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.

Environmentally Conscious Labelling

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Madam Speaker, I guess we have changed our speaking times. My apologies for the confusion for the Chair, and for the table as well. I am sincerely sorry.

They started a warehouse format. As I said, I have had a lot of time to reflect on wicker and rattan throughout the years. We are very fortunate. My younger brother made the decision to accept the business from my parents after several years.

Upon reflection on the business and, most important, the product of the business, I recognized maybe five years ago that it was to be of more interest to Canadians, society and the world in general. People were thinking of buying responsibly and choosing responsible products, and for years my family had been contributing to the environmental cause by selling a renewable product.

This is something that struck me as quite significant. All this time, as this evolution in the world had been going on toward the environment and a greener existence, my family had been contributing to this effort for over three decades.

My message is that the market will always determine these things. The market will make the decision as to the products that are successful within our society and the products which are not successful. Oddly enough, unforeseen to my family and my family business, this pandemic has been a time when wicker and rattan have thrived, as Canadians, Calgarians and people B.C., where we have extensions of our business as well, look to have products to beautify their environments and their back yards, since they are stuck at home at this time.

My fundamental point regarding all this is that there are already voluntary rules that exist for this. Business owners, if they feel so inclined, may certainly put whatever labelling they want upon their products in an effort to indicate what is within the product or how environmentally friendly it is. As the story of my family's business proves, the market chose an environmentally responsible product, and I am very proud of this.

It is always very dangerous when the government tells us what we should buy and what we should not buy. The current government has been terrible at that. It has consistently chosen winners and losers throughout industry and throughout our economy.

Unfortunately, I have seen up close the end result within two sectors. The first is the natural resources sector in my home province of Alberta, where we have seen industry-killing legislation such as Bill C-69 and Bill C-48. This is what happens when government intervenes incorrectly, as could be the case with this private member's bill, which is that industry dies.

I have also seen this up front and personally with the airline sector. This was a case where the government should have intervened. It should have come forward with rapid testing, testing on arrival and on departure, and certainly with, what we had hoped for, what should have been the good distribution of vaccines. Unfortunately, to the disappointment of all Canadians, it has not. Again, it is always very dangerous when the government intervenes within business. We have seen this in both the natural resources sector as well as the airline sector.

I would like to point out the incredible burden that this would place upon businesses, and small businesses in particular. We know that the government has been no friend to small businesses at all during its time.

Who can forget 2017 and the changes that the government tried to implement against small businesses, things that would have major impacts, such as income sprinkling, passive income, passing on businesses within families, something I referenced earlier in my speech? Thank goodness my colleague, the member for Brandon—Souris, put forward legislation that would at least attempt to go against that. Fundamentally, it is never a good thing when government attempts to intervene, to control and direct markets. Also, that legislation would do what the government does not do well, and that is to keep focused on the big picture. At this time, coming out of this pandemic is about restoring the economy and bringing jobs to Canadians.

This motion would not allow businesses to focus on this. It would force them to focus on labelling at a time when they should be thinking about increasing revenues, employing more Canadians and bringing the economy back. Unfortunately, the motion does not focus on that.

Who could have foreseen the legacy of my family business, which started and thrived in Alberta and beyond, would have been with the use of an environmental product. In fact it was, it succeeded and the market chose that. We see the government's intervening has destroyed the natural resources sector. Make no mistake about it. It was a joint effort in Alberta with all levels of government to bring my poor city to the place it is now. This year, 2021, brings the opportunity for change at the civic level and perhaps we will see that.

Unfortunately, I cannot support this private member's motion. I do not believe the opposition will not be supporting it. The market knows what it is doing and this private member's motion does not support that.

Economic Statement Implementation Act, 2020

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a novel sensation to rise in the House today to speak to Bill C-14, for several reasons. First, it is always a tremendous privilege to rise in the House, even though it is not as populated as it has been in the past, to represent the constituents of Provencher and speak to the issues of the day regarding this great country of Canada. Second, it is novel to speak to an economic statement that does not typically lead to legislation. This is an unusual speech in that respect.

Third, this marks the very first meaningful budget-like document that the Liberals have produced since 2019, almost 650 days ago. To be sure, this is not a budget. However, I am grateful to have the opportunity to address Bill C-14 given the fact that the Liberals have flat out refused to present a budget since 2018.

I am a member of the Standing Committee on Finance, which is just now concluding its pre-budget consultations and entering the drafting stage of the report. It is now time for the committee to review the recommendations from Canadians, and to consolidate into the report all the needs that have been identified by Canadians from coast to coast to coast to present to the finance minister. My hope is that the Minister of Finance will take this process seriously, that her response will be thoughtful and that she will come up with a realistic plan for our nation's finances.

Conservatives have been clear right from the beginning that we want to make sure that Canadians struggling as a result of COVID-19 have the support they need. We recognize the challenges that so many are facing, including those of us living under stringent public health restrictions that have dramatically impacted our well-being. The government has a duty not only to help Canadians get through the crisis, but to develop a plan to help us get out of it. I said earlier today in the House that it seems as though the government has no plan, and failing to plan is planning to fail.

It is perfectly fair for governments to react quickly when faced with a crisis. One cannot get everything right when trying to sort out something new and unexpected on the fly. However, a year has now passed since COVID-19 came on Canada's radar in a real way. By now, the government has had plenty of time to prepare a solid, long-term plan for Canada's economy. By now, we know where the damage is most significant. We know who is hurting, and with this knowledge comes the power to plan for the future: to show Canadians a way out and a plan for things to return to normal.

One tangible way that the Liberals could do this immediately is by setting a fiscal anchor. A fiscal anchor is driven by rock-solid foundation principles and will be an anchor or reference point to hold things together and provide stability on which we can establish policies. The principles of financial anchors are missing from the Liberal government.

The Business Council of Canada defines fiscal anchors as follows:

...notional ceilings or caps to the levels of public spending, deficits, and debt that governments are prepared to reach in their fiscal policy. They serve many purposes including:

1 Retaining the confidence of lenders and global markets...;

2 Establishing a positive investment climate for businesses;

3 Providing a measure of fiscal discipline inside government...; and

4 Ensuring that the government has the ability to respond to future economic shocks and unforeseen crises.

In practical terms, this is about creating good jobs for Canadians. It is about creating the conditions for local small businesses to succeed and thrive. It is about moms and dads being able to put food on the table for their families. However, it is also about governments being able to sustainably fund the social services that many rely on: health care, education and the social safety net. Fiscal responsibility, or a fiscal anchor, signals to Canadians that the government is not merely acting for its own immediate interests today, but for the good of the country and its future.

Former parliamentary budget officer Kevin Page told the National Post in October, “There’s a cost to having effectively no fiscal plan. And right now it’s fair to say we have no fiscal strategy.” He added, “This is about where the government’s rudder is. Where is the policy strategy that guides us through the pandemic, and to the post COVID-19 recovery? We’re missing that.”

In a November piece for The Globe and Mail, Mostafa Askari, Sahir Khan and Mr. Page write:

All governments need constraints. Politicians do not like to raise taxes. There is a bias toward deficits. Higher debt can create the risk of future economic instability. It can reduce fiscal room to address the next economic downturn. Constraints also signal future policy intentions of governments and are essential to promote accountability.

The Liberals' refusal to adopt a fiscal anchor is such that they continue to avoid accountability for their spending. We are facing a historic deficit of almost $400 billion. The total federal debt will reach $1.1 trillion this year, and the federal debt, as a percentage of GDP, has risen dramatically. If ever Canadians deserved transparency and accountability, now is the time.

With this in mind, I want to speak about part 7 of the bill. In this section of the legislation, the Liberals propose to amend the Borrowing Authority Act and the Financial Administration Act by increasing maximum borrowing authority for the federal government of Canada from $1.1 trillion to $1.8 trillion. Even as someone with years of experience in the financial sector, those figures seem very daunting to me. This increase is considerably more than the government needs to get through this next fiscal year. Moreover, it authorizes a massive expansion of the national debt all while the government refuses to identify a fiscal anchor and refuses transparency.

If the Liberals were swiping their own personal credit cards during these transactions, it would be one thing, but they are swiping the nation's credit card, knowing full well that hard-working Canadians will ultimately be stuck with a bill that will likely have to be paid through tax increases and will be passed on to future generations. This is money out of the pockets of real people, real families, and not just this generation.

Young parents trying to set aside money for their children's education, small business owners trying to meet payroll for employees and seniors on fixed incomes will all be affected by this increase to our national debt.

In the real world, when Canadians want to obtain a line of credit they have to show the lender that they are good for it. They have to show they will be able to make payments. They have to show that they are responsible stewards of the money that is being lent to them. That is how the three Cs of credit work: character, collateral and capacity. I, for one, do not see why the House should authorize such a significant increase of the government's maximum borrowing authority when it cannot even establish a baseline for its spending. Liberals have not demonstrated the ability to be responsible for increased debt.

This is about taking care of Canadians today and tomorrow. We owe it to future Canadians to ensure our public finances are sustainable. Debt is a moral issue: It is something that is owed to one by another with the understanding that what is owed must be paid back. This is a basic principle, and one that is almost universally understood within the context of business, finance and even personal relationships. If we borrow money from the bank to finance the purchase of a home or vehicle, there is an understanding and a binding agreement as to how and when that loan will be paid back. The borrower is taking on that debt, and with it the responsibility to repay the amount borrowed from the lender. A commitment has been made to restore the financial situation of the lender. The refusal or failure to do so will result in penalties, or at the very least adverse effects to the credit and financial well-being of the borrower.

To borrow without the ability or a clear plan to repay is foolish. While in our culture some debt is usually unavoidable, it is a reality that most of us try to avoid it. We do not want to be in debt. We do not want to be enslaved to interest payments. We want to be free. The government does not have its own money, it only has the money that it receives from the taxation of its citizens. When it needs more money, the government only has three choices: raise taxes, cut spending or borrow.

As my colleague, the member for Carleton, has so succinctly put it, paycheques are the solution. Canadians need opportunities to work. This puts food on their tables and produces tax revenue governments need to provide important services. It is time that the Liberals focus on creating opportunities for Canadians. There are many ways to achieve that objective. Stop raising taxes such as the carbon tax and the CPP payroll tax. Accelerate project permit application processing for infrastructure. Repeal Bill C-69 and Bill C-48. Ideas like these create space for a real recovery.

Let us pursue sustainability and fiscally responsible policies that get Canadians not just through this economic slump, but actually out of it.

Oil Tanker Moratorium Act

[Karen Vecchio, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Kingston and the Islands. Yes, I know that is liked. However, the fact is that what we have actually seen is the huge disconnect between the economy and the environment, so I would ask that we have a more balanced approach.

We have talked about Bill C-69 and Bill C-48 of the 42nd Parliament many, many times. We know that the current government has put through policies that are stopping any of the oil sands work that is being done and not focusing on what we need to do here. We are a country with great resources, and it is very important that we ethically source these resources and then get them out for export.

We are a country that currently is bringing in our fuel from places like the U.K., and I still cannot fathom that, as well as from Algeria, Venezuela and Saudi Arabia. We should be looking at what we have in our own backyard. Knowing that it is ethically sourced and knowing that we can do a great job here in Canada, we should be doing made-in-Canada projects.

I respect the members who are talking about this bill and talking about what we can do on the west coast. This has very important impacts on knowing what we need to do to keep on with our environment. When we speak about first nations and indigenous people, we have to understand that many indigenous groups are asking for work like this to be done. They recognize that the environment can be used with environmentally friendly methods.

I hope we can have an honest discussion where we try to find a balance between the economy and the environment, unlike what we are doing right now.

Agriculture and Agri-Food

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is a privilege to be here at the late show tonight to speak about farmers, ranchers, the carbon tax and clean fuel standards. A carbon tax hike is set to make things a lot harder for Canadian farmers and ranchers. A tax hits farmers from many different directions with very few exemptions.

For inputs and fertilizer, add a carbon tax. For seeds, add a carbon tax. Equipment, machinery and parts cost hundreds of thousands of dollars, and a combine is close to $1 million. Add to that a carbon tax. For grain drying, which costs tens of thousands of dollars, add a carbon tax. For heating buildings, and there are many, add a carbon tax. We have a crop, and now what do we do? We have to truck it and deliver it, with a carbon tax added on. For grain companies and elevators, add a carbon tax. What about the railway? Yes, we have to move things, so add a carbon tax.

Producers pay all the downstream costs with no ability to increase the price they receive. Agriculture sector producers use the most energy-efficient and innovative means in the world. Agriculture producers are also carbon sinks.

As Brian Cross noted in The Western Producer, Alberta Federation of Agriculture President Lynn Jacobson said, “the carbon tax increase highlights the need for additional carbon tax exemptions for prairie farms.” He also noted, “The establishment of a national carbon credit system that allows farmers to capitalize on carbon sequestering activities would go a long way”.

The government is hiking the carbon tax, or the clean fuel standards tax, without a comprehensive plan to address the damage it is going to cause to our agriculture sector and supply chain.

Speaking of challenges on the Prairies, the cancellation of the Keystone pipeline is devastating to real people, families, businesses and communities. We need jobs and growth, and the pipeline supplied both. The Prime Minister talks about support for the resource sector, but killed northern gateway and added barriers to energy east that killed it. The government legislated Bill C-48 and Bill C-69, which did in pipelines as well.

The Liberals also bought a pipeline from a private company that just wanted to build it and wanted the government to get out of the way so it could do it. Now it is many billions of dollars over budget and years behind completion. Will it get built? Is Enbridge Line 5 through Michigan next on the hit list? It would mean thousands of jobs in Ontario and Quebec.

Post-COVID-19 jobs in the resource sector are an essential part of getting Canadians back to work and recovering Canada's economy. We need this sector working. Where is the plan to do it?

Speaking of plans, was the COVID-19 plan a Canada-focused plan? We all know the first thing the government should have done was protect the most vulnerable and protect front-line workers. How do we do that? It is with rapid testing, tracing and isolation. Instead, the government's plan was lacking significantly, and we slowed down the economy to almost a crawl. Then it was basically closed twice.

Sadly, many vulnerable families have been lost forever. Many businesses are closed and many more will be. Students have lost an academic year, and hundreds of thousands of jobs are lost. Mental health challenges are now exploding.

Now in January, 10 months later, the government has started asking for COVID tests. Where was that 10 months ago? Where was the support for Canadian industries to develop rapid testing and vaccines?

We need to protect lives and livelihoods. That is the key to getting out of this crisis and getting people back to work. The government's handling of this situation has prolonged the economic damage and is risking lives.

Instruction to the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development

[Joël Godin, Conservative, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Madam Speaker, thank you for your help.

I would remind members that the government prorogued Parliament while the country was in the midst of the COVID-19 public health crisis.

As far as I know, few parliaments shut down during the crisis, but that is the bizarre strategy the Liberal government opted for.

We all know that protecting fresh water is crucial. We need to protect this resource. We need to take urgent action. We also know that climate change is affecting fresh water. According to Statistics Canada, Canada produces 3,478 cubic kilometres of renewable fresh water per year. That is twice the volume of Lake Ontario, or an average of 104,000 cubic metres of water per Canadian.

According to the website of Quebec's ministry of environment and climate change, fresh water accounts for 10% of Quebec's surface area. Quebec has tens of thousands of rivers and over three million bodies of water totalling 3% of the planet's renewable fresh water reserves. Almost 40% of all that water is in the St. Lawrence watershed. Numbers like that might suggest that this resource is not in jeopardy, but nothing could be further from the truth. Rising water levels and salinization of fresh water are real threats.

An article published in Le Soleil in January 2016 reported that Quebec City and Lévis were concerned about the salinity of the St. Lawrence. According to the article, the area where the salt and fresh waters meet is located at the eastern tip of Île d'Orléans, but scientists are saying that climate warming could push it towards Quebec City and Lévis. A study was launched to identify the danger to drinking water intakes in the St. Lawrence River, in particular to determine if and when salt water could make its way westward and into our faucets. None of this is new, and yet the Liberals introduced their bill on the environment just a few hours before the House of Commons rose for the holiday break. Once again, they did everything at the last minute.

For five years it has been the same old thing. The Liberals introduce bills with good intentions but no substance. They are driven only by their image. Let us not forget Bill C-69, An Act to enact the Impact Assessment Act and the Canadian Energy Regulator Act, to amend the Navigation Protection Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, which received royal assent in June 2019. They used a lot of words to accomplish nothing.

In December, the government certainly could have added something about water, a major resource for our country. We are here to talk about fresh water and its protection, but when it comes to water, we have our doubts about the government's promises.

Today, less than seven days after his inauguration, the new President of the United States, Joe Biden, signed an executive order on his plan for the environment. In the meantime, after five years in power, this government has been unable to get any tangible results for Canadians.

Here is a clear example. The federal government admitted that it would likely not meet its objective of putting an end to all long-term boil water advisories in indigenous communities by March 2021, and experts all agree that the government is still a long way from meeting that objective.

My colleague from Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, with whom I have the honour of serving on the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development, also expressed concerns about the management and protection of Canada's fresh water. On October 29, he said, and I quote: “Our survival and the survival of our communities depend on sources of safe, clean water. In my riding there are many rivers and lakes, such as Okanagan Lake and Nicola Lake.” He went on to say that he has repeatedly advocated for protections for the lakes and rivers in his region.

It is the same thing in the wonderful riding of Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, which I have the great honour of representing. There are many lakes, rivers and other waterways in this beautiful region, which is located near the St. Lawrence River.

These precious resources add to people's quality of life and make an enormous contribution to the region's economy. One thing that I think is important and that I care about as a member of Parliament is doing everything I can to protect the environment. I would like to remind members that, we, the Conservatives, do not wake up every morning with the goal of destroying the planet, quite the contrary.

We are the best protectors and keepers of our land and of nature. We, the Conservatives, have an excellent record on environmental issues.

I am a father. It is important to me to leave a healthy environment and sound economy to my children, grandchildren and, of course, future generations.

I remind members that respect for jurisdictions is important to the Conservative Party. Our party is the only one that respects that principle in the House of Commons.

We agree that the study proposed by Motion No. 34 should go ahead. This is my colleague's motion. He is currently the chair of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development; when he moved the motion, he was a member of that committee.

However, my colleagues and I seriously question the government's tactics. The Conservatives have long been opposed to the dumping of sewage into our waters, and the motion would give us the opportunity to examine the government's ability to address this issue.

I share the concerns of my colleague from Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola about the motion, especially those he stated last October with respect to creating the Canada water agency.

The Constitution assigns much of the jurisdiction over fresh water to provincial governments. We must ensure that there is collaboration with the provinces and that the Liberal government does not dictate the provinces' course of action, as it is wont to do. We are seeing this with the management of the pandemic.

Quebec has an extensive hydroelectric power network, which is regulated by the provincial government. An attempt by the federal government to take control over fresh water would interfere in provincial jurisdictions. It is not surprising that the Legault government has already expressed concerns about the creation of this agency. As I was saying, our party is the only party in the House of Commons that respects provincial jurisdictions.

I want to conclude with a quote from an article published in November 2019, which rightly sounded the alarm. Bob Sandford, a co-author of a report by the Global Water Futures project, which involves 22 universities, said, “We've enjoyed the luxury of the myth of limitless abundance of fresh water in Canada.” The article concluded with the following statement: “We have to commit to changing what we do and how we do it. And we need to have done that yesterday.”

Now is the time to act. The current government has done nothing but make empty promises since 2015. To wit, not a single tree has been planted. Protecting the environment is not a priority. It is all smoke and mirrors.

I urge the government to reflect, respect the environment, take meaningful action to protect fresh water and respect provincial jurisdictions.

Economic Statement Implementation Act, 2020

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

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise virtually today to join the debate on Bill C-14, an act to implement certain provisions of the economic statement.

The bill has seven parts, mostly containing items to which I do not object and aims that I support under the circumstances that Canada currently finds itself. Having said that, I have three main criticisms of the bill. First, it does not contain a plan or indeed any reason for hope for the millions of Canadians who own, work for or otherwise depend on small businesses, especially new businesses that have been ignored in aid measures that have been either adopted or proposed by the government. Second, the bill contains nothing to address the significant problems that were facing the Canadian economy before COVID. Third, the government should not be granted the unnecessary increase to the borrowing authority contained in the bill.

To my first two issues, some would say that it is not fair to criticize a bill for something it does not say. Ordinarily I would agree, but this is not an ordinary bill, nor is this an ordinary time.

The government is closing in on two years without a budget. The fall economic statement is as close as the government has come to tabling a budget, and that statement followed a period of chaos and crisis management. Here I am not referring to the COVID crisis, but to the tumultuous months during which we saw a government that should have been procuring vaccines, approving and distributing rapid at-home test kits and figuring out ways to allow the economy to function, if and when the second wave would hit. Instead, it was consumed by the scandal that saw the resignation of the former finance minister, prorogation of this Parliament and the appointment of a new finance minister. The bill is the government's missed opportunity to help small businesses that have fallen through the cracks in its aid measures and to fix its series of failures that left Canada on the brink of a recession before COVID.

As the shadow minister for small business and the member for Calgary Rocky Ridge, I have spoken to many small business owners who had been left behind by the government. These small business owners are the pillars of our communities.

There are millions of owners, workers and customers who depend on small businesses and who are paying the price for the government's failures, like the owners of the Bitter Sisters Brewing Company in Calgary, whose owners live in my riding. They do not qualify for the wage subsidy or the rent subsidy, because they reopened their business in March 2020 after spending most of 2019 refurbishing it. The owners of this business exhausted their capital. They went through a lengthy period when reinventing their business, and they opened literally within days of the declaration of a global pandemic. They do not have access to government aid measures. I spoke to another constituent last week who had expanded his successful tattoo studio in early 2020. As a result, he does not qualify for either the rent subsidy or the wage subsidy. His rent is $30,000 a month and his revenue is zero.

I know that every member of the House has heard similar stories from their constituents and from other members during debate on the bill. The fall economic statement and the bill do not help these constituents.

It is easy to forget the extent to which the government's fiscal and economic mismanagement was coming to a head before COVID. This is a government that was elected in 2015 on a promise, which it immediately broke, to run modest deficits to fund infrastructure for three years, returning to surplus in the fourth. Its maximum deficit of $10 billion was to be its fiscal anchor.

That anchor was cut immediately after the Liberals took office, and the 2015 election promise was seemingly obliterated into an Orwellian memory hole never again to be acknowledged by the government. It was replaced by a new anchor: that Canada's debt-to-GDP ratio was low and would always shrink.

The finance minister clung to that anchor until it was clear, before COVID, that the deficit was going to rise as a percentage of GDP, and replaced that anchor with the last one, which was maintaining Canada's AAA credit rating. That anchor was cut loose as well, and there have been no fiscal anchors articulated by the government since then.

We saw all of this backsliding into a serious structural deficit before COVID. The Liberal government piled on nearly $100 billion in new debt at a time when it should have been running surpluses, like the one it inherited, in order to prepare for a financial disaster like COVID, but it did not. Furthermore, the government piled on job-killing laws, like Bill C-69 and Bill C-48 that devastated the western economy and will harm Canada's ability to recover from COVID.

This bill does not contain elements that would undo the damage the government did to our economy that prevent and reduce our ability to recover from COVID. It brought in a carbon tax in the last Parliament and has announced that it will almost immediately break its promise not to raise it in this Parliament.

There is nothing in this bill that will address the hostility of the government to the energy industry, which is an essential part of the federal government's tax base. It is historically Canada's largest and most valuable export. It is the creator of great high-paying jobs in every province across Canada, not just in Alberta.

The fall economic statement that this bill is to implement does not address the past economic mistakes the government made and that had Canada teetering on the brink of recession before COVID. It does not repeal the red tape that killed projects, like Teck Frontier, and scared off the private sector investors that would have built Trans Mountain without taxpayer support.

There is nothing in this bill for the thousands of Canadian workers who will lose their jobs due to the devastating Keystone decision or those already without jobs, whose hopes for returning to work are now reduced in the wake of the Keystone decision.

There is nothing in this bill to rein in the culture of wasteful corporate welfare that the government has and the ease with which it ran up significant debt, again, before COVID.

This brings me to my third criticism of this bill and that is the unprecedented increase to Canada's borrowing limit. Make no mistake, and I will say this again, that at a time when governments force businesses to close and lay off workers, governments need to support them. Governments do need to support Canadians who are being compelled not to work and to support businesses that are being compelled to close their doors.

This crisis has created a temporary necessity for extraordinary spending measures to support Canadians, but the government's proposal in this bill to increase its borrowing limit to $1.8 trillion is simply not justified. It is not justified by the government's present needs, not by its short-term needs, not by its medium- or long-term needs, and certainly not by its past enthusiasm for non-crisis deficit financing.

Parliament at its most basic function exists to authorize taxation, expenditure and borrowing by the government on behalf of the governed. As legislators, we have a responsibility to vote whether or not to grant the government these powers, and there is simply no reason to grant such an extraordinary sum for the government to borrow when its own fall statement and the estimates that have already been voted on do not require the authority for the level of borrowing that is contained in this bill.

If the Liberal government, or indeed a future government, needs to increase the national debt to $1.8 trillion, then that should be left for a future debate in this Parliament or a future Parliament. In the meantime, I urge the government to focus on establishing a coherent COVID policy, one that would result in a vaccinated population, a reopened economy and a full-employment workforce fuelled by private investment into Canada's economy, unshackled by job-killing regulations.

We must return to an employment-based economy as soon as possible. While there are items in this bill that would help some Canadians cope with the difficult circumstances of the present, I urge the government to get serious about giving Canadians more hope for the future, especially for those small businesses that have consistently fallen through the cracks of the government's aid measures.

With that, I look forward to questions from the floor.

Keystone XL Pipeline

[Andrew Scheer, Conservative, Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I can hardly believe what is coming out of the hon. member's mouth. He says that the Liberals rescued TMX. What did they rescue TMX from, exactly? It was from their own government's abysmal policies. It was his government's imposition of the carbon tax, Bill C-69, Bill C-48 and all the regulatory uncertainty that scared away the investment. They act as if it is something to be proud of. For the first time in Canadian history, the government had to buy a pipeline in order to get it built. That is a damning indictment of the government's record when it comes to the energy sector.

Why are the Liberal Party and the Prime Minister so quick to make apologies for the U.S. president? We should not be surprised. They could not stand up to Donald Trump during NAFTA and now they cannot stand up to President Biden on Keystone. They are making apologies for the fact that on day one, the U.S. president signed the executive order to kill Keystone XL, which hurts employment in both Canada and the U.S. It hurts indigenous opportunities, as well as opportunities for everyone else.

They are so quick to apologize. Why is it that the government has such a hard time standing up to American presidents? It drove away investment; it drove jobs and opportunity to the United States; it backed down on NAFTA under President Trump, and now it caves like a bad hand in poker before even trying. Why is the government constantly backing down from American presidents?

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

Mr. Speaker, the frank reality is that the hon. members' rhetoric and the government's approach on this file are fundamentally dishonest.

They talk the language of wanting a strong energy sector and addressing environmental challenges at the same time. Conservatives also believe in a strong energy sector and in addressing environmental challenges at the same time. The problem is that the rhetoric just does not sync with the government's actions. The Liberals have killed multiple pipeline projects on Canadian soil. They passed Bill C-48 and they passed Bill C-69, which prevent projects from going forward. We had the Teck Frontier project, a project that would have been carbon neutral by 2050, yet was killed through active lobbying against it by various people in the Liberal caucus.

On the one hand, Liberals profess to understand the important role that the energy sector is going to play going forward, but if we look at the reality of their record on energy, on pipelines, on Bill C-48, on Bill C-69, on Teck Frontier and so many other projects, it is clear that they are talking out of both sides of their mouths on this.

After having killed so many energy projects here in Canada, it is no surprise that the Liberals seem indifferent to the fate of Keystone.

[Jasraj Singh Hallan, Conservative, Calgary Forest Lawn, AB]

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, this seems to be a final chapter of the long saga that is the Keystone XL pipeline. The Obama government punted the project around like a political football for years and years. Mr. Obama's State Department approved it twice, but he waited until the Liberal government was sworn in and then rejected the application, with very little objection from the Prime Minister.

It has become clear to many of us that the Prime Minister and the government are looking to cover up their real agenda: the destruction of the Canadian resource economy. Nothing in the last five years of the government has Albertans convinced that the Liberals have our economic best interests at heart. They vetoed the northern gateway pipeline. Energy east was shot down by ever-changing and burdensome regulations. They have stood idly by while Keystone XL was vetoed twice. Antienergy legislation like Bill C-48 banned exports off the northwest coast, and Bill C-69 altered the regulatory process to such a degree that it was labelled the “no-more-pipelines act”. The government botched the Trans Mountain expansion to such a degree that it nationalized it.

Numerous other taxes and delays are just more pileup on the government's failed policies. Unfortunately, other parties represented in the House have cheered on every delay and veto, no matter how much it hurt their fellow Canadians. This is having a very negative effect on our Confederation.

Albertans are not willing to move on. That is why it has not been a surprise to westerners that all the Prime Minister could muster was an expression of disappointment over the phone, not much else. With the government's track record, the cancellation of a crucial pipeline seems par for the course. However, let me remind the Prime Minister that first and foremost, he is Canada's Prime Minister. He has a responsibility to stand up for Canadian workers and their families. We call on the Prime Minister to show that he has not turned his back on Canadians and assertively re-engage the president to make sure the Keystone XL expansion resumes.

I have heard many times from my constituents, many of whom are either close to retirement or about 10 years to retirement. These are hard-working Canadians, the men and women who drive the rigs on the oil fields. Where else do they have to go? If we are killing this industry, we are killing their livelihood and we are killing them.

I have heard over and over again that mental health issues are on the rise. Suicides are on the rise. If we are not standing up for the industry that is providing livelihoods and providing for these families, we are contributing to those mental health issues and the rise in suicides.

I hope the Prime Minister grows some fortitude, stands up for the industry, stands up for western Canada for once and stops all of the pandering. Let us get people to work.

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that it is a pleasure to rise in the House today, but once again we're going to be debating a cancelled project that has effects on people across Saskatchewan, in my riding of Regina—Lewvan, and across western Canada.

I have tried to figure out how I am going to speak about the cancellation of the Keystone XL today, and whether I will be very passionate, like the previous speaker from Lakeland. I want to congratulate her for being chosen as the best representative of her constituents, because I think that is true. She does an amazing job representing the people of Lakeland, and it is a pleasure to follow her. She is an honoured friend and colleague. I thank her very much for the passion she brings to this file.

Exactly 11 months ago to the day, we were sitting in this chamber having an emergency debate on a similar topic: Teck Frontier. Within a year, we are in an emergency debate on the cancellation of the Keystone XL expansion pipeline. That speaks volumes on how the current government has pursued an energy policy. It speaks about the lack of respect the Liberals have shown to western Canadians, and it speaks about a lack of listening to what the ongoing economic situation is in our country.

The energy sector does not just provide good-paying jobs in western Canada. It provides jobs and income throughout this country. My colleague from Battle River—Crowfoot said it very well: When the energy and oil and gas sector does well, Canadians and all of Canada do well. This is a debate that should not be divisive, but should bring parliamentarians and Canadians together when we are speaking about how to ensure there are good-paying jobs going into the future.

I am going to take a different stance on how we are going to do this debate tonight, and talk about some of the innovations companies are doing to ensure the environmental sustainability and world-class environmental innovation that has gone on already without government intervention. If one can imagine it, energy companies in western Canada are already trying to do what we are trying to legislate. They are already trying to ensure they have minimal emissions. They are already trying to capture carbon.

An example was given on the CBC. I am pretty sure we know the CBC is not a big supporter of the Conservative movement across the country, but a CBC story talked about two companies that are already storing more carbon in the ground than they are emitting. The companies are Whitecap Resources and Enhance Energy.

Through carbon capture and storage and enhanced oil recovery, by burying CO2 and using it to enhance their oil recovery, reactivating wells that have not produced as much, and producing more barrels using their stored carbon, they have stored 4,000 tonnes of carbon underground, which is the equivalent of taking 350,000 cars off the roads in our country.

Leave it to western Canadian entrepreneurship and innovation to already be ahead of government. I know that might come as a surprise to many members in this chamber, but many times the private sector is ahead of what the government has already tried to do. When we look at a Liberal government that continues to try to put roadblocks in front of our energy sector, whether it be Bill C-48, Bill C-69 or the ever-increasing, burdensome, job-killing carbon tax, our people in western Canada, our energy sector and our men and women are working hard to continue to overcome these hurdles and be world leaders.

Today in this chamber I have heard people talking about the decline in oil demand. I did a quick search online, and oil demand is going to increase this year by 6% and next year by 3%. A global supply document said there will be an increase in demand until 2030 by a million barrels of oil a day. We are going to have to choose, not only in this chamber but as a country, whether we are going to be the ones who supply that oil.

Are we going to champion our oil sector around the world, and say that Canadian oil should be the increase in those supplies? Eighty-one per cent of oil is going to be shipped into Asian countries by 2050.

I am here to say that should be Canadian oil. It should not be Venezuelan oil or Saudi Arabian oil. It should be Canadian oil, which is produced by the world's best innovative entrepreneurs, with the best environmental standards in the country and in the world.

I would also like to say that the way workers are treated plays an important role in how we look at our future. Workers are treated better in Canada than in other oil-producing jurisdictions. I and the MPs for Regina—Qu'Appelle and Regina—Wascana had the opportunity to sit down and talk to USW 5890 workers over Christmas. It was a pretty tough time in Regina over the Christmas holidays. Almost 600 people were given layoff notices a week before Christmas. When we sat down and met with president Mike Day, one of the first things he told us was that everyone thinks Evraz is a steel company. He said it is not. It is an oil and gas company, because if there is no oil and gas sector, there is no steel plant in Regina. There is no co-op in Regina that has 2,300 Unifor employees making good wages. These are important things to talk about in these emergency debates, such as the one 11 months ago on Teck Frontier. We can use the numbers and talk about a billion dollars and a hundred billion litres of oil a year, but we are talking about people, their livelihoods and how they support their families.

I do not want to repeat myself, and I am sure everyone does not remember what I said 11 months ago, but it comes down to the fact that times are getting tougher for the hard-working men and women in our energy sector and they are looking for someone to support them. They have been abandoned by the member for Burnaby South, the leader of the NDP. The hard-working energy workers have been abandoned by the federal NDP. It does not support building pipelines. Continuously, they have been tossed by the wayside by the Liberal government to fulfill an agenda that has “anti-oil” written all over it. We can see it in the legislation time and again, and in the fact that we are going to have to have another of these debates, at some point in time I am sure, on another cancellation of an energy project.

The cancellations are mounting up, whether Northern Gateway, Grassy Point LNG, Saguenay or Energy East. The list goes on. When it says “cancelled”, it is the cancellation of jobs that we find the most frustrating. We slam our fists on the desks and talk about the frustration, like my colleague from Lakeland did, but as frustrated as we are, imagine the families that are trying to figure out how they are going to pay their bills in the coming weeks and months, with job after job, trying to support their kids who are going to school or going to a couple of extra events when the time comes.

We have to keep in mind that our job here, as parliamentarians, is to try and ensure we are securing the future for the next generation. That means we do not pick and choose which sectors we are going to support because we have a fundamental ideological bent one way or the other. We cannot pick and choose and get people away from a paycheque economy. It is time to put some differences aside and work together.

The Prime Minister talked about a team Canada approach. I have not seen that from the man in five years. I remember on election night not one Liberal or NDP member stood up in Saskatchewan to give a speech, because there were not any.

The Prime Minister said that he heard us, that he was listening and that we would work together. It has been two years, and we have not been able to find any common ground between us and the government. Once again, in this debate this evening, 11 months from when we held the emergency debate on Teck Frontier, we are talking about tens of thousands of good-paying jobs that disappeared in the blink of an eye.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Madam Speaker, I will split my time with my colleague from Regina—Lewvan.

I am grateful to participate in this emergency debate, which is of course of great national importance in general but also to the people I represent in particular.

The new U.S. president's decision to cancel the permit for the Keystone XL pipeline is not remotely surprising, but it is a short-sighted political move that ignores evidence, economics and common sense, as was the case the first time around when he was vice-president. With the stroke of a pen, thousands of people are out of work in the middle of a global crisis, and the transportation opportunities for world-class Canadian oil are set back yet again.

I am speaking as I always do: for the people who have been out of work or who are scraping by with inconsistent work, who are suddenly out of a job with few places to turn, for families and communities whose futures are precarious, all through no fault of their own.

Canadians whose livelihoods depend on the oil and gas sector are rightly anxious about their futures and are struggling with complete and utter financial despair. Entire communities are in fact at risk because of the policy- and legislative-driven historic levels of bankruptcies and the decline in investment in Canadian oil and gas. That damage ripples through other sectors, risks jobs and harms businesses right across the country.

Since 2015, more than 200,000 jobs have been lost in Canada's energy sector. The devastation is real in more ways than one. In Alberta alone, a recent University of Calgary study said that for every 1% increase in unemployment, 16 Albertans will die by suicide. Never has a Canadian industry faced such a severe triple threat: global oversupply and demand drops, a collapse of global prices and a self-imposed lack of market access, domestic policies designed to drive investment away, killing businesses and jobs.

It is bad enough when the U.S. president and other American legislators block Canadian energy infrastructure despite the economic security, political and continental ties between our countries, and that the reality is that the U.S. sits on tens of thousands of kilometres of pipeline networks and is a major oil importer from Canada.

The decision is not a surprise to anyone when we consider the domestic political considerations of the new president. Also, this decision is perfectly aligned with the best interests of the United States. The U.S. is currently a world-leading energy exporter and producer and put the policy framework in place for the private sector to enable the U.S. to become rapidly energy independent and self-sufficient, an objective that actually started under the previous Democrat administration when the current president was vice-president and was expedited and secured under the most recent administration.

What is most galling of all is how the Prime Minister of Canada and the Liberal government have done virtually nothing to fight for KXL and have put Canada in such a vulnerable and powerless position. Certainly the Liberals have turned their backs on Canadian energy workers and their families and are ignoring the disproportionate pain and damage they have caused to Albertans, but that is not new.

The reality is that the Prime Minister has never actually championed the KXL pipeline. It should chill everyone that despite close ideological ties between the Prime Minister and the U.S. president, and despite a number of aggressive measures in the pursuit of the sham of social licence that the Prime Minister has imposed on Canada, including currently pushing a legislative framework that is almost unparalleled around the world and KXL's proponent saying the pipeline will be at net zero, it was killed on arrival.

The Prime Minister's weak response to former president Obama's Keystone veto in 2015 was to simply say that he was “disappointed”. He failed to correct the repeated myth that Canadian oil is “dirty”, especially at a time when the U.S. imported record levels of Canadian oil, more than it ever had before in the history of its country at that same time. The Prime Minister did not bother to point that out either. He failed to correct the record on Canada's stronger environmental standards for oil and gas and that Canada is a long-time environmental leader in responsible energy development.

The Prime Minister failed to make the case for KXL to American decision-makers then and now, and he failed to support TransCanada in the courts, in the States or through the NAFTA dispute resolution mechanism at all times in between. Of course this is all easy and obvious to understand. The Prime Minister just does not actually want this pipeline to be built. He said himself that he wants to phase out the oil sands. He has blocked pipelines and targeted Canadian oil and gas with harmful policies repeatedly. His inaction on KXL in 2015 and now in 2021 just proves the point.

What is blindingly clear, and Conservatives have been warning about this for some time, is that Canada must urgently get new export pipelines to new markets beyond the United States.

The brutal reality is that if the Liberals had not vetoed the northern gateway pipeline, deliberately killing thousands of jobs, dozens of benefit agreements with indigenous communities and the only stand-alone option for export to the Asia-Pacific for Canada, and if the Liberals had not intervened politically to kill the only private sector west-to-east pipeline proposal that could have secured Canadian energy independence while reaching European markets with double standards, last-minute regulatory changes and hurdles, Canada would actually have two new export pipelines to markets other than the U.S. right now. However, the Liberals killed both of them, so now the Canadian Minister of Natural Resources, the very minister who should be pushing for this project the most, said that we must simply “respect the decision”, and Canada's ambassador to the U.S. says everyone should move on.

Conservatives have backed Keystone XL every single step of the way. The independent National Energy Board and the Conservative government approved Keystone XL in 2010, and in 2012 the former Conservative government launched a major multi-year lobbying effort that successfully secured the support of the majority of U.S. lawmakers. After the Liberals were in government in 2016, the Conservatives called on them to support TransCanada's NAFTA appeal of a Keystone XL veto, but the Liberals were MIA. The previous administration made a common sense, fact-based decision, put economic best interests, the Canada-U.S. partnership and the standard of living and energy security of North Americans ahead of anti-energy ideology and short-sighted activism by reversing the previous veto.

Now here we are, back where we were in 2016 because the Liberal government will not actually fight for pipelines. That should be an important point to the whole country, because the lack of capacity to bring Canadian oil and gas to more international markets is a national economic crisis. The discount on Canadian oil cost Canada hundreds of thousands of jobs in the energy and manufacturing sectors. It is decreasing the value of Canada's financial markets and depriving federal, provincial, territorial and indigenous governments of billions of dollars in lost revenue long into the future, but that is the consequence of the Liberals' decision to kill new Canadian pipelines to export markets, and the real travesty is that they did it while the U.S. ramped up its own domestic production and removed its own ban on exporting American crude oil in its own interests. The Liberals have failed completely to secure Canada's own interests. The U.S. is both Canada's biggest oil and gas competitor as an exporter and Canada's biggest customer for oil and gas, and Canada's energy remains landlocked and captive to U.S. purchasers.

The government also stalled the Trans Mountain expansion by extending the regulatory process and by failing in its own process of indigenous consultation. TMX was supposed to be operational by December 2019. Now TMX is not estimated for completion until December 2022, and at least $12.6 billion in Canadian tax dollars have been spent when the private sector proponent only really needed legal and political certainty to proceed. Unfortunately, the reality is that TMX will not even address Canada's market diversification issues, because while the marginal part of its shipments will go to the Asia-Pacific, the vast majority will go to the existing American refinery network.

The tanker ban, Bill C-48, now law, prevents the potential of pipeline infrastructure for export to the Asia-Pacific as the Liberals designed it to do, and as the private sector economist policy experts and Conservatives warned, the Liberals' no-more-pipelines bill, Bill C-69, which is now law, will guarantee that no new pipelines will get proposed or manage to get approved in Canada in the future.

Of course, another urgent concern is that Michigan's governor is considering shutting down Line 5. Since the Prime Minister does not care about what happens to Alberta, let us hope that he figures out the risk in a hurry and cares about what it would mean for Ontario, because Sarnia's mayor said the city is set to lose 5,000 jobs and cannot risk losing one single job. Six refineries in Ontario and the U.S. Midwest rely on Line 5, and it also supplies all of the fuel to the Pearson airport.

Scott Archer, the president of UA local 663 in Sarnia, said shutting down Line 5 “would entirely cripple the economy of this region.” While anti-energy activists celebrate the shutdown of these pipelines, the Americans are laughing all the way to the bank, because while our Prime Minister and the Liberals were busy blocking energy infrastructure in Canada, the U.S. was on track to become energy independent.

The U.S., of course, has rapidly become self-sufficient while also leading the world as the largest oil exporter, but that is because these decisions are not about the environment; they are based on competition and business interests. The Liberals fell for it, and all Canadians have lost as a result. Make no mistake: I do not begrudge the Americans for securing their own energy supply. I am just profoundly angry and mind-boggled that the Canadian government did not do the same in Canada's best interest.

Meanwhile, major parts of Canada remain dependent on foreign oil from countries with nowhere near the environmental social governance, regulatory or labour standards, or performance of Canada. As a result of our Prime Minister's actions and inaction, in turn Canadians everywhere lose.

If the Prime Minister cares about national unity and about securing Canada's own economic best interests in every region and every province of the country, he will reverse his destructive direction over the last five years and stand up for Canada for once.

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Leader of the Opposition]

moved:

That this House do now adjourn.

Madam Speaker, I am privileged to be joined by my colleagues here tonight, those who we can have in the chamber. I will be dividing my time with the Conservative shadow minister for natural resources, the member of Parliament for Calgary Centre.

I am here today for thousands of Canadian oil and gas workers, thousands of Canadian families that are affected by the decision of the new U.S. administration, thousands of Canadians who work hard for their families. They are losing their jobs as a result of the first decision by the new U.S. President at a time when thousands have already lost their jobs in this pandemic.

I am here today for the five first nations in Alberta and Saskatchewan that are seeing their equity investment in the Keystone XL project evaporate because of the inaction of the government. These first nations are seeing their plans for their youth and citizens evaporate because of inaction by the government.

I am here for Canadians from coast to coast to coast who rely on our world-class energy sector to provide for their families, manufacturers, subcontractors, food providers, hard-working men and women who are being abandoned in the midst of a pandemic.

Canada has been dealt a serious blow with the cancellation of the Keystone XL pipeline extension. Thousands of Canadians have just been laid off. Thousands more are counting on even serious upset. Thousands of Canadians have just been laid off. They were counting on employment opportunities at a time when our country is already shaken to its foundations from an economic crisis related to COVID-19. They are now being laid off when Canada is already suffering from some of the highest rates of unemployment in the G20 as a result of the COVID-19 crisis. The province of Alberta is already suffering from other misguided policies of the government, whether Bill C-69 or others, that have already had tens of thousands of people out of work, that have empty office towers in Calgary. These are Canadians, thousands of them, being totally forgotten and left behind by the government.

The cancellation of Keystone XL means that companies are going to leave Canada, but most of all it means the loss of thousands of jobs across the country. It means that families will have trouble making ends meet. They are the ones that I am talking to in this emergency debate.

We are in the middle of the greatest economic crisis we have faced in modern times as a nation. It is essential that we get every Canadian back to work in every sector, in every corner of the country and as quickly as we can.

The government is afraid to have a budget because it does not want to show Canadians the incredible economic challenges the country has. We need to pull together, the people in the west, in the east, in Quebec and Ontario. We must value the ability for us to work together to recover from this COVID-19 crisis and, therefore, we need our energy sector to be successful. That is why Conservatives have been pushing so hard for months for the government to develop a clear plan for our economic rebuilding and our vaccine rollout.

The government spent months on a CanSino Chinese vaccine debacle when it should have been preparing the regulatory process and negotiating with companies like Pfizer, Moderna and others to manufacture in Canada or to secure a stable supply. This week, with thousands of cases daily across the country, Canada is one of the few countries in the world to receive zero vaccines.

However, if there is one area that this decision leads to a catastrophic failure of confidence, it is the disdainful way that the Prime Minister has attacked our energy industry for the past five years, beginning with his first trip abroad when the Prime Minister of Canada mocked an entire sector of our economy, a sector that has provided so much to Canadians, to our way of life, to our prosperity. He said that the last prime minister talked about resources. He said that Canada was more than resources, that we were resourceful now, with one word, swiping away tens of thousands of jobs, thousands of examples of innovation, productivity and technology that is world-leading, a prime minister who is not proud of our industries because he does not understand them.

In fact, this is the second time the Prime Minister has failed to make the case for Keystone XL under two separate U.S. administrations. Every time the Liberal government has a chance to promote Canadian energy, it sides with activists over science. It sides with foreign protesters over first nations that are invested in the project. It sides with trendy slogans over smart policies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Hard-working Canadians in all corners of the country deserve better than a prime minister who does not understand them let alone one who looks down on them, as the Prime Minister has on many occasions. We need the federal government, particularly now in a crisis, to stand up for workers in every corner of the country. Jobs for Canadians are the only way we will secure our future and rebuild our economy, which has been ravaged by this pandemic. The Liberal government should have done more for our world-class energy sector than its record of indifference and incompetence.

For Canadians who are watching this debate, particularly in Alberta and Saskatchewan, the Prime Minister has once again let them down.

When we have a government that attacks the natural resources industry, we have a government that is hurting all Canadians. Canadians across the country all benefit from spinoffs from the natural resources industry. Those spinoffs help us to pay for our hospitals, our universities and the protection of our environment.

The energy sector is also the biggest partner in the development of the regions of Canada when it works with first nations. Five first nations placed their hopes in the Keystone XL project. Canadians deserve better.

Canada needs a prime minister who will respect hard-working Canadian families and work hard to secure opportunities for all of them. We deserve a prime minister who understands hard work and what it means to get his or her hands dirty to provide for his or her family. We deserve a prime minister who will champion Canadian energy as the most ethical, environmentally conscious and most socially responsible in the world. The world is looking for investments with strong environmental and social governance, or ESG. Canadian resources offer ESGI, environmental and social governance with indigenous partnerships and participation. Canadians should be immensely proud of that. The Liberals' failure on Keystone will be felt in our country for years to come.

Let us add to the list: job-killing policies like Bill C-69, the carbon tax, tanker bans, illegal rail blockades and endless regulations. That has led to $160 billion of capital leaving Canada. Those investments mean jobs. How can we convince the world to invest in Canada when the government is not even proud of what we do in Canada?

Instead of reimagining the economy, as the Prime Minister wants to do in the middle of a pandemic, he should stop reimagining millions of Canadians without jobs, because that is what his policies are leading to. Indigenous communities on both sides of the border were planning their futures based on projects like this. Chief Alvin Francis said that this would “create intergenerational jobs and benefits.”

I will end as I started. Tonight the Conservatives are here for working families from coast to coast to coast that need opportunities, inspiration and hope that we can have jobs and get our country moving.

Broadcasting Act

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Madam Speaker, to the latter point by the hon. member, we have seen that a lot of the legislation introduced in this place really has had that power consolidated through the executive branch of government. I look to some of the environmental bills that we have dealt with in the past, such as Bill C-48 and Bill C-69, for example, where the minister has the ultimate say. The power is not distributed among Parliament or even within the government, but within the executive branch. I am not surprised by that assertion, quite frankly, given the history of this government.

Secondly, the example in P.E.I. speaks to the insatiable appetite that people have for news, not just national or international news, but local news as well. It is not surprising to me when people push back as they did in P.E.I. They are seeking the truth as well.

Natural Resources

[Matt Jeneroux, Conservative, Edmonton Riverbend, AB]

Madam Speaker, since I came here in 2015, the government has waged a full-fledged attack on my home province of Alberta. It began with flippant statements by the Prime Minister even before he was elected as the Prime Minister. I remember when he forgot to mention Alberta on Canada Day. There is the carbon tax, Bill C-48 and Bill C-69. These are all attacks on Alberta.

We are now seeing the new clean fuel standard, which is once again a full-fledged, frontal attack by the Liberals on what the energy sector is all about. I have some statistics: 30,000 jobs nationally and approximately 20 billion dollars' worth of capital will leave Canada if we put in the clean fuel standard.

Yesterday at committee, I had the opportunity to ask the minister about the CFS. He told me not to worry, as the government is diversifying the economy, and that Alberta should be thankful for the new standard being put in place. Nothing could be further from the truth.

About a month ago, Alberta released a brand new recycling hub idea to recycle plastics in the province. Not even 24 hours later, the government labelled plastic a toxic substance. What will that do to the energy sector and Alberta as a whole? It attacks the workers and the jobs in that sector. At the end of the day, vehicles are largely made of plastic, as are the pipes that go into the ground. This is yet another unfortunate piling on by the government.

We have seen the government add red tape and cause constant delays in approval processes. When I got here in 2015, I could not have imagined the extent to which the current government, the Prime Minister and the ministers have gone on to attack my province.

Thankfully, we were able to change the provincial government. Unfortunately, we had a Notley NDP government there for a full four years, which added more burden to the energy sector. We still have yet to get rid of the federal government.

Issues have now been going on for five years. Why does the government continually insist on implementing policies that hurt Albertans?

Employment

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the 591 families do not want CERB, they want jobs. Four jobs are created in Regina for every one job at Evraz. This is devastating for Regina’s local economy and is a direct result of anti-energy bills, Bill C-48 and Bill C-69, and the Liberals’ ever-increasing carbon tax.

These layoffs are not an unintended consequence. They are a desired outcome. The Prime Minister promised to phase out our energy sector, and apparently this is the one promise he intends to keep.

When will the government stop attacking western Canadian families?