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.

Trans Mountain Pipeline Project Act

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank all of my Conservative colleagues for proving that we are the only champions of responsible energy development on Canada's long-standing track record as a world-leading environmentally and socially responsible producer of oil and gas.

I would like to thank them on behalf of thousands of Canadians in every single corner of the country whose livelihoods depend on Canada's responsible energy development and the amazing incredible role that Canada could play in the world to provide responsible energy for the world's growing oil and gas demand long into the future. That is our vision for Canada as an energy producer and for the benefit of all Canadians.

The Liberals did not have to spend $4.5 billion of Canadian taxpayer dollars to give to Kinder Morgan to go and build pipelines in the United States and consider selling and divesting completely from Canada.

All Kinder Morgan needed, and never asked for, was certainty that once it completed one of the longest and most rigorous environmental reviews with the highest standards in the world on all counts, received approval and met the 157 conditions applied, that it would simply be able to proceed with construction of the Trans Mountain expansion.

For nearly two years the Liberals have failed and their actions just do not match their empty words. They failed to give certainty to Kinder Morgan that the legal provincial and municipal challenges, delays and ongoing roadblocks, which were deliberate tools to try to get Kinder Morgan to abandon the pipeline, would be removed.

For two years Kinder Morgan did everything it could to try to proceed with building the expansion that the Liberals themselves had approved and that we supported.

The Liberals denied three requests for unanimous consent to pass the bill in the House of Commons expeditiously before the spring, before Kinder Morgan's deadline that the Liberals had known about for months. They failed to take action then to provide Kinder Morgan that certainty before it was forced to abandon it.

Earlier my Liberal colleagues suggested it is too late but as my colleagues have expressed here, even if the pipeline can get built there are still future and ongoing threats, like restricting the volume of the expansion that other levels of government and activists can bring to the pipeline.

That is exactly why Bill S-245 is needed now just as much as it ever was to ensure that if the pipeline does actually get built, there will be no further impediments to its construction, operations and ongoing maintenance.

The Liberals failed to deliver a law to assert federal jurisdiction that the Prime Minister himself promised this past spring, around the same time that the Liberals defended spending Canadians' tax dollars on a protest position that was explicitly to stop the Trans Mountain expansion. That is why nobody believes what they say.

The court ruled that the Liberals failed to follow their own plan to consult indigenous people on the Trans Mountain expansion. For more than a month they failed to take any action to fix that failure and their ultimate announcement was just a consultation on how to consult.

The Liberals failed to listen to premiers and legal experts and appeal the court ruling to request a stay of appeal so construction could proceed while the Supreme Court deliberated.

The Liberals failed to introduce emergency legislation to affirm Transport Canada's holistic review of tanker traffic and marine vessels in the area in the case of the Trans Mountain expansion, instead kicking the can down the road for six months with no certainty what would happen after that process. That is why my colleague said their tactic is to rag the puck.

The Liberals continue to fail by still no longer being able to provide concrete timelines for a start date for construction and completion of the Trans Mountain expansion. That lack of a timeline has caused massive uncertainty and stress for the thousands of workers who have been left in limbo after losing those jobs that they were counting on.

It is a pattern. The Liberals killed the northern gateway pipeline instead of allowing more consultation. They killed energy east by political interference, changing the rules, adding red tape and forcing TransCanada to abandon the pipeline. Today the reality is that the Trans Mountain expansion remains stalled and the consequences of their failures have been staggering: more than $100 billion in energy projects cancelled; hundreds of thousands of Canadians out of jobs; more investment losses than any time in more than seven decades; future money for all levels of government lost; lost opportunities for indigenous Canadians and communities in every corner of the country; and deep divisions between Canadians being pitted against each other because of these Liberal failures.

They are about to make it even worse by ramming Bill C-69 through the Senate and failing to listen to experts who have said that legislation will guarantee no new pipeline will ever be proposed or built in Canada again.

What tremendous damage that will cause to our country's international reputation as a safe, fair, predictable place to do business and create jobs. The Liberals should be ashamed of themselves. They should support this proposed legislation to give certainty so that the pipeline could go ahead. I hope it is clear why nobody should believe any of their empty words about supporting the energy sector. Their agenda to shut it down is clear.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Mr. Speaker, a lot of members who have spoken so far on this Senate bill have provided numbers or explained why they are either for or against. I heard the parliamentary secretary explain to us that this was not needed, that this particular bill coming from the other place is defective, because it does not deal with the current situation.

After three years of dithering, confusing and obstructing, we find ourselves in the situation now where the Government of Canada has expropriated Kinder Morgan, allowed a private company in the most profitable sector of the energy industry in Canada, in transportation, midstream, to take $4.5 billion from the taxpayer, and there is no pipeline being built.

We are at this point today due to desperation. There is a great Yiddish proverb that applies: Out of desperation, one finds.

What a surprise that it is an Alberta senator, duly elected by the people of Alberta to represent them in the other place, who has put before this House a bill that would fix a major problem, which is the rule of law in Canada. We have a Constitution that is supposed to apply equally to all provinces, but I would submit that the vast majority of Albertans feel that there is a two-tier system, one system for everyone else and one for Albertans, and that is simply not good enough.

This bill is about respect, respect for Albertans and energy workers in all provinces, because this is not just an Alberta issue. This is an issue that affects energy workers in every single province in Canada if we cannot build major industrial energy projects any more, and with bills like Bill C-69 on the books, we will not be able to build them anymore.

The Senate has already passed this bill. It is up to us to take up the task and pass it here to clear any further obstructions and delays that may come the way of this project from other levels of government, provincial and municipal, and actually get this project built.

The ideal situation, which I would have preferred, like the vast majority of Albertans, would have been to see a private company build it. As I said before, this happens to be the most profitable sector of the energy industry. There is a great cartoon Malcolm Mayes put together in the Edmonton Journal. It shows the Prime Minister riding a massive anchor hooked up to a piece of equipment, and it says, “I'm behind you all the way!” That is what most Albertans fear when they hear that from the federal government, that the Liberals have their hands in Albertans pockets, taxing them.

For the longest time, Albertans accepted it. They said it was okay. They were willing to pay their freight, to contribute to equalization, to contribute to Confederation, because they knew they were building a better country, improving Canada and putting food on the tables of families all across Canada. That is not true right now. That is not true anymore. The highest unemployment rate happens to be in Calgary. I represent a suburban area of Calgary, where countless energy workers are unemployed and underemployed because of decisions being made by the Liberal government of today. It is not getting better; it is getting worse. Families are still losing their homes. Severance pay has run out.

Many people have left the province. An entire generation of young people was told to go into STEM, into science, technology, engineering and mathematics, because they would get amazing jobs in the energy sector and contribute to the province. We spent a generation trying to convince more women to join the STEM fields, trying to convince young people that it was worth their time, and convincing people from outside the province to come to Alberta to establish themselves and bring their families, because they could make a living there. That has been taken away, much of that because of decisions made by the Liberal government, which have compounded problems on the commodity market.

Now we have a differential that has only grown. I remember working for the Calgary Chamber of Commerce many years ago when the differential was $25, and businesses were complaining then. Now it is $40. The reason for the increasing gap between what Canadian heavy crude can get on the market and what we can get in the United States is the decisions of the Liberal government only.

Bill S-245 would clear the way. Liberals have already expropriated Kinder Morgan. They already own the project. This would clear the way from any further delays that could possibly happen. It is the right thing to do. I hear a member again heckling from the other side.

This is about respecting Albertans and respecting energy workers in every province in Canada. This particular section of the Constitution has been used before, many times. The Canadian Grain Commission used it. Facilities, such as storage and sorting facilities linked to the grain commission, were federalized. The Teleglobe Canada Reorganization and Divestiture Act used this particular section of the Constitution so the Government of Canada could divest itself of a corporation. The Cape Breton Development Corporation Act used this section of the Constitution to come into being. The Ottawa canal used that particular section as well. It is not special in any way. It has just not been used as of late, but it has been used hundreds of times by the federal government to ensure that large-scale industrial projects get built for the benefit and general advantage of Canada.

If this is a country of 10 islands, 10 separate provinces that can each do whatever they want whenever they want, then Albertans have a serious question to ask, which is: why are we still footing the bill through massive equalization payments? It is a legitimate question to be asking.

The member for Lakeland has fought for three years to point out the damage that has been done by Liberal government policy. It is something Albertans know all too well. They have experienced this before with a previous Liberal government and its national energy program. It is a myth now in Alberta. It is an easy thing to mention, even for those of us who did not have the opportunity to be born there, who moved to Alberta and became Albertans because they wanted to. The civic nationalism of our province knows about the stories, about the farms that were lost and the homes that were lost. That is what we do not want to have happen again.

The price differential we are experiencing right now is leading to job losses. Just last week, companies were telling us that for the first time ever they had to pay others a few pennies on the barrel to take our oil. That is ridiculous. It makes no sense.

Bill S-245 clears the way. Members opposite say it is not needed anymore, but I have not heard a single description of what harm it could do. The proposed bill does not even mention Kinder Morgan. It just mentions the projects and the licences issued. It applies just as well today as it will in the future. The government has explicitly said it wants to find a buyer. It has not explicitly said whether the project will be fully built and complete by then and actually producing and shipping or not. This would clear the way for any future owner of the pipeline as well, ensuring they can maintain it, ensuring the safety of the workers on site and ensuring the safety of the environment.

Bill S-245 is the right bill at the right time. It took an Alberta senator, an elected senator, not a member of the Conservative Party, but an independent senator, to put it forward. I am happy to support it. It is a great piece of legislation. It is brought from that desperation I just talked about. He found an opportunity to use the Constitution for the general advantage of Canada. This is how we build a community, a community of 10 provinces agreeing that—and I think we all agree—this has gone on for too long. There are too many delays, too much obstruction. Let us get the project built. The energy industry in Alberta is part of the lifeblood of Alberta. The public treasury there depends on it to ensure we have hospitals and schools, and pay for the salaries of its public sector workers. Without it, it will not happen. There will be further harm done to Alberta and to Albertans.

I am calling on all members to support the bill. Like other members have done in the past, when this section of the Constitution was used for things like Teleglobe, the grain commission, the wheat board, all of those things, it is time to act. The time to act is now.

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

Thank you very much, Madam Chair, and I do appreciate hearing from our witnesses today.

I am going to use my time to introduce a motion that I put on notice back on September 18. Lest this action of putting this motion forward during my time compel any of my colleagues on the other side of the table to apologize for me after the fact, I would like to provide some rationale as to why I feel it's important that I put this motion forward today.

The motion states:

That the Committee undertake a study of no less than three meetings on the impact of transportation moratoriums on the investment climate in Canada and that the Committee call on the Minister of Transport to appear.

I will provide some rationale. There is a quote that was made famous by the head of the L.A. Fire Department or was attributed to that individual and then made famous by the president at Ford. It says, “Culture eats Strategy for breakfast”. While we are in the midst of a transportation corridor and logistics study, I believe it is important that we understand how government policy and subsequent legislation impact on a strategy. It is one thing for us to undertake a study looking at the challenges and the opportunities that we have in our transportation system. I know this is an irritant for my colleagues when we raise things like a tanker ban, legislation like Bill C-69 or a carbon tax, but I think it's important for us to marry the two when it comes to looking at challenges and opportunities.

In fact, the president at Ford would go on to say that any company disconnecting the two are putting their success at risk. In fact, I understand that my colleagues, when they were touring the port of Vancouver, would have heard this time and time again in regard to Bill C-69 and the impact it would have had on the growth in that port had it been in place.

That's one of the reasons why I think it's important that we consider this motion at this time during this study. I think we have to have a really good understanding of the impact that these policies and this legislation are having on our ability to do the very thing that we're studying.

[Mark Scholz]

There are three items, Mr. Chair, that I think you can do in the short term.

I'm not a parliamentarian and I don't entirely know all the processes for governance. However, I can tell you that, first of all, the government needs to look at Bill C-69 in the Senate and then come back to the table and consult with industry. Our industry is facing an existential crisis with this legislation, particularly with the pipeline and major infrastructures.

Second, we need to reinstate the federal excise tax exemption on our heating oil for drilling and service rigs. Third, I'll echo the 100% of capital investment being expensed in the first year.

[Ken Kobly]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

On Bill C-69, from what we're hearing, mainly in the media and from our members, there is a lot of concern as to the final outcome of this particular bill. What will be the increased regulatory requirements? What will be the increased consultation requirements? Again, I fall back on the interview that I saw with Hal Kvisle where he questioned the intelligence of any pipeline company that would in fact apply under that new legislation. It does not appear to be legislation that will actually enable us to get our product to market.

[Matt Jeneroux, Conservative, Edmonton Riverbend, AB]

Quickly, before my time is up, Mr. Kobly, I want to get to you because you mentioned Bill C-69 and what your members are saying about that. I'll give you about 20 seconds to expand on that before the chair cuts me off.

[Matt Jeneroux, Conservative, Edmonton Riverbend, AB]

Wonderful. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, everybody, for your presentations here today.

I want to add to Mr. Fergus' assessment of the theme of the presentations. I also heard that Bill C-69, Bill C-48 and carbon taxes don't help the industries we're talking about today. They actually hinder them. I just wanted to take a second to get that on the record, from my assessment on this side of the table.

I want to start with you, Mr. Scholz. You spoke of 1,800 wells to 600, to about 550 wells next year. Each of those represents 135 jobs. Could you expand on what that means? What types of jobs are those? What does that mean, broadly, for a community here in Alberta?

We've gone across the country, as you know, and heard from a variety of organizations, but this is quite specific to Alberta and what we're experiencing right now. If you have any examples of those jobs and of the impact on the community, that would be helpful.

[Mark Scholz, President, Canadian Association of Oilwell Drilling Contractors]

Thank you again, Mr. Chair. It's great to be back.

I hope the weather improves on the island so you can get those wonderful potatoes out of the ground. We have experienced some interesting weather here in Alberta, as well.

Thank you very much for the opportunity to address the committee. I represent oil and gas well drilling and wells servicing contractors from across the country. These are the hard-working men and women who spend their days on drilling and service rigs, drilling holes in the ground that eventually become the producing wells that supply us with affordable and reliable energy.

Canadians are proud of their oil and gas industry, and the majority of us support its responsible development. This industry has a long history of building Canadian businesses and allowing Canadian families to prosper. They recognize that new pipelines represent thousands of jobs, a bright future for Canada's economy, and a safer way to transport our ethical resources, both domestically and to the rest of the world.

The lack of market access for Canadian oil and gas is an enormous short-, mid-, and long-term liability to the Canadian economy. Without new pipelines, we are not competitive in global markets, and we are losing investment opportunities.

Over the past 18 months, our members have moved over 20 high-spec drilling rigs, including Canadian skilled labour and management teams to the United States. We are losing jobs, talent, market share, margins and our industry, because we cannot compete.

In 2014, there were approximately 800 drilling rigs and 1,200 service rigs in Canada. Today, there are only 600 drilling rigs and 900 service rigs, a difference of 500 rigs. In 2019, we are estimating the rig fleet count to decrease again, to only 550 drilling rigs, a 30% reduction since 2014.

These statistics should alarm policy-makers, because every active drilling rig represents 135 direct and indirect jobs. It means that an estimated 54,000 high-value jobs have disappeared from the Canadian economy and are not coming back because of the relocation of these assets.

Unfortunately, given Canada's recent track record and the looming prospects of Bill C-69 and Bill C-48, we do not see a bright future for the competitiveness of the Canadian oil and gas industry. What perhaps is worse is the fact that as we sit paralyzed, fretting over the most regulated, safe and environmentally conscious hydrocarbon jurisdiction in the world, countries such as the United States have incentivized investment in their own oil and gas sector. For example, the recent tax reforms in the United States have provided businesses with the ability to immediately expense 100% of investments in machinery, equipment and qualified approved property in the same year of purchase.

With our world-class standards, Canada has an opportunity to play a significant role in shaping the world's energy future responsibly, yet, rather than enabling our industry, we continue to place roadblocks in front of it. In addition to falling behind regarding market share and investment, our egress challenges cost Canadians $40 million per day in pricing discounts. Canadian lose up to $50 per barrel compared to WTI, depending on the grade of crude, and the majority of these discounts are due to transportation bottlenecks.

In 2016, the federal government removed the fuel excise tax exemption on heating oil from my members. This decision had an effect of increasing costs at a time that our membership could least afford it. We're asking the federal government to reinstate this exemption.

The carbon tax in Alberta and British Columbia, as part of Canada's climate plan, has increased operating costs significantly. A prominent oil and gas producer in Canada stated that it cost over $100,000 in carbon taxes alone to drill a single well in British Columbia. The increasing cumulative costs, however, do not factor in the lost jobs and opportunity costs that are missed as our industry begins to dig itself out of the downturn.

In the meantime, our equipment, people and capital are being redeployed to other oil and gas-producing jurisdictions, such as the United States. Over-regulation has shuttered Canadian oil and gas firms, and in turn harms, not advances, global action on climate. A failed Canadian oil and gas industry cannot help to assist in the reduction of global emissions through the displacement of hydrocarbons from jurisdictions with lagging environmental standards.

In summary, our association is calling on the federal government to do the following. First, defeat Bill C-69 and Bill C-48 in the Senate. Second, reinstate the federal excise tax exemption on heating oil for drilling and service rigs. Third, consider incentives such as allowing firms to expense 100% of their investment capital in the first year.

Fourth, focus Canada's climate strategy around reducing global emissions and not just domestic emissions. Fifth, defend and promote the benefits of our industry, including our world-class standards and technical expertise. Sixth, appeal the lower Federal Court's decision on the Trans Mountain project to the Supreme Court of Canada.

Finally, stand firm in the position that pipeline construction falls under federal jurisdiction and that getting Canadian oil and gas to Canadian and world markets is a priority.

Thank you very much.

[Ken Kobly, President and Chief Executive Officer, Alberta Chambers of Commerce]

Good morning, Mr. Chair and members of the committee. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before the finance committee again.

To put into context the organization that I represent, we have 126 community chambers in the province of Alberta who, in turn, represent in excess of 25,000 businesses. About 95% of those businesses are small and medium-sized enterprises. All community chambers operating in Alberta are members of the Alberta chambers and the Canadian chamber so we have a tremendous amount of integration from the local to the provincial to the federal level.

Policies come from our community chambers and are debated at their AGM. Once adopted they become our policy.

I understand that you have our submission, and I'm assuming you reviewed it. I'm prepared to answer any questions you may have on it, but there are a few things I'd like to touch on.

We have five recommendations. The most important one to us is the establishment of a royal commission to review the Income Tax Act. At the last Canadian chamber AGM two years ago this received 99% support among the delegates. If fairness and simplicity is desired, a royal commission is needed. The last royal commission occurred in the 1960s, I believe, about 50 years ago. The current act is an outdated piece of machinery with multiple pieces welded on the side that don't work well with each other. If we're looking at progressing into this century, perhaps we should look at a full review.

We need to be mindful of cost layering on small and medium-sized businesses. Even if a change appears small in budget deliberations, that adds costs onto small and medium-sized businesses. You need to be cautious. We've seen a continual layering of costs from the municipal, the provincial particularly, and the federal level. All those small changes added one on top of the other have a major impact on small and medium-sized businesses. For example, the implementation of enhanced CPP in 2019 will have a cost impact on small businesses.

We would appreciate it if you would implement the Standing Senate Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce recommendation and fund the University of Calgary's proposed northern infrastructure corridor or transportation utility corridor. It is imperative that we do future viewing planning as to how we're going to move product across this country.

As the Alberta Chambers of Commerce—I don't think you'd expect anything else from us—one of our recommendations is to get the federal budget balanced. It has a tremendous impact on costs that are moved down to various businesses.

One other thing that is probably up for consideration this year in the budget will be national pharmacare. I would caution you to take a very clear look at the cost impact of this. The Canadian chamber submitted a submission to the Government of Canada suggesting that if you are considering national pharmacare, to address the gaps, not to introduce a full national pharmacare program on all. Currently 1.8% of Canadians do not have coverage either through their employer or through a provincial program, so rather than changing the entire system, we would caution you that that would be very costly and before you proceed with anything, you understand the cost implications.

It was very fortuitous that yesterday the Senate Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce released their report “Canada: Still Open for Business?”. Specifically within that report is the Senate committee's support for, one, a royal commission; two, reducing corporate tax rates and temporarily allowing the full and immediate deduction of all capital costs to be in accord with the United States; three, improving Canada's regulatory regime to ensure that a project can get approved and be completed, for example, the Trans Mountain pipeline.

Bill C-69, in my opinion, is definitely not the way to go if you're looking at bolstering or coming up with a very strong regulatory system that has any chance of success. Hal Kvisle, the former CEO and president of TransCanada PipeLines suggests that any pipeline company under Bill C-69 would be foolish to apply for any type of pipeline project.

You should improve Canada's trade infrastructure, for example rail, pipelines, roads and ports. A classic example here in Alberta is that we have only one 24-hour border crossing, whereas other provinces have multiple 24-hour border crossings. That impacts us greatly, as far as trade goes. That 24-hour border crossing is in the far west side of the province. Anything that is coming up from the central United States has to go out of its way to get back into Alberta.

We should negotiate and implement free trade agreements with fast-growing economies, and while we're at it, reduce interprovincial trade barriers. In some cases, it's easier to trade with the United States than it is to trade across this country.

Those are my prepared comments, Mr. Chair. I'm prepared to answer any questions.

Canada Labour Code

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am not quite sure because my colleague mentioned Bill C-69 and the hypocrisy. Bill C-69 is the new legislation that would require the energy companies, any resource companies, to be more intense, spend more time and more resources in getting the proper assessments through.

I will speak to the hypocrisy to which my colleague alluded. On the one hand, the Prime Minister is saying that he wants to have this pipeline built, yet on the other hand what he is really doing at the same time is putting in legislation that would kill any pipeline, not just the one he says has been okay.

Likewise, we are concerned about Bill C-65. He is putting forth that he is trying to eliminate sexual harassment and violence in the workplace. Would Bill C-65, like the concerns of my colleague, truly accomplish what we set out to do?

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I know my colleague across the way from Winnipeg North was concerned about the personal attacks, but this goes to a large part of the essence of the bill. There seems to be a lot of “Do as I say, not as I do” from the government. What are the implications of the message we are sending with Bill C-69?

The intent of this bill is very important. We do want to address sexual assault and harassment in the workplace. However, as parliamentarians, it is also very important that we send the message that this applies to everyone, no matter what his or her position is, no matter if the individuals are regular parliamentarians, regular Canadians, a cabinet minister or the prime minister.

Could the member talk about why it is important that we discuss the hypocrisy of what the Liberal actions have been when it comes to these types of issues and what Bill C-65 is intended to accomplish?

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as the member of Parliament for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, I am honoured to have the opportunity to talk about Bill C-65, which deals with workplace harassment and violence.

Violence against women is not new. While I would like to believe that in a predominantly rural riding like mine in eastern Ontario violence against women is an urban problem, we know that is not the case. Violence against women continues to be a fact of life in Canada and in rural Renfrew County.

Carol Culleton, Nathalie Warmerdam, and Anastasia Kuzyk were killed on September 22, 2015. Their killer was known to all of the women and to police for a long history of violence. He had been released from prison just shortly before the murders. The system failed these women.

On average in Canada, one woman is killed by her intimate partner every five days. The man arrested and accused of their murders had a long criminal history, including charges involving two of the three women. I am not prepared to let Carol, Nathalie, Anastasia and all the other women who have been murdered by their intimate partners die in vain. My memory of their senseless murders pushes me to speak out in this debate.

When I was first elected in 2000, I immediately recognized the transient and precarious nature of politics in general, and Parliament Hill in particular. For a female in a new political party with an evolving political culture, my position was even more precarious. Uncertainty after each election, and with the change in assignments in the ebb and flow of duties, was compounded by the hierarchical nature of Canadian politics and the fact that we serve at pleasure.

To quote one of my colleagues:

At any moment, everyone here weighs the opportunity cost of making a complaint or committing an non-acquiescent action with the threat of quiet dismissal, being overlooked for a promotion, being shuffled out of a spot, having a nomination candidate quietly run against us, or not having our nomination papers signed at all.

She went on to say:

To say that there is a power imbalance here is an understatement. Further, for all the talk of feminism and pursual of women's rights, there is not gender equality in the broader context of Parliament Hill. Women are still used as photo-op props, included for quotas or optics without having the authority of real decision-making automatically attached to their perceived utility. For that, women have to fight, and fight hard, and put up with being accused of not being a team player, or being an “insert choice of gender expletive here” when they do. That is only for those of us who are lucky enough to have built a platform and a profile that allows us to do that without those in the top tiers of power having to take a bit of damage in order to suppress our voices.

When this legislation was debated in the House of Commons previously, I did not have an opportunity to be part of this discussion. I was successfully defending my right to represent my party in the next federal election.

Bill C-65 is being supported by the Conservative Party. Today we are discussing amendments made by the other place, which allows for a re-examination of the legislation and the context in which it has been brought forward. At the time the legislation was previously in this chamber, it was presented by the government as partisan politics being set aside for a common purpose. All parliamentarians were prepared, or so I thought, to stand together and send a strong message to all Canadians that workplace harassment and sexual violence are unacceptable and that they will not be tolerated any longer, period.

It was that implied spirit of co-operation that encouraged my party to support Bill C-65. As a long-standing female member of Parliament, I am very cognizant of my position as a role model. I am reminded of my responsibility as a positive role model by the Daughters of the Vote program.

Young women are smart enough to spot a hypocrite when they see one. All parliamentarians have a responsibility to be a positive role model, starting with the Prime Minister.

I was hopeful that Bill C-65 would not be just another example of virtue signalling by the Liberal Party, where the Prime Minister directs his attack dog Gerald Butts to throw social media mud from the political ditch he occupies while claiming to take the high road. Subsequent events have proven me wrong.

Sexual violence and harassment in the workplace are nothing new.

I was particularly encouraged by the comments made by newly elected members of Parliament on the government side, such as the member for Oakville North—Burlington, who talked about taking a stand together. She shared her personal experience of harassment and bullying on Parliament Hill when she worked as a staffer prior to seeking elected office. She made reference to the #MeToo movement, #AfterMeToo and Time's Up and to having the courage and the strength to speak out and be a positive role model. In that context, her brave words in the House of Commons and her subsequent total capitulation to the Gerald Butts, “Kokanee grope” talking points were all the greater disappointment.

The greatest disappointment in this entire discussion has been the deafening silence from the female caucus on the government benches, who have quietly condoned the Prime Minister's behaviour with their silence. Not one female Liberal MP rose to defend the female reporter who was subjected to an unwanted sexual advance by the Prime Minister in her workplace. Not one government MP rose to demand a coherent explanation of what the Prime Minister admitted to doing when he belatedly provided an apology to the young female reporter who was the subject of his unwanted advance.

Enabling bad behaviour almost guarantees that it will continue. After all, is that not the subject of Bill C-65, which is what we are discussing here today? Silence is tacit approval.

Certainly in my career as the member of Parliament for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, spanning six elections over 18 years, I have experienced sexual harassment and bullying. It would be impossible to find a woman in politics who is not expected to put up with misogynist fools like Dan Leger or the tiresome Dick Mercer, let alone similar dinosaur attitudes in their own parties.

From the time Bill C-65 passed third reading and returned from the other place with amendments, something has changed. Canadians learned something about the leader of the Liberal Party. Canadians learned that the Prime Minister admitted to groping a young woman reporter at a music festival before he sought elected office. This is a very important discovery.

Unlike the recent events in the United States during the confirmation hearings for U.S. Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh about alleged events before he started his professional career, the Prime Minister has avoided a rigorous examination of his inappropriate behaviour.

South of the border, the Prime Minister has been referred to as the Bill Clinton of the great white north.

The Prime Minister had an opportunity. Rather than making up one answer, the Prime Minister chose to come up with a series of tortured explanations for the groping allegation against him. Constantly changing his story, he had an opportunity to come clean with Canadians.

In the process, the Prime Minister dodged questions about the need to call an investigation on his own conduct, the way he did with Liberal MPs Scott Andrews and Massimo Pacetti in his caucus, who faced similar allegations in the past and were removed from the Liberal Party.

The Prime Minister has single-handedly “terribly set back”, to quote Kathleen Finlay, founder of the Zero Now campaign to fight sexual misconduct in the workplace, progress on women's issues.

Ms. Finlay said:

He went from saying he had a good day and sort of smiling about it, and dismissing it that way...and then he went on to explain it, in a tortured explanation about different perceptions, how men and women can perceive things differently. And from where I was sitting, that just re-opened the whole “he said, she said” kind of explanation...which is something women who have suffered incidents of sexual misconduct do not want to hear.

The incident was first published in an editorial in the Creston Valley Advance, a community newspaper in British Columbia. The Prime Minister, who was in Creston to attend the Kokanee Summit festival, put on by the Columbia Brewery, admitted later to inappropriately groping the reporter while she was on assignment.

In addition to being on assignment for the Creston Valley Advance, the female reporter was also on assignment for the National Post and the Vancouver Sun. While her connection to the big city newspapers may have prompted remorse after the fact, that is a topic for a proper investigation.

The incident resurfaced online, including in a scandal magazine earlier this year. The allegation came into wider circulation the first week of June, when photos of the Creston Valley Advance editorial were widely shared on social media, and it received further comments when prominent online media outlets reported on it that same week.

The now former female reporter for the Creston Valley Advance community newspaper, the Vancouver Sun and the National Post confirmed that the Prime Minister groped her, or in his words, “inappropriately handling”, while she was on assignment at the festival.

After the incident, she wrote an unsigned editorial blasting the Prime Minister for his misconduct. The editorial did say that the Prime Minister told the female reporter that had he known the reporter was working for a national paper, he never would have been so forward.

The reporter wrote this about the Prime Minister:

...shouldn't the son of a former prime minister be aware of the rights and wrongs that go along with public socializing? Didn't he learn, through his vast experiences in public life, that groping a strange young woman isn't in the handbook of proper etiquette, regardless of who she is, what her business is or where they are?

After the incident, the female reporter, who is not in journalism anymore, held meetings with Valerie Bourne, the then publisher, and Brian Bell, the then editor of the newspaper, and communicated her displeasure about the Prime Minister's conduct. In a statement, the female reporter said she reluctantly went public to identify herself and to confirm the incident because of numerous media requests. She would not offer any comment or take part in any discussion on the subject, she said, adding that the incident happened as reported.

This is what the Prime Minister stated on CBC Radio, on January 30, 2018, before details of the groping incident were reported in the national and international media. He stated:

I've been very, very careful all my life to be thoughtful, to be respectful of people's space and people's headspace as well. This is something that I'm not new to. I've been working on issues around sexual assault for over 25 years.

My first activism and engagement was at the sexual assault centre at McGill students' society where I was one of the first male facilitators in their outreach program leading conversations—sometimes very difficult ones—on the issues of consent, communications, accountability, power dynamics.

To connect the dots, it was after the Prime Minister left university in Quebec when the groping incident occurred.

The following is from the newspaper editorial following the groping incident. It states:

It’s not a rare incident to have a young reporter, especially a female who is working for a small community newspaper, be considered an underling to their ‘more predominant’ associates and blatantly disrespected because of it. But shouldn’t the son of a former prime minister be aware of the rights and wrongs that go along with public socializing? Didn’t he learn through his vast experiences in public life, that groping a strange young woman isn’t in the handbook of proper etiquette, regardless of who she is, what her business is, or where they are?

And what makes the fact that she was working for the Post of any relevance? Big stories break first in community newspapers after all.

It may not have been an earth-shattering find, but one thing could have been learned from the experience. Like father, like son?

That was from the Creston Valley Advance, Monday, August 14, 2000.

What are Canadians expected to take away from this incident of groping that took place between the Prime Minister and a young female reporter? First and foremost, this incident is about hypocrisy, saying one thing and applying a different set of rules to one's own behaviour. It is about believing women, until it happens, then it is deny and hope that the clock runs out on the media cycle.

It has been noted by the CBC that there is no dispute that this incident happened. In 2018, the excuse “I did not think I was doing anything wrong” does not pass the smell test. Worst of all, the Prime Minister has shown no ability to grow with the job and learn from his mistake. Women in Canada deserve better from a Prime Minister who claims to be a feminist.

What this incident has also taught Canadians is that they cannot trust the Prime Minister, when he tells the public he is doing one thing but legislatively does another. It was finally figured out by the temporary socialist government of Alberta that the current government has no intention of seeing any pipelines built, let alone the Trans Mountain pipeline. In response, the NDP in Alberta pulled its support for the scam carbon tax, which is all about getting the provinces to take the blame for raising taxes while using the environment as an excuse to raise taxes.

If dragging the government's feet on this issue somehow does not work, Bill C-69 will be sure to suffocate any resource project from going forward.

There are ethics rules for parliamentarians, versus the Prime Minister's trip to a tropical island. When the Ethics Commissioner rules that opposition members are in violation of the rules, charges are laid by the RCMP. Where are the charges against the Prime Minister for his breaches of the code of ethics for parliamentarians?

In public, the Prime Minister claims that his government is going to crack down on guns and gangs but it cranks out Bill C-71 instead, which cracks down on law-abiding citizens who are already obeying the law. Then there is Bill C-75, which would soften the penalties for gang violence, among other atrocities.

The biggest lie of all is the Prime Minister's betrayal of veterans. It was announced by the government that no Canadian Armed Forces personnel would be medically released until their benefits were in place, yet last week, not only was it confirmed that soldiers are being released without their pension amounts and benefits confirmed but that soldiers should be told to wait longer.

In the last election, the Prime Minister claimed that the problem was that there were not enough offices open to service veterans. The government went ahead and spent funds intended for veterans to open offices in government ridings, and it now tells veterans that it has just doubled the official wait time, if they even qualify.

How much is the political decision to direct shipbuilding contracts going to cost Canadians?

I had high hopes for Bill C-65. It now appears that Canadians will be disappointed, as they have been disappointed with everything else this Prime Minister has touched.

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

It would seem, though, that there's also the defeat of Canadian workers who are involved in the extraction of the resource that can't then be shipped within Canada, and the reliance of eastern Canadian refiners on imports from places like Saudi Arabia. I hope that most Canadians, especially given the prices and the availability of Canadian crude, would prefer that we could refine Canadian crude rather than Saudi.

Again, you reinforced a lot of what we heard in the previous panel, but I want to ask you as well, then, if you have any particular thoughts on Bill C-69 and the way that will impact some of your industry.

[Duncan Wilson]

Thank you.

There are two types of projects on which Bill C-69 will have a major impact. One type is those port authority-led projects, such as our proposed terminal 2 project in Delta, which is currently undergoing a CEAA panel review under CEAA 2012. Even under CEAA 2012, we are three years delayed in that process, and container capacity on the west coast of Canada will be restricted for five years. We will lose that business to the United States. It's as simple as that. That's even under CEAA 2012.

Therefore, we're quite anxious. We know that Bill C-69 is well intentioned. The desire is to be able to adhere to timeline. Our confidence is somewhat shaken, given that the previous legislation was also intended to do that but unfortunately failed. We're still experiencing the consequences.

The second thing is what I mentioned in terms of the major projects list. From our perspective, if Canada wants to bring additional projects into the CEAA review processor or into the impact assessment review process, frankly I'd say we should learn to walk before we run. Rather than adding to the workload of the CEAA and the agent and the NEB or the new impact assessment agency, whatever it will be, let's get the stuff that they're already handling right, and then maybe let's look at those things. If it's not broken, don't fix it.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Wilson, in response to Mr. Jeneroux's question, you mentioned Bill C-69. It seems that every time I end up in a discussion about this bill, I learn something new about how this bill may prevent projects from being built or prevent products from getting to market.

The committee is charged with receiving submissions for pre-budget consultation with an eye on competitiveness in the Canadian economy. Your port is one of the most important parts of an export-driven economy, in terms of access to markets. I'd like you to perhaps continue in that vein and explain the responsible way in which you have been able to expand and build your port and the ways in which this bill will perhaps prohibit your ability not only to expand your own port but to have customers for your port and to be able to deliver product.