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.

[Marc Garneau, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Westmount, QC]

All I can say to you is that I didn't make that statement. You referred to the CEO of the port of Vancouver. He can speak for himself on that.

Bill C-69, in our opinion, is absolutely necessary because the previous government, the government that you represented, gutted a lot of the protections for the environment, which were an important part of our commitment—

[Ron Liepert, Conservative, Calgary Signal Hill, AB]

Thank you, Minister, for being here and for being here for 90 minutes.

However, I only get six, so I'd like to ask some quick questions and hopefully we can use committee-of-the-whole rules, where the answers don't exceed the length of the questions.

I want to ask you about transportation 2030. You stated, “We can have the best products in the world, but if we can't get them to our customers quickly and reliably, we will lose business to other suppliers.”

When we were in Vancouver.... The port of Vancouver has something like two billion dollars' worth of construction under way today to help get products to customers. However, the CEO of the port of Vancouver said that if Bill C-69 had been law two years ago, not one dollar of that investment would be made today.

How can you make the statements that you made about transportation 2030 and still rationalize a bill like Bill C-69 being pushed through by the Liberal government?

[Marc Garneau, Liberal, Minister of Transport]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for the invitation to meet with the committee. As you know, I am joined by several people today, as the chair mentioned.

I'm pleased to be here to talk about some of the important work being done in the federal transportation portfolio, which includes Transport Canada, Crown corporations, agencies and administrative tribunals. Funding for these federal organizations helps to make Canada's transportation system safer, more secure, more efficient and more environmentally responsible. I, and the organizations in the federal transportation portfolio, remain committed to sound fiscal management and solid stewardship of government resources, while delivering results for Canadian taxpayers.

Transport Canada's supplementary estimates (A) for 2018-19 total $32 million. This figure includes funding for a variety of programs. There is $10.5 million in new funding. Most of this new funding will be used to transition to the Government of Canada's holistic and transformative system for impact assessment and regulatory decision-making.

New and incremental resources will allow Transport Canada to meet its responsibilities, which have been expanded under the new impact assessment and regulatory review system. This includes a transformative approach to working with indigenous peoples to advance reconciliation, recognize and respect indigenous rights and jurisdiction, foster collaboration and ensure that indigenous knowledge is considered.

This system includes modifications that would create the Canadian navigable waters act, which is currently before Parliament as part of Bill C-69. The changes would ensure that the public right to navigate is protected in Canada's navigable waters and would restore lost protections and incorporate modern safeguards.

These supplementary estimates include a reprofiling of funds totalling $21.6 million. This reprofiling includes funding for safety-related capital infrastructure at local and regional airports, for a variety of rail safety projects under our rail safety improvement program and for maintenance on ferries on the east coast.

Transfers from Transport Canada to other federal departments in the supplementary estimates total less than $1 million, and there is $840,000 listed for statutory employee benefit plan costs related to the aforementioned projects.

I am very proud of Transport Canada's ongoing work.

I'll take a few moments to highlight a specific priority, which is investment in our country's transportation corridors, particularly our trade corridors. “Trade Corridors to Global Markets” is one of the five themes of transportation 2030, our government's strategic plan for the future of transportation in Canada.

We can have the best products in the world, but if we can't get them to our customers quickly and reliably, we will lose business to other suppliers. We are working with stakeholders to address bottlenecks, vulnerabilities and congestion along our trade corridors, and the trade and transportation corridors initiative is a significant part of this effort.

We announced the trade and transportation corridors initiative in July 2017, including the national trade corridors fund, which is a cornerstone of this initiative. The national trade corridors fund is designed to help infrastructure owners and users invest in our roads, bridges, airports, rail lines, port facilities and trade corridors. Through this fund, our government is investing $2 billion over a span of 11 years. We have already announced funding for projects, including railway corridors, airport runways, port facilities, bridges, highways and more. These are critical transportation assets that support the movement of goods and people in Canada. The national trade corridors fund has been accelerated, as you know, to enable more projects to address bottlenecks to trade diversification.

Our trade corridors are important for moving domestic trade to international markets and for helping Canadian businesses to complete, grow and create more jobs for the country's middle class. Canada is a trading nation, and one in six Canadian jobs depends on international commerce. For our economy to succeed, we have to ensure that our products, our services and our citizens have access to key global markets. This is an important reason why I am proud of the work Transport Canada is doing throughout the trade and transportation corridors initiative and the national trade corridors fund.

But Transport Canada is not the only organization in the federal transportation portfolio. The Canadian Air Transport Security Authority, or CATSA, is also an important part of the Canadian transportation landscape.

CATSA is seeking to reprofile $36 million of capital funds in supplementary estimates (A) this year. The majority of this capital reprofiling—approximately $29 million—is for postponed equipment purchase and integration work for the new hold baggage screening system. This is part of CATSA'S capital life-cycle management plan to align with revised airport project plans.

My mandate has not changed since being named Minister of Transport three years ago. I continue to ensure that Canada's transportation system supports economic growth and job creation. I continue to work to ensure that our transportation system is safe and reliable, and facilitates trade and the movement of people and goods. I continue to work to ensure that our roads, ports and airports are integrated and sustainable, and allow Canadians and businesses to more easily engage globally.

The financial resources sought through these supplementary estimates would help the organizations in my portfolio as we continue to ensure that our transportation system serves Canadians' needs now and for years to come.

Thank you. If you have any questions, I would be happy to answer them.

Budget Implementation Act, 2018, No. 2

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am happy to join in on the debate so soon after the bringing in of closure again.

I am pleased to speak on budget implementation act, no. 2, an omnibus bill that is a sequel to Budget Implementation Act, No. 1, which is also an omnibus bill. This is a sequel omnibus bill to an omnibus bill.

Who cares, some might ask, that this is another omnibus bill? Apparently not our government Liberals. I wonder if they forgot their pledge from the last election regarding the practice of omnibus bills. If they forgot, I will remind them. This is from their website: “We will...bring an end to this undemocratic practice.”

Maybe the Liberals say it does not count because they had their fingers crossed behind their backs when they made that pledge. Maybe they say it does not count because at the time they did not put their hands over their hearts when they made that pledge, so it is okay to break that promise. That is fine. We just ask them not to be hypocrites and to just own it. They should come out and say they are going to do omnibus bills. Unfortunately, what we have right here is another omnibus bill.

The Liberals said they were going to end this practice of bringing forward omnibus bills, and it is actually on the Liberal mandate tracker. In the mandate tracker, it says, under the words “Completed—fully met”, that “[m]easures are in place to end the improper use of omnibus bills”. The Liberals have said in a mandate tracker that they have ended the practice, yet here we have another omnibus bill. Maybe they are hinging this on the word “improper”. It is improper for perhaps Conservatives to use omnibus bills, but it is okay if they do it, because they are Liberals.

What else does it say on this wonderful Liberal mandate tracker? There are 23 items labelled “progress made, facing challenges”, including balancing the budget in 2019-20. With respect to running a $20-billion deficit next year, instead of balancing the budget as Liberals promised, progress is being made and there are challenges.

The world has not seen this level of denial since perhaps the Black Knight in the movie Monty Python and the Holy Grail. Like the Black Knight refusing to see the truth with his limbs cut off, I can see the finance minister, in response to the $20-billion deficit, bouncing about the finance ministry saying, “'Tis but a scratch. It is under way with challenges.”

What other lies can we find on the Liberal mandate tracker with respect to progress made? “Make sure the Infrastructure Bank supports the construction of new, affordable rental housing.” Keep in mind, Liberals say this is “progress made”, yet their fabled infrastructure bank has not put a single penny into housing. In fact, the only thing Liberals have done so far, which was politically motivated, is invest in a Quebec transit project that is actually going to deliver below-market returns for taxpayers.

One of their other promises is to “Ensure that the [CRA] is a client-focused agency.” Liberals have said they made progress in ensuring that CRA is delivering services to Canada, the same CRA that the Auditor General called out for doctoring its performance standards. CRA was basically hanging up on Canadians or stopping its calls from coming through to show a higher response rate than actually reported. The same Auditor General just recently talked about how the CRA would give special extensions for large companies and offshore tax cheats, but not give those same extensions to small individual businesses or Canadians. However, to the Liberals, this is progress made.

One of my favourite items labelled “progress made” in the Liberal mandate tracker is “Ensure that the Canadian Armed Forces have the equipment they need.” We have the fighter jet issue. The Liberals promised they were not going to buy the F-35, and then, as the Auditor General stated, they manufactured a capability gap. It used to be NORAD first and then NATO. Then Liberals said they needed a reason not to buy the F-35s and get Super Hornets, and said that NORAD and NATO were on the same level so they would need more jets. Then they decided to buy sole-source Boeing Super Hornets, but Boeing got into a fight with Bombardier, and since the Liberals did not want Bombardier to be picked on, Boeing was punted out. They decided they were not going to buy jets from Boeing, so what did they do? They decided to buy used Boeing Hornets from Australia.

They launched what they say was an open and fair competitive process to replace the fighter jets over about a five- or six-year period, even though the mandate letter actually said to have it done by 2019.

Our allies, Israel, Germany, Denmark and South Korea, have all managed to do an open and honest competition in two years or less. South Korea actually started its open competition, suspended it while it reviewed whether it wanted to go to a new plane or stick with the F-16, restarted its open competition and managed to finish it within a two-year period, but we are going to take five years or six years.

Regarding ships, we know the President of the Treasury Board is embroiled in the scandal with Admiral Mark Norman for his political interference with buying the Asterix. Of course, he says that it his job to interfere with contracts as Treasury Board president. We asked him why he did not interfere with the Phoenix pay system, the same system he paid to have the Gartner report done on. The Gartner report very clearly said not to go ahead and that there were too many problems with Phoenix. However, he looked at the report and threw it out because it was not his job to look at it, but it was his job to interfere with the ship contract at Davie.

With sleeping bags, the government is asking our soldiers to return their sleeping bags. We need to use them for other troops because there are not enough sleeping bags, but progress is being made on the mandate letter of course. Our soldiers have to buy their own boots and seek reimbursement from the government, but again, under the mandate letter, progress is being made.

What is the point of all this about the mandate letter? It is to point out the truth and expose the Liberal talking points for what they are, which is simply empty rhetoric. Do people want more empty rhetoric? Just go to any speech made by the Liberals on how they are helping my home province of Alberta. Listen to anything from the mouth of the natural resources minister, who is allegedly representing Edmonton Mill Woods in Alberta.

Here is what the natural resources minister says on Bill C-69, the famous “no pipeline ever“ bill. He says, “It gives a pathway to proponents...You engage early, you get good results.” For seven years, Kinder Morgan engaged and consulted, and was side-swiped by the government. Northern gateway was years in consulting and engaging, and it was killed by the government. It is the same story with energy east. Even the Black Knight from Monty Python and the Holy Grail would look at Bill C-69 and say that this is a disaster which is going to kill the energy industry in Alberta.

What else do we get? A five-year extension of unfair equalization of Alberta shifting money to other provinces. There was no consultation, just a tiny line hidden in a 700-page omnibus bill. In Alberta, we have been in a financial crisis for three years now and a human crisis. Donations to charities are low, access to food banks is at a high, unemployment is at a high, families are falling apart, suicide is rising and the government does nothing. This is how bad it gets, because I am actually going to quote the NDP. Joe Ceci, the Alberta finance minister, said that if it was Bombardier, all hands would be on deck.

The Prime Minister was recently in Calgary and said, “...things...are beyond our control here...we are constrained and have been for a long time...” Out of their control. I have to ask, how is killing northern gateway out of his control? How is hitting energy east with rules and regulations he would not dare put on Saudi Arabia oil out of his control? How is banning oil tankers from the B.C. north coast beyond his control? How is Bill C-69, the “no more pipelines ever" bill out of his control? Basically, I think telling the truth to Albertans is out of his control. The only truth we have heard from the PM was when he said that he wanted to phase out the oil sands business.

With this bill, we have $19 billion of debt this year, another $20 billion next year. Bombardier is laying off people, and obviously GM is laying off people in Oshawa today. What tools are we going to have when the recession hits? Almost nothing. The government is spending now in good times when it should be putting money aside for when the recession hits. Budget implementation act, no. 2 is as bad as Budget Implementation Act, No. 1. It pushes us further into debt and leaves nothing for Canada and Canadians when we do need it.

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague put it very eloquently when he spoke about the fact that, because of this Prime Minister and the current government's failure, thousands of Canadians have lost their jobs. As well, Canadian taxpayers are now on the hook for a $4.5-billion pipeline that may never be built. Add to that the legislation that has been introduced. In my comments, I mentioned Bill C-48, and my colleague has mentioned Bill C-69. This legislation is already having a devastating effect on investment here in Canada. Those companies have not just stopped investing, but have taken their investment to other countries. They are going ahead and building pipelines in other places around the world. It is just not happening here in Canada.

I know that the leader of our party, the leader of our caucus, has stood and suggested what a Conservative government would do if it were elected. The first thing Conservatives would do is repeal Bill C-48, a moratorium on tanker traffic off the northwest coast of British Columbia. In itself, that would begin to build some confidence. We would repeal Bill C-69. Again, we have placed a regulatory burden on certain sectors in this country that needs to be reversed if we are ever to see a thriving oil and gas industry in this country again.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is so interesting hearing the speeches from different shadow ministers on our side, digging deep into aspects of the budget implement act that deal with their areas, and to really see how much of an omnibus bill this is, how many changes we are seeing in so many different areas. We are basically getting one good speech on each of those different aspects, providing so much comment with so little debate in response. It is really quite striking.

Today we are going to have an emergency debate on terrible impact we are seeing in the auto sector. In my province of Alberta, which the member spoke about, we are dealing with major challenges in the oil and gas sector as a result of legislation brought forward by the government, such as Bill C-69, the no-pipelines bill, as well as other steps it has taken.

It really boggles the mind. On the one hand, the government has taken every possible step to kill the transportation of vital energy resources. On the other hand, it has put massive amounts of public dollars into buying a pipeline, supposedly in the name of getting that pipeline built, and it is still not succeeding with that. It has bought the pipeline without building it. We would prefer that we build pipelines without buying them.

Could the member share with us a little more about what positive alternatives there are? The Liberals have said that it would take magic to get these things done, in some cases, and yet we have had success in the past building pipelines. What are the steps we can and should be taking to move these forward?

Natural Resources

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

Mr. Speaker, when the finance minister was asked this weekend what it would take for the Liberals to finally do something to help the Alberta energy sector, he responded and said the Liberals would only help once there was a consensus from Alberta.

There is a consensus. There is a consensus that opposes the Prime Minister's plan to phase out the oil sands. There is a consensus that opposes the Liberals' unilateral decision to impose a northern tanker ban. There is a consensus that export pipelines to new markets must be built and that the Liberals are wrong to kill the northern gateway, the west to east and the Trans Mountain pipelines. There is a consensus from leaders of all political stripes who are opposed to the Liberals' “no new pipeline” law, Bill C-69, which will ensure that no new pipeline will be built in Canada.

There is a consensus. The minister is just not listening.

[Darshan Singh Kang, Independent, Calgary Skyview, AB]

Mr. Speaker, there is great concern about the economy not only in my riding of Calgary Skyview but right across the country. Just look at the bad news from Oshawa this morning. I wonder who is next.

My constituents, from business owners to electricians to cab drivers, voice the same fears for the future of Alberta. With no access to world markets for our oil and dropping oil prices, Alberta's economy is in dire straits. We are losing a shocking $80 million a day in revenue. This money could be used to build hospitals and schools. It could be used to improve infrastructure and social programs.

Bill C-69 in its current form is a huge concern in Alberta.

We understand that the economy and the environment have to go hand-in-hand, but not at the risk of hindering the future development of our natural resources.

I would urge the government to address all of the concerns raised by the industry regarding Bill C-69, and make the necessary amendments to the bill to ensure that it is both environmentally and economically friendly.

Motions in amendment

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

Mr. Speaker, right now in Alberta, over 180,000 people are out of work, and a majority of those people have seen their jobs lost in the last couple of years.

This morning, when I woke up and heard the news that the auto plant was being closed by General Motors, I tweeted the following, “From the tens of thousands of people who have seen their jobs disappear in Alberta, our hearts go out to the people of Oshawa today.” That is a legitimate sentiment. If we are going to be a federation, people in different provinces have to stand up for each other.

From the people of Alberta, I want to send a message to those in Oshawa who are affected: We get it. We are going through this right now. It should not happen. Canada should be a place where we have jobs and prosperity.

The interesting thing is that I had several responses to this comment of sympathy. One of them really stuck out for me, and it was this: “Both [job losses] are tied to outdated fuel sources/transportation modes. Economic hardship is always sad, but it was inevitable we would have to pivot.”

I want to spend the bulk of my time today refuting the government's budgetary plan, because it is based on this principle of economic management. I have watched the government travel internationally to attend wonderful meetings in Davos, and have heard the speeches the Prime Minister has given in Paris in which he talks about exactly what this Twitter response said. It is a leftist, elitist, academic understanding of the Canadian economy. It is a “let them eat cake” understanding from somebody who has never really had to work a day in his life, told to a bunch of people who only want to work.

They are being told their jobs are dirty and outdated. Do we have outdated modes of transportation? The last time I checked, it was cold in Canada, we did not have magical public transit from every place to every different place, and we drove cars. The last time I checked, the auto sector was one of the most important industries to the Canadian economy. The last time I checked, the energy sector in Alberta created so much revenue for all different levels of government in this country such that at the end of last week, we actually had major financial analysts asking the finance minister how he was going to deal with the significant price differential we are receiving for our energy products, compared to if we had market access for these things, in his budgetary forecast.

That is why the government's approach to budgeting is so fundamentally flawed. Liberals do not understand the fact that Canadians want to work and want to be competitive in some of the world's most important industries, such as energy production or manufacturing. They do not understand what their high-level, bourgeois thinking of what “appropriate” industries or “clean” jobs means to somebody who is just trying to make ends meet. They have not taken any sort of understanding of these concepts into a framework that would make us more competitive, not less competitive, with the United States. They do not understand how fundamentally damaging this is to the fabric of the Canadian federation.

If members were to go door-knocking from house to house in my province right now, as I frequently do in my riding, they would automatically hear a tale of somebody being out of work for a very long period of time. They would hear about how people have had to shutter businesses and how we are losing labour to the United States and to other parts of the world. They would hear about the fact that city council is increasing small business taxes by 25%, because the downtown core is now looking at about a 50% plus vacancy rate, even though we had, I think, a zero vacancy rate in downtown Calgary just a few short years ago.

We will hear one other sentiment and that is, why are we sending money to other parts of the country in equalization payments when the rest of the country will not stand up for us? The reality is that the context has changed since 2015. I used to think the Prime Minister's father, Pierre Elliott Trudeau, was the worst possible Trudeau to Alberta, while he looks absolutely great compared to his son. Bill C-69 finishes the job. It shoots the energy sector in the head. Oil is over under Bill C-69 and maybe that is what the Prime Minister wants. Maybe he is celebrating that, but my community sure is not. The tanker ban, the carbon tax, the political veto of the northern gateway pipeline, not saying anything to President Obama when he vetoed the Keystone XL pipeline. The Prime Minister and the government have done every single thing possible to kill the energy sector.

In the last budget implementation bill, the Liberals said they were not going to look at the equalization formula. If the Prime Minister will not stand up for the jobs in every part of the country, including Alberta, then we have to look at that formula because it is not fair. I would not be doing my job as a member of Parliament from that province if I did not stand and say he has a responsibility to make policy that is in the best interests of the entire country, not penalize regions because of his or his father's ideological opposition to having power and economic growth in Alberta. That is where we are at.

We cannot look at 180,000 people out of work and at the response that other industries get and the lip service. I look at his response in Calgary on Thursday. I am so proud of my city for getting out and protesting him. I saw that and thought it was great, give him a message. I am so proud of my city for doing that, but at the end of the day, the people of Calgary and of Alberta have always been happy to contribute to the entirety of Canada. They do not want to be out protesting, they just want to work. However, the Prime Minister comes with nothing for my city. He is still pushing through Bill C-69 full steam ahead, full steam to kill the energy sector. He is not even acknowledging the depth of crisis that his ideological opposition to the development of the energy sector has done to the Canadian economy.

The Liberals will stand with their talking points and will say the economy and the environment go hand in hand. There is only one reason that we will see a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, if we do, in Canada, and that is because he has killed the energy sector. His carbon tax will do nothing to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. That is because carbon, for the most part in Canada, is inelastic and we cannot set whatever the United Nations report called for, a $5,500 per megatonne price on carbon, and expect the economy to continue to grow. I cannot stand here on behalf of my constituents and support anything that the government is doing in terms of taxation, in terms of budgeting because it is a lot of spending on nothing. In this entire budget implementation act, there is no spending on any sort of infrastructure that is going to make my city more productive. There is nothing in it for the workers.

Frankly, to add insult to injury, he is not talking about the fact that the Liberals have underwritten and underpinned a continuous welfare system for this country based on the backs of the people in my province. Enough is enough. Either the Prime Minister writes some policy that is in the best interests of the entire country or he starts dealing with the voices of the people in my city and in my province. They are tired of it and they will not go gently into that good night.

Shame on the member for Calgary Centre. Shame on the member for Calgary Skyview. Shame on the members from Edmonton who have had the opportunity to speak up in their caucus for the rights of the people in this country and still see Bill C-69 going forward, still see the budget implementation act going forward, spending and taxing, with nothing happening for them. Enough is enough. There will be more protests like we see in Calgary. We will not go gently into that good night and the bill needs to die.

[Jocelyn Bamford, Vice-President of Automatic Coating Limited, and Founder, Coalition of Concerned Manufacturers and Businesses of Ontario]

Thank you for inviting me to speak today.

I'm not a lobbyist. I'm a business owner. We have a small company in Scarborough. It was started off by my father-in-law as a washing machine repair company, and it's grown to 92 people. We have over four patents for new technology developed here in Canada and we hope to export worldwide.

Ninety-two per cent of all companies in Canada are 100 people and below. I want to reiterate that. It's a big difference between small business and large business, and a lot different from the United States, which tends to have a gradual increase in business size. We have a lot of small companies, and then we have large companies.

Small and medium-sized companies are the lifeblood of the economy. We pay for everything. Without us, there are no schools, no hospitals and probably no politicians as well. We have to keep that in mind. What we do is put money into the economy. We give people jobs so they can pay taxes.

If you want to know what you can do to help businesses, the best thing you can do is to go back to your ridings and talk to those businesses. Don't make them come to you. Go to them, because we're just trying to survive. We're trying to keep the lights on and people paid.

You've asked me here to give you my advice on how to help business. Here's what we need. First of all, and most importantly, we need to be able to compete. We're not competitive in Canada due to the fact that our energy pricing is not competitive. I pay three times what I would pay for electricity if I moved my business to the United States. I also have to deal with cap and trade and carbon pricing. That adds costs that make it impossible for me to compete worldwide.

You can negotiate all the trade deals you like, but if we're not competitive, we're not going to be able to compete with those trade deals, and it will just be a vehicle for other countries dumping their product into ours.

There is also the tariff situation. Right now, there's talk of tariff waivers for LNG. We supply to the oil and gas industry. That will prevent fabricators, coders and steel companies from working on projects that are Canadian. We think that's fundamentally unfair.

The tariff situation is very inconsistent. One of our members makes screws and bolts. He tries to source as many Canadian products as he can, but there's one product that he can only source in the United States. He pays a tariff on that, and then he has to charge more to his Canadian customers who pick up that specific nut and bolt. He has a very innovative nut and bolt. Probably people think that's boring, but those nuts and bolts last a lot longer than anyone else's nuts and bolts. He has to charge more to his Canadian company. When he exports them to U.S. companies, he does get a tariff waiver, but those U.S. companies end up selling back to the Canadian companies for less than what he could sell to the Canadian companies. We think that's unfair.

We need assistance in exporting our innovation. We need ways to take small and medium-sized businesses that have great innovation and technology and pair them up with larger companies that have footprints to get our products to market. That would be a very helpful way to get our products to market.

We need equity and fairness. About six weeks ago, I saw the economic strategy tables. I was horrified, because when you read those economic strategy tables, it doesn't say we're going to create a level playing field where people can rise or fail on their own innovation. It says, we're going to pick the winners and losers. We're not going to help everybody. We're going to decide who's going to succeed and who will fail. We think, for a government that talks about equity and fairness, that is fundamentally not fair and not equitable.

We are also concerned about the strategic innovation fund. Again, we want everyone to be able to succeed and fail on their own merit, and not have government pick the winners and losers.

We need pipelines built so that we can have affordable energy and be able to sell our products. We're concerned about C-69 because we believe it will make us less competitive.

We need the trade commissioners to be more effective. They don't need to be diplomats. They need to be salespeople. For four years, I've been trying to get one of my patented products, which could be utilized by navies around the world, to Australia. I have yet to get an appointment with the Australian navy through our trade commissioners. We need our trade commissioners to help us set up appointments so that we can get in and show them our technology, which is world class.

I'm concerned that if we don't do some things to make us more competitive, then companies will leave. We've seen companies leave or take their growth and move it outside to the United States, so our wonderful success and innovation in Canada will be another country's success story. We think that's going to be a tragedy.

Public Safety

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

Mr. Speaker, about two weeks ago, every member in this House stood up and agreed on one thing, that the decision of Canada to have a “none is too many” policy and turn away Jewish refugees who were fleeing genocide was something worth an apology.

The Prime Minister invoked the phrase “never again”. To me, if we are going to truly mean never again, we should not be undertaking actions for which Parliament is going to have to apologize in terms of failing to prevent genocide in years to come.

ISIS is a genocidal death cult. There is no other way to describe it. Its members have raped, tortured and systemically eradicated ethnic and religious minorities. This place has declared that ISIS has committed genocide against the Yazidi people. Therefore, I just do not understand why the government has essentially acted as an apologist for Canadians, or people with affiliations to Canada, who have travelled abroad to take up arms to fight with ISIS. The Prime Minister cannot stand in this place, with flowery words and a Kleenex in hand, and say “never again” and then allow ISIS fighters, terrorists, to roam free in Canada as if nothing has happened. I refuse to use the term “fighters”. They are people who are complicit in genocide.

This is so wrong. The government refuses to issue peace bonds to people they suspect have gone and taken up arms and are complicit in genocide. The Prime Minister has stood up and essentially defended giving poetry lessons to these people as opposed to bringing them to justice. The government has introduced Bill C-69, which actually increases the intelligence-to-evidentiary gap in terms of being able to prosecute these people within our own courts of justice. The Prime Minister refuses to go to the United Nations and make changes to the International Criminal Court process.

The reality is that there is no such thing as a big bad guy or just one leader in terms of ISIS being complicit in genocide. As Nadia Murad said in her book, every person who spread propaganda or turned a blind eye to the sex slave trade that she was forced into are complicit in genocide and should be treated as such.

There is a Canadian, someone who is in Canada, who has confessed to having killed on behalf of ISIS. His name is Abu Huzaifa. He told this to a New York Times journalist, yet the government has been silent on what it is doing.

My question to the government is very simple. Where is Abu Huzaifa, and why has he not been brought to justice?

[William Amos, Liberal, Pontiac, QC]

That's great news for a number of young Canadians who are very interested in this topic. I'm sure they'll be thrilled to join the assessment agency, so I do look forward to the passage of Bill C-69.

Perhaps one of my colleagues has something to ask in my last minute.

The time is over to you.

[William Amos, Liberal, Pontiac, QC]

Okay. That's helpful.

I'd like to follow along the line of the agency here. How many new hires do you expect will have to be made in the coming 24 months to build the agency to the level it needs to be to properly implement BillC-69?

[Alan Kerr]

Could I just expand on Carol's comments?

For the Environmental Assessment Agency, the funding proposed to be provided to the agency under supplementary estimates is really to help build the agency to prepare for the expanded mandate under Bill C-69, which will allow us to be prepared for a broader early planning, improved co-operation with other jurisdictions and greater public participation and work with indigenous communities. It is really more about building for the future than any sort of catch-up.

[Mike Lake]

For the Environmental Assessment Agency folks, maybe you could speak to transparency in other countries, comparisons that have been made with Canada, with specifically those nine other countries in terms of transparency.

I know that we have a regulatory process right now. We're putting forward Bill C-69, which has a significant impact and has raised a lot of concern in the industry in Canada. The biggest concern that I'm hearing is that other countries that we compete with are not subject to the same requirements.

Maybe you could speak to your understanding of levels of transparency in Saudi Arabia, Russia, Iraq, UAE, Iran, Kuwait, Nigeria, Angola and Kazakhstan.