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.

Natural Resources

[Jag Sahota, Conservative, Calgary Skyview, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the Trans Mountain expansion moving forward is helpful, but the Liberals passed Bill C-69, and that means no private sector pipelines will be built or proposed in Canada again.

My constituents in Calgary Skyview are out of work, underemployed and losing hope because these Liberals cancelled northern gateway, killed energy east and delayed the Trans Mountain pipeline for years. One pipeline to global markets is not enough.

Will the Liberals listen to constituents and Canadians and scrap Bill C-69?

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

I read that, from a competitive standpoint, Bill C-48 and Bill C-69 have not helped.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the second petition I wish to present is signed by 26 of my constituents.

The petitioners call upon the federal government to repeal Bill C-48 and Bill C-69. They draw the attention of the House of Commons and the Government of Canada to the amount of pipeline built in the previous government being substantially lower than previous ones. They state that we have lost over 7,000 kilometres of proposed pipeline and well over 125,000 jobs. The petitioners also point out that $100 billion in energy investment has fled the country.

Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement Implementation Act

[Dean Allison, Conservative, Niagara West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am rising today to speak on a subject that I have been involved in, especially in my previous role as the shadow minister for international trade, and also as a passionate supporter of free trade.

I am well acquainted with the benefits of trade with the United States. I represent a southern Ontario riding that is very close to the border. We have many successful companies in Niagara West that do a significant amount of business not only with the United States but also throughout the world. I met personally with those business owners and operators, and their companies are world class and full of potential. They provide communities with excellent jobs and economic development.

These business owners are asking for the certainty that free trade agreements provide. Free trade is essential to our country. One in five Canadian jobs is created as a result of free trade agreements. I also believe that members of the Conservative Party are the strongest supporters of free trade. We really are the party of free trade.

The Canada-Israel Free Trade Agreement, the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement with the European Union, the trans-Pacific partnership, and the Canada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement were largely negotiated by Conservative governments.

Conservatives negotiated these deals to remove tariffs and quotas, and to eliminate non-tariff barriers to trade. Free trade agreements improve transparency, predictability, certainty and fairness to exporters. I believe all members in this chamber would agree that free trade agreements open markets for Canadian businesses, including small to medium-sized enterprises.

This is why it was so concerning when the United States announced that NAFTA would be renegotiated. The uncertainty had a ripple effect through virtually all Canadian industries that do business with American clients and purchasers. Why did the uncertainty cause so much anxiety in our business community? The short answer is that we are very dependent on one another.

Total merchandise trade between Canada and the United States has more than doubled since 1993, and it has grown over ninefold between Canada and Mexico. In fact, 75% of total Canadian exports go to the United States and roughly 3% go to Mexico. All told, the total trilateral merchandise trade, the total of each country's imports from one another, has reached nearly $1.1 trillion U.S.

This is a tremendous amount of business that more than 1.9 million Canadian jobs depend on. The lack of certainty over the status of the renegotiation of NAFTA caused a reduction of business investment, which I think has been well documented, particularly in Canada. Some companies moved to the United States to offset potential losses while also directing their investments to the United States.

I saw the impact of this uncertainty when I did the “defend local jobs” tour from July to September 2018. During that time, I met with over 150 businesses, trade organizations and chambers. In Ontario, I attended round tables and meetings in London, Brantford, Kitchener, Welland, Niagara Falls, Beamsville, Orillia, Windsor and Toronto.

I went to Vancouver, where the BC Chamber of Commerce organized a round table with their members, as well as Kitimat, where I met with LNG Canada. In Alberta I met with business owners in Edmonton, Calgary and Leduc, where I saw first-hand the effects of the government's misguided policies and the anger that these policies were producing.

I did that tour to see first-hand the effects of U.S. steel and aluminum tariffs and to bring those concerns back to Parliament. I also brought back the personal accounts of business owners of how the uncertainty created by the renegotiation of NAFTA was impacting business operations. What I heard at the time was very worrisome. Stakeholders were asking for immediate support in order to prevent job losses or bankruptcy in the medium or even short term. They wanted to see improvements to Canada's business environment to reduce red tape and enhance our competitiveness. I will get back to Canada's competitiveness shortly, because I believe the government has failed terribly on competitiveness.

On the “defend local jobs” tour I learned that businesses at the time had begun to cut orders, reduce shifts and, in some cases, had even laid off workers. The key word was “uncertainty”. Businesses that had been investing in Canada saw the U.S. as a safer bet because they did not know what was going to happen here.

At the time, businesses impacted by the steel and aluminum tariffs had not yet seen any of the $2 billion in support promised by the government, which was extremely slow to roll out. The Liberals were quick to announce relief, but very slow to roll out any support for our businesses and workers.

Since then, this Liberal government has fumbled the NAFTA file several times. It agreed to many concessions in the renegotiations. Most importantly, I have to mention the concessions the Liberals made with respect to our dairy sector that are particularly damaging.

By the way, there is nothing on softwood lumber, as has been mentioned by other speakers, while the forestry workers are really hurting.

I want to be clear. The Conservatives support and want free trade with the United States. It is no secret that NAFTA is the legacy of the Conservative government, but we must carefully look at the legislation first. Rushing it through would not be wise. After all, when it comes to a trade deal with Canada's largest and most important trade partner, we need to do our due diligence.

I say this because the Liberal government failed to work with us during the negotiation and ratification processes and is now rushing to get this legislation through Parliament, which is not giving us much time to do our homework on it. The government has also failed to provide documents outlining the impacts of the new trade deal despite numerous requests from opposition members. The government does not seem to recognize the realities of the new minority government and is mistaken if it believes we will simply rubber-stamp this deal.

I want to reiterate that doing our due diligence is crucial. We want to ensure there are no surprises that could hurt our businesses and our workers. Hurting businesses and workers has been something the current government knows something about, especially when it comes to competitiveness. According to the World Economic Forum, Canada is now number 14 when it comes to competitiveness. We are behind Singapore, the United States, Hong Kong, the Netherlands, Switzerland, Japan, Germany, Sweden, the U.K., Denmark, Finland, China and South Korea. This is worrisome news.

The government has put legislation forward for the updated NAFTA, but is keeping Canadian businesses handcuffed with red tape, excessive regulations and high taxes. Just look at what it has done in the west. It has been an absolute travesty. Workers in Alberta and Saskatchewan cannot find jobs for months and some for years because the Liberals have drowned the resource sector in over-regulation, overtaxation and ridiculous amounts of red tape.

Bill C-69 and Bill C-48 are the most famous examples of anti-energy legislation passed by the Liberal government. These two bills have done tremendous damage to the economies of our western neighbours. We need the government to finally do something about this. Yes, we need a free trade agreement with the U.S. We absolutely need it. However, if the government continues to stifle the growth of our business sector, including our world-class energy sector, how effective will this trade agreement be when Canadian businesses stall, fail or move south of the border, either to the U.S. or Mexico, because of the government's flawed domestic economic policies? The ill-conceived policies it is putting forward are just recipes for more wasteful spending, more sky-high taxes and more reckless borrowing, all while we are seeing worrying economic signs on the horizon.

The possibility of a made-in-Canada recession is becoming more real. If the government does not believe me, then perhaps it would like to listen to the Wall Street Journal, which stated:

Canadian exports and imports fell steeply in November of 2019, offering fresh evidence the country's economy has hit a rough patch.... The broad-based decline in trade from October [2019] is the latest in a string of disappointing economic indicators, among them a sizable loss of jobs in November and a decline in gross domestic product in October.... Some analysts...indicated the data were symptomatic of a stumbling economy.

What does the government do instead of lowering taxes to stimulate growth and job creation? It is thinking about hiking taxes again. It is looking at the carbon tax hike. It is almost as if it has spent the last four years making life harder and more unaffordable for Canadians.

Canadians should not be punished every time they drive their kids to school or turn up their thermostat on a cold winter day. In my riding of Niagara West, public transportation is almost non-existent. My constituents need to drive to work, drop off and pick up their kids from school, and drive them to hockey practice and all kinds of other activities.

We were very honest with Canadians in the last election. We warned them that the Liberals would raise the carbon tax. The Liberals denied it, but here we are today. They are thinking of raising it and probably will very shortly. This is not good for Canadian families, businesses or our global competitiveness. If they intend to raise the carbon tax, they will finally come clean with Canadians and tell them exactly by how much.

In order to hit our Paris targets they would need to raise it by an additional $50 per tonne. This would increase the price of gasoline by 23¢ a litre. Let us think of what the extra costs would do to job creators, never mind the families with children who have no other option but to drive around. Virtually everything is delivered to our favourite store by truck. The cost on gas will either be absorbed by businesses in order to keep their clients, which may bankrupt some businesses, or it will be passed on to the consumer and increase the price of everything.

In closing, I would like to say that we will carefully look at this legislation. We all owe it to our constituents to do our due diligence and ensure that Canadian workers and job creators will stand to benefit from this new NAFTA.

Natural Resources

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

Mr. Speaker, once again, it is an honour for me to rise in the House to give some remarks with respect to how the constituents of Regina—Lewvan are feeling. These debates are an opportunity to ask further questions to the conversation we had in question period. Therefore, I would like to start by reiterating the question I had in question period.

I asked the hon. Minister of Environment or the Prime Minister to answer this question.

There are families across western Canada suffering. Throughout my campaign, many constituents told me their stories about losing their jobs and how many of their homes had for sale signs on the lawns. I asked the Prime Minister what he would say to these men and women who are out of work because of Bill C-69. How will he ensure these hard-working families across our country can get back to work in our world-class oil and gas sector?

This is an issue that faces people throughout western Canada. I heard the member opposite talk about the B.C. LNG project and other projects. That does not help the 150,000 people who have been out of work in the oil and gas sector in Alberta and Saskatchewan. We were sent here to be their voice and to talk about what options they have going forward. I have not heard any members opposite bringing forward ideas of how to get some of those western Canadian hard-working men and women back to work, many of whom are my family and friends. Friends that I grew up with have been out of work for a very long time. I ask the members opposite this: Are there ways we can work together?

There were 187 amendments brought forward to Bill C-69 from the Senate. The members opposite did not want to listen to any of those amendments. There are nine provincial premiers. Every territorial leader has issues with Bill C-69. We have not seen the government move at all with respect to its stubbornness and not listening to western Canadians.

I remember very well what the Prime Minister said on election night, which I hope was heartfelt. He said that he was listening to western Canadians, that he heard their frustration and that he heard their anger. He said we would work together to make things better in provinces like ours, in Saskatchewan and Alberta. However, I have seen nothing, no action whatsoever, to back up those words. Therefore, tonight I would like to have a couple of solid recommendations on how we can work together to get the hard-working men and women in Saskatchewan back to work.

I just came back from an opportunity to talk with some of the leaders of the United Steelworkers, the USW, who are here tonight. They are very concerned as to whether the LNG projects will use Canadian steel instead of steel that comes from other countries that is not as high a quality. I hear about the environment all the time from the members opposite. I can tell them, without a doubt in my mind, that the steel made from recycled materials at Evraz Steel is the most environmentally safe and meets the highest environmental standards of any steel in the world.

Therefore, if the Liberals are worried about the environment and emissions, I have the solution. We have the best steel in the world made in this country. I would like to work together to ensure those hard-working men and women at Evraz have jobs now and going into the future, so that we can get pipelines built in this country and the expansion of the TMX. We can use Canadian steel and the hard-working men and women across western Canada and put them back to work.

I am looking forward to hearing from my hon. colleague across the aisle. Hopefully, we will get a better answer than we received when I first asked this question.

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my home province of British Columbia is in a unique position to make a significant contribution to the fight against global climate change by developing its liquid natural gas industry. The objective, of course, would be for clean, green, environmentally responsible and ethical Canadian energy to replace much dirtier coal that is being burned and used by much of the developing world.

Liquid natural gas, when it finally gets going, will create a lot of good jobs in my riding, in British Columbia, in western Canada and notably in northern indigenous communities. However, the investment community and the resource industry are losing confidence in Canada as a place to invest in liquid natural gas.

Chevron has recently decided to pull out of the Kitimat LNG project, a project that we thought was a go and one that people were counting on for jobs. They are losing confidence in Canada because it has been bogged down in the regulatory quicksand known as Bill C-69, the no-more-pipelines bill of the government.

I was recently talking to a constituent who operates an equipment manufacturing business that is ready, willing and able to offer good-paying jobs to people so they can service the liquid natural gas development and construction industry. Those jobs are waiting for final investment decisions to be made.

I was talking to another constituent, an engineer who runs an engineering firm specializing in servicing the construction industry. The firm has had the advantage of a couple of projects, preliminary design works for the LNG industry, yet it, too, is waiting to hire more people to do the work once it finally gets going.

In the meantime, Canada is sitting idly by, bogged down in regulation rising out of Bill C-69, while our competitors are taking the opportunity. Russia has recently built a natural gas pipeline to deliver natural gas to China to satisfy its ever-growing demand for cleaner energy.

The United States, as well, is fast-tracking a number of liquid natural gas projects, and it is far ahead of us now, even though we had a head start. We are bogged down in regulations, not going anywhere.

Australia, too, recognizes the opportunity. It is also jumping on the LNG bandwagon. In the meantime, Canada is sitting there, bogged down in Bill C-69.

Will the government finally make the amendments required in Bill C-69? Will it support and work with industry, indigenous communities and hard-working Canadians hoping for well-paying jobs in the liquid natural gas industry, or is it content to continue standing by idly while our competition runs with the opportunity?

Resumption of debate on Address in Reply

[Gerald Soroka, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, this is my maiden speech, which is going to be cut incredibly short.

The Speech from the Throne is informative not because it outlines what exactly the government is going to do, but because it shows us where its priorities lie.

Equally notable are the topics the government avoids mentioning. The Speech from the Throne was notably silent on some of the most pressing concerns our country is facing today. As the people of Alberta and Saskatchewan are facing an economic crisis, all the government offered them was one throwaway line in the throne speech about getting resources to market. While the Liberal government has long said that the economy and the environment go hand in hand, the policies it implemented in the last session and those it pledged to implement going forward tell a different story. It sacrificed the economic prosperity of Alberta and the other provinces for merely the appearance of environmental protection.

As Canadians have pointed out time and again, Canada produces some of the cleanest and most ethical oil in the world. The Liberal government imposed Bill C-48 and Bill C-69, which prevented our oil and natural gas from getting to market. That demand not met by Canada is satisfied by other countries with lower environmental standards, many of which have a proven record of ignoring human rights. In the case of the no-more-pipelines bill, Bill C-69, it resulted in oil transportation by alternative methods, namely rail, which can cause significantly more pollution. The push behind these job-killing and environment-killing bills come from a surface-level understanding of an issue at hand and the misguided intolerance of domestic oil production. When it comes to policy, the choice comes down to doing good or feeling good. As Conservatives, we will always support legislation that does the former, even when there are no sound bites and selfie opportunities that go along with it.

Concerning the tanker ban bill, Bill C-48, the government has claimed the ban is necessary to protect the environment. If the government legitimately wanted to protect the environment against the remote possibility of oil spills, do members not think it would have implemented a tanker ban on the St. Lawrence River or the east coast? After all, the beluga whales that inhabit the area are on the endangered species list. The government did not implement any other tanker bans. Why not?

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

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to stand here and give my first speech in the House today as the member of Parliament for Cypress Hills—Grasslands.

I first need to thank the voters in my constituency for sending me here with a very clear mandate. They know what they want, and it is humbling to have received their overwhelming support.

I also need to thank my wife of 12 years, Kyla, for her unwavering support and for being willing to take this big step with me into parliamentary life. We have three of the most amazing kids, Jacoby, Jada and Kenzie, and if I did not have their full support as well, I would not have dragged them along on this journey.

To my campaign team and volunteers, I am thankful for their hard work and dedication in making sure that my first campaign was a successful one. I live in a riding that is 77,000 square kilometres, and it was a joy to meet and campaign with people from so many communities and backgrounds.

Today, I will be speaking in reply to the throne speech delivered by the Governor General, which set out the government's priorities and agenda.

After the election on October 21, when western Canadians overwhelmingly voted out every Liberal between Winnipeg and Vancouver, the Prime Minister went on national TV and told western Canadians, “I've heard your frustration and I want to be there to support you.” Naturally, the throne speech would have been a golden opportunity to show western Canadians that he had in fact heard our frustrations. However, this throne speech is just further evidence that the Prime Minister is not listening to western Canadians. In fact, the Liberals are continuing to ignore what western Canada is trying to communicate to them.

I come from a rural riding. Part of what makes it so great to live in a small town in a rural area is that one has to have a certain level of entrepreneurship and resolve to make one's farm, ranch or business succeed. Agriculture, energy, tourism and the natural resource sectors have always provided opportunities for people to start up a new business, to innovate, and then to develop their product and their business model. However, when there has been a multi-year downturn in the resource sector coupled with the lows that the agriculture sector has encountered, it puts the very businesses and people who keep small towns and small businesses viable in danger of losing everything.

With all that in mind, I will focus on a line that was used in both this year's throne speech and the 2015 throne speech, which is that every Canadian should have a “real and fair chance” to succeed. However, the government needs to understand it is the government's policies that are getting in the way and making it harder for Canadians to succeed.

The first policy we heard in the speech was that the government is doubling down on its carbon tax. So far, this has been the main method it is using to try to eliminate Canada's carbon emissions. However, it has not only proven to be a harmful policy for farmers, energy workers, seniors and everybody else, but it is also an ineffective policy. We are only seeing the cost of living go up, which is hurting the most vulnerable people, such as our seniors and low-income families. It has been nothing but an added burden for a lot of people.

In April, the cost of the carbon tax will increase from $20 to $30 per tonne, which means that life is about to get even harder. If that was not bad enough, we found out a few weeks ago that in a few provinces the government is lowering the carbon tax rebate that families could receive. Those provinces happen to be the ones that have not gone along with putting their own carbon tax in place. My home province of Saskatchewan is getting the largest cutback. When it was first introduced, the Liberals said that the tax would be revenue neutral and that Canadians could expect support for their extra expenses through a tax rebate. This is a perfect demonstration of what we can expect from the carbon tax in actual practice. As the cost and tax rate increase, the support for taxpayers and struggling families will decrease.

The carbon tax is also adding another layer of stress in agriculture. In western Canada, farmers had a year unlike any other in recent memory, from starting out the year with drought-like conditions to having way too much moisture in the fall when it came time to get the crops off. In fact, we have millions of acres of crops still out in the fields buried in snow. For the crops that are now in the bins, the next problem is to dry the grain, and natural gas is the main source of heat generation to accomplish this. It is a necessary part of grain farming, but the price for that fuel has gone up by hundreds of dollars because of the carbon tax, and then the GST is applied on top of that and so we now have a tax on top of a tax. After a difficult year in 2019, this is the last thing those farmers need. They have been calling attention to their desperate situation. I was happy to read in the National Post that the Green Party's agriculture critic agrees that we need to exempt farmers from the carbon tax, but nobody in the government seems to be listening.

Beyond the carbon tax, the Liberals' anti-energy, anti-business policies are killing jobs in resource development all over Canada. We heard a lot about how the anti-pipeline Bill C-69 would shut down energy projects, but there have also been concerns raised in mining and other industries.

In 2016, the Prime Minister said:

I have said many times that there isn’t a country in the world that would find billions of barrels of oil and leave it in the ground while there is a market for it.

But it isn’t enough to just use that resource for our short-term interest.

Our challenge is to use today’s wealth to create tomorrow’s opportunity. Ultimately, this is about leaving a better country for our kids than the one we inherited from our parents.

He was right to say that we should be making the most of Canadian energy while there is a market for it. However, after four years, the Liberals have left a lot of oil in the ground and that has left a lot of people out of work. Over the last four years, the government's regulatory changes have chased over $100 billion in investment, or four and a half per cent of GDP, out of Canada. I fail to see how we can create tomorrow's opportunities with results like that.

I could say a lot more about how the government's current policies do not make sense for either the environment or the economy, but I would much rather talk about what does make sense and what could work.

Just before Christmas, SaskPower, the power utility in Saskatchewan, held the grand opening of the Chinook power station northwest of Swift Current in my riding. It is a good example of how we have made clean, efficient use of natural gas in combined cycle power generation. This facility has the capacity to provide more power for around 300,000 homes. It runs 50% more efficiently than a coal-fired plant. The reason this power station is so important, along with others like it in the province, is that we now have strong enough baseload power generation so that we can invest further into renewables like wind and solar.

The Province of Saskatchewan, while under the guidance of former premier Brad Wall, created an ambitious plan to reduce our emissions. This plan is set to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 40% by 2030, as well as to have 50% renewable energy by then. This is a far more achievable plan than the one the Liberals have used. By creating a strong enough baseload power capacity that is reliable while utilizing technologies like combined-cycle power generation, the province can now focus its efforts further on growth in renewables. We already have a strong presence in the wind and solar industries, and further investment into these areas will continue to be encouraged.

Therefore, I find it crazy that the government has chosen to ignore the province's plan, which actually reduces emissions and shifts to renewable energy, while the Liberals' carbon tax only drives valuable investment dollars out of Canada that are needed for funding new technology.

I also need to highlight the innovative farming practices, such as zero-till farming, that have taken off in Saskatchewan. These methods remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere by keeping more of it in the soil. Our province continues to be a world leader in this regard. When it comes to the promise of this approach, I saw an article in National Geographic that noted the following:

...about a quarter of the world's greenhouse gas emissions come from land use and agriculture combined—but farmers are uniquely situated to be part of the solution.

We are seeing something like this in Saskatchewan. Due to the zero-till farming efforts, just as an example, we sequester 9.46 million tonnes of carbon dioxide per year. According to Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, that is the equivalent of removing two million cars from the highway each and every year. That is a real result. This is the type of success that comes from properly respecting farmers and their livelihood. It is a way of life that already deeply understands the close relationship between the economy and being a good steward of the land and the environment. Canadians working in the agriculture and energy sectors do not need to be lectured about it. They need to be supported in the balanced approach that they are already pursuing.

I am so proud to live in a riding that is part of a comprehensive, serious and practical plan for the environment like the one being implemented in Saskatchewan. However, the sad fact is that my province and my riding are not getting the credit they deserve from the current government. Instead, they have been blamed, neglected and ignored.

The Prime Minister said to western Canadians, “I hear you.” If this is true, then he should scrap the carbon tax and stop punishing the energy sector. If all Canadians are supposed to have a real and fair chance to succeed, then the government needs to listen to the provinces and the industry leaders who are suffering as a result of failed Liberal policies. It just sounds like more of the same from the Liberals, but I want Canadians to know that we hear them on this side of the House and we are ready to help them succeed.

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I want to inform you that I am splitting my time with the member for Calgary Centre.

It is my honour to rise in the House today for my maiden speech. I first want to thank the voters of Saskatoon West for putting their faith and trust in me as their representative in this House of Commons for this, the 43rd Parliament. I am humbled and honoured and grateful that they would trust me with this privilege. My pledge to them is that I will do my very best to represent them here in Ottawa and bring their views to Ottawa.

I want to thank my election team of Sunny, Braden, Alex, Kaitlyn, Donna-Lyn, Josh and Jared. I offer a special shout-out to the University of Saskatchewan Campus Conservatives club, which helped with a lot of door knocking. I offer big thank you to my friend the hon. member for Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek and her husband, Milton Block, for all of their encouragement, and to so many volunteers and donors who made this all possible.

As everybody in here knows, family support is critical to our success, and so I want to thank my parents, Alvin and Irene Redekopp; my sister, Gaylene Molnar, and her family; my two wonderful sons, Kyle and Eric Redekopp; and of course my beautiful wife, Cheryl Redekopp. I could not have done this without them.

It is for these people and for the 75,000 other people who live in Saskatoon West that I am replying to the Speech from the Throne today.

Unfortunately, I cannot and I will not support it.

This throne speech calls for “unity in the pursuit of common goals and aspirations.” The Prime Minister talks about listening and about parliamentarians working together, but the throne speech says almost nothing about the aspirations of people from Saskatoon. Not only that, the Prime Minister brings in policy after policy that targets the people of Saskatoon and our economy.

Let me explain the economy in Saskatchewan. If we think of a three-legged stool, the first leg is agriculture: wheat, canola, barley, oats and things like that. The second leg is mining: potash, uranium, gold and diamonds. The third leg is oil and gas. Last year, in 2018, these three sectors accounted for 36% of our GDP in Saskatchewan. The seat of the stool is manufacturing and construction. We manufacture machinery, industrial equipment and food products, while construction is the infrastructure that supports all of that work and all of the people. In 2018, those two sectors were 14% of our Saskatchewan GDP. Taken together, the legs and the seat of the stool account for 50% of Saskatchewan's GDP.

The other half of our GDP is the services that support our residents: things like stores, restaurants, education, health care and everything else. These things all sit on the stool, but the legs of our stool, the foundation of our GDP, are mining, oil and gas, and agriculture.

We all know that these three sectors are suffering in Saskatchewan.

In terms of the oil and gas leg, the no-more-pipelines bill, Bill C-69, has restricted capacity to ship our oil to markets. The selling price of oil is down, investment is down, and therefore there are fewer jobs.

The mining leg is also affected by Bill C-69. It politicizes the impact assessment process and adds significant time and uncertainty to the approval process. Companies no longer see Saskatchewan as the safe, stable place it once was to invest. Therefore, investments are going elsewhere and jobs are disappearing.

On the agricultural leg, the Liberals' continuing relationship failures with China have hurt our canola producers.

What does all this mean to the people of Saskatoon? When the legs of the stool are crippled, everyone suffers. Unemployment is up and people are struggling to pay their bills. During the election, I talked to many households and many families who were struggling to make their monthly payments, and on the campaign I spoke to many of the people we talk about who are short $200 every month.

I want to provide some vignettes of some real people and how this affects them.

I think of a young man who used to work on an oil drilling rig. He drove seven hours from Saskatoon to work in Drayton Valley, Alberta. He worked a two-week shift of 12-hour days, made really good money and spent that money in Saskatoon on vehicles, restaurants, stereo equipment, etc. I know this because this young man is my son. In 2015, the Liberals came to power. They introduced the no-more-pipelines bill and the no-more-tankers bill, and this drove down the price of our Canadian oil and reduced our investment. As a result, my son lost his job, and there was no more spending in Saskatoon.

Another example is a manufacturer who supplied components to the mining and the oil and gas industries. The manufacturer employed 140 people in Saskatoon. Those were well-paying jobs supporting 140 families in Saskatoon. I know this because my brother-in-law works at that company. Because of Bill C-69, investment in resource projects decreased, and the result was that people were laid off as the company adjusted to decreased business.

Fortunately, Saskatonians are resilient and creative problem-solvers, so they looked elsewhere and found business to keep the company going, but the business is smaller than it would have been had the oil and gas market kept going strong.

Let us think of an entrepreneur who build new homes for families, directly employed four people, indirectly hired 40 different contractors to complete all the work required and created several million dollars of economic spinoffs in Saskatoon. I know this because this was my business. Because of the Liberals' mortgage stress test, new homebuyers are forced out of the market. Because of changes in building codes, the cost to build a home significantly increased, and as a result, construction activity in Saskatoon has significantly slowed down. In fact, housing starts are at the lowest level in 14 years. Many good people in the construction industry are suffering or have lost their jobs.

What did I expect from the Liberal government throne speech in the spirit of working together? I certainly expected support for western Canadian jobs. After all, two days after the Liberals were reduced to a minority in October, the Prime Minister said he clearly has more to do to earn the trust of people in Saskatchewan. I expected support for oil and gas, mining and farmers.

What did I actually hear?

I heard a vague reference to natural resources and farmers, no mention of the Trans Mountain pipeline, no mention of a national energy corridor, nothing about repealing or even making changes to Bill C-69 and Bill C-48, and certainly no concern for our rapidly growing and dangerous debt. I think Rex Murphy said it best when he said the Speech from the Throne “is a semantic graveyard, where dullness and pretentiousness conspire, successfully, against the life and lift of our two wonderful official languages.”

Housing was mentioned in the throne speech, and I hope the government will follow through on that issue. There are many people in my riding for whom good, stable housing is out of reach. As a former home builder, I call upon the government to relax the mortgage stress test, as this has had a significant negative impact on construction in Saskatoon.

One thing barely mentioned in the throne speech was the word “job”. The Liberals are quick to offer money to Canadians for this or that and to offer handouts to make up for their lack of action on the economy, but let me tell members something about people from Saskatoon: We are proud, hard-working folks, and we do not want handouts; we want good-paying jobs.

Saskatoon is also filled with entrepreneurs, people willing to take great risks in order to employ others and build our economy. Entrepreneurs do not want handouts; they want a stable playing field with reasonable regulations and the freedom to work hard, succeed and then enjoy the benefits when success does happen.

There were two other words conspicuously absent from the throne speech: “balanced budget”. I am gravely concerned that the Liberal government has chosen to spend seemingly unlimited amounts of money on every kind of program, with no concern for the underlying economy that pays for all of this. We are burdening our future generations with debt that will have to be paid back at some point. I call upon the government to at least plan to return to balanced budgets.

Finally, Saskatchewan people care deeply about our environment. All three of the stool legs I spoke of earlier are rooted in our land. No one is a better steward of our land than people from Saskatchewan. We all understand that healthy land, water and air are critical to our long-term success, but we cannot adopt a zealot-like approach, assuming that the only way to have a healthy planet is to stop human development and to stifle innovation and economic growth. We cannot sacrifice the agriculture, mining, and oil and gas industries of Saskatchewan and Alberta in exchange for a photo op with Greta. We cannot stifle economic growth and continue to increase taxes on our people.

This throne speech made it clear that the government intends to continue to raise the carbon tax. Taxes will rise, with no meaningful impact on carbon. This will hurt ordinary Canadians and business owners.

In conclusion, Canada's Conservatives are focused on the aspirations of everyday Canadians, like the good people of Saskatoon West. We are the party of the middle class, and we will continue to present real and tangible ideas that will allow people to get ahead and get the government off their backs.

As I close, I want to congratulate and thank the leader of my party for his tireless dedication and work over the past 15 years. I also want to wish everyone in this chamber a very merry Christmas and a happy new year.

[Darrell Samson, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs and Associate Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be back here in the House for the 43rd Parliament and to have an opportunity to speak to the Speech from the Throne.

Between July and December, I missed being able to deliver speeches in the House, though I must say I got plenty of speech-giving opportunities during the election campaign.

It gives me enormous pleasure to return to the House for the 43rd Parliament. I appreciate the opportunity to speak to the Speech from the Throne. It is a very important speech to share with Canadians because it is a road map, the vision of our government. I kind of missed being in the House between June and now because of the election. I like to share what is happening in my constituency of Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook and to continue to advocate on behalf of my constituents.

I have to thank the people of Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook for putting their confidence in me once again to continue to work with them and for them. That is exactly what I shall continue to do as we move forward. I also want to thank the many volunteers in my riding and outside of my riding. A large number of volunteers participated throughout the campaign, from day one right through to October 21. That is really what democracy is all about when we think about it. These individuals want to be engaged in the electoral process and they want their words to be heard. The support that I received from them is much appreciated and I thank them for that.

As well, I want to thank my family. As members know, being parliamentarians is not a task that allows us to be home as much as we might like to be. The real work is in the community for our people, but members have to be here in the House to make laws and to work together to make life better for Canadians in general but also for the people in our ridings.

I have to say that I felt throughout the campaign that there were two elections happening. I would like to share a few words concerning the election and how my constituents and I were able to see how things were happening at the national level and at the local level. To be quite honest, at the national level, it was a different campaign that Canadians had not experienced. By that I mean there were insults and misinformation and there was even some fearmongering. All kinds of things were happening throughout the campaign at the national level on television that many Canadians did not feel very comfortable with because that is not the way we do business. We work together. We trust each other to get things done for Canadians.

At the end of the day, I ended up putting my head down and concentrating on the work at hand, working closely with my constituents, listening to them. That allowed me to articulate some of the great things our government was able to do in the last four years, talking with seniors and how we were able to support them, investing in bringing many seniors above the poverty line, and moving the age of retirement from 67 to 65. The Conservatives raised it from 65 to 67, but we stopped that quickly.

The conversation around climate change is important. Climate change is a very important file. It is probably the greatest challenge of our time. Many people in my constituency have many suggestions to make. They welcome some of the great things we did, such as increasing environmental protection of water and land from 1% to 14%, and they understand that we will move it up to 25% by 2025 and 30% by 2030. Those are very important discussions to be having.

I had the opportunity as well to speak with many veterans. Nova Scotia has the highest number of veterans and military personnel in Canada by ratio. Let me add that my riding of Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook has the most in Nova Scotia, so it is extremely important that I continue to have a dialogue with veterans and individuals in the military.

Colleagues are probably aware of this, but I have been honoured and privileged by the Prime Minister to take on the role of parliamentary secretary for veterans affairs and defence. That is a privilege because I have been working closely with veterans and individuals in the military. I have also been working at the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs for the last two years.

We have had some great conversations locally, but not such great conversations, I believe, nationally. At the end of the day, Canadians made the right decision and brought us back here to form government. However, we have been handed a new, important task of a minority government. I believe that this government is the best government to lead Canada for the future of this country.

We know that we need to do more on pharmacare. That is extremely important. We have to do more on social enterprises. We have to do more on housing.

We also know that we have to move forward aggressively on trade deals. We did so in the past. We had 14 trade deals signed in one mandate. I do not want to go too deep into that, but the three important ones are NAFTA, which we did extremely well, and of course, the Asia-Pacific one and the one with the European Union. Both of the last two brought to the table 500 million people we can trade with. That is a billion people.

We have the challenge of how we are going to work together. I was very pleased to listen to some, not all, leaders of the opposition in the House last week who clearly stated that they understood the challenge. The challenge is that Canadians want us to work together. Canadians want us to collaborate. Canadians know that we are the party to do so and we shall do that because it is extremely important. We are going to have to stop pointing fingers, I guess, and stop blaming people. A good idea is a good idea, no matter where it comes from in this chamber. It is extremely important to remember that.

I now want to talk about minority governments. We have had some fabulous minority governments that have been very successful in making major changes for Canadians. I think right away of the Lester B. Pearson minority government. It was known as the golden age. It was given that title because it was a very important time. I will share some of the key successes during those years.

An extremely important one is the Official Languages Act. It is funny because here we are 50 years later modernizing the bilingualism act. It recognized both founding fathers or peoples. Today we are much richer not only with respect to understanding each other, but also in allowing us to trade with many countries, because of the two official languages we have in Canada.

Another is the Canada pension plan. Only last year, this government was able to work closely with the provinces and territories to bring forward a much needed updated Canada pension plan that Canadians can be proud of. Canadians will benefit more and more as we move forward.

Medicare is another success that came from a minority government. It is extremely important. I have to share this. One of the key individuals who led the Liberal government through that minority government was Allan J. MacEachen from Cape Breton Island. He became the deputy prime minister of the country and sat next to Pierre Elliott Trudeau.

We brought forward the new student loans program. We had a question today about it. Our government has made major changes to that in the last two or three years which will make life better for young students who are trying to get ahead.

We also ended capital punishment during those years.

Let us talk about the Martin minority government. I can think of two major improvements for Canadians. The first is same sex marriage. That is extremely important. Our government led the charge on that one. The second is the gas tax, which was a new program incentive to support municipal governments and invest in new infrastructure. It is so important that last year, for one year, we doubled the investments from the gas tax.

Those are some of the great changes that were made through minority governments.

Am I happy? I would rather have a majority government, but I will say this. I know that with a minority government and the people in this important chamber, we will get the job done in many areas. Canadians want us to do it and I know we can and shall do it.

I would be remiss if I did not talk about national unity. That is a very important topic. National unity did not start yesterday, last week or last year. We have a great nation because we have challenges. When we have challenges, they become opportunities, and we take advantage of those opportunities to make life better.

I have to share this with members of the House. In the very early eighties, my dad, George A. Samson, a plumber and electrician from Cape Breton Island, to be more specific Isle Madame, who had a grade 6 education, was a councillor in the municipal government. He enjoyed speaking and representing the people. In 1980, he was invited by the Davis government in Ontario to an assembly of many Canadians to talk about the Constitution and national unity. It was quite a pleasure and exciting for him to be part of that. He contributed to those discussions. I know that allowed many great things to happen as we moved forward in the eighties.

We have to stop this division and stop focusing on our differences. We need to focus on our strengths. What we are asking for today is something that Canadians have done so well in the past.

When I hear about prominent politicians running around saying there are differences and creating regional insecurity, it hurts, I have to be honest, because I know we can do much better.

I want to share a quote from the first Prime Minister of Canada, John A. Macdonald:

If I had influence over the minds of the people of Canada, any power over their intellects, I would leave them this legacy—“whatever you do, adhere to the Union—we are a great country and shall become one of the greatest in the universe if we preserve it; we shall sink into insignificance and adversity if we suffer it to be broken.”

I could not say it any better.

That is what this is all about. It is about working together. How great is this country? It is one of the greatest countries in the world. We have been rated number one on quality of life four years in a row. That is not bad. We are number three in education, number four in freedom, number six among the best countries to do business with and number nine in happiness. What a great country. Let us continue working together to make life better for all Canadians.

To do what we are doing, we need to continue to get support from members of all parties. We have to help and work closely with the business community to make sure it has the tools to connect and take advantage of the international trade deals we sign. We have to work together on climate change, because it is the greatest challenge of our time. We have to work together to make sure we have what we promised on pharmacare for all Canadians. It is extremely important. We must continue to work together for housing, creating more housing for seniors. That is the next challenge.

We are focused on these challenges, and that is important. We have to focus on families, youth, veterans and seniors. These are important issues and we need to work together to make this happen. I believe we will. We need to make this work.

Let me focus on Wexit. Westerners are anxious. We will work with them, because when times are hard in one part of this nation we come together and find ways to connect and support. That is what we will do.

I have already seen movement in Alberta on climate change. The premier said he is now open to that. That is what I call making a great effort to work together to continue building on this great country.

What about the pipeline? We already have 2,200 people working on the pipeline and by summer we will have 4,200 working on it. We are now moving forward on the pipeline, as we committed and promised.

I am also hearing about Bill C-69 in Wexit. I believe the Prime Minister said the other day that we are open to listening if we need to tweak it somewhat. He even asked the premiers to get together and work at it to see if they had some suggestions. That is the third thing.

The fourth issue I am hearing a lot about is equalization payments or the fiscal stability program. That is what it is for. We have been trying to support westerners and will continue to support them. One way to do it is by making adjustments. When we make adjustments because there are hard times, we are supporting those provinces, and when times are good, we expect them to support the rest of Canada.

It is a pleasure to be back in the House of Commons to speak on behalf of the residents of my riding of Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to talk about collaboration and teamship. I congratulate Winnipeg on winning its first Grey Cup, maybe since I was born.

I love to work with the government when we have common interests. One of those common interests, with the member from Manitoba, is getting pipelines built in the oil and gas sector. I am hoping we can work together to either scrap Bill C-69 or amend it so that we can get the hard-working oil and gas sector workers back to work as soon as possible, get some pipelines built and use some good EVRAZ steel to make those pipelines.

Natural Resources

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has promised to listen really hard to western Canada. I am wondering if he has heard the resounding screams of 180,000 lost jobs, the squealing tires of $100 billion of investment leaving this country or the alarm bells ringing as resource producers are forced to accept a value for our resource far below world price, all because of the current government's inaction. Will the government take out its earplugs and recognize that its approach to building energy infrastructure in Canada embodied in Bill C-69 is fatally flawed and amend this dreadful bill?

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

Mr. Speaker, many people in my riding of Edmonton Mill Woods and right across Alberta are hurting. In fact, the unemployment rate among young men is approaching 20%, something that we have not seen in almost 40 years. We are in this crisis because of Liberal policies like Bill C-69, yet the Liberals have refused to make changes to their no-more-pipelines bill. When will the Liberals make changes to Bill C-69 that will help Albertans and all Canadians?

[Paul Lefebvre, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources]

Mr. Speaker, the legislation that was there before was called CEAA 2012 and everybody in the energy sector wanted it changed. Why? Because no projects were moving ahead, and if they were, there were duplications and delays.

With Bill C-69, the Impact Assessment Act, it is clear that there will be one review for one project. The mining industry is supportive of this act. We are discussing with the provinces to make sure that, as we implement it, we hear the concerns and we move forward in the right way.

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

Mr. Speaker, today is Friday the 13th, the namesake of one of the longest-running horror movie franchises in history. It cannot help but remind me of the Liberal no-more-pipelines bill and its effect on the western Canadian resource sector. Will the Liberal government amend Bill C-69 so pipeline projects stop disappearing like teenagers in a bad horror movie?