Bill C-69 (Historical)

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

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

Natural Resources

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

Mr. Speaker, Canada's oil is being liquidated at $17 a barrel while our international competitors are getting $54. This discount is costing the Canadian economy $80 million each and every day and is a direct result of the Liberals' cancellation of the northern gateway, the Trans Mountain and the west-to-east pipeline projects. Now the Liberals have proposed something new. It is called a no-new-pipelines bill, Bill C-69. This is going to make this discount permanent.

Will the government kill Bill C-69 and allow pipelines to be built, or is it prepared to allow this discount to continue?

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

How do you think Bill C-69 would impact that?

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank the witnesses for being here.

It's unfortunate that it's a short timeline that we have with you. I come from Oshawa where we're big in cars and manufacturing. We're just finishing up a study on steel and aluminum tariffs but I think that's going to be an ongoing thing.

Mr. Mintz, I think you brought up an issue about being competitive. We've had good Canadian companies that are right at the precipice here because they do business not only in Canada but other countries as well. Some of their comments are that the best support the government can give to them is to be competitive. We have an American trading partner. Most of our trade goes down there. They're very aggressive with the taxes.

Mr. Azzopardi brought up the accelerated depreciation and things along these lines. We have uncertain regulations in Canada. The big one on the floor right now is Bill C-69. We have this new carbon tax that is coming in, and we have a lot of different things that are unique to Canada.

If Canadian SMEs aren't competitive internationally, for these support programs that the government taxes businesses for and then gives it back through programs, how relevant are they? What do you need to see in Wednesday's economic update to address competitiveness and education for these different programs to say that it will actually help SMEs on the ground?

[Jocelyn Bamford]

My name is Jocelyn Bamford. I represent the Coalition of Concerned Manufacturers and Businesses of Canada. We represent primarily small and medium-sized businesses in manufacturing and other areas.

We want to thank you for having us here today, because very often the voices of small and medium-sized business get lost in a lot of legislation that comes to pass. We are not competitive in Canada. We're not competitive for business. Our energy cost is not competitive. I pay between 18¢ and 21¢ per kilowatt-hour for my electricity. I could move my business to the United States and pay between four and six cents per kilowatt-hour.

This is just a cascade of effects. It's death by a thousand cuts. We are not competitive because there is going to be a price on carbon; we do not have tax reform; and we don't have accelerated capital depreciation. There are many other components that make us not competitive.

If we want businesses to grow and the economy to thrive, the only way to do that is to have more jobs and more people paying taxes. That's our way through economic prosperity.

Right now the biggest problem in our electricity, especially in Ontario, is the variability of cost. With a global adjustment, you can have a swing of $10,000 in one month. As people come off the grid with some of the technologies they're utilizing, that cost for global adjustment just goes up.

The cap-and-trade pricing that was on in Ontario wasn't borne by large emitters; it was borne by the small and medium-sized companies such as ours. Large emitters got credits. Small emitters couldn't participate in cap and trade. We just got to pay through increased natural gas pricing and diesel costs. This makes it uncompetitive for us to compete in areas where there isn't carbon pricing in place.

The fact of the matter is that Canada contributes 1.6% of greenhouse gases globally. If we burden the small and medium-sized companies with carrying this cost, we see four phenomena. We definitely have seen, in the last couple of years, these four phenomena come to pass. One, companies are going bankrupt. Two, companies are moving outright to the United States or other jurisdictions. Three, companies are staying here as a head office, but moving their growth to the United States, where they don't have the burdens of unaffordable energy. This is just as damaging. Plus, they have a lot of incentives to move there. The fourth phenomenon we're seeing is that companies have had enough and they are selling to large multinational companies. Then we are going to have an economy that's completely controlled by outside forces.

None of these four phenomena are good for Canada and the economy.

It behooves small and medium-sized businesses and manufacturing to reduce their energy cost. For us, it's our third-largest cost. Anything we can do to reduce that, we have done. If you look at our plant, you see that we invest over $1 million every year, most of which goes to trying to address energy efficiencies and run more efficiently to get our costs down.

We went to Queen's University to do a study on what we should do, keep our plant here or move it to the United States. They did a very in-depth study on a number of factors, and they recommended, in fact, that we move our growth to the United States. That's a very telling and concerning study, and one that we should heed.

What should we do about this? We have many solutions. The biggest problem is the Wild West of energy savings. We have people coming to our plant all the time, telling us that they can save $1 million on electricity. What you find is that the consultants also sell things. The gentleman who tells you how to reduce your electricity cost on the one hand, pulls out a card that he's selling solar panels on the other, or that he's selling combined heat and power. There's no support for small and medium-sized businesses on what solutions are actually legitimate.

I've heard a lot of stories about members in our coalition that have invested millions of dollars in the hope of getting out of energy policy, only to have their energy pricing go up. There is no support with regard to this new technology. There are a lot of unscrupulous spenders in this space, and there is no support or help for us to find what is an efficient, cost-effective, long-term solution.

In many cases, if people come off the grid and put in a combined heat and power unit, they will actually increase greenhouse gases. Similarly, if they move their business to the United States, to places that do not have energy as clean as we have in Ontario, they end up raising greenhouse gases. So, by putting in some of these burdens—carbon pricing, cap and trade—you actually drive companies out, and you drive greenhouses gases up.

What do we need to do? We also need better SR and ED credits. The SR and ED credit program is extremely difficult and has wound down in the last five years. We need accelerated depreciation for new capital, as they have in the States, or hyper-depreciation as they have in Germany. These things would allow companies to reinvest in new technology and help us reduce our energy costs.

We need pipelines. We need to get pipelines through this country, and we need to get them now. When a lot of companies were moving offshore, a lot of fabricators in Ontario retrenched into the oil and gas industry, and now that pipelines aren't going through, we have people out of work. We need to get our pipelines through.

You can have your natural resources in an environmentally friendly way. Our company is proof of that. We've developed and patented three pieces of technology that allow you to rehabilitate pipelines in an environmentally friendly way. This is technology that has come from Canada and can be exported globally.

We need to relook at Bill C-69 because we're concerned that there are going to be no major projects going through. That is going to negatively impact manufacturing across this country, but specifically in Ontario. A lot of people don't recognize that in Ontario, since the downturn in the economy, there is almost an equal number of companies in the resource sector as there is in the auto sector. We need to recognize the damage that Bill C-69 could do to some of the manufacturers in this province.

Exports need to be exempt from tariffs if they have carbon pricing on them. We need to make sure that we're playing on an even playing field because right now we can't compete.

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

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I want to thank all of our witnesses for joining us today. It is good to hear from all of you.

As you are aware, we have undertaken this study. It has been in the works for quite some time and now we are actually getting down to holding some meetings on it. There has been some travel done and I believe we're doing this to understand both the challenges and the opportunities that face our transportation system, with a view to trying to address them through a logistics study.

However, we continually find ourselves dealing with legislation that seems to be working contrary to the very study that we are undertaking, when we look at legislation like Bill C-48 and Bill C-69. Some witnesses have mentioned measures in the BIA 2 that affect the marine industry, as well as our shipping stakeholders. You've mentioned the Great Bear Rainforest, which is 6.4 million hectares that has now been turned into a national park. This appears to catch communities and industry stakeholders by surprise many times.

I'll ask this of both Mr. Helin and Chief Helin. Could you advise this committee about what impacts Bill C-69 will have on your organization, your communities and whether or not you believe that pipelines should be an integral part of Canada's transportation corridor strategy?

[Calvin Helin]

The bills, both C-48 and C-69, are inconsistent with articles 23 and 26 of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. The council chiefs and likely the National Coalition of Chiefs will file human rights violations with the United Nations for breach of UNDRIP, treaty and aboriginal rights infringement, unacceptable colonialist social engineering policy, blocking the poorest people in Canada from exercising their inherent right to be able to raise their own revenue for their own purposes.

[Calvin Helin, Chairman and President, Eagle Spirit Energy Holding Ltd.]

[Witness speaks in Sm'algyax]

Thank you very kindly for the invitation to be here today.

I'm speaking on behalf of Eagle Spirit and the chiefs council. The chiefs council consists of about 35 communities, from Lax Kw'alaams up to Fort McMurray. I'll be speaking specifically in relation to Bill C-48, but I will have some comments on Bill C-69.

A meeting of all of our chiefs was held in Vancouver a couple of weeks ago. The chiefs council is completely opposed to Bill C-48. The general tenor of their concern is that they have constitutional rights over their traditional territory. They don't think anybody, particularly what they call “latte-slurping elitist environmentalists”, should be coming into their territory and trying to ram stuff down their throats. They look at that as being wholly inappropriate. There wasn't any consultation whatsoever.

You heard from John relating to the Lax Kw'alaams community. All of the communities along the route feel that their right to be able to determine what happens in their traditional territory is being infringed upon by this proposed legislation.

The chiefs council passed a resolution to quash Bill C-48 by legal and other means, so that will be proceeding forward. It may be unknown to this committee that there's now a National Coalition of Chiefs. It's a group of the chiefs across Saskatchewan, Alberta and B.C., and will probably include the two northern territories. They are essentially fed up with this environmentalist agenda being rammed down their throats. They feel it's being done by American-financed environmental groups. There's plenty of evidence to support that.

They passed a similar resolution. There will probably be about 200 first nations opposed to both Bill C-48 and Bill C-69, and I'll explain that a little further. These resolutions have been included, and I have some other information for you.

The other thing our chiefs wonder about is how come this is being proposed, essentially to cut off half of B.C.'s coast to important commercial traffic, when tanker shipping of oil and petroleum fuels is happening everywhere else in Canada. There are about 4,000 inbound oil tankers each year to the east coast, 82 million tonnes of petroleum and fuel products, and 25 million tonnes of crude oil and petroleum products in and out of 39 ports. There is 89% of the shipments that go into Quebec City and Montreal. The question they ask is whether the federal government would consider imposing such a ban in Quebec or anywhere else.

We are from the north, and environmental concerns are at the top of the list of our concerns. That is why we got involved in this project. We feel that we have probably the highest, most robust environmental model in the world for the oceans protection plan that's been proposed by the federal government. We feel that's minimal. We will voluntarily comply with a much higher standard. The government keeps talking about $1.5 billion, I believe, for ocean protection, but what they don't explain is that is being applied to 14,000 kilometres of shoreline along the entire Canadian coast when you need that kind of money focused in one area.

We respect the rights of other indigenous people in their traditional territory to disagree with this position, and that's the position of our chiefs. At the same time, the protocol amongst first nations and the law is that you can have an opinion on somebody else's territory, but you don't have any rights to determine what happens in their territory.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, four new pipelines were built under the Conservatives.

Darren Peers from Capital Group, a big investor in Canadian oil, points out the reality that “no major pipeline project is yet assured” under these Liberals, and that energy investors are “questioning the merits of investing” because of them.

What is certain is the Liberals are driving billions of dollars and hundreds of thousands of jobs out of Canada. Cenovus warns that Canada “ignores these red flags at its peril”. Provinces are against Bill C-69, too.

Will the minister cancel his job-killing, “no more pipelines” Bill C-69 before it is too late?

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, business leaders say that the Liberals' anti-energy policies are “borderline treasonous”. Brett Wilson said that Bill C-69 is “lunacy”. NuVista's CEO said it “needs to be completely killed or radically changed”. Susan Johns, a British fund manager, said that Canadian oil and gas is “being strangled by regulation, carbon taxes and the inability of producers to get their product to world markets”.

Clearly the Liberals' anti-energy agenda is the problem, not the solution. When will the Liberals stop killing Canadian jobs and withdraw their “no more pipelines” Bill C-69?

[Matt Jeneroux, Conservative, Edmonton Riverbend, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the Alberta energy industry has been suffering under the Liberal government. It has cancelled pipelines and implemented policies that make it hard for the future development of our energy industry.

Despite producing some of the most clean and ethical energy in the world, our oil continues to sell at a discounted rate. Cenovus Energy says it produces up to 300,000 barrels every day above what can be exported out of the province. That overproduction leads to a great price differential when compared with American oil, which can be exported to foreign markets. Our oil price discount has cost the country $50 million a day, or $13 billion a year.

At an event last week, the Minister for Natural Resources said that we need more pipelines. Well, l am glad he has finally figured it out. Perhaps now the Prime Minister will cancel the tanker ban, cancel Bill C-69, and of course, cancel his push for a carbon tax. lt is time for a government that will fight for Albertans and fight for our energy sector.

Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Madam Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to speak before the House today on Motion No. 190, tabled by my colleague, the member for Mississauga East—Cooksville, on this very important topic. Before I begin, I would like to thank my colleague for his work and for bringing this topic to the attention of the House. I certainly enjoy serving with him on the international trade committee.

This motion asks that the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities be instructed to undertake a study on labour shortages of the greater Toronto and Hamilton area, in particular, in the construction industry, and to analyze models used in Atlantic Canada.

I am very pleased to have this topic brought to the attention of the House as it will be of the utmost importance for the years to come.

Adam Morrison, vice-president of the non-profit Ontario Tourism Education Corporation, characterized the labour shortage problem as “a slow-motion train wreck you've always been told is coming.” I believe as parliamentarians we have an obligation to make the best recommendations so we can ensure that we can contain as much of the damage as possible. Therefore, I believe this is a very worthwhile study.

As was mentioned previously, in the next decade Canada will see more than one-fifth of its construction labour force retire. The construction industry is one of the backbones of Canada's economy, certainly in my community of Oshawa. It employed 712,000 people in 1996. Today, that number has grown to 1.4 million Canadians. However, by 2027, about 21% of the labour force will be older than 65 years old. To add to that, young people are not joining the workforce in these trades fast enough to fill this gap, which makes finding skilled labour difficult for companies.

Because of the demand in increase for construction in the greater Toronto and Hamilton area, the GTHA, the labour shortage is more acutely felt. The association representing the masonry, block and stone industry has warned that the labour shortage that currently exists, and which will get larger with time, will create extreme difficulties for delivering on the many infrastructure projects the government has planned.

While I am excited to see the booming construction sector all around the GTHA, I believe it is our responsibility to develop the tools to help companies address this labour shortage. If we do not, companies will have a much harder time completing projects on time or will have to stop taking on more projects because they do not have the resources to provide the level of service they know they can provide, which affects families, communities and entire regions. Canadians are very hard-working and they want to work more. Therefore, we have to help them with that.

In the absence of federal leadership, organizations have already started to work to solve this problem. For example, in my region of Oshawa, the Durham District School Board hosts information sessions on the Ontario youth apprenticeship program, a school-to-work program that opens the doors for students to explore and work in apprenticeship occupations. This can show parents how viable a career in the skilled trades is for their kids. Parents always want the best for their children and just need to be reminded what a wonderful career they can have in these fields. The board also holds a number of tours so students can actually see what working in the shops is like and get some hands-on activities.

Unfortunately, the problem is not contained to the construction industry. The Ontario Chamber of Commerce members cite the inability to find new employees as one of their biggest obstacles, according to a survey released in February. Of the 60% of businesses looking to hire in the last six months of 2016, 82% of them said they had experienced difficulty finding employees.

The issue spans across sectors, affecting for example the retail and service industry sectors as well. There is no shortage of stories of restaurant owners having to close down on certain days because they do not have enough staff or hotels having to close down entire floors because they cannot staff the rooms.

Over 90% of Canadian businesses are small and medium-sized businesses. This year, BDC, the Business Development Bank of Canada, conducted a survey of 1,208 entrepreneurs from SMEs and found that 40% of them are having difficulties finding new employees. Because of a retiring workforce, Canada's labour growth is forecast to fall near zero. This affects the growth capacity of companies and affects all Canadians, because when businesses are thriving, Canada thrives.

I would like to echo what my colleague from Foothills mentioned earlier in his remarks. This problem is not confined to the GTHA. The problem in the construction sector is also acutely felt in British Columbia and Atlantic Canada. In British Columbia, for example, nearly one in 25 jobs are going unfilled. According to the Canadian Federation for Independent Business, 3.9% of jobs were unfilled in the fourth quarter of 2018.

In fact, one does not even have to leave the province to find out that there is a labour shortage problem. Many rural areas in Ontario are struggling to attract and retain talent and workers. The jobs are there, but there are barriers, such as transportation, that must be discussed so that we can find solutions that work for all Canadians. Canadians living in rural areas face challenges starkly different from the ones those living in the GTHA face. However, that does not mean that we should not take the time to carefully examine the issues they face.

One often cited barrier is that young Canadians and their parents do not see a career in the trades as a viable option for them or their children. The current government has, unfortunately, failed in changing that perspective. Through its actions and comments, it has made Canada an unattractive country for energy investments and has shut down projects that would have created many jobs in the trades and in these sectors. If we look at Bill C-69, as an example, it would basically guarantee that no major resource project would ever be built again in Canada. What kind of message does that send kids who would like to get into the trades?

To add to that, instead of doing what was best for Canadians and Canadian workers, the government decided to snub its nose at our ally again and again. Now we find ourselves with a bad trade deal for Canada, the USMCA, and with section 232 tariffs on steel and aluminum still in place. Again, what kind of message does that send to young people looking for jobs in those industries?

Throughout our study on the Standing Committee on International Trade on the impact of these tariffs on the steel and aluminum sector, we have heard over and over again that the situation is dire. Companies are shutting down, moving to other jurisdictions or reducing shifts. In this environment, it makes it very difficult to encourage young Canadians to pursue careers in the trades.

Like my colleagues, I will be supporting this study, because I believe that it would address a very important issue. I believe that with good recommendations, we can help the businesses and hard-working people in my riding of Oshawa. However, I think we should expand the scope of the study to include all of Canada, because this is an issue that does not discriminate based on geography. It affects people in every province, in urban and rural communities. It would also provide an opportunity for Canadians to show how innovative we can be. It would allow us the opportunity to come up with solutions to these complex problems. I look forward to receiving the results of this study when presented in the House.

A very important thing is happening here in the House this week. The Minister of Finance is tabling an economic update, or, in other words, where the priorities of the current government are.

As I said in my speech, I believe that this is an incredible motion to bring forward at this time. However, I do not see the same commitment from the government in what it says and what it does. We are hearing over and over again how uncompetitive a place Canada is to do business in, whether that is the uncertainty of new regulations, and I mentioned Bill C-69, or, as I mentioned, the uncertainty moving forward, as the government wants to bring forward a carbon tax, which each and every one of us in the House is going to be affected by. It will affect each and every Canadian, each and every family, not only on direct costs for things they buy in the energy resource sector but also downstream, whether it is groceries, heating buildings or more taxes for municipalities. It is going to affect every aspect of Canadians' lives.

I will be supporting this motion, but I do not have high expectations, because this motion alone is not going to fix the problems Canada is facing. We hope the government takes these issues seriously, especially in regard to competitiveness, because human resources are only a piece of it. We look forward to the minister's economic update later this week.

[Matt Jeneroux, Conservative, Edmonton Riverbend, AB]

Minister, I'll tell you who wasn't in the room: the small businesses that have been absolutely destroyed. The provincial level has been equally detrimental to these companies. Cumulatively, with the federal government's regulations, more red tape, and particularly Bill C-69, that has led a lot of these companies to move south. They don't have time to come to see you in a banquet hall somewhere to celebrate everything you think is great. These are companies that have lost employees. They're laying off people. The unemployment rate, again, is at 8%. I think that's the highest it's ever been in Alberta, and it's largely because of initiatives your government has introduced.

You now sit at the cabinet table and have a tremendous opportunity to stand up for these small businesses. Quite frankly, if you're not prepared to do that, the repercussions are going to be that you're not going to have members from Alberta next time around.

It's also detrimental to the entire economy. Alberta's a major driver of the Canadian economy. To continually put on these initiatives is just attack after attack on these small businesses. You didn't hear from them, Minister, while you were there, because they're not there anymore. They've moved. They've left the country. They've found somewhere else to do business, which has a lot less red tape and fewer regulations than what this government has put on them.

I encourage you again, Minister, to have those conversations with the environment minister and with the finance minister on how detrimental this government's policies have been for small businesses. Thank you.

[Matt Jeneroux, Conservative, Edmonton Riverbend, AB]

There's an 8% unemployment rate in Alberta, particularly in Calgary, in the oil and gas sector. Bill C-69, the tanker moratorium and the carbon tax are drastically impacting the competitiveness of those companies. Every day, companies are indicating that they're moving south of the border. These are small businesses.

I would encourage you to have conversations with the environment minister, but to indicate how detrimental Bill C-69, the tanker moratorium and the carbon tax are to these companies. Quite frankly, they can't survive. We've lost enough already and we can't afford to lose any more.

[Matt Jeneroux, Conservative, Edmonton Riverbend, AB]

That's good.

I want to ask you something very point-blank. Have you had discussions with the environment minister on Bill C-69, the tanker moratorium and the carbon tax, and how detrimental they've been, particularly to western Canada?

[Dean Allison, Conservative, Niagara West, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Minister, for being here today.

Mr. Thompson, it's good to see you again. I've seen you over the years at various committees.

I appreciate some of the things you guys are trying to work on. I think small business is critical. I guess one of the concerns I have is the elephant in the room, which is the lack of competitiveness that we have as a country. I think that has to be part of every discussion.

I mean, deals are important, absolutely. All those things are important, but I think you need to convey a message back to the finance minister that we are one of the worst countries. We're struggling with competitiveness. If our firms cannot compete locally, I don't know how they can compete globally.

I can give you just a few stats. The Word Economic Forum has us ranked at 12th overall for competitiveness. The U.S. is number one, and that's our major competition. Canada came in 34th in the adoption of information and communications technology, 53rd in regulatory burden, and 96th in tariff complexity. When you put all these things together, it puts us at a tremendous competitive disadvantage. I could talk about Bill C-69, about the regulatory framework in terms of the energy sector, and I could go on and on.

I guess the challenge we have is this. I love some of the stuff we're doing. I love what the EDC does, and the BDC and CCC and all these things. I love CanExport. I think that's great, but what are you guys doing, as you mentioned in your opening remarks, to help SMEs understand that these programs exist? I mean, I'll bet a number of MPs don't know about half the programs we provide. Because of the committee we sit on, we've been exposed to them over the years.

What are some of the things you guys could do to help SMEs understand some of the things we have going on that could help them leverage what they are doing?