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.

Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply

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

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to once again rise in this House to represent the good people of Sturgeon River—Parkland.

The past six months have been a time of tremendous trial for my constituents and all Canadians. Loved ones have been lost, families have been separated, businesses have shut down permanently and our government has failed to provide a clear plan for a way forward for this country.

Alberta and the other western provinces were hurting before this pandemic. Hundreds of thousands of jobs have been lost, including in my constituency. The Liberals have refused to sign off on new resource projects, costing thousands of jobs and billions in investments. Their infrastructure bank and infrastructure minister have failed to deliver billions of dollars in investments, costing our communities and many more thousands of jobs. Just the other day, Alberta was hurt again with the announcement that Suncor will be laying off thousands of workers, along with TC Energy.

Canadians pulled together to get us through the first wave of COVID-19. We endured lockdowns in the spring that cost hundreds of thousands of jobs and closed tens of thousands of businesses. Yes, we saved lives, but what did the Liberal government do with the sacrifice of Canadians? It dithered.

While our government could have spent the summer procuring rapid testing or planning for an economic recovery, it focused all its energy on shutting down an investigation into its own ethical failures. We have yet to receive the full details of the WE Charity scandal created by the Liberal Prime Minister, and if the Liberals had it their way, Canadians would never know the full truth. That is why we are here today, not even a year since the last Speech from the Throne: Instead of governing the nation through this crisis, the Liberals chose to play political games, prorogue Parliament and shut down any committee investigations into their wrongdoing.

Our Conservative team will not relent. We will hold the Liberal government accountable for its ethical failures. I know that on this side of the House, we are looking forward to sunny ways and sunny days indeed. While many Canadians may be dealing with a COVID pandemic, the government is dealing with an ethical sickness. The Prime Minister has been fond of telling the opposition that sunlight is the best disinfectant, and we have heard him loud and clear. We will be taking his advice and prescribing a full dosage.

There is a pandemic, and everyone out west is talking about it, but it is not COVID-19; it is the joblessness pandemic. It is a disease that has been with us for years before COVID-19 hit us. Unfortunately, rather than working tirelessly to save our struggling energy industry and the western economies, the Liberals looked eager to dance on our graves and declare our economy bust.

Why else would nearly every decision since their election in 2015 appear to be targeted toward undermining our jobs and energy industry, whether it be the pipeline-killing Bill C-69, their carbon tax or now their mega carbon tax that is masquerading as a clean fuel standard? Why is it that whenever western MPs stand up for their constituents, they are accused of only playing to regional interests? Whenever our auto sector or aerospace sector is threatened, all Canadian MPs are called together to stand up to save jobs, yet we hear nothing when our energy sector is suffering.

Alberta was proud to support fellow Canadians in the 2008 financial crisis. We carried this country's economy when the federal government had to bail out an American auto company. We were proud to support our brothers and sisters in Newfoundland and Labrador when their offshore industry was suffering. When the Atlantic economy was struggling, it was the cheques sent home by Atlantic workers working in the Alberta oil patch that kept families going.

Today, Albertans are struggling and Saskatchewan is struggling. The west is struggling. The engine of Canada's economy is facing record unemployment. Where is our federal government to lend us a hand? We have shovel-ready projects that will create tens of thousands of jobs. We do not even need a bailout from taxpayers; we just need the Liberal government to get out of the way.

The Nova Gas Transmission line, which has been waiting for nearly a year for federal approval, would create 5,500 jobs. It is the next generation of polypropylene production in the Alberta industrial heartland. At least 2,500 jobs are on the line, yet the Liberals are pushing forward with their antiplastic manufacturing agenda. With the Liberal mega carbon tax at an estimated $350 a tonne, major players that produce fertilizer to feed our farms and produce fuel to heat our homes are at risk of packing up and moving south of the border. Western Canadians do not need a minister of the middle class and those working hard to join it; we need a minister of the middle class and those working hard just to survive and stay middle class.

The Liberals are promising Canadians a lot of goodies in the throne speech, but nothing that has been promised has not been promised before by the Liberal government. The Liberals will say that this time is different, that they are working with the NDP, which holds the balance of power. We have heard this story before. I have a word of caution to my colleagues in the NDP. They can learn a lot from the B.C. Green Party or the Liberal Democrats in the U.K.: Things never really work out for the junior partner.

The throne speech should be praised for its commitment to recycling. By that I mean recycling old Liberal talking points. The Liberals have promised universal pharmacare and a universal day care system. They have promised universal broadband as well. Yet, they have been in power for five years and have failed to deliver for rural communities.

All of this is happening while the Liberals continue to plow forward with the greatest expansion of government spending and debt financing in modern Canadian history. This is over $400 billion in federal deficit, not counting the hundreds of billions taken out by arm's-length Crown corporations such as the Bank of Canada, BDC, EDC and the CMHC. This is hundreds of billions off the government's books, but hundreds of billions that Canadian taxpayers will still have to pay for if things go bust.

How exactly are the Liberals going to finance this new pandemic debt, while also launching the most radical expansion of the Canadian welfare state in a generation? It is with low interest rates, cries the Prime Minister. We can afford everything, as if we can sustain low interest rates for decades on end without the consequences of massive inflation: inflation that will erode the savings of our vulnerable seniors, inflation that will risk the opportunity for millennials and those in generation Z to buy their first home and inflation that will devalue the hard-earned wages of the working class for the benefit of big business and debt holders.

If the government chooses not to go down that disastrous path, we are left with two alternatives: They will increase taxes to finance this new spending or they will cut spending in other areas to reallocate to these new promises.

Will the Liberals be cutting the child care benefit and child care expenses tax deduction for families so they can pay for their new national day care system? Will families be denied the choice of whether to stay home with their young children or send them to day care? When the Liberals remove the Canada child benefit and tax deductions, that is exactly what they are doing. They are removing choice from parents who want to raise their children at home.

How will the government pay for this new universal pharmacare system? Will they cut health transfers like the Liberals did back in the 1990s? Will they refuse to allow new life-saving drugs like Trikafta, which miraculously saved the lives of those with cystic fibrosis?

If they do not cut spending, they will have to raise taxes. The throne speech talks a bit about this. It talks about raising taxes on digital giants and closing stock loopholes. This is not necessarily something I disagree with, but will these new taxes generate the tens of billions in new dollars that will finance universal day care and universal pharmacare? The fact is that they will not.

We are left with few alternatives. Will the Liberals raise the GST that the Conservatives lowered from 7% to 5%? Will they raise personal income taxes or capital gains taxes? Are they going to raise corporation taxes and risk capital and investment being taken to our neighbour to the south, a low-tax jurisdiction?

It is time for the Liberals to be honest with Canadians about their fiscal plan. Canadians deserve that honesty. Will the Liberals allow mass inflation to destroy the middle class? Will they raise taxes on Canadian families? Will they cut spending and benefits? Will it be a combination of all three? Canadians deserve a real answer.

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

Madam Speaker, the Prime Minister and the Liberal government have framed the Speech from the Throne as a necessary and updated vision for the country. Before I address the speech directly, it is important for Canadians to remember that we are debating a new Speech from the Throne because the Prime Minister prorogued Parliament for six weeks to avoid accountability. All of the committees that are investing his WE scandal were shut down, and that was the point.

With a new session of Parliament, the Prime Minister is hoping that all 7,000 of his fluffy but empty words in the throne speech will distract Canadians from his corruption and the WE scandal. I believe that Canadians are a lot smarter than the Liberals give them credit for. This necessary reset, as the government prefers to frame it, was supposedly required to respond to new realities exposed by the pandemic. In actuality, Parliament was perfectly capable of responding to the pandemic prior to prorogation and the Liberals only wasted valuable time.

The Conservatives will continue to hold the Prime Minister and the government accountable, and we will keep fighting for the answers that Canadians deserve.

To respond to the details of the throne speech, I note the government has tried to sell the throne speech as a bold and ambitious vision for Canada. However, the speech has completely missed the mark and is only more proof of the government's reckless economic policy and poor grasp of Canada's economic strengths.

The government has signalled that it will be taking on more debt but has yet to provide a fiscal framework. We have no idea of how the Liberals plan to pay it all back. The government does not seem to understand that debt incurred by the government is debt incurred by everyday taxpaying Canadians. These are people like our grocery store clerks, our nurses, our teachers and so on. Without a fiscal framework, how can we be assured that our children and the future generations of Canadians are not going to be overwhelmed by the government's debt?

The throne speech claims that the government is “guided by values of sustainability and [fiscal] prudence”, but the absence of a fiscal framework thus far proves otherwise. We have a government spending recklessly without a fiscal plan as Canadians navigate the challenges of a global pandemic. The Liberals are racking up a credit card without telling Canadians how or when it will all be paid back.

At the same time, the throne speech reveals a flawed plan for economic recovery. Canada is at a major crossroads in its development. There are some very clear choices that confront us right now. These choices are even more important in light of the economic crisis brought on by the COVID-19 shutdown. The government has chosen to effectively shut down our economy by restricting resource development and exports, with economic policies like carbon taxes, Bill C-69, which restricts new pipelines from being built, and Bill C-48, which is preventing exports of crude off the west coast, and generally discouraging investment in Canada's resources.

Exports are the lifeblood of the Canadian economy. In 2018, 56% of Canada's exported goods were directly from our resource industries. The government seems to think that it can replace these core industries with pixie dust. Despite expressing a commitment to economic recovery, the government has continued to neglect and even hinder resource development in this country during a time when we need these resources the most.

It has been akin to a hockey team benching its all-star players while trying to come back from being down six goals. These industries drive our economy, provide the jobs that Canadians depend on and provide the government revenues that keep our health care and education systems alive. These industries have made Canada the great nation that it is today, yet there was zero mention of supporting struggling resource workers. There was just a continued promise to sacrifice their lives by killing their industries with more taxes and regulations, an added double carbon tax hiding as the Canadian fuel standard and more. Do members know what the worst part is? It is that the government is taking the tax dollars paid by hard-working Alberta oil and gas workers and giving those dollars away to subsidized competitive industries that aim to end their existence. That sounds fair, does it not?

There was also a very large issue that the Prime Minister completely skipped in the Liberals' reset: western alienation. These Liberals stand up in the House day after day and completely deny that anyone in western Canada, in particular anyone in Alberta, feels alienated from Ottawa and the central government. I am here to say, as many of my colleagues have previously, that it is real and it is growing. The Liberals stand to say they are giving more money to Alberta than former prime minister Harper did. They accuse us of making up this crisis. We could not create this even if we tried. The alienation of Alberta is caused by the current government's antienergy, antiwest, anti-Alberta far-left policies that are causing this divide.

Albertans have never wanted a handout or to be bought. They just want the government to get out of the way. We want to be allowed to get back to work doing what we do best: extracting minerals and other resources from the ground, adding incredible value to them and selling them to the world. We have amazing resources and opportunities in this country, but the government wants to ignore them until they go away, because resource development does not fit into its ideological framework.

So many people have said this before me, but let me add my voice. Canada's oil and gas producers, miners, farmers and, in fact, everyone who participates in this economy care about the environment. Canada is leading the world when it comes to environmental sustainability. The investment in innovation and clean technology is incredible. I am fortunate enough to live among those who are leading this incredible innovation, which is taking place not just in the oil sands but in all of our extractive industries.

The Prime Minister likes to talk about balance, but he has achieved none of it. When hundreds of thousands are out of work and suicides are skyrocketing, that is an indication that the Liberals do not care about the economy side of this equation. We do not need to pit one region of this beautiful country against the others when we share common goals. A strong economy and environmental protection can go hand in hand, and we have already seen this happening in Canada. I wish that the government would stop listening to the far-left voices that are opposed to all resource development and seek that balance, even though these voices are also at the government's own cabinet table.

We are so blessed to live in a region flush with resources that Canada and the world require to maintain our high standard of living. Hundreds of thousands of people are employed in resource development. These same industries employ a significant number of first nations Canadians, as high as 6% of the oil and gas workforce. More and more first nations are taking ownership positions in large projects. All Canadians have a mutual desire to see these succeed.

Unfortunately, all we have heard from the government is its desire to ban single-use plastics. Where would we be during this pandemic without plastics? In literally every room in a hospital they are crucial. Masks are single-use, as are the gloves that so many people are wearing when they go out.

If the Liberals are truly interested in a team Canada approach in responding to the global pandemic, the government must provide a fiscal plan that ensures fiscal stability for future generations and an economic recovery that does not ignore our country's core strength of resource development. However, it seems the Prime Minister is only interested in racking up the credit card—

[Rosemarie Falk, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I invite the member to come to my riding and tell that to the parents who are trying to put food in the tummies of their children. They are just trying to get ahead. That is all they are trying to do.

He could tell that to the farmers who have to supplement their egg income because of the crappy policies the government has put forward, such as Bill C-69, the carbon tax and Bill C-48, whatever it is. The government is making it more difficult to get their products to market and is taking more money out of their pockets. Farmers have to subsidize their egg income by working in oil and gas because they cannot put food on their tables with what they are receiving in egg income as it is.

Before there are suggestions about allowing investment to free this country, when all our energy investment is leaving and leaving people without work, I invite the member to come and make his comments to my constituents in Battlefords—Lloydminster.

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

Madam Speaker, it is a real honour to rise on behalf of the people of Barrie—Innisfil to speak in reply to the throne speech.

Before I begin, I would very much like to thank all first responders, not just in Barrie—Innisfil but right across the country, those who have been on the front line, health care workers. As a former firefighter in 2003, I recall the SARS crisis and the anxiety that was felt by myself and others who I worked with in the paramedic and police services in dealing with that crisis. That anxiety was heightened by the fact that we did not know if we would get the virus and take it home.

I really appreciate the first responders and front-line health care workers. They deserve our greatest respect.

I also want to thank the administration staff in the House. I know Gaétan is keeping all our desks clean so we do not take the virus back to our ridings.

Six weeks ago, the government prorogued Parliament. At the time, we were at the height of a scandal that was becoming more emboldened as new information became available. The Prime Minister said that the reason why he would prorogue Parliament was to come up with a bold and ambitious new course for the country. I would suggest that the ambition was on the part of the Prime Minister to save his political skin at that time.

Members will recall that the government was becoming more embroiled in the scandal. More information was becoming available. There were more indictments of individuals who were involved. Therefore, the Prime Minister and the government simply decided to prorogue Parliament so they could make it go away. It is not going away.

Let us look at the Prime Minister's bold and ambitious plan. If any of us looked back to the 2015 election platform of the Liberal Party, “Real Change”, we would see that much of what was promised back then was recycled or rehashed in this throne speech. Many of us will recall that at the beginning of the current government, in 2015, Liberals were big on “deliverology”, but we have seen very little in that regard, except for this rehashing and recycling of promises.

At the beginning of this crisis, all of us were working together in a team Canada approach. I said this the other night when I spoke to Bill C-4. Many MPs were on the front lines. We became the front-line voice of the government, because in many cases Service Canada offices were closing. People were calling our offices because they were anxious. The level of anxiety was heightened as a result of the fear, the unknown and the uncertainty of what was going to happen next.

All of us worked together. Many programs that were announced initially became woefully inadequate, and were found to be that. The Canada emergency wage subsidy, for example, started off at 10%. If it was not for the opposition, all opposition parties, and I am sure the government heard about it as well from business, then that wage subsidy would not have been brought up to the level it was.

There were problems with the CERB. People were falling through the gaps. Maternity benefits is an example of where people were falling through the gaps on CERB. It was the same with the CEBA, the Canada emergency business account. A lot of businesses did not qualify for that benefit.

We all parliamentarians worked together to ensure that these programs were in place. Of course, they were meant to be temporary.

Now as we enter into a new wave of COVID-19, clearly we as parliamentarians and the government need to be there to help Canadians. However, we need to be there in recovery as well, not so much as an issue of dependence on the government but to create a recovery plan. What I fail to see in the throne speech is that recovery plan.

What does recovery look like?

We have to ensure the government gets out of the way of recovery and allow the power of the free market, allow the power of Canadian businesses, the people they employ and the products they produce to do that. It comes in every sector of our economy.

The other thing we did not see in the throne speech was any sense of investor confidence in those sectors of our economy that have been decimated as a result of government policy, legislation and regulation.

Clearly the natural resources sector has been impacted as a result of the government. We hear many stories of Alberta being on its knees as a result of the legislation, Bill C-69 and Bill C-48, regulation and taxation policies that have been imposed on the sector. We want to ensure we move from dependence to recovery, and there was very little in the throne speech that spoke to this.

With respect to recovery, the other area we really need to focus on is the issue of rapid testing. I find it curious that just yesterday the government approved a rapid test for which an application had been filed with Health Canada just 24 hours before. It is amazing how rapidly the government and Health Canada will move when there is a tremendous amount of anxiety on the part of Canadians who are standing in line for COVID-19 testing. The fact is that rapid testing has been around in other countries. Twelve countries around the world have approved rapid testing, many of them our allies. We have trade pacts and trade agreements with them. Many rapid tests have been put in front of Health Canada, so why the delay? Why the delay that further causes problems for Canadian families that have to wait in line for testing and then for the results?

Rapid testing is going to become critical for us in our recovery. I was glad to see the rapid test approved, but the government needs to do more to ensure that it is there.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer has said that the longer the spending plan goes on it will become unsustainable: $343 billion in deficits, approaching $1.2 trillion in debt. That is on the expenditure side of the ledger. We will need to ensure that we create revenue to pay for these types of programs. We have to allow the power, as I said earlier, of the Canadian economy to do that through less legislation, less regulation, fewer policies, less taxation and create investor confidence that will provide us with the revenue we need to pay for those programs.

October 1 is a troubling day for many businesses, small and medium-sized enterprises. Rents are due today, yet the commercial emergency rent assistance program that business owners have relied on, though not many of them because it is a deeply flawed program, will cause those business owners problems.

The last thing I want to talk about are veterans. In its boldness and ambitiousness, the one thing that was neglected in the throne speech were veterans. Not one word of veteran was in the throne speech. Earlier this week, we heard from the Parliamentary Budget Officer about case loads approaching 50,000 that had to be adjudicated and they had yet to be processed. That means 50,000 veterans and their families are living with additional anxiety. I would hope the government would announce a plan to help fix that.

Two years ago the NDP suggested a plan to help alleviate some of those backlogs, and we supported it. The government needs to ensure that is fixed. As shadow minister for Veterans Affairs, I will do everything I can to hold the government to account to have those backlogs fixed.

Proceedings on the Bill Entitled an Act Relating to Certain Measures in Response to COVID-19

[Jamie Schmale, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to address this House on C-2. I also want to begin by letting the Speaker know I will be splitting my time with the member for Calgary Midnapore.

As the parliamentary secretary just mentioned, the Prime Minister shut down Parliament for six weeks. He did so because pressure was starting to mount from the WE scandal. Every day new details started to emerge on the Prime Minister's intimate involvement with that $900-million scandal. Canadians, no matter where they are, want to know more details about that scandal. We say that because the Prime Minister has already been found guilty in accepting a paid vacation to a luxury island. He was also found guilty in his involvement of the SNC-Lavalin scandal.

Now, as the parliamentary secretary said a few moments ago, it was the Prime Minister's decision to prorogue Parliament. He just did not shut down debate in this chamber, which was limited to begin with, he shut down the important work of several committees, including our ability to study the COVID-19 recovery.

Just a few weeks ago, the new leader of the official opposition raised that need to quickly restart the committees. That was done on a call to the Prime Minister, but unfortunately, those calls for the committees to be reinstated were rejected. The Standing Committee on Health could be studying the Liberals' ongoing response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Its members should be talking about the need for more rapid testing and why other countries, including many of our G7 partners, have rapid testing available to their constituents.

The Standing Committee on Finance could be preparing a report on the COVID-19 recovery. The Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities could be looking at legislation that transitions Canadians from the CERB to the new employment insurance programs.

We all know a fully functioning Parliament is necessary for Canadian democracy, especially during a crisis like the pandemic, and the Conservative Party of Canada was the only party in this House consistently calling for the full recall of Parliament during that pandemic.

We heard in the parliamentary secretary's remarks that Liberals claim to have the backs of Canadians. Conservatives are the ones consistently calling for Liberals to improve their slew of programs. It was us, as the official opposition, who consistently called for the recall of the House of Commons, not the fake Parliament the Liberals agreed to, which gave opposition members very little time to critique the programs that were being laid out. We all know there was a whole slew of problems with some of those programs, including with the wage subsidy, which started at 10% while countries like Germany were upwards of 70%. It was calls by the opposition that helped move the government to where it was able to better help those small businesses needing help because they were told to shut down and people all across this country were told to stay home.

We have a lot of serious work to do, and I will quickly touch on child care because it falls under my portfolio as the critic. The Minister of Families, Children and Social Development just last week talked about the Liberals' desire to create accessible and inclusive child care spaces right across this country. For anyone in this House, or anyone watching on CPAC or any program, I do not think too many Canadians would put the two together, that the government is very accessible or flexible, for that matter. We all know a large number of Canadians who do not have access to these child care spaces, and in my community there is a waiting list, but there are a lot of people who do not want access and want flexibility in the programs.

This is where the Conservatives' plan comes in. We are talking about giving Canadians more money in their pockets to help lower the cost of those child care spaces or, if a family so chooses, they could then move their child to maybe a parent or grandparent. Maybe someone has set up a small business in their neighbourhood, following all provincial rules and guidelines to make it a safe space for those children to go. This is what we are talking about. We are talking about flexibility.

The government rarely has flexibility in anything it offers. We also know child care is in provincial jurisdiction and we want the provinces, if they so choose to move in that direction, to include flexibility in their programs.

We want to ensure competition within the provinces so that if one province is doing something extremely well, another province that is having trouble could probably take best practices from those jurisdictions and implement them within their own system, which I think allows better quality of care all around, rather than the federal government implementing its own system or imposing rules and regulations on the provinces and territories in exchange for those tax dollars to come back, which takes time too. Coming to these agreements with the provinces takes time. There are people who need the flexibility now to help them. We talked about shift workers. A lot of shift workers are excluded from government child care because the flexibility is not there. However, if they had more money in their pockets and were able to make choices in their lives with a wide variety of options, they might be able to help their case and get back into the workforce quicker.

It seems when we talk about economic recovery, no matter how many restrictions the government imposes on an industry, the solution is always another government program. Let us take the oil and gas industry as an example. It has been unfairly punished by the government, with rules and regulations one after another. One piece of legislation, Bill C-69, the tanker ban bill, comes to mind. Then, in order to make up for its careless decisions, it decided to purchase a pipeline to ensure that project was completed, and a number of other pipelines were scrapped because of the Liberal decisions, including northern gateway, energy east and many others.

We could talk about the expansion of the Billy Bishop airport in downtown Toronto, where an expansion of runway would allow business people the ability to get to their destination a lot quicker, rather than going from downtown to Mississauga, the neighbouring community, to access a plane for a short trip. When the Liberals decided to scrap that plan, Billy Bishop airport was not able to expand. Therefore, Porter Airlines was not able to buy a number of C Series jets, which then caused Bombardier to come into financial hardship. What did the government do? It brought in another government program and decided to bail out Bombardier, yet the dollars that were available for this expansion and the decision to buy these planes came from private dollars. Therefore, we have more government intervention in the marketplace.

We will go back to child care here for a quick second. Spaces are needed now and we talk about what the government had in 1993. It talked about the Red Book and that it was going to come up with a national day care program. That took well over a decade to negotiate. The deal was signed in 2005-06, so people who had a child nearing 1993 had already passed the care age needed. In many cases, depending on where the child was born, he or she might be finished high school. Therefore, the parents who need help immediately have to wait until the government figures out its plan. That is one thing it always asks for, more time and more money. Whether it works or not, whether it wants it or not, it does not really matter, it just needs more time and money. When those plans fail, it comes up with another plan.

When we talk about Parliament being shut down over the pandemic, despite calls from the Conservative Party to reinstate Parliament, we are here dealing with Bill C-2, an act we all know needed to be dealt with immediately. Parliament did not need to be prorogued. We all know why that happened. As I mentioned at the beginning of my speech, it was because the WE documents were coming out. The Prime Minister was going to be implicated in this scandal worth $900 million.

Let us go on to what Bill C-2 is talking about. I know I am running out of time.

Let us talk about a person from my riding, Katherine. She previously ran a home day care as a small business owner. A year ago her family decided to start planning for one more child, and she signed up—

Bill C-4—Proposal to Apply Standing Order 69.1

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

Mr. Speaker, to restate the first part, it is my argument that part 3 of Bill C-4, clauses 10 to 14 in the schedule, is sufficiently different from the remainder of the bill so as to warrant the question at second reading being divided for a separate decision. Again, that is under Standing Order 69.1. While it is true that the state of the whole bill's content is associated with the response to COVID-19, that alone does not qualify as a common element for the purposes of the standing order.

The National Assembly of Quebec has similar procedures regarding omnibus bills, which are instructive. I refer the Chair to Parliamentary Procedure in Québec, third edition, which says at page 400, “The principle or principles contained in a bill must not be confused with the field it concerns. To frame the concept of principle in that way would prevent the division of most bills, because they each apply to a specific field.”

This statement of the National Assembly's practice was endorsed by your immediate predecessor, the hon. member for Halifax West, when he ruled on March 1, 2018, at page 17574 of the Debates:

While their procedure for dividing bills is quite different from ours, the idea of distinguishing the principles of a bill from its field has stayed with me. While each bill is different and so too each case, I believe that Standing Order 69.1 can indeed be applied to a bill where all of the initiatives relate to a specific policy area, if those initiatives are sufficiently distinct to warrant a separate decision of the House.

The importance of distinguishing between principles and a field was articulated by former National Assembly vice-president Fatima Houda-Pepin, on December 11, 2007, at page 2513 of the Journal des débats:

In this case, the bill contains more than one principle. Although the bill deals with road safety, the Chair cannot consider that to be the principle of Bill 42. The principle or principles of a bill should not be confused with the topic to which it pertains. Coming up with a different concept of the notion of principle would disqualify most bills from being subject to a division motion because they deal with a specific topic. In this case, the various means of ensuring road safety included in this bill could constitute distinct principles.

The 2018 ruling in our own House concerned the former Bill C-69, which was an omnibus bill with disastrous consequences for the natural resources sector in Canada. The government had argued that all of its provisions hung together on the principle of environmental protection, but the Chair ruled that the argument was not good enough to avoid dividing the question. In that case, he found there were sufficient distinctions to warrant separate votes.

A similar argument was put forward by the government for the former Bill C-59. It claimed that everything was unified by the principle of national security. As the deputy speaker ruled on June 18, 2018, at page 21196 of the Debates, “while the Chair has no trouble agreeing that all of the measures contained in Bill C- 59 relate to national security, it is the Chair's view that there are distinct initiatives that are sufficiently unrelated as to warrant dividing the question.”

Turning to Bill C-4, parts 1 and 2 concern the establishment of assorted pandemic income replacement benefits for Canadians impacted by COVID-19, together with associated labour law amendments. Part 3, meanwhile, is the government's request to spend over $17 billion on a wide array of measures, bypassing the normal estimates and appropriations procedures of Parliament. One of the considerations the Chair employed in 2018 was to look at how integrated the different provisions of the impugned bill were. In the case of Bill C-69, for example, two parts that were extensively linked with many cross-references were held to have a sufficiently common element between them. However, another part was, despite the presence of some cross-references, found to be not so deeply intertwined as to make a division impossible.

In the present case, part 3 of Bill C-4 appears to have absolutely no cross-references or drafting links to the remainder of the bill. It was simply grafted on. The various components of the bill that are part of the response to COVID-19 are really about the only thing which could even link them together. In fact, I would argue that the long title of the bill itself gives away the fact that the link is tenuous: “An Act relating to certain measures in response to COVID-19”. If there were any stronger connection among these assorted provisions, a more descriptive long title would have been possible.

Before concluding, I will offer a couple of comments of the circumstances particular to the present case.

First, I recognize that time is of the essence in reaching a ruling, because the House is currently seized with government Motion No. 1, which would ram Bill C-4 through the House with barely any debate at all. In fact, it is possible that members are on track to be called upon to vote on the bill late tomorrow night. As noted by the Speaker's immediate predecessor's ruling of November 7, 2017, at page 15116 of the Debates, points of order calling for the exercise of Standing Order 69.1 must be raised promptly. I am rising on this matter on the same afternoon the bill was introduced. To do so earlier would, frankly, have been impossible.

Second, should the House adopt government Motion No. 1, there is nothing in the motion that, in my view, would change the application of Standing Order 69.1 to Bill C-4. The wording of paragraph (b) of the motion refers to voting on “all questions necessary to dispose of the second reading stage of the bill”. This language certainly contemplates multiple votes at the second reading stage and, of course, would be undisturbed by the amendment proposed by the hon. House Leader of the Official Opposition. Moreover, the chapeau of the motion does not make any provision for it to operate notwithstanding any standing order, let alone that it would operate notwithstanding Standing Order 69.1.

In conclusion, it is my respectful submission that Bill C-4 is an omnibus bill and that under the provisions of the standing order, its part 3 should be separated out for a separate vote at the second reading stage.

Natural Resources

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Madam Speaker, the government's throne speech rehashed old Liberal promises without even mentioning oil and gas workers or pipelines.

The natural resource sector lost 43,000 jobs in the last quarter alone. Western Canadians have been hard hit by the economic calamity that began under the government long before the pandemic, Bill C-69 and Bill C-48. The Prime Minister is divisive, just like his father.

Why will the government not show it cares about national unity and a real economic recovery by supporting our oil and gas workers?

Government Business No. 10

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it has become clear that the Liberals are using the pandemic to shut down accountability and transparency, potentially to usher in big government dependency, while targeted support is not actually getting to Canadians who desperately need it.

In over five years, no province has borne the brunt of the Liberals' divisive, anti-business, anti-energy, anti-resource policies more than Alberta. The Liberals outright campaigned against Albertans and the oil and gas in 2019. Now the government is using COVID-19 to finish what it started, the destruction of Canadian oil and gas. What is crazy is that the finance minister and the natural resources minister keep acknowledging how bad it is for Canadian oil and gas now that the OPEC cartel has dropped prices, disproportionately harming Canadian energy. While demand has declined due to the pandemic, with no plan to go forward for Canadian energy, and the programs they have promised to help are complete failures, Albertans can be forgiven for concluding that the lack of support is by design or intentional.

Eighty-five days after the finance minister promised help in “hours or days”, the specific help for small and medium-sized oil and gas companies has never actually happened, but just got merged into a generic mid-sized loan program. However, a medium-sized company needs $100 million in annual revenue to qualify for the program. I guess the Liberals have a different definition of a medium-sized business than the rest of us do, or are completely oblivious to the damage in the sector so far. Even if a company does qualify, the interest rate is higher than that of the banks.

The large employer program has interest rates that rise to 15% by year five, which are payday loan rates, not emergency assistance. Furthermore, the small business loan amounts are too small for oil and gas suppliers, and when drillers face one or two years of zero revenue, short-term and fixed loans are really of no use.

The $1.7 billion for orphaned wells is a drop in the bucket meant to create 5,000 jobs for a sector that has lost more than 200,000 jobs since 2015 and 20,000 since the pandemic started, with no end in sight. Orphaned wells have increased by 300% since 2015, precisely because of Liberal policies that have bankrupted operators.

The Liberals put the big banks in charge of applying for most of the BDC and EDC COVID programs, but banks are refusing because of the risk-sharing provisions, or to avoid doing work with a program from which they will not profit.

The reality is that Liberal ministers have been told all of this directly, repeatedly, privately and publicly, so their lack of action seems intentional and malicious. These Liberals are either oblivious or do not care about the damage they are doing to the fabric of our country, giving billions of Canadian tax dollars to their elite cronies and entitled, connected buddies, or benefiting Liberal friends or families, while everyday Canadians are struggling.

On a personal note, let me say that it is incredibly sad that as their federal representative, often the first thing I hear my constituents say to me these days is that it is time for Alberta to leave Canada. It is not just that of a vocal minority, but a growing view in Lakeland, and I believe it is my duty to express the scale and scope of that frustration and anger. People are not just talking about the concept, but about the mechanics, which should be particularly troubling given the unprecedented health, fiscal and economic crisis Alberta faces now. I guess it does not make the news because we are from a rural area or the Prairies, which is easy to ignore in Ottawa, but these Liberals have destroyed the faith of many Albertans in the federal government to the extent they have given up on the idea of Canada. That should shake every person in this chamber and everyone listening. It did not happen overnight, but it accumulated after five years of targeted attacks on Lakeland and Alberta, on federal jobs in my riding, on the oil and gas sector, on rural communities, on farmers and farm families. Cutting so many Albertans out of COVID-19 emergency supports is only the latest example.

From day one, the Liberals have gone out of their way to destroy livelihoods in Lakeland and Alberta, ignoring hundreds of thousands of job losses, spikes in bankruptcies, suicides and family breakdowns. They are sacrificing families and the future of their children for ideology and partisan gain.

There is a serious agricultural emergency in Lakeland after an early snow trapped crops in the field last fall. This year's spring harvest was followed by excessive rains that flooded fields, prevented seeding or drowned crops, wiping out farm incomes for a third straight year. Liberal-caused uncertainty in export markets and the pandemic made things even more complicated for all producers. To make matters worse, the Liberals hiked their carbon tax by 50% on April 1, right in the middle of the pandemic, increasing costs for farmers who did manage to get their crops off the field and making literally everything more expensive in every sector of agriculture.

Of course, no industry has endured the single-minded sabotage and vilification of the Liberal government like oil and gas. The Prime Minister tells the world he wants to phase out Canada's most valuable export and largest private sector investor in the economy. The Liberals blocked, delayed and cancelled infrastructure for Canadian oil and gas, not for the benefit of the planet, because Canadian oil and gas is the most socially and environmentally responsible in the world, but in order to burnish the Prime Minister's celebrity status in the global jet-setting United Nations crowd. It makes no sense.

Developing all of Canada's resources and exporting Canadian natural gas will do far more to address global environmental challenges than anything the Liberals have imposed on Canada, and in particular on the prairies.

After the 2019 election, Liberal campaigners admitted they vilified the oil and gas sector. They put their electoral gain ahead of the country. Clearly, the Prime Minister has learned from his father's campaign tactics. As Pierre Trudeau's strategist said when justifying the pillaging of Alberta's earnings, “Screw the West, we'll take the rest.”

Liberal cabinet ministers and Liberal MPs actively campaign against opportunities for Albertans that would benefit all of Canada, such as the Teck Frontier project, and have supported funding pipeline protesters and petitioned against oil and gas projects that would benefit Alberta and all of Canada. It has created an inherent animosity that goes even beyond changing this Prime Minister and this government.

The Liberals and the establishment's ambivalence to the thousands of mom-and-pop oil and gas suppliers shutting down in western Canada in real time, the lack of long-term assistance measures, the domino effect for financial support for producers to get drilling started again have been heard loud and clear in Lakeland, make no mistake.

For the first time since 1965, Alberta will receive more money from the federal government in 2020 than it sends. For 55 continuous years, wealth generated by Alberta strengthened the rest of Canada. The NEP in the 1980s under Pierre Trudeau took the most, at over $30 billion a year, which has since declined, but since 2005, Alberta contributed more than $20 billion a year than it received, which is more than any other province. Structural changes are needed to make Canada work for Alberta and to level the playing field. It would be good for all of Canada to value all of the regions in our country.

The Liberals are using COVID-19 as a so-called opportunity to re-engineer Canada's economy in ways that will further alienate and impoverish the west, and they are supported by their allies on the left.

Alberta punches above its weight in Canada. It is not an accident of geography or natural resources or demographics. It is not a coincidence. It is because generations of Albertans and Albertans by choice created an advantage by combining hard work, innovation, personal responsibility and free-market principles and policies to create private sector opportunities and a growing economy that attracted the best, the brightest and the youngest from all across Canada and the world to work and raise their families. It is free markets and free enterprise policies that propelled Alberta's economy to create nine out of every 10 new full-time jobs in Canada as recently as 2014 and to be a net contributor to Canada continuously for more than half a century.

The worst damage has always been done by federal intrusions into Alberta's natural resources policy, such as the NEP and now the dismantling of oil and gas through bills like Bill C-69 and Bill C-48, the blocking of pipelines, other regulations and roadblocks, barriers to exploration and to drilling, the carbon tax and now the failure of COVID support programs. Other provinces and regions have similar natural resource assets and opportunities, but they have not taken the same approach. It was the private sector and Alberta's entrepreneurial risk-taking innovation, combined with positive federal and provincial fiscal policies, that unlocked remarkable opportunities in Alberta for all of Canada.

After the 2015 election, in my first words in the House of Commons, I said, “A strong Alberta means a strong Canada.” It is really a tragedy for my riding and for our country that the Liberals have done everything they can to undermine that reality. On election night, the Prime Minister said he heard Alberta and that he would do better. He has not. My constituents are watching everything they built for generations collapse in front of them, and the federal government keeps asking them to sacrifice more by accepting one more review, one more regulation and one more tax. It is suffocating Lakeland, and because of Alberta's outside contribution to Canada, it will suffocate Canada's economic recovery.

The perspective that Canada does not work for Alberta is unfortunately pervasive in Lakeland. As elected representatives, we owe a duty of more than platitudes about our positions on industries, laws and taxes, more than politics for personal and partisan gain. This is obvious to freedom-loving Albertans and Albertans by choice. In Lakeland, it is a self-evident truth that the status quo is neither acceptable nor sustainable.

If anything I have said in the chamber today makes colleagues angry or uncomfortable, I hope it weighs on them. I hope it keeps them up at night, like it does me. I hope they stop enabling and helping the most corrupt, entitled and out-of-touch Prime Minister, who is doing all this damage to our country.

[Bill Bewick]

It's no secret that there's a huge problem with the lack of pipeline access, all of the hurdles that have come up since, and more hurdles that the government is considering putting forward through Bill C-48 and Bill C-69. That does mean that all of our oil prices are discounted at a huge rate, because we have a captive audience down in the U.S. that is our sole purchaser. There's that, and then there's the tech resources issue.

Recently, there's so much uncertainty. Everybody understands that Canada has always taken environmental responsibility very seriously, and the sector takes it very seriously. There just needs to be a clear path and clear goalposts that don't get moved. To get those investors back, we need to have confidence that this time the government won't be changing the goalposts.

[Jonathan Wilkinson, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

As I say, Mr. Chair, there is no exemption. It is a specific process, a regional process within Bill C-69, and I'd be more than happy to ensure that the honourable member has access to the information associated with how that works.

[Jonathan Wilkinson, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

I'm sorry, but the honourable member is simply incorrect. There is no exemption to Bill C-69. This is a regional assessment that was done for the purposes of exploratory drilling off the east coast.

[Jonathan Wilkinson, Liberal, Minister of Environment and Climate Change]

Mr. Chair, I think the honourable member should go back and look at Bill C-69, which improved the environmental process in Canada to ensure that good projects could go ahead and that they were good projects.

There is a provision in there relating to regional assessments, which relates to the offshore in Newfoundland, but it is not an exemption from Bill C-69.

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Grande Prairie—Mackenzie, AB]

Mr. Chair, maybe he'll consider this one.

The Hibernia project was given an exemption to Bill C-69 because of flaws that we identified early when this government was passing that legislation. The exemption was given to ensure that jobs could be saved.

Will that exemption be given to all other provinces that produce energy in this country?

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

Mr. Chair, the economic turmoil in Alberta did not start because of COVID-19 or the decline in oil prices. Since this government took office in 2015, hundreds of thousands of jobs have been lost. Billions of dollars of investment have left the energy industry because of disastrous policies brought in by this Liberal government—policies like Bill C-69, the no-more-pipelines bill; Bill C-48, the tanker ban; and the job-killing carbon tax.

Alberta's energy industry creates thousands of jobs right across Canada and pays for much-needed infrastructure right across the country. Months ago, the Liberals promised support for the energy industry, but Albertans are still waiting.

Alberta's innovation and prosperity are necessary for Canada's economy to recover from this pandemic. It's time for this government to support the energy sector and let it prosper, not strangle it with over-regulation and half-hearted efforts of support.

Why don't the Liberals see that when Alberta prospers, all of Canada prospers?

[Peter Kiss, President and Chief Executive Officer, Morgan Construction and Environmental Ltd.]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good afternoon. I wish to thank the finance committee for inviting me to comment on the federal government's response to COVID-19, particularly around the response to the energy sector.

My name is Peter Kiss. I'm the owner of Morgan Construction, a heavy civil contractor operating throughout western Canada with a focus on the oil sands. I was previously in front of you on February 6 during the pre-budget consultations when I discussed competitive tax rates; differing rules for resources, our resources, which must compete throughout the world; bills C-69 and C-48; indigenous opportunities; and the tech frontier. I spoke of the economic Armageddon that is happening in Alberta. Since then things have gotten worse.

Obviously, our world has changed. My company has laid off 80% of our staff and reduced wages, and our revenues are down 87%, and I consider us fortunate. I have peers and competitors whose revenues are down 100% and the staff is reduced to a skeleton management group. The difference now in the resources sector, and specifically in Alberta, is that COVID started the problem, and a Saudi-Russian coordinated predatory oil price war caused the price to crash, production cuts, and capital spending to cease.

I would like to compliment the federal and provincial governments on their efforts thus far in providing support to families and workers via the CERB and the multitude of other measures put in place. They are certainly helpful in the near term, but when it comes to supporting business and indirectly the workers, we need to re-evaluate.

Businesses need two things only: credit or liquidity and revenue. This should be the focus. This is how people are going to get back to work.

From what we have seen thus far, the Canada emergency benefit, this $2,000 per month grant, while helpful in the beginning, needs to end. Beyond the moral hazard of paying people not to work and creating a society that lives on handouts and subsidies, it is preventing people from going back to work. It is that simple. While the story is anecdotal, workers are choosing to make less and stay at home this summer.

The Canada emergency wage subsidy is a great program. It's putting liquidity into the hands of businesses and is certainly helpful. I don't feel that it's keeping additional people employed, as no business is going to pay employees to sit around and do nothing, even with the subsidy. The greater hazard with this program is that the government artificially reduces input costs, and over the long term in a free market economy, the selling price is reduced. We are seeing this already. Once competitive businesses know how long supports such as the CERB, tax deferral, WCB premium and lease reductions are going to last, the subsidy gets worked into the selling price and creates an artificially low selling price for goods and services. Selling prices are dropping because of subsidies.

While this wage subsidy should continue, it should be extended on a one-month or even less increment, and businesses should not be allowed to plan on receiving it. Therefore, it would get worked out of the price.

EDC and BDC support loans are liquidity measures that have the right intent; however, they are not accessible to those companies that need it. The program needs to be adjusted to increase access and the velocity of capital as the economy opens up. This is when businesses require working capital the most. Companies don't go bankrupt; they run out of cash.

On the large employer emergency financing facility, LEEFF, the entire Canadian energy sector across the prairies and in Newfoundland waited hours, days and then months for sector assistance to be announced. I believe that the LEEFF program is that support and all that is coming.

From what I can tell, industry can't access this capital because of the restrictions surrounding the funds, and it's like it was written by predatory lenders of last resort with the intent of taking over the business. The credit standards are too high. The interest is accelerated over time, which is punitive, and by creating convertible debt, the federal government is looking for a clear path to board seats on E and Ps. This is not what the energy sector or Canada needs.

If we want to recover in this country and pay for all the COVID-related expenses, we need a viable energy sector paying royalties. We need real support now with easily accessible liquidity.

Before the questions, I'll leave you with a couple of thoughts. Stop the handouts. We're over the hump now, and everyone needs to get back to work. Accelerate project approvals. There are enough projects in energy, mining and commercial waiting for federal approval to turn this economy around. Don't start paying sick leave. There are only two groups that are going to pay for this: taxpayers, since there's no such thing as government funding; and businesses. With 10 days of paid sick leave, 10 statutory holidays and two to six weeks of holidays, we are not-so-slowly turning into Europe, but without the historical charm. Layering on more costs for our nation's businesses and taxpayers is not helpful.

Finally, protect Canada's largest industry. Saudi Arabia and Russia started a price crash with predatory pricing and production. If this was steel, aluminum, automobiles, agriculture or aerospace, we would have immediate countervailing duties, but with regard to energy, we are left to twist in the wind. Liquidity problems in the resource sector are a direct result of foreign interference, and now they are buying our assets at a discount. If the federal government wants to help, it can start with protection. Again, we don't want handouts; we need a hand up.

In conclusion, I wish to thank the federal government for inviting me to present today. Please remember this: The social cost of not getting the energy sector and its 850,000 people back to work will be paid with—and I'm not trying to be an alarmist—the destruction of families, alcoholism and drug abuse, social welfare and suicide.

Thank you.