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.

Transport, Infrastructure and Communities

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

Mr. Speaker, Conservative members of the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities support the committee's report, which was just tabled. Transportation corridors are integral to the safe and efficient flow of goods in and out of Canada. However, we have supplied a supplementary report, as we felt that the main report did not adequately address a number of important issues that were raised, which I will briefly outline.

Over the course of the many meetings held during this study, we heard from numerous stakeholders regarding the detrimental impact certain government actions and policies are having and will continue to have on Canada's transportation system, and more specifically, on our transportation corridors.

Specifically, the government policies we must highlight are Bill C-48, the Liberals' oil tanker moratorium act; Bill C-69, the Liberals' attempt to rewrite the law and regulations to make it even harder for pipelines to get built; and the Liberal government's carbon tax. From being unnecessarily restrictive, to creating investment uncertainty, to increasing costs for transportation companies and shippers alike, the actions of the Liberal government need to be reversed.

To that end, we have included three simple recommendations in our supplementary report: to withdraw Bill C-48, to withdraw Bill C-69 and to eliminate the carbon tax.

I encourage the government members to read our supplementary report, but if they do not have time for that, I hope they will simply adopt our recommendations. We believe that doing this would greatly support Canada's transportation systems and our vitally important trade corridors.

Government Programs

[Matt Jeneroux, Conservative, Edmonton Riverbend, AB]

Mr. Speaker, life is becoming more unaffordable for Canadians under the current Liberal government. In Edmonton Centre, a Liberal-held riding, people are finding it harder to get by. Data released earlier this month by Statistics Canada showed that unemployment is still above pre-recession levels in Edmonton. People in Edmonton and across the country are also finding it harder to buy homes due to higher interest rates and more stringent regulation.

As people in Glenora, Westmount, Inglewood and Laurier Heights see their disposable income drop, the government is adding more taxes and introducing legislation such as Bill C-69. If this bill comes into effect, the unemployment rate in Edmonton Centre will increase.

The Prime Minister and his team will raise taxes and make life more expensive for Canadians. We cannot afford another four years of these disastrous policies. The people of Edmonton Centre have not been heard by their member of Parliament or the government. Under a Conservative government, Edmonton Centre residents will be heard.

Opposition Motion—Transparency and Accountability

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is my honour to speak to this matter, which I consider it to be very important, both as a member of Parliament and also because of my background as an environmental enforcer.

I take very seriously that when we are dealing with the enforcement of a federal or provincial law, whether it is the Criminal Code or regulatory statute, we have clear procedures that are open and transparent in how we apply those statutes. Many across the country are deeply disturbed right now that there is no clarity on what is going on with this new unique provision.

I am pleased to stand in support of the motion by my colleague from Victoria, calling on the Prime Minister to waive the solicitor-client privilege for the former attorney general with respect to the allegations of interference in the prosecution of SNC-Lavalin and to urge the government to launch a public inquiry under the Inquiries Act.

Very serious questions are being raised by Canadians about recent decisions and actions by the government. Any intervention by any elected member of this place or the Prime Minister's Office is a serious matter involving a matter before a prosecutor. They are concerned about the amendments to the Criminal Code to create alternative processes to respond to white collar crimes with the result of avoiding a criminal prosecution and the direct result to take away the bar to further federal contracts. They are concerned about the tabling of these measures within an omnibus budget bill.

Canadians are also concerned about the limited review only to the finance committee and not to the justice committee. They are concerned about possible interference in the exercise of discretion by the Attorney General in the decision to prosecute or utilize the new deferred prosecution agreement. They are concerned about whether that interference resulted in the resignation of a cabinet minister, the former minister of justice and attorney general.

Finally, they are concerned about the denial by Liberal members of Parliament to allow thorough consideration of these matters before the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

Through yet another omnibus budget bill, the government chose to amend the Criminal Code of Canada. As many have said in this place, this is despite its stated position while in opposition to oppose omnibus budget bills and changes to law and policy unrelated to economic measures made through budget bills. These Criminal Code amendments, these significant reforms, were made through an omnibus budget bill tabled by the finance minister, not the justice minister.

I wish to concentrate my remarks on the second aspect of the motion, which is the call for a public inquiry.

The process of the application of a deferred prosecution agreement mechanism in the case of criminal charges brought against the company SNC-Lavalin and any involvement of government parties outside of the Attorney General and the public prosecutor merit open and transparent review.

The government's defence of the use of the budget bill to reform criminal law procedures is a pretty clear indicator of the fact it was of the belief that economic advantage could be gained and prevail over rule of law and justice. In the case currently at hand, the charges are brought under a law that actually prohibits any consideration of economic benefits. Some elected officials, particularly at the provincial level, and others are saying that we should not be convicting this company because there may be a loss of jobs, yet the law itself forbids that to be considered at all in the decision by the Attorney General or public prosecutor.

The intended effect of this provision is to enable justice officials to treat a specified list of economic crimes, such as obstructing justice, money laundering, tax evasion, forgery, bribery of officers, fraud, including frauds on the government, through an alternative legal process that avoids criminal charges or convictions. As well, it is on condition of admission of a violation of the law and specified undertakings being given by the person potentially charged to take remediation measures and self-reporting by the parties at fault. It has been suggested in the media that these are exactly the circumstances that have not occurred in this case. Therefore, questions are being raised as to why consideration is being given to this deferred prosecution agreement, when the criteria have not even met the criteria the government has chosen to put in law.

These DPAs have been used in the United Kingdom and the United States, but in quite different ways.

As mentioned earlier, while the law establishing the DPAs prescribes conditions, it does not include a number of matters that were actually recommended by Canadians during the consultation period before the matter came before the House. A condition that has not been included, as recommended by some, was that the decision be in the interest of justice as opposed to the public interest. This is an issue being raised in environmental impact assessments of major projects in that no matter what the criteria are, in the end, the government can just say that it is a matter of national significance or a matter of public interest, so therefore it is going to do it. The suggestion was that the decision be in the interest of justice, as we are dealing with the Criminal Code.

A question raised was whether it should be a condition that would actually serve as a deterrent, yet that is not in the conditions in the DPA. Another condition suggested was whether it would genuinely promote compliance, but this was not an included condition. I find this very odd, as a former law enforcer. Those are the obvious mechanisms we look to in framing prohibitions and framing our enforcement compliance process.

It is noteworthy that the law specifically prohibits consideration of national economic interests when the offence comes under the Corruption of Foreign Public Officials Act, yet in this case, that is precisely the statute the company is being prosecuted under.

I found it very interesting, and we found the same thing with Bill C-69, that the government entertained a period of consultation, in particular with business but also with some judicial officials and some NGOs, before it tabled the bill in the House to enact this provision on enforcement, yet when the bill came up for debate in the House, the government, in its wisdom, chose to add this significant amendment to our main criminal justice statute, the Criminal Code of Canada, at the tail end of an omnibus budget bill.

The Liberal government said that it would not follow what the Conservatives did before. Never would it include provisions that were not economically related. Of course, the bill was tabled by the finance minister, not by the former justice minister.

I want to share with the House what the finance minister said in the House in defence of the mechanism to opt out of being prosecuted:

Mr. Chair, we have put forward a budget, and of course in the budget there are things about how we can make our economy work well. That is the function of this budget. What we have said is that we believe that our approach to deferred prosecution agreements will enable us to pursue an approach that is functioning and doing well in other economies, one that will result in more effective continuation of business success by companies once they have paid their dues to society.

In one case, and the case before us now, one federal statute actually prohibits consideration of the economic impact on the Canadian economy or the economy of a foreign national, yet that is exactly the rationale the finance minister gave for bringing forward this provision. Apparently that was the rationale given, allegedly, to the former attorney general and the public prosecutor. It is very interesting.

The Liberal government, in its wisdom, even though it has brought forward a lot of amendments to the Criminal Code, and in one case actually in an omnibus Criminal Code amendment bill, chose not to bring this significant measure to ensure compliance under the Criminal Code. It decided to do it in a budget bill.

When the matter was referred to committee for review, that aspect of this omnibus budget bill was put before the finance committee. When we look at the proceedings of the finance committee, we see that many members raised concerns that it was not the place for the consideration of an amendment to the Criminal Code. It was the justice committee. The finance committee was not used to reviewing these laws and members said that the bill should be referred to the justice committee. Eventually, the justice committee did call for aspects to be looked at, but then the full review was cut back, because certain Liberal members did not want to consider it.

Why the government chose to bring forward this mechanism the way it did is completely puzzling. It is important for the public to find out exactly how the government is planning to apply this mechanism. We have heard concern after concern about the way this mechanism is opting out of the need for a prosecution and conviction for a serious criminal offence.

Why did the government go this way, and how is it actually applying it in practice? I think it is very important that we have an open and public inquiry so that there is openness and transparency in how the government of the day is intending to apply this mechanism under the Criminal Code.

Natural Resources

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government is in chaos, which means it is not spending any time fixing the energy sector crisis it created.

Today, the United We Roll convoy arrived in Ottawa. Its purpose is principled and worthy as it creates awareness for the oil and gas industry and raises concerns about the carbon tax and repealing the “no more pipelines” Bill C-69, and Bill C-48.

Its members are concerned, like millions of Canadians, that the current Liberal government has not, and is not, supporting them, their families, their communities or the energy sector. They feel they have lost their voice to a government that no longer works for them and they will not be ignored any more.

Our Conservative leader said:

The #UnitedWeRoll convoy is a testament to the importance of Canada's energy sector and the crisis it's facing. Canadian energy workers deserve a government that supports their industry and champions it worldwide. Conservatives will fix the Liberal mess & get people back to work.

Indigenous Languages Act

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

Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to stand today in this place and add my voice to the discussion around Bill C-91.

The House may not be aware that today is End It Movement Day. It is a movement to end modern-day slavery in our country and around the world. The people who participate wear a red X on their hand. Many may not know that within Canada, human trafficking probably happens within 10 blocks of where they live if they live in the city and within 10 miles of where they live if they live in the country.

Modern-day slavery has many faces in Canada, but the vast majority of cases, about 50% of them, involve indigenous women and girls. That is why I am wearing a red X on my hand today.

Bill C-91 is about respect and about protecting indigenous languages here in Canada. Many bills have been brought up about this issue, and the government has spoken in length about it as well.

Back in December 2016, the government said it was seized with this issue and would table some legislation. Now, at the eleventh hour of this Parliament, the government has tabled a bill, and here we are, discussing it today.

I find it frustrating to see the government's approach to supporting something. Supply management is a good example. It says all the time that it supports supply management, but it has very narrowly cast that support. The support is purely for the two words, “supply management”. It is the same in this case as well. The government says it supports indigenous languages, but that is really just the two words, “indigenous languages”.

Many times when we support something, the actual thing that needs to be supported needs the entire surrounding infrastructure or the surrounding society to support it. Only supporting the end result does not necessarily help the actual goal we are trying to achieve.

Let us use the case of supply management as an example. It is really great for the government to say it supports supply management, but when it takes milk and dairy products and animal proteins out of the food guide, it is not supporting supply management whatsoever.

A couple of people who work in my office are coffee connoisseurs. They always ask me why I put cream in my coffee. They think I am ruining the coffee by doing so. I tell them I support supply management, so I put cream in my coffee. Supporting supply management means actually supporting supply management and targeting the actual issue.

We are seeing that again with this indigenous language bill. It says we are going to support indigenous language and we are going to have an ombudsman and all of these things, but if we do not support communities and do not support the culture of these languages, they will become dead languages.

I know a bit about dead languages. I know a bit of Latin. It is a language that is used all the time, but it is not a spoken language. There are records of languages that have been brought back. I understand Hebrew is one of those languages that has been brought back from being a dead language to a language that is now alive and well.

I failed to mention at the beginning of my comments that I will be sharing my time with the member for Edmonton West.

This is a great bill. I am sure that we will take the language, codify it and keep a record of it. Many organizations around this country are working on translating the Bible into all indigenous languages.

The House may be aware that both the German language and the English language were codified when the Bible was translated into those languages. There is a language known as High German. It was not really a language spoken by anybody, but it was the language that the Bible would have been translated into for a big swath of the world that spoke Germanic languages. It codified the whole language into a common language.

We are seeing work being done on that around the country. The funding that will be coming through this legislation will probably support many of those initiatives. I support that idea.

The point I am trying to make is that we would like these languages to be living languages, not dead languages, and in order to do that, we need to support communities. What does supporting communities look like? For one thing, we have a rich heritage in this country around the fur trade. Canada was built on the fur trade. I always say Canada was built on a number of things, such as the fur trade, the railway and other things, but the fur trade for indigenous peoples was a major part of the economy. It is a shame that today we do not champion the fur trade in this country.

Representatives of the fur trade association were in my office the other day, and they told me that fur will not even be on the winter Olympics uniforms. I do not know if anyone saw that Canada Goose recently came out with a new lineup of jackets designed by an Inuit designer. They are amazing jackets. They have nice fur on the hood. I am sure there are more fur products on the inside as well, though I could not see. The fur trade is what made these communities sustainable. Their languages were able to survive with or without government funding, and the Inuit are a prime example of that. Most them still have their languages because it is a vibrant community.

Where I am from, many of the Woodland Cree people still speak the language, and their communities are thriving. Why are they thriving? It is because the economy is thriving. No doubt a generation has lost the language due to the residential schools, but when communities come together and operate well, the language continues to thrive, so we see that bills like Bill C-69 do nothing. We say we want to support languages and indigenous communities, but then the government introduces a bill like Bill C-69, which hamstrings all of the northern Alberta communities that rely on the economy that pipelines, the oil patch and resource development bring to northern Alberta. The government says it supports indigenous languages, but it supports them in a very narrow way. We need to ensure these communities have a good economy; then the language will flourish.

Another area that is frustrating to me is the language around firearms that the Liberals in particular use all the time. They seem to be very suspicious of people who own and use firearms on a regular basis. It is our indigenous communities that use, own and work with firearms on a regular basis. The language and laws coming from the Liberal government, particularly Bill C-71, are onerous to all first nation communities for sure. Firearms are a big part of their culture. Firearms are a way of life for them, so to say we are going to support their languages and culture and then make it more onerous to own a firearm is not supportive of the culture whatsoever.

Lots of people say we already have languages and ask me why I think it is so important. We all have a world view, a narrative, a place that we belong in the world, and being part of a culture that has identifiable languages and creeds and those kinds of things gives us our sense of belonging in the world. A language does that to a large degree. Studies bear out the idea that when people feel they are tied to a language, a people, a land and a culture, they are much more successful in nation building and culture building.

For all of those reasons, I support this bill, but I find it ironic that we are here at the eleventh hour debating a bill to support indigenous languages.

Natural Resources

[Amarjeet Sohi, Liberal, Minister of Natural Resources]

Mr. Speaker, the purpose of Bill C-69 is to fix a broken system that was implemented by the previous government in 2012. It took away the ability of indigenous peoples to participate in a meaningful way. It took away the ability of Canadians to participate in the review process. It took away the ability for us to protect our environment, waterways, fish and fish habitat. We are fixing a system that will allow us to move forward on large energy infrastructure projects in a way that makes sense for Canadians.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, more than 125,000 oil and gas workers have lost their jobs under the Liberals. The Prime Minister vetoed northern gateway with no consultation. He killed energy east with red tape. He overpaid for Trans Mountain, and every delay costs taxpayers more. His mistakes have caused the crisis in the energy sector and have recently threatened the jobs of over 2,000 CNRL workers in northeast Alberta. Now Imperial is cutting rail shipments and considering cancelling a new oil sands project.

Will the Liberals stop their no-more-pipelines bill, Bill C-69?

Wrecked, Abandoned or Hazardous Vessels Act

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I could not be more pleased to take the floor. I think I may be the last speaker at this stage of the progress of the bill. We are now reviewing the amendments sent to us by the Senate before approving the bill to go back to the Senate.

I want to share with members who do not experience it what it means to have the problem of derelict and dilapidated boats. It might sound to someone who does not live on a coastline as though it is a rather small issue, as though it is something one could leave waiting a while. After all, the boats are derelict and dilapidated and abandoned.

On the east coast, where I lived for so long, certainly around Cape Breton Island, we did not have a problem with derelict and dilapidated boats, because they were generally smashed to bits by the winter storms, and we did not see them the following year. However, on the more tranquil inland waters of the Salish Sea, around the southern Gulf Islands and up into the northern areas of our Gulf Islands, around Gabriola, Hornby and the islands stretching up into the eastern coast of Vancouver Island, we have a lot of problems with derelict boats. Many areas of British Columbia have peaceful inland waters and a lack of winter storms. Boats are abandoned, which owners do far too frequently at no cost and no risk to themselves. They just abandon the vessels. That has caused threats to navigation and hazards in the waters.

More recently, we have had a profound problem. The housing shortage in southern Vancouver Island and on the Lower Mainland is so acute that homeless people have taken up residence in abandoned vessels. Try to imagine the multiple threats and hazards that involves, and it is growing at an epidemic rate.

On January 21 I took a tour with local residents of Tsehum Harbour, where multiple vessels, some of them rafted together to form something of a community of vessels, are housing people. Some people are paying rent to the owners for substandard living conditions. Of course, there is no proper heat. Living on a vessel on open water in the winter is not a safe living condition, but it is particularly acute on Salt Spring Island, where Burgoyne Bay and Ganges have become magnets for crime. They are no longer safe areas. It is a significant problem. That is compounded by not having adequate RCMP attending to the southern Gulf Islands. There just are not enough RCMP officers to help where crime is increasing in areas, such as Pender Island and Salt Spring Island, which are idyllic places. This is really a crisis. We need to find homes for these people who are taking refuge in inadequate habitation on abandoned vessels. We need to deal with abandoned vessels rapidly.

There is another problem that is worse than this situation. That is in a bill that is currently before the Senate. I am going to seek amendments there to deal with Bill C-69, which amends our navigable waters protection act, now the Navigation Protection Act. Under the previous government of Stephen Harper, they made it much easier to put buoys out and ignore them. They did not think they were making it easier to put buoys out. They just exempted minor works. This needs to be dealt with now, because what has happened is that it is easier to place buoys in the water without proper review, because we treat them as minor work and they are therefore exempted. That is another matter to return to.

I want to let the House know that multiple layers of government are struggling with this problem and waiting with bated breath for Transport Canada to have the additional resources and focus. The current situation involves local governments, municipalities, the Islands Trust, and the Capital Regional District for the Victoria area, which has an abandoned vessel program and gets stuck with the costs. We need to find federal funding to help the CRD with the costs it experiences. We also have the Coast Guard and the RCMP involved and primarily Transport Canada, which is gearing up. I have to say that the civil servants working on this in our local area are terrific. There are also numerous local residents for whom this bill cannot come soon enough.

I am extremely grateful to the local residents who organized that meeting on January 21, which brought together mayors, CRD officials, the Islands Trust, the RCMP and Transport Canada. This has been a nightmare of an issue. We know that funding is waiting. It will not be enough, but it is a good start.

I would like to thank the House for doing everything possible, as expeditiously as possible, to get this legislation passed, get those derelict boats out of our waters and find housing for people who are currently taking shelter in abandoned vessels.

Opposition Motion—Affordable Housing

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to share my time today with the amazing member of Parliament for Lethbridge.

Notionally, I support the bill. Who would not support better housing for those who cannot afford it? We have a housing affordability issue in Canada. We have an issue regarding too many regulations, which are adding costs to housing and slowing down the development of housing. Local municipalities are limiting the amount of supply. We have higher interest rates, which are pushing people out of the market. We also have an affordability issue, period, in Canada.

We have a Liberal government that sits smugly, day after day, telling us, in the face of all the evidence, that everything is fine, the economy is great and not to worry. It reminds me of the black knight in the movie Monty Python and the Holy Grail. He has and arm and a leg chopped off, but he is bouncing around on one leg saying that everything is okay and that he is fine. It is the same denial that we hear from the current government.

Meanwhile, we have investment fleeing from our country at record rates and interest rates are on the rise. Just recently we heard that almost 50% of Canadian families are just $200 a month away from not being able to pay their bills. We are creating fights with our international partners: America, China, Australia and Japan. Despite what the government says, evidently we are not okay.

Let us look at how the government is making things unaffordable.

It is killing jobs. I want to talk about Alberta. The Prime Minister has stated again and again that Alberta needs to phase out the oil sands. The Liberals are doing a great job on it. They killed northern gateway, which would have brought Alberta oil to the northern B.C. coast and then to overseas Asian markets. Let us not be fooled by their claims that this was done by the courts. This was killed by a government order in cabinet.

Despite the member for Edmonton Mill Woods, a senior cabinet minister from Alberta, being at the table, he did not raise a complaint when the government killed northern gateway. Before he was punted from cabinet, the member for Calgary Centre stated that he would pound on his desk at the cabinet table to make sure a pipeline got built, yet he sat quietly and did not say a thing while northern gateway was killed. Just a couple of weeks ago, the member for Edmonton Centre stood in the old place to say that he was proud of the pipeline-killing Bill C-69. He was proud of the government for banning tankers off the northern B.C. coast only carrying Alberta oil. He was proud of that record.

The Liberals killed energy east. Do not be fooled again by their saying it was a business decision. They killed it with regulatory changes that made us consider upstream and downstream emissions from that pipeline.

Did they make the same requirements for the Saudi oil coming in? No, they did not. This is the same Saudi Arabia that the foreign minister was bashing on Twitter regarding human rights. Nevertheless, the government can bring in the oil no problem without the same regulations as are in Alberta.

What about Venezuelan oil? Were there any issues? Of course there were not. The government is happily bringing in oil from Venezuela without the same regulatory requirements or emissions testing as exist for Alberta oil.

The government put Kinder Morgan's Trans Mountain project into a coma and then nationalized it. Members have to ask themselves, who in the world, with such immense oil reserves, has the problems that exist in Canada and has to nationalize oil? It is Venezuela and no one else.

The government nationalized it to the tune of $4.5 billion, and we just heard form the PBO that it overpaid. It was published in the paper that the Liberals overpaid by $1 billion. That is $1 billion if it gets built. If it is blocked, which is what I am sure the Liberals want, the existing pipeline would only be worth $2 billion.

In response to an earlier question, the finance minister told us to read the report. I would suggest to him that he read the report himself so that he can see how much he overpaid.

The loss of revenue from the pipelines ranges from $40 million to $100 million a day. Scotiabank says it is $40 million. The Government of Alberta says it is $80 million. GMP FirstEnergy says it is $100 million. The lowest of those numbers, from Scotiabank, works out to $15 billion a year in lost revenue, lost wages and lost resources for the government. We have to ask ourselves what we could do for social housing with that $15 billion.

There are two sides to the housing issue. It is not just a lack of available housing but a lack of good-paying jobs, and the current government is killing those jobs.

The Liberal government is forcing through a carbon tax. The government's own report shows that it needs to go to $300 a tonne to be effective. That works out to about $5,000 a year for a family in Alberta, and it is higher in Saskatchewan. On top of that, the Liberals eliminated the sports credit for children, the arts credit for children and the public transport credit. Here they want more public transport, but they eliminate the credit for low-income people to take advantage of public transport. They eliminated income-splitting for families. They cut the tax credit for text books. Of course, they are hiking the CPP. They like to say that they are providing for the future with the CPP, but we are paying a tax now that will not benefit us for decades. Of course, there is the middle-class tax cut. Those making between $90,000 and $170,000 will get tax break of $2.50 a day. However, people who are low-income, those making less than $45,000 a year, who are hurt by the lack of affordability will not get penny from the Liberal government's tax cut.

I want to talk further about the carbon tax. We are very blessed in this country. I am very blessed in my riding of Edmonton West. We have a phenomenal number of churches, charities and not-for-profits that deliver services to the needy. We have an incredible food bank with an incredible number of volunteers, but they expect the carbon tax to hit them with between $25,000 and $50,000 a year. I am sure people opposite are confused when they see banks raise their rates, but a food bank cannot pass costs on to its clients. The churches cannot pass on the cost of the carbon tax. These are churches that go out and provide help for the food banks and help to the needy.

One of my favourite organizations in my riding is called the Elves Special Needs Society. It looks after Edmonton's most disabled and disadvantaged people from ages one or two up to 55. It cannot afford the added carbon tax. Some of its clients cannot feed themselves, breathe for themselves or care for themselves. Members of the Elves Special Needs Society had to go the food bank and beg and borrow to get adult diapers for some of their clients, as it is so stretched for money, yet the government wants to add a carbon tax on top.

I want to talk about the fast and loose numbers for the Liberals' housing program. The Prime Minister said in this place that the government has already helped one million people find housing. However, here is the truth. The government's own document from the department shows that they have actually helped 7,500, not a million. The government's own document said 7,500 last year, which dropped from the previous year and the year before that.

The Liberals said they have spent $5 billion this year on housing. A report from the former Parliamentary Budget officer, Kevin Page, says that they have actually only spent $1.3 billion over the last couple of years. The Institute of Fiscal Studies and Democracy said:

This all begs the question: Where is the proposed $40 billion National Housing Strategy funding? By following the funding throughout the years and tracking what is “new” money, we have painted a picture of what the NHS looks like apart from the glossy document that accompanied its announcement. And unfortunately, for now, the NHS is virtually nowhere to be seen in the federal fiscal framework.

Once again, for the government, I give it an A for announcements, but Canadians give it a D for delivery.

We have an affordability crisis in housing and day-to-day living in this country, and the Liberal government is making it worse, as I made it very clear. Heaven forbid the Liberals get re-elected. They are going to jack up taxes and make it even worse for common, everyday Canadians.

Carbon Pricing

[Matt Jeneroux, Conservative, Edmonton Riverbend, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is the Liberals who are making pollution free again by mass exemptions to industrial emitters and dumping sewage into the ocean.

The Prime Minister has no concept of managing money because he inherited, in his words, a great “family fortune”. According to his own government's documents, the Liberal carbon tax is expected to cost a family of four up to $5,000 a year. He has already introduced Bill C-69 and Bill C-48. He cannot build a pipeline. How does he now expect that struggling families are going to pay for this?

When will the Prime Minister stop making Canadians pay for his mistakes?

Oil and Gas Industry

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

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals said they bought the Trans Mountain pipeline to guarantee construction would start in 2018, but the money just went to build American pipelines instead. They claim they did not kill northern gateway, as if the minister did not even know that a ministerial order had been signed and there was a shipping ban. They claim that the company just decided on its own not to build energy east and that it was not because of regulatory changes. Now, following an Alberta production curtailment, with another new round of energy industry layoffs imminent, the government refuses to pull Bill C-69.

All Alberta wants is for the government to stop making things worse, stop killing projects, stop dreaming up new ways to kill future projects, stop insulting construction workers and stop the empty platitudes. Instead of saying that their hearts go out to Alberta they should just apologize, or better still, kill Bill C-69.

Federal Sustainable Development Act

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

It is the new environment, Madam Speaker. One gets very excited about the carbon tax and fighting it and fighting the perpetrator of the carbon tax. I hope Canadians will forgive me for that. It was a slip of the tongue.

The carbon tax has been imposed by the disastrous Liberal Prime Minister. Canadians have to pay for his mistake of putting in place a carbon tax and not reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Let me explain this.

If somebody in Canada wants to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, that individual has to first realize that Canada has an agricultural-based economy. We also have a natural resource-based economy and a manufacturing-based economy. All of these industries are carbon intensive. They take energy to run. It is cold here in Ottawa. Just taking a few short steps outside the House of Commons today makes one realize that we need energy to heat our buildings in the middle of January.

The reality is that many Canadians have to drive to work. Canada does not have the same sort of public transit infrastructure that a small European country has. When we put all of those things together and look at the economic context of Canada, we understand that the price the Prime Minister has put on carbon will do nothing to change the demand for carbon.

People who have to drive to work in downtown Calgary from my riding of Calgary Nose Hill, after the disastrous failure to build the green line in my riding that my former government committed to, need to fill up their cars. They do not really have a choice of how to commute to work. The price of gas does not matter as they have to put gas in their cars. If it is more expensive, that means more money coming out of their pockets. The only way they can change their behaviour is by saying it is no longer affordable for them to drive to work. In that case we would see an economic reduction instead of what the Liberals always talk about, which is growing Canada's economy and balancing the environment.

Under our former Conservative government we saw for the first time in Canadian history a decoupling of economic growth. We saw the economy grow and greenhouse gas emissions drop. Why was that? It was because we told each of the major emitting sectors in Canada that we would put regulations in place such that they would have to adapt to a lower carbon emitting standard over time. That resulted in a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions with respect to passenger vehicles and the coal-fired electricity sector. All those regulations were put in place under the Conservative government.

The carbon tax is just a consumption tax. It is like the Liberals have added another GST to Canada's economy. It is not going to do anything to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. As somebody who cares about this issue, it is so devastating for me to watch their uninformed environment minister be completely unaware of any of the realities of the failed economic model of this situation.

My colleague who just made a speech spoke to their hidden agenda. She said the carbon tax is not high enough and that we need to make it higher. Anybody who watches the Liberal government knows that it cannot resist raising a tax. Anybody who thinks that the carbon tax is bad now, should know that it is going to go up.

The government has no plan on how to grow the economy. It only has a plan to build a deficit. What does that mean? Today's deficit is tomorrow's taxes. We have a carbon tax that is not going to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and we have huge growing deficits. For the amount of money that the Liberal government has spent on nothing that has materially impacted the lives of Canadians in a positive way, we could have sent a gold-plated rocket ship to the moon.

Canadians do not see anything for these deficits, but they will see increased taxes. Canadians are tired of paying for the Prime Minister's ego, his love for himself and his failed policies. That is why we cannot trust Liberals on any sort of policy related to sustainable development, but I want to build on that case.

We know the carbon tax is a failure, but there is something even bigger in terms of hypocrisy. The government has done everything possible to undermine the workers in the energy sector and the industries that are part of the energy sector across this country. It has done everything possible to call their jobs dirty. The Prime Minister even said in Paris that he wished they could phase out the energy sector faster.

The people on this side of the aisle support transporting Canada's energy products in the most environmentally responsible way, which is pipelines. The Liberals across the aisle are content to let our energy products be transported by rail, which has both environmental implications and implications on our agriculture sector. They are saying they should use rail and not pipelines or they should shut the energy sector down, but at the same time, what are they doing?

Let us talk about a pipeline, one of the few pipelines that the Liberal Party loves, and that is a pipeline of fecal matter. That is right. The same Liberal government that says it does not like pipelines got behind the former mayor of Quebec and approved the City of Montreal dumping billions of litres of raw sewage into the St. Lawrence River.

People in the energy sector are told on a daily basis that their jobs are dirty and that pipelines are not environmentally sustainable. One has to appreciate the level of frustration and anger at the hypocrisy of the environment minister telling them their jobs are dirty and the government is working against pipelines. I believe her chief of staff made an entire career out of fighting pipelines. It is “no pipelines for the energy sector”, but what did the Liberals do in their first months in office? On the minister's sixth day in office, when a top priority was to turn the lights on in the office, the environment minister approved a plan for the City of Montreal to dump billions of litres of raw sewage into the St. Lawrence River. There are concerns about pipelines in Quebec, but not about fecal matter pipelines. Fecal matter pipelines are okay. Job-creating energy pipelines are not okay. That is sustainable development under the Liberal government.

It gets worse. I am not sure what other word I can use for “fecal matter” in the House that is parliamentary, but viewers at home can imagine and insert the word appropriately here. The Conservative government said we should not be developing a pipeline of fecal matter since there were a lot of concerns about fish habitat and the terrible precedent that this decision would create for the future. We wanted to ensure that all of the appropriate actions and research had been done and we actually named a panel to review the plan. In October of 2015, the former Conservative government mandated an independent science review panel to review the proposed discharge of the raw sewage of Montreal. This was a very important step.

What did the sustainable development-loving environment minister, the “Alberta has dirty jobs” environment minister, the “no energy pipeline” environment minister do on her sixth day in office? She said, “No Alberta pipelines, but Montreal can dump away. Dump all of that fecal matter into the river. We do not need a fish habitat. Dump it in. Set that precedent. That is great.”

That is sustainable development under the Liberal government. We have a carbon tax that will not reduce greenhouse gas emissions and we have the Minister of Environment jetting around the world to climate action panels and cocktail receptions fully understanding that the government is never going to meet its own self-imposed greenhouse gas emissions target.

At the same time, the environment minister calls the jobs of the people in my riding dirty, tells the rest of Canada that we cannot put in place energy infrastructure, which is one of the most sustainable ways to transport energy products around the world, and signs off on a plan that had no review to dump billions of litres of fecal matter into the St. Lawrence River. I wonder how baby beluga felt about that.

This is why the government has no credibility whatsoever on sustainable development. It is one of the areas where the New Democratic Party and the Conservative Party can actually unite and say that there is no credibility there. However, it is even worse, because rather than talking about policy, government members just stand up and frankly repeat falsehoods. They are trying to buy the votes of Canadians with their mumbo jumbo while at the same building pipelines of billions of litres of raw sewage.

I want people to visualize a full porta-potty after the end of a summer fair, then multiply that by one billion and dump that into the St. Lawrence River. That is what we are talking about. That is what the environment minister did on her sixth day in office, yet the jobs of the people in my riding are dirty and we should phase out the energy sector. Pardon me if I have some level of skepticism about the government's sustainable development plan.

I thought we could not possibly go into the lead-up to the federal election and not deal with the Montreal raw sewage issue. The Liberals could not possibly stand by this, yet they are. That is their sustainable development priority. I am so proud that the leader of my party stood up and said that a Conservative government would not allow this. It is not something we think is sustainable development.

I look at some of the things the government could have done over the last several years. In 2017, 250 billion litres of raw sewage was spilled or leaked into our waterways without being treated. This is the equivalent of 86,000 Olympic-size swimming pools. Again, we can try to visualize that in terms of the volume of a porta-potty. However, pipelines with energy projects are not okay. The Liberals would rather they not happen. For pipelines, which are subject to the most rigorous environment assessments in the world, no, we cannot do that, but 86,000 Olympic-size swimming pools full of fecal matter are good to go. That is the Liberal Party's sustainable development agenda.

In 2016, under the government's watch, only 159 out of 269 municipalities reported their sewage leaks. Why is the Liberal government not concerned about these missing reports? Why is the government not helping these municipalities upgrade their sewage infrastructure to ensure that no raw sewage is spilled into Canadian waters?

On this issue I am pleased to say that the former Conservative government set the stage in 2012 with the first wastewater regulations as a means of cleaning up 150 billion litres of untreated or under-treated wastewater or sewage that is dumped into waterways each year. Again, where is the Liberals' action on the environment? It is making Canadians pay for the Prime Minister's mistake, his failed legacy of any sort of environmental standard whatsoever, at the pump or on their tax bills.

A lot of Canadians are waking up to the hypocrisy of the government across a majority of issues. It is very exciting to see. I was able to travel across British Columbia this month. I travelled into some ridings, such as Cloverdale—Langley City. We had a town hall and about 250 people showed up. I thought it was going to be an interesting room. There was a Liberal member of Parliament there who won by a considerable majority. I heard people stand up in that room and say that they voted for the Prime Minister and he betrayed them.

This is why the Conservative Party is rolling out a plan of pragmatism. It is why we have opposed government bills like Bill C-69, the no-more-pipelines bill, which would do nothing to practically clean up the Canadian environment but would do everything to make it harder for Canadians to work on a daily basis.

That is where we have to wonder what the current government is managing to. If it is managing to taxing Canadians more but getting fewer results, what is in it for Canadians? Why do they have to pay for the Prime Minister's mistakes? What are the motives of every person across the aisle who votes in favour of these bills that do nothing to help the Canadian environment or the economy but make lives worse for Canadians? Why are they doing this? They could be doing it because they have not actually reviewed this legislation and are not doing their jobs. That could be one matter.

When I watch the Prime Minister and the environment minister and what their priorities are, such as going to Tedx conferences and different conferences around the world, where they are spouting their talking points to international audiences, as opposed to looking at home and doing their jobs here and then reporting back to the world on success, I wonder if it is more about their egos and seeking power for power's sake as opposed to doing something that actually matters.

Members do not have to take my word for it, although I would like it if they did. The reality is that the Commissioner for the Environment and Sustainable Development talked about some of these issues in his report this year. It is important to highlight this, because it talks about the fact that the measures to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions contained in the government's framework have yet to be implemented. That is on top of the carbon tax the government has put forward, which is probably going to do nothing to reduce greenhouse gas emissions but is going to make Canadians pay for the Prime Minister's mistakes. The report is quite shocking for a government that had an environment minister dressed up as a climate crusader for Halloween and put it on Twitter. One would think a climate crusader could get a better report from the environment and sustainable development commissioner than that.

I want to close with this. The Liberals can stand up, obfuscate and put all these pretty talking points forward. At the end of the day, their priority and track record has been a carbon tax that makes life more expensive for Canadians and does nothing to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. They have stymied energy infrastructure in this country and have prioritized billions of litres of fecal matter going into the St. Lawrence River.

Natural Resources

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, like leaders of hundreds of other indigenous communities, Blood Tribe Chief Roy Fox says most Treaty 7 chiefs strongly oppose Bill C-69 “for its likely devastating impact on our ability to support our community members”.

A Guelph University professor says Bill C-69 “conflicts with the goals of timeliness and transparency, not to mention fairness”, while the pipeline association says it expects timelines to be longer. Martha Hall Findlay says it will increase political influence.

This is all the exact opposite of everything the Liberals claim, so will they scrap their “no more pipelines” Bill C-69 before it is too late?

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is clear the Prime Minister does not understand the struggles of everyday Canadians. More than 100,000 unemployed energy workers are struggling to pay their mortgages, heat their homes and buy Christmas presents for their families. The Prime Minister's solution to this crisis is empty words, higher taxes and more unemployment.

Canadian energy workers do not want EI cheques; they want paycheques. They do not want handouts; they want jobs. Will the Prime Minister get these people back to work? Will he scrap his “no pipelines” Bill C-69?

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, when the Conservatives talk about scrapping Bill C-69, which is focused on giving tighter timelines, a single project single evaluation and responds to the concerns of industry, they actually mean let us go back to CEAA 2012 that Harper put forward. That was an absolute failure for industry. There was a failure in getting anything built. It would be a disaster for the oil and gas industry and for industries right across the country. We will not do that.