliament, do not worry, a Conservative government will appeal it in the next one.

Leader of the Liberal Party of Canada

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Mr. Speaker, this is my last statement of this session and possibly before we go to the polls. I am grateful for the four years that the good people of Calgary Midnapore have allowed me to be their voice, so I cannot let this opportunity pass without expressing the following.

Mr. Prime Minister, you have failed the people of Calgary Midnapore. You have taken away their right to make a living. You implemented Bill C-48 and Bill C-69. You delayed Trans Mountain. You did not stand up for Keystone XL and Line 5. You cancelled energy east and the northern gateway. You have called my small business owners “tax cheats” and attacked their retirements and succession plans. This was all before 2020.

You failed to protect them. You squashed their ingenuity of therapeutics, rapid tests and pilot projects. It is you who has delayed their freedom with your horrific procurement of vaccinations, delaying their lives and dreams.

You may want to forget what you have done to the people of Calgary Midnapore, but I will not let you.

Line 5 Pipeline Shutdown

[James Cumming, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, I rise virtually today to speak in this emergency debate about a critical piece of infrastructure, in an industry that is critical to the economy of our country and our recovery post-COVID-19.

I will be splitting my time with the member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands.

Enbridge's Line 5 pipeline carries Canadian oil east, running through Wisconsin and Michigan. It is supplying about half the oil needs of Ontario and Quebec. For decades, the pipeline safely shipped oil that is refined in Sarnia into gasoline, diesel, home-heating fuel and aviation fuel. It is also a major source of propane used in Ontario and Quebec. A lot of farmers use the propane to heat their homes, barns and commercial greenhouses, as well as to dry grain. Sourcing propane elsewhere could drive the cost of ag production up, along with the cost of food for Canadian families. This would, without a doubt, hurt industry and competitiveness.

Canada's oil and gas sector suffered another tremendous blow with the cancellation of the Keystone XL pipeline project. Keystone was all about securing additional export markets for access for western Canadian crude, to help this struggling sector and secure better average prices for our resources. Another great threat to our economy is looming: the cancellation of one of the most vital supply lines in our country. Tens of thousands of good jobs are at risk and, with no doubt, there will be increasing costs for many goods and services.

While I appreciate the discussion today, I do find it somewhat ironic that many of the voices that we are hearing from were silent while the energy industry was struggling, other projects were being cancelled and capital was being deployed outside of our country. Today's discussion is a symptom of a much larger problem, a problem that is six years of relative inaction by the government. I agree with the Minister of Natural Resources that this industry is, and has been, a critical pillar of our economic success. He spoke today about the action the government has taken since this fall. The much larger question is: where has the government been for the last six years?

I acknowledge that Line 5 has the attention now, but where has the government been when it comes to supporting this critical industry? The government has had six years to negotiate an agreement on a North American energy strategy. The cancellation of Keystone XL and now this crisis on Line 5 demonstrate to me the lack of a proactive strategy by the government. I would also note that there is virtually no mention of this important sector in the budget and absolutely no mention of a strategy for greater energy, security and self-sufficiency.

I am a proud Albertan and I recognize the critical importance that the natural resource industry plays today and how critical it will be for our economic recovery. The government has sent many signals that do not support its argument that it sees this industry as being critical. Support is not demonstrated by enacting legislation like Bill C-48 and Bill C-69. Canada has a critical trading relationship with the U.S., but we can also provide energy solutions for other jurisdictions and displace countries that do not extract resources to the same high and improving standards we have demonstrated.

In April of this year, there was a paper written by Philip Cross, and I would recommend reading it, with the title, “How oil sands investment and production benefit Canada's economy”. I would like to take this opportunity to share with colleagues a few of its salient quotes. This sector is one of the key supply sources of energy. “The oil sands are a uniquely Canadian success story and an increasingly rare example of innovation in Canada.” It is “important for the industry and governments in Canada to set the public record straight on what this industry has accomplished and its importance to Canada’s economy.” “The largest oil sands plants today are operated by Canadian companies...[such as] Suncor Energy, CNR, and Cenovus.” “Canada’s participation in the oil sands extends to First Nations.”

A number of indigenous ventures have participated in the oil sands: One Earth, Mikisew Group of Companies, Boucher, Tuccaro Group and Acden, to name a few. The economic benefits are enormous: $8.3 billion in oil sands investment represents 4.5% of all the business investment in Canada. “This exceeds all investments made by the retail trade industry, construction, or all business services, and is four times more than auto...” “Both investment and production in the oil sands are important to Canada’s economy...” Some $10 billion in investments results in Canada's GDP going up by 0.5% and increases overall employment by over 81,000. Combined with Ontario, Central Canada reaps about 13.6% of the jobs.

Canada's oil and natural gas resources are among the most responsibly produced energy resources on the planet, under the most stringent environmental regulations in the world. In Canada's oil sands, conditions have fallen significantly. According to data from the Government of Canada's 2019 national inventory report, greenhouse gas emissions in Canada's oil sands have fallen 34% per barrel since 1990, and they are going down further.

Media portrayals rarely present what the oil sands mine looks after the land has been rehabilitated, something all companies must commit to and set aside funds for when they begin operations. The boreal footprint of the oil sands is significantly less when compared with that of what is flooded to build massive hydro power projects.

Let us talk about a bit about innovation. The Alberta carbon trunk line system is the world's newest integrated large-scale carbon capture utilization and storage system. Designed as the backbone infrastructure needed to support a lower-carbon economy in Alberta, the ACTL system captures industrial emissions and delivers the CO2 to mature oil and gas reservoirs for use in enhanced oil recovery and permanent storage. As the largest capacity pipeline for CO2 from human activity, it is capable of transporting up to 14.6 million tonnes of CO2 per year, which represents 20% of all current oil sands emissions, or equal to the impact of capturing the CO2 from more than three million cars. The future of a lower-carbon economy relies on key infrastructure investments like the ACTL system to provide sustainable solutions to global energy requirements.

I wanted to illustrate today that we have these enormous assets and that we should recognize the fine work that industry has done to supply this important resource. Today I heard much discussion about an energy transition, but we are in the here and now. There are significant jobs at risk not only in the energy sector, but in sectors that depend upon a safe, secure supply of energy. Canada relies on exports to fuel our economy, and without the safe supply of energy, we run the risk of seeing our manufacturers, agricultural sectors and other industries go down, as they depend on this supply.

I have no doubt there will be a transition over time, but in the interim, I suggest that Canada has the opportunity to be a market leader in the supply of energy as we build into this transition. Oil will be critical during this transition, but we also have a tremendous opportunity to be an exporter of LNG and nuclear technology as we displace coal as an energy source.

Many speak about the new jobs that are about to be created to replace these valuable energy sector jobs, but I have yet to hear a substantive plan that demonstrates what those jobs will be and in what specific sectors they will be. The hard reality is we are a large country with a small population. We have built infrastructure and an impressive social safety net that supports people across the country. Much of this is as a result of the revenue produced from the natural resources and commodities that we have been blessed with. We should not lose sight of this important fact.

Line 5 is an important piece of this infrastructure, and shutting it down would have a dramatic impact on the citizens and industry in Ontario and Quebec. This makes us abundantly aware of the importance of energy security for our country. The last thing we want to rely on are alternatives for transportation, such as rail or truck traffic, or foreign markets for supply.

I hope the government will recognize not only the importance of Line 5, but also that the natural resources sector could be an important part of our future success. Jobs and people's economic well-being are at stake. My province has taken the brunt of the economic slowdown, and we are overdue for the government to do more than talk about the support of an industry. It should demonstrate with action.

It is time for the Prime Minister to show Canadians the specific plan for the natural resources sector and the thousands of jobs that this sector employs. The industry is ready and willing to be a substantive part of our economic recovery. This is about leadership, and it is also time for the Prime Minister to reach out to the President and reinforce the economic importance of energy security for both our countries, and ensure the continued operation of Line 5.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Madam Speaker, Enbridge Energy's Line 5 pipeline could be shut down in a week. This is another example of the Liberal government's failure to act. We have known about the May 12 deadline for months, and the Liberals have done nothing. Pipelines and getting goods to market are topics that are very important to me and my constituents, and under the Liberals, we have seen countless energy projects and pipelines cancelled, pipelines that could have prevented this situation.

We have seen this government pass Bill C-48, the shipping ban bill, and Bill C-69, the no more pipelines bill. Also, the Liberal government abandoned Albertans in failing to stand up for Keystone XL. Indeed, this government's record on pipelines is brutal. In cancelling energy east and northern gateway, and causing the cancellation of the Carmon Creek project, they have left 134,000 Canadian oil patch workers and their families in the lurch. When the Liberals stand up and say that this is about jobs, I say, yeah right, that is a bunch of BS. The Liberals are ashamed of Alberta and the prosperity that comes from our natural resources.

Canadians want good, ethical and responsibly sourced oil, yet we have refineries in Saint John, New Brunswick, that must take oil from countries with atrocious human rights records and no environmental protections whatsoever; measures that we do not have because of the national east-west pipeline that our Canadian oil is unable to get across this country.

Our Canadian oil is produced with some of the highest standards in the world. For now, we have the Line 5, which transports half a million barrels of oil a day from the Canadian west to the Canadian east, from production fields in Alberta to refineries in Ontario and Quebec. This is a win-win for all of Canada, and several provinces get their direct share of the benefits of our natural resource. Indeed, Canada needs more Canadian oil, not less. We need more Canadian energy, not less. We can share our energy. I know that Quebec is a world leader in hydroelectricity. Why can we not share that and go back and forth?

Pipelines are not just something to transport oil in. They are something that we transport all kinds of things in. As we transitioned from oil and moved to the production of natural gas, we switched over many pipelines from oil to natural gas. Who knows what in the future we will be transporting through these same pipelines. These pipelines will not become obsolete as we use less and less oil.

Moreover, we are at a crossroads here today. In fact, we are actually at the edge of the cliff in regard to Line 5 due to Liberal inaction. This pipeline that plays such a critical role in the Canadian economy could be shut down very soon. We did not have to be here. We could have had other pipeline projects initiated five years ago, which could have been in play today, and yet here we are with only one pipeline transporting oil from west to east.

This Line 5 pipeline plays such a critical role in the Canadian economy, and it could shut down very soon. With the closure of Line 5, the livelihoods of thousands of Canadians will be impacted. Not that the Liberals seemed to care when it was 134,000 Albertans who were losing their jobs because of the lack of pipelines, but today here we are with 5,000 direct jobs in the Sarnia region and 25,000 jobs in southern Ontario and Quebec impacted.

This pipeline provides $165 billion in revenue and thousands of indirect jobs both in Quebec and Ontario. We cannot abandon these jobs either. Just because this government does not want to stand up for jobs in Alberta does not mean that we should not stand up for these jobs in Ontario and Quebec. Justin Trudeau cannot and should not be choosing which jobs are worth saving. The energy sector—

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank every member who is in the House tonight for this very important debate, showing their support and their understanding of how serious this is. Obviously, for my riding of Sarnia—Lambton, this is an extremely serious issue.

As many have said tonight, there are three refineries and multiple other related businesses in Sarnia—Lambton, and a shutdown of Line 5 could impact as many as 23,000 jobs in my riding. Just to put that in perspective, in the pandemic about a third of Canadians are on the CERB and many businesses are on government supports; we are talking about a substantial percentage my riding who would be out of work. I want to take this opportunity not just to repeat what has been said already in the House, but to try to give an understanding of the situation that exists and to call for action of a specific nature, as we move forward.

Members know that Governor Whitmer has brought this executive order. This is an election promise that she ran on. To be fair, I do not think she was aware at the time of the impact on her own constituents. Thirty per cent of Michiganders in the upper hand of Michigan use propane that comes down from Line 5 to heat their homes in the wintertime.

We know that members of many of the trade unions that got Governor Whitmer elected are actually going to lose work over the tunnel project that has been proposed to resolve any outstanding concerns about the pipeline. That is a $500-million tunnel project that would, in fact, encase the pipeline below the Straits of Mackinac and eliminate the risk totally.

There has not been an issue. I have heard members talk about how what has happened in the past is no predictor of the future, but this technology we are talking about is in use in many places around the world. There are many pipelines that are built under the water, and not just small sections of 50 kilometres, which we are talking about in the Straits of Mackinac, but thousands of kilometres. In fact, Governor Whitmer is likely unaware that there are eight other pipelines that run underneath the St. Clair River in my riding, which has Michigan on the other side, some of those pipelines belonging to Enbridge as well.

This technology is safe. Just to let members know, for those who know my background as a chemical engineer, I have looked at all the reports that have been written about Line 5. The Environmental Protection Agency does regular monitoring, regular inspections and audits on this line. The federal pipeline safety department, PHMSA, also regulates this line, inspects the line and follows up. The State of Michigan is involved in monitoring, Enbridge has its own continuous monitoring on this line. There is a huge amount of technology that goes into making sure that this line is safe, and it has operated for 68 years without an incident.

I have talked about the impact to Michigan.

Regarding the line that comes from Alberta, obviously there is an economic hit for Alberta and this is at a time when Albertans have already been punished by the bad policies of the Liberal government, including the “no more pipelines bill”, Bill C-69 and the many cancelled oil and gas projects including Teck mines, northern gateway, Kinder Morgan backing out, the KXL and the Petronas LNG and now the Kitimat LNG. There is just an ongoing punishment there, so this would just be another hit to Alberta at a time when it can least afford it.

The other states that are being impacted are Wisconsin, Ohio and Pennsylvania. There are refineries in Ohio and Pennsylvania that supply all the jet fuel for the Detroit airport. There are many jobs in Michigan as well. Overall, we think 50,000 jobs could be impacted by this; not to mention in Ontario, many farmers heat their barns for their animals, dry their grain and heat their greenhouses with the fuel that is coming down through Line 5.

When I hear people who are anti-pipeline and want to shut down Line 5, I ask them if they live in Ontario and drive a car because, if they do, their gasoline is coming out of Line 5. Do they eat food, like beef, chicken and pork that is grown in Ontario or Quebec? If so, they are going to be impacted by Line 5.

Do they eat vegetables or grains that are produced in any of these provinces? If so, this definitely would be an impact to them. It has already been mentioned as well that the plastics industry and many of the great smart phones and things we enjoy so much are a result of the fossil fuels that are coming down through Line 5. There is a huge impact there, and I was pleased to see the natural resources minister emphasize again that this is essential for the economic and energy security of Canada.

I have been calling on the government for action. I called on it to have the Prime Minister intervene with President Biden directly to let him understand the importance. The Prime Minister did raise it, but we have not seen President Biden take an action, and I am sure that is because the case is before the court. Right now, what is being decided in the court is whether this issue should be heard at the state level or at the federal level. There are a number of these amicus curiae briefs of support and against that have been submitted. There are 14 Democratic states that have submitted a brief against keeping Line 5 open, and one Republican from Ohio has submitted one in support of keeping Line 5 open. This is why it is so important that the Canadian government provide a brief of support, and it is due next Tuesday, so we are running out of time. It is fine to say we will do all things and take every effort, but seeing the piece of paper submitted by May 11 would be very helpful.

At the same time, I agree with the member for Mount Royal, who indicated that he does not believe that a state court at this point in time has the power to force Line 5 down and also that they will likely not put an injunction out while the case is before the court. In terms of that timing, the judge did order mediation between Governor Whitmer and Enbridge, and that mediation is coming to an end within the next week. Then, the deadline for the briefs exists, and she will have to review all of that information before she can render a decision about whether the case should be heard in federal court or state court. Then, of course, the case needs to be heard, so that would be another whole bunch of testimony that will happen.

Although I do not think things are going to happen next Wednesday, I do think that there is no other contingency plan in place. The tankers, railcars and trucks have been suggested. We are short of railcars in Canada right now, and there is a shortage of trucks as well, so even if we could find them, to take that volume is certainly environmentally worse from an emissions point of view. We know, with the Lac-Mégantic issue that occurred, that rail is not as safe as a pipeline is.

I think those are important considerations, and I would say that, when it comes to the Canada-U.S. committee, which I was fortunate to sit in and go through, it came with seven recommendations for the government. This is the call to action I would like to see the government act on. It called for mediation; that is happening. It called for U.S. decision-makers at all levels to be contacted, and I know there are efforts of lobby within Ohio, Pennsylvania, Washington and Michigan. It is unfortunate the Governor Whitmer will not meet with the natural resources minister. She did take a call with the leader of the official opposition and with Doug Ford, and so I think we need to press on there. The amicus brief, as I have mentioned, is an important support for Canada to bring. Then, it called for the Prime Minister to press and, if necessary, put a treaty violation complaint in if this continues, because this certainly is a federal treaty that allows that line to operate.

I have not heard of any contingency plans, but somebody should start thinking about those. The companies in my riding are thinking about that. As well, we should look at our other vulnerabilities, because if we continue to see that the U.S. is not going to stand as our friend in these matters, then what other supply chain and critical energy infrastructure is vulnerable, and what will we do about that? The committee then called to have members of Parliament engage, as we are tonight, and so I am happy to see everybody all on the same page, calling for the action.

Let us move forward. Let us keep Line 5 open.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad the member was able to stop himself from falling right out of the chair. That is good news.

I will point out to him that we do not measure things by how much money the government can spend on something. If the government wants to show support for our energy industry and allow it to be profitable, the best thing it could do is stop getting in the way of projects being built. That is how it could best help the industry. If we want to see projects get built, it could stop putting forward bills like Bill C-48 and Bill C-69, which ended projects and cancelled projects in this country.

The government needs to allow those projects to move forward and serve the energy needs of our fellow Canadians and serve the energy needs of the world with some of the most environmentally friendly products found anywhere in the world. They are better for the environment by replacing less environmentally friendly sources, but also better for our economy in this country.

I know that member wants to see this country break up, but I want to see this country unified. That is why I am supporting what is happening here. It is unfortunate he does not want to get on board and do the same.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

moved:

That this House do now adjourn.

It is a “ticking time bomb”. Those are the words of the office of the Governor of Michigan yesterday about the Line 5 pipeline. I will point out that those words are entirely inaccurate, but they highlight something that is incredibly important, which is that the Liberal government has failed to express upon the governor and our other friends in the United States the very clear importance of that pipeline. It has failed to secure it being able to continue past the May 12 deadline, which is six days from now. This is truly an emergency and a very urgent situation.

Before I go any further, I will point out that I will be sharing my time with the leader of the official opposition, who is one of the foremost champions in the country of this nation-unifying pipeline that would link energy producers in the west with energy consumers in the east, not to mention he is also one of the loudest advocates for our energy industry and oil and gas workers. Therefore, I am proud to share my time with him.

In contrast, the Liberal government is at it again, trying to find ways to land-lock Alberta oil and, frankly, stick it to Albertans. The Liberals have been abundantly clear on their distain for our energy industry and for our Canadian oil. Bill C-48, the shipping ban, Bill C-69, the no more pipelines bill, and the Prime Minister's comment about the oil sands needing to be phased out are all very clear examples.

In the end, the Liberals are not just sticking it to Albertans when they do that; all Canadians will pay the price. They already cancelled things like northern gateway and energy east. Then there was the cancellation of the Keystone XL project by the U.S. administration a few short months ago. That was because of the complete inaction of the Liberal government. It failed to provide any tangible support for that project, which included the refusal to initiate a NAFTA challenge or to back any legal challenges in support of the project. One would think it would have learned something, but now Enbridge Line 5 is also in serious jeopardy.

In November of last year, Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer ordered Line 5 to be shut down on May 12. It is now May 6 and the Liberal government has not found a solution. It does not seem to understand the urgency here.

For decades, the Enbridge Line 5 pipeline has safely moved Canadian oil east from the Alberta oil sands, with a pipeline running through Wisconsin and Michigan. It is responsible for supplying half of the oil needs of Ontario and Quebec. Again, half of the oil needs of Ontario and Quebec are supplied through that pipeline. The pipeline is an essential part of the Canadian energy supply chain clearly and its cancellation would create immediate and alarming fuel shortages across Ontario and Quebec, would increase truck and rail transportation of oil, would increase fuel prices and create greater environmental risks. It sounds like we better deal with that.

Line 5 oil is refined in Sarnia into gasoline, diesel, home heating fuel and aviation fuel. It is also the main source of propane used in Ontario and Quebec.

Line 5 also feeds into Line 9, which carries oil to refineries in Montreal and Lévis for Quebec's supply needs. The Minister of Natural Resources has highlighted in the past that Line 5 delivers 66% of the crude oil consumed in Quebec.

This cancellation would impact one of the most vital supply lines in Canada, which has been operating for decades. Jobs are at stake and so is the increased costs of absolutely everything from gasoline to food across Ontario and Quebec. The Liberals need to ensure that this vital infrastructure link remains uninterrupted, that jobs are not lost and that Canadians are not forced to pay more for absolutely everything.

For instance, many farmers use the propane source from Line 5 to heat homes, barns and commercial greenhouses as well as to dry grain. Sourcing propane elsewhere will drive the costs of agriculture production up along with the cost of food for Canadian families. Further, 5,000 well-paying jobs would be lost in Sarnia alone if this project is cancelled, with thousands more in jeopardy in my home province of Alberta as well as across both Ontario and Quebec energy industries.

The Toronto Pearson airport relies on 100% of its jet fuel from Line 5. The airport would literally cease to operate without finding another source of fuel. As the St. Lawrence Corridor Economic Development Commission recently stated in a news release:

Simply put, this line is critical for our daily lives and shutting it down will mean there won’t be enough fuel to look after our needs from personal driving, transportation of groceries and goods, heating fuel and the fuel needs of industry and farms. Of course, this will affect refinery jobs in places like Sarnia – which expects to lose almost 5,000 quality high paying jobs but indirectly will affect an additional 23,500 jobs. Those jobs are held by real hardworking people. These jobs will be lost at a time that thousands of our neighbours, friends and family are already facing employment losses due to the pandemic.

From an environmental perspective, shutting down Line 5 would be a disaster. There would be an energy shortfall in Canada that would have to be obtained from other sources. Canadians are not simply going to be able to stop heating their homes or buying groceries. That means shipping oil and natural gas by rail, truck or ship, which are potentially more dangerous, potentially more costly and potentially more harmful to the environment. Sourcing the same amount of oil that Line 5 provides would require approximately 2,000 trucks or 800 railcars each day alone. It would also mean additional tankers in the St. Lawrence Seaway.

It is not just the shipping part that could impact the environment. If Line 5 closes, oil would need to be obtained from foreign sources, sources like Saudi Arabia, Russia, Azerbaijan and Nigeria, places that are not exactly known for their human rights or high environmental standards. Our standards in Canada and in my home province are far higher than any of the sources that would have to be used if Line 5 were to be shut down. The Liberal government is standing by while Line 5 is shut down. That, to me, sounds like a method to cut off one's nose to spite one's own face.

Alberta has the most environmentally friendly oil and gas in the entire world. Many Albertans right now are struggling. They are hurting. They are out of work and they just want the chance to go back to work. Then, of course, there is the problem we face with unity in this country. Many Albertans are frustrated and angry because they see no support from the current federal government in terms of being able to get their products to markets, in terms of being able to supply the energy needs of even their friends and neighbours across this country.

To me, it seems like a no-brainer that we would want a pipeline like this to continue to supply those needs, to provide that link between our western producers and eastern consumers, to make sure that our environment continues to have the best products it can in terms of oil and gas being good for our environment, in terms of keeping national unity going and making sure we can keep people in my province and all across this country working on something that is so crucial to our needs.

The Liberal government and the Prime Minister need to wake up. They need to wake up because Line 5 is crucial to Canada. It is crucial for jobs. It is crucial for the environment. It is crucial for national unity and it is crucial for all Canadians. They need to take action now. They cannot just talk about it. They need to get the job done, and they are not getting it done. I certainly hope they will be listening tonight, paying attention, understanding the importance of this project and making sure we can continue to keep this line open to serve our energy needs, to protect our environment and secure our national unity.

The Environment

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Madam Speaker, once again Canada could fall behind as a result of the Liberals' weaker version of NAFTA. After a three-year grace period, there will be tariffs if we do not regionally source the vast majority of lithium for electric vehicles.

The government makes big plans and promises for a green transition, but there is a problem: Approval for new projects will take at least three to 10 years. The anti-pipeline Impact Assessment Act is also creating uncertainty for the Liberals' green transition.

Will the Liberals finally admit it is time to repeal Bill C-69?

Employment Insurance Act

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my excellent and hard-working colleague from Calgary Midnapore.

Today, we are debating Bill C-24. I have a couple of quick observations about the context of this debate. This is another example where we can clearly see the willingness of the Conservatives to work constructively on areas where we share a perspective on the need to move forward with the government on a particular bill. We saw this earlier this week: As a result of a Conservative motion, we were able to debate quickly and pass Bill C-18. Today, we have worked with the government to create a framework to move forward on Bill C-24.

In the case of both of these bills, there is a relevant deadline the government has ignored up until this point. The leadership of our party has pushed the government to move forward with things that are supposed to be its legislative priorities but have clearly not been. We see how the Prime Minister has been trying to spin a narrative that Parliament is not working, as a way to justify his plans for an election in the middle of a pandemic.

There is no doubt that the Conservatives do not support some aspects of the government's legislative agenda, and some require further study and debate. However, in this Parliament in particular, the 43rd Parliament, the Conservatives have worked constructively to quickly advance legislation when there is a shared sense of essential urgency on matters.

Bill C-24, like Bill C-18 and other legislative measures we have seen in this Parliament, is in the category of measures that we are supporting and have worked with the government to move forward. I hope the government, members of the media and the public will take note of the instances of co-operation that have taken place, often led by the Conservatives, and will point out the flaws in the narrative the Prime Minister is trying to spin to justify his pandemic election plans.

Bill C-24 is an important bill that expands benefit programs in the context of the pandemic, and the Conservatives are supportive of it. At the same time, we have highlighted the need for the government to have a broader vision of where our country is going economically in the midst of the pandemic and what we hope will soon be the economic recovery coming out of it.

While other parties are talking only about spending and the benefits, the Conservatives recognize the need to have strong economic growth as the basis for providing strong benefits. We have legitimately pointed out the issues around the significant debt and deficit we are accruing during this period of time. Other parties in the House want to present a false choice: either we support benefit programs and have dramatic growth in our debt and deficit or we do not have the debt and deficit and leave people out in the cold. We view that as a false choice. We believe it is very possible and indeed important to support a strong social safety net, but that exists on the foundation of a strong economy. If we support the development of a strong economy, with a vision for jobs, growth, opportunity and investment in this country that gives people the opportunity to work, then we also increase our capacity to provide people with support when they find themselves in situations where they are not able to work.

Our vision for an economy of the future is one that involves a strong economy, a strong community and a strong social safety net. We believe those elements need to exist in tandem. A strong economy means repealing some measures the Liberals have put in place, like Bill C-48 and Bill C-69, which impede the development of our natural resource sector. It means working to strengthen our manufacturing sector. It means taking note of some problems, like the slave labour around the world that is producing cheap products that come into the Canadian marketplace. That is obviously terrible from a human rights and justice perspective, but it also impacts Canadian workers. It is an economic issue and a justice issue when human rights violations are linked to unfair trading practices.

We need to stand up for Canada's manufacturing sectors that may be impacted by those kinds of practices. We need to support the development of our natural resource sectors. We need to expand access to markets, especially in like-minded countries. That is why the Conservatives support working to expand trade and partnerships around the world with like-minded partners in the Asia-Pacific region. We are also looking to expand our economic engagement with Africa, building on some of the trade agreements we have signed previously, such as the Trans-Pacific Partnership and the Canada-EU free trade deal negotiated under the previous Conservative government.

We need to think about rationalizing regulations and approving projects that make sense so that Canada can once again be seen as an optimal destination for investment and growth. If that plan for investment, growth and jobs includes an appropriate respect for our natural resource and manufacturing sectors, we will be able to create the conditions that allow unemployed Canadians to get back to work.

That is the strong economy piece. Of course, a strong economy helps to generate the revenue for governments that allows governments to provide support to people without creating the kind of unmanageable deficits that we currently face. Having a strong economy is therefore very important.

I talked about a strong economy, strong communities and a strong social safety net. For many people who face challenges, whether they are unemployment challenges, health challenges or personal struggles of various kinds, the first line of support is the communities they are a part of. In recent decades, we have seen a decline in the strength of community ties, a greater social atomization. As a society, we need to think about how we can strengthen the forms of local community that are such a vital form of initial support. We should think of a big society, a strong society and strong community as being the first line of support and defence when people are confronted with various challenges in their lives.

Part of how the national government can be a part of supporting the idea of strengthening the community is to work constructively in partnership with community organizations and look for opportunities to learn from what communities are doing. These could be cultural associations, faith communities or service clubs. We should better partner with local organizations in the delivery of public services.

There are so many ways this applies. One thing that has been a great interest of mine is the model for the private sponsorship of refugees. Through it, the government works collaboratively with private organizations that are sponsoring refugees to come to Canada. We know that those who have community connections through private sponsorship generally have better outcomes than people who are publicly sponsored, because those who are publicly sponsored are not immediately brought into an existing community that knows them and wants to work with them. Across the board, whether it is combatting addictions, supporting families, addressing joblessness or addressing recidivism, the government needs to have a much better vision of the opportunity for partnership as a means of addressing challenges and building strong communities.

As I said, we need a strong economy, a strong community and then a strong social safety net. If we have the strong community and strong economy pieces in place, we will also be in a position collectively to put the full extent of our resources into supporting those who fall through the cracks with a strong social safety net.

The Conservatives are very supportive of that. We believe, though, that if we neglect the strong economy and the strong community pieces, it will become much more difficult to have a strong social safety net while preserving some degree of fiscal sanity. What we see with the government is a desire to push forward spending on the social safety net, but a lack of vision for the strong economy and strong community pieces.

The social safety net needs to be there for those who are not able to benefit from a strong economy or from strong community structures that are in place. However, if we only have the social safety net piece, and not the economy piece or the community piece, then the pressure that falls on that social safety net will be so significant that we will find ourselves in an unsustainable fiscal situation. That is the challenge we need—

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Kildonan—St. Paul for an excellent speech that will be very difficult for me to follow.

Here are the hard facts. While it is important to provide interim support for people who are jobless during COVID, what people really want are paycheques. This is all against the backdrop of an unemployment rate that is by far the highest in the G7. It is higher than the rates of the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Italy, Germany and Japan.

The government has tried, since these data points have come out, to claim that unemployment rates no longer matter and that we should look at some other statistics that it has cooked up. The problem is that since the Prime Minister took office, he has said, on 49 occasions in the House of Commons, that the unemployment rate is precisely the measure we should look at to determine how our job market is working. However, right now it is not working.

There are 850,000 more people unemployed today than there were in February 2020. Interestingly, the government brags that Canada has secured a larger recovery of the lost jobs in percentage terms than other countries. That is, of course, the result of the fact that we lost more jobs in the first place and had more to gain back. Even with the minimal recovery we have had of jobs, we still have a higher rate of unemployed than our competitors.

It is getting worse. The most recent monthly data showed the loss of another 200,000 jobs in the same month that the United States gained jobs. The leading indicators of what job losses are to come are even worse. According to the largest association of small businesses in Canada, the CFIB, between 70,000 and 220,000 business owners in Canada are thinking of closing their businesses for good. This is between 7% and 21% of all businesses in the country. If they were to close, we would lose between one million and three million jobs, a catastrophic outcome for our economy.

Forget the fact that other countries are roaring back, recovering and putting their people back to work, and that foreign workers are getting paycheques while ours are getting credit card debts. Let us stop talking about stats and start talking about people, because a job, though it means a paycheque, means so much more than that. It means the pride, purpose and independence of getting up in the morning and taking control of one's life. People who lose jobs lose this pride and independence, and the data shows that their mental health suffers dramatically. According to a study by the University of Calgary, the suicide rate rises by two percentage points for every one percentage point increase in unemployment. People take their lives when they lose their jobs.

Since the pandemic began, we have had a 50% increase in opioid overdoses in Alberta and Ontario. In British Columbia, 911 operators reported a surge in phone calls from family members and loved ones who are begging for a paramedic to come and rescue someone who has overdosed, usually on opioids. This is the result of depriving people of work. It is good and necessary to provide interim income for those people, but it is not the ultimate resolution to their problem, which is that they do not have a job and do not know how they are going to pay the bills in the long run.

This is not just because of COVID. The whole world is facing COVID, yet all the other G7 countries have lower unemployment than Canada. This is the result of a government policy that has systematically destroyed employment in this country for four years.

The government has blocked the energy east pipeline, which would have delivered a million barrels of western oil to eastern refineries, creating jobs for energy workers out west, refinery workers out east, steelworkers in central Canada and trades workers everywhere across the land. It vetoed the northern gateway pipeline and therefore deprived dozens of first nations communities of thousands of jobs and billions of dollars' worth of agreements to share revenue, money that would have paid for schools, hospitals and job training for the youth.

It has imposed job-killing taxes that have driven employers out of Canada and into the United States. Right now, Canadians have $800 billion more invested outside of Canada than foreigners have invested in Canada. Why is that? It is because right now Canada is not the place to invest to get things done. In Canada it takes 170 days longer to get a building permit for a pipeline, business park, factory, warehouse or any other economic infrastructure in this country than it does in the United States. In fact, we are ranked 34 out of 35 OECD nations for the delays associated with getting approval from government to build anything.

Our first nations communities are forced to send their own revenues to Ottawa and then apply to get some of them back, rather than being allowed to harvest the revenues directly from their own economic activities. Leading first nations entrepreneurs talk about how long it takes for bureaucrats and politicians to sign off on commercial and other development activities on first nations lands, preventing them from giving paycheques and purpose and pride of a job to their own people.

When immigrants come to Canada and seek out the chance to work in the fields for which they were trained, they are prevented by professional bodies and other occupational licensing regulators from getting a permit to work and are not told what they have to do to get one. Therefore, we have doctors earning minimum wage, architects who are unemployed and mechanics who are stuck only changing oil and tires when they could be running a full service mechanical operation and earning six figures. These people deserve the paycheques for which they were trained, but because of the bureaucracy of our permit-driven economy they are prevented.

The government should put paycheques first. The federal government should set the goal and drive all other levels of government toward it to be the fastest place on planet earth to get a building permit for any kind of economic project, to allow first nations people to approve their own economic developments and to welcome home ownership for their people. We should allow first nations communities to keep more of the revenue from these projects.

We should repeal Bill C-69, the no new pipelines bill, so we can actually deliver our oil to market and get full world prices. We should end the offshore shipping ban off the northwest coast of British Columbia so that our energy producers can get world prices as well.

We should reduce the tens of billions of dollars of regulatory red tape costs that hold back businesses and force them to spend their time serving bureaucrats rather than hiring workers and serving customers. We should knock down interprovincial trade barriers so that Canadians can buy and sell goods from one another rather than importing and enriching foreign businesses abroad. We should reform our tax system so that it rewards work, savings and investment, and allows people to climb the income ladder rather than being penalized for each extra dollar they earn.

Right now we should be encouraging municipalities to make it easier for new and long-term vacant office space to be repurposed for housing for people who desperately need it. Here in Canada, despite having one of the most sparsely populated countries on earth, we have among the highest real estate costs for people trying to find a home.

These are all actions we could take right now to get—

Aeronautics Act

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada and to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-225 is a bill that causes a great deal of concern, as it would amend certain acts to subordinate the exercise of certain powers to the applicable provincial laws concerning land use, development and environmental protections. This concerns me greatly, and I suspect it concerns anyone who feels that the Government of Canada should play a strong role in land development or anything of that nature.

The off-loading of powers is what I find interesting. I believe it is a member from the Bloc who has brought the bill forward, and I think it embodies the principle of what the Bloc is trying to do in the House of Commons, which is to decentralize the national government. In essence, it would take away anything the government does with one exception, which is, of course, to give money. If the Bloc has to participate in Canadian Confederation, it would be quite happy if the only role for the Canadian government would be to provide money to individual provinces, or at the very least to the Province of Quebec. In fairness to the people who might want to follow this debate, that would give a sense of why the Bloc has proposed the legislation before us.

In essence, the federal government does play a role, and we saw that with Bill C-69, which we introduced a couple of years back. It shows that the federal government does have a role when it comes to issues such as land, our environment and the mutual benefits of ensuring that there is a proper process in place to protect the interests of the nation.

I believe that in essence it has been working quite well. We have seen provincial governments, municipal governments and the national government working together on numerous projects, and there is a great deal of consultation that takes place. I think in terms of things like projects that are proposed for funding by Canada's infrastructure programs and provisions to incorporate provincial legislation by reference in Canada. We could talk about the Canada Marine Act. There is also a good-neighbour policy for federal real property. All of this is critically important. We need to recognize, at least from my perspective, that the national government plays a role in a wide variety of areas of jurisdiction, and there is an expectation from Canadians that we live up to our jurisdictional responsibilities.

I have not heard anyone in my political career talk about what the Bloc would hope to accomplish with this piece of legislation. However, I often hear from constituents who talk to me about how the federal government should be fulfilling its responsibilities in the many areas where we have jurisdictional control, and the best example I can use is health care.

Often we will talk about the federal government having a role in health care. There is some irony here. If we take a look at it, the Bloc will say that it does not want Ottawa in this but the province, and yet it is Ottawa's jurisdictional responsibility. The Bloc will say that it does not want Ottawa there, but on the other hand, when it is a provincial jurisdiction, it will again say that it does not want Ottawa to interfere because it is a provincial jurisdiction.

There are areas of co-operation where Ottawa may have the primary jurisdiction but there still is an obligation, at least in part, to work with other jurisdictions, whether provincial, municipal or indigenous. There are all sorts of ways in which Ottawa can co-operate with the areas in which it ultimately has jurisdictional responsibility.

Equally, I think, the reverse applies, with the best example being health care. There are a couple of debates we have been having during the pandemic and the bill we just finished discussing. Both of them are related to health care and the importance of the national government playing a role. One of them was with regard to long-term standards, while the other was with regard to assisted dying legislation and that area of mental health. I can talk about what I believe the majority of my constituents would like to see: a national pharmacare program.

All of those things I just cited can only be done to the benefit of all Canadians, no matter where they live, if we have the two levels of government prepared to work together. It is important that we recognize jurisdictional responsibility, as this government has done. When it comes to health care, we will do that. When it comes to the issue of land usage and our environment, we do not tell the provinces or the municipalities that that aspect is completely or 100% federal jurisdiction and that we do not need to hear from them at all on it. We continue to work with the different levels of government because we are in a confederation. Canadians expect us to be working in partnership with the different levels of government.

I would not say that the Bloc has a hidden agenda, but it is an agenda that is not healthy for the Canadian confederation, for those who see the value of living in the best country in the world, and those who are so proud of the French factor that we really identify with and have a great deal of pride about, like I especially do. We are appealing for governments to work together on the important issues that Canadians want us to work co-operatively on. Even if a government has primary jurisdictional responsibility, it should still work with the different levels of government for the benefit of all Canadians.

Economic Statement Implementation Act, 2020

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, my colleague comes from Saskatchewan and I am from Alberta; we have similar issues with the impact on energy workers. There is a lot of frustration with some of the earlier bills, Bill C-48 and Bill C-69. We know those bills predate the pandemic. However, when we are thinking about how the economy is going to recover post-pandemic, those bills are a big barrier to Canada's looking like an attractive investment destination.

Could the member speak further to some of that legislation and share his feedback on what could and should be done in response to that climate of Canada's not looking like a great place to invest with these bills in place, particularly in the context of our energy sector?