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.

Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am looking at the Speech from the Throne, and it highlights several areas that talk about creating an energy superpower by removing barriers, yet the government refuses to eliminate the job-killing Bill C-69 or the production cap. It talks about homes, yet the housing minister says housing prices should not fall. It talks about building “a safer and more secure Canada”, but for 10 years the government has done nothing about the fentanyl crisis. It talks about hiring 1,000 RCMP officers, but for a decade the government has refused to buy heavy body armour for the RCMP. It goes on to talk about cost issues, but the government went ahead and handed over $26 billion to friends like McKinsey.

Is this, as the government calls it, “Building Canada Strong”, or is it just building another empty PR program for this tired and stale government?

[Tamara Kronis, Conservative, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is with humility, pride and a profound sense of responsibility that I rise in the House as the member of Parliament for Nanaimo—Ladysmith. Let me begin by offering my heartfelt thanks to the people of my community. I thank them for placing their trust in me. From the shores of Saltair to Ladysmith harbour; from the vibrant arts communities on Gabe to the farms of Yellow Point, Cedar and Cassidy; and from the businesses of downtown Nanaimo to the heights of Mount Benson, I am deeply honoured to represent them. I will work every day to earn their trust, to re-earn it and to serve the people of Nanaimo—Ladysmith.

I thank my family: my husband, Martin; our daughter, Sam; son, Joel; bonus daughter, Amara; my mother, Fran; my sisters; my in-laws and their families; my dad, Jules, whom I miss greatly; and everyone who stood by me through this journey. Public life is demanding, and I would not be standing here without their support, dedication and sacrifice.

I thank our incredible volunteers, and especially Kyle, who built more than a campaign; he built a community, one where everyone is welcome, where ideas are exchanged respectfully and where people are free to be their authentic self. I look forward to expanding our community to include everyone in Nanaimo—Ladysmith who wants to be part of this incredible journey.

The people of Nanaimo—Ladysmith voted for change and hope. They sent a Conservative to the House because they are tired of promises without performance, announcements without action and spending without results. They are counting on those of us who have been sent to the House, all of us, to work together to make real progress on the issues that matter to our communities.

Like many members of the House, I had a career before running for office. As a lawyer, I helped clients navigate complex legal systems that are too slow and too bogged down in red tape, paperwork and jargon. As a goldsmith, I learned that patience, precision and attention to detail are essential. As a business owner, I learned that budgets never balance themselves. Those experiences taught me that quality matters, that what one builds must stand the test of time, that it is a privilege and an honour to be part of people's lives and that even the smallest mistakes can have real consequences. I bring those lessons with me to the House.

Nanaimo—Ladysmith is one of the most breathtaking and diverse ridings in this country: coastal and forested, urban and rural, stretching from mountains to sea. It is home to indigenous communities like the Snuneymuxw and Stz'uminus first nations people, who live and work alongside the descendants of coal miners, fishers, trades workers, foresters, small business owners and new Canadians.

However, beneath that natural beauty, there is despair. It is a despair that is as real and as deep as the coal mines that used to dot our landscape. The addiction crisis continues to devastate communities like mine. In 2024, Nanaimo lost 94 people to overdoses, more than three times the number lost in 2016, when B.C. first declared the opioid crisis a public emergency. Already I have sat with grieving parents who have had to bury children, spoken with first responders who are stretched to the limit and door-knocked in neighbourhoods in my community where despair has become the daily norm.

The people of Nanaimo—Ladysmith are compassionate. We care deeply about our neighbours, but our patience is running thin. We want real treatment, real recovery and real results.

As a lawyer, I have seen what happens when the system prioritizes bureaucracy over justice. As a legislator, I intend to help fix it. As a Conservative, I believe that the government should do fewer things but do them well. That starts with getting our fiscal house in order so we can have the resources to help those who need it.

The cost of living is truly out of control. Seniors are cutting back on essentials, splitting pills and skipping meals. Families are working harder than ever but falling further behind. For many young people and a lot of people who are not so young, the dream of home ownership feels like a wall they can never scale. After a decade of overspending, Canadians are sick of paying more and getting less. Inflation is eating into paycheques in a way that just cannot be fixed with a modest tax cut spaced over a couple of years.

Mortgage payments are crushing young families now. Groceries are unaffordable now. Tariffs are threatening our jobs and businesses now. Canadians cannot wait for relief until next fall or next spring. Canadians need relief now.

We also need bold action on housing. In Nanaimo, I have met single parents forced into unsafe living conditions just to keep a roof over their head. In Ladysmith, families are being priced out of the very communities they helped build. We do not have enough homes, and the answer is not buzzwords; it is builders. It is not another department, agency or czar; it is more shovels in the ground, in the hands of workers earning good wages to support their families. We must slash red tape, eliminate delays and confront any ideology that stands in the way of building. We must invest in skilled trades, in the very people whose hands will build the future.

Recently I had the pleasure of watching culinary arts students at Vancouver Island University reclaim the record for the world's largest Nanaimo bar. Yes, I did get to sample it, and yes, it was delicious, but even that sweet moment was overshadowed by the bitter reality of financial distress, in part due to the federal government's disastrous and abrupt changes in immigration policies. VIU was already staring down a deficit that caused it to cancel all its music programs and end its relationship with Elder College.

Now VIU has no choice, as a result of the government's immigration about-face, but to propose suspending six additional programs and cancelling 13 others entirely, including the dental assistant programs that I would have thought necessary to deliver dental care, the master of community planning program that is needed to build the houses the government claims it wants, and the graduate diploma in hospitality management that is vital to our tourism industry.

VIU is an economic anchor of Nanaimo—Ladysmith as well as a cherished community institution. What VIU needs, what we all need, is clear, predictable immigration policy and better coordination across governments, universities and industries.

Canada must also reclaim its economic independence. Conservatives will stand proudly for Canadian energy and the jobs and prosperity those industries create, particularly in communities like Nanaimo—Ladysmith, where over 20% of the workforce is dependent on the natural resource sector and trades.

We call on the government to repeal job-killing laws like Bill C-69 and Bill C-48. We need to build pipelines and other transportation infrastructure to unleash our resources and create good-paying jobs, not for special interest lobbyists in Ottawa, but for workers in communities across this great country.

Parliament has much work to do, but we face some pretty simple choices: more bureaucracy or more building, more taxes or more paycheques, more excuses or more action. The people of Nanaimo—Ladysmith have made their choice. They want change. They want lower costs, more homes, safer streets and real economic growth.

To my colleagues, including my colleagues across the aisle, let us—

Natural Resources

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, when the Liberal government was first elected in 2015, it killed 16 major resource projects and chased $176 billion out of the Canadian economy. This resulted in thousands of lost jobs in my city alone, and Bill C-69 continues to make it impossible to build the pipelines needed to unleash our resources and to restore our economic independence.

Will the Prime Minister commit today to cancelling Justin Trudeau's no more pipelines law, Bill C-69?

[Steven Bonk, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Mr. Speaker, after years of delays, uncertainty and economic damage, it is undeniable that Bill C-69, the no more pipelines bill, has been an absolute failure for Canadians. Industry leaders, provinces and indigenous communities have repeatedly sounded the alarm over its complex, unpredictable regulatory process that chases away investment and blocks development.

Now that the Supreme Court has confirmed that key parts of the legislation are unconstitutional, will the Liberal government finally admit it got this wrong and scrap Bill C-69 to take real action to get Canadians back to work?

[William Stevenson, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would first like to congratulate you on your recent promotion. I look forward to working with you, as well as my colleagues in this coming Parliament.

It is an honour today to rise for the first time on behalf of the constituents of the beautiful riding of Yellowhead, Alberta. I, too, would like to recognize some of my town and county councillors in Ottawa today.

Considering that this week's throne speech made no mention of Canadian oil and gas, no mention of Canadian pipelines and no mention of the necessity of getting Alberta's world-class energy to new markets, it is clear that the current Liberal government is no different from the last. Canadians need a government that works for powerful paycheques, not a government that continues to support job-killing laws. When will the current Liberal government repeal the “no more pipelines” bill, Bill C-69, cut the red tape and finally give Canadian energy workers the respect and recognition they deserve?

Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply

[Andrew Scheer, Conservative, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, now that Their Majesties have left the national capital region, we can really pick apart the throne speech the government wrote yesterday.

Yesterday Canadians heard a throne speech that was not bad on slogans and rhetoric but terrible on any kind of detail and a plan. A lot of times, government members will defend that by saying that the details come out in the legislation. While there may be some truth to that, in a throne speech, we usually at least get a clear indication of what that legislation would do. In other words, we get an indication of the way the government is going to accomplish the goals it has set out for itself. We received precisely none of that yesterday.

We were told that the government wants to build more homes, yet all the government did was talk about increasing the number of bureaucrats who run programs in Ottawa. There was nothing about incentivizing municipalities to speed up development processes and lower development charges. The government copied and pasted many aspects of the Conservative platform; one specific aspect was eliminating the GST on new home construction. Some might call it plagiarism, which is something the Prime Minister has some familiarity with.

The Liberals must have dropped something when they were cutting and pasting that from the Conservative platform, because they accidentally restricted it. I say “accidentally” sarcastically. They made this policy much narrower in its application. Our plan would have reduced the GST on new homes, period, but the Liberals have restricted that to only some new home purchases. They did not talk at all about the way they were going to reduce that red tape and lower those taxes.

We have a Prime Minister who wrote a book called Value(s), in which he defined himself as a human being. In that book, not only did he profess his love for the carbon tax, but he also bragged about the experience he has imposing higher costs, not just on Canadians but on the people of the world.

That is where the Prime Minister comes from: a global investment scheme in which fancy bankers and powerful elites put together a grift. The Prime Minister actually explained how he benefited from this. He gave an interview when he was on a panel and described how this grift unfolds. First, he and people like him have access to important decision-makers and policy-makers around the world. He actually said this. He uses that access to lobby for regulatory changes.

In other words, the Prime Minister gets to have a glass of wine or a canapé with a government official in a country. In those conversations or meetings, he convinces them to make regulatory changes, and then he invests in the companies that benefit from those changes.

In the example the Prime Minister used, he spoke about lobbying the government of the United Kingdom to bring in a new requirement for jet fuel. There was no market for the new requirement. If there was a natural market for it, then aviation companies would make those changes to jet fuel. The Prime Minister specifically required that a certain percentage of that aviation fuel had to be sourced from nonconventional energy. If there was a market for that, if that nonconventional product was more efficient or cheaper, then the companies would do it themselves. They would not need a regulatory agency to tell them to do it. There was no market for it. Why is that? It would increase costs. Those costs would get passed on to consumers, and fewer people would be able to afford to fly.

Therefore, the Prime Minister convinces the policy-maker to bring in a rule that cannot be ignored. In the absence of a market demanding it or necessitating it, the awesome power of the government comes in and forces aviation companies to blend in a certain percentage of nonconventional energy to use in their fuel. Those extra costs get passed on to passengers, and fewer people are able to afford those tickets.

The Prime Minister convinces the policy-maker that every plane flying in and out of a U.K. airport must have a certain percentage of fuel. Then he looks around and sees a company producing a nonconventional energy product. It was not making any money before the regulatory change; now it has a huge market for what it produces, that nonconventional energy product. All of a sudden, with a massive market, that company will be able to sell what it makes to all kinds of airlines flying in and out of the United Kingdom. What does the Prime Minister do? He invests in that company.

Not only does the Prime Minister lobby for the regulatory change, but he then also invests in the company and makes millions. Members do not have to take my word for it. The Prime Minister himself admitted this before he ran to be the leader of the Liberal Party.

Mr. Speaker, imagine doing that with any other aspect of government. Imagine having a buddy who owns an asphalt company, and for one reason or another, it was not making much money. Maybe the company was selling an additive for the asphalt, but there was not really a market for it; cities and rural municipalities did not think they needed to buy it, and the company did not produce anything of value for motorists or taxpayers in that area.

Mr. Speaker, imagine using special access to get time with ministers or government officials and, not because there was a market for it, convincing them to pass a rule that the company's product had to be included in all the asphalt being laid down in an area and then going out and investing in that company. If someone were an elected official and they did that, they would likely be up on criminal charges. They would likely be investigated for corruption. That is exactly what the Prime Minister did in his private sector career: He used his access with government officials to lobby for changes to allow him to make investments and make millions. That is who the Prime Minister is.

In the throne speech, there was no mention of how to get big projects built. We can remember it was the Liberal government that cancelled big energy projects like northern gateway and energy east. Northern gateway would have opened up Asian markets; it is the shortest route between where the oil and gas is found in the ground and where there is a deep water port to be able to ship it to countries like India, China and Japan, with booming populations and an ever-increasing middle class. Right now, many of those countries are buying their energy from countries that do not share our values. These are countries with dictators and regimes that abuse the rights of women and religious minorities and that engage in fomenting wars and terrorist activities not just throughout the region but throughout the world. Canadians are no longer able to fill those markets, because the Liberals cancelled those pipelines. There was nothing in the throne speech about repealing those terrible pieces of legislation or supporting those projects.

The Prime Minister says that he is the man with the plan. Slogans are not as efficient as plans, yet there is no plan. Then he goes around and tells Canadians that there will not even be a budget for six months. We can look at all the economic calamities that Canadians have had to suffer through: an inflation crisis, a cost of living crisis, a housing crisis, massive debt and deficits racked up by Liberal governments. The Liberal government is spending more on servicing the debt than it is on health care. In other words, it is paying more in interest payments to bankers and bondholders.

After all of this, with the Prime Minister himself saying that speed was of the essence and that, as a country, we have to start addressing this as quickly as possible, he is telling Canadians they are going to have to wait for six months before we get this plan. I do not know of a single boardroom around the country that would keep a CEO in his position if, in the middle of a crisis, the CEO came in and said, “I know we are in a crisis. Do not worry; I have a plan. I will come back to you in six months.” I do not think any board of directors would keep a CEO who asked for a six-month grace period to start to address a problem.

The Prime Minister says he wants to build, but he refuses to repeal the very laws that stop us from building. He will not commit to repealing Bill C-69, the anti-pipeline bill. He refuses to repeal Bill C-48, the shipping ban that blocks western Canadian oil from reaching global markets. He is keeping in the energy and production caps and the industrial carbon tax. Here we have a situation in which our steelworkers, aluminum workers and manufacturers in Canada have to worry about their companies competing against American manufacturers when there is no carbon tax on the U.S. side of the border. My colleague from Windsor—Tecumseh—Lakeshore made a great point yesterday when she pointed out that saying we are going to fight with the Americans while keeping an industrial carbon tax on Canadian workers is like tying one elbow behind our back. It is not going to put Canada in a position of strength if the government keeps the industrial carbon tax.

The Prime Minister flippantly said, “When was the last time you bought a whole bunch of steel?” Does he not realize that there is steel in a lot of things that Canadians buy on a pretty regular basis?

Last time I opened my fridge, the fridge had steel; the car I drive has steel; lots of household components have steel; and lots of framing materials for new homes require steel. There are many things that Canadians have to buy on a regular basis that contain steel. That steel could be made in Canada, and we could export some of that steel to the U.S. and around the world if Canadian manufacturers had an advantage and did not have to pay that carbon tax. The irrational devotion to the carbon tax that the Prime Minister has in keeping the industrial side of it is a direct repudiation of anything he has said on helping Canada fight back from a position of strength. He is going to saddle us with higher taxes and higher regulatory regimes.

There is no mention of repealing the soft-on-crime laws, Bill C-75 and Bill C-5, which unleashed a wave of crime across the country. Those two bills drastically lowered penalties for dangerous and repeat offenders, which caused the crime wave. Crime is not like the weather; it is not like one day there might be a bit of humidity and the next day there might be a few extra car thefts. Crime is a direct result of justice policies. When the Liberal Party came in and started repealing mandatory minimum sentences and forcing judges to grant bail instead of jail for some of the country's most notorious and dangerous offenders, we saw a direct correlation in the rise in crime.

The same thing happened with the drug crisis. We had a government that decided to take taxpayers' money. We can think of the taxpayer working so hard, picking up extra shifts, working long hours, missing out on time with their children and their families, because they were hustling and striving to eke out a better quality of life, knowing that when those tax dollars came straight off their paycheque, a portion of those tax dollars was going to buy dangerous opioids to give out to people to use in communities and those drugs ended up in the hands of drug dealers. Imagine the insult to injury for those Canadians who are barely getting by, to find out that their tax dollars went to subsidize drug distribution in our communities.

These are simply the same old talking points dressed up in new packaging. The Liberals are trying to pull off a massive trick on Canadians. They are pretending that, if they just change their rhetoric a little bit and change the leader and the name, but keep the same ministers and keep the same policies, somehow Canadians will believe that things are actually different. However, changing superficial things is easy. The Liberals can swap out the talking points, and they can suddenly mimic some of the language they hear from other political parties, as they did when they lifted Conservative ideas. It is easy to wear black shoes and normal socks and pretend everything is going to be different. However, the things that actually affect Canadians' lives are not the superficial things. They are not words on pieces of paper. They are not the grand prose that comes from a monarch on a visit to the Senate to read a throne speech. Canadians' lives are changed by the laws, the tax rates and the regulations that governments set. So far, we have absolutely zero indication that there will be anything meaningfully changed under this Prime Minister.

There was absolutely nothing in the throne speech to talk about unleashing our businesses and our resources, but that is what Conservatives will do. The best way to fight back against a threat to our country is to fight back from a position of strength.

It is easy to use pretty words and make big speeches, but the reality is that Canadians' quality of life is changed only by the government's policies, not by speeches in either chamber. It is the bills and the decisions made by ministers that will truly change Canadians' quality of life. For now, there is no sign that the government is going to offer Canadians real change.

Our plan, which the Conservatives put forward to the Canadian people during the last election, will be what we fight for in this Parliament. We will build on the success our leader Pierre Poilievre had in achieving 42% of the vote, with millions of new Canadians voting for the Conservative Party.

I know my Conservative colleagues will agree with me on this. I guarantee that every single one of us, when we were knocking on doors in the last election, met people who told us that they had never voted Conservative before, any many of them said that they had never even voted before. They saw in our leader Pierre Poilievre's vision for this country something that they had not seen for a generation from the Liberals: hope that the promise of Canada could be restored, where hard work pays off, where we can earn a powerful paycheque that affords not just the basic necessities of life, but some of the nice extras as well, and the belief that every generation that comes after will be better off than the previous because our country continues to grow and improve upon itself.

That hope has been lost over the past 10 years because of Liberal government policies. While we have more work to do, as the Conservative Party, to win the next election, I can assure members that our leader Pierre Poilievre will continue to espouse that vision of hope and that promise to Canadians that life will get better.

In the meantime, we will hold the government to rigorous account. It is our job to go through, line by line, every dollar spent, every tax dollar taken out of the pockets of Canadians and every infringement on their liberty. With regard to any decision that comes from the government, we will do our job, not for ourselves, not because we are the blue team and they are the red team, but for Canadians who have to go to work every day and shoulder that government spending, pay off that government debt and put up with the terrible outcomes of disastrous policies that have hurt our country for so long.

More and more Canadians want a government that puts Canadian workers, Canadian energy and Canadian families first. That is what the Conservative opposition will be fighting for every single day, for as long as this Parliament lasts.

I will close with this thought. It was very disappointing, not just for parliamentarians but for Canadians themselves. There are a lot of economic headwinds that are not just on the horizon but are absolutely blowing through communities all across the country. TD Bank is predicting a recession just around the corner, with thousands of jobs lost. We heard from our housing shadow minister today about a phenomenon that only the Liberal Party of Canada could possibly create, where prices are so high that new buyers cannot afford to buy houses, but they are now lower than the inflated prices that the existing owners bought them at. We have a situation where sellers cannot afford to sell, because if they drop their prices any more, they will not be able to cover the mortgage that they owe, but prices are still far too high for buyers. Buyers cannot buy, and sellers cannot sell. Only a Liberal government could achieve such monumental failure.

We have a situation where the debt required to finance what the government has campaigned on will put enormous pressure on bond markets. We do not know where that will lead, but it has never, ever led to a good place when governments start borrowing so much money that lenders start to doubt whether the government will ever be able to fully pay it off and start demanding a higher premium for that.

We think of the man with the plan, the guy we hire in a crisis, the guy who claims that he can walk into a boardroom and solve these issues, but who still has not gotten results from his visit to the United States. Other countries have gotten deals. The Prime Minister has not gotten one.

There is still no plan to get new energy projects built. Worst of all, there is no budget to show Canadians just how bad the situation is and what they might be facing in the future. That lack of a budget is probably the most concerning thing that we have had heard from the government over the last few weeks. This is the number one job. The reason why the House of Commons exists is to approve taxation and spending. That is the origin story of our parliamentary system.

It is not just a matter of disrespect; it is a matter of hiding from Canadians the true consequences of government policies. The fact that the government will not commit to tabling a budget before it goes on vacation for the summer is telling. What it is telling me is that the Liberals are really afraid to share the bad news. They are afraid of coming clean with Canadians because the numbers are so bad.

The best thing we can do with tough medicine is to take it early, and then all of us can get together to try to fix the problem. We urge the government to table the budget.

In that light, I move:

That the motion be amended by adding the following: “and we urge Your Majesty's advisors to include a firm commitment to present to Parliament an economic update or budget this spring before the House adjourns for the summer that incorporates measures aimed at unleashing Canada's economic potential including full accountability of Canada's finances.”

Natural Resources

[Andrew Lawton, Conservative, Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals claim that they want to make Canada an energy superpower, but they forget that it is their record over the last decade that has decimated our energy sector and kept our resources in the ground.

The Liberals' oil and gas production cap will kill tens of thousands of jobs and cost our economy $20 billion. Their industrial carbon tax will cost Canadian businesses and consumers and make Canada less affordable and less competitive. Their legislation, Bill C-69, is blocking energy infrastructure and making us more dependent on the United States.

The solution is easy. Will the Prime Minister repeal the Liberals' costly anti-energy laws?

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the truth is that in five years, the Liberals killed 16 major energy projects and $176 billion in options to make Canada affordable, safe, self-reliant and united. Half the ministers are the same.

The Liberals must kill Bill C-69, but they cannot get their story straight. Two weeks ago, the culture minister said that Canada does not need more pipelines. Last week, the energy minister talked a good game, but just like right now, he will not commit to concrete action. How can Canadians believe anything they say?

Will they repeal Bill C-69, yes or no?

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Prime Minister said that Canadians should not focus on pipelines. He should tell that straight to the hundreds of thousands of workers who lost their jobs when the Liberals killed pipelines, killed LNG exports to allies and capped Canadian oil and gas. Last year, 98% of Canadian crude went to the U.S., Canada's biggest customer and competitor, because of the Liberals. However, in April he said he would not repeal the Liberals' no-new-pipelines, never-build-anything, unlawful Bill C-69, and he ignores premiers and businesses.

When will the Prime Minister repeal Bill C-69?

Oil and Gas Industry

[Andrew Scheer, Conservative, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals must be really afraid to come clean with Canadians if they are going to punt it off into the fall.

With the throne speech yesterday, Liberals have effectively admitted that it was their policies that caused the suffering for Canadians. Their reckless borrowing and massive deficits caused the inflation. The carbon tax drove up prices and drove away investment. Their anti-development bills chased jobs out of Canada. The Prime Minister is claiming that somehow the Liberals have changed. He has a chance to prove it to Canadians.

If the Prime Minister is serious, will he tell Canadians that pipelines are part of his values, by repealing Bill C-69, the no more pipelines bill?

Address in Reply

[Billy Morin, Conservative, Edmonton Northwest, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals put forward a plan that includes a section on Canadian unity but does not mention the west once. The Liberals offer empty words on making Canada an energy superpower but provide absolutely no concrete action to spur investment and growth in our energy sector. This is what the Prime Minister's energy minister offered in Calgary last week: empty words, void of tangible commitments.

Let us be clear: The job losses and cancelled projects in our energy sector are the direct result of Liberal laws and policies. Making Canada an energy superpower begins with repealing the Liberal anti-energy laws. We must repeal Bill C-69, the no new pipelines act, which blocks energy infrastructure; Bill C-48, the oil tanker ban, which landlocks our energy; and the oil and gas production cap, which will gut $20 billion from the Canadian economy and kill 54,000 jobs, many of them in my own riding.

The energy minister failed to do it, so here is the chance for the Prime Minister to unequivocally commit to undoing the Liberal anti-energy laws. Will the Prime Minister repeal the no new pipelines law, the oil tanker ban and the oil and gas production cap so that Canada can build energy infrastructure and get our resources to market?

Leader of the Liberal Party of Canada

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

Mr. Speaker, the second petition I am presenting comes from Canadians from across the country who want to recognize a particular hashtag that has been trending on Twitter saying that the Prime Minister must go. It has been a top-trending hashtag, and more than 500,000 people have retweeted it.

The petitioners have described their concerns around the Prime Minister, including his divisive comments and attitudes towards Canadians who have made different health decisions. They also note that the Prime Minister has passed laws, including Bill C-48 and Bill C-69, the no more pipelines bills, which cancelled many energy projects and drove away investment through their excessive regulations. Petitioners note that the Prime Minister has generated more debt than all previous Canadian governments combined.

Petitioners want the government to axe the tax, and they note that the carbon tax continues to drive up prices and punish Canadians who have to drive to work or to school or to get groceries. They also note the serious lack of ethics by the Prime Minister: the SNC-Lavalin scandal, the billionaire island scandal, the WE Charity scandal, the $6,000-a-night hotel scandal and the multi-million dollar arrive scam app. As well, the petitioners are concerned with the Prime Minister's inaction on foreign interference.

Therefore, the folks who have signed the petition call on the Prime Minister to resign from office and to call a carbon tax election.

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs

[Branden Leslie, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Madam Speaker, I think I struck a nerve. They seem a little upset by my talking about when their leader's pension comes to fruition and the legislation that is literally trying to move back the election date to enable a whole bunch of them who were elected in 2019 and are probably not coming back to this place after the carbon tax election. They are trying to get their pensions. Once again, last night, the NDP leader put his pension above Canadians and our country. It is another failure, but it is not surprising.

I will continue on to what we could be debating on Monday, if the government, the Liberals, just handed over the documents. We could go to Bill C-73, the nature accountability act, which our environment committee is attempting to do a prestudy on to circumvent the fact they will not hand over the documents, to try to help pass legislation in the future.

Obviously I, as a proud member of the environment committee, have looked at the legislation and I will summarize it like this. It is a plan to make a plan, which is consistent with the current government. It is all about trying to build bureaucracy, help out friends of the Liberals and not actually accomplish anything. It is lazy environmentalism that is best summarized as all of the Liberal government's environmental policy. I asked the minister who was before us on this bill this week, the radical environment minister, about additional spending and/or potential new hiring of bureaucracy that would be needed to enact this legislation should we pass it. He refused to say. He just would not admit there might be.

I asked if he could look for internal savings, given that there has been a 53% increase in the number of senior executives within that department, or maybe we could look internally and try to find some efficiencies, we will call it, within that department. Do we just need to go back to the piggy bank of Canadians and borrow more, increase our debt and increase inflation, just to pay for their reckless, bureaucratically bloated ideas?

I have been here a little over a year now, and I think I have come to understand the Liberals' guiding principles in this place. I would say principle number one is this: When something does not work, just throw money at it. That must be the solution. It looks like we are doing something if we just throw more money at it.

Principle number two is this: When people do not work, hire more of them. Clearly that has been the track record.

Principle number three is this: When something actually is working well, bring in some Liberal insiders and break it. That is how we have ended up doubling the number of bureaucrats over the last nine years. Even the Parliamentary Budget Officer is questioning whether Canadians are seeing an increase in service delivery after all of that new spending.

I have talked to constituents. Anybody who deals with this behemoth of a federal government rightfully has complaints about service standards. Passports are not being returned to people faster. Our PAL, our firearm licensing application, for which many people are currently undertaking the courses to become trained and tested responsible firearms owners, is slowing down. It is not getting any faster. Nobody has said to me, “Oh, I called the CRA the other day and it answered like that. It was a great conversation. I really enjoyed that.” It is the exact opposite.

Nothing is working better under the federal government right now, despite more debt-fuelled spending to once again expand that bloated bureaucracy without outcomes. That is what we should measure, not how much money we throw at the problem. Are we improving the outcomes and delivery of what the federal government should be focused on for Canadians?

Of course, we have the recent NDP-Liberal tax trick. It is another example of the failed philosophy. The reality is that we in this country, industry in this country, unfortunately, has faced regulatory strangulation, for lack of a better term. Perhaps it is the right term.

We will use one example of many terrible pieces of legislation that have continuously focused on driving out investment, driving away opportunities and just trying to add problematic elements for those entrepreneurs and investors, whether they be individuals or Canadian public pension plans, who want to invest in Canada, who want to build in Canada. Bill C-69, the no-more-pipelines bill, or, maybe more appropriately named, the never-build-anything-ever-again-in-this-country bill, is a prime example of how we have made it so unattractive to invest in and do business in this country.

This is evident by the fact of the massive outflow of foreign direct investment that has previously been in Canada but is now going to the United States. I would be surprised if any member of the House has not talked to a business owner in their community who has said that if the Conservatives do not win, they are leaving. It is a real problem, and the data shows it is happening already, because of the strangulation through regulation and legislation under the Liberal government. The Liberals treat the economy as if it were some sort of machine where we just pull some levers and press some buttons and everything will work out just fine.

The Liberals are not even trying to hide their plans. They regularly say that we need to build the future economy and to transition our economy. What they mean when they say that is that they want a government-controlled, centrally planned and manipulated economy, entrepreneurs be damned. The Liberals claim to know what Canadians need and want, and they are going to try their best to make sure the economy matches their ideology. That is not the way the economy works.

Instead of trying to drive economic growth through private sector investment, the Liberals choose to spend, which is why there has been a doubling of our national debt and drastic increases in the price of life. Whether it be through direct taxation on individuals or on companies, or, of course, through the hated carbon tax, it is not surprising that when a party focuses on changing the economy to something it believes it should be, taxing everybody to death, there is a doubling of the price of all homes in this country, a doubling of rent and record-breaking numbers of people lining up at food banks in what should be a prosperous, leading nation.

The Liberals have doubled down as of late. They are trying to bribe Canadians with their own money with the government's $250 cheque proposal and a temporary tax cut, a pause. It has been called a “cut” a lot in the chamber over the last number of days, but to me a tax “cut” means actually cutting it, not hitting the pause button to give a break for two months on a couple of items deemed essential. The Liberals decided what is going to be listed for the temporary pause, the temporary—

Oil and Gas Industry

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, given that we have just seen an American election, I can quote another American president, who could aptly describe the Prime Minister's economic policy: “If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.” Instead of doing none of the above, which would allow our entrepreneurs to actually build things on their own without sticking taxpayers with the bill, does he want to know our common-sense plan? We will repeal unconstitutional Bill C-69, we will scrap the cap and we will axe the tax.

Why will he not call a carbon tax election so we can bring home these jobs?

Environment and Sustainable Development

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Madam Speaker, I have the same concern.

I remember back in the day, when Catherine McKenna was the environment minister, and she passed the new environmental assessment bill, Bill C‑69. I asked her directly whether there would be assessments for these small reactors. The answer she gave me at the time was clearly no.