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

[John Oliver, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, I want to reassure all members of the House and every Canadian watching at home that our government is committed to developing our country's abundant resources the right way by protecting investor confidence and promoting public trust, by advancing indigenous reconciliation and enhancing environmental performance, with the goal of getting good resource projects built in a timely, responsible and transparent way.

That has been our focus since we came to office in November 2015, and that is why we took a leadership role in forging the Paris Agreement on climate change. That is why we sat down with provinces and territories and consulted with indigenous leaders to draft the pan-Canadian framework to support clean growth and address the changing climate. That is why we tabled Bill C-69. That is why we are consulting on a framework for recognizing and implementing indigenous rights, and that is why we have put in place the Pipeline Safety Act, which came into force in June 2016.

We understand that Canadians depend upon our government to ensure that Canada's oil and gas pipelines are built securely and operated safely. The Pipeline Safety Act helps us do that by creating a culture of safety.

Bill C-69 would build on that by creating a new Canadian energy regulator with enhanced powers to oversee stronger safety and environmental protections. That includes new powers for federal inspection officers so they can act quickly and, if necessary, place a stop work order on any project that is operating unsafely or falling short of prescribed conditions. Such measures are critical to delivering on our vision of a Canada that works for everyone, a Canada that creates good jobs and expands our middle class, a Canada that develops its resources sustainably and competitively, and a Canada that leads the global transition to a low carbon economy.

The Trans Mountain expansion project has the potential to be part of that vision, but we know we have more work to do to move forward the right way. That is why we have instructed the National Energy Board to reconsider its recommendations concerning the effects of project-related marine shipping, and to do so with the help of a special marine technical adviser. That is also why we relaunched our government's phase 3 consultations with indigenous groups affected by the project. The former Supreme Court Justice, the hon. Frank Iacobucci, serves as a special federal representative on legal and constitutional matters.

We are committed to growing the economy and protecting the environment at the same time.

Budget Implementation Act, 2018, No. 2

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals are drowning Canadian job creators in red tape and tax hikes. Whether it is the carbon tax, small business tax hikes or the many cancelled tax credits and deductions, the Liberals are driving businesses out of Canada and killing Canadian jobs, hurting workers and middle-class families across the country.

Every other day major oil and gas companies cancel future projects, stop expansions or completely sell their Canadian businesses and take their money to other countries. It is a crisis, and it is not a result of external factors beyond the government's control. In fact, it is a direct consequence of the Liberals' message to Canadians and the world that Canada is closed for business because of the Liberals' added red tape and imposed cost increases.

Context is important. The energy sector is the biggest private sector investor and accounts for over 11% of the value of Canada's economy. To put this in perspective, it contributes twice as much as agriculture and fisheries combined, sectors in which farmers and fishermen also often have jobs in oil and gas. It contributes more than the banking and finance sector and more than the auto sector. The benefits are shared across Canada. Every one job in the oil sands creates seven manufacturing jobs in Ontario. Every one upstream oil and gas job in Alberta creates five jobs in other sectors, in other provinces.

However, spending in Canada's oil and gas sector declined 56% over three years, from $81 billion in 2014 to $45 billion in 2017. More money has left Canada's oil and gas sector since the 2015 election than at any other comparable time period in more than 70 years. The equivalent value would be losing 75% of auto manufacturing in Canada, or almost the entirety of the aerospace sector in Canada, something no one rightfully would accept.

The biggest beneficiary is the U.S. where spending in oil and gas increased 38% to $120 billion in 2017. Today, U.S. investment in Canada is down by more than half. Canadian investment in the U.S. is up by two-thirds. The consequences of these losses are hundreds of thousands of Canadians out of work and less revenue for core social programs and services at every level of government in every single province.

Over 115,000 Albertans are out of work and not receiving any employment insurance assistance right now and tens of thousands more have lost their jobs. The Liberals' anti-energy agenda is clearly both hindering the private sector from being able to provide well-paying jobs, but it is also risking the life savings of many Canadians.

Oil and gas companies are a big part of most people's pension plans, and whether through employer provided defined contribution plans or personal investments in mutual funds, chances are that most Canadians are invested in oil and gas. When oil and gas companies leave Canada, the value of those investments in Canada drops, reducing the value of everyone's retirement savings. Now CPP and the Ontario teachers' pension plan are also investing in the United States.

I want to highlight an aspect of this legislation that will compound uncertainty and challenges for Canadian oil and gas proponents. On page 589, in the very last chapter of this 840-page omnibus bill, clause 692 implements sweeping new powers for the federal cabinet to impose regulations on marine transport. Included in these powers is the ability to pass regulations:

(j) respecting compulsory routes and recommended routes;

(k) regulating or prohibiting the operation, navigation, anchoring, mooring or berthing of vessels or classes of vessels; and

(l) regulating or prohibiting the loading or unloading of a vessel or a class of vessels.

This means the Liberal cabinet can block any class of tanker from any route leaving Canada or from docking at any port the Liberals choose. In Bill C-48, oil tankers of a certain size will be prevented from travelling and from the loading and off-loading of crude at ports only off the northern coast of B.C.

This legislation, Bill C-86, would be a dramatic expansion, giving the Liberal cabinet the power to block oil exports from any port anywhere in Canada or to block oil tankers in general from entering Canadian waters. Places like the Arctic could lose access to the fuel tankers that keep power on during the winter. Offshore oil and gas development in Atlantic Canada could be blocked overnight. That is alarming in itself, and it gets worse.

This legislation authorizes a single minister to be able to make legally binding changes to these regulations for a year at a time and even up to three years, regarding “compulsory routes” and “prohibiting the operation, navigation, anchoring, mooring or berthing of vessels or classes of vessels”. One minister with one stroke of a pen can shut down an entire industry with wide-ranging impacts.

This is a pattern. The Liberals repeatedly demonstrate their hostility to the oil and gas sector in Canada. The Prime Minister of course said that he wants to phase out the oil sands, and Canadians should believe him. He defended the use of tax dollars for summer jobs to stop the Trans Mountain expansion. The Liberals removed the tax credit for new exploration oil drilling at the very worst time.

Also, many Liberal MPs ran in the last election opposing the export of Canada's oil to the world. Since they formed government, the Liberals have used every tool at their disposal to kill energy sector jobs.

Canada is the only top 10 oil-producing country in the world, let alone in North America, to impose a carbon tax on itself. While there are significant exemptions for major industrial emitters, it will hike costs for operations across the value chain, and certainly for the 80% of Canadian service and supply companies that are small businesses. Moreover, individual contractors will still have to pay it.

The proposed clean fuel standards—which would be unprecedented globally because they would be applied to buildings and facilities, not just to transportation fuel—will cost integrated oil and gas companies as well as refining and petrochemical development in Canada hundreds of millions of dollars. Canada is literally the most environmentally and socially responsible producer of oil and gas in the world, oil and gas that the world will continue to demand for decades. We are falling dramatically behind the United States and other countries for regulatory efficiency and clarity.

The Liberals imposed the tanker ban, with no substantial economic, safety, or environmental assessments and no real consultation, and a ban on offshore drilling in the north against the wishes of the premier of the Northwest Territories.

The Prime Minister vetoed outright the northern gateway pipeline and then intervened to kill energy east with delays, rule changes and a last-minute double standard. Now, the Liberals' failures have driven Kinder Morgan out of Canada. Construction of the Trans Mountain expansion has never started in the two years since the Liberals approved it, and they have repeatedly kicked the can down the road for months. The consequence is that crude oil is now being shipped by rail and truck at record levels, negatively impacting other sectors like agriculture, manufacturing and retail.

The Liberals would add uncertainty and great expense for any resource project that has even a ditch on its property, by subjecting all water to the navigable waters regulatory regime in Bill C-68. Moreover, their “no more pipelines” Bill C-69 would block any future pipelines and therefore stop major oil and gas projects from being built in Canada.

Kinder Morgan is now going to take all of that $4.5 billion in Canadian tax dollars the Liberals spent on the existing pipeline and will use it to build pipelines in the United States, Canada's biggest energy competitor and customer. The consequences are that large companies are pulling out of Canada and investing in the U.S. or elsewhere.

Encana, a made in Canada success story, is selling Canadian assets to buy into projects in the United States. Gwyn Morgan, its founder, did not mince words. He said:

I’m deeply saddened that, as a result of the disastrous policies of the [Liberal] government, what was once the largest Canadian-headquartered energy producer now sees both its CEO and the core of its asset base located in the U.S.

It is estimated that the Liberal failure to get pipelines built is forcing Canadian oil to sell for $100 million dollars less a day than what it should be worth. That is $100 million dollars a day that is not providing for middle-class families, that is not fuelling small businesses, and not generating taxes to pay off the out-of-control Liberal deficit.

RBC recently reported that in 2008, taxes generated by oil and gas were worth $35 billion a year for provincial and federal governments. That is now down to almost $10 billion a year in 2016. That is more than $20 billion a year that could have gone to health care and education or to cover old age security costs, or be invested in building bridges and roads. Of course, the Liberals promised a deficit of only $10 billion a year and that the budget would be balanced by 2019, but none of that is anywhere in sight. They choose to spend recklessly: millions of dollars on perks like renovations for ministers' offices, a $5 million hockey rink on Parliament Hill that operated for a couple of months, or $26 million for vehicles. Never mind the billions of dollars spent outside Canada, building oil and gas pipelines in Asia with Canadian tax dollars or funding groups linked to anti-Semitism and terrorism.

Never has a government spent so much and achieved so little. The end result is Canada is trapped in a debt spiral. The ones who are going to pay for these deficits are millennials and their children, and it makes life less affordable today while federal government debt increases interest rates across the board. That poses significant risks to Canada and leaves us utterly unprepared for a global economic recession or worldwide factors that the government cannot control, unlike the Liberals' damaging policies. Future generations will find that their governments cannot afford services or programs they are counting on, and their governments will be in a trap of borrowing and hiking taxes. That is why Conservatives advocate balanced budgets, because it is the only responsible thing to do for Canada's children and grandchildren.

The out-sized contributions of the energy sector to the whole country's economy and to government revenue is also why the future of energy development in Canada is one of the most important domestic economic questions facing all of us. That is what makes the Liberal layering of red tape and costs on Canadian energy so unconscionable, and the consequences so devastating for all of Canada.

Alberta

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

Madam Speaker, driving to work in Calgary this morning, these are the stories we hear on the radio. We hear about the impact of the Trans Mountain pipeline delay on the local economy. We hear about how Bill C-69 is killing investment in the energy sector. We hear about how the price differential for oil is killing the energy sector. We hear about stagnant wage growth in the city, and we hear about high unemployment numbers that are continuing.

My constituents and my province need the government to immediately kill Bill C-69. This is a key determinant of investment fleeing the province, and it needs to stop today. It needs to invoke paragraph 92.10(c) of the Constitution to ensure that the Trans Mountain pipeline is completely within federal jurisdiction, and it needs to scrap the carbon tax. Most importantly, the government needs to stop treating Alberta like a colony, whose only purpose is to be milked for equalization payments.

Budget Implementation Act, 2018, No. 2

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to follow the dean of our caucus, the longest-serving member for Calgary Forest Lawn, who has been outraged on a few occasions by Liberal mismanagement of the economy. That is what I am going to spend a few minutes on in my remarks today on Bill C-86, the budget implementation act. There are a few aspects I am going to go through that should concern all Canadians, the biggest of which is the uncompetitiveness of our economy and how we are not ready for a global downturn. Many of the decisions of the government are putting us on a very precarious footing ahead of what could be uncertain times.

I have concerns related to the record debt levels under the current government and record deficits in a time of positive economic growth. I have called the Liberal track record on debt and deficits the Liberal double-double. Most Canadians are seeing the cost of their double-double going up, when they think of Tim Hortons. The Liberal double-double is deficits and debt. What is crazy about it is that it is being fuelled even with a roaring economy and despite the fact that Liberals are raising taxes countless times, making us uncompetitive. They are taking more money from Canadians and yet still cannot balance the budget.

Because this is a budget implementation bill and because my friend from Winnipeg North, the deputy House leader of the Liberal Party, is here, I want to remind him of the fact that when he says things in the House, they will come back to haunt him. I have mentioned many occasions in the previous government when, as a Liberal opposition member, he would almost howl at the moon. It is the day after Halloween. He would howl about the use of time allocation or omnibus legislation. He called them assaults on democracy several times. He has given me so much material.

I want to keep the member for Winnipeg North on his toes, so I am choosing a quote from this Parliament with respect to his comments. As a government member, he said this, on June 5, 2017, “Member after member has talked about this particular bill being an omnibus bill. Again, when I was standing up and the member made reference to some of my quotes, they were not 300-page documents, they were more like 600-page or 900-page documents, which affected laws that had nothing to do with the budget.” I thank him. This budget implementation bill is 850 pages, so it fits right in the sweet spot that he said was outrageous with the previous government. In fact, it is at the upper range of the outrageous levels he even talked about earlier in this Parliament. It is amazing. This bill is chock full of things that have nothing to do with the budget.

The Liberal member for Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook quoted the veteran ID card that I announced as minister, the extension of the NDI 75 card and making sure that all veterans got it, not just those serving after 10 years. I was proud to make that announcement in Fredericton alongside my good friend from the Canadian Armed Forces and Royal Military College, Brian MacDonald. He was an MLA in New Brunswick and I thank him for his service in uniform and in the assembly in New Brunswick. We announced that. I was there. I can send the minister the picture of the cards we were holding up. That is in the budget implementation bill.

When the member for Winnipeg North rises to ask me a question or make a comment, which he is likely to do, statistics show he likely will, I would like him to apologize to the chamber for feigned outrage in this place over the very type of omnibus legislation he is now being tasked by Mr. Butts in the Prime Minister's Office to defend. Even at 850-plus pages, it is at the outer range of what he said was clearly unacceptable.

Beyond that, let me go back to the double-double of the Liberal Party: the debt and deficits. There is $60 billion of debt accumulated by the government in good economic times in three years. In a positive economy, where there is economic growth, that is a Canadian record. Liberals should not be proud of that record, because that debt and the deficits they are running on an annual basis are future taxes for my children.

They are spending recklessly at a time when they should be putting some away for the clouds looming on the horizon. They are not, and virtually none of it was the infrastructure money they promised.

Members will recall, in the last election, when the member for Papineau changed his fundamental economic views halfway through an election to outfox the NDP. He started the election saying that they are the party of Paul Martin and balanced budgets. Midway through, he said they were going to run deficits, but Canadians were not to worry because it would be no more than $10 billion and they would be in balance by 2019. All of that was out the window within three months. The Liberals have run deficits in the $20 billion or $20 billion-plus range every single year.

What is more egregious is they received $20 billion last year in extra revenues because the economy is strong because the Conservative Party put the economy on a footing such that when the American economy recovered, which it has, we would be booming again. Therefore, when the Liberals quote how Canada's growth was tepid during the global recession, they should go and see how our G7 allies were doing. We were the only one with a balanced budget, the only one that balanced our budget without raising taxes. We lowered taxes. Even the tax reduction of the small business rate that we had planned to 9%, the Liberals cancelled at first. Now they praise it, as they are returning it to a level we had pledged it to go to back in 2014.

It is almost comical to hear members of the Liberal Party talk about the budget, competitiveness and deficits. Their policy and the underlying philosophy change by the moment, all based on opportunity for a photograph and the hope that they can grow the economy from the heart outward. Do members remember that one? The Liberals said that the budget will balance itself and that they will grow the economy from the heart outward. They can tell that to the Alberta oil patch workers or the engineers or geologists who are out of work, or property companies that now see high vacancy rates in Alberta because the Liberals have botched the resource economy.

In fact, the Canadians they failed the most in the resource economy are our indigenous peoples. The northern gateway pipeline was a one-third owned pipeline. Our country has a commitment to make sure first nations and Inuit play a role in our economy and benefit directly, and they would have benefited with northern gateway. The Liberals cancelled that on a whim and brought in Bill C-69, which led to the cancellation of energy east, and then they were forced to buy Trans Mountain when the company was leaving Canada because we are not competitive.

In fact, Jack Mintz, the leading tax authority in Canada, warned of a “competitive tsunami” because in three years, while racking up $60 billion in debt for our children and grandchildren, the Liberals have raised taxes on everyone. They have raised personal income taxes, corporate income taxes and payroll taxes and they have introduced a carbon tax, all in the middle of good economic times. In the last year, the United States has been going in the opposite direction. This is why there is a competitive risk. It is all due to the Liberals' mismanagement of the economy.

People are not to just believe me or Jack Mintz. Douglas Porter, the chief economist of BMO, the Bank of Montreal, said, “I think Canada has a very weak competitive position. I think we're going to get crushed in the next recession”. Crushed, because they have squandered the opportunity of good times. The Liberals have put us on an uncompetitive footing so that our small businesses are going to be paying a carbon tax that the Liberals are omitting large emitters from. They are making suburban commuters in Whitby, Ajax, Pickering, Uxbridge and Peterborough pay for their schemes that the parliamentary secretary acknowledged will make businesses uncompetitive, and will not lower emissions.

The very fact that our future competitiveness is hanging in the balance should concern Canadians. It should also concern them that this budget bill does not address the underpinnings of that competitive disadvantage and of our problems getting projects like pipelines done. I would like the Liberals to stand in this House and put forward a plan to get our resources to market.

[Deepak Obhrai, Conservative, Calgary Forest Lawn, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague raises a good point. We were there only a week ago. The oil industry and even the NDP Government of Alberta have said that Bill C-69 is a disaster for the country. We are talking about the NDP government, so does that not tell the current government that its Bill C-69 is an absolute disaster for this country? Those regulations would stifle the energy sector in this country.

[Robert Sopuck, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

Mr. Speaker, to my friend from Winnipeg North, I had the honour of working in the oil sands prior to my time in Parliament, and it was just a hive of economic activity. I have heard now that the camps in the region I was working in are all closed and employment is way down.

I was on the environment committee when Bill C-69 was debated, and I thank my hon. colleague for bringing up the regulatory process. In fact, that bill is shutting down the Canadian economy right now. The resource industry is 20% of the Canadian economy and a big part of most pension funds. That is what the people across the way forget. Senior citizens, pensioners, investment funds all rely on the oil sands and the energy industry.

In the testimony in Bill C-69, Chris Bloomer from the Canadian Energy Pipeline Association said that Canada has a “toxic regulatory environment”, and that is why investment in this country is declining.

Can my friend from Calgary Forest Lawn talk about the effects of the regulatory environment on the Alberta energy industry and the ripple effect across the country?

Natural Resources

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

Mr. Speaker, after 10 years of inaction under the Harper Conservatives, 99% of our oil exports were still sold to the United States. They do not even want to negotiate with our first nations. They have no respect for the environment. We will take no lessons from them on how to move our major projects forward.

Bill C-69 provides a path forward and the certainty that business owners need. The mining sector is on board. The forestry sector is on board. We must move forward responsibly.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, under the Conservatives, four major new pipelines with access to new markets were approved and built with no tax dollars. These Liberals have already killed two export pipelines. Their failures have not added a single new centimetre, and their Bill C-69 will ensure there will be none in the future.

Thirty-five indigenous communities now join provinces and industry to oppose the Liberals' “no more pipelines” Bill C-69. They say “it will have an enormous and devastating impact on the ability of First Nations to cultivate or develop economic development opportunities in their traditional territories”.

Will the Liberals scrap Bill C-69?

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

We built four new pipelines, Kent.

I want to reiterate something I said before. That was that the Liberal government killed Energy East, Northern Gateway and an LNG project, but now they've kind of approved one. We'll see how that goes. We'll see if they can actually bring it to fruition.

Mr. Chair, it is very important—and I'm going to move now—that this committee dedicate six meetings to study the Trans Mountain expansion cancellation with regard to Bill C-69 and that this study be completed before December 31, 2018; that the committee report its findings to the House, a government response be requested, these meetings be televised; and that pursuant to Standing Order 109 the committee request that the government table a comprehensive response to that report.

I so move.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Yes, five.

William Lacey, the chief financial officer of Steelhead Petroleum says, “The implementation of Bill C-69 does not create the stability that investors are seeking.” That's something I've already spoken to.

He continues by saying,

Rather than having a framework that is clear and transparent, it introduces tremendous uncertainty into the approval process....Further, though the discussion today may be about the approval of pipelines, this is about whether Canada is somewhere where capital can be deployed....and whether that investment is competitive versus other jurisdictions around the globe. Capital is mobile, and today it is choosing to leave.

We've seen $80 billion already leave the economy in the last year in the energy sector.

Rachel Notley, NDP premier of Alberta says, “Bill C-69 in its current form stands to hurt our competitive position”. She says that capital is already fleeing to the United States due to the challenges.

RBC president and CEO Dave McKay says,

We would certainly encourage the federal government to look at these issues because, in real time, we’re seeing capital flow out of the country.

We see our government going around the world saying what a great place Canada is to invest—yes, it is a great country, it’s an inclusive country, it’s a diverse country, it’s got great people....

But if we don’t keep the capital here, we can’t keep the people here—and these changes are important to bring human capital and financial capital together in one place.

The Quebec Mining Association..... Mr. Chair, you know I have a fondness for mining. I didn't even talk about the impact this is going to have on future exploration in the mining industry, and I'll refrain from doing so in the interest of time, but I will quote the Quebec Mining Association here: “The time limits introduced by the bill will be enough to discourage mining companies and weaken Quebec and Canada in relation to other more attractive jurisdictions.” That statement was made earlier this year.

Certainty and simplicity should be at the core of any sort of government policy. Bill C-69 provides no certainty and no clarity in actuality. Industry has no way forward with Bill C-69. The bill only seeks to add more uncertainty, as Bill C-69 does not demonstrate a Government of Canada commitment to project development.

The Trans Mountain pipeline expansion was cancelled. Bill C-69 will not add any more clarity to future projects in the energy sector or any other sector. The consequence is that the economy will suffer, as investment will continue to decline. Jobs are created and lost, but business investment shows what companies and people think about the future of our country. What people and companies believe of a country is reflected in the amount of capital investment for the future. Without wise and bold investment made for the future, the pool of jobs created today will wither away in times of economic stress. Bill C-69 will not help our economy weather hard times. Bill C-69 will only help our economy to get into hard times.

I urge the Standing Committee on Natural Resources to adopt my motion. I think it's important that the committee do so.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Well, we have a few on the west coast there, but they're insignificant to the volume.

We're willing to pay $70 a barrel for unfriendly oil coming from Saudi Arabia on our east coast, down our Saint Lawrence River to ports along the river there that are virtually unregulated, and then we're willing to sell our oil for $20 a barrel to the Americans. That doesn't even makes sense that we're leaving $50 a barrel on the table.

This is not only hurting our oil producers, it's hurting all Canadians, because this is money that could be left in the country. It is money that could be used to fund social projects. It's money that could be used to build schools, houses. I think we heard that every single day that we allow this kind of scenario to persist, we are giving up the equivalent of one brand new school per day, or one municipal hospital a week.

That's significant, committee members. We have to make sure that can't happen. That's why I think we need to have this study.

I think it's very important that we go ahead with the study to find out what the industry thinks about Bill C-69 in relation to the TMX, but not only just TMX. What does industry think going forward? Is it going to be willing to invest money here?

Mr. Chair, I could talk a lot further on the financial implication of buying a $4.5-billion project that has limited revenue opportunity at this point, on that money being sent down to Texas to the Americans instead of remaining in our economy here in Canada, and on putting taxpayers on the hook for $4.5 billion, and now the expansion project has been estimated to cost another $9 billion.

We could have seen that money coming into our country as an investment, and now it's going to have to be funded by Canadians. That's another $9 billion out of our economy, and that's not even part of the $4.5 billion yet. This is money that Canadians are going to have to be responsible for. It's going to come out of their pockets, and we as taxpayers are guaranteeing it. We're on the hook for it.

I just don't think that's a very responsible thing to do, and it's not just me. I would like to also quote some other people who feel the same way I do.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

He talked about the highways of Saskatchewan being clogged up with oil tanker trucks, and he said that shows the desperation of Canadian oil producers trying to get their crude to market.

We're stewards of our resources here. We're nothing more than that; we're stewards. We've been given these resources by our creator, and we've been entrusted to use them responsibly, to look after the environment. We've been entrusted with that responsibility as well, to make sure that we look after the earth. We also have this resource that we've been blessed with as a country.

We need to make sure that we allow companies—in a responsible, environmentally friendly way—to develop these resources, and then we need to provide them with the ability to get these resources to market. That's something I take very seriously. I'm a steward of the land, but I'm also a steward of the resources. These resources are something that we need to make sure are developed in an environmentally friendly way, but also in an economically viable way.

Today, tanker trucks are journeying 500 miles from the pipeline and rail terminals. It says here:

It's a phenomenon that Ken Boettcher, president of Three Star Trucking Ltd. in Alida, Saskatchewan, started to see three or four months ago when oil shippers around Kindersley, near the Alberta border, began requesting trucks to move their crude, in some cases, as far as North Dakota.

He said it's “never been a common practice before. They can probably buy it cheaper and bring it down here and blend it.” He's referring to the Americans. The trucker traffic during 2018 has spiked to over 200,000 barrels of crude oil per month being moved by tanker truck.

You know, Bill C-69 is supposed to be an environmental bill. However, if it's going to prevent us from safely building pipelines to get our resources to market, there's nothing environmentally friendly about having to then turn around and use tanker trucks to uneconomically, with huge environmental liability, move our crude to market by hauling it down the highway. It doesn't even make sense that we would want to consider that.

In addition, the cost of doing that 500-mile trip is about $15 a barrel one way. If they have to come back empty—I don't know what you would haul in a tanker truck on a return route—it doubles. It's $30 a barrel cost to move that oil by tanker truck, as opposed to what it would cost by pipeline. That's very significant. I think the environmental liability and risk are much more significant in hauling it, and there's also the danger that is posed to traffic on the highway with increased loads. I think it's something that needs to be considered.

Without the Trans Mountain expansion project going ahead, I think we're going to see a continued exploitation of our producers by the Americans, by Donald Trump's oil companies. I think we're going to see more of that. It actually peaked in August, when there was a $52.40 discount for our oil over world price. That is significant. That's happening because our current structure allows us to have one customer, and that's the Americans.

As long as we're going to be in that kind of situation—

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Well, the project is so far open that we're not sure who is going to be able to communicate on its impact here.

It also allows for endless, limitless extensions on timelines. What does that mean? That means that they could just increase the number of hearings, increase the number of witnesses and allow people who don't have any remotely close interest in the project to testify at these hearings, impacting the decision and delaying the process.

I'm a business guy. I wouldn't make an investment in a piece of equipment if I didn't know when I could put it to work, and have it sit on my yard and collect dust, cost interest, and absorb capital depreciation costs while it hasn't produced one hour's worth of value to anybody.

That's what we're asking our energy resource development companies to do. We're asking them to make an investment in the process. We know that Kinder Morgan spent over a billion dollars already, looking for approvals for the TMX project, and that that billion dollars hasn't generated any income. In fact, it has cost them lots of money. They've lost the ability to use that capital for other projects, because that money was sitting there completely unemployed, other than the fact that it had been spent on all kinds of consultants trying to meet the regulations in place so they could proceed with this project.

We know that lots of other companies have had the same experience. We know that whether it's Energy East or Northern Gateway, these projects have experienced the same amount of frustration and delay. Bill C-69 will exacerbate that, with limitless numbers of hearings and consultations. That's one area that is going to be very problematic if this bill actually sees royal assent.

Another thing it does is establish a new set of vague and ill-defined criteria against which projects will be assessed, and that's including social impact. Social impact hasn't been properly defined. In the absence of that, we could see a host and variety of concerns that really have nothing to do with building a safe, environmentally economical pipeline, because somebody has some kind of social issue they think is going to be impacted or that they may want to present.

There are some definitions there that really need to be tightened up and defined properly, regarding what those criteria will be when considering a resource development project like this.

The other aspect that concerns me is that there are major implications, as a result of what is going to be written into the regulations that have yet to be developed. We don't have a full and comprehensive set of regulations that are accompanying this bill. Those could be written in after the fact, which will make it virtually impossible for resource development companies to meet the threshold of those criteria. Without the ability to know what those regulations are ahead of time, I think it's ill-advised to pass this bill. However, it did go through the House and it did find its way to the Senate, but hopefully, the Senate will have the light turned on and will see some of the very problematic areas of this bill, as it relates only, in this particular situation, to the Trans Mountain Expansion Project. There are lots of other areas where this bill will have very negative impacts, especially in my home province of Manitoba, where I know that municipal drainage is a problem. Bill C-69 will even affect simple things like municipal drainage projects. They're going to have to go through all kinds of consultations and hearings, and it's going to take years, if it is at all possible, for some of these projects to happen, even simple projects that benefit agriculture and that benefit employment. It's going to actually create a situation where nothing happens. There are lots of concerns.

Yesterday, I was reading Bloomberg and I was really intrigued with what Robert Tuttle reported there.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Bill C-69 is going to create quite a bit of uncertainty. It's not only with the pipeline. It's going to create uncertainty right across the energy-resource sector. It's going to create uncertainty at municipal levels for things as simple as municipal drainage projects.

Bill C-69 is supposed to be an environmental bill. While I applaud the intent of it, it misses the mark in a bunch of areas. I want to highlight five different areas where there's definitely going to be uncertainty.

It allows for uncertainty in the area of political interference. It allows room for the Minister of the Environment and also the Prime Minister and his cabinet to directly impact the consultation process. That kind of political interference is something I thought we as a government were moving away from. It seems as though this bill will actually move even more in a direction of political interference than what we currently have.

Another important aspect is that it removes the standing test for participation in public hearings. In other words, right now people actually have to prove that they have a legitimate reason to make a presentation at a hearing when a project like this is being considered. They have to show that they are going to be directly impacted or that they represent a group that will be directly impacted by the proposed expansion.

Removing that test from the public hearing process, which is what Bill C-69 does, allows groups that could be from Sweden—it could allow activists from Sweden—to come to these committee meetings and make presentations. I don't know why we would allow for that kind of situation. It should be the individuals who will be impacted. It should be Canadians who make presentations on projects.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The motion will deal with Bill C-69 and how it's going to affect specifically the Trans Mountain Expansion Project.

As I think we all know, Mr. Chair, our current government has committed Canadians to buying a project from Kinder Morgan, to buying an existing pipeline that Kinder Morgan owned here in Canada and also buying the opportunity to expand its existing pipeline from a Texas-based company known as Kinder Morgan. The project is the Trans Mountain Expansion Project otherwise known as the TMX.

The government bought that thing for $4.5 billion. We have concluded from the data we've collected that the existing pipeline, depending on which resources you reference, is 50 years old. It's worth somewhere between $800 million and $1.6 billion, which means that there's over $2 billion worth of opportunity cost fixed into that deal that the Liberal government made with Kinder Morgan.

For whatever reason, the Liberal government was under the impression that they didn't have to follow their own rules, and they would be able to proceed with the expansion of that pipeline without the proper due diligence. The courts have since determined that they failed with regard to environmental considerations and also in their consultations with indigenous communities.

That particular project is on hold right now, and we don't know how long it will be on hold. We know that Bill C-69 is currently in the Senate. It's finding its way into committee, or has found its way into committee. We don't know how long it will be there, but if that bill receives royal assent prior to the expansion project being approved, it will create other very strong and significant roadblocks to completing this project.