Bill C-69 (Historical)

An Act to enact the Impact Assessment Act and the Canadian Energy Regulator Act, to amend the Navigation Protection Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts

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

Budget Implementation Act, 2021, No. 1

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

Mr. Speaker, as always, it is an honour to rise in this House on behalf of my constituents of Edmonton Mill Woods.

In the lead-up to this budget, the longest lead-up ever, as we went over two years without a budget, there were dozens of news stories and trial balloons talking about how innovative this budget was going to be. We heard time and again about how this budget would be a stepping stone for the Liberal government to build back better, whatever that means. Instead, at 739 pages and nearly a quarter of a million words, the longest budget in the history of our great country is also the greatest disappointment.

There is no plan to deal with inflation. There is no plan to make the dream of home ownership more attainable for Canadians. There is no plan to create new jobs and economic opportunities for families and young people across this country. Instead, we are left with a budget that says so much, proposes so little, and leaves Canadian jobs, productivity, and economic growth behind.

Let me start by looking at the full picture. In my riding of Edmonton Mill Woods and right across Canada, there are countless families and businesses on the brink of losing everything. The jobs numbers that came out earlier this month revealed that another 207,000 people across Canada had to come home and tell their family and loved ones one of the most difficult things to hear, that they had lost their job.

To be clear, Alberta’s economic problems didn’t just start because of this pandemic. The Liberals' Bill C-69, which many people called the “no more pipelines” bill; Bill C-48, the tanker ban; and general disregard for the energy sector have driven away billions of dollars of investment and, with it, thousands of Canadian jobs. The government has failed to produce a plan for one of Canada’s largest economic sectors, the energy sector.

There are some things in this budget that we and our Conservative team are in favour of. For so many Canadians who continue to struggle throughout this pandemic, the budget does have the extension of emergency programs that our Conservative team supports, measures like the wage subsidy, rent subsidy and other recovery benefits, but there are still issues that remain with some of these programs. My office has heard from so many Canadians. It has heard repeatedly from small businesses that opened just before the pandemic or during the pandemic, which have been left behind by these wage subsidy and rent subsidy programs. When asked about it, the Liberals continue to repeat what everybody already knows, that small businesses are the backbone of our community, yet they continue to do nothing to rectify this issue, leaving many small businesses, and the Canadians employed by them, behind.

One thing that I know would bring jobs to Alberta and to Canadians from coast to coast is pipelines. Our natural resources sector accounts for nearly two million jobs and nearly one-fifth of Canada’s GDP. There are mentions of pipelines in this budget. They talk about a vaccine pipeline, a talent pipeline, an innovation pipeline and a PPE pipeline, but no mention of a pipeline to carry our natural resources. Once again, the Liberal government continues to ignore our energy sector, which will be instrumental in our economic recovery coming out of this pandemic. Instead, we continue to import oil from the likes of Saudi Arabia and Venezuela, where there are much lower environmental standards and horrific human rights records. Talk about a failure.

Perhaps the biggest failure, and the focus of my speech today, is the government’s failure to take inflation seriously. Canada’s inflation rate in April was 0.6%, or roughly 7% on an annualized basis. For the average family in my riding of Edmonton Mill Woods, that means the inflation tax is going to take nearly $6,500 out of their pocket this year. This has been seen right across the board, as Canadian consumer prices are climbing at the fastest pace in a decade. The average family will pay nearly $700 more in groceries this year because of inflation. Everything from meat and vegetables to cereals and bread has increased by about 5%. Gas prices are continuing to increase dramatically. As Bloomberg reported last week, they have increased more than 60% in a year.

Perhaps the most explicit case I can make here is with lumber prices, which have increased by 300% over the last year. As Kevin Lee, the CEO of the Canadian Home Builders' Association, points out, this drastic rise in lumber costs will add tens of thousands of dollars to the average price of a home.

This leads me to another area of failure in this budget, which is the lack of any semblance of a plan to address overwhelming housing affordability issues in Canada, which has pushed the dream of home ownership further out of reach for far too many Canadians. Prices across Canada are skyrocketing, with young families who were saving for their first home at the beginning of this pandemic even further behind than when they started.

This has led to feelings of hopelessness. A poll from the Royal Bank of Canada released last month revealed that 36% of non-homeowners under the age of 40 have given up on ever buying a home and 62% of respondents said they expect the majority of people will be priced out of the market over the next decade.

What is the government doing to address this concern of people being left out of the market? The hallmark of this budget’s efforts on housing affordability is a 1% tax on foreign owners of vacant housing, which will simply be seen as a very minor inconvenience for wealthy foreign investors who have seen their investments appreciate by 42% this past year. This will not solve the problem at all. Instead, the current government should be focused on the root of the problem, which is the shortage of supply right across Canada.

As a recent Scotiabank report points out, Canada has the lowest number of housing units per capita of any G7 country. If Canada set the modest goal of simply catching up to the United States, Canadian builders would have to complete an extra 100,000 homes. To catch up to the U.K., it would require an extra 250,000 homes. To put these gaps in perspective, we have had an average of 188,000 home completions in the last 10 years.

I believe this serves as a perfect microcosm of the government’s philosophy. When it identifies a problem, it does not address the root cause. Instead, it takes a small reactive step, creates a new government agency or program for it, and then dumps millions, if not billions, into it.

The budget introduces another $101 billion in new spending, pushing our debt-to-GDP ratio to over 50% over the next few years. What are we getting out of this increased spending and debt? The budget predicts that the growth rate will slow steadily starting in 2022, all the way down to 1.7% growth in 2025.

As Robert Asselin, the former policy and budget director to Bill Morneau and policy advisor to the Prime Minister, said of this budget, “it is hard to find a coherent growth plan.... [S]pending close to a trillion dollars [and] not moving the needle on…growth would be the worst possible legacy of this budget.” While the budget is entitled, “A Recovery Plan for Jobs, Growth, and Resilience”, there seems to be much concern about whether or not it will deliver on jobs or growth.

The budget has no investments to address the structural problems that have plagued productivity and our ability to compete on the global stage. There is no plan to address the unprecedented level of investment that is fleeing Canada. There is no plan for regulatory and tax reform to help us win on the global stage. There is no comprehensive innovation strategy to ensure Canadian tech start-ups keep their job-creating investments here at home.

This budget is not meant for the growth of the economy. I believe Canadians are looking for hope that things will soon get better and they will still have a bright future to look forward to. They want their jobs and small businesses back. They want their lives and communities back. They want the hope of being able to afford a house. Simply put, they want to return to normal and live the Canadian dream.

This budget fails to deliver. There is no growth plan. It is not meant for the people of Edmonton Mill Woods, Alberta or our future generations. It is a failure. That is why we will not be supporting it.

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

Mr. Speaker, I certainly can. The first thing that we would do is get rid of Bill C-69, which is stopping all opportunities for natural resource development. If we want to have green economies and green jobs, we have to recognize that we have to use the tool we have, which is Canada's oil and gas industry.

As we do that, we will be able to move into some of these other areas that are important to those who care so much about the environment, but we cannot shut down one part of it in order to try to promote a secondary one. From that same position, we know that there are going to be a lot of requirements for rare earth minerals. We have to make sure we get the government out of the way if we think those will be part of our future.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Steven Guilbeault, Liberal, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair and Ms. Dabrusin.

Earlier on in one of her questions, Ms. McPherson said that because the bill had around a hundred amendments, it was a flawed bill. That's a false premise. I know that, just like me, she's a new MP, so we're not used to this. It's not uncommon for bills to have 200 amendments. Going back in the previous Parliament, I can recall Bill C-69, which I followed closely in my previous career, had around 200 amendments. There's nothing extraordinary about that. In fact, a hundred may not be so much after all.

She pointed out that we've heard about experts who have raised concerns. I think just yesterday this committee heard from a number of experts who have actually clearly said that they thought there were no issues regarding freedom of speech. We've heard from a previous director of the CRTC, Janet Yale, and from a law professor from the Université de Montréal, Pierre Trudel.

I could quote this because I don't think it has been done in this committee and I think it is important. It's in French, so I'll switch to French. It's the unanimous resolution from the National Assembly.

The motion recognizes that Bill C-10 “constitutes a significant step in protecting and promoting Quebec culture and..., therefore, [the National Assembly of Quebec] affirms its support for the measures proposed by the bill.”

I think Bill C-10 actually has a lot of support across this country given the benefit it will bring to our artists as well as to the broadcasting ecosystem.

Bill C-10

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

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

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

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

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

[Jonathan Wilkinson, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

The project list was developed as part of what was then called Bill C-69 and is now the Impact Assessment Act. We did an enormous amount of work to look at how you put into place rules that will ensure that projects go through appropriate assessments, that good projects can proceed, and that projects that are more challenging get caught early on in the process.

We don't have any intention right now to revisit the project list, but as you noted, I have the ability to designate projects where there are impacts on federal jurisdiction. Let me be clear: I cannot designate projects where there are impacts on provincial jurisdiction only, but Highway 413 was one and the Vista coal mine was another that I designated recently because of potential impacts on federal jurisdiction.

Leader of the Liberal Party of Canada

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

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

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

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

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

Line 5 Pipeline Shutdown

[James Cumming, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I have talked about the impact to Michigan.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

moved:

That this House do now adjourn.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you very much.

Thank you to all of our witnesses.

One of the things we've been hearing lately from environmental activists and their commentary is so much an anti-oil rhetoric. We forget that our aboriginal voices are out there saying that they need oil and gas, natural resources and jobs, so they have been committed to that. We sometimes forget that this highly skilled workforce that we have has come about because of our commitment to our natural resources sector and the wealth that it has been able to attain for all Canadians.

Again, as we've heard from some of our other witnesses, we may want to talk about mining so that we can become leaders as far as the battery industry is concerned. However, what makes us think that this is going to be easily attained when we have Bill C-69, which is probably one of the biggest barriers for this? Over-regulation.... We heard how it takes months in some countries to get approval, and it drags on for years and years here in Canada.

Obviously, we have a lot that has to be done for us to deal with this. We talk about our ethically sourced coffee, but we don't talk about ethically sourced oil and gas. These are some of the concerns that I have.

Today Bloomberg has just indicated that China's emissions now exceed the emissions of all of the developed world combined, yet we keep talking about how great it will be that China will be on side and that all will be right with the world as far as the environment is concerned.

Mr. McTeague, I wonder if you could tell this committee what the impact of the Liberal government's decision to triple the carbon tax will be on the Canadian economy. Will it help to meet our emissions reduction targets, or will it simply cripple businesses, stifle innovation and make Canada even more uncompetitive on the international stage while doing very little to reduce emissions?