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.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Okay. This may be a precursor to my next question, because I have only two and a half minutes.

The City of Ottawa has called for a regional assessment of radioactive disposal projects in the Ottawa Valley under the Impact Assessment Act, but the request was turned down by the Minister of Environment and Climate Change.

I was hoping the minister would be here to answer this question directly, but since he's not here, for my next questions I'll be asking about why the request for the regional assessment was turned down given—

[Stephen Buffalo]

Thank you for the question. I truly appreciate this discussion on UNDRIP. There are a lot of articles, such as article 3 and article 4, on communities determining their own rights and political will in terms of moving to sustain their culture and their heritage. We obviously support that.

We've found with a lot of these bills that have come forth from the federal government that they've always been one-sided. With regard to Bill C-69, the Impact Assessment Act, a lot of the communities under the Indian Resource Council were not consulted, but yet the act passed. There was the tanker ban as well. A lot of the communities that did support the initiative were not consulted, but the act passed.

In free, prior and informed consent, it is definitely up to the community. I have even asked our good colleague here, Chief Robert Louie, for his opinion on it. It's something that needs to be further discussed as we move toward really having the United Nations declaration as the staple.

Some communities have the process of electing a leader through democracy. We're hearing in the House today how important democracy is. With communities that have their own hereditary leadership, it's up to them to figure that part out as to who decides for the community.

I hope the best for everyone, but at the end of the day, regardless of what happens, this tool of UNDRIP is definitely an opportunity for first nations to get out of poverty. As we all know, we want our own dependency. We want our own sovereignty. I call being under the Indian Act “soft communism”. It doesn't help being told how to spend money and what to do.

Despite some of the issues with regard to climate change and everything like that, trying to find a balance of economic development and protecting the environment is what we should be striving for to get ourselves, as I said, out of poverty. A lot of communities are very fortunate with their geographic location. They are very fortunate to be beside major infrastructure and be part of it. Their communities benefit. But a lot who aren't by a major centre struggle with getting to the hospital, struggle with having clean water and struggle with having proper health care and everything else.

We just hope that in utilizing this sector, in utilizing UNDRIP, we find that balance for not only first nations to benefit but all of Canada.

[Stephen Buffalo, President and Chief Executive Officer, Indian Resource Council Inc.]

Thank you, Chair and committee members, for the opportunity to speak today.

My name is Stephen Buffalo and I'm the president and CEO of the Indian Resource Council of Canada. Our organization represents over 130 first nations that produce or have a direct interest in the oil and gas industry. Our mandate is to advocate for federal policies that will improve and increase economic development opportunities for the first nations and their members.

We also play an oversight role with Indian Oil and Gas Canada, a federal special operating agency, to ensure that they fulfill their legal and fiduciary roles in the management and regulation of oil and gas resources. Right off the bat, I must say that Indian Oil and Gas Canada is doing a very bad job as a regulator and a fiduciary. In that sense, they are one of the major barriers to our economic development and energy development.

Our communities benefit from involvement in oil and gas. The relationship with mainstream industry has not always been perfect, but it's getting better. We are more involved in oil and gas jobs—in reclamation, such as the first nation site rehabilitation program, and in procurement—and in equity participation more than ever. There isn't another industry in the country that has engaged indigenous peoples as meaningfully in terms of scale of own-source revenue as oil and gas, and that's a fact. That's why it's so important to our economic development and self-determination that Canada has a healthy and competitive oil and gas sector.

However, it often feels as if Canada is trying to eliminate the sector, instead of supporting it: the overruns on TMX with indigenous groups wanting to buy it, the cancellation of Keystone XL, the cancellation of northern gateway, the tanker ban, the Impact Assessment Act in Bill C-69, the lack of LNG export capacity and the cancellation of the Teck Frontier mine.

We have lost tens of millions of dollars in royalties in the past decade due to the differential in price between Western Canadian Select and Brent Crude during the COVID-19 pandemic. These have directly harmed our communities, costing first nations millions in lost source revenue. Everyone on this committee knows that no communities can afford that.

The loss of own-source revenues and royalties is one thing, but on top of that, these missed opportunities have cost our people jobs and procurement opportunities that would probably number in the billions. If you look at the dependency of...federal funding under the Indian Act from 2010 to 2015, it rose from 33% to 36%. That has to change.

When you talk about economic development, that's what's important: getting our people well-paying jobs; getting first nations-owned businesses big contracts from trucking to catering to earth moving and reclamation, so they can grow their business and hire more people; and creating opportunities for entrepreneurs.

There's no sector—not solar panel installation, not tourism, not golf courses—that can replace the economic opportunity that oil and gas provides for first nations. The biggest barrier you can eliminate in indigenous economic development is to stop hampering or choking out the oil and gas sector. I note that the government is now considering a cap on emissions which, if not drafted properly, will in practice be a cap on production. Instead, I ask you to promote and encourage our involvement by making sure that first nations have access to the capital we need to be real partners in new projects. I know you've heard from others, and I know you'll hear...but that's an issue.

I am also the chair of the Alberta Indigenous Opportunities Corporation, which was created by the Government of Alberta to address some of the access to the capital challenge I mentioned. We've been able to provide many first nations the capital needed to participate in power plants, carbon capture facilities, pipelines and more. However, at the federal level, some people consider this government-backed loan to indigenous communities to get involved in these things to be a fossil fuel subsidy, which it is not.

If the federal government is truly committed to reconciliation and the principles of UNDRIP, it should be supportive in whatever kind of economic development we want to be a part of, regardless of the industry. The government shouldn't be picking and choosing for us. For our members and many other first nations, the oil and gas sector provides the best opportunity for economic well-being. It doesn't mean that we aren't interested in other sectors, nor that we don't want to be part of the net-zero economy. We can and should strike a balance between economic development and a net-zero economy.

I look forward to your questions. Thank you very much.

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Thank you. That's interesting.

The other side is that if Russian energy was removed completely from world markets, does Canada have the distribution and production means to help fill that gap in order to cut off the Putin regime from those dollars right now? Bill C-69 comes to mind, but there are other areas. I'd be most interested in your thoughts in regard to what our distribution production systems would look like if Russian energy was completely cut off.

[Dr. Andrew Leach, Associate Professor, University of Alberta, As an Individual]

Thank you very much.

Thank you for inviting me today. I'm pleased to be here to speak to you about this very important issue.

Canada will undoubtedly require more stringent policies to meet its commitments, its international and domestic commitments, to reduce emissions. I strongly support and have worked on the implementation of these policies, but with that in mind, I'm not convinced that a regulatory cap on emissions from the oil and gas sector is needed.

A sector-wide declining cap on emissions could represent a financial, technical and constitutional challenge, and lead to less cost-effective emissions reductions attributable to Canadian policies.

The oil and gas sector is Canada's largest emitting sector. Oil and gas production accounted for 191 megatonnes in our last inventory year of 2019, which is just slightly more than the 186 megatonnes that we measured for transportation. Importantly, forecasts show that these emissions are unlikely to decrease meaningfully unless more stringent policies are imposed.

There should be no question that oil and gas production contributes substantially to Canada's emissions. As Professor Keith so eloquently said, the emissions embodied in Canadian hydrocarbon production are a significant source of global emissions. Absent significant decreases in emissions from the oil and gas sector, Canada's goals will become increasingly challenging and eventually, for all intents and purposes, impossible to meet.

When you say something like that, a lot of times people will respond and say that the emissions intensity has been improving. I'd like to point out that this is not consistently true. The average Canadian barrel of oil has become more emissions intensive over the past three decades. The reason for that is simple. More of our barrels are coming from the more emissions-intensive oil sands. More of those oil sands barrels are produced using more emissions-intensive in situ processes. Within individual sectors the stories have been good, but overall there is not as much to sing about as some might have you believe.

The story is slightly better for natural gas, but there we only see a slight long-term decrease in emissions intensity.

What's driving this story? We know that the biggest driver for production and thus for emissions in the oil and gas sector are factors beyond our own borders, like commodity prices. Commodity prices are influenced by everything from technology to global development to the war that we've all been talking about these last few days.

High prices will generally mean more willingness to invest to maintain production in spite of carbon policy changes, but that type of analysis begs the question of whether oil prices, combined with carbon pricing and with a regulatory cap on emissions are going to lead, as Professor Keith said, to sufficient investment to decouple emissions from production.

My belief, like his, is that this is unlikely to happen, perhaps for a slightly different reason. Echoing some recent statements from industry leaders, there's just not enough long-term certainty on the policy side. There are some measures that can close this gap, like tax credits, etc., but a regulatory cap doesn't get you farther towards that goal.

The next thing I'd point out is that, in arguing for the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act before the Supreme Court, the Attorney General argued strongly that economists support carbon pricing because it's the most cost-effective way to reduce emissions. They cited my own testimony before the finance committee of this House to support that claim, so I have to stick with that.

The cost-effectiveness of carbon pricing comes from applying the same price to a whole set of emissions—to as many emissions as you can.

With that in mind, I would ask two questions.

First, would we want more stringent policies applied on some sectors than on others?

Second, even if we did, do we need another mechanism or another policy to do so?

My answer to both of these questions is no.

I say we do not need more stringent policy on one sector than others and we do not need new policies, even if that is what we choose to do. Carbon pricing gives us all the tools we need.

That emissions in one sector are more resilient to carbon pricing is indicative that there is more value there per tonne of carbon emitted, which is what carbon pricing drives our economy towards. The judgments about whether that value will be present in the long term are generally not best made by governments. But, if government chooses to do so, Parliament has the means to ensure that carbon prices are reflective across the investment, production, export and combustion decisions related to hydrocarbons.

The carbon pricing regulation is there. The clean fuel regulations, the Bill C-69 measures and the tax code are all there.

In conclusion, if this proposed oil and gas cap is just an expression of what we expect policies to bring, so be it, but I question the need for and the efficacy of a new regulatory mechanism.

Thank you. I'm sorry for being 10 seconds over.

[Tim McMillan]

It's not the resource, because ours is world class and cost effective. It is the Canadian regulatory process that is not as transparent as we would expect a democracy like Canada to have.

It changed a few years ago with Bill C-69, which made that more difficult, and I think large global investors look at Canada today as a place where it is very difficult to get major infrastructure built, energy infrastructure or otherwise.

[Michael Kram, Conservative, Regina—Wascana, SK]

This has to be quick, because I'm almost out of time.

Three years ago, PDAC made a submission to the Senate committee on energy, the environment and natural resources about Bill C-69, indicating that the numerous costly studies earlier in the process would be a significant burden.

Is that still the position and experience of PDAC?

[Michael Kram, Conservative, Regina—Wascana, SK]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, and thank you to the witnesses for joining us today.

My questions will mostly be for Jeff Killeen and Lisa McDonald of the Prospectors and Developers Association of Canada.

The mining sector is extremely important to my home province of Saskatchewan. There is broad public support for the mining sector. There is considerably less public support for the government's Bill C-69, brought in a few years ago. The Saskatchewan Mining Association has said that a majority of its members did not support the extra regulatory process brought in by Bill C-69.

I'd be curious to hear how the member organizations of PDAC feel about the additional regulations brought in a few years ago by Bill C-69.

Canadian Navigable Waters Act

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-214, An Act to amend the Canadian Navigable Waters Act (lakes and rivers in British Columbia)

Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to introduce my bill. I thank my colleague from Skeena—Bulkley Valley for seconding it.

It is a bill that would restore protection to all the lakes and rivers in my riding that were protected under the Navigable Waters Protection Act, but were stripped of that by the Harper government. The Liberal government promised to fix this, but its half measures in Bill C-69 did not do that.

The bill would restore protection to the Okanagan River, home of one of the greatest success stories of salmon restoration in Canada, the Kettle and Granby rivers that flow through Boundary Country, the Slocan River, one of the most beautiful rivers on the continent, and lakes such as Osoyoos, Skaha and Slocan, as well as Vaseux Lake, one of the first federal bird sanctuaries in the country. All of these waterways and more are at the heart of South Okanagan—West Kootenay and fully deserve the protection they once had.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

Opposition Motion—Housing Supply

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Madam Speaker, I will share my time with the member for Wellington—Halton Hills.

It is always an honour to rise in the House and to speak, especially on the important motion we have before us today, which is our opposition day motion. Before I get started, I would like to give some credit. I am a shameless team promoter. I love this team. I will say it time and again. I want to give credit to the member for Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon for all of the incredible work he did on this file in the last Parliament. In fact, his work was used as the basis for a lot of our platform development. It received accolades from many groups across the country for the great ideas within our platform regarding housing. I wish him the best in the Asia-Pacific development file as he continues on. I also wish the best for the residents of B.C. as they come out of the difficult time they have been going through.

I would also like to recognize the wonderful member of Parliament for Edmonton Riverbend, who gave me the honour of speaking here today. I do not know if members know this, but he is the father of three children, including the beautiful baby Hugh. He knows this issue very well, because he is a family man. I have family who lives in his riding. I have mentioned that to him before. This affects him and his family and everyone in his community, so I am really happy to see him taking the charge on this motion and on the discussion here today.

I held this file under families, children and social development when I served as the shadow minister in that role. With that, I would like to recognize the new member for Fort McMurray—Cold Lake. What a fireball she is. I love that lady. She is a new mother and a strong voice for her constituents and for Albertans. When she got this role, I told her that this file was hard. I will tell members what I saw when I held that role of families, children and social development and housing was still under that file.

I saw government members traipse across the country, announce new housing initiatives, pat themselves on the backs and call it a day. They would make outrageous claims. In fact, the Minister of Housing and Diversity and Inclusion continues to make claims. For example, on November 29 of this year, he said, “Mr. Speaker, every Canadian deserves a safe and affordable place to call home. Since we came into office, we have helped over a million families get the housing they need”. He also said, on December 2, 2021, “We will keep working to make sure every Canadian has an affordable place to call home.”

That is not what I saw in my role at that time. I read the files. I looked around my community and I saw two things. I saw a government destroying my local economy with glee and forcing businesses and residents to vacate buildings, because all the business was gone and all the jobs had been lost. These buildings were being purchased by the government for a song and being turned into subsidized housing, and then the government declared a victory. This is what I saw time and again.

I will repeat that. The government would destroy the economy, force all the businesses to close, take all the good jobs away, purchase the buildings for a song, turn them into subsidized housing and say it had done a great job. It was terrible. There are no winners in that model.

While the government was passing Bill C-69, the no-more-pipelines bill, Bill C-48, the tanker moratorium bill, and the clean fuel standard, jumping, cheering and drinking out of their soggy paper straws, my constituents were suffering. They were wondering whether they could keep their houses or if they would have to move in with their sisters. They wondered how they were going to make rent that month, but the government did not care. Its members would show up on this floor week after week, claiming victory.

The second thing I saw was that all of these government programs the government was claiming victory over were the result of two things: a poor economy and higher taxation.

Every single benefit and every program that I considered, and wondered why Canadians would need, always came back to no jobs or no good jobs. While the government was destroying the economy, killing good jobs and taxing Canadians with one hand, it was handing out a measly little portion of what it had killed and collected with its other hand. What could Canadians do? Could they say no to the small amount that was offered to them? There were no jobs, and certainly no good jobs, to go back to.

I have the best riding in all of Canada. Calgary Midnapore was built on the backs of the generation that fuelled this nation for decades. Communities thrived in lakes and parks that were created by a love of what they did and what it meant for Canada. However, that all started to change six years ago. Jobs became scarce. Businesses went out of province and out of country, and people had to turn to these benefits. They had no choice, and they were grateful because their jobs were gone. I am starting to worry that some people are getting conditioned to believe that they do not deserve any better.

Now, we add affordability and inflation to this mix.

Canadian housing affordability deteriorated for a third consecutive quarter in Q3 of 2021. The mortgage payment on a representative home as a percentage of income rose 1.7 points after a 3.2-point increase in Q2 of 2021. Seasonally adjusted home prices increased 4.6% in Q3 of 2021 from Q2 of 2021, while median household income rose only 0.8%. Affordability deteriorated in all 10 markets covered in Q3. On a sliding scale of markets, from worst deterioration to least, were Vancouver, Victoria, Toronto, Ottawa-Gatineau, Hamilton, Montreal, Calgary, Quebec, Winnipeg and Edmonton. That was the third consecutive quarter with a worsening in all of those markets. Countrywide affordability deteriorated 0.7% in the condo portion, versus a 2.3% deterioration in the non-condo segment. Prices continued a relentless upward trajectory, rising 4.6% in the quarter and 18.6% year on year. That annual figure was the most it has been since 1989, which was before I graduated high school in Calgary Midnapore.

Let us talk about inflation. There is hardly a commodity that has not been touched. Natural gas is up 18.7%. Gasoline is up 41.7%, and I certainly think twice before I decide that it is time to fill my car. Ground beef is up 8.2%. Sausages are up 11.3%. Steak is up 13.6%. I examine the cuts way more thoroughly now before making my choices at the grocery market. Eggs, which are not even a direct meat product, are up 7.4%. Butter, another Canadian staple, is up 5.5%. Syrup is up 11.6%. Coffee is up 3.7%. Chicken is up 8.3%. A year ago I could buy the whole bird, and nothing but the whole bird, for $10. Now it is $14 when I go to the grocery store.

The current government wants to claim victory on this file, but I will not let it. The Liberals destroyed our economy, took away the good jobs and increased taxation, and they want to pat themselves on the back. I will not let them, and neither will Canadians.

Public Services and Procurement

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer—Mountain View, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my riding of Red Deer—Mountain View is now almost fully open, despite the Liberal government's total failure to address the COVID-19 pandemic. We have succeeded because we are Albertans. Not only is Alberta now leading the way when it comes to vaccinations and reopening our economy, but we are poised to lead the way for an economic recovery across Canada providing the Liberal government gets out of the way.

Why does the Liberal government ignore Alberta's leadership role and continually punish it with draconian measures like Bill C-69?

Budget Implementation Act, 2021, No. 1

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Speaker, the member emphasizes the problem. Time and time again, he refuses to acknowledge that there are regions of the country that demand respect in our federation. The Liberal government has refused to do this too, even in various pieces of legislation. I think about Bill C-48, Bill C-69 and even the debate around carbon pricing. The federal government has the ability to impose its will on provinces, but the question that should be asked is whether or not it should. The problem is that we have a Liberal government that refuses to respect anyone who disagrees with any aspect of the way it approaches politics, the legislation it puts forward—

Bill C-10—Time Allocation Motion

[Steven Guilbeault, Liberal, Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Madam Speaker, let us start at the beginning. On November 18, 2020, Bill C-10 had just been introduced when the member for Richmond—Arthabaska said this during oral question period: “There is nothing in it that would regulate social media or platforms like YouTube.” That seems pretty clear to me. The member himself was criticizing the government, saying that Bill C‑10 did not go far enough.

I am somewhat surprised, not to mention amazed, to hear an experienced parliamentarian like the member opposite say that the minister did such and such a thing in committee. I would remind my colleague that the Minister of Canadian Heritage does not sit on the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage. I was invited to testify on several occasions, and I went every time.

The member says that there were 120 amendments and that that means the bill is a mess. That is a great way to try to mislead people, because it is perfectly normal to have many amendments. I could cite Bill C-69, another bill the Conservative Party opposed.

Finally, the member says that he is speaking on behalf of many people. I would like him to say on whose behalf the Conservative Party was speaking when the member for Lethbridge said that artists were a bunch of outdated people living off government handouts. Her comments were widely panned. On whose behalf—

Offshore Health and Safety Act

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

Mr. Speaker, in the interests of getting this important legislation passed so we can get it to the next stage and provide these protections for workers I could give a 20-minute speech, but I will be giving a significantly shorter speech on this.

There is one personal note I want to add. I was texted this morning, after I completed my speech, that my first niece was born today. Her name is Maeve Elizabeth Danielle Penner, and her mom is doing great. We are all very happy and blessed to have this new beautiful baby girl in our family.

I am pleased to rise to speak to Bill S-3, an act to amend the Offshore Health and Safety Act. It is about time this important legislation to protect the safety of workers made its way through the House of Commons.

The Liberal government failed to get this legislation passed in a timely manner, which has put the safety of offshore workers at risk. We debate a lot of important issues in the House, but out of the many pieces of legislation I have seen the government put forward over the past few years, few bills could be more important than ensuring the safety of workers. In this case, we are talking about offshore energy workers.

How did we get to this point? We are now in a situation where important safeguards have been allowed to lapse. These safeguards were put in place by a previous Conservative government over five years ago, but not acted upon by the current Liberal government until it was too late. Thankfully, no one appears to have been harmed by the lack of action on this file, but it remains inexcusable that we have come to this point in the first place.

At the end of last year, the Liberals allowed the existing temporary safety regulations for our offshore oil and gas workers to expire. In effect, this stripped key health and safety protections for these Canadian workers who risk their lives every day to ensure we have the resources to heat our homes and drive our vehicles to work. These workers, in this case primarily from the province of Newfoundland and Labrador, are a pillar that supports the economy of the province and this country.

The province has elected a lot of Liberal MPs. The Minister of Natural Resources comes from the province, yet it appears that little attention has been paid to this important issue.

Most people would not know it, but I had the privilege of working in our onshore energy sector. I donned my personal protective equipment and H2S monitor and went to work in Canada's energy industrial heartland in Edmonton, Alberta. I spent two summers in university working the shutdowns at the Imperial Oil refinery in Strathcona. On site we had plenty of heavy equipment moving around and we did the jobs that needed to be done to ensure the facility could run smoothly, create jobs and support our economy. I remember working the night shift, 12 hours a day, day in and day out, for weeks. I picked up extra hours at the end of each shift and put on a HiVis vest to do traffic control and ensure that the tired workers would not accidentally be run over as they went home from their shifts. I stood watch as skilled workers went deep into systems to ensure that first aid would be readily available for them in case of danger. This was on the land. I can only imagine the dangers faced by those on the east coast who get on a helicopter and head out to platforms far at sea, sometimes in bad weather.

Tragedies from our past demonstrate just how critical it is for these safety regulations to be in place. Canadians were devastated in 1982 by the news of the Ocean Ranger rig and 84 workers who lost their lives when it capsized during a storm, and again in 2009 by news of Cougar Helicopters Flight 491 crashing into the North Atlantic, resulting in the tragic deaths of 17 offshore oil workers. This tragedy led to the Cougar inquiry, the results of which were taken by governments to pass this important legislation. After each of these disasters, there were investigations into their causes and recommendations on how to avert these dangers in the future. I am sure that politicians spoke to the devastated families, promising that never again would this be allowed to happen, yet here we are today debating legislation that should have been passed months, if not years, ago.

It was the previous Conservative government that recognized the very real need for these protections. That is why, in 2014, the government passed safety regulations through the Offshore Health and Safety Act. That is exactly the kind of leadership that we need in this country: We need a government that is proactive and not reactive, and that takes prompt action to protect the safety of our workers.

These temporary regulations were set to expire in 2019. They gave the Liberal government years to implement permanent offshore energy safety regulations. The Liberals had to extend that deadline for another year. They extended those temporary regulations to December 31, 2020. The Liberals had time to get the job done.

For many of those years, they had a majority. The fact is, even now in the current minority government, the Liberals have the political support to get the job done but they have not, until now, and that is inexcusable. It was not days, and it was not the month of the deadline in December, that the Liberal government finally introduced Bill S-3 in the other place. Where was the Liberals' sense of urgency? It really feels like an afterthought, as if the safety of these workers was not of great importance to the government. Why did the Prime Minister, the Minister of Natural Resources and the Liberal government wait until the last minute to do their jobs? An important deadline has been missed. Key protections are missing. The Liberal government dithers. Perhaps if the government had not chosen to prorogue Parliament and waste many additional days of productive debate, we could have had this passed before the deadline. We will never know, but what we do know for sure is that the Liberal government did not care to make this a priority.

I am also disappointed, for another reason, that this legislation was not introduced until last year. It would have been a fitting tribute to Judge Wells from Newfoundland and Labrador, who did so much to advocate for the safety of offshore workers. Sadly, in October 2020, Judge Wells, who headed the Cougar inquiry, passed away at the age of 87. Judge Wells was a former Progressive Conservative cabinet minister provincially, and was a Rhodes scholar. As commissioner, his key contribution to the inquiry was the recommendation that helicopters have 30 minutes or more of run-dry capability. He also recommended founding a full search and rescue base in St. John's. I wish the government had its act together and had passed this legislation in advance of the deadline so that Judge Wells could have seen his legacy put permanently into action. All the same, I want to commend him for his service to our country and to his province. He will be remembered for his commitment to the welfare of offshore energy workers and their families.

The delayed passage of Bill S-3 is just another example of how the current Liberal government has failed to prioritize the needs of the men and women who work in our oil and gas sector. In fact, I noted with some surprise that the minister said the words “one of three oil-producing Canadian provinces”, seemingly unaware that more than three provinces in this country produce oil. If it was not bad enough that the government was failing to get key safety legislation passed by the deadline, it also seems intent on phasing out the livelihoods of these oil and gas workers.

We know that Newfoundland and Labrador relies on the energy sector more than every other province, including Alberta. We know that the future of Newfoundland and Labrador requires a strong offshore oil and gas sector. In fact, it is so important to that province that the word “oil” is mentioned nearly 150 times in the recent Greene report outlining the economic future of Newfoundland and Labrador, yet the Liberal government continues its attack on the oil sector with bills like Bill C-69 and Bill C-48 in the previous Parliament, and by not acting on key legislation like Bill S-3, which we are debating today.

Something close to 147 days have passed since the Liberal delays allowed for the existing legislation to expire. That is 147 days that hard-working offshore oil and gas workers have been left in limbo without protections.

I want to recognize the hard work done by those in the other place in passing Bill S-3 as expediently as possible. Recognizing the urgency of this bill, it is unacceptable that after passing in the Senate so quickly, the bill waited in the lineup to get through the House of Commons' agenda. We knew that members in the House were intent on getting the legislation through quickly at second reading and passed immediately.

I sit on the natural resources committee, and we moved with unprecedented speed to get this bill through. It was one meeting. It is my sincere hope that we can push forward with the debate today, get the bill passed and secure these key protections for our offshore oil and gas workers.

As members of the House, protecting Canadian workers must be a key priority. That is why the Conservatives have been co-operative in working to get this bill passed as quickly as possible. The failure to protect offshore energy workers is unconscionable and must end. It is time that we finally get the job done and secure these protections so these workers can continue going about their jobs safely and so we can ensure the prosperity and future not only of Newfoundland and Labrador but of our nation, Canada.

Budget Implementation Act, 2021, No. 1

[Tim Uppal, Conservative, Edmonton Mill Woods, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the problem is that, even just yesterday, our shadow minister asked the government about its plan, how many jobs it would create and when the budget would be balanced. The government had no answers to any of those questions. The unfortunate thing is that Liberals can call it a plan, but they really do not have the answers to very basic questions.

What we need is a plan to create jobs, especially in Alberta. The Liberals' policies, such as Bill C-69 and Bill C-48, and their overall disregard for the energy sector have hurt investments. Thousands of jobs have left. We need a plan to bring those jobs back. We need to bring investor confidence back, and this budget does none of that.