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.

Financial Statement of Minister of Finance

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am not finished.

I will continue in English. I want to share this great speech with English-speaking Canadians.

After nine years of the Prime Minister's deficits doubling the national debt and doubling housing costs and a new budget that brings in $50 billion of new unfunded spending on promises he has already broken, this budget, just like the Prime Minister, is not worth the cost, and Conservatives will be voting no.

Before I get into the reasons, and my common-sense plan to axe the tax, build the homes, fix the budget and stop the crime, I would like to pay the Minister of Finance a compliment for a page in her speech I thought was extremely illustrative. She said, “I would like Canada’s one per cent—Canada’s 0.1 per cent—to consider this: What kind of Canada do you want to live in?”

Before I go any further, let us point out the incredible irony that, as she and her leader point out, Canada's 0.1% are doing better than ever after nine years of the Prime Minister promising to go after them. Yes, they have benefited from the tens of billions of dollars of undeserved corporate welfare handouts and grants, ironically supported by the NDP; of corporate loan guarantees that protect them against losses in cases of incompetence or dishonest bidding; of contracts, of which there are now $21 billion, granted to outside and highly paid consultants, many of them making millions of dollars a year in taxpayer contracts for work that could be done inside the government itself if that work if of any value at all; and finally, of those grand fortunes that have been inflated by the $600 billion of inflationary money printing that has transferred wealth from the working class to the wealthiest among us. That 0.1% is doing better than ever after nine years of the Prime Minister pretending he would get tough on them.

Let me go on. I am interrupting myself. The Minister of Finance asked, “Do you want to live in a country where you can tell the size of someone’s paycheque by their smile?” Wow. How many Canadians are smiling when they look at their paycheque today? People are not smiling at all because a paycheque cannot buy them a basket of affordable food, according to Sylvain Charlebois, the food professor. He has said that the cost of a basket of food has gone up by thousands of dollars per year, but the majority of Canadians are spending hundreds of dollars less than is required to buy that basket. That means they are not getting enough food. We live in a country now where the average paycheque cannot pay the average rent, so nobody is smiling when they look at their paycheque.

The minister went on to ask, “Do you want to live in a country where kids go to school hungry?” According to the Prime Minister, one in four kids are going to school hungry after his nine years. I look here at a press release his government released on April 1, on April Fool's Day of all days, where he says, “Nearly one in four children do not get enough food”. In fact, it says that they do not get enough food “to learn and grow.”

No, we do not want to live in a country where kids go to school hungry, but according to the Prime Minister's own release, we do live in a country where one in four kids do go to school hungry. The Minister of Finance then said, “Do you want to live in a country where the only young Canadians who can buy their own homes are those with parents who can help with the downpayment?” No, we do not want to live in that country, but we do live in that country today.

According to data released by RBC Dominion, for the average family to afford monthly payments on the average home in Canada, the family would have to spend 64% of its pre-tax income. Most families do not keep 64% of pre-tax income because they pay so much in taxes. Therefore, most families would have to give up on eating, recreation, clothing themselves and transportation to be mathematically capable of making payments on the average home. For young people, it is even worse because they do not have a nest egg. They cannot afford a down payment that has doubled in the last nine years. That is why 76% of Canadians who do not own homes tell pollsters they believe they never will. Do we want to live in a country where the only young people who can afford a down payment are those whose parents can pay it for them? No. However, that is the country that we live in today.

“Do [you] want to live in a country where we make the investments we need in health care, in housing, in old age pensions, but we lack the political will to pay for them and choose instead to pass a ballooning debt on to our children?”

Are we living in the twilight zone here? These are the minister's words: Do we want to live in a country where we pass the bill on to our children with “ballooning debt”? She asks this as she is ballooning the debt by adding $40 billion to that debt. She asks this while giving a speech about the perils of passing ballooning debt to our children. She is the finance minister for the government that has added more debt than all previous governments combined in the preceding century and a half. It is worth noting that the Prime Minister has added his deficits as a share of GDP that are bigger than we had in World War I, in the Great Depression and in the great global recession of 2008 and 2009.

I should also note that the majority of debt that has been added under the Prime Minister was unrelated to COVID. The “dog ate my homework” excuse, of blaming COVID for all that is wrong in Canada, no longer works. I will add that we are now three years past COVID and the deficits and debt continue to grow, putting a lie to that entire endless, nauseating excuse that the government has made.

The Prime Minister has added so much debt that we are now spending more on interest for that debt than we are spending on health care; $54.1 billion in debt interest this year; more money for those wealthy bankers and bondholders who own our debt; and less money for the doctors and nurses whom we await when we sit for 26 hours in the average emergency room right across the country.

No, we do not want to live in a country that passes on a ballooning debt to our children, but after nine years of the Prime Minister, that is exactly the country in which we live.

The Minister of Finance asks, “Do [you] want to live in a country where those at the very top live lives of luxury?” Who does that remind us of? Somebody who flies around in a private jet to stay on secret islands on the other side of the hemisphere, where they treat him to $8,000 and $9,000-a-day luxuries, and he pays for it with the tax dollars of Canadians and emits thousands of tonnes of greenhouse gases into our atmosphere, somebody luxuriates in that way at the expense of everyone else. He shall remain unnamed because we cannot say the Prime Minister's name in the House of Commons, so I will not break that parliamentary rule. However, I do point out the irony.

I will start again. The Minister of Finance asks:

Do [you] want to live in a country where those at the very top live lives of luxury but must do so in gated communities behind ever-higher fences using private health care and private planes because the public sphere is so degraded and the wrath of the vast majority of their less-privileged compatriots burns so hot?

She says that the wrath of the majority of less privileged compatriots burns so hot. She is right that some people do not have the ability to live in gated communities, behind armed guards. Those people are told that they should leave their keys next to the door so that the car thieves can just walk in and peacefully steal their cars.

Communities across the country are being ravaged by crime, chaos, drugs and disorder. What she has described is exactly what is happening after nine years of the government. We have nurses in British Columbia hospitals who are terrified to go to work because the Prime Minister, in collusion with the NDP Premier of B.C., has decriminalized hard drugs and allowed the worst criminals to bring weapons and narcotics into their hospital rooms, where they cannot be confronted. We have 26 international students crammed into the basement of one Brampton home. We have a car stolen every 40 minutes in the GTA. We have 100% increase in gun killings across the country.

We have communities where people are terrified to go out. We have small businesses across Brampton and Surrey that are receiving letters weekly, warning them that if they do not write cheques for millions of dollars to extortionists, their homes will be shot up, and their children will have bullets flying through the windows as they are sleeping.

That is life in Canada today. Do we want to live in that country? No, we do not want to live in that country. After eight years of rising costs, rising crime and rising chaos, the Prime Minister is not worth the cost. We will replace him with a common-sense Conservative government that will bring home a country we love.

What does that country look like and how will we get there? Fortunately, we have a common-sense plan that will axe the tax, build the homes, fix the budget and stop the crime.

Let us start with the carbon tax that went up 23% on April 1. Now we see the raging gas prices at the pumps across Ontario. There is chaos as people are desperately trying to get to the pumps and fill up before the latest hikes go ahead.

The Prime Minister celebrates, saying that high gas prices are his purpose, and he has the full support of the NDP leader on most days, when the NDP leader can figure out what his policy is. The NDP leader has voted 22 times to hike the carbon tax. Both parties, along with the help of the Bloc, have voted for future increases that will quadruple the tax to 61¢ a litre, a tax that will also apply on home heating bills and, of course, a tax that applies to the farmers who produce the food, the truckers who ship the food and therefore on all who buy the food.

That is why common-sense Conservatives will axe the tax to bring home lower prices. We take exactly the opposite approach of the Prime Minister when it comes to protecting our environment. His approach is to raise the cost on traditional energy we still need. Our approach is to lower the cost on other alternatives. We will green light green projects, like nuclear power, hydroelectric dams, carbon capture and storage, mining of critical minerals, like lithium, cobalt, copper and others. We will do this by repealing the unconstitutional Bill C-69 so that we can approve these projects in 18 months, rather than in 18 years.

Here is the difference, the Prime Minister wants taxes, I want technology. He wants to drive our money to the dirty dictators abroad, I want to bring it home in powerful paycheques for our people in this country.

The same approach that will allow us to unleash energy, abundance and affordability is the approach we will take to build the homes; that is to say getting the government gatekeepers out of the way.

Why do we have the worst housing inflation in the G7 after nine years of the Prime Minister? Why have housing costs risen 40% faster than paycheques? It is by far the worst gap of any G7 country. Why did UBS say Toronto had the worst housing bubble in the world? Vancouver is the third most overpriced when comparing median income to median house price according to Demographia. Why? Because we have the worst bureaucracy when it comes to home building.

After nine years of the Prime Minister, Canada has the second slowest building permits out of nearly 40 OECD countries. These permitting costs add $1.3 million to the cost of every newly built home in Vancouver, and $350,000 to every newly built home in Toronto. Winnipeg blocked 2,000 homes next to a transit station that was built for those homes. The City of Montreal has blocked 25,000 homes in the last seven years. Literally hundreds of thousands of homes are waiting to be built, but are locked up in slow permitting processes.

What do we have as a solution? The Prime Minister has taken the worst immigration minister in our country's history, the guy the Prime Minister blamed for causing out-of-control temporary immigration to balloon housing prices, and put him in charge of housing. Since that time, the minister has said that his housing accelerator fund of $4 billion does not actually build any homes.

Since he has doled out all of this cash to political friends in incompetent city halls across the country, home building has dropped. In fact, home building is down this year and, according to the federal government's housing agency, it will be down next year and again the year after that. That is a housing decelerator not accelerator.

That is what happens when a minister is chosen because he is a media darling and a fast talker, rather than someone who gets things done, as I did when I was housing minister. The rent was only $973 a month for the average family right across the country, and the average house price was roughly $400,000. That is results. There was less talk and less government spending, but far more homes. That is what our common-sense plan will do again.

Our plan will build the homes by requiring municipalities to speed up, permit more land and build faster. They will be required to permit 15% more homes per year as a condition of getting federal funding, and to permit high-rise apartments around every federally funded transit station. We will sell off 6,000 federal buildings and thousands of acres of federal land to build. We will get rid of the carbon tax to lower the cost of building materials.

Finally, we will reward the working people who build homes, because we need more boots, not more suits. We will pass the common-sense Conservative law that allows trade workers to write off the full cost of transportation, food and accommodation to go from one work site to another, so they can build the homes while bringing home paycheques for themselves.

These homes will be in safe neighbourhoods. We will stop the crime by making repeat violent offenders ineligible for bail, parole or house arrest. That will mean no more catch and release. We will repeal Bill C-5, the house arrest law. We will repeal Bill C-75, the catch-and-release law. We will repeal Bill C-83, the cushy living for multiple murderers law that allows Paul Bernardo to enjoy tennis courts and skating rinks that most Canadian taxpaying families can no longer afford outside of prison.

We will bring in jail and not bail for repeat violent offenders. We will repeal the entire catch-and-release criminal justice agenda that the radical Prime Minister, with the help of the loony-left NDP, has brought in. The radical agenda that has turned many of our streets into war zones will be a thing of the past.

We will also stop giving out deadly narcotics. I made a video about the so-called safe supply. I went to the tragic site of yet another homeless encampment in Vancouver, which used to be one of the most beautiful views in the entire world. Now it is unfortunately a place where people live in squalor and die of overdoses. Everyone said it was terrible that I was planning to take away the tax-funded drugs and that all of the claims I made were just a bunch of conspiracy theories, but everything I said then has been proven accurate, every word of it.

I noticed that the Liberals and the pointy-headed professors they relied on for their policies have all gone into hiding as well. Why is that? It is because the facts are now coming out. Even the public health agency in British Columbia, which has been pushing the NDP-Liberal ideology, is admitting that the tax-funded hydromorphone is being diverted. The police in Vancouver said this week that 50% of all the high-powered hydromorphone opioids are paid for with tax dollars and given out by public health agencies supposedly to save lives. Now we know that those very powerful drugs are being resold to children, who are getting hooked on them, and the profits are being used to buy even more dangerous fentanyl, tranq and other drugs that are leaving our people face-first on the pavement, dying of record overdoses.

The so-called experts always tell us to ignore the bumper stickers and look at the facts. The facts are in. In British Columbia, where this radical and incomparable policy has been most enthusiastically embraced, overdose deaths are up 300%. They have risen in B.C. faster than anywhere else in Canada and possibly anywhere else in North America. The ultraprogressive state of Oregon has reversed decriminalization, recognizing the total chaos, death and destruction the policy has caused.

What does the radical Prime Minister, with the help of his NDP counterpart, do? They look at the death and destruction that has occurred in the Downtown Eastside of Vancouver and other communities and say we should have more of that. They took a walk, or better yet, these two politicians probably drove through the Downtown Eastside in their bulletproof limousines. They looked around at the people who were bent over completely tranquilized by fentanyl, saw the people lying face-first on the ground, saw the tents that the police would have pointed out are filled with dangerous guns and drugs, saw all the small businesses that were shuttered by this policy and said that we should have more of that. They want to replicate all the policies that have created it so that we can have tent cities and homeless encampments in every corner of the country.

That is exactly what they have done. In Halifax, there are 35 homeless encampments in one city after nine years of the Prime Minister, his NDP counterpart and the Liberal mayor of Halifax. If we look at every town in this country, we will find homeless encampments that never existed before the last nine years. This policy will go down in infamy as one of the most insane experiments ever carried out on a population. Nowhere else in the world is this being done. The Liberals gaslight us. They love to say that all the civilized people believe that giving out these drugs will save lives, but nowhere else is this being done. When we tell people this is happening, they have a hard time believing that we are giving out heroin-grade drugs for free to addicts and expecting it to save lives.

Now they spill into our hospitals, where nurses are told by the NPD government in B.C. and the Liberal government in Ottawa that they are not allowed to take away crack pipes or knives or guns. They are just supposed to expect that someone is going to consume the drugs, have a massive fit and start slashing up the hospital floor. This is something out of a bad hallucination and a hallucination that will come to an end when I am prime minister. We will end this nightmare.

We will also ensure that Canadians have a better way. We are not only going to ban the drugs. We are not only going to stop giving out taxpayer-funded drugs. We are going to provide treatment and recovery.

If people are watching today and are suffering from addiction and do not know how they can turn their lives around, I want them to know that there is hope. There is a better future ahead. We will put the money into beautiful treatment centres with counselling, group therapy, physical exercise, yoga and sweat lodges for first nations, where people can graduate drug-free, live in nearby housing that helps them transition into a law-abiding, drug-free life, and come back to the centre for a counselling session, a workout or maybe even to mentor an incoming addict on the hopeful future that is ahead. That is the way we are going to bring our loved ones home, drug-free.

As I always say, we are going to have a common-sense dollar-for-dollar law, requiring that we find one dollar of savings for every new dollar of spending. In this case, that will include how we will partly pay for this. We will unleash the biggest lawsuit in Canadian history against the corrupt pharmaceutical companies that profited off of this nightmare. We will make them pay.

Finally, we will stop the gun crime. We know that gun crime is out of control. Just yesterday, we saw this gold heist. By the way, all of the gold thieves are out on bail already, so do not to worry. They will have to send the Prime Minister a nugget of gold to thank him for passing Bill C-75 and letting them out of jail within a few days of this monster gold heist.

Why did they steal the gold? They stole the gold so that they could buy the guns, because we know that all of the gun crime is happening with stolen guns. The Prime Minister wants to ban all civilian, law-abiding people from owning guns, but he wants to allow every criminal to have as many guns as they want. I am not just talking about rifles. I am talking about machine guns, fully loaded machine guns that are being found on the street, which never existed since they were banned in the 1970s. Now the criminals can get them because the Prime Minister has mismanaged the federal borders and ports and because he is wasting so much money going after the good guys.

The Prime Minister wants to ban our hunting rifles. He said so in a December 2022 interview with CTV. He was very clear. If someone has a hunting rifle, he said he will have to take it away. He kept his word by introducing a 300-page amendment to his Bill C-21, which would have banned 300 pages of the most popular and safe hunting rifles. He only put that policy on hold because of a backlash that common-sense Conservatives led, which included rural Canadians, first nations Canadians and NDPers from rural communities. He had to flip-flop.

I know that in places like Kapuskasing, the law-abiding people enjoy hunting. While the NDP leader and the Prime Minister look down on those people and think that they are to blame for crime, we know that the hunters in Kapuskasing are the salt of the earth, the best people around, and we are going to make sure that they can keep their hunting rifles. God love them. God love every one of them.

While the Prime Minister wants to protect turkeys from hunters, common-sense Conservatives want to protect Canadians from criminals. That is why we will repeal his insane policies.

By the way, I should point out that he has not even done any of the bans. We remember that he had that big press conference during the election. He said to his policy team that morning that he needed them to come up with a policy that would allow him to put a big, scary-looking black gun on his podium sign. They said, “Okay, we will think of something.” He put that scary-looking gun on his podium sign, and he said he was going to ban all of these assault rifles. They asked him what an assault rifle was, and he said he did not know, just that it was the black, scary thing on the front of his podium sign. That was the assault rifle he was referring to.

It is now three years since he made that promise. He was asked again in the hallways what an assault rifle was. He said he was still working to figure it out. These rifles that he says he is going to ban one day, he does not know what they are but one day he is going to figure it out and ban them. In the meantime, he has spent $40 million to buy exactly zero guns from owners. He said he was going to ban them and buy them from the owners. Not one gun has been taken off the street after spending $40 million.

We could have used that money to hire CBSA officers who would have secured our ports against the thousands of illegal guns that are pouring in and killing people on our streets. When I am prime minister, we will cancel this multi-billion dollar waste of money. We will use it to hire frontline boots-on-the-ground officers who will inspect shipping containers and to buy scanners that can pierce inside to stop the drugs, stop the illegal guns, stop the export of our stolen cars and stop the crime.

What we are seeing is a very different philosophical approach. The finance minister said in her concluding remarks that what we need is bigger and stronger government. Does that not sound eerie? In other words, she and the Prime Minister want to be bigger and stronger. That is why they are always trying to make Canadians feel weaker and smaller. The Prime Minister literally called our people a small, fringe minority. He jabs his fingers in the faces of our citizens. He calls small businesses tax cheats. He claims that those who own hunting rifles are just Americans.

The Prime Minister points his fingers at people who disagree with him. He has the audacity of claiming that anyone who is offside with him is a racist. This is a guy who dressed up in racist costumes so many times he cannot remember them all. He has been denigrating other people his whole life. That is because it is all about him. It is all about concentrating more power and more money in his hands. This budget is no different. It is about a bigger government and smaller citizens. It is about buying his way through the next election with cash that the working-class people have earned and he has burned.

By contrast, I want the opposite. I want smaller government to make room for bigger citizens. I want a state that is a servant and not the master. I want a country where the prime minister actually lives up to the meaning of the word: “prime” meaning “first”, and “minister” meaning “servant”. That is what “minister” means. “Minister” is not master; “minister” is servant.

We need a country that puts people back in charge of their money, their communities, their families and their lives, a country based on the common sense of the common people, united for our common home, their home, my home, our home. Let us bring it home.

Therefore, I move:

That the motion be amended by deleting all of the words after the word “That” and substituting the following:

“the House reject the government's budget since it fails to:

a. Axe the tax on farmers and food by passing Bill C-234 in its original form.

b. Build the homes, not bureaucracy, by requiring cities permit 15% more home building each year as a condition for receiving federal infrastructure money.

c. Cap the spending with a dollar-for-dollar rule to bring down interest rates and inflation by requiring the government to find a dollar in savings for every new dollar of spending.

Canadian Sustainable Jobs Act

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Madam Speaker, it sure is telling that every time the NDP-Liberals get up to talk about the bill, they talk about almost anything other than Bill C-50. I think that is because Bill C-50, the just transition, is actually the culmination of nine years of the NDP-Liberals' anti-energy, anti-capitalist and, frankly, anti-Canadian policies, which they know will hurt Canadians.

The bill's proponents say Bill C-50 will deliver jobs and skills training programs, but the bill itself would do nothing of the sort. Instead, it would set up a fancy appointed government committee that would set up another committee to dictate five-year economic plans to governments. Despite what it claims, the costly coalition knows the just transition would actually disrupt the livelihoods of millions of Canadians and threaten 2.7 million jobs in energy, agriculture, transportation, construction and manufacturing, which is about 15% of Canada’s total workforce.

However, do not just take my word for it. These numbers come from the natural resource minister’s own briefing memo about the just transition from a couple of years ago. That is really why the NDP-Liberals colluded to ram Bill C-50 through the House and committee without hearing from any of the Canadians they know this bill will affect, because they know just how much harm their so-called just transition will cause.

In the fall, the cover-up coalition limited debate to less than eight hours for all parties, allowed only two hours for clause-by-clause debate at committee and, ultimately, blocked any single witness, anyone, from speaking about the impact of Bill C-50. It limited report stage debate to one day and now will only allow less than six hours of debate during the third and final reading. This is undemocratic.

Obviously, the Liberals know how unpopular the just transition is among Canadians, and that is exactly why they do not want to let Canadians speak out about it. No wonder they rammed it through committee in the middle of the night, silenced everyone and hoped no one notices. It is because they are showing their true colours. They care more about global accolades and international mutual-admiration societies than about Canadians and, frankly, they care more than they really care about Canada, about their home, my home and our home. The Liberals argued that they had to rush through the bill because of how supposedly important it was, but once they sidelined Conservatives and prevented any witnesses from speaking at committee, they did not bring it back for four more months. Time and time again, Liberals say one thing and do another.

Canadians do not want this top-down, economic-restructuring, wealth-redistributing, central-planning just transition. That is why they rebranded it and changed the name with buzzwords to distract, but Canadians see through them. In fact, the majority of Canadians think Canada should not be forced to pay for or to go through anything like the just transition until the world’s big polluters make serious efforts of their own.

People around the world face energy and food emergencies every day. Countries are switching to coal because of the NDP-Liberals when Canada should supply them with LNG instead. While Canada accounts for only 1.6% of world emissions, China approved more coal power in the first quarter of 2023 after building six times as many coal plants as the rest of the world combined in 2022.

Last year, over 70% of India’s power came from coal. Instead of supporting Canada’s LNG development to help countries get off of coal by exporting the worlds cleanest LNG, helping to lower global emissions, the Liberals fixate on destroying Canada’s economy and the livelihoods of the millions of workers who depend on jobs in Canada's energy sector. How does this make any sense?

While the NDP-Liberals punish Canadians for working in one of the world’s most sustainable and transparent energy sectors and for living in a cold, distant, northern country, other countries burn more and more coal every day. The NDP-Liberals say things like “the world is moving this way”. I wish they would really pay attention to what is actually happening in the rest of the world. The rest of the world is moving away from the agenda that the costly coalition imposes on Canada. The virtue signalling and empty words here must stop. Reality and common sense must prevail.

No wonder they made that last-minute name change to the bill, launched a coordinated spin job, broke and made up the rules and rammed it all through. It was so the fewest people would find out, but Conservatives said not so fast. We proposed reasonable amendments that the NDP-Liberals rejected outright, with no hesitation and no consideration.

They rejected amendments from Conservatives outlining measures to ensure access to affordable and reliable energy, to ensure a strong, export-oriented energy sector, to avoid regulatory duplication and unnecessary delays, to improve affordability and to facilitate and promote economic growth in Canada. They rejected amendments to create sustainable jobs through private sector investment and to ensure that major and clean energy projects under federal regulatory frameworks can be delivered on time and on budget. They rejected that.

There were measures to ensure the importance of collaborating with all levels of government, including provincial and municipal governments, engaging all relevant partners and stakeholders; measures to include representatives of provincial governments and indigenous governance bodies; and measures to recognize local and regional needs, including in indigenous communities. They rejected measures to ensure ways to create economic opportunities for indigenous communities. I guess that was because they know indigenous Canadians work at double the rates in Canada's oil and gas sector than in other sectors. As well there were measures to ensure the bill promotes economic growth, including the economic growth of indigenous communities. All of those were proposed by Conservatives, and all were rejected by the NDP-Liberals.

If members did not believe before that the just transition would be anything but fair and equitable for Canadians, now they know for sure. What would be the reason for voting against all these changes, changes calling for measures to improve affordability and to create economic opportunities for indigenous communities? They even rejected a Bloc amendment because it sought to preserve existing jobs.

Bill C-50 would not create sustainable jobs. It would kill them. It is clear that there is nothing well-intentioned about this bill or the NDP-Liberals' costly coalition.

Conservatives also proposed further amendments for Canadian workers and the energy sector, but the NDP-Liberals opposed them all. They were things like, “Canada’s natural resource sector, including oil and gas, has been a reliable source of revenue for the Government of Canada, and has contributed to the sustainability of core social programs”, “Canada’s plan to reduce its production of oil and gas should be done in lock step with major emitters...including China, Russia, Saudi Arabia and the United States”, “Canada should sell liquefied natural gas to its security partners in Europe, so that they can break their dependence on Russian natural gas” and “Canadian oil and gas workers produce cleaner products than those of any other country in the world”. All of those were rejected by the NDP-Liberals.

The costly coalition truly has no regard for the hard-working Canadians in the energy sector in local communities right across the country who keep Canadians' lights on, vehicles running, homes warm and cool, and businesses going. The costly coalition actually ignores the lessons from other countries that began imposing a combination of anti-energy and anti-free market policies years ago. However, the NDP-Liberals do not care about reality. It is all about ideology for them.

For example, the consequence of Ireland's anti-energy just transition agenda shut down manufacturing jobs in Ireland, only to have the same jobs be created in other countries abroad, with no impact on emissions but a lot of harm to the economy and the livelihoods of their citizens. Germany was forced to reopen coal plants after initiating their suite of top-down economic restructuring policies years ago. Last year, over a third of Germany's electricity came from coal, and the government waived its emissions tax due to the high cost of energy.

Poland is dependent on coal for over 70% of its energy mix, with no plans to phase it out until 2040. The Netherlands was forced to end its cap on energy production from coal-fired power plants to protect themselves and stop their reliance on Russian natural gas. Austria reopened its coal plants just two years after finishing their so-called just transition. In New Zealand, just three years after initiating their just transition plan, the country burned more coal that ever before.

Last year, Britain had to bring coal plants back online in the face of cold snaps, with the risk of over three-hour rolling blackouts even with the coal plants that were able to come back online, something that Canadians are already experiencing across the country.

Sweden, which currently holds the EU's presidency, ceased all of its efforts to net zero and upset EU plans to phase out fossil fuel subsidies earlier this year, when it put forward a motion to allow countries to prolong subsidies for coal-powered plants. Sweden also dumped their 100% renewable target amid ongoing concerns about short-term energy security and extended their timelines for alterative energy to 2045.

In Scotland there is no planned phase-out of oil and gas, but rather a commitment to continued exploration and production with the hope that investments in sustainable energy and carbon capture, utilization and storage technologies would help reduce sectoral emissions. In Norway, which anti-energy Canadian activists love to celebrate, they continue to export oil and gas, with 49% of Norway’s annual revenues coming from the petroleum sector. Warm, small and sunny Mexico also hit record-high fossil fuel-powered generation in 2023.

That is the reality around the world where the just transition has been tried. Somehow the Liberals think that if they ignore all of the warning signs and alarm bells, they will avoid these same problems faced by all of these countries around the world. The Prime Minister and his costly coalition need a serious reality check.

Canadians do not even have to look abroad to see the failure of just transition claims and plans. In 2017, the Liberals accelerated the forced shutdown of coal operations in communities in Alberta, Saskatchewan, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, which killed the jobs of 3,000 workers across the four provinces, in approximately 13 communities.

The Liberals' promised just transition did not materialize. Despite 150 million tax dollars spent, jobs were not replaced; communities were devastated, and municipal representatives worry that local governments will not be able to afford to keep the water running and the town services operational much longer.

The Auditor General said that the Liberals’ just transition for coal workers was anything but just. The program lacked employee retention, and it actually led to a loss of skills and skilled workers, which hiked the cost of housing and infrastructure in remote areas as people fled those smaller communities. Impacted workers were not identified in advance, and 86% of the workforce was left behind with generic, untargeted and unhelpful programs. None of the recommendations of the task force were implemented and all of the government departments that were supposed to monitor and to report on the status of activities that measure whether projects actually helped communities did not report and could not determine whether the millions of taxpayer dollars actually did anything.

The Liberals’ just transition for coal was a perfect and expensive failure trifecta: a failure to plan, a failure to implement and a failure to measure outcomes. Left behind are dozens of communities and thousands of workers and their families who now have to make new lives for themselves because far-away and out-of-touch politicians and program administrators implemented an accelerated plan to fire those hard-working Canadians and to make their communities ghost towns, and they patted themselves on the back while they were it. That is exactly what Bill C-50, the just transition, is all about.

The Liberals want to do it all again, but this time with energy, agriculture, manufacturing, construction and transportation workers who rely indirectly or directly on the oil and gas sector. That internal memo to the natural resources minister says, “[large] scale transformation[s] will take place in...Agriculture...292,000 workers...; [in] Energy...202,000 workers...; [in] Manufacturing...193,000 workers...; [in construction]...1.4 million workers...; and [in] Transportation...642,000 workers”.

The Liberals know it will kill 170,000 oil and gas jobs immediately. That is their plan. The just transition is an attack on all the livelihoods in all those significant sectors in Canada, and it would ultimately hurt all provinces. What does the minister’s memo say those workers would be retrained in? Some of those people would be retrained in jobs as janitors and drivers. Janitors and drivers are obviously essential workers in any business and in all sectors, but the costly coalition should be honest enough to tell the millions of workers already in sustainable, highly paid jobs with significant pensions, benefits and advancement opportunities that this is really the Liberals' plan for them.

The just transition is the pinnacle of the NDP-Liberals' anti-energy agenda for Canada. It goes hand in hand with their cruel and inflationary carbon taxes 1 and 2, the tanker ban, the emissions cap, drilling bans, anti-development zones, the unrealistic EV targets and the incoming ban on internal combustion engines, or ICEs, their overreach on plastics, endless and impossible permitting timelines and red tape and their “no more pipelines“ bill, Bill C-69, which was ruled unconstitutional over 185 days ago with no response or changes yet from the Liberals. This long line of anti-energy policies from the Liberals is a deliberate effort to accelerate the phase-out of oil and gas in Canada. The Liberals know it will not be produced if it cannot be exported, so they block pipelines and turn away world leaders and allies who ask for our resources, like LNG. After nine years, those policies have already driven billions of dollars and hundreds of thousands of jobs out of Canada. It is clearly not worth the cost.

At a time when the world is in an energy crisis and when millions of people are living in energy poverty, Canada’s resource wealth should be used to support our allies and the people in developing countries, and not to force them to support their adversaries. If the just transition in Canada goes ahead as intended, the Liberals would continue to reject allies who so desperately want to get off Russian energy to quit funding Putin’s war machine. This is the reality. Global demand for oil and gas has risen, and it will continue to rise in the foreseeable future. Therefore, instead of forcing countries like Japan, Germany, Greece and others to turn to dictators and despots for their energy needs, Canada should be the reliable and the environmentally responsible source they can rely on. However, the NDP-Liberals' gatekeepers hold Canada back.

Canada has the third-largest oil reserves in the world, while being the fourth-largest producer, and the 18th-largest natural gas reserves, while being the fifth-largest producer. Common-sense Conservatives would ensure that Canada accelerates and expands the development and exports of traditional oil and gas for the benefit of our people and our home, and to help allies around the world. Canada could rank sixth in LNG exports if all the 18 proposed projects were completed and could displace all natural gas from Russia to allied nations in Europe and East Asia, like Germany, Ukraine, France, Japan and South Korea. However, the government's regulatory regime has killed all but three of those proposed LNG projects in Canada and, still to date, none are operational. Only one, which was previously approved under Conservatives, is under construction.

The Liberals also ignore the fact that the oil and gas sector has been, and continues to be, the top private sector investor in clean technology in Canada. In fact, 75% of Canadian private sector investment in clean energy comes from oil and gas and pipeline companies. However, the NDP-Liberals would apparently spend billions of tax dollars on re-education programs that their internal briefing notes explicitly say would leave workers at risk of only being able to get jobs that are more precarious, with less pay and lower skill requirements, and would shut down a sector that is already the leading research and development investor, and skills trainer in alternative, renewable and future energy technologies in Canada. By the way, 90% of companies in the oil and gas sector have 100 or fewer employees. They are small businesses; they are not big union jobs.

No matter what they say, the Liberals just transition will not be able to replace the quality, quantity or pay of those working today in Canada’s energy sector, never mind the tax revenues to all governments, which benefit every Canadian.

Indigenous people in Canada and visible minorities, who are more highly represented in the sectors that Liberals want to transition away from, will face even higher job disruptions and more trouble finding new opportunities. The worse thing is that the NDP-Liberals know it.

Canada should be the world’s energy producer and supplier of choice. Canada should be energy secure and self-sufficient, but the Liberals put ideology and partisanship above reality, the economy and Canadian sovereignty.

Politicians should be honest about the outcomes of their policies. No wordsmithing can negate the socio-economic consequences of the just transition concept for Canada. Besides, Canadian oil and gas jobs are sustainable jobs. The solutions are transformation, not transition; technology, not taxes; led by the private sector, not government. Conservatives would bring costs and red tape down and would accelerate approvals to make both traditional and alternative energy more affordable and accessible for all Canadians, while green-lighting green projects to help lower emissions globally.

I believe Canadians can see through the costly coalition. I believe they know that they are not worth their trust and not worth the cost to Canada. For my part, I will not stop speaking the truth, no matter what vile names or crass insults they throw at me, no matter how much double-speak and gaslighting they do. I will not back down, and I will not cower.

The truth is this: Common-sense Conservatives are the only party that wants to make life more affordable for all Canadians, to green-light green projects and to expand traditional oil and gas for Canadian energy self-sufficiency, to protect Canada’s sovereignty, to enhance Canada’s security with free and democratic allies and to help lower emissions globally.

The best things for workers right across the country are jobs. This bill, Bill C-50, could create a fancy government committee that would create another fancy government committee, all behind closed doors, with no transparency and no accountability to deliver plans to restructure Canada's economy on a five-year cycle. This is exactly the kind of anti-energy, anti-private sector and anti-democratic policy agenda that has led other countries around the world to have expensive power, to have unaffordable and unreliable fuel and power, to have protests from their citizens, followed by governments rolling back suites of bad policies that are harmful to their countries and harmful to the people.

Given Iran's attack on Israel, Canadians should also be thinking about the necessity for Canada to become completely self-sufficient with our own energy supply and security, which is what Conservatives would ensure we could have, under a new common-sense Conservative government.

Madam Speaker, I would like to move the following amendment, seconded by the member for Provencher. I move:

That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word “That” and by substituting the following:

the House decline to give third reading to Bill C-50, an act respecting accountability, transparency and engagement to support the creation of sustainable jobs for workers and economic growth in a net-zero economy, since the bill will displace workers, kill jobs, and kill the very sector that provides the most investment and most advancements in alternative energy.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, I made this point earlier to the member for Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, and I just want to reiterate it.

Not to be insulting or disparaging to my Liberal friends but, really and truly, the only thing that encouraged people to support the previous environmental assessment legislation that was brought forward as Bill C-69 was that the Premier of Alberta said it was the anti-pipeline act. I could not vote for it, because it just as easily could have been the pro-pipeline act. It was a pile of discretion untethered from federal jurisdiction, which is why the Supreme Court, in its reference case, said that part of the bill that was the designated project list was unconstitutional. It was not that the federal government did too much for climate or too much for the environment. It did so little, but it was aided by over-reaction from Conservative benches.

I want to plead with my colleague, let us be honest about this bill. It sets up a secretariat that says it might talk about doing something for sustainable jobs. It does not actually help workers. It does not do what was promised in numerous Liberal political platforms. I lament that. If we oversell on each side of the House, the citizens of Canada are left disappointed and without a climate plan.

[Tracy Gray, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise and speak on behalf of the residents of Kelowna—Lake Country.

This unjust just transition bill is the NDP-Liberal coalition's attack on jobs and Canada's economy. This is important legislation that would drastically affect Canada's economy from coast to coast to coast, and I am glad to have the opportunity to speak for my community and hard-working Canadians.

If the NDP-Liberal government truly cares about expanding the alternative energy sector, then it must realize the vast impact this bill would have on every Canadian when prices continue to rise and jobs disappear. It has provided no data, no details and no proof otherwise.

If this legislation passes, it would accelerate the shutdown of Canada's energy sector, which would result in the loss of 170,000 direct jobs and the displacement of up to 450,000 direct and indirect jobs. It would create a significant disruption to the manufacturing, agricultural, transportation, energy and construction sectors, affecting 2.7 million Canadian jobs. These numbers come right from a document from the Liberal government itself. The document also states that these jobs would be replaced by other jobs. However, there is no proof and no plan as to what they are or if they would have the same pay and benefits as people have now.

We know what the government wants, because the government wrote it down. This is an ideological attack on well-paying jobs. When a manufacturing company cannot buy plastic solvents, lubricants, waxes or other products needed because there is a lack of domestic product from Canada, it will have to import. We need to bring home the good jobs that are leaving the country.

Even before this just transition legislation, the government's actions have already caused mass job losses and billions of dollars of investment leaving Canada. We only have to look at the Supreme Court of Canada calling the anti-energy bill, Bill C-69, unconstitutional. How poorly the government thinks through its legislation.

This unjust bill is causing my community and people across the country to worry about whether their small business will close or whether they will have a paycheque and where it will come from. As such, how can the Liberal-NDP coalition say it cares about Canadians?

I remember, not long ago, when many families living in Kelowna—Lake Country had family members commuting to and from Fort Mac on flights. Both the flights and the jobs are gone. I spoke to a mom, who told me she reluctantly had to go back to work because her husband lost his well-paying job in a senior management position in a resource company. She said they reluctantly had to find child care, and she was not able to volunteer at her kids' school anymore, which broke her heart. Even with both of them working, they were making less than he had made in his one former position.

Leaving workers behind and ending responsible and clean Canadian energy jobs will not improve the world environment. It will only result in our allies buying more dirty oil from foreign dictators. Not only is the Liberal-NDP government supporting Canada having to buy energy from other countries, but it is also supporting countries and dictators that have poor environmental standards, concerning human rights issues and a lack of transparency standards. In 2020, Canada imported $11.5 billion worth of crude oil, with Saudi Arabia being the top country we imported from. The Liberal government keeps giving away our energy security. We need to bring it home.

This just transition bill is elitist, anti-energy, anti-worker, anti-private sector and anti-free market. It would cause widespread losses of good jobs, as outlined in a government document: 2.7 million jobs. We cannot afford a higher cost of living, especially because Canadians are already suffering under the Prime Minister's government. After eight years of the Liberal government, Canadians are realizing the Prime Minister is just not worth the cost.

Alberta, Canada's largest energy province, has the fear that this just transition bill would dismantle the oil and gas industry. The office of Alberta's energy minister reported that it was not consulted on this. Germany, Japan and Greece all asked for Canada's LNG, yet the Prime Minister turned them down. He said there is no business case. This is absolutely not true.

Business 101 starts with having a need, and the U.S. knows this. In the last five years, it has become one of the largest exporters of LNG. Canada could be supplying our allies around the world rather than having to turn to other countries that do not have the strong environmental, worker rights or human rights standards we do.

Canadians need Canadian energy, and workers are ready to provide it; however, the Prime Minister will not let them. Canada's own energy security is at risk. Canada is at risk of energy poverty. What does the Prime Minister truly think will happen to Canada's economy when one of Canada's main exports is reduced substantially or no longer being exported?

The government is forcing Canada to rely on other countries for energy when we could be self-sufficient, surviving and thriving on our own resources as we find ways to support and expand alternative energy development to make Canada more resilient. We know the radical, career activist Liberal environment minister is all for the just transition. In a shocking move, the minister travelled to Beijing, where there is no carbon tax, to sit as the executive vice-chairman on a body established and controlled by Beijing's Communist Party. The minister should be focused on promoting Canada's energy sector, reducing red tape to ensure that Canada's clean energy, clean LNG, can help countries such as China, which are dependent on coal, to drastically reduce emissions.

At a time when we have had inflation at a 40-year high and continue to have high interest rates, families need the security of a well-paying job. Instead, the NDP-Liberal coalition is guaranteeing the destruction of a powerful paycheque. We are already in an economic crisis, a mental health crisis, an addiction crisis and a housing crisis. Food bank usage is at a record high, and families are struggling to keep food on the table. Like many Conservatives, I will not stand for the Liberals' true goal of shutting down the energy sector and getting to claim positive action from their destruction of Canadian livelihoods and Canada's economy.

Conservatives support the development of Canada's clean energy and support focusing on technological advances. This bill does not mention training or retraining workers for whatever hypothetical jobs the Liberals are alluding to after disrupting 2.7 million jobs. That number is not just about the number of jobs; it is about people and families.

As we are debating this just transition legislation, the Liberal MPs want Canadians not to worry and have them think everything will work out and be just fine, to just trust them on the 2.7 million jobs that will be lost or disrupted. However, Canadians have lost trust in the Liberals.

This is the same government that, through Environment and Climate Change Canada, is implementing single-use plastics prohibition regulations. An up-and-coming Canadian company out of Calgary, Leaf Environmental Products, produces biodegradable, compostable grocery bags. They are banned through the single-use plastics ban, even though they have no plastic in them. They just look like plastic. How ridiculous is that?

Clearly, the government's focus is to bring in legislation and policies that have a nice title but do not consider the ramifications. For the government's just transition plan, the labour minister said at the human resources committee, which I sit on, that he does not like the name “just transition”. This legislation has a new term. It is now called the “sustainable jobs act”, even though a government document states that there will be 2.7 million Canadian jobs affected, creating significant disruption in multiple industries. Today, in debate, the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands said that it should be called the just transition act because globalist groups call it that, and that is what it is. Putting millions of people out of work while providing no information on the size and scale of the supposed new jobs, making Canada less energy secure, and creating red tape and bureaucratic inefficiencies are not things Canadians need right now. Canadians need hope.

We need to bring home powerful paycheques, investment and development.

[Laila Goodridge, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB]

Madam Speaker, my family has called Fort McMurray home for over 50 years. My dad’s family moved to Fort McMurray in the 1970s to make a better life for themselves, and shortly after moving to Fort McMurray, my grandfather got a job at a place called Syncrude, working to build the extraction plant in anticipation of first oil. My dad, Gord, proudly worked at Syncrude, securing Canada’s energy future, for 42 years. He started in 1978 right after graduation and right before first oil, and he stayed until his retirement. He had three careers within that time: first as a machinist, as a process operator, and, finally, he found his passion in operations integrity and safety.

I eventually followed in my dad’s footsteps. Through university, I took summer student jobs at Syncrude, learning about extraction, maintenance, health and safety, governance, oil sands and so much more. After university, I started working at North American Construction Group in the mining division within the health and safety department. It was such a wonderful experience. I was able to work on so many different job sites throughout the region, wearing steel-toed boots and having dirty fingernails. I absolutely loved my time there.

I had a first-hand opportunity to see how seriously this industry took health and safety, environmental responsibilities and to see the role it played in not only Fort McMurray's and Alberta's economy but also the Canadian economy. I had the opportunity to meet thousands of hard-working, wonderful people from all across Canada and the world who decided to come to my hometown, to make it their hometown, to work in the oil sands and to make a better life for their families.

My community and the industry that drives it have been a beacon of hope for so many people for so long. In the eighties and the nineties, thousands of Atlantic Canadians flocked to Fort McMurray after the coal mines were shut down in Cape Breton and after the fisheries collapsed. Thousands of people came. They became my friends, my family and my neighbours. They are some of the most amazing people. However, they came to Fort McMurray not by choice, but because some government thought it knew best.

Now, after eight years of the Liberal-NDP government, my community is struggling. Eco-radicals now sit around a cabinet table and advocate against Canada’s world-class energy industry at every turn. They have made no attempt to even hide their distaste for oil and gas. The Prime Minister has stated on three separate occasions now that there is no business case for Canadian LNG. That is shameful.

The anti-energy agenda of the government has been consistent and punishing over the last eight years: anti-energy messaging, delays, arbitrary and inconsistent regulatory conditions and, frankly, an outright veto of approved export pipelines. It has pushed forward with anti-energy legislation at every turn, including the “no more pipelines” bill, Bill C-69. Despite universal provincial opposition, it decided it was going to go ahead with it. Despite the fact that it did not have jurisdiction, it decided it was going to go ahead with it. Frankly, the part that really hurts with that bill, particularly, is the Liberal government knew that if the oil could not be moved and was landlocked, it could not be produced. That was its sneaky way of shutting down oil without shutting down oil.

Canada should and could be the world’s energy producer and supplier of choice and could be the place of energy security and self-sufficiency. Canada could be completely energy self-sufficient if government could get out of the way. However, ut time and time again, the Liberals continue to put ideology and partisanship above supporting our economy or even reality. They have failed to understand that these are hard-working people. These are our neighbours, our friends, and they work hard every single day.

Politicians in this chamber do not mince their words when it comes to speaking in disdain of this industry. In fact, the member for Timmins—James Bay even went so far as to table legislation to make it illegal to say anything supportive of the oil and gas industry, including true and verifiable facts, which would be punishable by massive fines and up to and including jail time. In fact, if his bill were to pass, saying something that is true and verifiable, such as that natural gas is cleaner burning than coal, would be illegal.

That is insane, yet the NDP-Liberal coalition continues pushing its agenda and continues pushing forward with this bill. I have not heard any members from the Liberals or the NDP denounce this insane bill, Bill C-50, because they probably support it, and that is why we are so fearful of everything the government does when it comes to energy.

I wish politicians could simply be honest about the outcomes of their policies, not wordsmithing, not negotiating, and not transition while calling it somehow “just”. We need to accept in this chamber and across the country that Canadian oil and gas jobs are sustainable jobs.

The Liberal just transition is a dangerous government-mandated plan to kill 170,000 Canadian jobs and risks the livelihood of 2.7 million Canadians.

This bill, Bill C-50, is a step, actually more like a leap, toward Soviet-style government-central planning. That is exactly what this is going toward. The NDP-Liberal government claims to value Canadian oil and gas, and yet it wants to increase exports. However, after eight years, it has interfered to kill four pipelines, two of which were specifically designed to export off the west and the east coasts.

Do not worry; hope is on the horizon. Conservatives are going to do everything we can to push back against this legislation. The real solution is electing the leader of the official opposition, the member for Carleton, as our next Prime Minister.

Conservatives would make traditional energy and the development of fuels of the future more affordable and accessible to Canadians. Conservatives would fix what the Liberals broke and would keep westerners, and all provinces, in control of their natural resources. We would respect provincial jurisdiction.

We will respect provincial jurisdiction over natural resources and in all other cases. It is absolutely essential that provincial jurisdiction over natural resources be respected.

Conservatives would bring approvals up and would bring costs and timelines down to ensure Canadian energy security and self-sufficiency and to increase exports to the world. We need technology, not taxes. We need to support an industry that supports this country.

As I described earlier, to so many Canadians, Fort McMurray was, at one point in time, a beacon of hope, prosperity and a fresh start. To the world's leading oil producers, we are a tough competitor that refuses to lie down, but for far too many elected officials across this country, we are simply a cash cow they can abuse.

To the fringe eco-activists, we are unfortunately the enemy, but to me, Fort McMurray has been, and always will be, home. I was born and raised here, and Conservatives of every stripe, federal, provincial and municipal, have always had our backs. They understand that when Fort McMurray works, Alberta works, and when Alberta works, Canada works.

I will not back down from all the politicians in this chamber who seek to land-lock and firewall our oil sands. Pipelines and energy corridors are items of critical national importance and interest for the long-term viability not only of northeastern Alberta but also of Canada and the world. I urge every member of this chamber to vote against this disastrous bill, Bill C-50.

[Corey Tochor, Conservative, Saskatoon—University, SK]

If the new Conservative government removed Bill C-69 and we could get new pipelines built in Canada again, a natural gas pipeline to your community would lower your emissions. There are other technologies, like solar and whatnot, to lower emissions and ensure milk doesn't cost $25 a jug. Would that be fair?

[Corey Tochor, Conservative, Saskatoon—University, SK]

What about the facility? You talked earlier in questions about how you use oil and some diesel for electricity. There is a limited amount of natural gas.

This is another place where Liberal policies have hurt your ability to do research in the north at your college. If we had a natural gas pipeline, you would probably use more natural gas than oil, but because of the Liberal Bill C-69, the “no pipelines act”, no new pipelines got produced to get clean natural gas up to your facilities.

Would you say that has negatively impacted your ability to lower emissions, because you're still using oil?

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer—Mountain View, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the father of 20th-century modern management, Peter F. Drucker, once said, “There is...nothing quite so useless as doing with great efficiency what should not be done at all.” That quote depicts the foundation of the just transition act that we have before us today.

There is nothing just about forcing a transition on an industry or on a community that has made it its life journey to produce the cleanest energy products the world has ever seen, especially knowing that through global turmoil, food insecurity and increased energy demands, the world's hydrocarbons will continue to be needed as a solution to humanity's woes and not, as ideologists would have us believe, as the cause of those woes.

To ensure that, should the world decide that its energy demands will be satisfied by strong environmental hydrocarbon-producing countries, we as Canadians will continue to be there to answer the call, but we will not be there if Canada’s major economic driver is brought to its knees by the twisted ideology of the government and its anti-energy partners.

The Conservative leader has said that we will unleash the growth within our economy, that with our most powerful resources, produced in the most environmentally positive way, there will be benefits to our people and to the environment at the same time. We will not follow the Prime Minister, with the help of his NDP masters, to push production out of Canada and, thus, toward other countries that pollute more, burn more coal and put more greenhouse gases in the atmosphere with no remorse.

The Prime Minister would sooner drive production away from Canadians, who already have the cleanest electricity grid on planet Earth, toward other nations that, frankly, are incapable of change or just do not care.

By using the wealth generated by our essential hydrocarbon resources, we can protect the environment and prevent the loss of billions of dollars of stranded assets owned by provinces and first nations, and use our innovative skills to move the global needle of greenhouse gases to a level that would satisfy all but the most radical eco-activists.

At the natural resources committee, we have had much debate on the future of Canada’s hydrocarbon industries. I find it unbelievable that the natural resources minister, along with his cohorts in cabinet, would actively pursue a framework to handcuff one of Canada’s greatest assets. Of course, all of this discussion has been created because of the planned attack on resource development in Canada. Had Bill C-69, the anti-resource development law, never happened and if tens of billions of investment plans not been shelved, then the government would not have had to produce legislation to prop up the ghost towns that it is actively creating.

The Liberal just transition action plan is a dangerous government-mandated plan to kill off 170,000 Canadian jobs and to put at risk the livelihoods of 2.7 million Canadian workers. This is a plan that creates subsidized jobs, not sustainable jobs. Conservatives do not believe in a central-planning “Ottawa knows best” approach that tells private sector energy companies how to run their operations. The government cannot even track emissions properly.

As a member of the natural resources committee, I have asked multiple times for an analysis of the full life-cycle impact of all the projects we have, from the first shovel in the ground to the last shovel used to cover up those projects. The government has no clue, yet we are to trust it to dictate to industries how to best run their operations. I think not.

Oil and gas are still Canada’s largest export sector, and it is so important in the development of renewable and alternative fuels of the future to have it strong and to keep it strong.

The Liberals and their NDP cohorts are ignoring cost, technology and infrastructure demands. Reports vary on how the federal government has underfunded its climate plans. RBC had a report that stated that the government needed to spend $2 trillion to make it to net zero. It published a supplementary report saying Canada could capitalize on the global increase for oil and gas and still meet its net-zero targets with investments from the profits, but the government turned its back on our allies while peddling technology and alternative fuel sources that cannot be produced at a commercial rate.

A Conservative government would unleash the energy sector while fostering technology and innovation to protect our environment, so that more Canadian energy would get to the world to displace dictator energy and create jobs and powerful paycheques for Canadians.

Let us be clear. There is noting just about this transition and tax plan the Liberals have. Chief Dale Swampy said, “There is nothing fair or equitable about what is happening today.”

After eight years of anti-energy messages, delays, arbitrary and inconsistent regulatory conditions, an outright veto of an approved export pipeline and the imposition of project-killing Bill C-69, despite universal provincial opposition, the Liberals have made no secret their intention to accelerate the phase-out of the oil and gas sector in Canada.

It is sad. First nations communities are begging the government to get out of the way and let them produce the resources on their land so that their communities can thrive. Our global allies are begging for our help to get off Putin’s oil, so they can have a stable and ethical energy source. All the while, the government believes that if it cannot be produced, it cannot be shipped and, therefore, its ideological push will win.

The reality is that everyone loses, but the government is too self-absorbed to see that. Canada should be the world’s go-to energy producer and supplier of choice, and be energy secure and self-sufficient as well. Instead, the Liberals put ideology and partisanship above reality and the economy.

Politicians should be honest about the outcomes of their policies. Too often with these Liberals we see them fall back on wordsmithing and absolve themselves of any negative socio-economic consequences of the so-called just transition concept for Canada. This needs to stop.

Many times we hear about how the world is changing and how important it is for us to keep up with our European partners. Perhaps the government should be paying attention to what is happening in Europe. The mood has changed. Governments in Europe are starting to recognize the consequences of this blind action. They are listening to their people.

That is the problem: We do not have a government that is prepared to vary, in any way, from the path that it has set forward. It is not listening to the people. Here, it is understandable that they do not listen to opposition parties, but it had best be listening to the people in their ridings. The mood has changed, and it is important that all parliamentarians recognize that. If we do not, we will be left behind by a world that is looking for Canadian energy.

Motions in amendment

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Madam Speaker, in December, while the NDP-Liberals’ self-proclaimed socialist environment minister hung out with 70,000 sanctimonious politicians and wealthy elites at a sprawling air-conditioned steel complex in a major petro-state, without a hint of shame or irony, I might add, who all flew from around the world on publicly funded, commercial and private airplanes and jets, even though virtual attendance was also an option, to scheme up ways to make life poorer, colder, dirtier, slower, darker, more inconvenient, more isolated, more uncomfortable and more expensive for everyone else, the NDP-Liberals colluded to ram through and cover up the pinnacle of their anti-energy, anti-private sector, anti-capitalist agenda here at home.

From away, the minister announced yet more damaging policy for Canadians, and even bragged that he was the first environment minister in the world out of touch and radical enough to do something to Canada that no other major resource or oil and gas-producing country is doing to itself, no other country in the world at all, to impose a cap clearly designed to function as a Canadian oil and gas production cap, which really means a cap on the biggest private sector investor in Canada’s economy; a cap on affordable and reliable power and fuel; a cap on clean tech investment in Canada, which primarily comes from the energy sector; a cap on jobs, on businesses, on tax revenues for social programs and services for Canadians.

That is not leadership; it is putting one’s own radical activist ideology ahead of the best interests of the people he serves, which are supposed to be Canadians. It is not at all worthy of celebration.

No other competing oil and gas producer, for which global demand is expected to increase significantly for the foreseeable future, is doing this to themselves. They know it is bad for their citizens and bad for their countries. Rather, it is entitled, out of touch, powermongering and not worth the cost to Canadians.

The NDP-Liberals do not seem to know or care that petro-state dictators, terrorists and despots who control and weaponize the energy supply against others, and Canada’s best ally, customer and biggest oil and gas competitor, the U.S., are, at best, shaking their heads at our government’s self-inflicted harm on Canadians. Those countries are all ramped up to provide for the world’s energy needs, while Canada is home to an abundance of extraordinary resources, expertise and talent, which are, by the way, leaving in droves for friendlier jurisdictions.

The NDP-Liberals constantly roadblock, gatekeep, hamper, punish and kill, by delay, Canadian oil and gas development and exports. They reject every ally who desperately wants and needs Canada’s LNG. Their red tape prevents any meaningful production of critical minerals and rare earth metals, since mines can take up to 25 years to get going in Canada, Because of that, everything is broken and nothing can get built under these NDP-Liberals.

When the PM said he wanted to phase out oil and gas, many thought it was a gaffe, but, it was a tell, and every action, after eight years, shows it.

On one hand, it was appropriate that the announcement was there, given that it is exactly global planning gatherings for global economic and foreign policy like what happens regularly at the annual COP meetings, and many other global policy focused groups, where this whole concept of the just transition started and where it advances still.

On the other hand, it was very disturbing, because it truly shows how totally out of touch the NDP-Liberals really are with the realities of everyday life for the majority of Canadians and how far away the NDP-Liberals are from their long-ago empty claims that they valued inclusion, diversity, transparency and, most starkly, democracy.

The spectacle of the NDP-Liberal collusion and cover-up in the natural resources committee, to impose the globally-planned just transition on Canada and reject nearly all amendments proposed by Conservatives in the early hours of the morning and to silence and sideline every Canadian who will be impacted by the costly coalition’s anti-energy, anti-private sector agenda embodied in Bill C-50 immediately and in the long run, was almost shocking to witness, if it was not such a predictable pattern after eight years.

If there was any doubt left, it is more obvious than ever that the NDP-Liberals are focused solely on power, not principle; on power, not purpose; on their own partisan, political and parliamentary power and on currying favour with their fellow global policy elites, not on the Canadian people, not on the power of the Canadian people, not on the power to the Canadian people

Bill C-50 is the NDP-Liberals’ behind-closed-doors, top-down central plan for wide-scale, radical economic restructuring for Canada. It does not even achieve their own stated purpose for their power grab to ram it through, but what else is new with those guys?

The truth is that there is not a single tangible skills or jobs training program proposed or even outlined in the bill that the costly coalition says it has worked on, behind closed doors, for nearly two years.

What Bill C-50, which is the global just transition no matter what the NDP-Liberals call it, which is anything but just in every possible way, would do is create a government committee behind closed doors that would create another government committee behind closed doors that would give instructions to governments to centrally plan Canada's economy on a cycle, every five years; soviet-style planning, every five years.

The words are in the title, but Bill C-50 does not actually mandate any transparency or accountability about the committees, the cost, the membership, their plans, except for the government to table reports, but it is granted extraordinary power to direct governments to radically overhaul Canada's economy and redistribute wealth.

The NDP-Liberals also know that their agenda in Bill C-50 would kill over 200,000 jobs in energy and threaten 292,000 Canadian jobs in agriculture, 193,000 Canadian jobs in manufacturing, 642,000 Canadian jobs in transportation and 1.4 million Canadian jobs in building and construction. Those last two are 10% of Canada's employment alone. That is what the government's own internal memo about Bill C-50, the just transition, means when it cautions about “significant labour market disruptions” and “larger-scale transformations” to jobs and the economy. It is sneaky bureaucratese and “parliamentese” that is common in government, but its meaning is clear and it should make every Canadian uneasy.

The NDP-Liberals even know it will lead to lower paid, more precarious work for indigenous and visible minority Canadians, because it is in a memo. They should already know that since indigenous and visible minority Canadians work in the energy sector at double the rate of other sectors. However, the NDP-Liberals do not care.

They will stick with their cruel carbon tax, their energy export ban, Bill C-48, and their half a decade old unconstitutional Bill C-69 and fight for their crazy plastics as toxins decree, even though provinces, indigenous communities and entrepreneurs challenge the NDP-Liberals on all of those harmful anti-energy agendas and policies through federal court and to the Supreme Court.

The NDP-Liberals that know that some Canadians will be hurt more than others. People in Newfoundland and Labrador, in Saskatchewan and in Alberta will be “disproportionately affected”, but the NDP-Liberals do not care.

Bill C-50 would build central planning ideological bureaucracy, not Canadian skills training programs; bureaucracy, not Canadian jobs; bureaucracy, not Canadian businesses; bureaucracy, not Canadian clean tech.

Canadians might be wondering what the heck is going on here. The truth is that the NDP-Liberals cooked up up Bill C-50 behind closed doors for about two years, introduced it last summer, with a last-minute spin job name change, and no debate. Before the committee even reported on what, in hindsight, was clearly a collusion charade to appear to help create the legislation in the first place, they brought it back in the fall; shut it down with less than a normal business day of debate for all MPs of all parties; spent a month obsessed with blocking Conservative MPs at committee; and censored any MP and any Canadian with a different view or even with any reasonable questions about their plan, which they imposed through a top-down edict from the House of Commons. By the way, that was used only twice in urgent scenarios in nine years under the previous Conservative government, but has been used at least 10 times by the costly coalition.

Let us talk about the kinds of amendments that were rejected, amendments that were proposed by the Conservatives.

We proposed measures to: ensure access to affordable and reliable energy; ensure a strong export-oriented energy sector; avoid regulatory duplication and necessary delays; outline how the federal government would help ensure the affordability and reliability of energy; improve affordability and to facilitate and promote economic growth, private sector investment, the creation of sustainable jobs; ensure that major and clean energy projects under the federal regulatory framework could be delivered on time and on budget; the importance of collaborating with all levels of government, including provincial, territorial and municipal governments, and all relevant partners and stakeholders; the inclusion of representatives of provincial, territorial and indigenous governance bodies; measures to recognize local and regional needs, including indigenous communities; ways to create economic opportunities for indigenous communities; ways to promote economic growth, including the economic growth indigenous communities; mandate meaningful consultation and to account for the cultural values, aspirations, strengths; and to include at least two members who represent indigenous organizations, at least one of which has a substantial interest in Canada's natural resources sector.

The Liberals even rejected an amendment where Conservatives called on achieving a fair and equitable plan. The Conservatives will be—

Opposition Motion—Carbon Tax Emergency Meeting

[Clifford Small, Conservative, Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL]

Madam Speaker, I am not here to talk about the Premier of Alberta; I am here to represent the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. The people of Newfoundland and Labrador know that we have 13 trillion cubic feet of natural gas lying under the Grand Banks and under the Labrador Sea. That natural gas could go to Germany, which is building steam plants right now that in the interim could be fuelled by natural gas. Down the road, when we can have green hydrogen, hydrogen could replace natural gas; however for now, the quickest way to get emissions down is to use natural gas.

In terms of the green revolution, it takes over 18 years to green-light a mine to produce the rare elements needed in the green transition. The government, with Bill C-69, is destroying our mining industry and our opportunity to take part in the green economy.

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer—Mountain View, AB]

Therefore, if Bill C-69 continues to be considered unconstitutional, they aren't using some reference point from a federal piece of legislation that is going to somehow jeopardize the legislation they put forward in their legislatures.

[Lauren Knowles]

I would say no, because they can still introduce and pass the same amendments that you see in the rest of Bill C-49. They can take the same approach to introduce, if they wish, the same amendments related to impact assessment and provide for a separate coming into force of those amendments so that we can work in lockstep together.

No, I don't see that any uncertainty on Bill C-69 will prevent the rest of Bill C-49 from proceeding, or the provincial mirror amendments, because we have an administrative approach to allow for the bill to proceed and to allow for those IAA amendments to come forward and ensure consistency without impacting the rest of the amendments in the bill.

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer—Mountain View, AB]

Could the legislation they are putting forward then be jeopardized if we can't come to some sort of agreement and relationship with Bill C-69? Will the legislation they are presenting to their legislatures be in jeopardy if the aspects of Bill C-69 that relate to their bills can't be resolved?

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer—Mountain View, AB]

Thank you.

I appreciate your answer to that, Ms. Knowles.

I'd like to ask you this question. Were the provincial governments given a course of action, if the regulatory framework related to Bill C-69 is not corrected? In your discussions, were they given a course of action and expectations of how long it will take or how we might have to go back to correct this? Are they aware of it?

We understand they're supportive of the concept, with the hope that Bill C-69 is going to be dealt with. Have they been given a course of action in the event that the regulatory framework can't be corrected?

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Those same premiers have also written a letter to axe the carbon tax. We're still waiting on the government to do that, too. I would appreciate members' support for the premiers on that one, too.

The point, Mr. Chair, of why we are here.... The amendments the government is proposing are to delay the implementation of the act. They have to consult with the provinces, because they haven't done their job yet, and they have to fix the Impact Assessment Act, because it's been ruled largely unconstitutional. That's the problem.

Why not take this bill and make sure that there are no unconstitutional elements to it and that we're passing something that will withstand the test and not have to go before the courts as the previous Parliament's Bill C-69, now known as the Impact Assessment Act, has done? It had to go to the Supreme Court, where it was ruled unconstitutional.

I don't think the provinces and industry want this bill to suffer the same fate. We know they want updates to the accords. We know that and we get that. That's what we're here to do. We support that. What we don't support is passing an unconstitutional bill. That's why Conservatives are doing the work here and now, at committee, to prevent the same result for the bill we're working on here today, which is Bill C-49, an act to amend the Atlantic accord implementation acts is to prevent the same fate as that of Bill C-69.

We are trying to do the best we can now so there's certainty in the long run. I understand that this might be hard for some members to get, but that is the point of this exercise here today. It's to do our job as legislators.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

We always seem to have to start again with simple explanations.

Bill C-49 is updating the Atlantic accords. The Atlantic accords are a long-standing piece of legislation that was negotiated with Newfoundland and Labrador and with the Province of Nova Scotia. There have been attempts to undermine the Atlantic accords by the previous Conservative government. Pierre Poilievre was in that government. The attack on the Atlantic accords didn't go well.

When we get letters from the premiers of Newfoundland and Labrador and of Nova Scotia calling on the federal government to update the language of the Atlantic accords, so we can move ahead with new employment opportunities and new energy projects, our responsibility is to make sure the language is updated so it can do the job it has done. It has never been challenged as unconstitutional. It hasn't been opposed.

We keep going back to square one, because the Conservatives want to fight about Bill C-69. My concern is that the longer we delay, the more we're guaranteeing that workers in Newfoundland and Labrador and in Nova Scotia are being undermined, because the projects that are getting off the ground are going to jurisdictions where they have the certainty that legislation is actually going to be passed and not filibustered.

Bill C-49 is constitutional. It has been constitutional. It has never been opposed. I would hope that we can get this done so we can move on to other pressing matters.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Thanks, Chair.

If it helps, I would suggest, through you, Chair, that the parliamentary secretary for natural resources could perhaps enlighten this committee and all Canadians, including senators, investors, provinces, municipalities and indigenous communities, who have all challenged Bill C-69, including every single premier and territorial leader who either opposed it outright or called for major overhauls.

Moving forward, of course, the Supreme Court decision that less than 6% of the bill is constitutional and the vast majority is largely unconstitutional was made in December. Many of those clauses explicitly declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court are in Bill C-49. If the parliamentary secretary to the minister is suggesting that these senior qualified experts in the public service, who are trying to give the elected members of the government the rationale to cover for their own mistakes.... Perhaps she as the parliamentary secretary can actually give the answers that all of us need to know, about when the government will be bringing forward new legislation or amendments. I don't know how that works for a law that's already a law and no longer an act. It has been a law unconstitutionally for half a decade already under these NDP-Liberals. I think it would behoove her to answer, for clarity for the elected members here and all Canadians, when those changes would be happening.

I'll reinforce the point my colleagues are making, which is that it is ridiculous that we are being asked to pass this legislation, brought forward by the NDP-Liberals, when we made the proposal in December that they could take the time to get Bill C-69 fixed first. Then we would move to Bill C-49 and Bill C-50 after that. However, here we are in April and the government is saying they're still promising legislation. That hasn't happened.

The point my colleagues are making is that, obviously, if this bill gets passed with those sections unresolved, it will come into force with a lack of certainty and clarity about its constitutionality and legality. It will automatically invite legal challenges by the same groups, or by other groups involved in the challenges to Bill C-69, all the way up to the Supreme Court of Canada.

I give kudos to the public servants for doing their jobs. This isn't their mess to fix, but it certainly is the minister's. Since the parliamentary secretary is here, and she is saying that the officials shouldn't answer any more of these questions, perhaps she can.

Thanks, Chair.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Thank you.

I have the same question swirling around in my head: Why are we moving forward on this when we're referencing a piece of legislation that, in fact, may not even exist anymore because it's been ruled unconstitutional? That's what we're being asked to do here. It doesn't matter whether other jurisdictions are asking us to do it—if it's unconstitutional, it's unconstitutional. I just don't understand why everybody seems to be okay with Bill C-49 referencing Bill C-69, which we know has been deemed to be largely unconstitutional. It doesn't make any sense why we wouldn't fix that first, before we move ahead, or delete the references—which is what this amendment is doing—to something the Supreme Court of Canada has decided is unconstitutional.

Why would we reference a document that's no good?

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Thanks.

I guess it's kind of building on what my colleague has said. Throughout our study of the bill, there were at least 35 portions of the bill that directly referenced or quoted the Impact Assessment Act, particularly the parts of it that were deemed largely unconstitutional. I think that's the basis for the concern that we have here, that the bill does reference those parts that are unconstitutional. It's building on that part.

Is it right for us to proceed when we are basically giving validity...? This bill will just give validity to something that is unconstitutional, but it will still be unconstitutional. Is it not going to run the risk, then, of having the same fate as Bill C-69 from the previous Parliament, the Impact Assessment Act, of being in front of the courts and again being referenced as largely unconstitutional and providing issues for investors and for the provinces that are looking to develop their resources?

Our job is to be certain and clear. Again, this bill quotes unconstitutional parts of an act, so how are we supposed to proceed with confidence in that? I know that you're not supposed to give us advice on that, but I'm just saying.... I think you understand what I'm trying to say here, though, about that. Is that correct? How can we proceed with a bill that is unconstitutional? Does that not create problems?

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer—Mountain View, AB]

Mr. Bustros, you're from the justice department. I suppose I should have directed it specifically there.

I understand what you can do within the legislation and the thoughts about that, but I'm talking about unconstitutionality. Does that then make Bill C-49...? If we are addressing that and cannot come to any agreement there, as has been suggested by your departmental officials, what does one have to do to Bill C-49 if the unconstitutional aspect of Bill C-69 continues to work its way into it? In terms of the conflict that occurs with Bill C-49, what remedies does the justice department see for this situation?

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer—Mountain View, AB]

Thank you.

I brought this up earlier with the folks from the justice department who are here today. My question is for them, if we could have some clarification.

Once there is legislation that is deemed unconstitutional and it becomes embedded in future legislation, what recourse does the government have? If Bill C-49 is also considered to be unconstitutional, then do we have to go back to the very beginning and deal with this legislation prior to dealing with the unconstitutionality of the previous bill, Bill C-69?

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

This is a pretty straightforward and simple one, as follows:

That Bill C-49, in Clause 170, be amended by deleting line 23 on page 119 to line 12 on page 120.

There's obviously the long-standing position of the Conservative Party that the reference to the unconstitutional implementation act, Bill C-69 from a previous Parliament, is problematic and needs to be addressed. It needs to be dealt with, and the fact that it hasn't been dealt with is problematic and will create and cause more uncertainty for people looking to build projects in this country.

I really think that the fact that this has not been done and fixed yet leaves this committee no choice but to delete it, because at this point we need to be passing bills and laws that are constitutional and that wouldn't be deemed to be largely unconstitutional, as Bill C-69 was. I think the committee can do the right thing today by deleting this portion. That way, we can provide some certainty and clarity going forward so that provinces and investors have a chance to do this right.

Thank you.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

We're going to vote against this clause and the amendment, but I would just take the opportunity to again impress upon Canadians and all elected members of this committee that it behooves the government to fix their catastrophic, unconstitutional Bill C-69, which should have been done even before members were in a position to try to assess Bill C-49 adequately, given how many clauses from Bill C-69 that were designated by the Supreme Court of Canada as being unconstitutional are in Bill C-49.

That's a responsibility of and an error on behalf of the anti-energy NDP-Liberal costly coalition, and the Conservatives will vote against that for these reasons. It's the government's job to fix the mess they made.

[Danielle Smith]

Mostly, it's been the various legal actions that we've had to take against the federal government. We've had a victory on the Impact Assessment Act, which you know as Bill C-69. We had a success initially on the declaration of plastics being toxic also being deemed to be unconstitutional, but I can tell you that my justice department is very busy. We have about 14 different actions that we are going to be taking against the federal government for the various ways in which it's interfering with our jurisdiction.

If you read the Alberta Sovereignty within a United Canada Act—so I don't share your aspiration on separation—we just believe that the Constitution should be abided by, and that the Constitution was written in a way that gives sovereign powers to the provincial levels of government and sovereign powers to the federal level of government. It talks about the need for co-operative federalism: that the federal government cannot interfere in an area of provincial jurisdiction unilaterally. I think that's being borne out with some of the court decisions the federal government has now lost.

[Danielle Smith]

I should make sure that the committee knows exactly why Steven Guilbeault faced law problems. One was for the stunt he pulled on the CN Tower. The other was that he climbed on the roof of our premier Ralph Klein's house when his wife, Colleen, was home, terrifying her.

You can imagine how Albertans feel about how this is the person now responsible for enacting emissions policy. I would say that we've been able to work constructively with the federal government on a number of areas. It has worked with us on establishing a net-zero petrochemical plant with the Dow Chemical Company and a net-zero hydrogen plant with Air Products. We're in the process of getting to the final finish line on a net-zero cement plant with Heidelberg. It's worked with us on De Havilland to make sure that we have water bombers being built, not only in our province but also to help the rest of the country.

I don't want to say that it's uniformly negative, but the spirit of co-operative federalism means that you do not take unilateral action in an area of provincial jurisdiction. It means that you work collaboratively. I think the court has chastised the federal government, led in this area by Steven Guilbeault, on two occasions: the Impact Assessment Act and the plastics ban.

The approach that I would like to see the government take is to work collaboratively with us the way it has, not come through with a cap on a particular industry—oil and gas emissions, which it has announced—or a cap on methane, which it has announced, which will disproportionately impact our province. Its proposal for a net-zero power grid, outside the Constitution under section 92, clearly demonstrates that it doesn't understand how our electricity market works. Net-zero vehicles, having 20% of vehicles sold by 2026.... We know that will simply kill our auto sector and reduce our ability—

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I suspect that MP Patzer will want to respond after, but I'll just take this moment to say this: Let's spare the sanctimony around here with the crowing about listening to provincial premiers, if we will, since the NDP and Liberals actually have zero problem ignoring the Liberal Newfoundland premier who has asked over and over that they spike the carbon tax hike on April 1.

We have already demonstrated our willingness to work in good favour by accepting the two subamendments. MP Patzer has summarized exactly why we are engaging the will of the elected members of this committee to consider including the Conservatives' specific language on protecting and maintaining the environmental characteristics in the case of offshore renewable development and explicitly include this in Bill C-49.

Here is why. It is because it is not enough at this point, after nine years, for the Liberals, propped up by the NDP, to say, “Just trust us.”

I will give this example. It has been five months since the Supreme Court of Canada said that the law based on Bill C-69, which has been in place for half a decade, is largely unconstitutional. The Supreme Court said that less than 6% of the law based on Bill C-69 stands up, including, as we've discussed multiple times in the debate on this rushed bill, the dozens of references that are here in Bill C-49 to Bill C-69. This will automatically cause this bill, if it's passed as written, to be vulnerable to litigation and challenges, causing even more uncertainty for offshore petroleum developers, obviously, but also for any private sector proponents who want to launch into offshore renewable development too.

This is why—so Canadians understand—Conservative MPs on this committee are trying to compel the NDP, Liberal and Bloc members of this committee to be explicit about our elected representatives' priority to protect and maintain the environmental characteristics according to the expanded new scope and scale of the mandate that Bill C-49 will provide for regulators. Also, in addition to my colleague's tough but fair and accurate comment on the Conservatives' 20,000 amendments to Bill C-50, the just transition bill, let me just say for the record—because I heard him quip it—that those were not generated by AI.

Second of all—

Impact Assessment Act

[Gerald Soroka, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-375, an act to amend the Impact Assessment Act.

We are at a critical juncture where the decisions we make can shape our nation's trajectory towards prosperity and sustainability. Central to our discussion is a vital piece of legislation, common-sense Bill C-375. The bill represents a golden opportunity to streamline how we approach environmental assessments, ensuring that crucial green projects can move forward swiftly and responsibly. It is about cutting through red tape to unleash Canada’s potential for growth while safeguarding our natural environment.

Bill C-375 is not just about amending current legislation; it is also about embracing a smarter, more collaborative way of working together as federal and provincial governments, joining forces to make Canada a better place. If we work together, we can propel our nation into a future where economic development and environmental stewardship go hand in hand.

Over the past eight years, our system has been bogged down by unnecessary bureaucracy, a maze of regulations that, while well-intentioned, often hinder progress rather than facilitate it. The Liberal government's approach, as seen with Bill C-69, better known by many as the “no more pipelines act”, has unfortunately contributed to this stagnation. That piece of legislation, found to be unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, exemplifies an overreach of federal jurisdiction into areas that should rightfully fall within provincial expertise. The result has been delays, confusion and a chilling effect on investment in green and infrastructural projects essential for our nation's future.

The Conservative Party has always championed the principles of efficiency, jurisdictional respect and the reduction of unnecessary governmental interference. Bill C-375 stands as a testament to these values, offering a practical solution to the challenges we face. By allowing for agreements between federal and provincial governments to exempt certain projects from the cumbersome process of repeated environmental assessments, we are proposing a way forward that would respect the expertise of provincial authorities and eliminate redundant federal oversight.

At the heart of our discussion on Bill C-375 lies a multitude of benefits that promise to reshape the landscape of environmental assessments and project development in Canada. The legislative amendment stands not just as a policy shift but also as a signal of progress, highlighting our commitment to efficiency, economic growth and environmental integrity. There are several tangible benefits the bill would bring to the table, ensuring a prosperous future for all Canadians.

The cornerstone of Bill C-375 is its ability to streamline the environmental assessment process. By allowing federal and provincial governments to work closely together, we can eliminate redundant evaluations, ensuring that projects do not get tangled in a web of bureaucratic red tape. This approach would not only speed up the approval process but also conserve valuable resources. It would be a common-sense step toward making government operations leaner and more effective, directly translating into quicker turnarounds for project commencements. This efficiency is critical for maintaining Canada’s competitive edge on the global stage, especially in attracting investments in green technology and infrastructure.

An immediate advantage of streamlined assessments would be the acceleration of project approvals. This benefit cannot be overstated. By reducing the time it takes for projects to clear regulatory hurdles, we would open the door to wider economic opportunities that come with new infrastructure and technology investments. These projects are not just about immediate economic gains; they are also about laying the groundwork for sustainable economic growth. Developers and provinces could move forward with greater confidence, knowing that their initiatives would not be indefinitely delayed by the bureaucratic process. This predictability would be invaluable for planning and executing projects that can significantly contribute to our economy and our environmental goals.

Furthermore, fiscal responsibility is a principle that guides our goals for proper governance, and Bill C-375 is aligned with that aspect. By avoiding duplication in environmental assessments, we would be poised to save significant amounts of public funds. These savings would stem from reduced administrative costs and the more efficient use of resources. While it is challenging to put an exact figure on these savings, the financial implications are clear and substantial. These funds could be redirected to other pressing needs, such as health care, education or further environmental conservation efforts, maximizing the impact of every taxpayer dollar.

Perhaps one of the most profound benefits of Bill C-375 would be the emphasis it places on collaboration and respect for provincial expertise. Canada's provinces and territories are diverse, each with its unique environmental landscape and economic context. This diversity demands a tailored approach to environmental assessments, one that respects the knowledge and capabilities of provincial authorities.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise to address what I believe is one area in which the Conservative Party of Canada is somewhat vulnerable, and that is the environment. I really believe that Conservatives, under the new leadership, are found wanting in coming up with ideas that are healthy for Canada's environment.

The legislation being proposed today reinforces other attitudes they have in general about the environment. Today, the Conservatives say a province is saying it can handle it with no problem at all, and the federal Conservative Party says it does not need to have any sort of federal involvement. That is, in essence, what the members opposite are proposing. It reminds me of this consistency of policy development that prevents the Conservatives from being concerned about Canada's environment.

We talk about the major projects that are under way and that are being proposed and considered. These projects will have profound impacts on our environment. There is a very clear possibility some of these megaprojects will go beyond any one provincial boundary. There is a need, I suggest, and the Supreme Court of Canada also suggested, for a federal government role in the process. Most Canadians would agree that the federal government should not get away from its important role when it comes to the environment.

When we think of industries having regulations, both at the federal and provincial levels, it enables a certain amount of security and predictability, which then allows for investment. There are so many investment opportunities. I was encouraged when the member opposite used the words “green developments”. He mentioned “green” quite a bit in his comments, and I applaud him on that.

There is the investment, for example, that Volkswagen has made in Canada, in co-operation with the Premier of Ontario and the Government of Canada, and thousands of green jobs that are going to be created as a direct result. Those jobs, in good part, are going to rely on mineral development as Canada is in the position of being a world leader in the development of batteries. Those batteries require rare minerals, and Canada not only has the opportunity to supply internally for potential demand and development of secondary industries that create more jobs for Canadians, but also has the capacity to supply the world in many different ways.

There are companies throughout the world looking at Canada as a place to invest, and investors are looking for regulatory certainty. When we talk about the IAA, we are really talking about recognizing that the federal government does have a role to play. The Supreme Court of Canada has made it very clear. We have indicated it will be under review. We can anticipate that amendments will be brought forward in a very progressive fashion. We are not going to do what the Conservative Party is suggesting through this legislation.

This is the type of legislation I have talked about in the past regarding the Conservative Party and its so-called hidden agenda. While this is very public, there is something within this legislation that Canadians need to be aware of. Once again, we are seeing the Conservative Party stepping back on the environment, and as a national government, we have the responsibility to ensure that there is the proper protection of our environment and that the IAA is the type of legislation that leads to regulations that protect our environment.

This can be done in a manner that is fully compliant with the Supreme Court of Canada, and that is why we are bringing forward these amendments. Unlike the Conservative Party, we recognize the need for co-operative federalism, which is ultimately what we have seen take place with the Liberal government from virtually day one with programs such as the CPP being put in place. We have also seen this with legislation brought forward by the government on environmental impact issues and with the dialogue that constantly takes place, most recently in regard to housing. These are some of the more high profile areas we have worked on.

An advantage Canada has, unlike virtually any other country in the world, is that we are fortunate to have all the minerals that we do. The government has a very important role in ensuring that we have laws and regulations in place at both the national and provincial levels to protect our environment. We also have a responsibility to ensure that indigenous peoples of Canada are not only consulted but also worked with when it comes to protecting our environment well into the future.

I recall when we brought in legislation and tried to improve the process, and the Conservatives were being very difficult, for example, when it came to dealing with bills like Bill C-69. This is because having regulatory uncertainty during Stephen Harper's 10 years did nothing when it came to expanding, for example, pipelines to our coastal tidewaters. Looking at the uncertainties that were caused, I would suggest that administration was not successful.

That is unlike our administration, which has created much greater certainty when it comes to environmental impact assessment studies.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

moved that Bill C-375, An Act to amend the Impact Assessment Act (federal-provincial agreements), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, it is always an honour and a privilege to rise in the House to speak. Today is really special, because it is the first time that I have had the opportunity to explain the bill that I introduced with the support of the entire official opposition team. I put this bill together with the help of the House of Commons legislative drafting team and the team that I work with here in Ottawa and in my riding.

This is the first bill that I have introduced in the eight years and five months that I have been a member of the House of Commons. I would like to thank the people of Louis-Saint-Laurent for putting their faith in me in 2015, 2019 and 2021. The decision is in their hands as to what will happen in the future, but I trust their judgment.

Bill C-375 is entitled “An Act to amend the Impact Assessment Act (federal-provincial agreements)”.

I want to talk about the title because, although I was obviously happy and quite moved the first time I saw the bill in print, I also did a bit of a double take. Those who have the French version will notice that it says “fédéro-provinciaux” agreements. I was a little surprised to see that “fédéraux” is spelled with an “o” at the end. Since this was written by legal experts, I approached the table to make sure that this was indeed how it should be spelled. I was told that when it comes to legislation, “fédéraux” is traditionally spelled with an “o”. It is a small detail, but my colleagues know that, when it comes to introducing a bill, we want to make sure that everything is written in proper French, which is clearly the case here.

Climate change is real, as we know. We need to act quickly and decisively to deal with the effects of climate change. Human beings have contributed to climate change and must play a major role in this area. That is why our bill aims to combat climate change more effectively. To put it succintly, I would say that this bill essentially aims to establish a single environmental assessment per project, because, at this time, there is overlap between federal and provincial environmental powers. When a project is under way, an environmental assessment must be carried out. The first province to adopt this system was Alberta.

Why carry out two assessments if one has been done already, especially considering that the need for green projects to address climate change is greater than ever? This bill aims to significantly improve efficiency and optimize the scientific effort involved in assessing environmental projects. It aims to reduce duplication. In essence, it strives for collaboration, not confrontation. We think that provincial scientists are just as capable as federal scientists. Why pit them against each other by having two environmental assessments done when they could work together on just one and achieve the same objectives much more efficiently and pragmatically?

That is the big issue this bill tackles. What is the approach? For years now, our party has been saying that we need to stop doing two assessments every time. Federal and provincial officials need to stop stepping on each other's toes. When we came up with this bill, we looked at two options. We could have gone through every piece of legislation and analyzed every situation in order to amend this or that act, but that would have taken a very long time, and the resulting bill would have been a brick. That would have been cumbersome, so we opted for a pragmatic approach instead. My thanks to the team of legislative drafters we worked with.

This approach creates a mechanism to enter into agreements. Yes, we have no choice but to work together to fight climate change, but, in this case, we do so gladly because that is what needs to be done for the sake of the planet and the environment. That is why we are laying the groundwork for agreements that will enable federal and provincial partners to work together on a single study, rather than competing with each other. There are no good guys or bad guys. Nobody is stricter or more lenient. Science is science. Science has no allegiance, no political stripe. Science is rigorous. Let us put Canadian scientists to work for the environment. That is how we want to do it.

Needless to say, we need green projects now more than ever. As we speak, under the provisions of Bill C-69, which was introduced and passed by this government, the government gave itself veto power over hydroelectric projects. Obviously, as a Quebecker, this affects me, and I was deeply offended when I learned of that. We recognize Quebec's extensive expertise in hydroelectricity. All projects have been carried out in accordance with the environmental assessment process that falls under Quebec jurisdiction. However, this greedy government, which always interferes where it does not belong—in other words, in areas of provincial jurisdiction—has given itself veto power over hydroelectric projects.

If the federal government had had veto power over every hydroelectric project, including the Romaine River, James Bay, Manicouagan River, Outardes River and Betsiamites River projects, where would Quebec be today? If the federal government had given itself veto power in the 1950s, when studies were being done for Bersimis-1 and Bersimis-2, for the two generating stations on the Outardes River and the four generating stations on the Manicouagan River, where would Quebec be today? The green light was given in the 1950s, in 1958 to be precise, and the project was completed in the 1960s, with the magnificent inauguration of Manic-5 in 1968.

The federal government had no business being involved and that is why it was done properly. Why then did it interfere in this provincial jurisdiction by giving itself veto power and the ability to conduct an environmental assessment of hydroelectric projects?

This issue came before the Supreme Court of Canada. In the reference concerning the Impact Assessment Act, the Supreme Court of Canada chided the government for interfering in provincial jurisdictions. Obviously, the government did not take it as an order, but rather as an opinion of the Supreme Court. That is the issue. It is an opinion and it requires a response. Our response to that Supreme Court opinion is that the provinces are going to work hand in hand with the federal government and not against one another. That is how we have to look at environmental issues.

Let us not forget that the government said that it was going to review the situation. We have a suggestion for the government to ensure that the process is much more efficient and that there will be environmental assessments for major projects. There needs to be an environmental assessment for every project, and those will be done perfectly well by our experts.

Right now, there is a battle between the pragmatic approach that we support and the dogmatic approach. What has the government done to protect the environment in the eight years it has been in office? It has made announcements, announcements and more announcements. It has created the new carbon tax, imposed taxes and, obviously, increased the carbon tax. That is the very dogmatic approach that the Liberals are taking.

What exactly has been achieved after eight years of this government? In eight years, this government has never met its targets, except during the pandemic. If the government has to shut down the economy to meet its targets, then that is not exactly the best approach. That is what is so disappointing. The government's approach is all about taxing people. In a few days, on April 1, the government plans to increase the Liberal carbon tax by 23%. That is not the right thing to do. We will have an opportunity to come back to that a little later.

Some people will say that the Conservatives are against everything the government does. Of course, if the government were doing good things, we would be happy. If we were seeing results, we would be happy, but that is not what is happening. The government has yet to meet its targets, and we are not the only ones saying it.

Every year, the UN tables a report that evaluates the effectiveness of environmental measures for more than sixty countries around the world. Scientists from all over the world provide an objective, non-partisan analysis of the efforts being made to combat climate change and their results. I want to make sure I am using the exact wording used by the UN, so I will read this in English: “Climate Change Performance Index 2024 — Rating table”.

This document was recently tabled at COP 29. After eight years of this Liberal government, Canada ranks 62nd out of 67 countries. Not 40th, 50th or 60th, but 62nd.

After eight years of this Liberal government, Canada ranks 62nd on its performance in the fight against climate change, dropping from 58th place last year. Are the Liberals' climate change policies working? No. Canadians are not the only ones who see it, knowing that the Liberal carbon tax is set to rise in a few days. Scientists around the world see it too, and they clearly have no partisan political agenda like we do. Our very office requires us to have a political agenda. It is our duty to serve as the loyal opposition to this government and therefore to identify flaws. Scientists around the world have now confirmed that Canada's performance puts it in 62nd place worldwide.

We need to take action on climate change. We need pragmatic measures. That is why, at last September's Conservative Party convention, our leader outlined our plan to tackle climate change. I want to emphasize the fact that this happened at our national convention; it was not some press release issued at 4:30 p.m. on a Friday. I was a journalist, and I have been in politics for 15 years, so I am well aware that when people send out press releases on Friday evenings or at the end of the day, it is because they do not really want anyone to talk about them. In this case, it was quite the opposite. We had 2,500 grassroots members from across the country, all of them gathered to hear the member for Carleton give his first speech since being elected as leader of the official opposition. In that speech, he laid the foundation for a future government that a whole lot of Canadians want, none more than us, of course.

Our leader laid out and explained the four pillars of our party's potential government action on the environment. First, we have to invest in new technologies, through tax incentives, to fight climate change and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Investing in high tech through tax incentives is a pragmatic solution. The people whose plants or businesses generate greenhouse gases know the reasons why, and they, not Ottawa, are the ones who know how to lower their emissions. With tax incentives, they can take prompt, concrete action and achieve tangible results. The first pillar therefore consists of tax incentives that encourage investments in high-tech solutions for reducing pollution.

The second pillar of the Conservatives' action on climate change is to green-light green projects. We need green energy, hydroelectricity, solar energy, wind energy, geothermal energy and even nuclear energy now more than ever. None of them generate greenhouse gas emissions. These are the avenues that we need to explore, but we have to speed up the process. We need to green-light green projects. This bill aims to speed up the process and develop a game plan for collaboration between the provinces and the federal government. Instead of confrontation, we have to strive for collaboration. The second pillar is therefore to green-light green projects.

The third pillar is the Canadian advantage. Canada has so many natural resources and so many energy sources. Why go abroad for natural resources or energy when we have them right here at home? As long as we need so-called fossil fuels, we will always support Canadian energy and Canadian products because, yes, we do still need them.

The HEC, a Quebec institution, released its annual report about a month ago. What did it find? It found that the consumption of so-called fossil fuels has increased by 7% in Quebec. As long as it is needed, I would rather consume Canadian energy rather than the 48% of American energy that we currently consume. I have nothing against Texas or Louisiana, but the last time I checked, they were not contributing very much—in fact they were not giving one cent—to the principle of equalization.

Finally, the fourth pillar of our environmental action plan is to work hand in hand with first nations. When a project is carried out on ancestral land, we must make first nations communities our partners, rather than handing over a cheque and telling them to leave. On the contrary, we need to work together for the common good.

In short, this bill is about focusing on collaboration and pragmatic measures in order to make progress in the fight against climate change.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

We feel for the position that the officials are in. It's blindingly clear that the Liberals have failed to bring in changes to remedy the Supreme Court's finding that less than 10% of the Impact Assessment Act is in fact constitutional—the Supreme Court said “largely unconstitutional”—even though that bill has been law for the last five years. I can say personally and on behalf of my Conservative colleagues that nearly every single issue the Supreme Court of Canada pointed out as a problem in the Impact Assessment Act we pointed out during the debates on Bill C-69. In fact, it often happened that I personally did so during the debates on Bill C-69 in committee and through each stage.

Kudos to the officials for doing their best in this position that unfortunately the elected members of Parliament have caused for them.

I would note, of course, that it's been 139 days since the Supreme Court said that the Impact Assessment Act, including all of the provisions here in Bill C-49 relating to decision-making power and the project scheme, was unconstitutional. That was why, of course, as you'll recall, Chair, I moved a motion, which was rejected by the NDP-Liberal coalition, to first deal with fixing the unconstitutional sections of Bill C-69 so we could then move on to an analysis and assessment to ensure that legislators could deal properly with Bill C-49 and would not be facing what obviously will be delays, uncertainty and litigation, even once this legislation passes.

This entire scenario illuminates the failure of the Liberal government. They did not listen to experts in the first place during the democratic debate on Bill C-69. They have also ignored us and held up this bill, while also creating the potential for uncertainty and litigation and even less clarity for the people of Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador and any private sector proponents who want to get involved in offshore renewables as a result of Bill C-49.

Again, kudos to the officials for being in an uncomfortable position and making a good-faith effort to answer these questions and deal with the mess that the elected Liberal members of Parliament have created for them, backed by their NDP cohort, when we tried to deal with this in November.

Of course, the official is right that Bill C-49 was introduced on May 30, at the end of the spring session, always an indication of the government's priorities, with no debate and no assessment by legislators at that time. It was only brought back in September, with fewer than nine hours total of debate by all members of Parliament from all parties. Then of course we heard, from witness testimony during the limited hours the NDP and Liberals forced on this piece of legislation, that there are gaping holes in the existing and unconstitutional Bill C-69 provisions that are in Bill C-49, and that there may have been a catastrophic lack of consultation, during the development of the bill, with various entrepreneurs, business owners and generational family businesses in Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador.

Imagine the time that has been wasted at this point. Imagine how much further ahead we would be if the federal government had just done the right thing in the first place and gotten Bill C-69 right in the first place and not created a mess that has to be completely untangled.

Of course, if they had just listened to us in November instead of playing games and delaying to hold this bill up, we wouldn't have to be in this ridiculous scenario where we're having this conversation about having to bundle amendments to fix problems that are of their own making.

Thanks, Chair.

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer—Mountain View, AB]

Would it have been easier if you did not have to deal with this legislation and you had some certainty on how the government was going to deal with the unconstitutionality aspect of Bill C-69?

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer—Mountain View, AB]

Our witnesses here are from the justice department and particularly associated with Environment, I believe. Nevertheless, they should be the experts to speak to the unconstitutionality of Bill C-69. Of course, the whole issue is it not being dealt with before we're forced to deal with this. Therefore, the actions we have at this particular point in time, if we include those elements of Bill C-69, make this unconstitutional in my view.

I'd like to know what justice department officials have been doing to ensure there is no issue, or that it can be dealt with quickly, because that has been the whole point of what has been taking place here for the last couple of months.

I would like someone from Justice to enlighten me on that.

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Minister Rushton, I'll go back to you very quickly. This is a distinction. The Conservatives are trying to raise the prospect of a past bill, which is Bill C-69, but this is completely different. We're talking about the Atlantic accords and we're talking about a partnership whereby provincial governments actually negotiate with the Government of Canada.

Again, just to highlight that difference, this is something your government really believes in and we should be moving on as quickly as possible.

[Rick Perkins, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

No, it's okay. It's my time. I'm sorry.

Minister Rushton, there's nothing that this bill does that prevents offshore wind from being done now. It just gives process jurisdiction to a board. However, this bill includes the process from the Impact Assessment Act, Bill C-69, as we know. In fact, clauses 61, 62, 169 and 170 are from that.

You're aware, of course, that once that came in, the ability to get projects approved dropped considerably. When we look at, for example, the Tilt Cove exploration drilling project in Newfoundland, we see that it's been five years going through this process. As for the Cape Ray gold and silver mine, it's been eight years. For the iron ore project in Newfoundland, it's been 11 years. For the Fifteen Mile Stream gold project, it's been six years. It goes on and on. In Nova Scotia, for the Beaver Dam gold mine project, it's been nine years.

You believe that you need to have this in place—I think it's five megawatts—before 2030. When or if this bill passes through Parliament, how is it possible, given how slow this process is—six to eight years so far, and with no end in sight for those IAA projects in Atlantic Canada—that you think this can come online?

Government Business No. 34—Proceedings on Bill C-62

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Madam Speaker, here we are again at the eleventh hour. The government has waited on something that it has to put in place; otherwise, on March 17, people whose only condition is a mental illness will be able to apply for medical assistance in dying.

The Liberals are not virgins in the parliamentary process. They understand very well that, typically, for a bill to go through three readings in the House and through committee meetings, and then go to the red chamber, where a similar number of readings and committee meetings take place, takes about 18 months. If there is goodwill among all parties and we agree, it may be six months. It is ludicrous to me that less than two months before the deadline, the government put forward this legislation. It is really putting a gun to the head of opposition members, because if we decide not to pass the bill, on March 17 people who suffer only from a mental illness will be able to receive medical assistance in dying.

I have a lot of compassion for people suffering from mental illness. In many cases, they have suicidal thoughts and are not full of hope for the future, so it is easy for them to say in despair that there is no way out. However, a lot of people get better and go on to live full lives. They are not in a place where they can really take that decision.

It is not the first time the government has waited until the last minute. I remember when the medical assistance in dying legislation in Bill C-14 was introduced, there was a lot of pressure for us to get along and pass the bill. I would have more confidence if it were not for the fact that the government continually brings forward legislation that is unconstitutional. Then it goes through the courts to the Supreme Court and, like Bill C-69, is declared unconstitutional. The bill for the welfare of indigenous children was also declared unconstitutional. It is our job to give due process to bills and to make sure they are a good idea, rather than just rubber-stamping them and passing them along.

I do not want to have the consequence that people who are mentally ill would receive MAID if we do not pass this legislation in time, but we have no guarantee that the Senate is not going to delay the bill. There was a question for the member who gave the last speech about how the Senate may choose to block the bill. That would delay it even further and we would not make the timeline. It is not a sure thing that the bill is going to get across the line.

We have to look back to the Carter decision. We spent a lot of time talking about what the response would be, and it was the court's order that the criteria be an irremediable condition with imminent death. That is the path we started on. I was very concerned at the time because every recommendation from the special committee that studied this said that without good-quality palliative care, one really does not have a choice.

At that point in time, I found out that only 30% of Canadians had access to palliative care. That is what prompted me to bring forward my private member's bill to get consistent access to palliative care for all Canadians. That bill unanimously passed in the House. Since then, we have doubled access, from 30% to almost 60%, which is a great thing, but there is more to go. If people do not have good-quality palliative care, they really do not have a real choice.

The government needs to refocus itself. I saw in the report that after five years of progress on palliative care, there are still identified gaps. The government needs to pursue that with passion and aggressiveness because that is the answer. If people have good-quality palliative care, they do not choose medical assistance in dying, and that applies everywhere. I met today with some of the representatives from palliative care, and they informed me that when people go to hospice, nine out of 10 of them are asking for medical assistance in dying, but very few of them actually take advantage of it once they experience palliative care.

Why are nine out of 10 of them asking for medical assistance in dying? It is because the doctors are recommending it, and I do not have any confidence that the safeguards that were supposed to be in place are actually being adhered to. A doctor from the Liberal Party who spoke before me cited five examples that he is aware of where clearly people did not meet the conditions but were given medical assistance in dying.

Canada is on a very slippery slope. If we look at the history of countries that have implemented medical assistance in dying, the Netherlands was sort of at the forefront, and it took a while for it to experience a rise in the percentage of people who were dying from medical assistance in dying. However, last year in Canada, 4% of people who died did so by medical assistance in dying. We set a world record. We are top of the charts on killing people with medical assistance in dying.

I think this is absolutely the wrong direction, so to broaden medical assistance in dying to include people who are mentally ill is absolutely ill-informed, at the very least. I would say, without being insensitive, that people who are mentally ill are actually able to kill themselves. Sadly, in their despair, many of them are taking their lives every day. They do not need the government to enable them.

The Conservatives warned the government, when this ill-advised amendment came from the Senate, that this would happen. Instead of realizing the mistake and backing off, the Liberal government is kicking the can down the road for another three years, where the next government will deal with it, instead of recognizing that this is not a good idea.

Doctors are saying that 50% of the time they cannot even identify whether somebody's condition, when they suffer from mental illness, is irremediable. If that is the case, then half of the time, they are going to kill someone who might have gotten better. This is a totally bad idea. The government should stand up, say it realizes the mistake it has made and that it should have introduced legislation to eliminate that mistake. However, that is not where we are today. Today, here we are: If we do not make a decision and pass the bill in a hurry, people with mental illness are going to start dying from MAID on March 17.

I would say that there is a lot scope creep that has been suggested. Where do we stop? There has been a suggestion that if we approve those with mental illness, maybe minors should be added, or maybe the option of advance directive should be added. It looks like the solution to all of these things is death. We hear that homeless people are requesting medical assistance in dying. We hear that veterans are being advised to take medical assistance in dying. This is just scope creep and broadening who is dying in this way, without having proper controls in place. I do not think that is acceptable.

One of the things that has been totally ignored is the conscience rights of doctors. The federal government will always say it did not preclude that in its bill, but the fact is that provinces are forcing medical doctors and nurses to participate, even if it is against their religion and their conscience rights, and the federal government has done nothing to correct that situation. That is a problem.

The other thing I would say is that in the creep that is happening, they have created an express lane for the disabled. It is disgusting to the disabled community and disgusting to me that they would say that if someone is disabled, they should go to the front of the line. For the vulnerable, the mentally ill and the disabled, we need to protect those people; we need to stand up for their rights and know that we can give them hope.

I do not agree with the way this was brought forward. I think the government should have appealed the Truchon decision. When Quebec decided this needed to happen, the government should have said no, that it had thought about it, studied it and spent a long time on it. It should have said it was going to appeal that decision, because what it brought in at the beginning was at least better than the scope creep we are seeing now.

I have talked about the many examples of things that are not good with the legislation. Obviously, I do not want to see anymore people die. I will definitely work with the government to see the legislation pass as speedily as possible, and I encourage it to use the same leverage it used on Bill C-234 to help its Liberal-appointed senators do what it wants. I hope it does the same on this bill and that it receives speedy passage, and that we do not have people with mental illness being killed by the government.

[Ches Crosbie]

That's a pretty hefty question.

Mr. Small, as you're aware, I took a high-level approach to the bill. There's plenty of scope for getting into what might be more technical legal problems.

One of them would be that we've just seen the Supreme Court of Canada—last year—shred Bill C-69. This piece of legislation, Bill C-49, in dozens of places wants to coordinate itself with the statutory scheme and regime of Bill C-69, yet how can it do that when Bill C-69 is lying in tatters on the cutting-room floor? That is a major legal problem that perhaps some other people with legal backgrounds might want to express an opinion on.

Otherwise, as I've said, I just tried to take a high-level view of things. To my mind, this is an abrogation: an abrogation of the historic Atlantic accord, the accord between the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador and the Government of Canada, which has served Newfoundland and Labrador and Canada so well for 30 years.

National Council for Reconciliation Act

[Jamie Schmale, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the point was that the government itself is creating policies that prohibit or severely stunt the growth of the oil and gas sector and even the mining industry and lumber, our natural resources. A lot of these are on first nations land and have the ability to create wealth in those communities, with jobs and opportunity. Bills such as Bill C-69 and others are hampering that growth. The government is using policies behind the scenes to stop investors from investing in the first place and creating jobs, opportunity and wealth there. This is creating the continued dependence on the government for handouts, in the form of program funding, that I am talking about.

When they do have a project, they have the resources leaving the community; the community then has to turn around and go to Ottawa to ask for them back. We think that system is broken, and the status quo is not working. We think there is actually a better way, which is listening to first nations themselves and these leaders in the community, such as the First Nations Tax Commission, the First Nations Financial Management Board and many others. They are doing amazing work, and they want to change how the status quo operates. That is what we support.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It's interesting to see MP Angus blocking discussion about an initiative that would benefit indigenous people in communities all across the country, when he talks about lots of things that are going wrong but chooses to prop up the Liberal government anyway.

I will just continue to wrap up my comments as efficiently as possible, which of course will happen better without interruption. I know that it's important to every Canadian and every community and person invested in energy development of all kinds in all parts of this country.

Before I talk about a couple more of those indigenous voices that Charlie Angus and the Liberals around the table are trying to silence, while they also don't acknowledge the fact that it's their own government motion that pushed Bill C-49 behind Bill C-50. In fact it was my November 1 motion that asked this committee to get the government to fix Bill C-69 and then immediately move to work to move on Bill C-49, so that the government didn't pass a bill as written that has multiple sections the Supreme Court has declared unconstitutional. It would obviously cause uncertainty and invite immediate litigation on a number of grounds if they passed Bill C-49 as it's written.

No doubt I certainly appreciate and value the opportunity to fix Bill C-49 so that it will do what its proponents say they want, except that as of now, of course, the bill is one of additional red tape, lack of clarity and uncertainty that will block both traditional oil and gas and renewable offshore energy development.

To explain why the common-sense Conservative endorsement of this first nations resource charge is important, let's talk a little bit about the organization. It is important to note that it will build on the most successful first nation-led legislative initiatives in history, the First Nations Fiscal Management Act and the Framework Agreement on First Nation Land Management, and of course there are now over 400 first nations using one or both frameworks.

I'm going to really put a fine point on why this optional tool is so important. It will especially help smaller first nations communities with capacity challenges and fewer resources to be able to bring home all of those economic and multiple other kinds of benefits from pursuing responsible resource development through this “reconciliACTION” initiative that Conservatives are proposing. It will help smaller communities to negotiate with big companies and law firms to secure benefits and opportunities.

To that end, I want to share the words of Chief Sharleen Gale who's from Fort Nelson First Nation in B.C. and she's the chair of the First Nations Major Projects Coalition. She says,

For too long, our people and governments have been left out of the resource bounty of this land. Many of our nations and members want to be part of the resource economy. They want careers, business opportunities, and equity stakes in resource companies. The First Nations Resource Charge finally means our fiscal jurisdiction over the resources on our lands is implemented. The Resource Charge will mean we can increase the economic benefits to our members and regions, improve services and infrastructure and close the gaps with the rest of Canada sooner.

The chief and other members of the Doig River First Nation in B.C. say it's ridiculous that the smallest governments must navigate the most complex negotiations. They say:

We want to implement a charge like other Canadian governments to streamline business. The Resource Charge is going to provide the kind of revenues we need to have the water, health care, education, and opportunities that every other Canadian takes for granted.

They also say:

We have many resource projects in our territory. The current process for negotiating financial compensation for First Nations takes too long, and it costs too much. We are small administrations. We cannot respond and negotiate in a timely way. It costs us hundreds of thousands of dollars. Our time is scarce. It costs Canada tens of billions in lost investment every year. The FNRC changes this. It is a pre-specified standardized charge for doing business in our territory—whether that is forestry, mining, hydroelectricity, oil and gas or any other resource project.

That captures especially well why our common-sense Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre and the Conservative Party of Canada are urging the government to support this optional first nations-led tool.

Chief Donna Big Canoe, who was in Vancouver, from the Chippewas of Georgina Island First Nation in Ontario, says:

Confederation in 1867 divided everything between federal and provincial governments, treating us as if we didn’t exist—wards of the state—leading to poverty, dependency, and the existence of residential schools for years. The solution is to bring First Nations into the federation by granting us tax powers to exercise our own jurisdiction. The First Nations Resource Charge aligns with this goal.

I'm mindful of Councillor Strater Crowfoot from the legendary Crowfoot family from the Siksika Nation in Alberta, who also supports this initiative. He says:

In 1989, we passed amendments to the Indian Act that gave First Nations the option to assume tax room and service responsibilities on reserve lands. A lot of people thought it was minor and would never amount to much. Other people thought we simply weren’t capable of carrying out such responsibilities. That, to me, is the most dangerous form of discrimination. Other people thought it was some plot to hold First Nations back. But First Nations all over the country proved the naysayers wrong. A lot has changed since then and for the better. I was there in ‘89, so I know. And I’m proud to be here now. This is going to allow many First Nations who were unable to take advantage of that earlier initiative to become more self reliant and more self-determining. It’s also a major step in acknowledging our rights and obligations over our historic lands. I welcome the Leader of the Opposition for supporting this, and I hope every political leader in the country will support this. It’s the right thing to do for First Nations and for the country too.

I will conclude, Chair, with a couple of other comments by indigenous leaders who've been involved in the work of developing this proposal, and I urge the members of Parliament and the House of Commons to consider supporting it.

Chief Darren Blaney from the Homalco First Nation in B.C.—

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Hopefully, the colleagues who were all waxing eloquent about doing this efficiently today will stop interrupting.

I will continue.

As our common-sense Conservative leader said on Thursday:

For hundreds of years, First Nations have suffered under a broken colonial system that takes power away from their communities and places it in the hands of politicians [and bureaucrats] in Ottawa.

The [racist] Indian Act hands over all reserve land and money to the federal government. This means that First Nations have to go to Ottawa to ask for their tax revenues [that were] collected from resource projects on their land.

This outdated system puts power in the hands of bureaucrats, politicians and lobbyists—not First Nations. The direct result of this “Ottawa-knows-best” approach has been poverty, substandard infrastructure and housing, [unmet education needs,] unsafe drinking water and despair.

The former Conservative government, of course, made the historic apology for residential schools on behalf of all Canadians and launched the truth and reconciliation process and commission. More and more indigenous leaders and people across Canada after the last eight years call for overdue concrete measures towards what many indigenous leaders call “reconciliACTION” so that indigenous communities everywhere can move from managing poverty and gang crime to enabling prosperity and peaceful communities with abundant opportunities.

Last week, a visionary indigenous leader reminded me that many promises have been made by the Prime Minister after eight years. This Prime Minister says that the most important relationship to him is with indigenous people, but of course, he's failed over and over to deliver on his many big promises. That hereditary chief and former elected chief said to me that he says that the relationship with indigenous people is the most important one to him, but it's not Trudeau.

All parties should support this first nations-led optional tool because the first nations resource charge can help transform the status quo. Importantly, this is why it's an unprecedented proposal by a federal leader. It cedes federal tax room so that indigenous communities will no longer need to send the revenues to Ottawa and then ask for them back. It will make resource projects more attractive to first nations communities so that resource projects important to all of Canada and to every Canadian are more likely to go ahead.

This opt-in, optional program would permit first nations to collect 50% of the federal taxes paid by industrial activities on their land, with industry getting a tax credit in exchange. Under the tax-sharing proposal, businesses would pay tax directly to first nations in exchange for this 50% refundable tax credit. Of course, this proposal would respect existing treaties and uphold the Crown's constitutional duty to consult, and it could either replace or supplement any financial aspects of indigenous communities' pursuits of impact and mutual benefit agreements.

As many colleagues here will know, I come from Treaty No. 6 territory in Alberta, where indigenous communities and entrepreneurs have worked with the private sector and the government for decades to responsibly develop natural gas, heavy oil, clean and renewable energy, and oil sands. This is along with mutual benefit agreements and ownership positions in major projects, in energy infrastructure like power lines and pipelines, and in the service and supply sector. Oil sands and pipeline companies are, of course, the leading individual private sector employers of indigenous people in Canada, which is why the anti-energy just transition is so dangerous, particularly for them. Of course, indigenous employment in Canada is led by the mining and energy sectors overall.

Those indigenous communities all over Alberta have generated incredible own-source revenue, jobs, skills, opportunities and wealth for their community members and for future generations. They've created jobs and economic opportunities alike for their non-indigenous neighbours and for surrounding communities too. Opportunities and responsible resource development have helped indigenous communities teach the past, support their elders, heal people, help communities to learn and share languages and cultural practices, support essential health and well-being services, provide recreational and spiritual activities for youth, plan opportunities for future generations, and employ both their indigenous members and surrounding non-indigenous neighbours.

That's why radical anti-energy ideologies violate and undermine the aspirations and goals of hundreds of indigenous communities and people who want economic reconciliation for a brighter future with hope, opportunity and autonomy. Conservatives are especially mindful of how important it is to prioritize this kind of action because of all of the losses that eight years of the federal NDP-Liberal coalition's colonialist anti-energy, anti-private sector agenda has already cost all Canadians, especially indigenous people.

It's like the northern gateway pipeline, when Prime Minister Trudeau unilaterally vetoed the entire project in an order in council, instead of redoing the indigenous consultation—an option given by the court's decision on the shortcomings of that process. The Prime Minister's veto destroyed the years of work by indigenous leaders, who had secured dozens of impact and mutual benefit agreements worth almost $400 million. Those indigenous communities were not consulted on the Prime Minister's veto or about all of the major losses they would then sustain as a result, before the Ottawa-knows-best veto by Prime Minister Trudeau.

It's just like when the people of the Northwest Territories were caught off guard when the same Prime Minister unilaterally banned drilling—which was announced, of course, when he was in the United States. He stopped and blocked economic and energy investment opportunities in the north, where it's badly needed.

I'm thinking of the fact that the Lax Kw'alaams in B.C. were not consulted on how their rights and titles are undermined by the Prime Minister's imposition of Bill C-48, the anti-Canadian, anti-energy, anti-pipeline export ban. Of course, it wasn't a full tanker ban in the area. It only banned the onloading and off-loading at ports of vessels of a certain quantity and a certain size. It was deliberately to ban energy infrastructure and energy exports off of that coast, which indigenous communities wanted.

The Lax Kw'alaams are suing the federal government over C-48 because it violates their decision-making power over fishing activities and any pursuit of energy infrastructure and export opportunities, which dozens of indigenous communities leading to and in that area want to achieve.

I think of the brave Woodland Cree in Alberta, who went all the way to the Supreme Court in a multipronged effort to challenge this government's anti-energy, anti-private sector, pro-red tape Bill C-69, because it risks drowning out the voices of locally impacted indigenous communities who seek economic and resource opportunities on and around their lands. I make mention of the Woodland Cree because, despite all of the resources and the ability on the government's side, the Woodland Cree won.

It's been 122 days since the Supreme Court said that less than 10% of Bill C-69 is constitutional and that the rest is largely unconstitutional, yet those indigenous communities and all Canadians wait for this anti-energy, NDP-Liberal costly coalition to do something about that Supreme Court ruling, to fix that bill that Conservatives warned would result in exactly what has happened.

It's the fact that the Trans Mountain expansion was supposed to have been operating in 2019, but this federal government's deliberate, politically motivated failure to assert legal and political jurisdiction to ensure and prove that the project could actually get built by its private sector proponent delayed and risked the more than 40 indigenous mutual benefit agreements that their communities have worked years to secure with the private sector proponent.

That's even after the federal Liberals took the opportunity to redo their failed consultation after a federal court said they failed the first time around. After eight years, of course, the TMX is still not fully built or operational, and indigenous-led ownership groups are left waiting by this NDP-Liberal anti-energy coalition.

I think about the 15 losses of LNG projects since this government took office because of their anti-private sector, anti-energy red tape mess. We salute Woodfibre LNG, which has a groundbreaking partnership and proposal with the Squamish people as a regulator. They are entrepreneurial and leading their communities for economic and energy business opportunities.

LNG Canada was previously approved by the Harper Conservative government and then delayed by the NDP-Liberals. Thank goodness it's starting to be back on track. All 20 first nations along the route of the pipeline supplying LNG Canada have had elected band council signed benefit agreements with the private sector proposal from Coastal GasLink.

The Liberal red tape mess has killed energy and resource opportunity, over and over, for indigenous communities and for all of Canadians. I think of the indigenous communities who want to develop the ring of fire in Ontario and are speaking out because of the red tape mess of the regional assessments from Bill C-69. So far, they are lengthily delayed and roadblocked in their pursuit of essential infrastructure and economic opportunities in the region.

Both Webequie and Marten Falls first nations communities have proposed projects to support their development in the ring of fire region, but have been stuck in the Liberals' red tape mess.

I think of leaders like Dale Swampy of the National Coalition of Chiefs and Stephen Buffalo of the Indian Resource Council, who have fought against this colonialist, anti-Canadian agenda—

National Strategy on Flood and Drought Forecasting Act

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to acknowledge you because you are my MP when we are here in Ottawa. I live in your riding of Gatineau.

Climate change is real. Humans are contributing to climate change and so humans need to help reduce the impact of it. The bill that was introduced by my colleague from Lac-Saint-Louis seeks to “establish a national strategy respecting flood and drought forecasting”.

I want to commend the member for his commitment to this issue. He is the chair of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development. Right now, the committee is conducting a study on water quality and the challenges related to the impacts of climate change on water. We are having some very interesting discussions on that. Dozens of witnesses are contributing to the debate. We are tremendously pleased about that. Last Thursday, a lot of people from Quebec were there. It was highly informative. I would like to commend the member for his bill and for his participation in the public debate on environmental issues.

Basically, this bill seeks to create a national registry of environmental and water initiatives in order to identify and share best practices from across Canada. It also talks about what the government and the public can do to improve the situation. That is basically what it is about.

We agree in principle with this bill. Coordinating the provinces' general actions is part of the federal government's job, along with sharing best practices and pooling information on what can be done and how to do it. However, this presents certain challenges.

We know that, as it happens, the current government is a bit greedy when it comes to the watershed line, as it were, between what the provinces can do and what the feds can do. It has a penchant for interfering. Let us not forget Bill C-69. The federal government gave itself veto power over hydroelectric projects, including projects in Quebec. This has never been done before. If, heaven forbid, the federal government had had veto power over the hydroelectric projects that were developed in the 1950s and carried out in the 1960s, we might not have as many good facilities as we do now, as many good hydroelectric plants. We have to be alert when this government suggests coordinating actions, because the most important thing it must do is respect the different areas of jurisdiction. I will give a specific example.

Last spring, we all saw the fires ravaging several parts of Canada. On June 5, the Leader of the Opposition, the member for Carleton, made a commitment, saying it would be great if we could share the best ways to fight forest fires, including with CL-415 water bombers. I should note that the CL-415, which fights forest fires, is a completely Canadian invention that we can all be proud of. We are proud that it is used around the world. We are recognized as being the best in the world in this area. However, we still need to look after our own country. That is why the Leader of the Opposition suggested that better coordination could help when the time comes to fight forest fires.

We have a concern about that. As for flooding, I would like to remind the House that our party, the Conservatives, has been in favour of conservation for years. I offer our 2019 campaign platform as proof. Our platform included a very long, substantial section on issues related to flooding, water and conservation. I would like to acknowledge our former colleague from Manitoba, Robert Sopuck, who contributed a lot to this section. He is still advocating for the environment and conservation, especially water, within our party, and we are very proud of him.

We have been aware of this reality for years. The work must be done, but it must be done collaboratively. When we study the bill in committee, our questions will be focused on finding out whether it will lead to new spending. We believe the Canadian government currently has enough human resources to provide assistance and work on reducing the environmental impact. We also have to ensure these people can do their job properly in their field of expertise. Sharing knowledge and best practices does not require hiring new people.

Let me remind members that whenever the government spends a dollar, it is not the government's dollar it is spending. That money comes from taxpayers and businesses or from tax that was collected and is being invested elsewhere. This is why we will be very vigilant when looking into this situation, because every dollar spent is not the government's dollar, but one it has taken from the pockets of taxpayers or businesses who would want to spend it differently. Care must be taken in these situations.

I also want to say that the environment is of paramount importance to us and that we must deal with climate challenges. I would remind the House that in September, we held a national convention that was attended by more than 2,500 people. At that convention, the leader of the official opposition, who is the leader of the Conservative Party of Canada and member for Carleton, gave a very important speech that we Conservatives now refer to as the “Quebec City speech”. It was not our election platform, but it expressed the party's broad ambitions, the overall vision we will have if we should happen to be lucky enough to be entrusted by Canadians to form the next government. We will let Canadians decide.

A key part of that speech involved environmental issues. Our leader recognized, like everyone else, that climate change is real, that we need to adapt to it and that adapting means taking an approach that is pragmatic, not dogmatic. The goal is to reduce pollution across the country. Reducing pollution is a daily challenge that never ends.

Reducing, reducing, it is a never-ending story. We have a continuous debate, a continuous fight, against emissions and against pollution, but we have to reduce it by pragmatic actions, not dogmatic taxation.

That is why our leader carefully laid out the three pillars of our environmental approach, along with everything underpinning it.

The first pillar is investment in new technologies to reduce pollution through tax incentives. We are well aware that the new technologies that are currently being developed the key to reducing pollution. We need to provide tax incentives. That does not mean per-tonne subsidies, but tax credits to help people who know why they are polluting find a way to reduce that pollution. We in Ottawa are not going to tell them what to do, but we are going to encourage them to take action to reduce pollution through tax incentives.

The second pillar is green-lighting green energy. We need green energy in Canada. We need more solar and wind power. We need geothermal power. We also need to be more open to nuclear energy. We need to speed up the green energy process by green-lighting it.

The third pillar is developing Canada's full potential. Canada has all the know-how it needs to reduce pollution. We have tremendous energy capabilities. Our extraordinary natural resources are the envy of every country in the world. It is unfortunate that we are not developing our full potential. Why is that?

Here is an example. Last week, the École des hautes études commerciales published its annual report on energy use in Quebec, which told us two things. First, fossil fuel consumption in Quebec has increased by 7%. Second, 48% of the oil consumed in Quebec comes from the United States. I have nothing against Louisiana and Texas, but why are we sending billions of dollars to the United States when we produce oil in this country? We need to develop Canada's full potential when it comes to energy and natural resources.

There is a fourth element, which is the cornerstone of the three pillars, in a way: We have to work hand in hand with first nations. Last March, the man we want to be prime minister, the member for Carleton and Leader of the Opposition, made a commitment to first nations. He said the days of giving them a cheque and then asking them to get out of the way were over. He promised to work with first nations and create wealth when something happens on their traditional territory. This commitment was confirmed last Thursday in British Columbia.

The future belongs to those who capitalize on high tech, green energy, Canadian potential and working hand in hand with first nations. That is our environmental approach.

Natural Resources

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am returning to a question I asked in question period on October 18, 2023, just last fall. The question was asked five days after the Supreme Court of Canada struck down sections of the government's bill on environmental assessment, which it redubbed “impact assessment” and which came forward through Bill C-69.

I practised environmental law. I will briefly share with the chamber that I actually worked in the Mulroney government and took a draft environmental assessment law through to the Privy Council to get permission for the government of the day to bring forward the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, which ultimately entered into force around 1993. It went through several changes. It was an excellent piece of legislation; it worked well. It was repealed under an omnibus budget bill under Prime Minister Stephen Harper's government and was struck down and eliminated by Bill C-38 in spring 2012. That was more than lamentable.

When the new government came in, in 2015, the current Prime Minister gave a mandate letter to the former minister of environment, Catherine McKenna, to fix this. Tragically, she ignored the advice of environmental experts, even those she had empanelled.

What I asked on October 18 was whether the new Minister of Environment and the Minister of Justice would follow the excellent advice of the expert panel on environmental assessment law that was chaired by former Chair of the BAPE, Johanne Gélinas, and many environmental experts, and which was thoroughly supported, certainly by the Green Party and by me. I asked whether we would follow the advice that the essence of environmental assessment law is to evaluate the projects of the federal government itself: at a minimum, the panel said, federal land, federal money or where federal permits are issued. There was an additional list of concerns.

Tragically, the government ignored the advice. It took the advice of the Impact Assessment Agency itself. What I asked the minister on October 18 was whether the government would now commit to reviewing and putting in place the recommendations. An excellent opportunity was created by the court's striking down, as I completely predicted it would, the sections that were based on the designated project list itself, a creation of Harper's Bill C-38, which was a terrible way of weakening environmental law while at the same time failing to honour federal jurisdiction.

The minister missed the point of my question and merely said that they were going to fix it. I am desperately worried they are going to do a quick fix, and that in the quick fix, they will once again listen to the advice of the wrong people.

I beg the parliamentary secretary to tell us tonight that the government will follow the advice of the expert panel that gave them the right road to fixing the environmental assessment law in this country.

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

I look forward to seeing what those are because I think that will be needed for this bill to actually pass without there being any issues, as your former Bill C-69 has encountered.

Now, Minister, does the government measure the annual amount of emissions that are directly reduced from the federal carbon tax?

[Clifford Small, Conservative, Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL]

—to destroy the confidence in Newfoundland and Labrador's offshore oil and gas industry with Bill C-69, on which we're waiting to see version two, because it's unconstitutional. That was referenced over 30 times.

We have this bill—

[Clifford Small, Conservative, Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL]

I have just one quick question left.

Can this bill be valid with the over 30 references to Bill C-69, which has been proven to be unconstitutional? Can this bill move forward with those many references to Bill C-69, yes or no?

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

You acknowledged his point of order, and you let him make his speech, so I'm assuming you're going to apply your approach equally to me. In response to his point of order, I will just clarify, because I know he's wondering.

Conservatives opposed Bill C-49 because it will end Atlantic offshore petroleum development, which the private sector already showed by putting in zero bids after this legislation was introduced, which clearly gave them the signal. You can see that because, the year before, there were five bids worth hundreds of millions of dollars. We also opposed Bill C-49 because it will introduce uncertainty and lack of clarity. It is based on the unconstitutional Bill C-69, which will open it up to challenges and hinder the development of offshore renewable technology, too.

That, to be clear, is why Conservatives oppose Bill C-69. We will accelerate traditional oil and gas for the—

[Clifford Small, Conservative, Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL]

Yes, exactly. Bill C-49 was introduced in May. After that, anyone building a bid stopped. They pulled the resources away. There were zero dollars flowing to our offshore for bidding up parcels for exploration. At the same time, in the Gulf of Mexico, bids were almost $400 million. Exploration companies were tripping over each other while they walked away from us.

Do you agree with industry stakeholders that the uncertainty introduced by the unconstitutional Bill C-69 and the amendments you propose through the Atlantic Accord might be a little responsible for that investment walking away from Newfoundland and Labrador?

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

—in Bill C-69, the minister has the power to interfere, stop, start or extend the timeline of any project assessment for any condition the minister deems necessary. That's why Bill C-69 causes such uncertainty.

My concern is that the clauses from Bill C-69 are in Bill C-49. I will quote what the Supreme Court said about a section. It said that this section “grants the decision maker a practically untrammelled power to regulate projects...regardless of...jurisdiction”.

This is the problem. It's the issue of political interference being able to set new conditions. Also, there's the impact of being able to unilaterally declare antidevelopment zones. It causes great uncertainty for offshore development on offshore petroleum, but also any private sector proponent who wants to get into developing offshore renewables—

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

It was zero. There were no bids. This is my concern. The same story is being seen in production such that in 2020, Newfoundland and Labrador produced over 100 million barrels of offshore petroleum per day. Today—and I know you know this better than almost anyone—that's fallen over 35% to less than 67 million barrels per day.

Those are the consequences of layers and layers of anti-energy policies and legislation. That's why Conservatives oppose Bill C-49. It's very clear that the uncertainty and lack of clarity—and the proof is already in the pudding—will end offshore petroleum development. The truth is that the lack of certainty and lack of clarity will also be barriers to private sector proponents who want to develop offshore renewables, because they require the same things around certainty, clarity and consistency.

I wonder if you, like me, will call on your minister to fix Bill C-69 since Bill C-69 is full of sections that have already been declared unconstitutional. Those sections are in Bill C-49. That causes exactly the same kind of uncertainty regarding clarity that will prevent offshore petroleum developers and private sector proponents who want to to get into offshore wind renewables.

Are you also concerned that the government has not done a single thing to fix Bill C-69 in 110 days and that Bill C-49 includes proposed sections 61, 62, 169 and 170, which all come from Bill C-69 and are all unconstitutional?

Opposition Motion—Carbon Tax

[Clifford Small, Conservative, Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my hon. colleague, the member for Kootenay—Columbia, which is such a pleasure. British Columbia will always have a dear spot in my heart because I lived there myself.

On behalf of the great people of Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame who have entrusted me to come here and bring their thoughts to this place, I stand today to beg the Liberal-NDP coalition to not increase the carbon tax by 23% on April 1.

After eight long years of the Liberal government, people of Newfoundland and Labrador are tired. They say it is has gone past its expiry date. People are hurting; they have had enough, yet the Prime Minister jets off to the Caribbean and has an $89,000 vacation passed on to him for free by one of his rich friends. However, that is not the sad part. While he is taxing Canadians with the carbon tax to slow us down on our burning of fossil fuels, in one week he puts 100 tonnes of emissions into the atmosphere, while the average Canadian puts out just 15 tonnes of emissions per year.

People are hurting. The inflationary carbon tax hits the farmers who grow the food, the truckers who truck the food, the grocers who sell the food and the consumers who simply drive to the grocery store to buy the food. This is why the Conservative Party put forward Bill C-234, which would take the tax off farmers who grow the food.

We have heard some rhetoric from the NDP-Liberal coalition. My hon. colleague for St. John's South—Mount Pearl, with his famous words last year, said he was sick and tired of people's talking about a cold winter and what they are doing. Then there is my colleague, the member for Avalon, who sometimes does not know whether he is coming or going when it comes to the carbon tax. We will see, I guess, where he stands on Monday. We hope that he does not just turn into a quicker flipper-flopper-upper and that he hangs in there and supports his constituents. I know where I stand; I stand with the people.

Last week, the CBC interviewed me and wanted some comments about the statement from my colleague, the member for Avalon, about the desire for a leadership review. I told them that I understood the member's frustration after seeing his leader being involved in the Aga Khan scandal, SNC Lavalin and the WE scandal. After all, his leader is the son of the guy who brought home the Constitution. It is unbelievable to see the Prime Minister continuously working against the Constitution, which his dad was so proud of. For example, there was the unconstitutional use of the Emergencies Act, the single-use plastics ban, the oil and gas emissions cap, the unconstitutional Bill C-69, the environmental impact assessment bill. Now we are being face with Bill C-49 in committee, which references, 73 times, the unconstitutional Bill C-69.

The Liberals want to stop the production of oil off Newfoundland and Labrador, and in fact in all of Canada. They want to tax us and surrender the production of our clean, environmentally soundly produced oil with good labour standards and turn that production over to dictators with bad human rights records who produce dirty oil, under no environmental regulations for the most part.

If the NDP-Liberal coalition wanted to do something about cutting world emissions, it would be turning its attention to coal. In 2023, coal usage in the world set a record. Next year, it is going to go to new record heights.

Meanwhile, Canadians are being punished with a carbon tax. Coal produces 40% of the world's emissions. Natural gas produces half of the emissions coal does. The Chancellor of Germany came last year, begging us to supply Germany with liquefied natural gas to get it off dictator Putin's natural gas and to support the people of Ukraine. The Prime Minister said there was no business case for producing liquefied natural gas on Canada's east coast. Newfoundland and Labrador is the closest point to Europe in North America. We have trillions of cubic feet of natural gas sitting there, being reinjected, which we could bring ashore—

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

—include the unconstitutional sections from Bill C-69. Thanks, Chair.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

I quoted you the section of Bill C-69 that is in Bill C-49. I quoted the section of Bill C-49 that brings in the unconstitutional section from Bill C-69, Minister.

[Jonathan Wilkinson, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

You said Bill C-69.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Minister, I would suggest that uncertainty is being caused by a government that has not moved in 108 days to fix a piece of legislation that you yourself claim is the cornerstone of your environmental and regulatory policies, one the Supreme Court said, in large part, was unconstitutional. Speaking of those unconstitutional sections, section 64 of Bill C-69 is in Bill C-49—

[Clifford Small, Conservative, Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL]

Mr. Wilkinson, I don't think they're weak leaders.

Proposed section 56.1 gives you the unilateral power, with the unconstitutional Bill C-69, to create marine protected areas, so that you can pull development and exploration permits without an environmental impact study.

In 2023, we saw a record 37 parcels of leases put forward off the east coast of Newfoundland and Labrador. How many of those were actually bought?

[Rick Perkins, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

This process, we know, has resulted in almost no energy projects being approved since Bill C-69 has been implemented. You're going to apply that cumbersome and awful process not only to offshore oil and gas, but also to offshore wind.

Even without that, in November a proposal for an exploratory well off Nova Scotia was suspended by you after approval by this board, and then it was rejected. In the 30 days in between, you said in the media that in your decision about whether or not to veto it, you needed to talk to interest groups like the Sierra Club. Did you talk to anyone else besides the Sierra Club?

[Jonathan Wilkinson, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

Again, Bill C-69 had three pieces of legislation in it, so you are referring to the Impact Assessment Act and not to the Canadian Navigable Waters Act and the Canadian Energy Regulator Act.

[Rick Perkins, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Minister.

I just want to make sure that everybody is clear, because a lot of statements have been made here.

As a Nova Scotia MP and member of the Conservative caucus, I will say that we support the development of offshore wind if it's economical and works and does not displace existing important industries, like our commercial fisheries. Also, we don't support the imposition of the Bill C-69 processes on the development of all offshore energy off Nova Scotia.

You said that the new processes from Bill C-69, which are in this bill, only apply to the review of offshore wind, but that's not the way I read the bill or the way most people see the bill. It's a new process for reviewing all offshore energy projects. These two boards will not be following the process they follow now for offshore oil and gas or for wind. They'll be following the Bill C-69 processes through the IAA. Is that not true?

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Under the current legislation, the federal minister has 30 days to respond to a recommendation from the regulator on offshore oil development. Under your Bill C-49, Minister—and it's good that you have the provincial minister included and we support that—that would be 90 days. That's a tripling of the timeline. Not only that, but the same powers exist there as exist in Bill C-69 for the timeline to be extended for any reason, at any time, at the minister's discretion.

That uncertainty is exactly what has killed foreign investment in Canada and energy development in Canada from traditional sources, and it's exactly the kind of approach that will also kill renewable, alternative and wind offshore opportunities for Atlantic Canadians.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

It's interesting you would say that, because of course the sections of Bill C-69 that have been declared unconstitutional, which are also the sections in Bill C-49, have to do with roles and responsibility and timelines of decision-making. This is also why we need to do our due diligence on your Bill C-49, because what it does is triple the timeline for future regulatory decisions on offshore wind development.

The reality, after eight years of this government, is that you have been hell-bent on killing the energy sector, with the prairie provinces as your top target. However, that has impacted every province of the country, including Newfoundland and Labrador, which has a higher percentage of their GDP in oil and gas than Alberta does.

The truth about Bill C-69 is that it will end offshore petroleum drilling, which certainly is your intention. That's what you love to fly around the world announcing. Meanwhile, this bill, as written, will hinder and hamper investment in alternative renewable offshore wind development because that requires certainty, predictability, fairness and efficient timelines. You want this bill to be passed, fast-tracked, with all of the timelines, all of the red tape and all the inefficiencies from Bill C-69 in it, and you won't even give a date for when you're going to fix it.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

There sure is. This is why I'm asking.

Here's Bill C-49. I don't know if you've read it, but I hope you have. All of these yellow tabs are sections from Bill C-69—every single one. Look at how many there are, Minister. You're coming here telling us members of Parliament that we should fast-track and pass this bill when it's been 108 days and you still can't give a concrete answer as to when you're bringing in legislation to fix the mess that you created. Now you want members of Parliament to abandon their due diligence. You want Atlantic members of Parliament in the official opposition to abandon their responsibilities to their constituents, to the people of Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador, which they will not do. It's their right to do due diligence.

You want us to pass a bill that is full of sections that the Supreme Court of Canada has declared unconstitutional. How can you justify that?

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Here's why I'm asking you that question, Minister. First of all, the Supreme Court ruling that major sections of Bill C-69 were largely unconstitutional was 108 days ago. As the Minister of Natural Resources, it's actually shocking that you have not yet fixed the legislation. It is the backbone for regulatory review and decision-making for investments in traditional oil and gas development and in alternative renewal energy development. Then there's the whole swath of your constitutional overreach in that bill. Conservatives warned you that Bill C-69 would be unconstitutional in all the factors the Supreme Court of Canada ruled on, which you haven't yet fixed. It's shocking that it's 108 days ago, and you still can only say it's in a few months.

[Jonathan Wilkinson, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

When you say Bill C-69, which of the three laws are you referring to?

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Thank you, Chair. I appreciate that.

Minister, happy new year and thanks for being here.

On what date will your government bring forward legislation to fix Bill C-69, which has been unconstitutional for half a decade?

Fall Economic Statement Implementation Act, 2023

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Leader of the Opposition]

Happy new year, Mr. Speaker.

This is my first time rising in the House in 2024, and I want to wish everyone a happy new year.

It is 2024, and the Prime Minister is not worth the cost. That is the reality. That was the reality in 2023 and 2022, but the cost keeps going up every year.

That is why the Conservative Party has a very focused common-sense plan. We have four priorities that we want to work on in Parliament, and they are to axe the tax, build the homes, fix the budget and stop crime.

After eight years in office, this Prime Minister has managed to drive up the cost of living at the fastest pace in 40 years by doubling the national debt and printing $600 billion. He has increased inflation and interest rates at the expense of the working class and our seniors, and he did so with the support of the Bloc Québécois. The Bloc Québécois completely agrees with the exorbitant spending increases and the cost of government, which are creating a burden for Quebeckers. The Bloc Québécois voted in favour of all of this government spending in the fall of 2023. It supported the tax increases on gas, which punish Quebec farmers and workers.

The common-sense Conservative Party is the only one offering an alternative to this destructive and costly policy implemented on the backs of Quebeckers.

First, we will eliminate the second carbon tax, which does indeed apply to Quebec.

Second, we will control spending by eliminating waste. We are going to get rid of the $35-billion infrastructure bank, which has not delivered a single project for Canadians. We will get rid of the ArriveCAN app and the so-called green fund which, according to the officials involved, is now a scandal on par with the sponsorship scandal. We will cut spending on consultants, who now cost every Canadian family $1,400. In eight years, this Prime Minister has doubled the amount spent on outside consultants. These are extraordinary costs that do not produce results for Canadians. It is work that could have been done by the government, by public servants, whose numbers have ballooned by 50%.

We are going to introduce a common-sense law, a dollar-for-dollar law. Every time ministers in my government increase spending by one dollar, they are going to have to find one dollar in savings to offset that spending. Instead of increasing the national debt, inflation and taxes, we are going to cap spending. Once the government is forced to reduce the cost that falls on the backs of our people, it will enable workers, businesses and our economy to grow.

Let us talk about our workers. There is a war on work right now. Workers are being punished with sky-high tax rates that claw back more and more of every dollar they earn. A common-sense Conservative government will lower taxes and reward work here in Canada, for our workers, small businesses and all Canadians, so that we can be a country that rewards work.

We will protect the paycheques of ordinary Canadians and ensure that they can earn bigger paycheques by doing away with unconstitutional laws that prevent natural resource projects from going ahead. We will allow Quebeckers to build dams and develop mines and other projects that generate wealth for our country, instead of sending money to China or other countries that are dictatorships. We will keep that money for ourselves, so that Canadians can have bigger paycheques. We are also going to build houses.

After eight years under this Prime Minister, the cost of housing has doubled, rent has doubled, the money needed for a mortgage on an average house has doubled, and the down payment needed to buy that same house has also doubled. In Montreal, it has tripled.

After eight years under this Prime Minister, the cost of a two-bedroom apartment in Montreal has increased from $760, when I was the housing minister eight years ago, to $2,200 now. Red tape has blocked the construction of 25,000 housing units over the past six years. Thousands of construction projects across the country are in limbo because of red tape. In Vancouver, whose former NDP mayor is incredibly incompetent, it is even worse. He added additional costs of $1.3 million to each housing development built. These increases are tied directly to the red tape and taxes charged by the governments.

In Quebec City, I had the opportunity to meet Mr. Trudel with my Quebec lieutenant. He told me that $500 of the monthly rent for these apartments goes toward taxes and red tape, the costs charged by the government. For apartments that rent for $1,000, half of that amount covers only the taxes and the bureaucracy. That cost is too high. That is why a common-sense Conservative government will encourage municipalities to speed up construction instead of obstructing it.

The federal government pays out $5 billion to municipalities through the sales tax program. Quebec receives about $1 billion. There are already a lot of conditions attached to that money, a lot of federal conditions. However, those conditions do not include accelerating construction. That is why we are going to work with the Quebec government on a new infrastructure agreement that incentivizes construction. We will tie the amount of money that each municipality receives to the number of houses and apartments completed in the previous year. That would mean that municipalities like Victoriaville, Saguenay and Trois-Rivières would receive substantial bonuses, because there has been a huge boom in construction there. Last year, for example, construction increased by 30% in those municipalities. That should be rewarded. Real estate companies are paid according to the number of homes they sell. Construction companies are paid according to the number of houses they build. We should pay local bureaucracies on the basis of the number of homes they allow to be built. This would encourage the acceleration of construction.

We should also insist that every transit station be located near apartment buildings. Transit stations should be surrounded by large apartment towers. Across Canada, in Vancouver, Montreal and elsewhere, we see beautiful transit stations, yet there is almost no housing around them. It is ridiculous.

The federal government provides funding, but often a third or a half of the amount needed. We should insist that this money not be invested if there are no apartment buildings where our seniors and young people can live next to a public transit station. That is how we are going to speed up home construction. We are going to insist that CMHC provide funding for apartment buildings within two months, not two years. Executives should be fired unless they meet that deadline. Finally, these homes should be located in safe communities.

After eight years under the leadership of this Prime Minister, crime has increased by nearly 40%. He has increased crime by allowing the same small groups of repeat offenders to keep committing the same crimes over and over, and by letting them out on bail the very same day they are arrested.

A Conservative government will replace bail with jail. We will target real criminals who use guns and seal our borders instead of targeting hunters and sport shooters. We will treat and rehabilitate people with drug addictions instead of decriminalizing crack, cocaine and other drugs, as the Prime Minister has already done in partnership with the NDP in British Columbia.

What I have been describing here is common sense. This is the kind of common sense used by ordinary Canadians. For decades, there was a common-sense Liberal-Conservative consensus that led to our extraordinary success. A Conservative government will rebuild that consensus to give Canadians back the country they love and deserve. That is our goal. We are going to axe the tax, build the homes, fix the budget and, finally, stop the crime. It is common sense, and that is what we are going to do.

Madam Speaker, I wish you a happy new year. It is 2024 and the Prime Minister is still not worth the cost. He is not worth the crime. He is not worth giving up the country that we know and love. After eight years, everything costs more, crime is running rampant, housing costs have doubled, the country is more divided than ever before, and the Prime Minister seeks to distract and attack anyone who disagrees with him in order to make people forget how miserable he has made life in this country after nearly a decade in power.

Our common-sense counterpoint is very focused. In this session of Parliament, we will fight to axe the tax, build the homes, fix the budget and stop the crime. That is how we are going to turn around the mess the Prime Minister has created in eight years.

Let us quickly touch upon that mess. After eight years of the Prime Minister, housing costs have doubled. This is after he promised that those housing costs would go down. In fact, they rose 40% faster than incomes, the worst gap in the G7 by far and the second worst among all 40 OECD nations. It is twice as bad as the OECD average, with roughly a quarter of OECD countries actually seeing housing affordability improve over the last eight years. Here in Canada, under the Prime Minister, we have seen it worsen at the fastest rate in the entire G7.

The Prime Minister has created a situation where only 26% of Canadians are able to afford a single-family home. It now takes 25 years to save up for a down payment on the average home for the average Toronto family, when 25 years used to be the time it took to pay off a mortgage. After eight years of the Prime Minister, it is now more affordable to buy a 20-bedroom castle in Scotland than a two-bedroom condo in Kitchener.

After eight years of the Prime Minister, a criminal defence lawyer reported on Twitter that numerous clients have asked if she can help extend their prison sentences so they do not have to live in this housing market and find a place to rent. In other words, the Prime Minister's housing market is worse than prison by the judgment of several people who actually live in prison.

After eight years of the Prime Minister, we have 16 seniors crammed into a four-bedroom home in Oshawa according to its food bank, which told me it had to house middle-class seniors together. They are all losing their homes because of the incredible rent increase the Prime Minister's policies have caused.

We have homelessness skyrocketing across the country. Every town and centre now has homeless encampments. Halifax has 30 homeless encampments for one medium-sized city. After eight years of the Prime Minister, who would have imagined that we would have 30 homeless encampments in one city, but that is the misery that he has created through his policies that are not worth the cost of housing.

Meanwhile, the Prime Minister makes the problem worse. He gives tax dollars to incompetent mayors and bureaucracies to block homebuilding. The worst incompetence, of course, has been by the former mayor and the present mayor of Toronto, and the former mayor of Vancouver blocking construction in those cities and making it uninhabitable for many of the people who should be able to afford a home. We now have the second-slowest building permits of any country in the OECD. That is why we have the fewest homes in the G7, even with the most land by far to build on.

We were told that the media darling Minister of Housing, who was brought in in the fall, was going to fix all of this. He was going to hold photo ops right across the country, and all of a sudden there would be more building. What happened was that housing construction actually went down. There was a 7% reduction in housing last year under the leadership of the current housing minister.

Is it any surprise, when the guy who destroyed our immigration system was put in charge of housing, that we got a destructive result? It is not me accusing him of ruining the immigration system. It is his own Liberal successor. The current Liberal Minister of Immigration says that the system is out of control. In his own words, he claims that his predecessor was giving study visas for students to come and study at what he calls “puppy mills”. Those are his terms. I would never have used that term. It is insulting. They are actually human beings, not dogs. That is the language we get from the current immigration minister to describe the chaos that his own predecessor caused in the international student program and the temporary foreign worker program, not to mention countless other programs that have now been overwhelmed by fraudsters, shady consultants and bureaucratic incompetence. Now they take the guy who ruined all of that and say that this is the guy they are bringing in to resolve the housing crisis.

It is no wonder it gets worse and worse by the day. The Liberals' only defence is that they are spending lots of money. Failing is bad and failing expensively is even worse. That is what the Prime Minister has done after eight years. It is not only in housing. It is in generalized inflation. After eight years, inflation hit 40-year highs. After eight years, the Prime Minister has increased the cost of food so quickly that there are now two million Canadians, a record-smashing number, who are required to go to food banks in a single month. We have students forced to live in homeless shelters in order to afford food. We have seniors who say they have to live in tents in order to be able to shop and feed themselves, because food prices have risen so high.

In Toronto, one in 10 Torontonians are now going to a food bank, enough to fill the Rogers Centre seven times. If the monthly users of the food bank in Toronto alone were to go to the Rogers Centre, the place would have to be filled seven separate times, just to accommodate them all. Who would have thought we would have this many hungry people in Canada's biggest city, a city that has elected no one but Liberals since 2015? This is the result from that.

In that same city, crime and chaos rage out of control. In the adjoining suburbs, we now have stories of extortion, where small businesses receive letters saying that if they do not fork over big dollars to international crime syndicates, they will be shot at, their houses will be burned, their families will be targeted, and the government does nothing to protect them. Who would have thought that Canada would be so vulnerable to this kind of criminality and chaos that these foreign criminal syndicates would think Canada so weak and so easy to target that they could go after innocent small business leaders and their families in order to shake them down for money? Yet that is what has happened.

These same business owners go to bed at night with one eye open, because they know their car could be stolen as they sleep. I told some stories yesterday to the caucus, incredible stories of people in Brampton whose cars just vanished in the middle of the night. The cars go over to Montreal where they are put on a ship and sent off to the Middle East, Africa or Europe where they are resold at a profit. They are not even inspected as they go onto the ships in these containers.

Meanwhile, the Prime Minister spends billions of dollars trying to buy back the legitimate property of licensed law-abiding firearms owners. He believes that the problem is the hunter from Nunavut or the professional sport shooter from Nanaimo, when in fact the real problem is the criminals.

Common-sense Conservatives are going to put an end to this madness. We are going to bring home the country we know and love. Let us go through the common-sense plan.

We are going to bring home lower prices by axing the carbon tax. It starts with passing Bill C-234 to axe the tax on farmers and food so farmers can make the food and Canadians can afford to eat it. Let us pass the bill unamended today and let Canadians eat affordable food. It is very easy. The House of Commons passed it once before. The Senate, under duress and pressure from the current Prime Minister, then sent it back with unnecessary amendments. Now the other opposition parties are flip-flopping and wavering. They agree in principle with the Liberal plan to quadruple the carbon tax, but say they might consider giving farmers a break on it. Now they are not so sure. They are siding with the costly Prime Minister again on keeping the tax on our farmers. Every time our people go to the grocery store and see those rising prices they will know that the NDP has betrayed working-class people in favour of greedy government with higher taxes on farmers and the single moms who are struggling to feed their families.

We are going to axe the tax on home heat not just for some or for a short time, but for everybody, everywhere, always. Common-sense Conservatives call on the Prime Minister to be consistent and not just temporarily pause the tax in regions where his polls are plummeting and his caucus is revolting, but rather let us axe the tax for every Canadian household to heat their homes in this devastatingly cold winter. It is incredible how cold it was in Edmonton, -50°C, and the Liberal member for Edmonton Centre voted to tax the heat of Edmontonians. Not only that, the Liberal member for Edmonton Centre wants to quadruple the carbon tax on the home heat of Edmontonians, so over the next several years, as the winter cold comes in and people crank up their heat, their bills will rise increasingly faster. In some places now the carbon tax is more expensive than the actual gas that people are buying. We are going to be sharing the bills that some of my caucus members have so that everybody knows how badly the Prime Minister and his NDP coalition are ripping off Canadians for the crime of heating themselves in -50°C weather. We are the only party that will axe the tax for them and for everyone, everywhere, always.

Our common-sense plan to bring home lower prices includes capping the spending that has driven inflation, the $600-billion increase in spending and debt, which means printing money. Printing money bids up the goods we buy and the interest we pay. In fact, government spending is up 75% since the Prime Minister took office. He has nearly doubled the cost of the government at a time when the economy has barely grown at all. In fact, it is shrinking while the government is expanding, which means it is gobbling up an increasing share of a shrinking pie and there is less left for everyone else. Right now the government is rich and the people are poor, because the Prime Minister cannot stop spending, and his greedy NDP coalition counterparts push him to spend even more of other people's money. Our common-sense plan would cap spending and cut waste. We would get rid of the $35-billion Infrastructure Bank, the $54-million ArriveCAN app and the billion-dollar so-called green fund, which is really a slush fund.

We would cut back on the money wasted on consultant insiders, who now consume 21 billion tax dollars a year, an amount that is equal to $1,400 for every family in Canada. We would cut back on this waste to balance the budget, and bring down inflation and interest rates, so that Canadians can eat, heat and house themselves.

We are going to unleash the growth of our economy. Instead of creating more cash, we would create more of what cash buys. We have the most powerful resources, perhaps the greatest supply of natural resources per capita of any country on earth, and we are very good at harvesting those resources to the benefit of our people and our environment at the same time.

The Prime Minister, with the help of the NDP, has been driving the production to other countries, where they pollute more, burn more coal and add more greenhouse gases to the atmosphere. The Prime Minister would drive the production away from Canadians, who use among the cleanest electricity grids on Planet Earth, instead of bringing it home to this country. Our common-sense plan would repeal Bill C-69 and replace it with a new law that would not only protect the environment and consult first nations but also get projects built so that we can bring home paycheques for our people and take the money away from the dirty dictators of the world.

I was able to recently announce our new candidate in the Skeena—Bulkley Valley riding, the great Ellis Ross, former chief of the Haisla Nation. He is responsible for bringing Canada the biggest-ever investment in its history, which is the LNG Canada project. It is a project that was approved by the former Harper government, and the only reason it was able to go ahead under this government is that it gave the project an exemption from the carbon tax. Had the tax applied, the project never would have occurred. Had Bill C-69, the anti-resource law, been in place, the project never would have happened.

By the government's own admission, this project will reduce greenhouse gas emissions around the world by millions of tonnes because it will displace dirty, coal-fired electricity in Asia by sending clean, green Canadian natural gas, liquefied using hydroelectricity and our natural cold weather, and sent abroad on our shortest shipping distance, which means burning less fossil fuels to get it to market. This will displace more emission-intensive forms of energy in countries where they need to cut back. That is a solution to fight climate change and protect our environment, and thank God we had the visionary leadership of the great Ellis Ross to make that project happen, along with that of Stephen Harper.

Unfortunately, the Prime Minister has blocked every other LNG project from coming to fruition. There were 18 of these projects on the table when he took office, not one of them is completed. Only the aforementioned—

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

I had my staff do just a bit more research on “Indigenous governing body”. I asked them to do a search on where that term also exists.

The term exists in Bill C-35, the early learning and child care in Canada act; in Bill C-23, an act respecting places, persons and events of national historic significance or national interest, archaeological resources and cultural and natural heritage; the Corrections and Conditional Release Act; Bill C-91, an act respecting indigenous languages; Bill C-92, an act respecting first nations, Inuit and Métis children, youth and families; Bill C-68, an act to amend the Fisheries Act and other acts in consequence; Bill C-69, 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; and Bill C-97, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 19, 2019.

I haven't looked at how these might differ from each other.

Having said that, have you been able to assess whether or not there are similarities or differences between what's in this act and what these other acts might be?

Indigenous Affairs

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the PM said he values indigenous people most, but that is only true when they agree with him. After eight years, indigenous leaders fight the NDP-Liberals' anti-private sector, anti-resource, anti-energy agenda.

There are 130 Ontario first nations that will take the NDP-Liberals to court over their colonialist carbon tax. It does what Conservatives warned. Everything is more expensive. Those who can least afford it are hurting the most. Rural, remote and northern indigenous, and all, Canadians can hardly survive. They are forced to choose between heating, eating and housing.

B.C.'s Lax Kw'alaams sued over the NDP-Liberals' export ban, Bill C-48, to make its own decisions about jobs, energy and fish. Alberta's Woodland Cree sued over the unconstitutional “never build anything” bill, Bill C-69. Five years ago, Conservatives warned both bills would hurt indigenous people. The Liberals ignored that; it is death by delay.

Indigenous leaders oppose the emissions cap to cut production and the central plan of the just transition bill, Bill C-50, to kill the Canadian jobs and businesses where indigenous people work the most. The Liberals block indigenous-backed pipelines, the oil sands, LNG and roads to the Ring of Fire. They stop all the deals for education, recreation, health and wellness.

It is no wonder that the NDP-Liberals censor and cover up their costly anti-Canada collusion. Common-sense Conservatives will turn hurt into hope for indigenous and all Canadians.

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

Why are they suing you, then?

You work as well with them as you do with the provinces, it seems. On that note, the fact is that you said earlier that provinces say the feds shouldn't interfere with their natural resource development. I appreciate that you've acknowledged that. However, your track record in the courts this year doesn't add up, obviously, with Bill C-69, the “no more pipelines” bill, being slapped down by the Supreme Court, and a host of other cases being slapped down due to the unconstitutional nature of your imposition on the rights of the provinces to regulate their own prosperity in the natural resource sector.

This is my question to you: Did you seek external legal opinions over the constitutionality of your clean electricity regulations and your proposed methane regulations, particularly given the recent Supreme Court decisions regarding your imposition on the provinces?

[Rosemarie Falk, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

How are you going to justify supporting a policy that once again tramples over provincial jurisdiction, which was Bill C-69?

What is the government going to change if they take these opinions seriously?

[Rosemarie Falk, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

It's my time, Minister. Thank you.

If your government was actually interested in good public policy, it would work with provinces and respect their jurisdiction. We all know that recently the Supreme Court ruled that the “no more pipelines” bill, Bill C-69, was unconstitutional. It affirmed the provinces' jurisdiction over their natural resources.

Do you accept the Supreme Court's ruling?

[Devin Dreeshen]

Thank you for that, Madam Chair.

To quickly finish that thought, if every shipper moved away from Canadian ports, there would be no jobs at Canadian ports, just to put that in context.

To the member's specific question about any type of disruption, whether it be rail, our border with the U.S. or at ports, we take it very seriously as a provincial government. Those are federal jurisdictions, and that is why we've been calling on the federal government to bring in some changes to the Canada Labour Code so that the federal government.... These are federal jurisdictions, and we in Alberta stay in our lane when it comes to jurisdiction.

On Bill C-69, the Supreme Court ruled that the federal government was unconstitutional in allowing a federal impact assessment into provincial jurisdiction. Even if, as a transport minister, I had wanted to have a provincial road built, it would have fallen under the federal impact assessment, but thankfully the Supreme Court ruled that it was unconstitutional.

We're staying in our lane, which is why we've been calling on the federal government, whether it be on border crossings, on issues with rail or on critical infrastructure at the ports, to make sure it takes that seriously.

Again, to the point of the Montreal port, it was one day, and the same federal government introduced back-to-work legislation. We called for that same urgency to be used on the west coast port strike this last summer.

Consideration of Government Business No. 31

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

Mr. Speaker, this goes to show the view these parties in this House opposite the Conservatives hold about our oil and gas sector, our ag sector and every natural resource sector in this country, and it is so disheartening.

Centrally controlled leftist government economies have been tried around the world already, and it turns out they do not work. Canada must not follow the path of these countries of failed economies, like Cuba and Venezuela.

I recall a couple of weeks ago the member across the way for Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill lamenting at the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development how farmers protesting the Liberal political interference in the Senate over Bill C-234 was leading us toward being a “tinpot dictatorship.”

With Bill C-50 and its intent to destroy Canadian jobs with this egregious programming motion, I guess the definition of a tinpot dictatorship is in the eye of the beholder.

Since the Liberals are trying to curb criticism on this bill, let us dive into what Bill C-50 would actually do. I have many criticisms of it, as do my constituents. At its core, this piece of legislation would do three things to enable the NDP-Liberal coalition’s so-called just transition.

First, it would establish the sustainable jobs partnership council to advise the government on how to implement its vision, with its members appointed by the minister. This is a great way to get policy cover: appoint a bunch of one's friends who already hate Canada’s natural resource sector and agriculture sector to this council to help implement one's shared objective, without regard for the impact on the people I represent and hundreds of members of Parliament represent.

Even worse is that while the unjust transition intrudes on provincial jurisdiction, the council would not include provinces, nor would it even be required to consult with them. We should not be surprised, after Bill C-69, the no-more-pipelines bill, was slapped down by the Supreme Court for its intrusion on provinces. The Liberals' war on plastic straws was slapped down by the Federal Court, and the clean electricity regulations are certainly going to be slapped down very soon.

These Liberals have absolutely no regard for provincial jurisdiction and have learned nothing from these past failures. The only thing the Prime Minister has learned is a cavalier approach, like his father took, that Ottawa knows best.

Second, the legislation would require the minister to table a sustainable jobs action plan to Parliament every five years. In other words, the Liberals want to hire more bureaucrats to take time developing a plan to report on the jobs they are able to successfully destroy in this country.

The Liberal-NDP coalition will destroy jobs in Canada, because it does not like those types of jobs. It will do it with callous disregard for the rural communities those jobs support and still will not even hit its environmental targets, because of course it thinks the best way to reduce emissions is by reducing the size of our economy. While it has been doing its very best, those pesky, innovative Canadians just keep trying to grow things, to mine things, to manufacture things and to build things in this country.

Finally, the bill would create a sustainable jobs secretariat that would “support the implementation of the act”. In different terms, the Liberals are going to further add to the already bloated public service, costing taxpayers more. This is how Liberals actually think we should grow our economy. With every job numbers update that comes out, they always boast of any new jobs being created, but they never highlight where those jobs are being created. They are always a majority of public sector jobs.

These are part-time jobs for people picking up jobs to try to pay for the costly carbon tax-driven increase of their cost of living in this country. This is at a time when the federal government is paying more interest on our federal debt than it pays for health care in this country. Canadians can thank the Liberals and their friends in the speNDP for this abject failure of fiscal policy. This is what the Liberal-NDP government is trying to do. It is always trying to find ways to grow the size of government and is never trying to find ways to have Canadians gain meaningful work to feed, heat and house themselves.

While I have touched on some of the specifics of Bill C-50, let us talk more about this so-called just transition and what it would cost Canadians. This started back in 2019 with a platform commitment from the Liberals. At its heart, this just transition is planning on devastating our energy industry.

We can all recall when the Prime Minister said, “We can't shut down the oil sands tomorrow. We need to phase them out.” This is how the Liberals plan to do it. This is part of the many pieces of legislation where they plan to phase out our entire energy sector.

I recognize the Liberals have already gone to work on reducing the size of our economy with their reckless inflationary spending. In fact, Statistics Canada just reported that our economy shrank by 1.1% while the economy of the United States grew by 5.2%. As our great Conservative leader put it, its economy is roaring while ours is snoring.

However, the Liberal plan would take it to a whole new level. According to an internal briefing, the plan would kill 170,000 direct Canadian jobs, displace 450,000 workers directly and indirectly working in the energy sector and risk the livelihoods of 2.7 million Canadians working in agriculture, construction, energy, manufacturing and transportation.

These economic losses would not be felt equally, since the plan is, of course, always meant to be divisive and designed to disproportionately harm natural resource-based regions, which is on brand with the Liberal strategy. What kind of politician sees these numbers and says it is a good idea to get that many Canadians fired? The Liberals must know best. They think since they are in Ottawa, they should dictate how the economy goes. It is appalling to think that any politician standing in this chamber thinks this is a reasonable approach to governing a country. At the end of the day, we should just call the Liberal-NDP coalition the anti-everything coalition.

The funnier thing is this piece of legislation is likely to prevent a transition to the clean-tech sector, because 75% of all private sector investment in clean tech comes from the sector the Liberals are trying to destroy: our energy sector. Without this investment, more handouts would be necessary to develop a clean-tech sector.

[John Aldag, Liberal, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague, who I had the chance to serve with on the natural resources committee with at one point.

Again, on the idea of court rulings, we have heard many times about the misinterpretation or misrepresentation of the Supreme Court challenge on Bill C-69 that it is not throwing out the entire thing as unconstitutional. I think our minister has spoken very clearly about how there are some precise measures that can be taken to deal with that.

I think our government is very aware of what is constitutional and I think the courts will find that it is good legislation. It has a leadership role for the federal government, while respecting provincial and territorial jurisdiction in this realm.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, what a thing to witness this coalition collude to cover-up and take a top-down action to force through a top-down bill. The Conservatives will not stop the fight for the people we represent and for the best interests of all Canadians.

To review, the Liberals rammed through first the Atlantic offshore bill, Bill C-49, which includes 33 references to the five-year-old unconstitutional law, Bill C-69, that the Liberals have not fixed yet. By the way, Bill C-49 would triple the timeline for offshore renewables in the Atlantic provinces. Then was the just transition bill, Bill C-50. This was after fewer than nine hours and eight hours of total debate from all MPs on each.

On October 30, the NDP-Liberals tried to dictate every aspect of how the committee would deal with those bills. They reversed their own order to hold back Bill C-49 and spent a month preoccupied with censorship and exclusion of Conservatives like the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan and the member for Peace River—Westlock.

The extraordinary motion being debated and the debate shutdown today mean the committee will be limited to less than two hours of scrutiny on Bill C-50. We will hear from no witnesses, no impacted workers or businesses, no experts, no provincial or regional representatives, no economists, no indigenous communities, no ministers and no officials, and MPs will only have one partial day each to review and debate this bill at the next two stages.

I never thought I would spend so much of the last eight years having to count on senators to really do the full scrutiny that the NPD-Liberals' bills require after the fact because the coalition circumvents elected MPs on the front end so many times. One would think after the Supreme Court absolutely skewered them all on Bill C-69, which both the NDPs and the Liberals supported, that we would see a change of behaviour and attitude, but no, not these guys. They are reckless and ever undaunted in their top-down authority.

The NDP-Liberals will say that the government has been working on it for years, that it has engaged unions all the time and ask what the hold up is. We heard that from the member for Timmins—James Bay earlier, even though what he did not admit was that at the time the committee was studying the concept of the just transition and the NDP-Liberals moved forward with announcing their legislation before it reported anyway. They will say that we should just get this done so Bill C-50 can give the reskilling, upskilling and job training workers need and want when they all lose their jobs because of government mandates.

I have a couple of points to make. First, it sure is clear the NDP-Liberals have been working together on something for a while since they were all together to announce the bill. Second, everybody needs to know there is not actually a single skills or job program anywhere in this bill at all. Third, cooking up something behind closed doors then being outraged and cracking down on the official opposition when we suggest we should all actually do our jobs, speak to represent our constituents, and most importantly, let Canadians speak so we can actually hear from them on the actual bill, and then analyze it comprehensively and propose changes and improvements, is a top-down central planning approach that sounds an awful lot like the way we have characterized Bill C-50, the just transition itself that has caused some outrage in the last few days.

Bill C-50, the just transition, aims to centrally plan the top-down restructuring of the fundamentals and the foundations of Canada's economy. It aims to redistribute wealth. It is a globally conceived, planned and imposed agenda. It is, in fact, a major focus of a globalist gathering going on right now, the same kind of gathering where it started years ago.

I confess, I do not really get all the consternation about stating that fact since the definition of globalism is “the operation or planning of economic informed policy on a global basis.” That is of course what is happening with the just transition and the many international bodies that bring together politicians, policy advocates and wealthy elites from around the world to plan economic and foreign policy globally. That is while they all contribute significantly to increasing global emissions to get there and back, while they dream up more schemes to tell the folks back home that they cannot drive; live in a house, on any land or farm; or, for those who can afford it, fly. We will all have to eat insects while they all do the exact opposite, even while they bring home agendas that will make essentials and daily life so expensive for all the rest of us that we will have no choice.

Globalism is literally the function of numerous organizations all explicitly heavily focused on imposing the just transition for years. Today, it is linked to the concept of the global citizen and of postnational states with no independent identities, just like the current Prime Minister said of Canada when he was elected.

That is what is happening at COP28 right now. It is in the UN 2030 plan. It is the top priority of lots of many well-known and respected gatherings, such as the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation organization and others. It is bizarre that the NDP-Liberals deny and attack all this now, when globalism is obviously implicit in its ideology. I thought they were proud of that. They have all been outraged about this, but the truth hurts. Anger is often a cover for hurt, so maybe that is what all their rage is about.

Maybe their issue is that I call it Soviet-style central planning, except for this: Bill C-50 really would create a government-appointed committee to advise the minister. The minister would then appoint another committee to plan the economy. This bill would not mandate that any of that would happen through openness and transparency. Neither of the committees would report either to Parliament or directly to Canadians along the way. I guess the coalition members want to say that it is a win that the reports would be tabled in the House of Commons, but that would not guarantee any kind of debate or accountability. The members are proving their true colours through how they are handling the bill now, especially since it is clear that they want to impose it all with little challenge and almost no scrutiny from beginning to end.

Oh right, it is there in the summary, in black and white for all the world to see. When would those plans from the government committees for Canada's economy be imposed? It would be every five years. That is literally the time frame for central planning that Soviets preferred. However, the NDP-Liberals are somehow shocked and outraged, even though the lead NDP-Liberal minister is a guy who is a self-declared “proud socialist”, as came out of his own mouth in this very chamber. Right now, he is at a conference about the progress of the global just transition.

There are no costs outlined in this bill either, even though it would obviously cost taxpayers, just as the NDP-Liberals' mega sole-source contracts for their buddies; infrastructure banks and housing funds that cost billions of tax dollars and build neither infrastructure nor houses, only bureaucracy; and hundreds of thousands of dollars on consultants to tell the government to use fewer consultants. There would be a cost to create and maintain the just transition partnership council, on pages six to 10, that would advise the minister and then the secretariat that the minister would have to create. However, this bill does not tell Canadians about any of the cost that taxpayers would have to pay for all that, up front and after.

It is quite something to see the inclusion of the words “accountability” and “transparency” in the long title of Bill C-50, since it is all actually about government-appointed committees meeting behind closed doors and a minister who would cook up central plan after central plan. It would mandate neither transparency nor accountability at all, whether directly to Canadians or through their MPs, and it would not include an actual outline for one or any kind of skills- or job-training program.

That is how this whole thing was baked in the first place. Their rushed, top-down schedule today is to ram it through with as little analysis from MPs and input from Canadians as possible. It is a little silly for all the NDP-Liberals to be mad now that the official opposition actually wants MPs to do our jobs to debate, consult, amend and improve legislation, especially with such a wide-ranging and significant one such as Bill C-50 and the economic transition it would impose.

What about the tens of thousands of Canadians whose jobs were devastated by the NDP-Liberals' fast-tracked coal transition? The environment commissioner said this was a total failure. It left 3,400 Canadian workers in about a dozen communities completely behind. However, the government members say to just trust them to engineer an economic transition for 2.7 million Canadians and the entire country.

What about the nearly 40,000 people in Newfoundland and Labrador who were all put out of work completely when they were promised that the government would help them transition from cod? It was the largest industrial shutdown in Canadian history at the time. It was a disaster for all of them: their loved ones, their communities and their province. I hope they see Bill C-50 as the end of oil and gas in Canada bill that it is, because the impact of the oil and gas sector in Newfoundland and Labrador is a quarter of the province's total GDP. It is higher than that in Alberta. It is 40% of Newfoundland and Labrador's exports, and 6,000 people in Newfoundland and Labrador in the oil and gas service and supply sector have lost their jobs already, just in the last three years, because of the uncertainty and the NDP-Liberals' anti-energy policies.

The government's intent now, through Bill C-50, is like nothing Canada has ever seen before. Canadians could be forgiven for knowing that this would not go well.

A truly bizarre point about all this that should be noted, though, is as follows: Despite the collusion between the NDP and Liberals on the bill for about two years, other opposition MPs such as Conservatives do not actually get to see the bills until the government tables them. Despite what I hear really were some round tables and consultation meetings, there is not actually any tangible delivery of what the bill's own proponents say that it does for skills and job training.

It is not in here anywhere, which is one of the many reasons Conservatives say that the natural resources committee must actually do its job and, most importantly, must hear from all the Canadians it would impact. Both union and non-union workers, as well as union leaders, should be outraged about it.

What really did happen with all the time, effort and money that was apparently sunk into developing it behind closed doors between 2021 and 2023? Since the bill sets up committees to plan to set up committees to plan from on high, why the heck did all this require a law in the first place?

Government, unions and businesses consult, develop plans and report. Okay, what is holding this up from going ahead? Why is Bill C-50 even required for that work to happen if they all want it to? How is this actually all the Liberal-NDP government has come up with?

How is any Canadian supposed to trust these guys to deliver on anything, when it took all this time and all these meetings and tax dollars, but there is not even an actual plan or program? They would not even get a recommendation for two years. It is sort of like the ITCs that the NDP-Liberals keep talking and bragging about, as if they are doing anything in our economy right now. Actually, they do not even exist at all in Canada yet.

Of course, Conservatives and more and more Canadians know that Bill C-50 really is all about the just transition and ending oil and gas in Canada as fast as they possibly can. The NDP-Liberals have shown this repeatedly after eight years. A government, of course, that did not want to kill the sector and all the livelihoods it sustains really would not do anything differently from what these guys have done and continue to do.

Everyone can read it. In the 11 pages and 21 clauses of Bill C-50, there is not one single instance of a skills- or job-training program. That is the truth.

Now, because of the NDP-Liberals, neither union nor non-union workers will be able to speak or be heard by MPs at any remaining stage of the top-down agenda for this bill. In fact, nobody will: no workers, contractors, business owners, investors or indigenous owners, partners, workers or contractors. Therefore, I will talk about some of those workers now. I have a few points.

First, the reality is that the biggest growth of well-paying union jobs in Canada right now is actually created by the big multinational oil and gas companies expanding and ramping up new oil, gas and petrochemical projects in Alberta. These are the same companies that made Alberta, by far and away, Canada’s leader in clean tech, renewable and alternative energy for at least 30 years.

For the record, today, Alberta is again Canada’s leader in renewable energy. In fact, the investment commitments for renewables and future fuel development in Alberta have doubled to nearly $50 billion of private sector money planned and ready to invest, since the premier paused to set the conditions, to guarantee consultation, certainty and confidence for all Albertans, while the regulator keeps taking applications. However, the NDP-Liberals will not admit that to us either.

Second, where we are at is that the major oil and gas companies are leading the creation of new union jobs in Canada. However, this is actually the very sector that the just transition agenda would shut down first. The main thing every union worker needs is a job. That is what is at risk.

Third, the anti-energy coalition also refuses to admit the fact that, in Canada, traditional oil and gas, oil sands and pipeline companies have been, far and away, the top investors in the private sector for decades and, today, in clean tech, environmental innovation and renewables among all the private sectors in Canada, excluding governments and utilities. Likewise, oil and gas is still, right now, the top private sector investor and top export in Canada’s economy. The truth is that nothing is poised to match or beat it any time soon. Nothing comes close. The stakes of the anti-energy agenda imposed by the costly coalition for Canada are exceptionally grave.

Here are some facts about the businesses and workers that would be hurt the most by the just transition agenda, Bill C-50. In Canada’s oil and gas sector, 93% of companies only have up to 99 employees. They are small businesses, and 63% of those businesses are considered micro-businesses, with fewer than five employees.

That is the truth about workers and businesses in Canada’s oil and gas sector, especially the homegrown, Canadian-based ones. They are not union businesses, although their jobs are also sustainable; they are also higher paying, with reliable long-term benefits, than jobs in most sectors.

Large employers, with over 500 people on payroll, account for just over 1%, not 2%, of the total oil and gas extraction businesses in Canada; that is it. Those businesses are mostly union workplaces and support more union jobs than the rest of the sector. However, they are also among the first businesses that Bill C-50’s agenda would kill and that, after eight years, the NDP-Liberals have been incrementally damaging. Again, there would be no oil and gas sector, no businesses and no jobs, union or otherwise. That is the truth. It also means higher costs and less reliable power, especially where most Canadians have no affordable options, as in rural, remote, northern, prairie, Atlantic and indigenous communities, with fewer businesses and jobs. There would be less money for government programs, since the oil and gas sector currently pays the most to all three levels of government, and less private sector money for clean tech and innovation.

Which workers do the NDP-Liberals already know that their unfair, unjust transition in Bill C-50 would hurt the most? If colleagues can believe this, it would be visible minority and indigenous Canadians. Both ethnically diverse and indigenous Canadians are more highly represented in the energy sector than they are in any other sector in Canada’s economy, but the internal government-leaked memo that I am assuming colleagues have seen says they are expected to face higher job disruptions than any other workers. They would also have more trouble finding new opportunities. They would end up in lower-paying, more precarious jobs, as would be the case for all workers who lose their livelihoods to this radical, anti-energy global agenda.

Canadians will know instantly, of course, from these numbers that the top targets to be crushed by Bill C-50 are the 93% and 63% of Canadian businesses, the small- and micro-businesses, their workers and all their contractors. Bill C-50 does not contemplate them at all. There is no consideration about all the non-union workers who will lose their jobs in the just transition agenda. These are the homegrown, Canadian-based and owned businesses with Canadian workers who have been doing their part for environmental stewardship, innovation, clean tech, actual emissions reductions and indigenous partnerships to the highest standards in Canada and, therefore, in the entire world, just like the big guys here.

Since the NDP-Liberals refused to allow this, my office spoke with one of those union workers last week, a worker from Saskatchewan. He said, “I am not happy with the fact that I will be displaced out of a job from a federal mandate.” No matter what the NDP-Liberals try to call this or say about it now, he had it right. That is exactly what would happen to that union worker.

There is nothing, not a single thing, about all the non-union workers, who would obviously lose their jobs first, nor is there any space for union workers who do not want the transition accelerated by the anti-energy, anti-private sector NDP-Liberals. There is nothing about the communities and the people who would be damaged the most, nothing about what sector actually can and will replace the jobs and economic contributions of the oil and gas sector. Of course, right now, there is no such sector. There is nothing about all those hundreds of thousands of oil and gas union workers whose employers would also be put out of work quickly, as is the actual aim of Bill C-50. It is no wonder that the NDP-Liberals want to silence Canadians, so they can do this quickly and behind closed doors. They too must know that common-sense Canadians can see right through them, and they are running out of time.

I have a last point about the chair of the natural resources committee, the member for Calgary Skyview. When I congratulated him on his recent appointment, I told him the Liberals have done him no favours by putting him there to help impose their agenda. The people of Calgary Skyview will render their decision in the next election, as is their right, like it is for all Canadians.

I warned a former natural resources minister from Alberta that his constituents would see his betrayal. I said this in our last emergency committee meeting about the TMX, which has still not been built, in the summer heading into the 2019 election. Colleagues will notice that this member was not sent back here. I suspect that the people of Calgary Skyview will feel the same in this instance. In hindsight, I suspect this will not be worth it for the member for Calgary Skyview, but we all make choices and face the consequences.

I move:

That the motion be amended by:

(a) replacing paragraph (a) with the following:

“(a) during the consideration of the bill by the Standing Committee on Natural Resources;

(i) the Minister of Natural Resources and its officials be ordered to appear as witnesses for no less than two hours;

(ii) members of the committee submit their lists of suggested witnesses concerning the bill, to the clerk, and that the Chair and clerk create witness panels which reflect the representation of the parties on the committee, and, once complete, that the Chair begin scheduling those meetings;

(iii) a press release be issued for the study of the bill inviting written submissions from the public and establishing a deadline for those submissions,”; and

(b) deleting paragraphs (b) and (c).

Every member of the chamber has an ability to prove that they actually support democracy by supporting our amendment.

Alleged Limiting of Members' Ability to Speak at Committee

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

Mr. Speaker, I am doing my best but I am constantly interrupted.

Standing Order 116 directs us to bring these matters to the attention of the House. I believe the member for Winnipeg North supported the addition of Standing Order 116(2)(a) and (b). This was a proposal from the previous government House leader, I believe. He could propose further changes to the Standing Orders, if he does not believe that members should be able to bring these matters to the House.

Here is what happened at 4:25 p.m. on October 31, at the natural resources committee. I began to speak. I was given the floor. The chair said that he was going to ask all members; there was myself and then the member for Timmins—James Bay. I began to speak. At the time I said that I would seek to move a privilege motion at committee regarding the breach of privilege for the member for Peace River—Westlock. I said that the chair had breached his privileges by refusing to allow him to speak on Bill C-69.

I would ask the Speaker to review the record regarding the breach of privilege as it pertains to the member for Peace River—Westlock.

This is not the only instance. At 4:25 on October 31, I took the floor and spoke to the matter of privilege. There were various repeated interruptions as I sought to make the argument. I, nonetheless, continued to make the argument in the midst of those various efforts to silence those arguments regarding the privilege.

The chair did not, at the time, issue a specific ruling about whether or not this was, in his view, a matter pertaining to privilege. As members know, if a question of privilege is raised at committee, the chair then makes a determination, if he sees it as being a matter relating to privilege. If he deems it to be so, then a debate ensues on privilege.

The chair did not specifically say that he considered it a matter pertaining to privilege, although my understanding at the time was that it was a matter pertaining to privilege and he had deemed it so, because he allowed the debate to continue.

Again, I go to, at 5:05, the chair, the member for Calgary Skyview saying that I had the floor, where I left off. At that point I continued and the debate continued. Actually, it continued through until the end of the meeting on October 31, and then it resumed, the same meeting of the natural resources committee resumed on November 1. I still had the floor.

The chair said that when we concluded the last meeting, I had the floor and he wanted to provide me the opportunity, and asked whether I would like to cede the floor or continue. I said that upon serious reflection of the matter, I had decided I would like to keep the floor because I had more to say and would do so.

Thus, I continued on the point. This was on November 1. Subsequently, the chair, I gather having maybe learned some rules that he had not previously been aware of, and of which there are a good many, said much later—

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer—Mountain View, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Usually how this goes is it takes another five minutes to go back and state the same types of things to prove the relevancy that was associated with it. If we don't deal with Bill C-69, if we can't therefore properly dispose of the discussions associated with Bill C-50, and if we then can't properly look at and be prepared to look at decisions with regard to Bill C-49, then anything we talk about within our own communities is held up by this blockage of legislation.

Of course, the things that happen in Timmins—James Bay are relevant to the discussion taking place here. You have people—the indigenous community—come, and you ask whether the government is overstepping its reach or whether they feel that they are back in a colonial era. That was the last topic we were talking about. Those are community people, specifically to Timmins—James Bay. We could go to that.

We look at the egregious parts of the Supreme Court ruling, which will affect Timmins—James Bay people. If we have something else that we put into legislation and then merrily go along our way, saying that the government said this is true.... Well, guess what? The Supreme Court doesn't like that one either. Why did the Government of Ontario, or why did this group, or why is it....?

I'm trying to remember. I think the first nations have taken the government to court too. I think this has happened on our carbon tax, but that's a different story. I would agree that that is perhaps outside this.

However, I really think it's relevant. How can you not say that the Supreme Court is making decisions, and they affect everybody's riding? They do. I believe that is certainly significant.

I fly over that part of our country twice a week. Unless it's at night, I take a look down there, and I see this amazing country we have. I know we have six time zones from one side to the other. I know there are only three provincial capitals that are north of the 49th parallel. I know that a massive amount of our population is within 50 miles, or 80 kilometres.... This is just to prove that I'm bilingual in math. That's where our population is; and those decisions, then, are made for the breadth of this nation and for communities, and they don't see what this country is like.

Yes, it concerns me, therefore, when someone says, “Yes, but Alberta, you want this,” or, “B.C., you want this,” or, “Saskatchewan is not being reasonable.” It's coming from a government that doesn't care, because its decisions are made for what it believes...for those who are hugging the U.S. border. Therefore, the Inflation Reduction Act and all of these kinds of things are significant, because where do you think all that action is going to come from? Where are all these billions of dollars going to be spent? They're going to be spent right next door. That's what we're going to see.

Quite frankly, no one has challenged them and asked if that's the right thing to be doing. When they say they're going to put billions of dollars into this project or that project, well, here's how they're doing it. They are basically saying to the States and the municipalities, “It's not going to cost you a dime. We're going to develop all of this, and we'll find out some way to get this back from the proponents later on. It's not going to cost you a dime.”

How sustainable is that, first of all? It's a lot more sustainable if you're the U.S. than it is here, because we look at the way our economy is tanking compared to the U.S., and so they have this flexibility. It's still wrong, but they do have this flexibility to continue in a wrong way for a lot longer than we do.

It's going to take a lot of nerve to say, “Here's where our strengths are.” We know that Canada can produce natural gas. We know that the world needs natural gas. We know that different parts of our nation have different strengths and different ways of creating energy. The worst part, though, is when one part of the country says, “We don't like yours, so shut it down and we'll do all we can. We will partner with like-minded individuals who really don't believe that your type of energy is the kind of energy that Canada should have.” Again, they don't make it too far off the 49th parallel when they come up with decisions like that, so I guess that's where we find this disconnect that we have as a nation.

Take a look at all of the potential natural gas we could have in Quebec. Go get it. We could use it, but that would take the narrative away from how we want to use all of our energy, we want to use.... We already have this area flooded, so now we have this green energy coming out of hydroelectric power. As long as nobody goes back and thinks about what it was like prior to that, and as long as we ignore the displacement of animals and humans, and so on, to get to that stage, then it's great. Everyone should be happy.

I remember as a kid—I guess I wasn't a kid at that time—when the Red Deer River was dammed. There are friends of mine who lost land. It had to be sold so that they could dam up the river. For years after, people loved it. It looked good, because you could put a sailboat on it and everything looked fantastic, and that must be environmental—until you saw these trees popping out. They pop up once the lake-bed has deteriorated. We know the methane that comes out of those. We know that any of the minerals and the toxic minerals that are associated with it will then get dissolved. We know all of those sorts of things, but it looks good. I congratulate the people in the community who take this facility and use it in a positive way. I don't go back and complain about it.

I'm not complaining about what the people in Quebec do. As a matter of fact, even if I were an eco-environmentalist, I wouldn't go to Quebec—if they were getting ready to go and flood the whole place to get their hydroelectric power—and tell them they couldn't. I'd say, “It's up to you. You make that decision,” but don't come back to me and say, “Hey, Alberta, we don't like your oil and gas, and we're going to stand up here and we're going to make sure you don't get to do that.” I see. Is that the duplicitous...? I'm not sure whether that's true—it may be two ways of looking at things, but—

[Viviane LaPointe, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

I just want to again ask my colleague for relevance. We're not here debating Bill C-69. We're actually here debating a motion and a subamendment to a motion that deals with Bill C-49 and Bill C-50.

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer—Mountain View, AB]

Thank you very much.

I noticed that everybody wanted to get into the debate on eco-colonialism. First of all, it's a term that, when I was at environment committee, people from first nations used. Although people might believe that I'm attempting to claim it, it is not mine.

That is what has been said. I see this melding between my time in environment and my time here at natural resources. I tried to look at the mandate letters; I couldn't see any difference between the two.

We have a Minister of Natural Resources who still thinks he's the Minister of Environment, so I can't remember which one...whether it was discussions here or discussions there. I didn't coin it.

It's somewhat ironic that when Charlie is here and we talk about his community, I would think that is where you would find a lot of first nations people who want to be engaged in whatever type of development is going to take place, whether it's building a road to get there, getting the power coming from there. I've had lots of discussions with first nations leadership from Ontario, talking about this exact commentary. Yes, they know that if they have to follow the government's mantra there are certain boxes they have to check off, but they also know that in terms of those things that are important to their community, if you have a higher power that believes that it and it alone dictates how things are going to be done, that is exactly the colonialism that has been part of the discussion for over a hundred years.

I welcome the comment on it, but again, there are a lot of first nations people who believe that they should be the ones who have the right to make decisions in their lands. It's not me who presented that, even though I would be happy to take claim for it because, quite frankly, that is exactly what is happening when we talk about investments that people have.

Yes, it ties in to the fact that there are a lot more people being affected by that mindset than just native communities. Perhaps that's where the confusion is, but they believe that these things require us to work together.

You take Chief Helin—I'm grasping for his first name now—from British Columbia. One of the books he wrote was Dances with Dependency, which I would suggest people read, talking about what it's like being a leader in indigenous communities and the types of things that have prevented them from being able to do the things that are important for their community.

If we get to that stage, and their community has invested in oil and gas and mining and fishing and forestry, there are a lot of different things that communities in B.C. have been involved with, I think they would agree that there is a mindset here that says Ottawa knows best. As a matter of fact, Ottawa seemed to know best when they chose to take Bill C-50 out of our hands. The whole reason for that is the Supreme Court of Canada's decision that said parts of Bill C-69 were unconstitutional.

Therefore, the development of a bill that speaks to the workings in communities of a philosophy that says that we will do as much as we can to stop oil and gas development, or any type of development, and forget what the Supreme Court says.... When that affects that bill, it then takes us to the next part, which is to talk about Bill C-49. Whereas there are 33 references to the egregious parts of Bill C-69 within that bill, we get nothing from the government to say, “You know what? Maybe we should wait a bit. Maybe we should get some reference points.” All we get from the government and from the minister is, “Well, we don't believe that. That's just their opinion.”

Yes, it's their opinion; therefore, you should do something about it. Otherwise, you throw legislation to us, to each and every one of us sitting here, that says, “You have to rubber-stamp something that you know the Supreme Court has said is unconstitutional.” How then are we supposed to proceed?

We've waited for a discussion of Bill C-69 and these egregious points from the Supreme Court ruling. We've waited for some discussion on that. People talk about how long October was. Well, we're still waiting. We're waiting for the Supreme Court decision to be addressed by this government, rather than, “Oh, it doesn't matter.”

Those are the issues we have, which is why we come back to say that, well, if people don't agree with this—

Government Business No. 31—Proceedings on Bill C-50

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Madam Speaker, that was a spectacle. I would suggest that, if the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources cannot understand the connection between plastic straws and fuels for vehicles that Canadians like and want to drive, then that says all we need to know about the Liberals' understanding of oil and gas development and how this all works in Canada and the world. Does it not?

Make no mistake, today is a dark day for Canada's democracy. Unfortunately, these darks days are increasingly frequent under the NDP-Liberal coalition government. After eight years, I, like a growing number of Canadians, cannot help but reflect on how far away, quiet, dim and so obviously empty the promises of sunny days were. There were promises of sunlight being the best disinfectant, of being open by default, and of collaboration with other parties, provinces and all Canadians, no matter where they live or who they are.

The truth is that, after eight years, the Information Commissioner says transparency is not a top priority for the NDP-Liberal government. She says that systems for transparency have declined steadily since the Prime Minister took office in 2015 and that the government is the most opaque government ever. She sounded ever-increasing alarms about the closed-by-default reality of the NDP-Liberal government over the last couple of years.

Back in 2017, an audit done independently by a Halifax journalist and his team for News Media Canada, which represents more than 800 print and digital titles, pointed out that the Liberals were failing in breaking their promises and that the previous Conservative government had been more responsive, open and transparent, including during the latter majority years. Everyone can remember when the now Prime Minister made a lot of verifiably baseless claims. Today, the NDP-Liberals want to ram through a bill that their own internal briefings warn would kill 170,000 Canadian oil and gas jobs and hurt the jobs of 2.7 million other Canadians employed in other sectors in every corner of this country. I will say more on that later.

Canadians deserve to know what transparency has to do with this. I will explain, but first, members must also know this: The motion the NDP-Liberals have forced us all to debate today, with as little time as possible, is extraordinary. It is a measure usually invoked only for emergencies, and to be clear, it was used twice in nine years of the former Conservative government, but it is happening almost every other day with the NDP-Liberals.

Now, I will give the background. Last week, Conservatives and so many horrified Canadians challenged the Liberals on their approach to crime,being hard on victims and soft on criminals, which, at the time, was made obvious by the decision to send Paul Bernardo to a medium-security prison. As usual, the Liberals claimed to be bystanders that day, as they do with almost all things happening in the Government of Canada, which they have been ruling over eight long years. The minister responsible really had nothing to do with it. He was removed from that position in late July, so evidently, someone over there thought he was. However, I digress.

To change the channel during the last weeks of that session, the Liberals dumped a number of bills in the House of Commons with promises to those they impacted, which they must have never intended to keep, including Bill C-53 about recognizing Métis people, which they put forward on the last sitting day of the session. They told people it would be all done at once, a claim they had no business to make, and they knew it.

Before that, on May 30, the Liberals introduced Bill C-49, a bill to functionally end Atlantic offshore oil and to establish a framework for offshore renewable development that, get this, would triple the already endless NDP-Liberal timelines. There would also be uncertainty around offshore renewable project assessments and approvals. The bill would invite court challenges on the allowable anti-development zones and the potential delegation of indigenous consultation to the regulators, which has been drafted, never mind the 33 references to Bill C-69, which the Supreme Court said nearly two months ago was largely unconstitutional over the last half decade.

That claim may end up to be okay in the context of offshore development, but surely we can be forgiven for refusing to just trust them this time, since both the Supreme Court and the Federal Court have recently ruled against the NDP-Liberal government and affirmed every single jurisdictional point that Conservatives and I made about both Bill C-69 and their ridiculous top-down, plastics-as-toxins decree.

On May 30, there was no debate on Bill C-49. The NDP-Liberals brought it back to the House of Commons on September 19. They permitted a total of 8.5 hours of debate over two partial days. It is important for Canadians to know that the government, not the official opposition, controls every aspect of the scheduling of all bills and motions in the House of Commons. The government did not put Bill C-49 back on the agenda to allow MPs to speak to it on behalf of the constituents the bill would impact exclusively, such as, for example, every single MP from every party represented in Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador. Instead, a month later, within two days, the NDP-Liberals brought forward a motion to shut down debate and send the bill to committee.

No fewer than seven Liberals and two NDP MPs argued to fast-track Bill C-49 to justify their shutdown of the debate, and they accused Conservatives of holding it up. This is about all the groups and people who must be heard. This is important because of what they then proposed at committee, which was not a concurrence study, as the parliamentary secretary claimed today.

When it comes to the last-minute name change to Bill C-50, which is still the globally planned just transition no matter what the NDP-Liberals spin to Canadians now. The Liberals first announced plans to legislate this in July 2021.

They introduced Bill C-50 with no debate on June 15, just a week before MPs headed to work in our ridings until September. They brought in Bill C-50 on September 29. They permitted only 7.5 hours of total debate over two months, and about a month later, over two days, shut it down and sent it to committee.

Bill C-50, which represents the last step and the final solution in the anti-energy, anti-development agenda that has been promoted internationally and incrementally imposed by the NDP-Liberals in Canada, and which they know would damage millions of Canadian workers in energy, agriculture, construction, transportation and manufacturing, just as their internal memos show it, was rammed through the first stages in a total of three business days.

Government bills go to committee and are prioritized over everything else. At committee, MPs analyze the details of the bills, line by line, and also, most importantly, hear from Canadians about the intended, and sometimes even more imperative unintended, consequences. They then propose and debate changes to improve it before it goes back to the House of Commons for more debate and comments from MPs on behalf of the diverse people in the communities we represent across this big country. That is literally Canadian democracy.

However, on October 30, the Liberals brought in a detailed top-down scheduling motion for the natural resources committee and changed the order of the bills to be considered, which was not concurrent. Their motion was to deal with Bill C-50, the just transition, first. This was a reversal of the way they brought them in. They also shut down debate on each, delaying Bill C-49, the Atlantic offshore bill they said they wanted to fast-track, even though they actually control every part of the agenda themselves.

Their motion limited the time to hear from witnesses to only four meetings, and there were four meetings to go through each line and propose changes, but they limited each of those meetings to three hours each for both bills.

On behalf of Conservatives, I proposed an amendment that would help MPs on the natural resources committee do our due diligence on Bill C-49 to send it to the next stages first, exactly as the NDP-Liberals said they wanted to do. I proposed that the committee would have to deal with the problem of the half decade old law Bill C-69, which was found to be unconstitutional two weeks earlier, because so many of its sections are in Bill C-49, and then move to Bill C-50, the just transition.

Conservatives have always said that both of these bills are important with disproportionate impacts in certain communities and regions, but ultimately very consequential for all Canadians. The NDP-Liberals had the temerity to say, that day and since, that they wanted to collaborate on the schedule, as we heard here today, and work together to pass these bills.

Let us talk about what that actually looked like. It looked like a dictatorial scheduling motion to the committee with no real consideration of the proposed schedule by Conservatives, and then there was a preoccupation to silence Conservative MPs' participation. They even suggested kicking a couple of them out, such as the MP for Peace River—Westlock and the MP for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, who, like me and every Conservative Alberta MP, represent the hundreds of thousands of constituents that Bill C-50 would harm directly. They do have a right to speak and participate at any committee, like it is in all committees for all MPs and all parties here. Believe me, we have spent every single day fighting for workers, and we will not stop.

For an entire month, as of yesterday, the NDP-Liberals have claimed that they want to collaborate on the schedule for this important work, but other than a text message from the natural resources parliamentary secretary, which received no response when I replied with the very same suggestions Conservatives proposed in public and otherwise, and ironically, in the very order that they rammed it all through, they really have not dealt with us in any measure of collaboration or good faith at all.

I guess now would be an awkward time to put a fine point on it to remind the ever-increasing top-down NDP-Liberal government that Canadians actually gave Conservatives more votes individually in both of the last two elections, and they are a minority government, which most people hope or claim means more compromises and more collaboration. However, these NDP-Liberals do the exact opposite. Whatever happened to all those words long ago about respecting everyone, inclusion and working together? I guess we can never mind that.

That brings us to today, Friday, December 1. Close to midnight on Wednesday, Conservatives received notice of this motion. As usual, there is a lot of parliamentary procedure and legalese here, but I will explain exactly what it proposes to do about Bill C-50.

The motion would limit Bill C-50 to less than two hours of debate. The committee would hear no witnesses, so none of the affected workers, experts or economists would be heard. The committee would not hear from anybody. MPs would only have one day to review the bill at report stage and one day of debate at third reading. Given that debate at second reading was limited to less than eight hours, this is absolutely unacceptable for the hundreds of thousands of Canadians whose livelihoods this bill would destroy.

I want to make the following point clearly. Because of the NDP-Liberals' actions to date, no Canadian would be able to speak about the actual bill, Bill C-50. No MP would be able to hear from any Canadian in any part of the country about it. Of course, this is just like the Liberals' censorship of Canadian media, and now they are all howling that we have to communicate directly on the only option they have left us.

This bill would impact Canada and the livelihoods of millions of Canadians. As if the NDP-Liberals have not done enough damage already by driving hundreds of billions of dollars and hundreds of thousands of jobs out of this country. They definitely do not want to hear from anyone about it. It is bad enough that they did a last-minute copy-and-paste job to switch all the references from “just transition” to “sustainable jobs”, even though no one had actually ever called it that before.

There was a National Post column in February entitled, “Most Canadians don't trust Liberals' plan for 'just transition' away from oil: poll”. The column says, “84 per cent of Canadians do not know what the 'just transition' plan actually is.” It also states, “40 per cent believe it will hurt the oil and gas sector; 36 per cent believe it will lead to lost jobs,” and, “Fifty-six per cent of Canadians are 'not confident' the government will be able to deliver, and 26 per cent of those people are 'not at all confident'.”

The article says, “About one quarter...of Canadians think the government is moving too fast to transition Canada’s economy,” which is what this is really all about. About 60 per cent of Canadians “don’t want to pay any additional taxes to support the transition and just 14 per cent were willing to pay one or two per cent more.” That is bad news for those who are pro quadrupling the carbon tax in the NDP-Liberal-Bloc coalition.

The article continues, “57 per cent of Canadians worry about the impact of lost tax revenue to governments should the economy transition away from natural resources. And 40 per cent believe that the plan to transition away from fossil fuels will make Canada less competitive in the global economy.” A whopping “60 per cent of all Canadians think we shouldn’t make major changes before larger global polluters make serious efforts to reduce carbon emissions”. Of course, and luckily, common-sense Conservatives agree with all of those Canadians.

For the record, I believe all of those Canadians will be proven to be correct if Canadians let the NDP-Liberals advance the rest of this destructive agenda, but I am hopeful more Canadians than ever will see right through the Liberals now and will have a chance to stop it. It does look like it will come down to that since, despite all the NDP-Liberals' big talk, they really are not interested in adjusting their anti-energy agenda at all. They are only interested in escalating it to what would be more major costs and more brutal losses for the vast majority of everyday Canadians, whom they prove everyday they do not really care about.

Canadians can stop this attack on our country from our own government, this attack on our standard of living, our quality of life and our ability to buy and thrive here in our Canadian home. However, because of the NDP propping up the Liberals, Canadians have no choice, but they will have to deal with it in the next election. Luckily, they have a common-sense Conservative Party that is ready and able to bring our great home, our country of Canada, back up and away from this cliff.

The NDP has abandoned its traditional, and often admirable, position of being a principled and plucky opposition party because it cries outrage everyday while it props up the Liberals, apparently with the co-operation of the Bloc now too, to keep them in power and to prevent Canadians from having a say in an election sooner than later. The NDP-Liberals are clearly parties of power at any price now, so it is logical to conclude that the truth-telling Canadians featured the February column about the polls on the just transition are exactly what caused the crass and obviously last-minute name change to cover up the facts and try to fool Canadians that Bill C-50 is not exactly what they fear and exactly what they do not trust the government to do. That is with good cause, after eight years, but it is the just transition.

I would also mention here that Alberta NDP leader, Rachel Notley, has also called on the NDP-Liberals to scrap this just transition plan, but they are not listening to her either, even though the NDP's federal and provincial parties are formally related, unlike, for example, the federal common-sense Conservatives, which is a federal party in its own right with no official ties with any similar free enterprise Conservative provincial parties.

The NDP-Liberals will say that this is all much ado about nothing. They will say, as the member did, that it went through committee last year. Of course, the bill itself absolutely did not. It was a study on the general concept.

I must note that, between April and September, we had 64 witnesses and 23 written submissions, and not a single witness, except for one lonely government witness at the very end, ever called them “sustainable jobs”. They all said “just transition”. However, the NDP-Liberals announced the Bill C-50 just transition before the committee even issued its report and recommendations, so that was all a bad charade too.

It is ridiculous that they are claiming this is not about what it plainly is, because of course, if there was no plan to kill hundreds of thousands of jobs and disrupt millions more, there would be no need for anything called a “transition” at all.

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

It's a great subamendment, because, again, the number of projects going on in the riding of Timmins—James Bay is quite remarkable.

We can look at the strategic advantage that we should have in this country. It's quite remarkable to think that the United States' military is investing in Canada for our resources, because we have the critical minerals the world wants and needs. When the U.S. military wants to invest in Canada, I'm sure a philosophical debate could be had by everybody on that. We'll maybe leave that one for another day, possibly another committee. Who knows?

It really shows what we have in this country. I think it would be extremely frustrating to them to know that it could take 25 years to get a project producing. Again, that leads to the question of where else they might go to invest. What other countries around the world are trying to produce lots of the same minerals, trying to mine the same minerals we are or that we possess in this country?

Certainly when you look at the human rights atrocities of some of these countries around the world and the lack of good working conditions, I can guarantee you there's no unionized labour in some of those countries with the way these folks are treated. That's not to mention that they do not have the environmental regulations and sustainability initiatives we have in Canada. They also don't have an unconstitutional Impact Assessment Act. They wouldn't have an Impact Assessment Act to begin with, but the point is that we have a former bill from this government, Bill C-69, that's now a law and it's largely unconstitutional. Of all the things in the way of getting projects built so that good, sustainable Canadian projects can supersede and replace—

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Thank you.

Right off the top, it's probably worth mentioning that it was nice, at the last meeting, how things just went along. Everybody was respectful. The points of order.... Only a couple of them happened, and they were, I think, received well. I can count on one hand how many points of order we had last meeting, so that was quite nice and a bit of a change of pace.

I want to welcome Ms. Zarrillo to this committee, as well. It's nice to see her here.

On the point about the subamendment to bring witnesses from Timmins—James Bay, my colleague Mr. Falk did a great job talking about a lot of the mining companies that exist in that particular part of the country. It's important to have people from there speaking at the committee. I think they would generally be concerned about what is going on. One way to find out, obviously, is by inviting them. I think they would be concerned about the development of multiple pieces of substantive government legislation being ruled on and referred to as largely unconstitutional—in particular, the Impact Assessment Act and the way it's going to impact mining as we go forward. I think those mines, especially the ones Mr. Falk was mentioning, will play a big role in Canada going forward. I don't think it matters whether you think everybody should be mandated to drive an EV or not. We're going to need these resources one way or another.

As we continue to develop new ways to generate power and new technology.... It goes outside energy production. It's just technology, generally speaking. The technological advances we have seen, certainly in my lifetime, have been remarkable. Sometimes it almost scares me when I think about the kinds of technologies we're going to come up with, which my kids are going to see as they grow up and enter the workforce—the kinds of things they're going to have at their disposal. The advances in things are going to be quite remarkable.

Those minerals or elements will come from mines in Timmins—James Bay and lots of other places across the country. The problem we're seeing right now is that it will be pretty difficult to get more and more of these mines and projects built when we don't have laws that are constitutional. The certainty required for investors to make investments in Canadian energy, development and exploration.... I know the government said it made the IAA to create certainty, but the problem is that, practically, this has not been the case. It has not been the reality of the situation on the ground.

Given the importance of mining to Canada's strategic positioning in the energy world, globally.... Again, the potential for our country, generally speaking, beyond what we have by possessing all these rare earth minerals here in Canada, which are still largely untapped and not being developed.... We're seeing investment fleeing Canada, or not even looking here at all, because they know they can build projects more quickly, get a return on investment faster and make more money elsewhere. That means jobs are elsewhere. The tax dollars needed to maintain, build and even create new communities are so important.

I think we need to hear from these folks, because they're going to bring a valuable perspective.

I was in a meeting the other day with some folks who were representing some of the port authorities on opposite sides of the country. One of the fundamental concerns they have, and part of their budget submissions, was to figure out a way to reduce timelines for major projects for approvals, because for them to expand their ports or to do any major projects, they have to wait a minimum of five years to get approval. I asked them if that was for the Impact Assessment Act, and they said yes. They had been waiting five years to get an approval.

This is important because, as much as we would like to have all of our rare earth minerals mined in Canada and then turned into products in Canada, the reality is that we're going to be exporting a lot of them. We're going to be exporting them through our ports.

The folks from Timmins—James Bay, much like the people from Cypress Hills—Grasslands, rely on those ports to be able to get our products, our commodities, out to the global marketplace. When we have largely unconstitutional laws in this country, it severely impacts what we're able to do and get done.

I think it's important to note that on this side of the table we want to make sure that we're passing laws that are constitutional and will withstand that challenge. I think we have outlined previously some of the issues we have with the potential constitutionality issue of Bill C-49 because of its 33 references to the Impact Assessment Act and, in particular, the parts that were referenced as largely unconstitutional.

It would be important to hear from these mining communities and the workers about how this has impacted them and their ability to do their jobs but also to have that certainty long-term knowing that their jobs are going to be there for them tomorrow, next year, and the year after that and make sure that there is a future for their jobs and for their communities. I think that's an important perspective that we will look forward to hearing from witnesses and, particularly, hopefully, from people from Timmins—James Bay.

Part of that, too, is that, when you meet with people in mining and in construction, even at the ports and other places, they talk a lot about the layering on of regulations, and the layering on of costs that continue to pile up and create problems for them. They are just looking for a streamlined process. I know that the people in Timmins—James Bay would benefit from having a streamlined process, the un-layering and unpacking of all of these layers upon layers of regulations and costs.

We know that Canada has some of the highest standards for how we develop our resources. We know that if the rest of the world adopted our standards, the world would have a much lower greenhouse gas emission footprint, yet we still seem to see the need from this government to continue to layer and pancake on regulations rather than trust the process and trust the industries that have really been world leaders at the forefront of the development of this to do what they do, rather than putting them through the gauntlet of regulatory death, basically.

We've seen that multiple times on multiple projects, where they're waiting for approval, waiting for approval, and it's delay, delay, delay. Then, finally, the proponent withdraws the proposal because they know they're either not going to get the approval or the uncertainty and the delays have cost them so much money they'd be better off to cut their losses at that point and run. That's not a situation we want Canada to be in, particularly as we have all the resources in this country that the world wants and needs.

I think we need to make sure that we are prioritizing people who can speak well to these things. That's going to be people who are working in the industry in Timmins—James Bay. They're going to want that certainty.

When Mr. Angus was still here.... He likes to talk a lot about the union jobs, which is fine. It's good that he does that, but what's important is that there will be no union jobs if there are no new projects, if there is no certainty, if there's no investment, if there's no streamlining of regulations or even just making them compliant with our constitution. I think that's of utmost importance.

Part of the reality with rural and remote communities, and with our indigenous communities as well, is that sometimes the only source of jobs is just resource development. That's the opportunity for them. That's where they see the ability for them to have self-determination, to have fair and equal economic participation in the economy. It comes from resource extraction and development and refining.

They also want certainty. They want to know that when a project that's going to be good for their people is proposed, it's not going to take 10 years to get approvals or to finally get a shovel in the ground and start building something or developing a mine or developing the resources they have available to them. That's why Conservatives want to see some witnesses from Timmins—James Bay who can bring that perspective. I think that would be very valuable.

I think part of what's going on with this committee, with this government, with the policy objectives and the multiple court rulings that have gone against the government in recent weeks.... Part of what the government is supposed to do is set the tone for how industry is going to be, set the tone so that there is a sense of optimism.

That's what Brad Wall did so well in Saskatchewan, to turn Saskatchewan from a have-not province to a have province. He set the tone by saying it's good to be from Saskatchewan. We don't need to apologize for being from Saskatchewan. He set the tone because he knew that Saskatchewan had the potential to be so much more than what it was under the NDP for years and years. Many people who left Saskatchewan found a home in Alberta, next door.

You're welcome, Mr. Chair.

They all came back to Saskatchewan because they saw the opportunity because of the tone that was set by the premier. That started in the mid-2000s with him saying that it was good to be from Saskatchewan, that Saskatchewan had what the world needed. It had what our country needed, and we were going to do what we could to provide the goods and services that were needed, both here and across the world. For the next number of years, we developed our resources in a sustainable, environmentally friendly and beneficial way. That has allowed economic participation by people from all across our province.

We have uranium developments in the north. We have potash developments all across the province. We have a lot of oil and gas extraction and development, quite frankly, all across the province, as well, particularly a lot in my riding. That comes because the government set the tone. It set out a framework for how it was going to be done, and we got things done.

The federal government then decided it was going to put a stick in the spokes, with policies like the carbon tax and the Impact Assessment Act, and really gummed up the system in the process. All of it was done under the guise that it was going to save the environment from these crazy people who were developing resources. It's really unfair to the provinces and the industry, which have done a great job of trying to make the processes better.

They have quite often done that without the government stepping in saying, “This needs to happen, that needs to happen, and that needs to be done, or else.” Definitely, taking a sledgehammer and holding it over an industry is not the way to work collaboratively, as we hear from the government a lot. Rather than working with industry to figure out how it can best figure this out, there's the stick approach instead of the carrot approach. The folks in Timmins—James Bay would agree with that, as well. As they do a lot of resource development and extraction there, it would be important to hear their views and perspectives on that, as well.

We're starting to see the provinces take matters into their own hands, yet again. That's because of the way the government has decided to set the tone. It has decided to set the tone in a way that is combative, oversteps boundaries and oversteps jurisdiction. We now see multiple provinces telling it to back off, because it is their jurisdiction, their area, and they are doing the best they can. That is why the provinces are passing a Sovereignty Act and the Saskatchewan First Act. I think our colleague, Mr. Simard, could tell us about the viewpoints of some people in Quebec about how they feel, especially regarding provincial jurisdiction.

Our provinces shouldn't have to constantly be putting the shields up and drawing their swords against the federal government, one that talks about collaboration. It says it's going to work collaboratively, and then it dumps burdensome, unconstitutional regulations and laws on top of the provinces. It then acts all surprised when the provinces are all of a sudden saying, “Excuse me”, and, like porcupines, they get their quills up, and their tails are ready to swing. That's where the provinces are at right now. They have their quills up, because they know they are being threatened by the federal government with regulations, laws, and the tone that's coming from Ottawa toward them. It is harmful to the provinces. It is harmful to their objectives and what they are trying to do.

We know the folks in Atlantic Canada want to develop their resources. Obviously, this is why the government prioritized it first in the House of Commons and passed it first. That's something we would like to see, the Atlantic provinces having the ability to develop their resources, and we're looking forward to getting to Bill C-49 first, hopefully. At that point, we will also be able to have a good, fulsome conversation and discussion around the former bill, Bill C-69, which has caused large amounts of investment to leave Canada. It's a healthy part of the job losses that have impacted non-unionized and unionized labour. It's impacted our indigenous communities, our rural and remote communities, from being able to develop their resources and being able to offer jobs and employment to their people and their residents.

It's important that the federal government deal with matters that are deemed unconstitutional. That, you would think, would be priority one, trying to resolve that. That would be my hope, that it would be resolved, and there has been no indication that will actually be the case. There were some soft words that it would work to make those sections compliant, but we've heard nothing. We haven't seen any urgency to try to get that done and get that dealt with. Certainly, on our side, we would like nothing more than to get that sorted out and dealt with.

That's part of the main motion—sorry, the main amendment to the motion that we have put forward. Of course, we're on the subamendment for members to hear from people from Timmins—James Bay, and I think they would also like to see the certainty that prioritizing the Impact Assessment Act and fixing that would bring for them, for their jobs, for their industries, for their communities. I think they would really appreciate that, so I hope the government will take that seriously and actually consider what it is that Conservatives are trying to work on when it comes to the Impact Assessment Act, and what industry has been saying and what community leaders have been saying on this. It would be a great way to do something that's good for the entirety of the country, for once. I don't think that's asking too much.

I know that our provincial counterparts would appreciate it as well, as they are looking at how best to provide more affordable, more reliable power and energy for their citizens, as that is their provincial responsibility, and having the certainty within the Impact Assessment Act would help bring that for them. I know that in Saskatchewan, for example, there's a lot of conversation happening now around identifying sites where we could build small modular reactors. They would definitely appreciate having an approval process in place that is going to be expeditious and fast, and there will be some certainty provided in it. We know the province wants to do this because they want to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, but they also want to make sure that we have reliable power that's generated right in Saskatchewan. We have some nice inner ties with Alberta, Manitoba and Montana.

When you look at the SaskPower website, you can see which direction power is flowing—if we are sending power out of province, or if we are bringing power into the province through the interties—but the Saskatchewan government wants to be able to develop uranium deposits further. Certainly, our rural and remote indigenous communities in northern Saskatchewan want to see that development as well, because it means jobs and opportunities for them, much like it would mean jobs and opportunities for the folks in Timmins—James Bay.

I think across the country, there will be a lot of demand for Saskatchewan uranium. I think these are the SMRs. Even if they were to build another CANDU reactor, for example, if somebody were to do that one day, it would be beneficial, and Saskatchewan uranium could be the ticket for that, to be able to get it done. It's a good Saskatchewan resource for good, truly clean, zero-emitting power that for years the current government has said it doesn't want and we can't have, but we know it's up to the provinces how they are going to develop their resources and provide power for their citizens. Getting this right would be the least this committee could do.

The former member for Sudbury, when we talked about this in a previous Parliament, was adamant: “No. We fixed the assessment. It was your process that was flawed. That was the problem. Ours is perfect. Ours is good. It's not the problem.” We have been hearing—and we've done multiple studies across multiple committees—that this is just not the case, and the Impact Assessment Act has caused extra delays, extra uncertainty and problems for getting projects developed.

I'm sure Mr. Lefebvre would agree that getting the process right this time around would be a good thing, after his assertions in the previous Parliament that everything was fine and that wasn't the problem. Now that it's been proven that it is unconstitutional and creates problems, I think he would agree that we should make sure we get it right this time around. I won't put words in his mouth. I know he is not here to defend himself on that, so I won't do that to him. However, the reason why I said that is that I think it's worth noting the position over multiple Parliaments that the government has had on this particular issue and its refusal to admit that there are problems.

That's what brings us to where we are today, once again talking about the Impact Assessment Act, how it's going to be a problem for Bill C-49 and how it will absolutely be a problem for Bill C-50. This is because, again, the whole just transition plan by the government is to transition workers out of the.... For sure, it's to make sure that there's no more coal in this country, but for the oil and gas sector, it would be a supposed just transition or, as we call it, an unjust transition for these workers that's going to happen.

If the government is successful in ramming this unjust transition down the provinces' and the unionized and non-unionized workers' throats.... They're not going to be okay with being janitors, as some of the briefing notes that have come to light have indicated or hinted at, and they're certainly not going to be okay with a 34% pay cut to go and work in the renewables sector right now. We heard that witness testimony a little while back. That's not to mention the fuel, the energy and the power that will have to be developed to replace the losses from those plants being shut down. That will be of the utmost importance.

It's interesting to note that in the so-called clean electricity regulations from this government, a power plant could operate for 450 hours if it's emitting after the deadline comes and goes. That amounts to less than 18 days. It's around 18 days. My quick math might have me off by a day or two. Forgive me for that. If somebody decides to fact-check me, I admit that I might be off by a day or two.

The point is that in Saskatchewan, for close to seven months of the year, it's below zero degrees. A large amount of our power in Saskatchewan comes from coal and from natural gas. It's about 73%, on average, on a daily basis. In Alberta, I think it's 85%, or somewhere around there, largely in natural gas.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

What I am trying to say, Mr. Chair, is that it is very important for the federal government to focus on federal issues and not provincial ones. I was saying, quite rightly, that the government has the bad habit of encroaching into areas of jurisdiction that are not theirs, especially as regards the environment.

Let me remind you that, with Bill C‑69, the federal government gave itself the power to decide, without consulting anyone and especially not the provinces, to conduct environmental assessments of major hydroelectric projects. Yet this is essentially a provincial matter, unless a dam were built on the St. Lawrence Seaway, which is under federal jurisdiction, but that is not likely to happen. It has been this way for a hundred years and it works very well, as we know.

So the government has given itself the power to redo what Quebec already does with respect to the environment. The environmental assessments conducted by the office of environmental public hearings are quite serious and thorough. They are conducted by scientists who reach a conclusion. The federal government, on the other hand, under the leadership of the Prime Minister, who has been in office for eight years now, thinks that the people in Ottawa are smarter than those in Quebec and will conduct a better assessment. That is not true. It simply duplicates and delays the process.

We all have the same objective of reducing pollution and greenhouse gas emissions, living in a greener environment and reducing our carbon footprint as much as and for as long as possible. That means new technologies, renewable forms of energy and, for those with the potential, hydroelectric power.

The federal government has given itself a mandate by interfering in things that are not its concern, but it was called out by the Supreme Court. Furthermore, a week or two ago, the Federal Court invalidated the government order prohibiting single-use plastics. So two courts have overturned a federal government decision. The government is not pleased and will appeal. That is its right, its privilege, and it is using it. The fact remains, however, that two courts, namely, the Supreme Court and the Federal Court, have told the government that the environment is a matter of shared jurisdiction and that it has to properly identify what is federal and what is provincial. Unfortunately, the government had not done that.

It is never too late to do so, though. As we know, the Alberta government has suggested certain measures relating to Alberta's sovereignty. Yesterday, the Minister of Environment and Climate Change said that was fine and he was not getting involved. It is never too late to do the right thing. After two warning shots from the courts, the Minister of the Environment and Climate Change finally looked at the Constitution, realized that the Alberta government was in fact right, and decided to drop it.

If people are not happy, they will send that message in the next elections. If my friends on the government side are not happy with what is happening in Alberta, let them to go the polls, and I wish them good luck. This is the fourth time I am offering my Liberal colleagues the opportunity to go to the polls in Alberta. Moreover, I understand there will not be many candidates, so they can go ahead if they like.

I want to get back to something that is very important. If by any chance Hydro Quebec does something that bears scrutiny or that does not have unanimous support, will we, at the federal level, grill the people from Hydro Quebec here for a tense fifteen minutes? I don't think so. There are other bodies that already exist for that purpose. In Quebec, that place is Quebec's National Assembly. The other provinces have legislative assemblies, except perhaps for Newfoundland and Labrador, where there is also a national assembly, as I recall. If I'm a bit off on constitutional law, I apologize. I am saying that just in case.

From my point of view—perhaps I am mistaken but I don't think so—, the motion proposed by my government colleagues is an intrusion into...

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I simply wanted to give an example that could apply to Quebec, but first I want to highlight the following. The government appears to have a strong desire to get involved in issues that are not their concern. That is especially the case with respect to the environment. Need I remind my colleagues representing the government that they got bad news from the courts, which have to review some of their decisions?

Remember that the Supreme Court of Canada called out the government with respect to Bill C‑69. Let me give an example that pertains directly to Quebec: in this regard, the federal government unilaterally gave itself the power to conduct an environmental assessment of major hydroelectric projects.

As a Quebecer, I am very proud of the major projects in Quebec that were developed in 1950s, completed in 1960s, and re-developed in the 1970s, the James Bay project in particular. I am very proud of the major advances that we, the Quebec nation, have made with respect to hydroelectric power.

With the legislation enacted by Bill C‑69, the federal government invited itself into the process to impose...

Canada Labour Code

[Tracy Gray, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Battlefords—Lloydminster.

It is always a privilege to stand in the House to speak on behalf of the constituents of Kelowna—Lake Country. Today, I rise to speak to the government's legislation, Bill C-58, an act to amend the Canada Labour Code and the Canada Industrial Relations Board regulations. The bill has two main elements. First, it would affect the use of replacement workers only in those workplaces that fall under federal regulation. To be clear, this is not for federal public sector workers. Second, the bill would amend the maintenance of activities process. Again, to be clear, this is not for federal public sector workers. This is only for companies that fall within federal regulation.

If this legislation is so fantastic for workers, as the labour minister and other Liberal members say, it is extremely curious that the Liberals did not implement it into the contracts it negotiated just recently in the federal public sector. The Liberals plan to enforce legislation for the private sector that they themselves will not be held to. The golden rule of doing unto others as one would have them do unto oneself does not exist for the NDP-Liberal government.

One of the most interesting parts of this legislation is that, if it were to pass through the House of Commons and the Senate, and receive royal assent, it would not come into effect until after the next election. Here we have another example of the Liberal government promising sunny ways now and pushing off the effects its policies would have until after an election.

One of the great privileges of serving as the shadow minister for employment and workforce development is the number of meetings and conversations I have with workers, including unionized workers. I have talked with many workers from many different industries across many provinces in the country, in Yukon, and in my community.

Most workers whom I have talked to have top priorities in their concerns with tax increases, inflation and interest rates eating away at their paycheques. These are the top issues they bring up with me. I have had workers talk to me about concerns with stable EI programs, access to training, temporary foreign workers, better access to professional testing, and the ability for people working in the trades to expense items such as tools.

I was recently speaking to a young man who is a construction worker who told me that he has a place to sleep, but it is not a home. Even though he has a good job, he does not feel like he will ever own a home. We know it now takes 25 years to save for a home in Canada. There are so many good jobs that either have left the country or have evaporated, but the NDP-Liberal government does not want to talk about that.

Let us look at the forestry sector. Thousands of good-paying jobs have been lost in my home province of British Columbia alone. These were good-paying jobs supporting families. It is not like there was less of a need for softwood lumber or pulp, but due to the Liberal government's not negotiating a softwood lumber agreement with the U.S., a lack of business confidence and an unfriendly business regime created by the government, the jobs have gone south of the border. The Prime Minister promised a new softwood lumber agreement within 100 days of his first election in 2015. We are now thousands of days past this, three U.S. presidents later and no closer to that agreement.

Mills have shut and thousands of jobs have been lost in B.C. alone. This is another broken promise. Two hundred workers whose livelihoods supported their families in my community of Kelowna—Lake Country lost their jobs when the mill closed. The Liberals were not successful in negotiating a softwood lumber section into CUSMA either. They left it up to negotiating a separate agreement, and this has not happened.

In the energy sector, over $100 billion in investments evaporated with project cancellations under the NDP-Liberal government, and tens of thousands of jobs have either been lost, or there were lost opportunities. Many cited Canada's red-tape regulatory regime as a major barrier. There used to be direct flights to Fort Mac from Kelowna International Airport, with families living in Kelowna or Lake Country. When there were massive layoffs in the energy sector early in the Liberal government's time, the flights stopped.

Around this time, I recall speaking to a family where the husband had a good job working for an oil and gas company, and his company laid off a lot of its workforce. The only work he could find at the time was cutting lawns, and he and his wife had to make the tough family decision for the wife to go back to work, even though, with two young children, she did not want to. Even with them both working, they were making less than his one previous job in the energy sector. She was also no longer able to volunteer at the kids' school, and it created a lot of coordinating challenges with activities in the family. These are the tough decisions parents make every day. If the government were truly concerned about workers, as it says it is, it should focus on making sure there is investment in Canada and removing red tape and bureaucracy. It should stop stifling business and focus on creating well-paying jobs.

The anti-energy Prime Minister and radical activist environment minister have shrunk Canada’s energy workforce while promising a “just transition” that cannot guarantee workers the same pay or benefits. The government’s own document on the just transition refers to affecting 2.7 million workers' jobs within the energy, manufacturing, construction, transportation and agriculture sectors. Let us not forget the anti-energy industry bill, Bill C-69, parts of which have now been deemed unconstitutional.

The Prime Minister said there is no business case for LNG, yet the U.S. has become a major exporter in the world in just a few years. This is another lost opportunity for Canadian workers. If the NDP-Liberal government is so concerned about replacement workers, why did it seemingly negotiate an agreement in Windsor, Ontario, which will include foreign replacement workers? The Liberals originally called this disinformation, but we now know and have confirmation from the very company hiring the workers that at least 900 taxpayer-funded foreign replacement workers from South Korea would be brought in to work on that plant, which would be subsidized by 15 billion taxpayer dollars.

The executive director of Canada’s Building Trades Unions has called the decision to allow foreign replacement workers to replace Canadian jobs at the EV battery manufacturing facility in Windsor “a slap in the face” and an “insult to Canadian taxpayers.” We now know that the Northvolt project in Quebec will bring in taxpayer-funded foreign replacement workers as well.

The government needs to make public copies of all contracts, memorandums of understanding or any other agreement between any minister, department, agency or Crown corporation of the Government of Canada, as well as all companies it has announced tax breaks and subsidies to in relation to battery production. When the Liberals put taxpayers on the hook for billions of dollars, the jobs those subsidies pay for should go to Canadian workers, not foreign replacement workers. Common-sense Conservatives are calling on the Prime Minister to release the documents for all these taxpayer-funded battery plants, so Canadians can see if the Liberal government did anything to secure guarantees for Canadian workers.

Let us talk about another recent broken promise of the Liberal government, with the announcement that it will now be raising EI premiums on every paycheque of workers in Canada in 2024. Just seven months ago, in budget 2023, it said that premiums would not be increased. The government’s inflationary deficits have crushed the purchasing power of workers' paycheques. Inflation increases the costs of basic necessities, and food inflation has been even higher. Despite the finance minister’s victory statement in September, inflation is still high; the Prime Minister's promise of bringing down food costs by Thanksgiving has come and gone. We know there is a record number of two million Canadians using a food bank each month. Rents have doubled, and taxes such as the carbon tax keep increasing. Families of all generations are being squeezed; they are on the edge of not being able to fulfill their financial commitments and pay their bills.

After eight years, inflation and interest rates at generational highs are impacting workers and their families everywhere they turn. Only a Conservative government will focus on making life more affordable and removing red tape and bureaucracy so Canadians can bring home powerful paycheques once again.

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

Mr. Speaker, since I was elected in 2015, I have spent most of my energy speaking up for the workers I represent in Calgary. They have been systematically crushed by the government, its NDP coalition partner and, sadly, from 2015 to 2019, by a short-lived NDP government in Alberta. Therefore, this bill is not one that is going to be a great prescriptive answer for workers in my riding. They have been punished by the government and it appears they will continue to be so.

I am passionate about the freedom of workers in my riding to work, about their freedom to organize and to bargain collectively through union membership. I am passionate about freedom of association. It is an essential and foundational freedom on which our country was built. Let there be no doubt about that.

Also, let there be no doubt that there is only one party in the House of Commons that supports worker, which is this party. The other three parties in the House have never supported the workers in my community. Everything the NDP-Liberal government and its fellow travellers in the Bloc do, every instinct they possess runs counter to the interests of the workers in my riding.

Let us examine the track record of the NDP-Liberal government as it relates to the workers in my community. The very first thing the government did, even before Parliament met for the first time, was to cancel the northern gateway pipeline by an order in council. This decision instantly killed thousands of jobs, union jobs, non-union jobs, indigenous community jobs, every kind of job one can imagine.

The people who would have been employed by that project were among the highest-paid workers in the Canadian economy. Had that critical infrastructure actually been built, it would have led to thousands of new jobs in extraction projects that never materialized for the lack of infrastructure that the government deliberately killed. It was literally the first thing it did when it took office.

It also denied the world access to Canada's energy products, leaving it vulnerable to dictator oil, much to our folly and what we see tragically happening in the world today as Putin funds his war machine with energy exports that could have been displaced by Canadian exports.

The Liberals passed Bill C-69, which ensured that no major project would ever be approved again. They used to have talking points that tried to deny that was case, but when the Minister of Environment was a candidate, he let the mask slip and admitted that killing the energy industry was exactly the purpose of Bill C-69. Who is paying for this? It is the workers who are paying for the destruction to the Canadian economy that has happened in this sector under the government. That bill ruined the lives of thousands of workers and their families. Under the NDP-Liberal government, 200,000 energy workers lost their job. I say that deliberately.

Let us not forget that before the federal NDP-Liberal coalition took place, there was a different alliance between the NDP and the Liberals, and that was the Alberta NDP and the federal government. Together they destroyed thousands of jobs and the lives that depended on them.

Again, these were union jobs, non-union jobs and indigenous community jobs. The callous way in which the NDP and the Liberals threw away all these jobs and made sure they would not come back is shameful. Therefore, we will take no lessons from them on protecting jobs for workers, whether they belong to a union or not.

I have said before in the House, especially between 2015 and 2018, that I had grown men in their fifties reduced to tears in my office over the loss of their livelihoods. These are highly paid, professional, proud people. Some of them were old enough that they had entered the workforce when Pierre Trudeau was prime minister. They told me that they had even managed to survive the NEP, but now they did not have a job. Women, who had reached the senior levels of corporate Calgary, were suddenly without a job.

I have knocked on doors. I knocked on one door where a mom said their family came to Canada 20 years ago. Her husband was working in the Middle East and her son was working in Texas. They had to leave the country for work in the energy industry. I will take nothing from the government on jobs.

What are the Liberals doing now? They are subsidizing replacement workers from foreign countries to come and take work away that should be given to Canadians. There was $7 billion for the Northvolt project with foreign replacement workers. There was $15 billion to Stellantis for foreign replacement workers. It is disgraceful and it is shameful the way the Liberals come here and try to lecture Conservatives on supporting workers.

We are now at the end of the year. The NDP-Liberal government tabled this bill banning replacement workers in federally regulated industries as per the demand put upon the government by the NDP. This is not what the Liberals campaigned on. This is something the Liberals voted against. The NDP has tabled this very policy in the House through private members' business.

The same Liberals who are speaking this morning in debate, who voted against this, would now have people believe that this is somehow part of their policy and what they ran on. This is clearly a long-standing NDP policy, but this is nothing more than the NDP tail wagging the Liberal dog. That is exactly why we call it the NDP-Liberal government.

The bill would ban workers from working in federally regulated industries if the workers who belong to a union go on strike. It is a bill that risks pitting workers against each other. Workers who choose not to join a union are workers too. Workers across picket lines are workers too, but not to the NDP-Liberals.

I even heard this morning the use of dehumanizing language. The Liberals referred to these workers as “scabs”. Let us think about that. It is a degrading, humiliating and dehumanizing word they used, not because this is about power for workers. It is not. It is about control and that is why they use this type of language.

The market is an amazing and undeniable force of nature, and it does tend to sort things out quickly. It allows the best decisions to be made at the bargaining table and incentivizes agreements. The government is presiding over a cost-of-living crisis where rent has doubled, mortgage payments are up 150% and a generation of young Canadian workers have given up on the dream of home ownership because they cannot afford to live in this country. We have seen food inflation. We have seen every kind of inflation fuelled by taxes paid by workers.

The NDP-Liberal government has nothing to teach Conservatives or tell Canadians about supporting workers. There is only one party that is supporting workers, the one party that stands for powerful paycheques that can be used to buy homes that people can afford in safe communities. That is what the Conservative vision is for this country. It is not spending billions of tax dollars, paid for by workers, to pay foreign workers to come and take their jobs away from them and bid up the price of homes in their communities. It is shameful.

I will take no lessons from the Liberal-NDP government on support for workers. The workers in my riding have seen the sharp end of the Liberal government. I saw desperation at people's doors, especially in the 2019 election. The community I represent is full of talented, hard-working, ambitious workers who have been crushed by the government.

The good news is they see hope. They know workers are increasingly turning to the Conservative Party, and it is the workers in Canada who are going to elect a Conservative government that will deliver powerful paycheques that Canadians need to be able to afford to live, and rein in the wasteful spending and corporate welfare that has become endemic under the government.

It is only the Conservatives in this place who are standing up for workers in Canada.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Thank you for focusing me again, Mr. Chairman.

The fact that Mr. Simard brought up my muscle cars just made me think back to the 1970 Challenger Hemi that I bought, which I had for a period of time, and the big-block Chevelle convertible, which was just phenomenal. Then I bought a Chevrolet Vega that somebody had wedged a little 327 Chevy into, and that thing just went like a bandit.

That really refocused my thoughts, my little diversion there on muscle cars, and what that has to do.... The fact is that the industry we have here in Canada that is using our natural resources is becoming more and more efficient. I was talking about the amount of hydrocarbons that I was burning back in the seventies. Now, with the technology that we have today that is making the same amount of horsepower, we're using about half of the fuel that we did before. That's amazing. Why is that important? It is important because if we're burning half the fuel, we need to produce half as much, or we can sell that much more. Whether it's in the oil and gas industry, whether it's in the forestry industry or whether it's in mining, which is what we have in Timmins—James Bay, we know that if we can become more efficient users of the natural resources that we have, they're going to last longer. They're also going to create lower emissions.

I think that creating targets that are reasonable and sustainable is important. We know that this Liberal government, in spite of the carbon tax, which was supposed to be a cure-all for everything, hasn't met any of its emissions targets—and that's unfortunate—except for the one year during COVID when nobody was driving or moving anything.

What we need to do is protect our natural resource industry. I know there are a lot of advances in technology. I know that solar and wind are important, and I know that this is the direction that Bill C-50 would like to take the natural resources industry in here in Canada. It was interesting, because we had industry on the Hill here last week, and there were industry representatives. I went to one of the receptions and was talking to one of the producers there. They were boasting about how their whole facility was solar powered. They showed me the rows upon rows of solar panels. I told them that was very interesting. They said that they have a connection to the grid in the case of the solar system not being able to provide enough energy to properly run their plants. The question I asked this young lady was this: If there wouldn't have been a subsidy to have installed these solar panels up front, would it be economically viable to be using solar energy versus the hydro energy that we have in Manitoba? The answer was no. The only way that a lot of this stuff works is if we take tax dollars and subsidize it. I think we have to look seriously at whether that's the direction that we need to go. Do we want everybody else to pay to subsidize our reduced energy bills? I don't know if that's fair. I don't think it's the right way to do it.

My point in talking about muscle cars and where that whole industry has evolved to today is that as time moves along, industry and technology advance to the point where we become more efficient. I think that over time, that happens in the energy industry as well. However, when we force it to happen this way, there's nothing efficient about it, and it takes huge amounts of tax dollars to achieve the results that we get. I believe that we'll get the same results at the end of the day if we allow these things to naturally progress, if we allow industry and technology to use our resources responsibly to create our desired results while using less of our resources, and I think we can do that.

We know that there are a lot of things that we need to consider when we're studying these bills here at the committee. I think that if we get representation in here from the mining industry, in particular from the Timmins—James Bay constituency, we're going to hear reports from these miners and company owners about how difficult it is for these junior miners to start up and how absolutely necessary the products are that they produce.

I listed several of the junior mining companies in the list that I provided for committee just a few moments ago. You could see that several of these mines are lithium mines. Lithium is a project that's required in the production and development of the batteries that need to power our electrified economy, and in these batteries that we want to make in Stellantis and Volkswagen. I think Ford is considering something as well.

It's important that we hear from witnesses from Timmins—James Bay about how they'll feel about it, and not only on the labour side. I think the labour side is very important. We want to make sure that Canadians can bring home powerful paycheques, and that they can keep a higher percentage of those paycheques in their pockets and not have to pay them through increased costs related to the carbon tax—with the higher cost of groceries, the higher cost of home heating, the higher cost of fuel in their vehicles. With powerful paycheques, we're going to build a powerful economy that is going to continue to drive the welfare of our country.

We're also going to be able to see our export markets expand. We know that Europe has a huge market for us. There are 500 million people as part of the CETA trade pact that we have access to with the free trade agreement. We can access these people with our natural resource products here. We have lots to offer them, whether it's LNG or whether it's our clean hydrocarbon diesel fuel and gas, whether it's forest products, or whether it's the lithium that comes from the mines—the cobalt, uranium—all the stuff that we need and other countries need that we have. We have that here.

We need to be responsible with how we're going to develop these resources. Bill C-69 was an abject failure in that regard. It got nothing done. It made it burdensome for the industry. It created an untenable situation for anything to happen in the natural resource sector. I think that's something we can improve on.

There's a reason this committee should be looking at Bill C-69. It should also be looking at the decision on plastics, like I said before, because of the importance of milkshakes and other things.

This committee needs to be working on legislation that the courts have said is not constitutionally compliant. It's absolutely important we do that, especially if we think we should be studying legislation that references failed legislation. We need to get it right on Bill C-69. We need to get it right on the regulation from the Liberal cabinet on single-use plastics. I think those are the issues this committee should be seized with and should be studying.

Mr. Chair, I think I've made my point, and why it's important that we hear from witnesses from Timmins—James Bay in forestry, in mining, because of the products they produce and also because of how important it is to our studies.

With that, Mr. Chair, I think I've made a good argument.

I've heard from several committee members on why they're not going to support my subamendment. I don't know why they wouldn't want to get witnesses in from Timmins—James Bay. What do these folks have against folks who live in Timmins—James Bay? Why wouldn't we want to hear from them and hear what's important to them?

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank my colleague, the member for Red Deer—Mountain View, Earl Dreeshen, for a wonderful explanation of why we need to consider this subamendment. He really created a great platform to help Canadians who are watching on TV understand what this is really about, the importance of the work this committee does and the importance of the order in which we do things in this committee.

Thank you, Earl, for doing that. You've helped, I think, all of us around this table, and certainly viewers who are watching, to understand the importance of the work that we're doing here, as well as the importance of the sequence of the work that we're doing.

Getting back to the subamendment, which was to make sure that this committee will be hearing from witnesses from Timmins—James Bay, someone might ask questions. Why Timmins—James Bay? What is so important about Timmins—James Bay? Why do we need to hear those witnesses?

It is quite simple: There is a lot of natural resource activity in that particular constituency of the country.

I acknowledge that there are 338 constituencies in Canada, many of which have natural resources. Mr. Dreeshen talked very articulately about the natural resource sector in northern Alberta, but Timmins—James Bay has forestry and lots of mining. Some of the bigger mines there are the Alamos Gold project and the Victor Mine. We hear lots of the big names fairly regularly. They come to Ottawa and solicit tax dollars for consideration, but there are a lot of others.

The concern is that we're going to be looking after labour there. That's why they want to discuss these bills, both Bill C-50 and Bill C-49. They cite the concern of wanting to make sure that labour is properly addressed there. We know there is labour involved in mining activities.

I also want to point out to folks who are watching, and to this committee, that there are lots of junior miners we never hear about that also have employees who also need to be able to count on that paycheque coming every two weeks so that they can feed their families, heat their homes and put fuel into their vehicles. These are all things that have been very negatively impacted, Mr. Chair, by a carbon tax. We've seen the price of all of those things significantly increased by a carbon tax.

It's interesting that this Liberal government carved out a geographical area of our country and gave it a carbon tax exemption or holiday. It's very interesting, because apparently it's an ideological platform of this government to have a carbon tax, and now it's carved out for a geographical area—Atlantic Canada—a carbon tax exemption to make life more affordable there.

None of the other areas of Canada received that same exemption. They didn't receive it because they're heating with more fuel-efficient methods, like hydroelectricity or natural gas from Alberta. They experienced the same cost increases due to the carbon tax, yet they did not get the benefit of that carve-out exemption that was provided to Atlantic Canadians.

We know the reason that happened. It's because the Prime Minister's polling numbers were plummeting in Atlantic Canada, and he tried to address that by throwing them a bone, as we would call it in the industry. Maybe it was keep them happy and get their support onside.

There are people in Timmins—James Bay who have experienced the same increased cost of living in heating their homes, putting fuel in their vehicles and buying groceries at the grocery store, all of which have been impacted by the carbon tax. That's no small matter here. I think this committee should be seized with the cost that carbon tax has added to everyday living.

I want to list some of the junior miners that find themselves domiciled in Timmins—James Bay. I went on the Internet to get a list of the junior mining companies in Timmins—James Bay. I would like to make mention of them, because they're why we need witnesses from these mining companies.

They include Patriot Battery Metals, Osisko Mining, Li-FT Power, Critical Elements, Lithium Royalty, Brunswick Exploration, Fury Gold Mines and Arbor Metals.

As well, we have Azimut Exploration, Benz Mining, Power Nickel, Midland Exploration, Vanstar Mining, Max Power Mining, Superior Mining, Champion Electric Metals, Ophir Gold, Consolidated Lithium Metals, Hertz Lithium, Comet Lithium, Sirios Resources, FE Battery Metals, Targa Exploration, Harfang Exploration, Quebec Precious Metals, Canadian Critical Minerals, Lithium One Metals, ALX Resources, Stelmine Canada, Dios Exploration, Niobay Metals, Medaro Mining, Opus One Gold, Green Battery Minerals, Mosaic Minerals, Stria Lithium, Genius Metals, SPOD Lithium, Metalex Ventures, Battery X Metals, TomaGold, Clarity Metals, SLAM Exploration, Durango Resources, Lancaster Resources, Rockland Resources, Arctic Fox Lithium, K9 Gold, QcX Gold, Bullion Gold Resources, Victory Battery Metals, Brigadier Gold, Lithium Lion Metals, Musk Metals, MegaWatt Metals, Fabled Copper, Nordique Resources and Q2 Metals.

That's the listing that you can find on the Internet, Mr. Chairman, about junior mining companies in the James Bay area. There's a whole host of them there, and all these mining companies have employees who work in that area and are dependent on their paycheques. What we do in this committee matters. It matters greatly, and that's why it's so important to hear from them.

However, we also need to go back and look at the platform this premise is based on and why we need to reconsider, very carefully, whether we're addressing things in the right order here. We know that the Supreme Court issued a reference on Bill C-69, which is the impact assessment legislation this government passed, which has also been referred to in the industry as the “no more pipelines” bill. We know that there was a referral that struck down about 80% to 85% of that bill as being non-charter compliant or constitutionally challenged.

This committee should be absolutely seized with getting that legislation back here to committee and identifying the areas that the Supreme Court has referred to as not being compliant with the Constitution. We should be looking at those areas and correcting them, if they can be corrected. I suspect that in a lot of instances we're going to have to just discard big segments of that bill, because it just doesn't pass the litmus test.

I think it would be very wise of us to conduct a study on that bill first and to bring in witnesses from Timmins—James Bay and see how that particular piece of legislation has impacted their companies and impacted their employees, because the Supreme Court says that it doesn't work. Then, also, the Federal Court recently ruled that the ban on single-use plastics also wasn't constitutional. I know that the NDP-Liberal government is moving ahead with contesting that further and challenging that decision. I know it is a very welcomed decision from the Federal Court.

Mr. Chairman, I get into my riding very late in the evening when we're done here in Ottawa, and I like to treat myself. I swing through McDonald's on the way home and pick up a strawberry milkshake. I have about an hour and a quarter drive to my home from the airport, so I do that quite frequently. I was reminded again last week when I went home that I put that paper straw into the strawberry milkshake and started sucking it. Well, that just doesn't work so well. You have to look at the cost-benefit aspect, and with a paper straw, the suction that you need to get that triple-thick strawberry milkshake from McDonald's up the straw and to your palate takes an incredible amount of work. We very much welcome the decision from the Federal Court to strike down this plastic straw ban.

That decision is going to be welcomed by Canadians as they go to have their strawberry milkshakes, which are an important staple here in our Canadian diet. Both of these decisions are important to this committee. Our committee should be consumed with addressing these two pieces of... One is a regulation that came out of cabinet, I suppose—the plastic straw ban—but certainly the decision of the Supreme Court on Bill C-69 is something this committee should be bringing back and studying.

Why is it important to prioritize that? It is because both Bill C-49 and Bill C-50 reference Bill C-69, which the Liberals have proposed as the next pieces of legislation on our work schedule here at this committee. If they're referencing a flawed piece of legislation, we know in turn that this legislation is also flawed. That gives us many reasons that we should be prioritizing the study of Bill C-69 over Bill C-49 and Bill C-50. Let's get Bill C-69 right, or let's actually recall all of Bill C-69 and discard it and present legislation to this committee that will give Atlantic Canada a regulatory platform for tidal power.

We could talk more about Bill C-50, which was at one time called the just transition, and then industry referred to it more as an unjust transition, which probably more adequately described the intent of that bill. The Liberal government, in an effort to try to save face, renamed that bill “sustainable jobs”, when the sustainable jobs were already there. They're in oil and gas. They're providing above-average income levels for the families involved in that industry, and in the production of the world's cleanest and safest fuels by way of diesel fuel, gas, aviation fuel and liquefied natural gas.

When this Liberal government came to power back in 2015, there were 18 LNG projects on the board. Do you know how many of them have actually been built and are in production at capacity? Zero. Zero projects have been completed. It's important for Canadians to know that. The Liberal government has either been the cause of these projects being cancelled or of their not being completed.

Meanwhile, the Americans, whom we refer to a lot around this committee when we talk about the IRA.... To folks watching on TV, the IRA is the Inflation Reduction Act that President Biden has implemented in the United States. It's a massive spending bill. We always seem to want to compete with that piece of legislation on the Canadian side. I don't know why we're so eager to race to the bottom with Joe Biden, but for whatever reason, that's the direction the Liberal government has decided to pursue.

In spite of the IRA, and in spite of the massive spending and tax credit regime the Americans have created south of the 49th parallel, they have still built and completed almost half a dozen LNG projects. Canada had opportunities in Europe and Japan to sell our liquefied natural gas, coming from the cleanest processing plants the world has ever known. Our gas and oil industry has the cleanest and safest energy model. Instead of our being able to capitalize and sell to countries like Germany, the rest of Europe and Japan, our clean LNG products are now being sold by the Americans. That's another opportunity that has been missed by the government, while at the same time it wants so desperately to compete on so many levels with the American government on its IRA.

I guess another example of that is the massive amounts, the billions of dollars—I think it's close to $31 billion—that this government has committed to large multinational corporations that want to build battery production facilities here in Canada. We're going to be giving them $31 billion of taxpayers' money.

I think Canadians need to understand what this Liberal government has committed to here, because it is no small sum. It will create some jobs, but by the way, 1,600 of them, we're told now, will come from Asian countries in the form of temporary foreign workers. When Canadians were first told about the investment into these lithium battery manufacturers, I don't think they were told that these temporary foreign workers were going to be the mainstay of the employee workforce. That's something on which we haven't seen complete integrity and openness from this government, but it's come to light now. Many of these workers who are going to be employed in these battery plants that are being built on taxpayer dollars here in Canada are actually going to be foreign nationals. That's another aspect of trying to compete with the Americans on their IRA, on their Inflation Reduction Act. I think, Mr. Chairman, that's just a race to the bottom.

I think we, as Canada here, are incredibly blessed with our God-given natural resources, whether it's oil and gas, whether it's in our mining sector, or whether it's in our forestry, all things that this committee should really be studying. We need to develop these resources. They weren't given to us just to keep in the ground and stay buried, covered in a pile of dirt.

No, we have these resources, and we've been given these resources to be good stewards of them. I think the mining industry and the oil and gas industry have shown that they're responsible and that they are good stewards of the resources that we have here in this country. We have a phenomenal amount. We're the envy of the world.

We also have clean water. We probably have the largest amount of clean water resource on the globe, and I think our natural resources companies have been great stewards in protecting the integrity of our clean, fresh water resource that we also have here.

However, there's mining that needs to happen, and we know that Bill C-69 has made mining very difficult. It's happening in Timmins—James Bay with the regulatory process that's necessary to open up new mines and to continue to develop existing mines. It's very difficult, and that is something that needs to be studied.

Just recently someone pointed out to me—and it's not a recent fact but an age-old fact—that when we look at the air that we breathe, the composition of that air.... We hear so much about carbon and the need to reduce the carbon input and we hear that we're responsible for creating all this carbon pollution everywhere. It was pointed out to me that 78% of the air that we breathe is nitrogen and 21% is oxygen, so 99% of the air that we breathe is nitrogen and oxygen. The other 1% is comprised of argon and carbon, and 0.03% is carbon.

I don't have the data to show that it's true, but some folks say that the impact of the carbon in the air could be manipulated by about 20% by human activity. If that's true, then it would be 0.006 of 1%. That's six one-thousandths of a per cent of impact that all human activity could actually have on the quality of the air we breathe in relation to carbon. Those are things that we need to consider before we light our hair on fire talking about carbon pollution.

Do we still want to reduce pollution? Absolutely, we do. Do we still want to find out more efficient ways to burn hydrocarbons? We've seen the industry really step up and do that. We've seen miles per gallon per vehicle significantly increase in the last two decades.

I remember growing up in the 1970s. I'm a little behind my colleague Earl here, from Red Deer. He grew up in the 1960s and I grew up in the 1970s. I was really fond of muscle cars.

Some of the muscle cars that I owned at that time.... The very first one I ever bought was when I was 16. It was a 1970 Mustang Mach 1 with a 351 Cleveland automatic. It had a shaker hood. It had the louvres on the rear window. It was blue with black accents. It was a wonderful car. I would have been very lucky in those days to get 15 miles to the gallon—very lucky. I had an awful lot of fun burning that gallon of gas for every 15 miles I drove.

We have cars being produced today with the same amount of horsepower, or more, that will get 30 miles to the gallon. That's a testament to industry, to how far technology has come. We've reduced the amount of hydrocarbons we consume for the same amount of horsepower that we create, whether that's in gasoline-powered engines or diesel-powered engines. We know this carbon tax is particularly burdensome to our transportation industry, which has some of the heaviest users of diesel fuel in our country. We know that every semi truck driving down the highway is burning diesel fuel. The construction industry also is consumed with heavy equipment that—

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer—Mountain View, AB]

Thank you very much, Chair.

Again, as we speak about various parts of the country, whether they be provinces, regions or each and every one of our constituencies, this is the point I wish to make, and I'm about to make it with regard to the dear friends from the Bloc that I had with me in Mexico City.

As I said, the public comments were these: “I love Canada. I love Quebec. Two great countries.” I didn't see eye to eye with that part, but nevertheless, that was what was being said.

I realized that they wanted to make Canada strong because it gave them an opportunity to be strong within a Canada that was going to be able to go around the world and be beneficial and that then they would be able to work well within that in their aspirations on sovereignty and so on—because it was the Bloc—and that it would have gone someplace for them.

Now when I listen to my friends from the Bloc, their commentary is this: “This country is so dysfunctional that we can't wait to get out of here.” It's quite a change in 12 years from “We love this country, we love your country, and we want to work together because we can see that it's positive” to the labelling and the pitting of one group against another. Believe me, it has done a lot of damage to this country.

I can see what the Bloc would do with that and how they would simply ask, “How do you expect us to want to be part of this group? You guys can't get along. It's east against west.”

Let's talk about a language against this and about the different types of energy. I would love to for us to be able to work through with the energy we have. Getting back to the natural resources side of it, I am happy that we have the great ability of this country to have so much of our electricity coming from hydro power. The point that gets me—and many people have heard me say this—is that those dams didn't just happen. The environmental damage that is associated with flooding vast sections of Canada in order to ensure we have electricity is something.... I've always said that you have to measure the environmental impact from the first shovel you use to dig something up to the very last shovel you use to cover it up.

Now, when it comes to hydro power, it's going to be a long time before we cover it up, but we should recognize that which is there. I can go through all the scientific aspects of it. I know a little bit about science. I can go through all of that, but that's not my point. My point is the metrics of analysis. When we then talk about, for example, nuclear energy.... Again, I'm dealing with this because we're part of natural resources.

Thankfully, with all of the discussions we have had over the last number of months as we've had the nuclear industry here and they've been chastised for all of the different things and so on, finally they got some recognition, recognition that if we want emissions-free electricity, then we shouldn't be damning the nuclear industry in the same way that we're putting the oil and gas industry in the crosshairs. Thankfully, that has happened. I'm happy to see that, for many different reasons, but we still have this....

I constantly hear from people I know, who know better, that what we must do is minimize and get rid of our hydrocarbons. Well, when I fly to Vancouver, I take a look at where they load all of the coal. I know where it's going, as does anybody else who flies in and out of Vancouver.

That's okay. However, if you fly over Fort McMurray, it's not okay. All this oil that has been seeping into these rivers in northern Alberta for millennia.... We've now put a stop to it. We collect it and sell it around the world, but this has been demonized. I keep telling people that the oil and gas industry hurt itself with this. It felt, “Well, anybody would understand what we're doing and how much better we are doing it than any other place in the world.” They didn't do a very good job of selling that. Therefore, it was easy for groups, especially from Europe—although we certainly have groups here in Canada—to say, “You know, the tar sands campaign”—of course, tar is something you get from a process, not what we have there—“will be something we can get a lot of money out of.” That is exactly what took place. It took place for decades. It's pitting one group against another.

I know the massive dams on these rivers are going to look like that for hundreds of years. When a pit has been completed in Fort McMurray, within 40 years, you cannot tell the difference between it and any forest that would be there. Actually, after 20 years, you can't tell the difference, except the Alberta government won't allow a complete reclamation—or whatever the term is—until after 40 years. That's what you get in Alberta. You don't get that in Venezuela. You don't get that in Nigeria. You get it in Alberta.

I have to listen to different groups demonize the oil and gas industry in my province—and worse than that, in my country. That's the part I believe is very important, which is why, when I look at what is happening with Bill C-69, I believe it is rather important that we respect that process and work from there. Those are some of the things I believe we should be paying attention to.

Talking about our own constituencies, I know oil and gas found disfavour, because it was easy for environmental groups to get money to demonize it.

Look at our agriculture area. I've been a farm kid since I was born, and I still continue to farm. I know we have a tax on agriculture as well. We do a great job. That's why, when I was at the OSCE, we talked about food security. When I went to Asia Pacific and the ParlAmericas and so on, food security was critical. I could tell them what we do in agriculture—the significance of Canadian agriculture and of what we sell. I also tied in how that's what we do with oil and gas.

The next part of it is this pass we seem to give the mining industry. Here we have an opportunity to do mining for rare earth minerals and that type of thing. We believe the people who made all their money going against oil and gas and conventional agriculture are going to let mining get this great pass.

When we talk about what is happening in Timmins or in Sudbury or in my riding, it's “Don't worry about that. That's for the greater good. That's for electric vehicles or that's for some other type of thing we have. We'll be fine. Just you guys stop with this hydrocarbon development, because we believe that's a problem”—“we” being the Minister of the Environment and the Minister of Natural Resources.

That is the reason I am so concerned about the way we are going in this country. We are looking at ways that we could pit one group against another. I do not believe that it will change with this present administration, and that is something that bothers me.

I would think that somewhere along the line, people could look at what we do and what Canada does, be proud of that and speak about the things we do together, rather than people such as me having to go to international fora. I listen to our government talk about how embarrassed they are that we are a major oil and gas-developing nation and that with any luck they will be able to come up with another plan. Those are the things that concern me.

There are other aspects when we speak about Bill C-50 and the transition away from traditional oil and gas jobs, about how things are going to be so much better if we can just tie into the new world order that we see and be prepared for all of us to use a new energy source and change our way of doing things.

Depending upon which way the earth is turning, it takes me four hours on average to get from Alberta to Ottawa, which is about the same amount of time it takes if I want to fly to Mexico. We have six time zones in this country. When I look out the plane window, I see the amazing things we have, the natural beauty and the water. I know that we have minerals there. I know the other things that are associated with it, and I am proud of every part of this.

My wife's family came from Prince Edward Island. They were there in the 1800s. They were mariners. I have a great sense of pride for that part of the country and for the Maritimes. I have friends I went to school with who are from Quebec. They are great, hard-working people. Then there's Ontario and all of the western provinces.

In my role with indigenous affairs and northern development, I have met some amazing individuals in that community. Believe me, I would tell people that if they wanted to find a CEO to come and work in their company, they should talk to these people. They understand what's going on. They know what is taking place.

My thought when I became an MP was that we would find ways of bringing this country together and be proud of it, rather than finding ways of dividing. Sadly, we seem to make sport of that. That is something that I feel is not standing us in good stead.

I've been fortunate in that I've spent time on the agriculture committee. I've spent time on public accounts, so I understand how the funding of government goes. I also understand what happens when things go awry with government. I've also been on international trade, so I know how important it is to trade our goods around the world. I know how well respected our goods are around the world.

I've been in South America, talking to mining companies there that are Canadian. We have a lot of Canadian mining companies. Yes, sometimes they take over a mining operation that was not looked after very well, so we have groups here in Canada that will attack them.

I remember one group—I believe it was in Colombia—that basically made a point. They said they needed consultants. Here's how they were going to use consultants: They weren't going to take some American consultants who came down, or somebody from Canada. They were going to go to the local colleges in these countries and bring these people to be their consultants so that they could have respect and talk to the priests, the community leaders, the government, the environmentalists, the farmers and everybody. That's how they were going to deal with that.

They brought the groups together. These Canadian mining companies basically said that they needed to do that to gain trust, so that's what they did.

At the same time, I remember that here, we had motions coming to the floor from the Liberals that were basically criticizing our mining companies around the world. By extension, then, that would include these that were doing a great job.

It gets a little frustrating when the mindset is, “Let's be critical”. The mindset is to look at these things and find out just what to do to minimize the efforts of expert Canadians.

I suppose I'm going back to my 34 years as a teacher in math, physics, biology and chemistry—primarily math and physics. The problem is that we have preconceived notions of what is happening in the world.

One book I've been looking at is called Factfulness by Hans Rosling. He was a medical doctor as well as a statistician. He goes through a series of questions that he would ask the public. They're simple types of things. I'll just take an example. I think you'll be curious to see this.

In all low-income countries across the world, how many girls finish the first five grades of school? Here are the options: (a) 20%; (b) 40%; or (c) 60%. In low-income countries around the world today, how many girls finished the first five grades of school? I'm not a teacher anymore, so I'm not going to make a test out of it. It's 60%.

That's not what the results were when they gave this question to the general public, to people we depend on in different world-wide organizations or to academics. They got less than what it would have been if they had randomly chosen it.

Another question is, “In the last 20 years, the proportion of the world's population living in extreme poverty has...”. The options are “almost doubled”, “remained more or less the same”, or “almost half”. Well, most people think poverty is getting worse, but no; it's half of what it was before, because of different things that we've done.

For life expectancy in the world, they had a) “50 years”; b) “60 years”; and c) “70 years”. This is in the world. It's 70 years. That's what it really is.

I don't want to belabour it, but my point is that people like me have these preconceived notions of what is taking place. I grew up in the sixties, and these were the things that we were all bombarded with. We teach teachers—the older ones teach the younger ones. This is our preconceived notion of what is taking place in the world, so that is something we present.

However, when we look at it statistically, we see that we've been wrong. Governments bring together their sayers of sooth, but they're wrong, and we make decisions and policies that are related to that. The only thing on which they agree with us is the 13th question.

Actually, I want to go to the 12th question. It asks, “How many people in the world have some access to electricity?” The options are 20%, 50% or 80%.

Well, it's 80% of the world that has access to electricity.

Another one asks “How many of the world's 1-year-old children today have been vaccinated against some disease?” Option a) was 20%, b) was 50%, and c) was 80%.

The answer is 80%.

We don't think that way. We don't look at those statistics. We believe the things that we are told through social media, through reports that we see on various news agencies. I won't go into the ones that I think are somewhat off.

The only one on which it seems that we have it right says, “Global climate experts believe that over the next 100 years, the average temperature will: a) get warmer, b) remain the same, or c) get colder.”

Well, it is true that global climate experts believe that it will get warmer.

Again, I mentioned that it was the sixties when I grew up. It was a little before that when I was born. However, I remember all of these different stages—here is the next ice age; here is what is going to happen with our ozone layers; this is going to happen here, and everything is going to be flooded. It was all of these problems. We are going to have massive hurricanes. We are going to have massive forest fires. We are going to have all of these types of things. If you believe that narrative, then you are prepared to make statements that say that the Earth is boiling and you will believe somebody who says that.

The facts don't bear it out. The sad reality is that one of those other groups that have been criticized for not doing their job has been forestry. Of course, forest communities live around the forests. They have not done those things that were necessary for them to be able to protect themselves. The opportunities are there, but they just have not used them.

How can we here, in Canada...? We've had some terrible things, and I know people who have lost homes and so on. We have people who categorically will state that it is all because of climate change. Well, the U.S. doesn't have a carbon tax, and this last year has been one of the least severe fire seasons ever—with no carbon tax.

I know that this correlation doesn't make sense, any more than the correlation makes sense that if you charge a carbon tax, you're going to be able to solve these problems.

The correlations don't make sense, but they sure make good clips in the House of Commons. They make pretty good clips when you say, “This person here is a climate denier.” I've had that accusation.

All I simply said is that I remember going to Drumheller Valley and looking at a sign that said that 10,000 years ago, we were under a kilometre of ice. Yes, there has been global warming. At that time we were only under a kilometre of ice. Montreal was under two miles of ice, so they had even more hot air there as things changed.

I don't know how many people know about Lake Superior. It wasn't there about 15,000 years ago. It was carved out of the glacierization. The fact is that as massive dams of ice broke as the climate started warming, the Great Lakes were formed. That's the reality we have, but nobody pays attention to those things because they'd sooner talk about somebody being a climate denier or this sort of thing. There are all these things that nobody pays much attention to, so it's important that if we're going to make up policies, we take a look at all politicians who give that simple argument as to how this can happen and how that can happen.

In our case, it's how far down the road we are going to be before we can fix some of the problems we see, and there are a lot of them. The main one is that we have such wealth in this country. We have so many unique innovators in this country. We've heard—and I can't remember whether it was here in the natural resources committee or back in the environment committee—about a group who built hovercraft in Ontario. In order to get funding to proceed, they had to go through the U.S., and where did they get their funding from? It was Canada pension plan. That's where the money came from when they went to the States to be able to develop the programming they had.

It seems a little odd to me that we can't figure out a way to make those types of things happen. Nevertheless, that's what we are dealing with when we have ideologically driven leadership, because they stop thinking.

We talk about how every one of our communities is affected by the IRA in the U.S., which Biden has signed on to. We are expected now to change all of our rules for our investments and all of the things that are taking place.

The first thing that the Biden administration did when they came in was to shut down Keystone XL. When they realized that they needed a little bit of diesel and they needed a few other things, they asked where they were going to get this from. They made deals with Venezuela to get their heavy oil.

Again, not a lot of people understand the science of all of this, but heavy oil has all of the different things you need. It has what you're going to use for asphalt and it has what you're going to use for diesel. It has the gasoline, and you have the propane. You have all these things.

It all comes out of one pot. It's how you deal with it that is important, but we seem to forget that. We seem to forget how much of what we do and what we use is actually coming out of the hydrocarbons that we have. That's why these different regions get a little upset when someone does not respect those parts of the country that champion these new technologies.

Before people just say, “You don't like the concept of a carbon tax” and all this other kind of stuff—because I know I'll get that—Alberta has had a fee for heavy emitters for close to 20 years. There was no way that each and every one of those businesses could take an amount of money and efficiently fix or change their industry, so they put it together into a fund, and that fund, as it grew, was then able to fund industry-wide solutions, such as carbon capture utilization and storage, such as taking nanoparticles of carbon and putting them into different types of products, whether it was steel or whatever. Those are the things that are done if you are wise.

How do you get to the stage where you can afford to be wise? You take a product you have, make it the best in the world, sell it and get tax dollars to build schools and hospitals in your province. You have tax dollars that go to helping other provinces in this country. You have tax dollars to help with all the needs the federal government has, and you have tax incentives and dollars to make the environmental aspects of what we have in this country even better. What can you do with that? You sell it around the world.

What are we going to do with things the way we have set it up? We will chase that innovation out of this country, similar to the hovercraft, and then we will buy it back from others around the world. Where is the logic to have other provinces suggest that Alberta is doing all this damage to the world and that they are going to do all they possibly can to stop it? Where is the advantage to having political parties that believe it worked for Greenpeace and for all these other groups? Lots of money comes in if you fight them, so that's what they will do again. Where is the advantage? How does that build a nation?

As I mentioned earlier, I can see where the Bloc would look at it and say, “Who cares? We don't want you guys to build a strong nation. We have an exit strategy.” However, it should matter to my friends in Quebec. It should matter to my friends in the Maritimes. It should matter to my friends up north. It should matter to my friends in Ontario. It should matter to my friends in the west, and it should matter to my friends whom I have met and have spoken with for many years around the world when I say, “If you would just come to Canada, and if you would just look at what we produce, how we produce it and why we would do it this way, you will be impressed.” That would mean there is no better place for you to invest. Certainly, if you need products, take a look at Canada and what Canada has to offer. That's where I'm going with this.

I believe that such an amazing country, with 338 ridings at this point in time that depend so much on oil and gas and its byproducts.... We look at the things we have around this table and at the things we wear. All of those things are critical. Why would we want to go someplace else or not have that opportunity to at least sell and buy that product? Those are some of the things that I'm extremely concerned about.

As I've said, on the world stage, we have lost our way. I can't believe the way in which we are portrayed around the world at this point in time. I have friends who have been in India, Asia and so on, and when I was on the international trade committee, we spent time with the ASEAN countries and talked to them. This was at about the time when the Prime Minister went to India with his family and sort of embarrassed things a bit. Maybe some people didn't think so. Nevertheless, even Liberals who were with me on that committee—I won't name names—were scratching their heads as to what was taking place.

We had the same sort of thing happen with trade developments. When we talked about CETA, the ball had already been hit out of the park. All this Prime Minister had to do when they brought it back to home plate was to put his signature on it. That is how far CETA had been. Then, of course, he decided, “Well, there are a few other things I'd like to see added to this thing, so let's open this up.”

The same kind of thing happened in Vietnam in the meetings there: “If I show up on time, it's probably because I've been working on these great things to add a few more letters to the agreements.” The people who were there would look at it and say, “Well, why? Why would you do that? I thought we were talking about trade. I thought that was the rationale. I thought that was the reason we had.”

Again, on this latest issue they're trying to say, “Don't you know that Ukraine has a carbon tax?”, and all of this kind of stuff, thinking that they've really found something special to hang their hat on. Well, when you go from a 56:1 ratio to an 80-some-to-one ratio, of course people knew that they had to sign on to an agreement to be part of the EU, but when you take a look at the other aspects of it, again, it's back to the history of what happened in Berlin.

Canada was saying, “Hey, we're going to do this carbon tax, so why don't you guys get on our side and make it so much easier?” In Birmingham they said: “Well, we've even gone a little further because we have a Minister of Environment and a Minister of Natural Resources who just love this stuff, so we're going to say that as Canadians we are going to do all we can to limit the expansion of hydrocarbons, even though it's here in our country and it would really hurt us more than anybody else.”

That's really where we're at. Those are the reasons I am so concerned about how each one of our ridings is going to deal with the issues that are taking place. Again, I go back to what I said about from the first shovel to dig something up to the last shovel to cover it up.

I know that there was a great discussion having to do with biodiesel or ethanol and those types of things as farm products. All I can say is, that's great. I know we can do these things. As a matter of fact, probably 30 years ago I was approached by a group to commit about 500 acres of barley to a project that would have turned the barley into ethanol. Then you would take the ethanol and move it off, and then you would take the mash and you would feed it to animals. Then you would take the methane you would have from those animals and that would help run your system.

There were two things.

First, it would have probably been useful. The only thing was that they said it would work dependent upon subsidies that we could get from the Alberta government. Well, I look at subsidies as “that's my tax dollar” and “that's my neighbour's tax dollar”. I can't do something just because it came from my neighbour's tax dollar. It has to do something on its own.

It would have been a neat thing to do, but I didn't feel that it was right. It got to the stage where we talked about zoning and how we would do all of this stuff, and how it was a “good idea”, but it wasn't the right thing at the right time.

If I were going to deal with what I was getting out of this, I would have had to look at how much fuel I was going to use for this 500 acres of barley that I had to commit, so I would have had to treat it in exactly the same way and manage it and analyze it in exactly the same way I would if I were selling it for cattle feed. I'd have to do that. I'd have to then look at the cost of the facility and the cost of everything else associated with that, as well as the trucking. Those were some of the metrics I looked at.

We need to do that for everything else we do. When we say, “Oh, I think we'll go to Timmins and we'll start digging up there, and everybody's going to be happy.” Well, that's not likely. We can try to find all of the rare earth minerals around Canada, and it's not that we can't do it, but at what cost?

Right now, we're still sending coal to China, and if they're producing and mining in their country, where are we going to buy these things from? We're going to buy them from them, because they are part of that supply chain. With them as part of that supply chain, we will not be able to compete. We will not be able to compete with the way in which they have taken over African countries and the way in which they get cheap labour in order to produce these products that we all seem excited about having.

We're going to say we're going to do it and we're going to say because the U.S. is doing this, we have to make sure we get in on it as well. Again, as I mentioned before, sometimes we hear things and we think that we know everything, so I'm going to preface some of this.

When we hear that companies in Europe—GM, Ford, Stellantis and so on—are actually cutting back on their electric vehicles because of the supply chain, the costs, the high electricity rates, then we start to think that yes, this was a good idea, but how do we make it work? How do we measure the environmental impact as we do the mining in our region and do all of the other things that are there?

We, as Canadians, go over and above everything to make sure that we have satisfied any group that wants to send in a brief or have a discussion, and we do that. We encourage it, so we should actually listen to them when they come.

That's the issue we have right now. That makes it kind of difficult for us to proceed.

As I mentioned before, if you have billions of dollars of subsidies to these companies, even if they're suspect as to how they might get built and by whom, still it's $15 billion from Canadians for this kind of a project. Wouldn't it better to look at the strengths we have and take vehicles, as we have, that have gone from 10 or 12 miles per gallon to 30 miles per gallon? Wouldn't that be a better way?

As we purchase this fuel that we have, we then put that money into our schools, our hospitals and our national defence and into all of the things that Canadians need. We help out those provinces that for some reason or other have a different way of analyzing their balance sheets. I would think that would be a wise thing to do.

How do you do that in a country that pits one group against another? How do you that when the mandate letters for the Minister of the Environment and the Minister of Natural Resources just cut and paste from one to the other? How do you look at a department?

I understand government. They are beholden to the thoughts and ideology of a government. I understand that's how it's done, but how do we find our way through when this is what we are doing to this wonderful nation of ours?

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer—Mountain View, AB]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I, too, have been waiting for this opportunity to speak and to discuss some of the significant aspects of what we have before us, including, as other speakers have just mentioned, what the order should be as far as Bill C-49 or Bill C-50.

Of course, I think many people are aware of the major concern with Bill C-69, which of course affects all ridings. It affects Timmins; it affects my riding, and it affects every one of the 338 ridings in the country where the Supreme Court has found that there are aspects of Bill C-69 that are unconstitutional.

We then look at Bill C-49, which has, at initial count, 33 references to the points in Bill C-69 that have been deemed unconstitutional. Therefore, the suggestion is made that maybe we should actually look at that which the Supreme Court said was so egregious before we as a committee...or for that matter before the government decides to push forward with legislation that it knows is formed on something that has been challenged.

This, I believe, is the critical aspect of the discussion. When we say there is something that the people in each of those 338 ridings need to be aware of, it is the court's decision on those parts of Bill C-69 that have already been made to the citizenry. How then can we justify dealing with legislation until that has been dealt with?

How is the government planning on dealing with that?

We listened to the Minister of the Environment basically saying that he doesn't think they're right, so we'll just kind of shuffle it around a bit so that we don't have to worry about that.

Well, that isn't exactly what the Supreme Court suggested as the solution to the fact that these points were considered unconstitutional.

We have seen the same attitude since then. The point I want to make has to do with attitude. That is with the plastics ban. Again, the Federal Court is saying that this, too, has remnants that are unconstitutional. The suggestion is just that we'll run roughshod over this, too. It's not an issue.

Of course, then we come back to the stage where we say that this is natural resources, so the fact that the Minister of the Environment chooses to get engaged in that discussion and so on.... Maybe we should just deal with what the Minister of Natural Resources has to say. Of course, we've made reference to having both of them, and even others, come to speak to the committee.

I made a very significant point, when I was on the environment committee, of looking at the mandate letter of the Minister of the Environment. Then, when I moved here to natural resources, I made a special point of looking at the mandate letter of the Minister of Natural Resources.

I challenge people to find where the major differences are. When we have a Minister of Natural Resources who has not been charged with finding the very best opportunities for every one of Canada's natural resources and when he is using the same set of metrics he had when he was environment minister or when the new environment minister came into play, how does that become significant as far as natural resources are concerned?

We have heard, through our discussions in the past, that parts of their legislation have been unfair. It has been unfair to regions. It has been unfair to provinces. Quite frankly, after the many years I spent on aboriginal affairs and northern development, I know it has been unfair to our indigenous communities, because they have a lot of money already in the game of natural resources.

We talk about some of the other features of how the government looks at our natural resources and how we, as a country, can manage them.

I'll go back a number of years to a meeting with the OSCE in Berlin. At that time, there were discussions and different things taking place. Of course, the environment, science and technology were some of the main features there. The contribution Canada brought to the table in an amendment to one of the major supplementary items being discussed on the floor among this group of 50-something countries—it is beyond the European Union—was that.... They wanted that group to more or less rubber-stamp the fact that Canada believed a carbon tax was the very best solution for managing environmental concerns. That was our contribution to the discussion. We had others: some workings on helping women be involved in parliamentary associations and that type of thing, and on helping out journalists who were being attacked. There were a lot of other things there, but that was our contribution—

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Of course, it is good to be able to continue this conversation. I was a little surprised actually that the Liberals denied consent to allow this meeting to continue because I was happy to continue talking about the divisions that Liberal Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has inflicted upon our country. Chair, let me just highlight a couple of examples of this.

On the very human level, when I speak with constituents an increasingly common sentiment that I hear, and this is tragic, is that my constituents feel that Canada is broken. In many cases, Chair, they will share things with me like they're simply not sure about whether our country has a future. In fact, there are some who feel like there's no option but to see that the consequences of disunity could be absolutely devastating to the future of our country.

Chair, the reason why that's so tragic is that it could have been avoided and should be the priority of any leader and any member of a governing party. Their first priority in government should be national unity. Yet we have seen over the last eight years an intention of dividing Canadians for narrow political gain. In fact, we saw that just this past week in how the Liberals intentionally included in a free trade agreement with Ukraine a carbon tax mechanism. It's shameful that they would be so intent on division that they do this even with a country at war. To play that sort of politics is absolutely shameful. Chair, I have the court ruling here on the Impact Assessment Act, and we see that it was found to be largely unconstitutional, Bill C-69.

This should be no surprise to anybody who has listened to commentary on this subject over the last six or so years since this was introduced. Every province—in fact the only thing we see provinces united in these days it seems is that they're united against the actions of Justin Trudeau, and that's certainly not a record that one should be proud of. I talked about the carbon tax. It has intentionally divided Canadians, including I mentioned the Canada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement. It was the Conservatives who initially negotiated that back in 2013. In fact, it was Stephen Harper who looked Vladimir Putin in the face and told him to get out of Ukraine. That's leadership, not like what we have seen by this division perpetrated by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.

We've see the carbon tax and this recent carve-out that benefits 3% of Canadians. It continues to punish the other 97% of Canadians, including those who are struggling to pay their heating bills for propane, natural gas and other forms of energy that are still subject to that. We see that intention to divide. In conversations around equalization where there should be the willingness to have real conversations with provinces, we have not seen that under Justin Trudeau. He may talk big about a photo op, but then when it comes to what happens behind closed doors, it's division and pitting region against region. We see that with the continued conversation around the emissions cap.

Chair, I could only imagine if the Prime Minister was to pick any other part of the country and tell them that they cannot do what they are good at. Could you imagine any other sector, whether it be manufacturing or whatever the case may be, pick a part of the country and if the federal government was to swoop in and say you can't do what you're good at.... Mr. Chair, it is absolutely shameful the division that is being perpetrated on this country by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and his Liberals.

We see that with the Keystone XL. This is the tragic irony, Chair, especially with the Keystone XL pipeline. The Alberta portion of that pipeline is in my constituency, and I saw about 2,000 jobs lost because our Liberal Prime Minister refused to work with his American counterpart because they were so blinded by ideology around the future of energy security in North America that they cancelled the pipeline at a time when Conservatives were vocally saying the entire time that energy security would be key to our world's security future. Yet, we see that the Liberals capitulated. We see that with the just transition, a policy that is designed to divide Canadians for narrow political gain. We see this with LNG.

Again, there were, I think, 18 projects on the books when Justin Trudeau took office. Never before in Canadian history.... Whether it be Canada's fiscal situation, whether it be with the economic opportunities, Justin Trudeau was handed a circumstance that any world leader would be jealous of, yet he squandered it away for narrow political gain.

Chair, the reason that this is so applicable to the conversation we are having today around this amendment and the motion is because the Liberals, throughout the last eight years, have led our country to a point where Canadians are pitted against one another and where there is division layered upon division. The result is that we have seen less prosperity.

The result is that we have seen political divisions that are incredibly harmful. In fact, just this past week, you had Liberals who were almost incoherent because Canadians would dare question that they were concerned about the activist environment minister—the same environment minister who was criminally charged for environmental activism—who would try to influence so-called independent senators, although they certainly showed their hand in the last week. Members of that Liberal party were so outraged that Canadians would dare to share an opinion that contradicted their official narrative. It is truly unbelievable and shameful.

Chair, many of my constituents, as I shared at the last meeting, remember Pierre Elliott Trudeau and the divisions perpetrated upon our country. In fact, I often still hear—Rick would probably remember some of those days, as I wasn't born yet—that many are not surprised that the son of Pierre Elliott Trudeau would continue along that path where he—you've heard of the Trudeau salute—would continue to divide this country for political gain.

It is unbelievable. It is unacceptable, and Canadians deserve better.

Chair, I hope for this committee that Liberal, NDP and Bloc members will take seriously this common-sense amendment to try to take some of the language of division, the politics of division, out of this motion, which has been brought forward for no other reason than to continue perpetrating that division upon Canadians, east versus west, north versus south, urban versus rural and, in this case, the rest of the country against Alberta.

I look forward to continuing the discussion on this. I hope that this committee will see that better is possible, that we can bring home a country that is once again unified. However, the history of the last eight years certainly does not give me and my constituents optimism in that regard. That is why we so desperately need a change. We need a government that is willing to put the unity of our country ahead of personal partisan political goals, and as we increasingly see with the number of scandals that seem to be making Liberal insiders rich, their personal financial interests.

Thank you very much, Chair, for this opportunity. Certainly I'd be happy to expand further on the connection between this amendment and the history that has led to the point we're at today, and I certainly will do so. As I cede my time to the next person on the list, I would ask to be put back on the list so that we can continue this conversation.

Thanks, Chair.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

I guess at this point I'd like to introduce a motion. I move that:

The committee report to the House that the Federal Court of Canada has overturned the Liberal Government’s cabinet order banning plastics, declaring the order, “unreasonable and unconstitutional”, and “invalid and unlawful”, that the committee urge the Liberal Government to act in accordance with Canadian law, and no longer introduce legislation and Cabinet Orders that contravene Canada’s laws and constitution.

Mr. Chair, I'm very surprised that this matter has not been raised at the environment committee yet, which is why I'm raising it today.

The Federal Court of Canada has deemed this Liberal government's plastic ban “unreasonable and unconstitutional”. Those are the exact words from the court. This is the second time in nearly a month that the courts have ruled that the Liberal government's environmental policies are unconstitutional. Last month the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that the Liberals' “no more pipelines” bill, Bill C-69, was unconstitutional, and now we know that Minister Guilbeault's plastic ban is also unconstitutional. I wish he would just quit hiding from this committee so that we could ask him some quick questions on his failed policies, but he keeps hiding from Canadians.

It's been over 240 days since this minister has testified at committee. He has been embarrassed by these court rulings, but Canadians deserve answers. I expect that the Liberals and the NDP will once again block this motion and continue on, but the Conservatives believe the government needs to quit introducing legislation that contravenes the laws and the Constitution.

I hope we can vote quickly on this matter and move forward with our study.

Foreign Affairs and International Development

[Rick Perkins, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today on the discussion about the report from the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade entitled, “The Russian State's Illegal War of Aggression Against Ukraine”.

As Canadians know, Conservatives have always stood with Ukraine. Those who have had the pleasure of hearing at committee some stories from my personal history will have heard that, back in 1991, when the Soviet Union was collapsing, I was the senior adviser to Canada's foreign minister.

I can remember the weekend that I spent on the phone with the Prime Minister's Office, the Privy Council Office and former deputy prime minister Don Mazankowski, the first Ukrainian deputy prime minister of Canada, discussing what we should do. The Soviet Union had not quite collapsed, and Mikhail Gorbachev was trying to institute his glasnost reforms. It looked like, within a few weeks, there would be a collapse.

We had a long discussion about recognizing Ukraine first. We were the party that recognized Ukraine on that weekend, December 2, and we were the first country in the world to recognize Ukraine as an independent country, separate from the old Soviet Union. That was a momentous thing because, of course, we have a large diaspora of Ukrainians in Canada. I am proud to have played a very small and minor role as a senior adviser to the then minister of foreign affairs, Hon. Barbara McDougall, when we did that.

We do support all of the recommendations in this report, but I would like to draw attention to a couple of particular interest to us. The previous speaker spoke about recommendations 12 and 13, and I will come to that, but I would like to focus a little on recommendation 8, which says:

That the Government of Canada work with its international and domestic partners to improve the coordinated implementation and enforcement of sanctions against Russia, by working to identify all assets connected to designated persons and closing any loopholes that may exist.

There are a lot of loopholes that still exist today. Not to toot my own horn, but I worked on creating the legislation the Government of Canada still uses today back in 1991, when there was the coup in Haiti. We wanted to impose economic sanctions, globally through the OAS and then through the UN, on Haiti and the illegal coup of Haiti's first democratically elected president.

There was no power to quickly impose economic sanctions. We quickly created within about four days a piece of legislation that was introduced and passed unanimously through the House and Senate within about 48 hours to create a bill that gave the Governor in Council the power to quickly move and impose economic sanctions.

We know these sanctions are leaking, and I have raised this before in committee. I said it as a member of the fisheries committee. While the government has targeted specific individuals, and all of those are justified, what it has not done is looked at the leakiness of the sanctions overall. I have an example that has had a very large impact on Atlantic Canada. The snow crab fishery is a very big fishery off Newfoundland, and 52% of the crab fishery caught in Newfoundland was, until this war happened last year, bought by Japan, through contracts.

When the war broke out and Russia was desperate for cash, it started to sell their snow crab at a much cheaper price on the global markets. Most countries respected the fact that that money would be used for fuelling Putin's illegal war and did not bite. Japan did bite, broke every contract in Newfoundland and stopped buying all their snow crab from Newfoundland. Now Japan buys most of their snow crab from Russia, helping to fund their war.

The minister and the Liberal government have never raised those kinds of issues with counterparts. We have raised them with the minister, and the minister was totally unaware that this had happened.

It is not unusual for a Liberal minister to be unaware, but one would think that, when we are dealing with sanctions in a war, it is not just about the individuals but is about the flow of cash that is going in by buying goods of our G7 allies.

I would also like to comment on recommendation 12, which reads, “That the Government of Canada not grant a sanctions waiver to Siemens Energy Canada Limited for Nord Stream 1 pipeline turbines....”

Remember, with the turbine, Russia did this fake thing about needing the turbine for the pipeline that brought natural gas and oil into Europe. It brought in a need for repair, and the government said it was no problem, to bring it in here and we would repair it. Then the war broke out and Russia said it wanted it back in order to facilitate the continued supply of that oil and natural gas, supposedly. The government acquiesced, granted a waiver, sent it back to Russia and allowed it to continue to ship oil and natural gas to fund its war.

In fact, if we look at some of the testimony in this report, it quite clearly shows that a number of witnesses were flabbergasted the Government of Canada would allow such fakery to happen.

In addition, in a rare moment of clarity on the liquefied natural gas issue, the Minister of Natural Resources said at the time, and this is from page 31 of the unanimous report, that he could not “overemphasize the depth of concern on the part of the Germans, but also on the part of the European Union, with respect to the potential implications associated with their effectively not being able to access natural gas.”

The report goes on:

In addition to the concerns expressed by Germany and the EU, the Minister [of Natural Resources] noted that, in conversations had with the United States, “they reflected and shared the concerns about the divisions that could end up undermining support for Ukraine....”

That was the Liberal minister, but yet when the Chancellor of Germany came to Canada and Germany was begging for our natural gas to deal with the issue of the impact on energy supply in Europe because of this illegal war, the Prime Minister said that there was no business case to ship it oil.

Maybe there is a case to get it done because there is a war on, but of course we were not ready to do that. When the Prime Minister and these Liberals came to power in 2015, there were 15 LNG plants on the books. As they progressed with their agenda, their no-pipelines bill, Bill C-69, or the “no capital bill”, as I call it, to drive capital out of Canada, we have how many? I am sure there are members here who could tell me how many have been built since those 15 were proposed and going through the environmental system.

I hear a colleague say zero. Maybe the true answer the Prime Minister should have given the Chancellor of Germany is that he messed up and that he was not ready to deal with the issue of making sure good, clean, ethical Canadian natural gas could be accessed by Europe, which has become totally dependent on Russia, in case of emergencies. Unfortunately, that was not his answer. He glibly said that there was no business case for it. I am not sure the Prime Minister has actually ever read a business plan, but he told the Chancellor that, and so Germany went and obtained the natural gas it needed from dirty dictatorships. That is the great foreign policy we have had.

My colleague mentioned the fact that if the Liberals were truly interested in supporting Ukraine, they would have put provisions in the free trade bill to enable and foster the ability of our country to supply more munitions to Ukraine and to manufacture them. In fact, if there is a gap in political risk insurance by the EDC, it is easy for the Government of Canada to show its commitment to Ukraine by using the Canada account to help Canadian munitions manufacturers located in Germany and deal with the risk insurance issue.

Have the Liberals used the Canada account to do that? No, so their commitment to Ukraine is, like all other things, fairly superficial and not done with the seriousness one would expect from an ally of an important democratic country in this world and of our diaspora of 1.5 million Ukrainians in Canada who expect more from the government.

Enhancing Transparency and Accountability in the Transportation System Act

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise in the House and speak on behalf of the incredible constituents of Calgary Midnapore.

Before I begin my speech, I would like to state that I will be splitting my time with the member for Provencher. I look forward to his remarks following mine.

When I received the request from our shadow minister for transport, the member for Chilliwack—Hope, I was, in fact, very honoured. One of my greatest achievements in my time in the House of Commons was serving as the shadow minister for transport during the pandemic. I can certainly tell everyone that things did not function as they should have during that time. They did not function at all, in fact.

My experience, based upon that time, leads me to the conclusion that there is, in regard to the government, lots of regulation and no responsibility. This also summarizes my conclusion regarding Bill C-52.

I think that this is a theme we have seen with the government. We have seen this with some recent decisions made at different levels of government, as well as at higher courts, including with regard to Bill C-69, the “no more pipelines” bill, as we called it here. There, they put in significant regulation against not only pipelines but also, actually, lots of other pieces of infrastructure. We see that this was, in fact, overturned.

Just this past week, as well, we were very happy to see, on this side of the House, the overruling of the single-use plastics legislation that was put in by the government. Again, the government imposes all this regulation on industry, on Canadians and on third parties without taking the responsibility for the regulations that it has imposed upon itself. I think we are seeing this again in this bill.

I am sure that we are aware that 2022 was a disastrous summer travel season, as well as a terrible holiday travel season through December. Really, if we look back at that, it was for the reason that I gave at the beginning of my speech, which was poor management of the transportation sector through the pandemic.

Frankly, they had no plan for the airline sector at that time. As the shadow minister of transport, I certainly tried to get them to produce a plan. They did no such thing. This had significant and widespread consequences not only for Canadians but also for workers across Canada, as well as for different communities and regions across Canada.

I implored them to come up with a plan for regional airlines at the time. Regional airport authorities were left to fend for themselves. I, along with my colleagues, made a very strong push for them to implement rapid testing and implement it sooner than they did, in an effort to more easily facilitate both travel and the travel sector. As well, I tried very hard to convince them not to use the supports for sectors for executive compensation. All these requests that I made as the shadow minister for transport fell upon deaf ears at that time.

In addition, of course, I was not alone in doing that. There were also my colleagues, the member of Parliament for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman and the member of Parliament for Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley.

Sadly, in September 2020, we saw 14% of Nav Canada employees being laid off in centres in Winnipeg and Halifax. That is just another example of the lack of action of the government during the pandemic. At that time, 750 families had to go home and tell their families that they did not have a job anymore.

I said back in September 2020, before the throne speech, that our economy simply cannot function, let alone thrive, without major carriers and airport authorities. Ironically, I said that on mini-budget day, and here we are again today.

In 2020, the Calgary Airport Authority alone was expecting a 64% drop in passenger traffic from 2019 levels and projecting a loss of $245 million in revenue. Other airport authorities across the country were facing similar challenges at the time. Stakeholders also reported that some supply chains had been overloaded as a result of the pandemic, with demand for some products having increased by up to 500% and vulnerabilities having become apparent.

At that moment, I asked for the government to develop a plan with common-sense solutions. We continue to ask for such solutions today; again, they are not apparent in Bill C-52. Once again, we see a government that has lots of regulations, yet takes no responsibility.

I will turn my speech now to the point about complaints. Over the past year, the backlog of complaints with the CTA, the Canadian Transportation Agency, has grown to an average of 3,000 complaints per month, with a backlog of over 60,000 complaints now waiting to be adjudicated by the agency. In fact, the bill before us would set no service standards for the Canadian Transportation Agency and would do nothing to eliminate the backlog of 60,000 complaints. I have an example from my riding, where, as of July 2023, I had a constituent waiting two years for a response from the CTA to the complaint they had registered. In the same eight months when the CTA processed 4,085 complaints, the complaints grew by 12,000, doubling in that time. It is no wonder Canadians are dissatisfied with the current process in place, and the legislation would do little to improve it without said standards.

As well, it is not clear which entities would be covered by the bill as the bill would be left to future regulations. A theme we have heard on this side in discussing the bill today is there are lots of regulations. In fact, we have seen from the other side of the House that members take advantage of the regulations. They take advantage of Canadians in using these regulations. We might see something that is perhaps gazetted and then all of sudden brought into implementation, with both industry and Canadians being forced to respond and to pay the price for the use of regulation by the government.

Fundamentally, the bill remains a toothless bill that contains no specific remedies to the problems that have been plaguing the system since the pandemic. I will add that during the difficult time coming out of the pandemic, the then minister of transport blamed Canadians for forgetting how to travel. I talked about the government's shirking responsibility, and there we see it again with the minister of transport's not saying that it was his bad or that he should have come up with a plan during the pandemic, but rather blaming Canadians. He was not even addressing it through the complaint process, nor was he willing to fix the complaint process.

I have a quote from a significant air passenger rights advocate, Gabor Lukacs. Anyone who sits on the transport committee certainly will have communicated with him. He says, “There may be penalties, but even those powers are left to the government to create.” Since I am throwing out Gabor Lukacs's name, I would also like to mention Roy Grinshpan, who has also been an incredible advocate for passenger rights and passenger advocacy.

Even the pilots with whom I worked so closely during the pandemic are not in favour of the legislation. The president of ALPA Canada, Captain Tim Perry, for whom I have a lot of respect, brought to my attention that safety might be compromised as a result of the implementation of the bill to ensure that passengers are taken care of. This is simply another concern, which is that passengers are not being taken care of, and even the pilots who fly the planes are voicing their concern over this.

To conclude, I talked about the implementation of regulation, so much of it, but again there is no responsibility. The then minister of transport said that there would be consequences for service providers that do not meet the standards, but he did not disclose what they would be. Again, there is so much regulation and no responsibility. The government tells Canadians and industry time and time again that they have to do this and that, but it never takes responsibility for the legislation it implements.

In conclusion, Bill C-52 and the government are about lots of regulations but no responsibility.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

It is very clear why the minister is hiding and doesn't want to testify in front of this committee: On October 13, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that the Liberals “no more pipelines” bill, Bill C-69, was unconstitutional. On October 26, Minister Guilbeault was forced to backtrack on his failed carbon tax. He finally admitted that it was unaffordable for Canadians. On November 7, the government's own environment commissioner stated that Minister Guilbeault is failing to meet the government's own emissions targets, and on November 14, the Federal Court ruled that Minister Guilbeault's plastic ban was unreasonable and unconstitutional.

No wonder he is hiding.

I expect the Liberals and the NDP will help cover up the minister's tracks again by stopping debate on my motion, but Conservatives do believe that Canadians do deserve answers from this minister.

Thank you, Chair.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

Thank you, Chair.

We now know, today, that he is not going to appear today after numerous calls from this committee to appear this week at committee to become accountable, so it is very clear that Minister Guilbeault is hiding from Canadians, and it's very clear why he's hiding from Canadians.

On October 13, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that the Liberals' “no more pipelines” bill, Bill C-69, was unconstitutional. On October 26, Minister Guilbeault was forced to backtrack on his failed carbon tax. He admitted that it was unaffordable for Canadians.

On November 7, the government's own environment commissioner stated that Minister Guilbeault is failing to meet the government's own emissions targets. On November 14, the Federal Court ruled that Minister Guilbeault's plastic ban was unreasonable and unconstitutional.

[Jasraj Singh Hallan, Conservative, Calgary Forest Lawn, AB]

I think it's very relevant given that we are talking about the amendment that this Liberal government's policies such as the carbon tax and Bill C-69.... When we say "This Liberal government's policies" in the amendment, I think it encapsulates everything my friend and colleague is so eloquently talking about. Even inside the amendment it says that these kinds of policies are leading to greater division in our country. He's making a case for how divided Canada is after eight years of this Prime Minister. I think it's very relevant.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm delighted to be participating in this debate at the finance committee. It's very kind of you to have me. I recognize a face from the environment and sustainable development committee. Greetings to him, and I want to publicly invite him to go for a spin, should he feel so inclined. Thank you.

Mr. Chair, I want to address some concerns about this issue, because we're talking about respect for the Constitution, and also respect for the will of each and every province. I think it's quite important, when we live in a confederation—this is what Canada is all about—that we respect the fact that, yes, some provinces can have their own agenda.

We do indeed have the Canada pension plan, but we also have the Quebec pension plan, which has a long history. It was established in the mid-1960s, following frank, honest, effective and successful negotiations, setting Quebec apart from the rest of Canada. It doesn't mean that people are happier or less happy, but it does mean that people have taken full responsibility for their choices and decisions, and we know how that's turned out. Soon, the plan will have been around for 60 years, and things seem to be going well. The original motion refers to the committee recognizing, “the important contribution of the Quebec Pension Plan which was established independently at the same time as the Canada Pension Plan”. If things weren't going well, we would know, but they are, so that's good.

From our standpoint, it's important to respect the will of the provinces in certain areas of jurisdiction. That means having frank, constructive and fruitful discussions to create a win-win situation for Canadians. All of us here want to make everyday life better for Canadians. No one is here to create problems. We have opposing views on how to go about it, which, of course, is the whole basis of politics. We have differing views, but when ideas clash, good things come. That's how it should be, and we need to respect that.

These last eight years, we have seen this government's insatiable appetite to encroach on provincial jurisdiction. We saw examples of that recently in Supreme Court and other rulings on the federal government's ambitions in environmental matters. It's not for nothing that I brought this up earlier. I am on the environment and sustainable development committee. I am the official opposition's critic for the environment and climate change, so I am particularly attuned to the issue. This case sets the example. We can do things the right way, and we can respect one another's decisions and areas of jurisdiction. However, that wasn't the case when it came to the environment, in many respects.

I can hear my fellow members rushing to point out that the Supreme Court gave the federal government the right to legislate in relation to carbon pricing. The challenge to the Liberals' carbon tax went all the way to the Supreme Court, which ruled that the government had the authority to implement the tax. Just because the Supreme Court says you can do something doesn't mean you should. What happened next? The government's approach clearly did not have the intended result.

Need I remind my fellow members that, after eight years of this Liberal government lecturing the entire planet, Canada was ranked 58th out of 63 countries for its efforts to tackle climate change? That is a far cry from the Liberal rhetoric, which is all about preaching endlessly. That score did not come from the official opposition, the Conservatives, or some institute. It came from the UN, which nearly a year ago, ranked Canada 58th out of 63 countries, following eight years of Liberal rule. Clearly, the Liberals' policy is not having the intended results.

The reason I bring it up is Bill C‑69, which a number of provinces took issue with, including Quebec. It contains provisions that are almost insulting to the collective memory of Quebeckers, with the federal government giving itself somewhat of a veto power over Quebec's hydroelectric projects.

Whenever I talk about it, I feel as though I'm divulging a secret that has unfortunately been kept for far too long. People are shocked when they find out. They wonder, “What's this all about?” Rivers are the site of hydroelectric projects, and rivers are under provincial—not federal—jurisdiction. What, then, is this power the federal government has given itself?

Section 7 of the Act created under Bill C‑69 contains very specific provisions that allow the environment minister to subject major hydroelectricity projects to environmental assessments, should he be so inclined. Those projects are none of his business, though.

Quebec is quite fortunate to have everything it needs, geographically speaking, to unlock enormous green energy potential through hydroelectricity. We are obviously very happy about that. Shortly, I will go over some of the landmark moments culminating in Quebec's energy self-sufficiency and talk about how people in the forties and fifties had the vision needed to turn Quebec into a hydroelectricity powerhouse. That can be said of the seventies as well. We saw that same vision come to fruition recently, when the current premier inaugurated the Romaine hydroelectric complex, alongside the Honourable Jean Charest, Quebec's premier from 2003 to 2012 and the person who green-lit the project.

Through Bill C‑69, the federal government gave itself the power to subject hydroelectric projects to federal environmental assessments.

Let me say this. Like an adult, Quebec carries out its own environmental assessments, and the system works. Of course, people will remember how certain assessments were carried out hurriedly. Everyone in Quebec obviously remembers when the Parti Québécois government unfortunately bypassed the environmental review process for the most polluting project in Quebec's history, the McInnis cement plant in Gaspé. The then environment minister gave the go‑ahead to the most polluting project in history.

That was a sad day, indeed. Need I point out who the environment minister at the time was? No other than the current member for Chambly, the leader of the Bloc Québécois. Dear friends, now when you hear the leader of the Bloc Québécois preaching about the environment to everyone who doesn't think like he does, remind him that he was the most polluting environment minister in Quebec's history.

All that to say, Quebec is capable of carrying out its own environmental assessments of hydroelectric projects. Why, then, did the federal government empower itself to redo what Quebec has already done? Going through the process a second time is absolutely pointless. It goes much further than that. As far as we're concerned, the environmental experts who analyze—

Canada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, 2023

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

Madam Speaker, Bill C-69 is basically what the member was referring to. That is the “no more pipelines” bill that was imposed here in Canada on Canadian citizens.

As we look forward and work with Ukraine in developing their energy infrastructure, we need to take a very long look at what the Liberals have done for legislation on developing energy in our own country. We should be helping them instead of hindering Ukraine in moving forward with energy development.

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

Yes, exactly.

I think it's important to note that this Liberal government has continued to put forward policies that divide our great country. Whether it be the carbon tax that I've talked about and will continue to talk about, Bill C-69, which is referred to as the “no more pipelines” bill, or Bill C-48.

Abraham Lincoln famously said that a house divided cannot stand. We need to have a country that is working together. We need from every corner, from Nova Scotia to British Columbia, everyone rowing in the same direction and working together to make this the great country that we know it should and can be.

When we look across our country, we see individuals increasingly feeling as though they are being left out by this government, whether you are a logger in British Columbia or you're working in the oil fields in Alberta.

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I think it actually is self-evident that the carbon tax is affecting farmers, and agriculture is a big part of the economy. If this member is saying somehow that agriculture is not part of the Canadian economy, I wish he would just come out and say that, because my farmers certainly feel differently than that.

Perhaps, Mr. Chair, I might speculate that maybe their lack of respect for farmers is leading to the extreme food insecurity that millions of Canadians are facing right now. I firmly disagree with the member that agriculture is not.... I believe agriculture is part of the economy, and I'm going to continue to talk about it. It says it right here—“a pillar of Canada's economy”—so I'll continue to talk about it.

Talking about agriculture this year, the testimony we heard to this very finance committee in Winnipeg, from agriculture groups and farmers themselves, was no doubt.... They agreed that probably the best solution is not any more carve-outs, but to cancel the carbon tax once and for all. When you think about it, is there any other button this government could hit that would reduce inflation by 16% tomorrow, and from being 33% above target? What other policy lever would be that effective in fighting inflation? Honestly, I mean this. When I no longer have the floor, what's their answer to reducing inflation? I have a policy right now that will reduce the rate of inflation by 16% and 33%.

Although I agree with most of Mr. Macklem's testimony on the impact of carbon tax on inflation, it should be pointed out that he just talked about the direct impact, and he was only talking about fuel. That's not even the full impact on inflation; it's actually just part of it. The other thing he said.... I know members across the aisle, whom I respect, have said, “Well, yes, Phil, but it's only for one year”—and it's true that he did say that. But the reality is the carbon tax is set to increase all the way to 2030, to 170 tonnes, which means it will have an impact on inflation every year until 2030. So, it doesn't stop this year. The impact on inflation will continue to go forward, because when you cancel the carbon tax, you eliminate not only the carbon tax now, but the future increases as well. That's a question I'm looking forward to putting to Governor Macklem going forward, because it is clear, basic logic on that.

When you look at the overall divisive policies of this government and the carbon tax carve-out, what you see is that the carbon tax is getting more and more holes in it. In fact, it's almost untenable going forward, because you have the heating oil exemption; you'll have the farmer exemption, hopefully, soon; and then there are other exemptions that are not in there, which I don't understand quite why. No one has been affected by the affordability crisis more than persons with disabilities. Why should there not be a carbon tax exemption for persons with disabilities?

On that, despite the fact that we're 1,000 days from the introduction of legislation with respect to the Canada disability benefit, and it's been over one year since the enabling legislation, we still don't have it funded. This government has to be fair to persons with disabilities, and we heard great testimony on that, with respect. We are now “double punishing” persons with disabilities, who unfortunately, and to the great criticism of our society, are often at the lowest quintile of economic performance. This is not a reflection on them; it's a reflection on us as politicians.

I'm hoping that the fall economic statement finally funds this benefit, which I believe had unanimous support in the House of Commons. But now, in addition to that, we're going to charge individuals a carbon tax, which is very difficult.

Canadians who are most economically vulnerable in general are often hurt disproportionately by regressive taxes like the GST and the carbon tax. I had the opportunity to talk to a poverty advocate. He said that, in his experience, only 4% of those who are most financially vulnerable, those at the bottom of the economic spectrum, file their income taxes. For those individuals making an income of over $20,000 to $25,000, they are paying taxes, and it's a net economic loss. For those unfortunately not reaching that threshold, or even sometimes higher, they are in receipt of net benefits.

For example, if individuals who have had difficult economic times, for whatever reason, do not file their income tax returns, which according to that poverty advocate is 96% of them, they don't get the carbon tax rebate. However, the reality is, on the meagre earnings they carve out—and I'm sure they are doing their best to make more but for whatever reason, obstacles and barriers are in their way that I'm sure are beyond their control—they have to pay carbon tax. If they are paying rent, they are either paying it directly or paying it indirectly through heating costs. They are probably using some type of transportation that likely requires some type of fossil fuel, and once again, they are paying for that in dollars.

We had further testimony from the City of London as well, and they talked about how difficult it was. That, Mr. Chair, was some of the more startling testimony about the number of individuals who lost their lives on the city streets in London. It was deeply moving for myself and, I'm sure, for the other members. They agreed that one thing we could do as parliamentarians would be to reduce the cost of heating. Many of the organizations that provide solace, or care, or respite to individuals who find themselves unhomed have to pay the carbon tax. That is at the cost of providing more benefits to individuals who are in the most difficult circumstances we could imagine. Instead of buying extra winter coats, they are having to pay for the carbon tax.

It's incredibly difficult for me to understand why a government that has mired our country in a housing crisis, where mortgages are up two or three times, where rent is up two times, and that's if you can find a place.... In some communities in my riding, like Cobourg and Port Hope, they are facing vacancy rates of less than 1%, so even if you have the $2,000 or $2,500 a month to pay for housing, it just doesn't exist. I just cannot understand why the government continues to go in the direction of making life more difficult.

Quite frankly, the root of a lot of those issues is our productivity crisis. Canada, unfortunately, is ranked near the bottom of the OECD with respect to productivity. I hope, in the fall economic statement, they are looking through a lens of productivity. If I were advising the Minister of Finance—maybe she's listening, but I don't know—I would put every single economic policy through a productivity lens. In some cases, there might be things that outrank productivity, but, for everything this government does, they should look at the productivity of it, because even inflation is affected by productivity.

Of course, we've heard a lot from the Governor of the Bank of Canada Tiff Macklem, who talked about inflation and the effect of demand on inflation. However, there are two sides to it. There are two sides to the ledger. There's both demand and supply. What the Governor of the Bank of Canada is attempting to do is reduce demand. He's trying to get fewer dollars chasing goods. He's doing that mainly by talking about monetary policy, reducing the money supply and increasing interest rates. That reduces the money. He's even, unprecedentedly.... I have to admit, I was a little taken aback at the finance committee that he was so forthright. Good on him for calling for the federal government, which was spending at a growth rate of 3.5%, to bring it down to under 2%. Otherwise, it would be at cross-purposes or unhelpful to his efforts.

There's the other side. There's the demand side. Slowing demand is painful. Slowing demand increases interest rates, which makes mortgages more expensive. It also causes unemployment and puts you on that path towards recession and maybe even “stagflation”.

Now, there's another way. There's another side of the ledger. We call that “supply”. The study of that is called “supply-side economics”. If we can increase the number of goods, society becomes more prosperous. It doesn't come with the pain that reducing demand does. In fact, it's the exact opposite. If you increase supply, you increase economic opportunities for everyone. You increase prosperity. You increase the wealth of the nation. You increase the size of the pie. What I firmly believe this government needs to do, not just to combat inflation now....

We could be in for, as Tiff Macklem and other economists have commented, structural high inflation, meaning we're simply not producing enough goods to meet the demand we have, especially with the large population growth we have. Rather than tamping down demand by saying, “Canadians need to do with less and be happy about it”—which seems to be the calling words of the other side—I believe Canadians can produce more, make more and be more prosperous.

When we increase economic growth—it's been proven over and over again, from JFK to Brian Mulroney—we help the most vulnerable. It's when we get that economic squeeze in supply.... It's not the wealthy in our society. It's not the millionaires who suffer. They'll be just fine. When you're making a million bucks a year and lose 10% of your income, it's probably not a good time. I've never earned a million dollars, but it's probably not a good time. However, if you're making $10,000 a year and lose 10% of your income, you're probably not going to eat some days. It's the most vulnerable who get crushed.

Actually, once again, Governor Macklem came out and pretty much said this. Governor Macklem called inflation “a tax that disproportionately affects the most vulnerable members of society." Once again, I was surprised by Governor Macklem's candour on the topic. I look forward to having him back here again so he can amplify these comments, because inflation is an incredibly corrosive force on our economy. It waters down the wealth of Canadians.

I understand that the governor has to do what he has to do right now to reduce inflation, which is increase interest rates. His job is going to be made harder, meaning he'll have to increase interest rates more if this government can't get their spending under control. In fact, Scotiabank said, in a recent report, that actually a full $700 of the average mortgage is the direct result of this government's profligate spending. In that same report, I believe, they said that investment in housing is down 14%, meaning that we don't have more houses coming online.

We are welcoming newcomers, which is fantastic and great, but we owe it to them as well as to individuals who were born in Canada, to enable them to afford housing. If we can't deliver the housing for newcomers and all Canadians, that's devastating. Not being able to afford a house isn't just that you don't get a lawn; oftentimes people choose not to have families at that point because they just don't have any place to put their children. We are causing all sorts of social and economic pain by not having the appropriate housing plan in place.

Our leader Pierre Poilievre has come up with a common-sense housing plan to reduce taxes, to reduce red tape and to incentivize municipalities to get more housing starts out the door, but right now we're going the wrong way. In fact, in testimony before this very finance committee, the CMHC said that, no, the current policies will not bridge the housing gap, which means we have another nail in the structural inflation coffin.

Our productivity issues are reducing our supply of pretty much everything and now we have housing.... We are unable to increase the number of houses that we need, which would increase housing going forward.

Then on top of that, we're also limiting the ability to make use of our own natural resources. Of course, a large portion of inflation in CPI is actually fuels, such as gasoline, diesel. Because we are limiting our ability to be self-sufficient—even though we have clean, great Canadian natural gas, Canadian energy—the impact of that is we will be increasingly dependent on other countries, meaning we will be dependent on world markets with respect to future fuel prices, which will leave us exposed to a shock in energy prices. This government, in many ways, is creating the perfect storm for structural high inflation.

We need to have a common-sense plan to get this economy back on the rails. Our leader has said very clearly that CPP is something that we believe should continue to be national in scope—with, of course, the noted exemption of Quebec. We would encourage Albertans and Alberta to stay in CPP, but we do have trouble with the language, particularly the third line of Ms. Bendayan's third line in there, third paragraph.

I would like to move an amendment at this point to delete that and replace it with the following, “The Liberal government's policies such as the carbon tax and Bill C-69 are lead to greater division in our country.”

[Jasraj Singh Hallan, Conservative, Calgary Forest Lawn, AB]

Thank you, Chair.

My first few questions will be for Mr. Bewick once again.

In keeping with the theme of the carbon tax, we saw that the carbon tax was sold under the pretense that it would somehow fix the environment and put more back into Canadians' pockets than what they would have to pay into it with these phony rebates. We know that both those things are not true now. The public budgeting officer, the Liberals' own budget watchdog, said that many Canadians, and more Canadians, will have to pay more into it than what they get back.

We've seen that the Liberals have missed every single climate target they set for themselves. We've seen a massive flip-flop on the carbon tax. Just recently the courts have ruled that parts of Bill C-69, the anti-pipeline bill, were unconstitutional. It was a big win for Alberta and a big win for the energy sector.

What does it say to you about these policies?

[Jasraj Singh Hallan, Conservative, Calgary Forest Lawn, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thanks to all the witnesses for being here today.

My questions are for Mr. Bewick.

Thank you for so eloquently giving the temperature of what Alberta is feeling like and what Albertans are feeling like today. After eight years of this Prime Minister, we've never seen the country so divided or broken—whether it's anti-energy, anti-Alberta or anti-growth laws; legislation like Bill C-69, the northern pipeline bill or Bill C-48, the tanker ban; or the carbon tax.

We recently saw the Prime Minister do a massive flip-flop on this carbon tax, giving 3% of Canadians—in Atlantic Canada, where the Liberals' poll numbers are tanking—a break on the carbon tax on their home heating. We also recently saw a very out-of-touch, Liberal Atlantic and rural affairs minister say that, if the Prairies want a carve-out like what Atlantic Canadians got, they should “elect more Liberals”.

Well, there are Liberals in western Canada. There is one here in Edmonton who is a minister. I can't figure out whether he's irrelevant or whether he just has no voice at his own cabinet table.

I want to ask you this, Mr. Bewick: Is this unfair treatment to the rest of Canadians, and should all Canadians not have gotten this carbon tax carve-out for home heating?

Opposition Motion—Reducing Home Heating Costs

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Madam Speaker, we agree that it is absolutely unparliamentary for someone to give the finger on the floor of the House of Commons. That is why we have called on the entire Liberal caucus to apologize for the conduct of one of its MPs. By the way, the Speaker did not say we were not allowed to address the incident. He did say he would come back, but we are free to speak, and we will not be censured.

We know that the Prime Minister now has a carbon tax coalition with the separatist Bloc Québécois. We know that he did this because he could not maintain his existing coalition. The pressure the Conservatives mounted on the NDP forced the NDP to collapse and admit that it had been wrong all along.

I remind the House that there has been only one party that has been consistent throughout and will be consistent forever. We are the only common-sense party that would axe the tax for everything, for everybody and everywhere, forever.

I note that the NDP today has now performed yet another flip-flop. Originally, the New Democrats wanted to quadruple the tax. Yesterday, they said they wanted to pause the tax. Today, they will not take a position, because they have omitted mention of the Prime Minister's quadrupling of the carbon tax in the motion. They do not want to stick by their position. They think they will quietly sneak back into the carbon tax coalition and have nobody notice. Well, their constituents are noticing, and that is why working-class people across the country are abandoning the NDP in droves.

Even the NDP Premier of Manitoba has now said that the carbon tax represents an attack on working-class people and therefore cannot work as climate change policy. I will note that we are getting all pain and no gain from the Prime Minister on the carbon tax, because his own environment commissioner came out just today and confirmed that under the current policies, including the carbon tax, he will miss his 2030 climate targets. He has missed his Paris accord climate targets again and again. Emissions continue to rise under his leadership, which proves that the carbon tax was never an environmental policy. It was a tax policy designed to pick the pockets of people and put more money in the hands of politicians to spend. This is political and governmental greed at its worst. It is no wonder Canadians have never been worse off than they are after eight years of the Prime Minister.

What I find interesting is that the Bloc Québécois has announced a costly coalition with the Prime Minister. This was confirmed in an article in La Presse, where the Liberal ministers said they had an agreement with the Bloc Québécois to keep this Prime Minister in power for another two years. Yesterday, the leader of the Bloc Québécois saved the Prime Minister. We were going to adopt a motion to reduce the cost of heating for everyone, but the Bloc Québécois was there to prevent the motion from being adopted, to vote against working-class people who want to heat their homes, to vote against seniors, to vote against people who cannot pay their bills, and to prop up the Prime Minister.

The funny thing is that the Bloc Québécois is going against Quebec's position. The Quebec government joined the other provinces in opposing a federal carbon tax as part of the lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of Bill C-69 and as part of the lawsuit against the carbon tax. The Quebec government wanted to curb federal taxation powers, but the Bloc Québécois is on the federal government's side. This is a centralizing Bloc Québécois. Each time the federal government decides to impose a tax on Quebeckers, we can expect the Bloc Québécois to say yes. It said yes to bigger government in Ottawa, and no to Quebeckers. That is the Bloc Québécois's real record.

The leader of the Bloc Québécois is afraid of an election. He wants to hang onto his position as leader so he can go on big trips to Europe. He wants to fly there on a plane that burns fuel so he can talk about the sovereignty of various overseas groups that are far removed from with the concerns of Quebeckers. I doubt the people of Beloeil—Chambly who are struggling to pay the bills are all that interested in the European separatist causes that the Bloc Québécois is obsessed with. The Bloc Québécois has no common sense. It is not working for Quebeckers.

Only the Conservative Party has the common sense to take the second carbon tax off the backs of Quebeckers. Quebeckers do not want to pay the taxes that the Bloc and Liberals are imposing on their gas and food anymore. Quebeckers want lower taxes so that work pays again. Quebeckers want the federal government to encourage municipalities to cut the red tape so more affordable housing can be built. Only the Conservative Party can get those things done.

In the next election, Quebeckers will have two choices. The first is a costly Liberal-Bloc coalition that raises taxes, takes their money, sets criminals free and doubles the cost of housing. The second is the common-sense Conservative Party, which will bring home lower taxes and bigger paycheques that buy affordable food, gas and housing in safe communities.

The choice is between either the costly coalition that takes one's money, taxes one's food, doubles one's housing cost, punishes one's work and frees criminals into the street or the common-sense Conservatives who free one to bring home powerful paycheques that buy affordable food, gas and groceries in affordable communities.

That is why I move the following amendment to the motion, which would add section (d): “Extend the temporary three-year pause to the federal carbon tax on home heating oil to all forms of home heating.”

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair

I welcome the witnesses joining us today for this important study. My first questions will be for the chief Indigenous science adviser, Dr. Ballard.

Dr. Ballard, thank you for joining us today.

I know that some people might mistrust Indigenous knowledge since it's not always scientifically verified. However, I'm open-minded and I'm pleased that we're conducting this important study today in an attempt to demystify a number of things.

I'd like you to comment on information released by the Quebec government, in particular by Patrick Beauchesne when he was deputy minister of the environment and the fight against climate change. He had sent a missive to the federal government regarding Bill C‑69, which sought to replace the National Energy Board Act with the Canadian Energy Board Act, among other things.

Mr. Beauchesne wrote that systematically placing Indigenous knowledge on equal footing with scientific data could prove problematic where Indigenous knowledge and science were found to be in contradiction.

If Indigenous knowledge contradicts science, how will it be possible to work around that and make decisions?

Oil and Gas Industry

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, today I rise in the House to ask a question I asked in this House just last week about the Impact Assessment Act and the Supreme Court's ruling that overturned the federal government's move on the Impact Assessment Act, Bill C-69. The government moved ahead despite everybody it could possibly consult with, including opposition parties, every provincial legislature, 100 first nation bands across Canada and many other parties, saying the Impact Assessment Act as written was unconstitutional and treaded on their rights. So many rights are expressed in legislation, yet this was ignored for so long.

The Government of Alberta was backed by nine provincial governments at various points in time throughout the process. It took four years because the reference case took two years to go through the appeal court system and then almost another two years to get to the Supreme Court of Canada. It was four years of lost economic activity and, effectively, constitutional strife in Canada. That is a long time.

How many projects were held up in Canada in that time? It was hundreds of billions of dollars in projects. Right now, 42 projects have not received an environmental assessment. About half of them are under the old regime, the one before the Impact Assessment Act, called the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, which was passed by the previous government and effectively allowed a whole bunch of environmental assessments to be done.

What amazed me was the response I got from the parliamentary secretary for housing when I asked a question about the federal government's involvement in this. He said at that point in time that the previous government's legislation got nothing done and had a gutted process. We cannot have it both ways. I cannot say how many times I hear from the other side of the House that they have their cake and eat it too and that the old legislation they tried to fix did not get anything done and yet was gutless. We cannot have both those things at the same time, but that is the continued narrative I hear on this all the time. It bewilders me to some degree, because it contradicts itself in so many ways, but he said that.

This was supposed to deal with the fact that the Impact Assessment Act had to go back and get corrected as quickly as possible. Getting it corrected as quickly as possible would bring forward economic activity in Canada so we can get something done in this country again, including in all the provinces across Canada. This has to happen.

I think about all the economic activity that has been held up because of the uncertainty created by the Impact Assessment Act and how it has affected so many project proponents across Canada. It is an embarrassment. It is an international embarrassment too that so much capital, including Canadian investments, is being deployed elsewhere and not here in Canada. That includes the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board. This is a travesty. We need to get over it as quickly as possible.

How do we do that? We could put forward legislation that is constitutional very quickly; stop sitting on our hands; take some lessons from some environmental advocates, environmental experts and constitutional experts; and listen to what they are saying: Stay in our lane, abide by our jurisdiction and get some proper legislation we can abide by in this country.

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

Thank you, Chair.

I am almost done, but I wanted to read the transcript because it precisely proves the point.

The chair said, “Okay, I'm going to ask all members.... We have Mr. Genuis and then Mr. Angus.”

You established that order, Chair, and then you proceeded to me. I said, “Thank you, Chair. I want to start by moving that the privilege of the member for Peace River—Westlock had been breached when the chair and the committee refused to allow him to speak on Bill C‑69.”

At that point, you'll recall that I sought to move a motion of privilege. You correctly pointed out subsequently that it is up to the chair, when a matter of privilege is raised at committee, to determine if that is a matter of privilege or not.

I think it was unfortunate that you initially allowed the debate but then ruled later that it was not a matter of privilege. Nonetheless, that was the ruling you made. and it was upheld by the committee, which meant that no motion was moved. No motion of privilege was moved because you determined it was not a matter of privilege. Since you determined it was not a matter of privilege, no motion was moved. I had the floor before I tried to move that motion and was told I couldn't and I had the floor after I tried to move that motion and didn't.

There are various means by which the chair can establish the order, but the chair in this case did establish the order. The chair determined that I had the floor, provided me with the floor and cannot then decide in the middle of my remarks that I no longer have the floor.

Once I have the floor, I have the floor unless and until I cede the floor or if there is some other reason why I have given it up.

I think the transcript is clear that I had the floor. I was given the floor properly by the chair. No motion was moved and thus I didn't lose the floor. At no point did I cede the floor, so I have the floor, Chair. The legitimacy of the committee in all subsequent proceedings depends on your willingness to uphold the rules as they are clearly written and established in the book and in the transcript.

I hope you will rule in accordance with the rules.

Thank you, Chair. That's my point of order.

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

Mr. Chair, upon serious reflection on the matter, I have decided I would like to keep the floor because I do have more to say. I will now do so.

I do want to begin, though, by recognizing the incredible hard work of our shadow minister for natural resources, my friend and riding neighbour, Ms. Stubbs, who represents the riding of Lakeland. She has clearly shown already today and will continue to show what a passionate advocate for the energy sector, for Albertans and for all Canadians she is. In particular she's also a strong voice for indigenous communities that are part of and benefiting from the energy economy, and she brings a great deal of understanding and authenticity in her discussion of those issues.

We are, however, primarily focused at the moment on the privileges of a different member, that is, privileges of the member for Peace River—Westlock. I will just remind the committee that we are debating my motion that the privilege of the member for Peace River—Westlock was breached when the chair and committee refused to allow him to speak in the debate on Bill C-69.

Maybe a good place to start is just on the series of events that took place in committee that involved the violation of the privileges of my good colleague from Peace River—Westlock. We were in debate on a programming motion in relation to this government's “unjust transition” legislation. The context of this is very interesting, and I think this explains the eagerness of many members to speak to this issue.

The minister made an interesting admission in the House during time allocation on this bill. He actually told the House that workers don't like the term “just transition”. I thought it was a prescient observation that workers don't like the term “just transition”, although his solution to this was to call it something else. He said he was not going to use the terminology “just transition” anymore and that they were going to describe the same set of policies in a different way, right?

This is sort of like when I'm trying to get my children to eat their brussels sprouts and they won't eat them, and I say, “Well, let's just call them chocolate cake.” It doesn't change the substance of them, though. They're still brussels sprouts, right?

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

How do you hope to be able to do that?

In what process are you actually going to start engaging with the provinces? According to them, they weren't engaged early on in the development of the Canada water agency. At what point and how are you going to go about actually engaging with the provinces to make sure their jurisdiction is respected, particularly in light of their rightful concerns as highlighted by the Supreme Court decision on Bill C-69?

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Thanks, Chair.

Given your comments and also from the comments of my colleague, I did want to clarify my aim in that the point of order was specifically related to what you had been talking about procedurally this meeting about alleging falsehoods and lying among members. I don't think my interjection was that extensive, although I suppose we could start timing so that we have proof for it.

I only used the examples that are publicly verifiable that, of course, Conservatives do support the work on assessing all of the existing gaps as well as required grid capacity towards electrification. There is the reality that first nations communities also support development in the Ring of Fire. Bill C-69 is holding back the Ring of Fire because of the gatekeeping requirements for the regional assessment.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

We will continue to push forward on this. This legislation has to be passed.

This committee had 56 meetings with 133 witnesses and over 112 hours of testimony. We know what the energy file is. We know what the sustainable jobs issue is. We need to get this legislation passed.

We are hearing from labour groups across the country who are very concerned. I'm hearing from investors who are looking to shift investment to the United States because they are seeing that Canada is becoming a gridlock, with the Conservatives blocking Bill C-49, when there are such opportunities.

To that, this motion that I read, or my attempt to speak to this, was referred to us because two pieces of legislation were referred to our committee. As someone who has been in Parliament for multiple years and in opposition for all that time, I don't always agree with how government works. I know that when government moves legislation to the committee, it becomes the priority of the committee. The committee has to address that legislation.

What we saw from the Conservatives was an attempt to monkeywrench that motion on Bill C-50 and Bill C-49 by introducing another study on top of that. I reached out to the Conservatives. I said that I'd be more than willing to look at that study, but that study would have to come in order. It doesn't get to pre-empt the work that has been given to us by Parliament. There is a timeline ticking on this. We need to get this done. This is what we're hearing from labour.

We have a series of these amendments that are very.... First, it was Sudbury. Suddenly, we're going to have people from Sudbury. It wasn't really clear who we were going to have from Sudbury, but we were going to get somebody from Sudbury. The Conservatives suddenly were really fascinated. It's funny. They didn't have anybody come when the coal transition happened. It was the New Democrats who brought representatives who went through the coal transition. They didn't bring anybody. Suddenly, they wanted someone from Sudbury.

I believe the motion was that they wanted representatives from the mining industry in Timmins, which I think is a great idea. I would love to have a set of meetings with representatives from the mining region of Timmins, maybe Val-d'Or, maybe Sudbury, but outside of this meeting on Bill C-50 and Bill C-49, because it would certainly be a huge education to my Conservative colleagues.

If they think that the mining representatives from northern Ontario are going to come down and back their climate-denying anti-investment in EV technology, I think they're going to be in for a big surprise.

We have Alamos Gold in Matachewan that's running 8,000 tonnes of gold a day underground. That's massive. When I go underground at Alamos, we talk about the really important need to move from diesel to electric trucks. That's a huge investment. Those ITCs will be huge for being able to move those kinds of underground pit trucks to battery power.

There's the Newmont mine. I would love to invite Newmont to come and talk about Borden. Borden is a mine that's running almost entirely green now. It is possible.

Again, this is something my Conservative colleagues would not probably know anything about. When you work underground in a diesel environment and work with oil from the drills, the lung cancers and stomach cancers are enormous, just from what you're breathing.

When you go into a clean battery-driven mine, the air is so much cleaner, and it drops your costs enormously. What you pay in battery investments, you actually make up in less cost for underground fans. When you have to run fans, let's say at Creighton, deep, 9,000 feet underground, you're pumping a lot of cool air down at those depths. When you run diesel motors at that depth, you have to run really heavy fans.

I talk to mining representatives, and I'm sure they would love to come to this committee to talk about how ITCs would help in those investments so that we could make switches. For example, I believe Vale, which is not in my region, but is in Ms. Lapointe's region, is running 72-ton haulage trucks now on batteries. That's a really transformative moment. People didn't think that was possible. Certainly the flat earth EV deniers would say that you couldn't run trucks that big. What they can do now, because of how they've tied the batteries to the braking energy on those pit trucks, is run from six hours to 10 hours. A 10-hour shift on a battery hauling 72 tons of ore is a major transformative moment.

I would love to have them come and talk about that technology and why they are absolutely committed to the clean-tech future, because they see the opportunities for mining.

Whenever I talk to people in the mining sector, they get it. If we're going to be competing against China and the Democratic Republic of the Congo, where there are horrific human rights abuses, we need to have a supply chain that is free of the abuses that are happening in places like Congo, but also that has a clean energy footprint. We can't say we're going to be a clean energy superpower and get critical minerals unless our mines are able to start running on clean energy.

That leads to questions on the grid.

I know, Chair, when you were sitting as just one of the members, we were going to study the grid, something my Conservative colleagues don't seem to want to deal with. But the grid is important, because we actually can't move some of this battery technology for big industrial projects without dealing with issues of the grid.

I think it would be really great to have representatives of the Timmins mining industry. They would also explain to the Conservatives that Bill C-69 has really nothing to do with how mine projects are developed. I know Conservatives are going on that it takes 10 to 15 years to get a mine up and running, and they blame the Liberal government for that. Well, it always takes 10 to 15 years for a mine, because when you're talking about a multi-million dollar investment underground, you have to make sure you really know where you're putting your infrastructure. If you put the shaft in the wrong place, you're going to go bankrupt pretty quickly, and you're not going to be able to raise the money on the international market until you've done all the important steps that are necessary.

Take Doug Ford. He announced he was going to run a bulldozer through the Ring of Fire. Well, that didn't go so well. I wouldn't be betting any money on the Ring of Fire right now, because it was Conservative politicians who shot their mouths off about the Ring of Fire. If you go to Neskantaga First Nation, they're saying, “It ain't going to happen, because it's not done properly.” To build a mine properly, you have to have a proper environmental plan, a proper financial plan, the support of first nations, because when you have the support of first nations, things move a lot quicker.

For example, we had representatives from the Timmins mining region come—

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Yes, absolutely.

Mr. Angus started the meeting with the floor. He was not interrupted until he finished reading the motion, but he conveniently left out the amendment the Conservatives put forward to make sure that Bill C-49 is actually given precedence. We want to undertake a study on Bill C-69, but of consequence, we want Bill C-49 to go ahead of Bill C-50, for the sake of ordering.

I just want to make sure all committee members remember that Bill C-49 should come ahead of Bill C-50, and we would like to see Bill C-49 first.

Thank you.

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

Thank you, Chair.

I want to start by moving that the privilege of the member for Peace River—Westlock had been breached when the chair and the committee refused to allow him to speak on Bill C-69. That is a privilege motion, which is now properly before the committee.

I will now speak on that question of privilege, and it will be up to the committee ultimately to determine whether to forward a report on that matter of privilege to the House. That is a privilege motion and I will now speak to it.

We were undertaking a debate on an important matter, which is Bill C-69, an amendment in relation to a programming motion on Bill C-49 and Bill C-50. There was an amendment—

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

I tried to get on the speaking list before I was subbed in. I know that for folks back home, Bill C-69 is something they're very passionate about. Hence, I'm here to speak to it. The fact that I was unable to get on there does seem to be limiting to my privileges as a member of Parliament.

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Thank you for that, Mr. Chair.

On the subamendment we have at hand here, as we laid out the case before, the case will be laid out again as to why we want to hear from witnesses all across the country. Certainly, we want to hear from folks who work at the mines in and around Timmins and James Bay. I think Mr. Falk highlighted very well the importance it has for the greater region and greater area—in particular, for resource development for economic reconciliation—and opportunities for all of Canada to be able to participate in the economy.

We have lots of proposals for witnesses. We just want to make sure that the area in the riding of Timmins—James Bay won't be left out and forgotten, as we found out not a single person there has received a heat pump or a carbon tax carve-out either. I think it's important to make that note as well. I think it would be good to hear from people from Timmins—James Bay. The government hasn't done much in the way of helping those folks out.

We look at how just transitions have previously gone and been attempted. We heard previously that workers have been left out in that region of the country, so we want to hear from them about what might happen when another just transition is forced upon resource workers in this country. It's not just the smaller scale of the first attempt that spectacularly failed and how that was done up; now we have a national scope and scale for a so-called “just transition”.

Conservatives put forward another common-sense subamendment to another common-sense amendment. As we know, after eight years of this government, the penchant to do things that are largely unconstitutional, as we saw with Bill C-69, is problematic. It would be good to hear from the folks in and around Timmins—James Bay about what their thoughts are on that.

If we don't deal with the issue of Bill C-69, how's that going to play out for the folks in that area? They're obviously looking for more involvement in the development of natural resources in that area. We've heard the extensive list of critical minerals available for the energy transition—not just here in Canada, but around the world—that people want for components. Therefore, trying to get the best opportunity for people to be able to speak to what we're dealing with here at committee with this bill and getting their perspective will be of the utmost importance.

I would recognize Timmins—James Bay as another area of the country.... I was talking about the stats earlier. In Ontario, with a pretty significant amount of gas and oil that is still used for power and energy production, and without a doubt with the amount of mining that goes on in Timmins—James Bay, certainly a lot of it would be used there as well to make sure that they can power their operations and keep the work environments in a manner that is suitable for the workers.

I think it's important that we deal with witnesses from all across the country. That's why we have another common-sense subamendment here that we're looking forward to dealing with.

I want to thank Mr. Falk—I know he has left—for moving this amendment. I look forward to seeing what the good people of Timmins—James Bay have to say.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate your ruling on that.

The whole issue here is that we need to hear directly from people who have been impacted by Bill C-69, and the people who have been directly impacted are people in the natural resource sector, like oil and gas, like mining, and these people need a voice at the table. They don't feel that they're being represented. There are lots of not only workers there but also companies that support all those jobs. We need to hear from them on how they feel about Bill C-69.

Once we can determine that and can get Bill C-69 to the point where it is actually constitutionally sustainable and compliant, then we're much better positioned once that bill is corrected. We don't want the Supreme Court to have to look at Bill C-49 and Bill C-50 and correct those again because of all the references made to Bill C-69, which would probably make it also not compliant.

Why would we want them to do all that duplicate...? They have important cases to hear. They don't need to hear about the failures of the Liberal-NDP government having presented legislation, which wasn't compliant, to Parliament. They knew it wasn't compliant. The Conservatives argued long and hard, when that legislation was before us in 2018, that this was not charter-compliant and that this did not meet the litmus test that was required for it to be constitutionally sustainable. We weren't listened to. We were mocked, and we were criticized. Now you see what we have today, and that's the Supreme Court making a reference opinion on that piece of legislation and asking for that to be corrected.

It's incumbent on this committee—we're the natural resources committee—to study that piece of legislation. Let's help the government get it right.

Thank you.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

It's a pleasure for me to talk to this amendment brought by my colleague, Ms. Stubbs.

Just to bring people up to speed again, I'm going to read what the amendment actually is so that viewers watching this by television understand what it is that we're talking about. The amendment is that prior to engaging in the Liberal study motion that was brought forward, we:

1. First undertake the following study on Bill C-69: “Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the committee undertake a study of the Supreme Court of Canada's ruling that Bill C-69, 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, is unconstitutional; for the purposes of this study, the committee: (a) hold at least 5 meetings, (b) invite the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources and the Minister of the Environment and Climate Change to appear for one hour each, (c) report its findings and recommendations to the House and, (d) pursuant to Standing Order 109, request that the government table a comprehensive response to the report.”, then

2. Complete its consideration of Bill C-49.

The rest of the motion that was brought forward would follow that.

Really, putting things in the right order is what this motion is doing. We've heard from the Supreme Court in their reference opinion that Bill C-69 has many parts of it that are not charter-compliant and are not constitutionally sustainable.

Bill C-49 and Bill C-50 all have references to Bill C-69 in there and, because of that—sometimes the language is verbatim—need to be studied in the light of Bill C-69, which should at least be charter-compliant and constitutionally sustainable. At the moment, it's not.

That's why I think it's incumbent on this committee to take a look at Bill C-69 and look at the reference opinion that the Supreme Court has provided. Then, in the light of that report, we're better able to deal.... Once we've done a fulsome study on Bill C-69 and the Supreme Court's opinion, we're better able, once that legislation has been modified and has become compliant, to look at Bill C-49 and Bill C-50.

What I would like to do is make a subamendment to the amendment at this time. I'd like the subamendment to be that the witness list for the study of Bill C-69, as proposed in the amendment, include representatives of the resource companies from Timmins—James Bay. I can repeat that: that the study include witnesses, that a representative of the resource companies operating in Timmins—James Bay....

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

As you know, prior to having the point of order, I was actually speaking about where the folks of Sudbury are getting their energy, where their power generation comes from and where rural Ontario gets it from. This is why we put that specific common-sense subamendment in place. There was a point of order while I was talking about that. I was merely offering up a quick response to the point of order because I found it quite fascinating myself, to be honest. What I was getting at was the fact that there's over 10,000 megawatts of gas and oil being used for power and energy for rural Ontario and for communities like Sudbury.

It is important, when we have a common-sense subamendment outlining the people of Sudbury, how it relates to the motion, which is its link to Bill C-69. This is because of the reference case by the Supreme Court of Canada making it largely unconstitutional. How's that going to implicate Bill C-50?

Again, let's just pretend for a moment that Bill C-50 was somehow magically going to work. It's not going to work because it's a job-killing initiative, but let's just pretend for a moment that it would. There are going to be issues trying to get the jobs and the energy transition for these workers and for these communities like Sudbury to be able to have reliable, affordable energy going forward.

In order for Bill C-50 to possibly be effective, Bill C-69 has to be dealt with first and foremost. When we see that gas and oil is 28% in Ontario for the high-voltage provincial grid, it is important that we speak to why Bill C-50 has a part to play and what's going to happen to the people of Sudbury—which is what my subamendment is all about.

Providing context to amendments and subamendments is important. That's what I am trying to do. That's the point I'm trying to make and, unfortunately, I keep on getting points of order over that.

I don't know if it's because when people hear how this is going to go and how this will be laid out...because, as I mentioned earlier, there was already an attempt at a coal transition in rural areas of Alberta. I mentioned the thousands of jobs that were lost. Workers were not transitioned into other jobs. They were certainly not given what was mentioned, which was that there would be sustainable, well-paying jobs for everybody.

Again, it's fantasyland to think that the 177,000-plus direct jobs are all of a sudden going to get the same or jobs or greater jobs that are talked about by the minister in the just transition or the Canadian sustainable jobs act.

We know it's not going to be a just transition. That's why the government has moved to try to change the name and the title of it. The Minister of Labour actually admitted that people don't like the phrase “just transition”. I think it's because people know what it actually means. It's just going to be a transition into unemployment for a lot of folks, or into a position where they are going to be out of work or be paid substantively less. We heard a witness the other day say that 34% less is what people will be paid when and if they are transitioned to a different job.

I can guarantee that the people of Sudbury do not want to take a 34% haircut. That's not what people want. The bill actually does nothing to make sure that it is going to say...we've seen government internal documents even admit and say that this is not going to happen.

We have on the record from the government that this is going to be problematic, and we're still ramming through legislation that was time-allocated after minimal debate in the House of Commons. That's what happened back in 2018-19 with Bill C-69. It's what happened with Bill C-50. It's what happened with Bill C-49.

It's also important to talk about the energy transformation going forward for the people of Sudbury. That's why we want to have people at committee to testify to this. It's because when we see what the coldest temperature on record for Sudbury was recently, over the last couple of years, last winter, in fact, the coldest temperature was -37°C.

There was no carve-out for the carbon tax in Sudbury. People are going to need to heat their homes with a heat pump that only works up until -7°, which is about 30 degrees short of what people are going to need to stay warm. This is why we're talking specifically about making sure we get people from a community outside of Toronto to testify at committee.

This committee is also going to study the impact of the Supreme Court decision on the resource sector, and we want stakeholders from Sudbury to be included in that study. That's the main point of the common-sense subamendment that we have.

I think it's important that we let the people of Ms. Lapointe's riding have a say. That's why we moved this common-sense subamendment, Mr. Chair.

I'm waiting for an applause. I'm going to end my remarks there.

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

How rude of me; my colleagues haven't had a chance yet. I'm sure we'll get to them soon.

As I was saying, Mr. Chair.... I was speaking to the subamendment. I was talking about energy and power generation in the communities of Ontario, particularly Sudbury, which is why I moved that common-sense subamendment about including a specific region of Ontario that will be part of this 28% of oil and gas used for the grid in Ontario.

Conservatives want the country to know that we care about the entire country. Just because I'm from Saskatchewan does not mean I don't care about the energy future of Ontario, Atlantic Canada, Quebec, British Columbia, Alberta, Manitoba and the territories. That's why the common-sense subamendment to a very strong, common-sense amendment was put forward.

Within that 28% of oil and gas for Ontario and rural Ontario.... Boy, that's 10,482 megawatts—a substantial amount of power generation out there, which will be impacted by what's going on with these bills. Bill C-50 will deal with that 28%, but if Bill C-69 is not addressed and dealt with first, there's no point in talking about Bill C-50 and what we're going to do with that 28%.

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

All these bills, Bill C-49, Bill C-50and Bill C-69, which is from a previous Parliament, obviously have a far-reaching impact across this country.

If I recall correctly, after I moved my subamendment, I was speaking to the types of witnesses we would need and the importance of them. I moved the subamendment because we need to hear from witnesses from all across the country.

Mr. Chair, I promised you earlier that I would talk about the good people from southeastern Saskatchewan—actually, south Saskatchewan, the southeast corner of my riding. Geographically it would just be the due south of Saskatchewan there in Coronach and Rockglen and Willow Bunch. It's a great part of the province, a great part of the country.

There are going to be witnesses coming from that region for sure, but, as you know, the reason we have the subamendment is to make sure we don't forget about other parts of the country that are going to be impacted potentially by Bill C-49 and Bill C-50 but also if we do not make changes to Bill C-69. We do know this is the “don't build anything” bill, as it's now become and as we've heard numerous times in committee, whether this committee or industry or environment or any other. Even in finance we hear that regularly. I think it's important that we make sure we address Bill C-69 with witnesses from all over.

I know some of my colleagues from Atlantic Canada are looking forward to bringing witnesses as well. They are obviously going to be bringing in multiple witnesses for multiple pieces of legislation, whether it's Bill C-49 or Bill C-69. I'm sure they will be very keenly interested in Bill C-50, because the fate of Bill C-49 is going to be tied to what happens with the just transition as well, since they are from part of the country that generates its electricity largely from coal and other means. They will also be disproportionately impacted by all the pieces of legislation we're talking about in the motion, the common-sense amendment and the subamendment.

I spoke a little bit about the jobs that are going to be impacted in Saskatchewan. I spoke a little bit about what's happening in Alberta as well, and in Atlantic Canada. I think it's important that we get a good list of witnesses.

Really, people are going to be concerned and talking at length, I would imagine, about the Supreme Court ruling.

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Oh, thank you.

Mr. Chair, I was speaking about the fact that Saskatchewan relies on natural gas and coal for the majority of its baseload power right now. Interestingly enough, on their website for the Government of Saskatchewan—it actually lists this on the SaskPower portion of that website—you can go through and you can see where the province, within the previous 24 hours, got its energy from. You can see where all the kilowatt hours were produced and where they came from. Routinely, about 70% of that was drawn from natural gas and coal. The third highest would be hydro power there. We have a couple of hydro dams in Saskatchewan. Unfortunately, I don't know that we would actually be able to build and complete one single hydro dam in the amount of time that the government is trying to phase out fossil fuels.

We've heard about timelines for approvals. That's part of the problem with Bill C-69, and now we have the largely unconstitutional part with what the Supreme Court made their ruling on. There's also the practicality of what we are going to replace the generation of gas and coal with.

We look at how long it has taken for a few hydro projects around the country to be complete. We're talking decades. Yet the government has this plan that by 2035 there will not be any natural gas. Natural gas would be basically banned at that point in time. Coal is suppose to be gone by 2030. We're seeing some difficulty around the country in trying to get the reliability factor for wind and solar. We've seen the blocking of new technologies such as tidal power already. Now that wasn't in Saskatchewan where the tidal project was moved, of course. It's a landlocked province. I'm just speaking generally about around the country how that's going to work and how that's going to play out.

With wind and solar, solar regularly accounts for less than one per cent of the power usage and energy consumption in Saskatchewan. Wind is regularly less than 10%. It's regularly a single-digit number. Sometimes, it goes a little bit higher. Sometimes it's a little bit lower. Specifically, people are concerned about peak usage and peak demand, right?

Now, for those of you who don't follow the weather patterns of Saskatchewan, in the past week, it's been as cold as -15° already and -19° in some areas. I think it's important that people realize that this assertion that you can just throw a heat pump or two on and you'll be good in the middle of winter—I mean, already in October, most heat pumps wouldn't have worked in Saskatchewan. I think it's important that this be noted.

In fact, when I was driving home on Friday after flying home from Ottawa, one of the news talk radio shows in Saskatchewan had a conversation around heat pumps. There are people who do use them up at their cabins. The people who have them speak specifically to how that is a three-season solution, mainly because it can be used as an air conditioner in the summer. You might be able to get some warmth in late May or early May at the cabin. Certainly, September into October you can get a little bit of warmth out of it.

As I said, it's already been close to -20° in Saskatchewan. That's a common occurrence at this time of year. If you look at October, November, December, January, February, March and into April, the majority of the year, you're not even going to be able to use that as a source of heat in your home reliably.

I think that it's important to have that on the table. We talk about the issue of a supposedly just transition and where people are going to get their energy from to heat their homes, to do their laundry, to cool their homes, and we have those severe differences in our temperatures from summer to winter.

We can be in the plus mid-thirties or in the minus mid-thirties, and sometimes you can see that in a span of a week, depending on the time of year. It's important that people have reliable energy, reliable power.

That's why Bill C-49, Bill C-69 and Bill C-50 all need to be discussed, but it's also why Bill C-69 needs to be dealt with first: because Canada's strategic advantage over the last number of decades has been the affordable, reliable, sustainable energy sources that we have in this country.

There are many countries around the world that would be jealous and envious of the situation we have with our abundance in natural resources and also the diversity of ways in which we generate power and our energy. I think it would be important for us to make sure we keep that. Certainly, Bill C-69 has been a barrier to enabling that to continue, because our population continues to grow, which is always a good thing.... It's good to see our population growing, but it also means that we're going to need more energy.

It's interesting to note that it's not going to be very long before, in a province like Quebec, which has a very robust hydro-powered grid, demand is going to outgrow capacity. I'll give credit to Quebec. They do have one of the more robust energy...where's the specific phrase I had here for it? Its grid is one of the most extensive systems in North America. To their credit, that includes the Americans. Also to their credit, they have a very extensive system, but that doesn't change the fact that if we don't have the capacity we need to continue to grow our population, it becomes a problem. That's where Bill C-69 comes into play.

Certainly, the folks in Atlantic Canada want to see growth in their capacity to produce energy, to produce power, and that's why they want to see Bill C-69 dealt with and addressed, but because it's also tied in with Bill C-49, which is obviously the Atlantic accords, that is why we have a motion and an amendment before us here today.

When we talk about what's happened in other provinces.... For example, with the coal transition that supposedly happened, there were thousands of people who at the end of it were put out of work. They were not transitioned to new jobs. We've seen entire towns in Alberta decimated by that. Bill C-50 is the government's attempt at doing this across the entire country, which is why Conservatives talk about the hundreds of thousands of jobs that are going to be lost, eliminated, because we do have a model to go on that the government has tried.

We've heard in other committee studies about how, when there was a transition that was going to happen in fisheries, it just didn't work. Mr. Angus has talked about how workers have been left out in his riding when it comes to plants being shut down or mining projects being closed. I think it's important that this Bill C-69 that has been looming over our country for the last four or five years gets dealt with, gets addressed and gets prioritized.

Mr. Chair, when it comes to a potential subamendment, I think of one thing that would help to make the original motion work.

I'm just going to discuss this out loud here. I'm not officially moving anything. I just want to talk this out quickly. Some of the dates that are trying to be prescribed in this programming motion obviously are going to be problematic.

In order to make sure that this motion works, getting rid of those dates or bumping them down the calendar at least a little bit, for the flexibility of the committee to be able to properly and appropriately deal with the study—I'm just thinking out loud here—removing those dates is probably going to be best.

We want to make sure that we hear from Canadians, from employers, employees, and certainly we'll hear from the private sector unions. We're definitely going to hear from people who aren't in a union, because we have heard from many people that if we talk about what this just transition supposedly is going to do, it's going to drastically impact the work of folks who don't belong to a union.

When we talk about the indirect jobs, that number is huge as well. We have to make sure that it considers those folks.

That's part of why I think putting in rigid timelines in the programming motion is going to be problematic. It also is going to be a barrier to getting the proper ordering of the motion with the amendment in it that my colleague from Lakeland moved. It would be appropriate for us to look at removing that.

With that, Mr. Chair, I'm going to move a subamendment that in section 3, as it's been ordered by my colleague from Lakeland, there be a subamendment that we would remove the reference to the dates in paragraph (a).

Paragraph (a) would read, “That the minister and officials be invited to appear before the committee on Bill C-50”. We'll just leave that open-ended so that we have that flexibility as a committee. Then (b) would say, “That the minister and officials...”. I think we would have to remove (b) all together. Again, that's one that's prescribing. It's programming a set date for officials in there. We haven't even agreed to our witness list yet. We have to do that first before we can start putting dates in there for what point officials should appear.

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Thank you, Chair.

I thank my colleague for her respectful intervention there.

No, I've been working toward.... I've been speaking off the motion and the amendment here. I think it would be important, Mr. Chair, that, first of all....

I'm working on a subamendment here, looking at the original motion. When we order Bill C-49 and Bill C-69 ahead of Bill C-50, obviously it will cause some issues, I think, with the original motion as it is. I'm just kind of working toward that subamendment that I think will be needed to address a few things here.

I just wanted to finish a thought I had about the impact on jobs in Saskatchewan. You know, 41% of our available generating capacity comes from gas, and 26% comes from coal. We're already looking at close to 70% of our energy capacity being gas and coal. Yes, we have the just transition legislation in front of the committee, but it still doesn't lay out a plan or a path to actually do something to replace that. It's just a plan to have a plan. That's essentially what that bill is.

I think this speaks to why the priority and the precedent should be given to Bill C-49 first and foremost, so that we can deal with that issue. If we're going to change the generating capacity in Saskatchewan, we need the regulatory certainty to be dealt with, which the government is trying to ignore in Bill C-69. If we don't deal with that, how will any provinces, for that matter, whether it be Saskatchewan or Alberta or whether it be the Maritimes, as we're seeing with the Atlantic accord, deal with that?

Bill C-69 clearly needs to be the priority for this committee. That is the point we have been trying to make all along here. I think it will be important to get to those bills first, to Bill C-49 and Bill C-69, ahead of Bill C-50.

National Security Review of Investments Modernization Act

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise to talk on the update to Bill C-34, an act to amend the Investment Canada Act.

When it comes to business investment, it is clear that, after eight years under the Prime Minister and the Liberals, the government is not worth the cost. Since coming into power, business investment per employee in Canada has actually dropped 20%. At the same time, business investment per employee in the U.S. has actually increased 14%. It puts things into perspective in terms of Canada's dropping productivity and, as we go forward, the fear of declining prosperity in our country. What is more shocking is that, in the very final year of the Harper government, Canada's business investment, as a percentage of GDP, was actually higher than that of the U.S. After eight years of the government, we are at about 15% lower.

According to the National Bank of Canada, for the first time ever, business investment is now lower in this country than housing investment is. We can think about all the manufacturing, oil production and everything else. The investment is actually lower than it is in housing.

Manufacturing capital stock is the lowest that we have had since 1988. Two-thirds of our 15 main industries experienced declines in business investments under the government, including wholesale trade, accommodation and food services, utilities, professional services and manufacturing. All these numbers fell prepandemic; this is not because of the pandemic.

The Business Council of B.C. has issued a report on investment in Canada, calling it “Stuck in the slow lane”. What better title is there for what is going on right now with investment in our country than being stuck in the slow lane? The report noted that, out of 38 members in the OECD, Canada is going to have the slowest economic growth over the next decades. We will have the lowest real GDP per capita growth in the OECD going forward. That has been brought up, I think, in previous speeches about Bill C-34 in this House. The report lists several reasons for this, among them, inefficient regulatory approvals. Does anyone remember Bill C-69? Of course, we have seen Bill C-69 ruled against by the Supreme Court. Hopefully, the government will recognize what the Supreme Court has said and eliminate Bill C-69; however, Bill C-69 was only one of many regulatory burdens added by the government that has chased away business investment in this country.

The Business Council of B.C. also noted punitive tax rates as companies grow; lack of relief for energy-intensive, trade-exposed industries under the carbon tax regime; and high internal trade restrictions. Something also noted in this report is that our anemic business investment would be all the worse if it backed Alberta out. Alberta has the highest per capita investment in the entire country. If we back out Alberta, our numbers are even worse. What do we get with the government? Every possible regulatory move, every possible attempt to strangle the growth in Alberta. Therefore, we have one province driving most of the business investment in this country, and the government is trying to destroy it.

There will be some members across the way, such as, perhaps, the member for Winnipeg North, who will get up to ask this: Are there not some things the government has done? Would we not agree that it is good? There are some things the government has done to spur business investment in Canada, such as green-lighting the purchase of ITF Technologies by a China-based company. This was a deal that the Harper Conservatives had kiboshed. The Liberals reversed it and allowed a China-based company to buy out ITF Technologies. ITF has done national security work with National Defence, and the government overrode the ban on a purchase by a China-based company. We should remember that China's national intelligence law of 2017 requires companies to “support, assist and cooperate with state intelligence work”.

I will read that part again. It says Chinese companies “shall support, assist and co-operate with state intelligence work”, and we have the government approving the sale of a technology company that has done work for National Defence. It waived the security review of the Chinese takeover of Vancouver's Norsat, despite Norsat being involved in communication tech for Public Safety Canada, the defence department and the Coast Guard. Norsat had also done work for the Pentagon. The U.S. and our Five Eyes allies asked us not to allow the sale to go through, but it did.

When not allowing the sale of sensitive tech companies, the Liberals are going out of their way to bring Chinese regime companies into our security systems, such as Nuctech, which my colleague from Barrie—Innisfil talked about. Nuctech is called the Huawei of scanners. It is a Chinese-based company partially owned by the Chinese state. It has been fined, charged and convicted around the world over various fraud, regulatory and spying issues, and the government went out of its way to give it a contract to bring its technology into every embassy we have around the country.

The CBSA, which is meant to protect us, for some reason basically jury-rigged the RFP to ensure that only Nuctech, ahead of two Canadian companies, one in Quebec and one in Calgary, got the contract. It wrote in the requirements the exact specifications of a type of scanner, down to exactly how many inches across and how many inches high, and guess what. Only one company in all of the world happened to have a scanner that was 33 inches across and 21 inches high: Nuctech. Oddly enough, PSPC warned the government not to buy it, and the CBSA went ahead anyway.

When this was exposed, the government said it would hire an outside consulting company to do a review. Apparently, McKinsey was not available at the time, so it hired Deloitte, and for a quarter of a million dollars, Deloitte did what had been done at the mighty OGGO. Of course, I cannot make a speech without mentioning the operations and estimates committee. Deloitte exposed the fallacy of buying equipment from Chinese security companies. For a quarter of a million dollars, it came out with a four-page report that basically said Canada should not buy sensitive IT technology from despotic regimes.

I went to the West Edmonton Mall that week with the report and randomly asked kids and adults, strangers, about this, and they all laughed. Not one person said we should buy sensitive technology from despotic regimes.

I appreciate that the government is finally getting around to updating the issue with Bill C-34, but one major change the Conservatives would like to see is taking away the ability of a minister to make the final decision. We would like to see a minister bring it to cabinet so that cabinet is consulted. For an issue as important as our state security, too much power is left with the minister. The minister should be required to bring the purchase of a sensitive company elsewhere. Whether it is a mining company or a tech company, it should not be the role of the minister to decide. We have seen the government repeatedly bring bills to the House that would give ministerial power over such a thing, and we would like to see that change.

There were a couple of other amendments we brought up that were shut down, and I would like the government to reconsider them. One of them would modify the definition of a state-owned enterprise to include any company or entity headquartered in an authoritarian state. This goes back to my previous comment about the Chinese intelligence law that forces those companies to act and assist in concert with that regime.

I will just briefly bring up a couple of other amendments that we would like to see. One is listing specific sectors necessary to preserve our national security rather than a systematic approach. Another is exempting non-Canadian Five Eyes intelligence state-owned enterprises from the security review.

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Exactly. He's going to get a chance to learn today how important Canada's energy future is to our generation, to his generation and to the generation that is going to follow after his and how our country is going to work.

It's an important opportunity for us to discuss the division of powers in this country as well, because Bill C-69, as the Supreme Court of Canada clearly ruled, has trampled all over that. That is why there is a priority and a precedence on our side to see that we deal with Bill C-49 first, because it directly quotes and references Bill C-69 no less than 33 times.

It is causing some grief for members on the other side that we keep talking about Bill C-69, but, because they are so incredibly linked together, we continue to hammer home this point. We want to make sure that people understand that, in order for us to properly get the best result for Canadians, we are going to start with Bill C-49, which means that we have to deal with Bill C-69 and, as the amendment that was moved states at the very end in point 2—it's a very simple line that we have at the bottom—we complete consideration of Bill C-49.

What that is doing is ordering Bill C-49 to be first. Deal with Bill C-69, as part of it ties in with Bill C-49, but we are going to complete deliberation on Bill C-49 and, at that point, at the end of the amendment, point number 3 would then be the a), b), c), d), e), f), g), h) and i) that was part of the original motion. It includes the original wording and lettering of the original motion, but it includes direction to have an order prioritizing Bill C-49 in advance. It's a very substantive amendment, and I really appreciate the wording that we have in it here, which we came up with to make sure that it was compliant and in order.

It might be worth going over that one more time. At the start of the motion, point 1 is going to be that first we undertake the study on Bill C-69. It references in the opening dialogue about the need to do Bill C-49. We're already establishing that those two bills are going to be part of the motion.

We're going to say that we first undertake the following study on Bill C-69:

1. First undertake the following study on Bill C-69: “Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the committee undertake a study of the Supreme Court of Canada’s ruling that Bill C-69, 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, is unconstitutional; for the purposes of this study, the committee: (a) hold at least 5 meetings, (b) invite the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources and the Minister of the Environment and Climate Change to appear for one hour each, (c) report its findings and recommendations to the House and, (d) pursuant to Standing Order 109, request that the government table a comprehensive response to the report.”, then 2. Complete its consideration of Bill C-49.

That's effectively—if I'm allowed to use the term—killing two birds with one stone here, because, when we deal with Bill C-49, we have to deal with Bill C-69. We have to start with BIll C-69 to make sure that Bill C-49 is compliant with that law that is now in place. It has been largely unconstitutional since its implementation, which the government was warned about back then and continues to be warned about now.

This is why we want to prioritize the order of the bills that we have here in this amendment.

There are a few parts to Mr. Sorbara's motion that are still going to have to be addressed and dealt with, possibly in a subamendment.

Before we get to that, Mr. Chair, I think we need to really discuss the impacts that this will have if we don't deal with Bill C-69.

I have read a little bit about Saskatchewan and their response to the reference case and the importance of that. I'll just remind members that at no point in history has a government ignored a reference case. They've always acted upon it and prioritized it. Let's take Saskatchewan as an example. We hear a lot about the government doing consultations and how they've been very engaging with people. Well, only about 15% of Saskatchewanians have heard of the just transition. I would suspect that if the other 85% knew what was happening and what was going on, people would have a lot of concerns.

In particular, as we have seen and heard, the government's initial attempt at a just transition of coal workers substantively and spectacularly failed. I'll get to that in a bit. People have seen their energy prices already go up. That has already happened. At this point, the shuttering of our coal plants has not fully happened just yet, but we have seen energy prices increase as the government has implemented very strong anti-energy development legislation.

Take the cost of the carbon tax alone, for example, on energy production in Saskatchewan. I've heard workers at the coal station talk about how the carbon tax might put them out of a job far in advance of 2030. This is because of the excessive costs that will be associated with producing power as the power plant is phased out and winds down. That escalating cost gets thrown on top, onto the Crown corporation SaskPower.

Then you have the case of Swift Current, where I live. They buy the power from SaskPower. In a sense, you have a doubling of costs and regulation here that is causing this issue of affordability of energy for folks. We've heard the government's own regulations speak to the fact that the people who will be disproportionately impacted are seniors living on a fixed income and single mothers. That was right in the government's own regulations, and yet they are plowing ahead with this legislation that is problematic and causing massive cost overruns for people.

In fact, we just heard on Friday that the government is going to put a pause on the carbon tax in one area of the country because of the issue of cost, but yet we've constantly been told that people receive more than they pay, so therefore it shouldn't be a problem. Well, clearly it is. This is why people are concerned with Bill C-50, Bill C-49 and Bill C-69. This is why getting to Bill C-69 first will be of the utmost importance to people.

In Saskatchewan the working population is 598,000 people, give or take. There were over 43,000 construction jobs, 32,000 manufacturing jobs, and 25,800 agricultural jobs. In forestry, mining and gas there were 19,700 jobs, in utilities about 8,500, in wholesale and retail trade 98,000, and in transportation and warehousing about 30,000 jobs. The potential just transition job impacts are 10,432 direct jobs and 131,500 indirect jobs. A lot of that can be attributed and traced back to the ripple effect of Bill C-69.

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Yes, exactly. No more building anything ever anywhere.

I think it's important that we address the issues around Bill C-69, because we've heard from many people, many stakeholders, private, public and otherwise, that this is a problem. I think what we're going—

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Thank you very much, Chair. I do appreciate that.

I think this amendment is solid. We're trying to order Bill C-49 ahead of Bill C-50 with our amendment because of the at least 32 times that Bill C-69 is referenced in Bill C-49. Because the Supreme Court of Canada has provided a reference on the largely unconstitutional nature of Bill C-69 and since it is referenced in Bill C-49, that is why there is a priority by Conservatives to start with Bill C-49, but that would of course mean that we need to deal with the case of Bill C-69. The court specified that legislators had to find ways to answer to the reference—not maybe they should find ways, but they had to find ways.

We spent a big chunk of this meeting laying out the case as to why we need to do the order in this manner now that we have our amendment on. Again, it's of the utmost importance that we do it in this fashion because part of Bill C-50 talks about the jobs. This is a jobs bill. It's a just transition. It's going to kill jobs, but let's just say that the government somehow is able to be successful and transition people to jobs. They won't be, but the issue is that we have heard in this committee—I have been on other committees as well where we heard this—over and over again from the private sector, but also from the public sector, and perhaps even more importantly from indigenous leaders, that Bill C-69 is the single largest barrier to actually getting projects done of any kind of any type of energy, or any type of project they are trying to do whether it's traditional oil and gas, whether it's renewables, whether it's various projects, and we've heard it numerous times.

That speaks to the urgency as to why we need to address Bill C-69 and particularly as it pertains to Bill C-49, because this is obviously about jobs in Atlantic Canada and trying to deal with the energy situation there. It would absolutely be appropriate that we deal with Bill C-69 and the impact it has first and foremost.

There's a good note from the Supreme Court of Canada ruling that Parliament can enact impact assessment legislation to minimize risks that some major projects pose to the environment. However, “this scheme plainly overstepped the mark.” That's what the Supreme Court said. Moreover, “it is open to Parliament and the provincial legislatures to exercise their respective powers over the environment harmoniously, in the spirit of co-operative federalism.” That's another quote from the Supreme Court ruling.

The whole point about Bill C-69 was every single province, every single premier said there were issues, and the territorial leaders did too. It is important that is noted, that going all the way back to 2018-19 when this was debated, flags were raised over issues with this bill by members of Parliament. In particular, all three at this table on the Conservative side spoke to it. In fact, my colleague from Lakeland did multiple times, and the Premier of Saskatchewan, the Premier of Alberta, all the premiers spoke against the overreach of this. Particularly the Ontario premier very strongly stated on it.

It's important that this be considered as we look at the ordering of these bills. That is why the Conservatives have put this amendment forward, because we need to respect provincial jurisdiction, which is why the Provincial Court of Alberta made a ruling on Bill C-69, which of course the federal government challenged at the Supreme Court. We then saw the Supreme Court make its ruling in the reference case.

I would just like to note that all throughout the history of Canadian parliaments, any time the Supreme Court has made a reference ruling, Parliament—the government of the day—has decided to make the necessary changes to it.

For the certainty of communities and people who are looking for certainty going forward, I think it's extremely important that we address this first.

I'm going to read something from the Saskatchewan government. The first line here is, “5-2 Decision Finds That The Federal Government Overstepped Constitutional Authority And Should Be More 'Cooperative' With Provinces In The Future.”

The opening statement lays out the case as to why and how co-operative federalism is actually supposed to work. It clearly was not done in this case. The rest of the quote contains kind of no-brainer points. It reads:

Saskatchewan welcomes the Supreme Court of Canada's...ruling against the federal government's environmental Impact Assessment Act, formerly Bill C-69.

“This decision is nothing short of a constitutional tipping point and reasserts provinces' rights and primary jurisdiction over natural resources, the environment and power generation,” Justice Minister and Attorney General, Bronwyn Eyre said. “It should also force the federal government to reassess other areas of overreach, including capping oil and gas production and electrical generation. The IAA has stalled everything from Canadian highway and mine projects to LNG facilities and pipelines. It has thwarted investment, competitiveness and productivity across the country. This major decision will correct course.”

That last sentence, “This major decision will correct course”, is why our amendment has been moved. That's why we feel this bill needs to be done first.

I'll finish the article:

The IAA received royal assent in 2019. In 2022, the Alberta Court of Appeal (in a 4-1 majority) held that the IAA was unconstitutional, violated the division of powers between Ottawa and the provinces, and took a “wrecking ball” to exclusive provincial jurisdiction under Section 92 and 92A of the Constitution Act, 1867. The federal government appealed the decision to the [Supreme Court of Canada].

Last March, Saskatchewan was part of the constitutional intervention, along with seven other provinces, before Canada's top court, arguing that the IAA had exceeded federal jurisdiction.

The majority recognized that the IAA is a clear example of federal overreach. Specifically, the Supreme Court majority held that the IAA's designated projects scheme, by which the federal authorities could permanently put a project on hold was an “unconstitutional, arrogation of power by Parliament” and “clearly overstepped the mark.” The majority also found that the Act “grants the decision-maker a practically untrammelled power [of] regulated projects qua projects.”

In 2023, Saskatchewan passed the Saskatchewan First Act to [deal with] matters of provincial jurisdiction.

My own province has made it very clear where it stands on this case and on this point. We know all of the other provinces did as well when it came to the government tabling Bill C-69 back in 2018-19.

The fact that the Supreme Court has made its ruling kind of puts us in the position we're in now, where we have a largely unconstitutional bill impacting a lot of things that the government is trying work on—multiple pieces of legislation. It's not just Bill C-49 and Bill C-50. Other issues will arise if it is not dealt with and addressed.

Quite frankly, it is hamstringing the provinces to be able to proceed with projects. We heard about LNG. We heard about simply trying to get highways built or repaired.

I mentioned earlier that some of the first nations leaders were concerned about this as well because they're looking at timelines. They're looking at how there will be opportunity for self-determination, economic participation for their residents and economic reconciliation.

Many of them have earmarked and flagged natural resource projects and development and also renewables, which also gets to the point though of why we have a problem with Bill C-69. They have told us over and over again that even on the renewable side, Bill C-69 is a problem. It's not even just about this being the.... It was originally dubbed the “no more pipelines” bill. This is just a “no more energy” bill. That is what we have here in front of us.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Yes. Thank you, Chair. I appreciate it.

Of course, right before we broke, I suggested through you, or directly to my colleague, that I would be happy to work with him on it. However, since you want that crystal clarity from me, we would suggest this amendment:

1. First undertake the following study on Bill C-69: “Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the committee undertake a study of the Supreme Court of Canada's ruling that Bill C-69, 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, is unconstitutional; for the purposes of this study, the committee: (a) hold at least 5 meetings, (b) invite the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources and the Minister of the Environment and Climate Change to appear for one hour each, (c) report its findings and recommendations to the House and, (d) pursuant to Standing Order 109, request that the government table a comprehensive response to the report”

That would go after the opening paragraph of my colleague's motion, ending with “have both been referred to committee, that the committee initiate its consideration of both C-50 and C-49 with the following schedule”. It would then say “(a)” with what I just outlined, and the next one would be:

2. Complete its consideration of Bill C-49.

After that, it would be 3, and thereafter it could flow.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Yes, I don't believe that this is a proper amendment, because, again, it attempts to hijack the amendment by introducing a motion that Ms. Stubbs wanted to bring on Bill C-69 and completely circumvented—

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Thank you, Chair, for giving me that opportunity.

It's so bizarre. I know that the NDP-Liberals do favour censorship and dictating what people can say, see and these sorts of things, but it's all muddled up if you want to accuse a person of delaying and not doing a thing that they were already doing and then you interrupt them twice.

As you have just suggested I do, I will go back to the amendment that I was already reading. I'll start again:

1. First undertake the following study on Bill C-69: Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the committee undertake a study of the Supreme Court of Canada's ruling that Bill C-69, 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, is unconstitutional;

Even more, this is how big a deal it is. That bill's been law and unconstitutional for half a decade. I'll continue:

for the purposes of this study, the committee: (a) hold at least 5 meetings, (b) invite the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources and the Minister of the Environment and Climate Change to appear for one hour each, (c) report its findings and recommendations to the House and, (d) pursuant to Standing Order 109, request that the government table a comprehensive response to the report; and 2. Complete its consideration of Bill C-49.

Unfortunately, I have no option except to do it this way, since this motion for scheduling was was brought to us today. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources did reach out to me over the weekend about planning the schedule for this committee and, of course, I got back to her. I said that our concerns remain the same and our perspective of why this must happen in this order remains consistent with what we've said before and is what we're saying today. Of course it makes sense, because it's the exact order in which the NDP-Liberals have brought in their own legislation.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate that.

There was no harm, no foul on the headset and all of those things. It's just amazing. Even on Friday, I was in a call and forgot to unmute my mike. You'd think that this far in we would know these things, but here we are.

Again, colleagues, I hope I have made an effective case to you and all Canadians about the importance of this work and why we must put first things first in this common-sense approach to our scheduling for this committee, especially because it's so important to bring home affordability and combat the cost of living crisis the NDP-Liberals have caused. They've admitted this as of Friday, with their temporary sham of a relief of the carbon tax for only one area, which pits Canadians against each other. This is their MO. Obviously, all these things are interconnected, and they are extremely important. I agree.

As Conservatives, and as our leader Pierre Poilievre has always said, we want to accelerate both traditional and renewable energy development, exports and technology in Canada. We want light, green projects. We want to make Canada the supplier of choice for all kinds of energy sources and technologies for our allies around the world. We also want to bring home energy security and self-sufficiency, as well as affordable power and fuel bills, especially for people who have no other options, which is the case for many Canadians right across the country.

This is connected to Bill C-69, Bill C-49 and Bill C-50. They all work together. In different ways, they are going to hold back, roadblock and gatekeep both traditional and renewable energy development, which will cause a brain drain and limit innovation as well as entrepreneurial and private sector creativity in Canada—for which we are world-renowned—when it comes to developing the fuels of the future and continuing the energy transformation that has been going on for decades among oil and gas workers, energy developers and innovators in Canada. All of these things are extremely consequential. They certainly are to our ridings individually and to the entire country as the resource development-based economy and country we are, which we should be proud of.

I have an amendment to the NDP-Liberal programming motion that seeks to dictate all of the work unilaterally, complete with dates for our committee. Again, I note it's the opposite of the legislative way they brought these bills through in the first place. It still doesn't make any sense.

I move that, before the committee consider Bill C-50, the just transition....

You'll note there was only one committee witness who called it “sustainable jobs”. It was quite clear that when the NDP-Liberals put their documents out, they had done a last-minute copy and paste everywhere it said “just transition” to replace it with “sustainable jobs”. That's because Canadians didn't know what the just transition was, at first. Once they found out, they sure didn't like it. Of course, the NDP-Liberals are masters of words and words over action, and they tried to slip that in and pull the wool over everybody's eyes. I suggest that's not going to happen here, but we'll see.

To that end, I would like to propose an amendment to this programming motion by the costly coalition. Before the committee consider Bill C-50, that it, one, first undertake the following study on Bill C-69: Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the committee undertake a study of the Supreme Court of Canada's ruling that Bill C-69, an act to enact the Impact Assessment Act and the Canadian Energy Regulator Act, to amend the Navigation Protection Act—

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Thank you, Chair.

I appreciate so much your giving me the opportunity to do this. I know in your riding in Calgary, you represent many oil and gas workers and their families, and oil and gas businesses, so I'm sure that's why you also believe that this is a very critical and crucial discussion for the people that you represent.

We're both Albertans. I have been working on this file for a long time, and I worked on these policy issues long before I was elected, as you may know. I'm certainly very familiar with Calgarians, their values, their priorities, and their deep concern about all these bills, so thank you for this, despite all the interruptions which are delaying this point, for still giving me the time to address this. Thank you.

I do have an amendment, but as you can see, I feel it's my duty, given the delay on dealing effectively with Bill C-69 I really want to make sure I'm making the comprehensive case to Canadians and to all the members here why we certainly cannot support this scheduling motion as written, and as was just brought to this committee with no notice to any of us, and seeks to dictate every single aspect of the work and the timelines of what we do in this committee.

I hope I have already addressed why failing to deal with Bill C-69 is nuts and destructive to the country. The way that Bill C-69 is in Bill C-49 certainly will open it up to litigation and delays, which no person in Atlantic Canada or the premiers want. They want a clear, predictable regulatory environment for both offshore petroleum and offshore renewable energy. That's why they want the bill and they want the provincial ministers to have a say. They don't want this all just to be cooked up on the back door by the federal representatives. I hope I have explained why those two things are linked and why Bill C-49 has to come first.

Of course, according to the NDP-Liberals' own schedule under which they brought the bills through the House of Commons, which was Bill C-49 first and then Bill C-50.... Of course, the arguments about other ministers or other ministries aren't really relevant on any of them since Bill C-69 was a joint initiative by the environment and natural resources ministers. Bill C-49 was the same. Of course, Bill C-50, the just transition, which will be transition to poverty, was also brought forward jointly by the environment minister, the natural resources minister and the labour minister.

To the schedule which the NDP-Liberals have put on the table today to dictate every single aspect of the work of this committee, here are the problems.

For Bill C-50, we have this date.... No, this one is good. If we can get the minister....

Actually, the minister hasn't been here for a while, so I really appreciate that we do have this date for him to come. Of course, he should come for a whole bunch of other reasons so that's cool beans to me.

Let's go down here. We have the minister again. That's fine. We should have the minister in, obviously, as soon as possible as this motion does outline. Definitely.

Here's where we start getting into the problem. There are dates here that are tying us based on the other work that we have to do to ensure that all Canadians who will be impacted by all of these bills will be heard. They must be heard. In the House of Commons and committee, it is our job to demonstrate our diligence, to demonstrate accountability, to do the work that Canadians expect of us to pass legislation that, for example, won't be litigated until kingdom come and won't be declared to be unconstitutional five years later. We don't want to do that again. I'm sure we all agree. This is why it's so important that we do our jobs.

One can understand that even though parties, various groups and the government have been working behind the scenes—and they have; I mean that's how things get developed—for a year or two years on Bill C-49 and Bill C-50.... For Conservatives as the official opposition, of course, our tools are to litigate that and to do our due diligence in the House of Commons and in committee.

We in the official opposition—Conservatives—who also did gain more votes individually from individual Canadians in 2021 and in 2019, haven't been working on this in the back doors with NDP, Liberals and various other groups for one to two years.

The only thing we can do is fight for the ability to do our jobs on behalf of the common sense of common people who have sent us here. That's our job.

I hope that this helps explain why we can't possibly support this scheduling motion that is aiming to drive through and dictate every step of what we do next on this committee.

Viviane, you asked me if there was an amendment, and there is.

Let me get to it at long last, unless members are still unclear why I am making the case that Bill C-69 is so important and that Bill C-69 is in Bill C-49 and why Bill C-49 must come first and then we must do Bill C-50. Is anyone still questioning that?

Certainly, not to further delay, but I understand, Marc, that when you have the official opposition, who hasn't been included or involved in any of this work, and they're now really trying to do their jobs as members of Parliament, as the official opposition.... In my case it's as the vice-chair of this committee, as a shadow minister for natural resources. There are my colleagues representing the Saskatchewan riding, Manitoba riding; my colleague, Earl, who's been here, I think, the longest of any of us, and he represents an Alberta riding; and Mario, who needs to do his due diligence for his constituents.

I understand that my colleagues in the NDP-Liberals might find this inconvenient. They might be annoyed at this. I mean, this is democracy.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Thank you.

An hour and a half in, I hope I will finally be able to finish.

To that point, I certainly support the subamendment, but I would carve it out after we do this.

If the Conservatives are serious about dealing with mining, indigenous and clean energy issues, I think representatives from the regions I represent would be more than willing to correct the record in terms of the Ring of Fire. It's not Bill C-69 holding it up. It was a decision by Doug Ford to exclude the Eabametoong and Neskantaga first nations that caused the trouble, which resulted in a $95-billion lawsuit by Treaty 9 against the Ontario government. It is very problematic, because we have multiple mining projects that are set to go ahead and will go ahead with good programming.

To end my comments—

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Well, from my perspective, there does continue to be a delay in my ability to do just that because of all the interruptions. We'll see how far I get this time, Chair.

Here's another section of Bill C-69 that is in Bill C-49. This is why Bill C-69 has to be dealt with first—I'll get to that in a second—and then Bill C-49, and now Bill C-50.

As I was saying, Bill C-49 incorporates section 64 of Bill C-69, which, again, as we all know, was ruled unconstitutional by the SCC. It was called largely unconstitutional by the majority of the Supreme Court.

Section 64 of Bill C-69 is fundamentally connected to the consideration of factors set forth in section 63 of Bill C-69, which, the Supreme Court made clear in paragraph 166, “represents an unconstitutional arrogation of power by Parliament”.

I'll conclude on Bill C-49, hopefully, but this is a fact: Bill C-49 has incorporated all these proposed decision-making processes and facts into several sections in Bill C-49. Given that the decision-making power and the entirety of the “designated projects” scheme are unconstitutional, the risk, and lawyers will certainly litigate this, is that components of Bill C-49 are unconstitutional as well, as written right now. This is why the government had to actually deal with the massive mistake, disaster and mess on Bill C-69 that they were warned about, that's been unconstitutional for five years and that has caused untold destruction in communities, the economy, and jobs and businesses. That's why it has to be dealt with first.

Then with Bill C-49, because that then flows to us being able to deal with Bill C-49, knowing and being confident that these sections from Bill C-69 have been fully corrected and fixed, it seems to me that there's no way we can really do our due diligence on Bill C-49 unless that part is fixed first. Of course, there's Bill C-50, because the topic is relevant, but it's not the same as Bill C-49, where literally verbatim sections and words from Bill C-69 that have been declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court are in Bill C-49 as written. It was in Bill C-49 as written when it passed the House of Commons. That's why Conservatives opposed. It's in Bill C-49 right now, when it's going to come to us. This is why we're making this issue.

Now, the worst part is that Bill C-49 already had all kinds of problems even before this decision. It already had these lengthy and uncertain timelines with all kinds of opportunities for political intervention. It tripled the timeline. Bill C-49 actually triples the timeline for a final decision on offshore renewable energy as compared with petroleum.

Of course, this bill deliberately—NDP-Liberals do want to shut it down, because that's what the just transition is about—is a death knell for offshore petroleum developers due to all the uncertainty and the lack of clarity in the timelines for private sector proponents, for provinces and for workers in the sector. Those were already problems in the bill. If we'd had more debate in the House of Commons, maybe we would have wrested all this out and known about it.

With that Supreme Court decision, which was an utter indictment of the NDP-Liberal cornerstone major legislation that impacts the entire economy and Canadians everywhere, this is now urgent. I can't get my head around how we are able to assess Bill C-49, given that it contains these various verbatim and as-written sections from Bill C-69 that have now also been declared unconstitutional.

To the scheduling motion, this is why Conservatives, we in the official opposition, who were elected by more individual Canadians in the 2021 election and in the 2019 election....

We might just remind everybody that we're not actually in a majority government scenario here. We are in a minority government —

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Thank you for congratulating me for getting to the point that you want me to get to.

I will just finish, if I could, Chair. I know you're trying to give me every opportunity. Maybe the others around here could help a guy out once you give me this opportunity that you're so generously offering.

I will just finish my explanation, though, about what else of Bill C-69 is in Bill C-49 to make the case that Bill C-49 has to come before Bill C-50.

Here's another fact about Bill C-49. Perhaps if there was more debate in the House of Commons all of this would have been wrestled out. Again, it was introduced, time allocated, debate was limited and here we are. So here we are. Bill C-49 also incorporates section 64 of Bill C-69, which was ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of Canada.

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

I'd like to speak on that point order then, Mr. Chair.

Again, I just want to remind colleagues that Bill C-69 is directly referenced no less than 33 times in Bill C-49, so it is relevant, and it is unavoidably part of why Bill C-49 is being discussed. Right now, the two go hand in hand. It is absolutely relevant.

[Marc Serré, Liberal, Nickel Belt, ON]

I just wanted to address my honourable colleague. When you're looking at obviously Bill C-50, Bill C-49 and the Conservative members want to bring Bill C-69 into the debate, you'll have an opportunity with this motion. This motion, as I said, would invite the minister. You'll be free to ask questions about Bill C-69 and how it intertwines with Bill C-50 and Bill C-49. Let's ask the minister those questions. Plus, as the honourable member knows, you'll be able to invite a lot of witnesses to come to the committee. She references what's happening in the House, but we have the bills. Right now one could argue that the Conservative Party is delaying the witnesses coming in to speak on Bill C-50 and Bill C-49.

I don't quite understand what the honourable members are bringing forward because we have the opportunity to bring witnesses and talk to the minister about exactly the issues you're bringing forward.

Isn't that what we want to do here as legislators in the committee?

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I certainly apologize if I gave that impression. I didn't intend to suggest that Mr. Angus shouldn't be able to speak at this meeting. I just noticed his hand was up, and you had said that I could continue if there weren't any other points of order. I guess you can see it in front of you, Mr. Chair. I was looking behind your head, so I thought I would mention it. I don't have that angle.

Of course, I certainly would not, on this side of the table, vote for censorship, shutting people down or not allowing people to speak. I'm just endeavouring to make my case in a comprehensive way.

It's certainly not our job as the official opposition and the Conservative Party of Canada to fail to argue to do our due diligence to ensure that members of Parliament deal with these consequential pieces of legislation in a rush and in a hurry because others want to get their agenda through on their own timelines, which they are trying to dictate in real time to this committee. It is not our job to help that happen. It is our job to fight for members of Parliament to do their duty, to do their due diligence and to make sure that we get things right and do first things first.

Again, I'm confused about why I'm having to make the argument to the NDP-Liberals about the order of these bills' coming in to committee, which should be Bill C-49 and then Bill C-50. Of course, the NDP-Liberals introduced and time allocated and then passed second reading. In the case of Bill C-49, it was 7.5 hours, over two days, of debate—that's it—in the House of Commons, and it was passed on October 17. The Prime Minister and the NDP-Liberals used a very similar tactic with Bill C-50, the just transition, which, at the last minute, they're calling “sustainable jobs” because they're afraid of the fact that when people realize what it is, they don't like it. Bill C-50 was introduced and then time-allocated, also with very little debate on the floor of the House of Commons. That passed on October 23.

I'm actually making the case even for the NDP-Liberals' own legislative schedule and agenda in the way they brought these pieces of legislation forward. I find myself in the position of thinking, like, “Guys, just take yes for an answer. Let's do the order you've already outlined.”

Again, let's go back to Bill C-69. Now, I am going to read it from Bill C-49, as there was a technical issue.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

I've sat here fairly patiently and listened to Charlie Angus interrupt the committee several times on a point of order. He always talks about relevance, that Bill C-69 is being referred to.

The problem is that Bill C-69 is so intertwined in both Bill C-49 and Bill C-50 that it needs to be referenced in order for Ms. Stubbs to build a proper road map to try to explain to the committee why the schedule that they've proposed—

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Each time, we get told that the Conservatives want to debate Bill C-69, then somehow they use Bill C-49 and then Bill C-50 as their platform to discuss Bill C-69. That's not what we're discussing.

The motion is on Bill C-49 and Bill C-50, and we actually have the opportunity to bring the ministers here so they could question them. I think that would be flame to those fireworks, but this is—

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Okay, thank you.

Listen, I have to admit to everybody here—I'm sure it will surprise no one who has known me for a while—that I was one of those people where my report cards always said “very conscientious and a very good performing student, but talks a little too much”.

Please forgive me. I'm still that same passionate little...well, they used to call me a hyena because of my ridiculous laugh.

Anyway, as my colleague, Jeremy Patzer, pointed out, and I thank him, what I was doing right before the point of order was reading from Bill C-49. I'm a bit concerned about what seems to be—I want to word this properly—a lack of awareness or understanding about how all of these things are connected and the fact that they are connected.

Relative to this last-minute table-drop attempt to dictate the schedule for this committee, this is the case I'm trying to make in a thorough and comprehensive way, so I can't be, as is often the case, attacked for talking this slowly. I think Canadians want to see that their MPs actually know what they're talking about, so that's what I'm trying to do here.

I was reading from Bill C-49 to show everybody here—because it is germane to this scheduling motion—that Bill C-69 absolutely is the five-alarm fire emergency to deal with first, and then Bill C-49, which is actually the NDP-Liberals' own agenda. It reflects the way that these things were brought into the House of Commons. I don't even understand why I'm having to make the argument that we follow the script that the NDP-Liberals have already set—

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

What she is reading is the text from Bill C-49, not Bill C-69.

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Very quickly, I think it's extremely important that all members recognize and realize that within Bill C-49, there are no fewer than 33 references to Bill C-69. Therefore, they are intertwined.

If the government had got this right in the first place, it would have made things a lot simpler.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Because Bill C-69 is in Bill C-49.

[Marc Serré, Liberal, Nickel Belt, ON]

Honourable member, I have two points. One is referring again to Bill C-69 and the Supreme Court decision.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

He suggested that I didn't have a motion about Bill C-69 in his last comment. In the comment before that, of course, he said that I did. We'll just leave that there. It gets slippery sometimes. It's slippery here.

The relevance of Bill C-69 to Bill C-49 is that Bill C-69 is in Bill C-49 33 times. There's a reference to Bill C-69 33 times in Bill C-49.

This is, again, why I am saying it's the five-alarm fire and absolute priority for this NDP-Liberal government, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and certainly anybody from resource-based ridings. However, everybody who knows the outsized importance of all kinds of natural resources development, which underpins the economy, which gives jobs and opportunity to indigenous communities, often where there are very few, the same thing for remote, rural and northern communities.... Often, resource development is the only option people right across the country have for jobs, for businesses and to support their families. It has been the key driver for decades in Canada, and it is the key driver to close the gaps between the wealthy and the poor in Canada. It's extremely significant.

When we have these sections in Bill C-49 that reference Bill C-69 like this.... Among other provisions, there are the unconstitutional sections 61 to 64 of Bill C-69, as per paragraph 163 of the majority Supreme Court decision.

By including these parts of Bill C-69, we risk massive litigation, delays, costs and uncertainty. That's something the Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador premiers and all of those people certainly don't want to see happen. This is why they want a certain, clear and predictable regulatory framework for their provinces and for the private sector. It's also why they insisted on ensuring that provincial ministers would have a say, not only federal ministers.

Section 64 of Bill C-69 is determined by the Governor in Council's determination. Section 62 is based on section referral to the Governor in Council and section 61, as per the factors of public interest, which is section 63.

In terms of section 61 in Bill C-49, as it relates to Bill C-69, it's this. This section therefore incorporates the unconstitutional conditions of section 64 of Bill C-69 into the licensing approval and authorization process. The entire clause 62 of Bill C-49 incorporates the designated project scheme, which was found to be unconstitutional in paragraph 204 of the Supreme Court decision.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

I hate to keep interrupting, but we are debating Bill C-50 and Bill C-49.

Ms. Stubbs continually wants to debate Bill C-69. That is not the issue here.

I've reached out to her office and said we're more than willing to bring forward a motion, but she doesn't have a motion. She can't off-end what's being debated now.

I would suggest, Chair, that we keep it focused. We could be here all day and all night perhaps. We have to get this motion passed so we can get down to committee business.

We're discussing Bill C-50 and Bill C-49.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Thank you, Chair.

I appreciate that and certainly appreciate all of the input, the advice and the constructive criticism about all the intricacies of all the rules here in Parliament. You all know me well enough by now to know that I certainly do have to brush up on that stuff, and I thank everybody for their input.

I will never stop fighting for the people I represent and for jobs and for affordable lives for every single Canadian in every corner of this country.

As I was saying, I hope that I have made the case so far in response to this motion that we have received today to dictate the scheduling for this committee without the facts that we need to know in advance and why we must do it in this order.

Let me explain why the C-69 issue must be prioritized because of how it's related to C-49. I'm not sure if all members of this committee have had a chance to read C-49. It is an issue you can imagine that is near and dear to my heart as a person whose mother came from Newfoundland and whose family is there, and whose father came from Nova Scotia. In fact, my grandmother was the first woman mayor of Dartmouth, Nova Scotia, so certainly it's near and dear to this first-generation, born and raised Albertan.

Those provincial governments want C-49, but this is the problem, and this is why the government has been so negligent in not dealing with this. The government has been sitting on their hands since the Supreme Court said a law that the NDP and Liberals both voted for which is in place is unconstitutional.

Sections of C-69 are embedded verbatim, identical language, no less than 33 times in C-49. Let me say that again for why it's so important that these things be ordered in the way they are.

The Supreme Court of Canada said that the most cornerstone, most significant piece of legislation that the Liberals, the Prime Minister, the ministers at the time rightfully said was their flagship, their most cornerstone legislation underpinning resource development, which I know every member on this committee agrees.... They are people like Viviane, who represents a riding that is very dependent on natural resources development, on mining. She is a champion for those people. I know that it's important for every Canadian in every region. It's important to people in Toronto, too, for example, because of the impact of energy stocks on the TSX and the many jobs that are dependent on that.

The issue here is that this bill is still in law. It's sitting there. It's largely unconstitutional. The government is not fixing it or responding to it in any kind of efficient way whatsoever. The Friday announcement was—

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Thank you.

The rule in Parliament is you can't do indirectly what you're not allowed to do directly.

The issue is Ms. Stubbs is making the argument that her motion on C-69 needs to take precedence, but she's doing it by referencing the motion that's there. Right now we have a motion. The motion has to be voted on. Then Ms. Stubbs can bring her motion and we can debate that—

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Thank you, Chair.

I apologize for the length at which I'm dealing with this issue. It's just that it is crucial to the livelihoods of the people that I represent, to my relatives and my family members in Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, and Ontario. I know each and every member of Parliament here takes that seriously for their own constituents, and also for all Canadians.

It might seem to Charlie that this is irrelevant, but it's not. I'll explain why.

We are talking about the order and the scheduling as Marc had pointed out to me. We are talking about the scheduling that will dictate the order by which we do our duties as members of Parliament and assess the bills that must take precedence over our already existing work.

The reason we are saying Bill C-69 must be dealt with urgently.... It's, frankly, by the Prime Minister and the NDP‑Liberals, and it's shocking that this hasn't actually happened in a tangible way yet, but what else is new. They're now going to add more uncertainty, and a lack of clarity.

I'm also talking about Bill C-49 and Bill C-50, because that's germane to this exact motion that has been dropped on the table here, and it is the content of the scheduling that we are discussing. Another reason that Bill C-69 is so germane to the legislation that's coming to this committee—

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

I've been listening very closely, but we are debating Bill C‑50 and Bill C‑49. We're not debating Bill C‑69. We have a motion before us, and we have to address that motion. If Ms. Stubbs wants to bring another motion, and we finish the legislative agenda, we can actually deal with that, and see what we can do, but right now, she has diverted from the topic at hand. Either she moves on and lets another member speak or she speaks to the motion.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Thanks, Chair. I certainly will.

I'm sorry that it's lengthy. I'm trying to map out for all Canadians why it's important we do the first things first, and get this right, but also why it is so important to every single Canadian in every single province and region that we do this.

My colleague, Marc, and I sat together on this very committee between 2015 and 2019 when I was in my first term. He was also in his first term. During that time, I was also the vice-chair. It happened at that time under different leaders, and I was also the shadow minister for natural resources.

I remember well the introduction and the debates on Bill C‑69. Of course, the fact is that bill was announced in a dual way by both the former environment and natural resources ministers involved. Since the Liberals also want to...I know Charlie does, since the NDP‑Liberals want to assess Bill C‑50 through this committee, and I certainly also want to do that, but the trouble with a caution about Bill C‑69 being environment is that, of course, Bill C‑50, the just transition—

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Thank you.

Thank you to my colleague for explaining that to me. You could see, even as you were explaining it, how easy it is to mess those up, so I appreciate that advice and that friendly and constructive criticism of what I've said here. I can certainly tell you one thing, though. The people of Lakeland definitely didn't send me here to worry too much about our navel-gazing, inside baseball or fancy parliamentary procedures. They just want me to be here to fight for their livelihoods and for their communities, and I think all Canadians do as well.

Chair, as I was saying, these are the reasons our position remains the same. Regarding the order when we are discussing these bills coming to committee and the precedence they must take, it is blatantly and blindingly obvious that Bill C-49 must be first because the Atlantic premiers want it, and then Bill C-50 must be after that. We cannot agree to timelines. We cannot agree to clause-by-clause. We can't presuppose how this is all going to unfold, because Canadians must be heard.

Of course, the most pressing and most urgent and biggest issue this committee ought to be dealing with and that, certainly, the government should have addressed by now.... Imagine the outcry if a Conservative government had rammed through a cornerstone, significant, wide-ranging, sweeping bill that was passed and was then on the books and then the majority of the Supreme Court of Canada said, “Hang on a second. The vast majority of this is largely unconstitutional.” I can't imagine. Well, I think we all can. Of course, the most urgent issue of all for the Prime Minister—but since he won't do it, I guess we have to try to deal with it here in committee—is to deal with this decision on Bill C-69 and to fix the bill and fix all the problems that Conservatives warned about, as did all the provinces and territories, indigenous leaders, private sector proponents and municipalities—all of them—when it was leaving the House of Commons.

Then, of course, Alberta pursued a court case against Bill C-69 primarily focusing on jurisdictional division—a warning Conservatives gave on Bill C-69 would become a problem—but, importantly, Alberta was supported by seven other provinces through this charge. The Alberta court said, “Yes, Alberta, you're right. This thing is unconstitutional. Just as Conservative official opposition members said when it was in debate and just as thousands of Canadians spoke out against five years ago, this thing is unconstitutional.” The Prime Minister immediately said he would appeal it to the Supreme Court. What happened a couple of weeks ago was that the Supreme Court said, “Yes, Justin Trudeau, you're wrong, and these seven provinces are right. Get this thing fixed.”

On Friday, the Minister of Environment said he guessed you guys were going to get around to that in the next couple of months, but what's terrifying is that what he said he would do would be to take the approach of these interim guiding principles. Well, I would remind everyone that's exactly what they did in our first term when the Liberals froze all of the existing major projects across all aspects of natural resources development. They froze all of those applications for two years, threw the economy and the sector into utter uncertainty, disarray, lack of clarity and, frankly, fear. The consequence of that was, over the years, losses of literally billions of dollars in projects that are especially important in remote, rural, indigenous and low-income communities.

I'm getting there, Charlie.

This is how important this issue is. This was all ignored, and the Supreme Court has now said it's a big deal. Now the environment minister is saying, “We'll get around to it in a few months, but right now, we're going to do these interim guiding principles,” but that's what happened the first time. It caused chaos for two years, an absolute collapse in oil and gas investment, collapses in all that investment in clean tech that's done in that sector, the destruction of hundreds of thousands of jobs and, of course, as you know, particular harm in Alberta, Saskatchewan, parts of B.C. and Newfoundland and Labrador.

Of course, because of the importance of the leading private sector investor in the Canadian economy, and still to this day despite all the hostility and anti-energy, anti-development, anti-private sector policy, it still remains Canada's top export. It underpins the entire Canadian economy, including, obviously, the TSX, the importance of energy stocks there.

People on Bay Street and people in Toronto also need to be worried about their jobs.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that was a good speech.

Before question period, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government said that Canada was a good place for investors.

However, investors keep leaving. There are a lot of rules, like those arising from the passage of Bill C‑69, the carbon tax is too high, and we have measures that do not exist in other countries.

Why is there nothing in this bill to deal with that problem?

[Joanna Bernard]

I believe the court decision on that was recent. Is that the one you're talking about, Bill C-69? Maybe you could refer to it.

[Marty Morantz, Conservative, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, MB]

Yes, Bill C-69, what we call the “no more pipelines” bill, creates administrative roadblocks not only to oil and gas but also to things like mines, critical minerals and those types of things. The Supreme Court of Canada just ruled that many of the bill's sections are unconstitutional. I was wondering if your organization has any opinion on that piece of legislation, which does not mention UNDRIP.

[Marty Morantz, Conservative, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, MB]

Thank you very much.

I have a question for you, Ms. Bernard and Ms. Pellerin. It has to do with Bill C-69, what we affectionately call the “no more pipelines" bill. I wonder if your organization has a position on this. We know that the Supreme Court recently opined that several sections of this bill are unconstitutional, and the government announced that it's going to have to retool it.

My understanding is that this legislation makes no mention of UNDRIP and doesn't really address the idea of economic reconciliation, which is one of the points you raised in your opening statement. I'm wondering if you agree that this legislation is seriously flawed and needs to be reworked.

[The Clerk of the Committee, Mr. Patrick Williams]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The motion calls for the committee to report to the House. It is true that Bill C-69 was already adopted in the 42nd legislature. It's not before the House right now, which means that if someone tried to concur in the report in the House, the House would likely not be able to act on the content of the report. At that point, the Speaker might rule that the motion to concur in the report is out of order. Whether or not.... There could be a procedural issue in the House, but it would be up to the Speaker to rule at that point.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

As I pointed out earlier, I wonder if this motion is in order. Not only are we talking about a bill, but we have to be aware that this bill comes under the Department of the Environment. I don't see how the Standing Committee on Natural Resources would be empowered to say that a bill that falls under the Department of the Environment should be repealed and would have to signify this to the House.

In my view, the motion is not in order, since the Supreme Court ruling in question applies to a statute, not a bill. Even if the motion were in order and a committee were to examine this, it would be up to the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development to do this work, since the bill in question, i.e. Bill C‑69, falls under the jurisdiction of the Department of the Environment.

I'd end by saying that perhaps it's best to move on. My advice to my Conservative colleagues is to either rewrite the motion, or submit it to another committee.

The respect my colleagues are talking about applies to everyone, starting with the respect we must show the chair. If everyone listened to the chair's statements without heckling, we'd have a much more interesting committee than what we've experienced in the last few minutes. I don't think that's a great example to set for the witnesses we're currently hearing.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

I would like to speak to his point. Bill C-69 was not—

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

I'm talking about the Supreme Court ruling on Bill C-69, a bill that's already law. I'm not talking about Bill C-49.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Earl.

Thank you to all the witnesses for being here. I certainly do encourage all of you to submit comprehensive written submissions to this committee, which will be included in the final report.

To begin, Chair, I would like to give verbal notice of the following motion:

That, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the committee undertake a study of the Supreme Court of Canada's ruling that Bill C-69, 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, is unconstitutional immediately following the completion of the clause by clause review of Bill C-49, An Act to amend the Canada—Newfoundland and Labrador Atlantic Accord Implementation Act and the Canada—Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Resources Accord Implementation Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts; for the purposes of this study, the committee: (a) hold at least 5 meetings, (b) invite the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources and the Minister of the Environment and Climate Change to appear for one hour each, (c) report its findings and recommendations to the House and, (d) pursuant to Standing Order 109, request that the government table a comprehensive response to the report.

Now, Chair, I would like to move the following motion that I gave notice of on October 16. You were right about the timing then, and so now, of course, it's all in order.

We urge that:

The committee recognize that Bill C-69, An Act to enact the Impact Assessment Act and the Canadian Energy Regulator Act, has been ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of Canada in a 5-2 decision, that the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court said that Parliament has to “act within the enduring division of powers framework laid out in the Constitution,” and that all provinces and territories called for major changes to Bill C-69 and were ignored by the Liberal government. It is the opinion of the committee that Bill C-69 should be repealed, and report this finding to the House in order for the House to vote on the viability of the bill given the Supreme Court's majority ruling.

For our witnesses, who have given of their time and expertise to be here today, and for all Canadians, I want to make it clear why this is so crucial.

It is, of course, because the uncertainty, the death by delay, the endless timelines, and the abilities and opportunities for political interference at many different stages throughout the assessment have not only driven out billions of dollars in traditional oil and gas development and already killed 300,000 jobs for oil and gas workers in every corner of this country but also, of course, disproportionately impacted provinces like Alberta, Saskatchewan, B.C. and certainly Newfoundland and Labrador.

The reason this is important for everybody here and for all Canadians is that Bill C-69, which now, even though the NDP and the Liberals ignored Conservatives' cautions at the time.... As you know, I am here to represent the people of Lakeland, so that's my number one job, but I have to say it's a little bit awkward because, of course, I was the shadow minister for natural resources for the official opposition during all that time. I did warn about every single aspect that the Supreme Court has now said is unconstitutional, but, of course, so did every provincial premier and every territorial leader by the time it was getting out the back end.

Here is the fact. Because of the Liberals and the NDP, a law that the Supreme Court now says is unconstitutional has been in place for five years, for half a decade. That not only will continue the flood of traditional oil and gas investment and jobs from this country to others, as a consequence of years of anti-energy, anti-resource development and anti-private sector policies, but it will also absolutely hamper and prevent the private sector investments, technology and innovation required for more clean energy, green energy and renewable energy development in the future. It will absolutely stop and is stopping in its tracks the development of alternative energies and fuels of the future, which, I would note, Liberals and NDP members say they support.

Prevention of Government-Imposed Vaccination Mandates Act

[Dean Allison, Conservative, Niagara West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the debate we have had regarding this bill, although I do not agree with all my colleagues from the other parties.

As we conclude second reading, it is important to keep several things in mind. It was wrong to divide and discriminate against Canadians based on a personal medical decision. It was wrong for the government to demonize Canadians who did not agree with the heavy-handed approach of imposing unscientific mandates on compelling folks into a medical treatment. It was wrong for the Prime Minister to call more than six million Canadians nasty names. He called his fellow Canadians racists, misogynists and a fringe minority, and he dared to say they held unacceptable views. It was wrong for the Prime Minister to say that these Canadians should not be tolerated because of a personal medical decision. It was wrong for the Liberal government to freeze the bank accounts of Canadians who did nothing wrong.

More than six million Canadians disagreed with the Liberals’ heavy-handed approach. Tens of thousands went out to protest throughout the country when they had no other avenue for expressing their concerns. Many of these folks lost their jobs. That includes truckers, government workers, doctors, nurses, crown corporation workers, our very own military members and many others. Why did the Prime Minister do this? He did it because he saw a political opportunity and did what he does best: divide.

Last week we saw the same thing happen with the Prime Minister's anti-energy, anti-resource development bill, Bill C-69, punishing mostly our western provinces by trying to limit their economic abilities to grow their own economies. The Prime Minister’s divisive tactics based on Canadians’ health is just another example in his playbook, which we have seen for eight long and miserable years of his tenure.

I was happy to see that common sense prevailed earlier this year when a ruling by the Canadian Armed Forces grievance board found that the Canadian Armed Forces mandates violated the charter rights of a member who was released for choosing to remain unvaccinated. The board stated that the Canadian Armed Forces mandate infringed on the member’s right to liberty and security of the person, under section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The board also found that the policy was arbitrary, overly broad and disproportionate. It was the right decision.

In addition to all of this, it was difficult to watch as other levels of government felt pressured by the Prime Minister’s rhetoric to implement more ridiculous and unscientific mandates. Municipal and provincial officials did not want to get ridiculed, so they reluctantly imposed their own mandates. These mandates, as everyone knew at the time, did nothing to prevent transmission or illness.

What the mandates did do, however, was damage our country like I have never seen before. Folks were fired. Folks lost their livelihoods. Folks were forbidden from travelling. I cannot believe this actually happened right here in Canada. Folks missed birthdays, funerals and other important events of friends and family across the country and abroad. It was sheer vindictiveness by the Liberals, plain and simple. They wanted to exact some sort of punishment on folks who did not agree with their stance on imposing unscientific mandates that drove a wedge with families, friends and neighbours. Families were torn apart because of the government’s stigmatization of Canadians.

This must never happen again, ever. My bill seeks to do that at the federal level, where we do have jurisdiction. We can never introduce such egregious and vindictive measures. We are not that country. We cannot do that to our people. We are Canadians. We show compassion and understanding for one another. We do not seek to get someone fired or to ban them from travelling because they think differently or want to handle their own medical decisions in their own particular way. They have every right to do so. It is their health.

How did the government ever think it was okay to overstep such a sensitive boundary? I have heard from thousands of Canadians first-hand. They are still disillusioned about what happened. They are still in shock from what their own government did to them. Many people who went along with the mandates realized, as time passed, the punitive methods used in this ordeal. Many have lost trust in government in general. Some will likely never trust government again, including many of those six million Canadians who were affected. I would also fully agree with the Leader of the Opposition that the imposition of the Emergencies Act to crush the civil liberties of Canadian citizens who protested for their freedoms was one of the most despicable acts we have seen under the Prime Minister’s government.

I hope we all make sure this never happens again. I do not believe we can move on from what took place until there is accountability. This bill is a step in the right direction. Let us start with Bill C-278, and let us continue to work until there is full accountability. I know I will.

Canada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, 2023

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

Madam Speaker, it is my honour and privilege today to speak on behalf of the good people of Peace River—Westlock to Bill C-57, the Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement implementation act, 2023.

I am a free trader. I believe in free market economies. I believe that Canada is a trading country, and I think that it is incumbent upon us to pursue free trade agreements around the world. Canada is blessed to have a huge amount of natural resources, a large land mass and resilient people, who are able to produce those natural resources. We are able to outproduce our own need by multiples of hundreds, whether that is the food production that happens in this country, our forestry or the oil and gas sector.

I want to just talk a little bit about the Supreme Court decision around Bill C-69. It is connected to this by the fact that, when Bill C-69 was brought into force, it ended the pursuit of 14 LNG projects in this country. Prior to the Liberal government coming into power, these projects were being pursued; after Bill C-69 was brought in, they were abandoned.

At the time when Bill C-69 was put on the Order Paper and we were discussing it here in this place, we said that the bill was unconstitutional and that it would have a marked effect on the pursuit of major projects in this country. We were right on both counts. We saw 14 projects just disappear. The proponents of those projects said that there was no longer the business case to do them. The business case was entirely impacted by government regulation. We also saw, after five years of that bill being in place, that the Supreme Court agreed with us, saying Bill C-69 was unconstitutional.

Why does that matter in the context of the Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement? I would remind everybody that Ukraine is now in a war with Russia. Energy is the major export of Russia to the world. What is funding this war is the energy that people are buying, no matter where they are in the world.

We just heard the NDP talk about how we should pick and choose which countries we should do business with when it comes to oil and gas. I would argue that the world market for energy is the world market for energy. If we put good clean Canadian oil and gas on the world market and compete on that market, we could displace other oil and gas. When we just take our products off that market, somebody else will go in and fill that void. That might be Russia; in many cases, it is Russia.

Now we know that the Germans, for example, have come to Canada and specifically asked Canada to increase LNG production. They said that if they do not get more LNG coming to Europe, they will have to revert to coal mining. When our Prime Minister was asked about that, he said there was no business case. He failed to recognize, or perhaps purposefully did not say, that the business case that no longer was able to be made by LNG companies in this country was predicated entirely on the backs of the new bill, Bill C-69. Those projects were in the works until Bill C-69 came into place and then slowly, one by one, the businesses that were pursuing LNG projects said that there was no longer a business case for them. So we have seen that go away.

Another thing that I am excited about in terms of free trade and free trade agreements is just how our Canadian technology can then move around the world. Our leader has often said that we will fight climate change with technology and not taxes. Our ability to then export those technologies around the world comes from when we sign free trade agreements.

I am sitting in the House here next to the member for Abbotsford. I know that, when he was the trade minister, he pursued an aggressive free trade agenda under the previous Harper government. He signed over 40 free trade agreements, which allowed our Canadian technology to then be transferred around the world. That made Canadian companies wealthy. That gave Canadians jobs. It also did amazing things for other countries.

Canada is a leader in agricultural techniques and technology. We often lead the way when it comes to dryland farming and those kinds of things. We are able to export not only our equipment, but also our know-how around the world.

When it comes to energy production with our small nuclear reactors, it is a flagship Canadian technology. When I was in elementary school, our social studies bragged about the CANDU reactor and how we would power the world with this Canadian technology. Free trade agreements have had a great impact on allowing our technology to pursue other markets around the world.

Also, our ability to export our LNG products also allows our clean technology products to be transferred around the world.

We export other things such as coal, which is mined in the most ethically sourced manner. In most cases, it is extremely mechanized. There are very few people involved in the actual mining of coal, mostly equipment operators. The rates of injury compared to the tonnes of coal being produced are the lowest. We have some of the best labour practices in the world when it comes to coal production.

Therefore, when our coal ends up on the world market, although we do not necessarily know what the end result of that is, we can say with confidence that our coal, our oil, our lumber and our power are the most ethically sourced. We know that our labour and environmental standards are second to none around the world. When we are exporting these products, we know we are doing good in the world, because we are displacing products that may not have those same standards being enforced.

When it comes to free trade agreements, I want to talk about competitiveness. When we enter the free market, we do not necessarily know where our products are going to end up and we do not necessarily know with whom we are going to be competing. There are price signals that impact our ability to sell our products.

Over and again, representatives from many companies come to my office to talk to me about competitiveness. They say that they have the best technology and labour laws in the world, as well as great ideas, yet they are unable to attract investment in their products because of regulatory uncertainty, high labour costs, high interest rates, these kinds of things. Therefore, more companies are saying they need to be more competitive on the world stage. The Canada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement would not only allow our products to go to other places, but would also allow Ukrainian investment to come in our direction, and we are very excited about that.

I know more companies are saying that their competitiveness is being undermined specifically because of things like the carbon tax. I am not sure if Ukraine has a carbon tax in place, but it could be a major challenge. If Ukraine does not and we do, we could hamstring our own companies if we enter into a free trade agreement with Ukraine or other countries around the world. Our companies would be competing with other companies that do not have a carbon tax on their products.

Let us say we want to sell LNG. Maybe another reason why there is no market plan for these LNG projects is because of the carbon tax, which came in around the same time as Bill C-69. Companies may say that if they are being charged a carbon tax on the production work they do in Canada when an LNG project in Australia does not have that tax on it, it is an increased cost that their competitors do not have to bear. We have to be concerned about this as we enter into these free trade agreements. We need to ensure that we not only have the ability to send our products out, but we are also able to compete with those companies in those countries.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

Thank you.

This is for anyone. The Supreme Court ruled that the government's Bill C-69 was unconstitutional because it interjected on provincial jurisdiction. Provinces are rightfully worried that opening the Canada Water Act will also intrude on their jurisdiction.

Did anyone here read the Supreme Court's decision, and can they share what they learned from it so that the government doesn't intrude on provincial jurisdiction again with the changes to the Water Act?

I'll start with ECCC.

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Oh no, I have lots of things here that I can keep going with. I've actually had the floor all along, in fact.

It's nice to have multiple colleagues with me around the table, though. It sure is nice. I respect all of the things my colleagues have to say and I appreciate the input that I get, but let's get back to the business case. I think that's of utmost importance. That was supposedly the biggest thing that was going to prevent Canada from being the LNG provider around the world.

As recently as May, Canada said it was in talks with two companies to possibly accelerate LNG projects there that could ship gas to Europe within a few years.

We've heard multiple people, though, talking about some of the timeline issues. We've heard that throughout this study as well. I mean, the business case is right there. There are some good numbers. I was talking about the million tonnes per annum that are going to be provided by Qatar. There's a lot going on.

I'm just trying to get the right numbers for everybody. It's right here.

...QatarEnergy's efforts to address energy security and transition towards renewables. “In Qatar, we are increasing production to 126 million tons per annum, and we have another 16–18 MPTA out of the US next year. We are doing it in the most responsible way as far as emissions are concerned with [carbon dioxide] CO₂ sequestration”.

There's a business case being made elsewhere around the world for two very important things that we have in Saskatchewan and Alberta. That would be carbon capture as well. They're talking about using that over in Qatar. They're using it in the United States. That's part of the IRA as well.

We're looking at emissions reduction, the business case and good jobs. That's what we're looking at here.

I would appreciate the committee's support for this motion. There's clearly a moral case for this around the world.

I've laid out some of the human rights issues with Qatar. I think it would resonate with my friend Mr. Angus that people in Qatar are not allowed to be part of a union. We talked about that. “Prohibitions on independent trade unions” is the exact term from the report. We're talking about good union jobs, but also human rights workers who are being forced in there from other countries as well.

Canada has a great workforce. We have the highest standards for human rights around the world. We have a fairly robust regulatory environment, but we've heard about the pancaking of regulations too. It would be nice to be able to unpack some of that.

We have a business case. Let's get the business case. Let's get the business rolling. Then we can fix some of the regulatory issues that have come up, as we've seen with Bill C-69 being ruled largely unconstitutional as well. I think we're going to get a chance, hopefully, to address that in the near future. I think that will play a part in Canada being able to be a global LNG supplier.

There is a proposal now for a new plant in northern B.C. Tourmaline, I think, is the name of the company. They're looking to have an LNG export facility off the coast of B.C. just south of Alaska. Of course, that would be the opportunity to supply Asia with LNG.

When we look at where Japan is located—one of our allies—we see that we're the closest route to Japan. We also have the strategic advantage of our winters being a natural advantage in making LNG because of the temperatures we have. That's a strategic advantage that Qatar does not have in making the production of LNG more economic. Again, that goes to the business case that exists for LNG here in Canada.

I think I've made my point clear. I hope that I can count on my colleagues across this committee to support this motion. It sends a message that Canada has all of the things the world needs when it comes to energy production, and also human rights.

The business case exists, so I think we should get this done. Yes, there is a moral case and there's a business case. Let's do this.

Canadian Sustainable Jobs Act

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend my colleague who is celebrating her eight anniversary as a member of Parliament here in the House of Commons today. I wish her a happy anniversary and to the rest of us too.

In answer to the specific question that my colleague asked, I would answer that I only spoke about the environment and that I am very proud of that. I am a bit surprised to hear my colleague from Repentigny say that I did not speak about Bill C‑50, when, on the contrary, I made the focus of my speech the environment, a subject that is very dear to her heart.

What the Conservatives want is to help Quebec in its development. We understand Quebec, and that is why we are strongly opposed to the law stemming from Bill C‑69, which gives the federal government veto power over hydroelectric projects. I will not hide the fact that we are in favour of these developments and that we want them to move forward as quickly as possible.

We need to regain the momentum that we had in the 1950s when we tripled the infrastructure at the Beauharnois power plant, built the Bersimis-1 and Bersimis-2 power stations and gave the green light to the fantastic Manicouagan-Outardes hydroelectric project and the Carillon generating station. In the 1950s, Quebec was really big on creating hydroelectric dams. Let us hope that we can see that again one day in Quebec.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased and proud to take part in this debate since it is an essential debate for the future of Canada and, let us be honest, for the future of the planet. We are talking here about the vision, the perspective we have when it comes to Canada's natural resources given the challenges we are facing with climate change, which is real.

First, let us begin by defining what is at stake. Climate change is real. Humans are contributing to it. Humans therefore need to contribute to reducing greenhouse gas emissions and, ultimately, reducing pollution. Over the eight years that this government has been here, what is Canada's record?

Using a mathematical and scientific process, the United Nations, or UN, which is not just any old organization, analyzed 63 countries around the world to see which nations were most effective at countering the effects of climate change. After eight years of this Liberal government, Canada ranks 58 out of 63 countries. That is not our statistic. It did not come from overly conservative observers. It did not come from climate deniers. No, it came from people in the UN. They handed out their report card: After eight years of the Liberal government, Canada is ranked 58 out of 63 when it comes to effectively fighting climate change.

Will people be surprised by this disappointing result given that the government had pumped itself up and bragged about their ambitious targets?

“Canada is back.” That is exactly what the Prime Minister said eight years ago in Paris. People all around the world applauded that Canada was back. However, after eight years, Canada is way back, at number 58 out of 63. That is the result of policies based on ideology, not on pragmatism and practice.

That is why, sadly, Bill C‑50 follows once again in the same Liberal tradition that this government is imposing on Canadians. In other words, the Liberals think that they are the only ones who know what to do, that they will tax everyone and that is going to reduce emissions.

After eight years, that is not what happened. This government has never met its targets. The rare times when there were reductions was, unfortunately, during the pandemic. If the Liberals' game plan is to bring Canada back there and shut down the economy for a few months, that is not exactly the best thing to do. We can all agree.

It is obvious that introducing carbon taxes is not working. That is the reality. Why is that not working? Because we would need all 195 countries in the world to have carbon pricing systems that were equivalent everywhere, with the same requirements everywhere and the same challenges everywhere The problem, however, is that the big polluters, the big emitters, starting with our biggest neighbour, do not subscribe to this system. This is a prime example of how important geography can be. The United States of America is our main neighbour, our main economic partner and our main competitor. Here in Canada, we are always quick and proud to lecture those around us. We tax people. We tax businesses. We tax wealth creators. We tax job creators. As a result, people go elsewhere instead of investing here. We are shooting ourselves in the foot. It is better to go elsewhere. That is the problem with this dogmatic approach.

Our approach is much more concrete, pragmatic and effective. It will deliver tangible results. On September 2, 2,500 Conservative supporters from across Canada gathered in Quebec City for our national convention. We had not had this type of event in five years. We were all under the same roof. The event took place on the evening of September 2 in Quebec City. I am from Quebec City. I am very proud to say that.

On September 2, there was a milestone speech by the future prime minister of Canada, the hon. member for Carleton. He is the leader of the official opposition today, but he will be the next prime minister. It was a milestone speech, the Quebec speech. It framed where we want to go with the next Conservative government, and when he talked about climate change, the leader was crystal clear that the real impact of climate change has to be addressed. That is what he said. This is why we recognize it, but we want to address it with pragmatism, not ideology.

The speech given in Quebec City is a big part of the history of Canadian politics and it will make its mark like many other important speeches in our history. That is why it will be remembered as the vision that the party had when Canadians gave us the honour of putting their trust in us to form the next government.

What was said in that speech?

The first pillar is that climate change is having a real impact and that it must be addressed. We need pragmatic measures to deal with climate change. Rather than imposing taxes, we are going to encourage people, through tax incentives, to invest in new technologies, research and development and measures that can be immediately implemented to reduce pollution. That is the objective. It is all well and good to brag about lofty principles and say that we are going to reduce emissions by 2.3% compared to what happened in 1991 because it was different in 1996, and so on. That is all theoretical. The reality is that there is pollution and we want to reduce pollution.

When we talk about reducing pollution, it is a never-ending story. We hear that we need to reduce, reduce and reduce. If we can reduce by 20% this year, then great and congratulations. What will be done on January 1 to continue to reduce pollution and emissions? Our plan is based on incentives in research and development to help reduce pollution. This is the first pillar.

The second pillar is to give the green light to green energy. People have projects ready to go right now. They want to invest in green energies and they want to do research and development, but there is too much red tape. We need to act efficiently. I would like to provide a very specific example. Quebec is currently engaged in a lively debate about the future of hydroelectricity. Should we relive the great 1950s, when we gave the green light to so many hydroelectric projects in Quebec, or should we do things differently? This is an ongoing debate. Does everyone know that, through Bill C‑69, the federal government has given itself the right to veto hydroelectric projects in Quebec? This is slowing thing down.

We want to do the opposite and speed up the process of giving people greater access to green energy. When I say “green energy”, I am talking about hydroelectricity, geothermal energy, solar energy, wind energy, as well as nuclear energy. These are all avenues that we need to explore further with new technology to make them more efficient and more accessible to Canadians. That is where it can happen.

The third pillar is that we must be proud to be Canadian, proud of our know-how, our energy and our natural resources. Yes, Canada is rich in intelligence. Yes, Canada is rich when it comes to researchers, natural resources and energy. Yes, as Canadians, we must prioritize these Canadian assets and export this know-how. We have extraordinary know-how in hydroelectricity; we are the best in the world. We should be exporting that know-how.

The same thing can be said of natural resources. There is a lot of talk about the electrification of transport. I, for one, am a supporter and I believe in the future of electric cars to combat the greenhouse effect. However, this requires lithium. We have lithium in Canada. Why is it taking years to get shovels in the ground? We need to speed things up.

That is why we should be proud of who we are. That is why we need to green-light green energy. That is why we need tax incentives to accelerate research and development. Concrete, realistic, responsible, pragmatic measures will enable us to fight the harmful impacts of climate change. For the past eight years, the Liberals have opted for their carbon tax and the second tax that, according to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, will cost over 20 cents a litre, or 16 cents plus tax. We know the Bloc Québécois had two opportunities to say no to the first carbon tax and the second one. Twice, the Bloc Québécois lent its full support and voted with the Liberal government to keep both taxes.

That is not the approach we recommend. We believe that Canadian know-how, smarts and natural resources are the best way to face the challenge of climate change.

[Jamie Schmale, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON]

I lost my train of thought.

Yes, it was on Bill C-69. I think my colleague's motion is something the committee should consider very seriously. Of course, as you know, I am voting in favour of it.

Prior to the bill's implementation, we had a number of indigenous leaders at this committee talk about the damage Bill C-69 was going to do, and we saw, almost immediately, the amount of investment that left Canada following its introduction, among others. I'm including the anti-tanker bill that came after that, as well. We got warnings from indigenous leaders before, during and after the debate. We saw oil and gas investment take a severe hit.

It's in turn also hurting first nations communities themselves. I point to an article written by Stephen Buffalo, who was at our committee just last week. The date is June 14, 2019. It's talking about the damage it will do to the prosperity of first nations communities that would have benefited from resource projects like oil and gas, mining, and the list goes on. It talks about how there is a way to capitalize on the investment coming into the country for natural resource projects and turning it into jobs, investments, revenue generation, wealth and opportunity, on and off reserve. That would be a benefit for everybody—indigenous people and non-indigenous people. That could be a win-win.

At the same time, it could supply the world with energy—some of the cleanest energy taken out of the ground—and displace the bad actors in the world. We saw the German Chancellor come to Canada. We saw the Japanese Prime Minister asking for Canadian energy. The Prime Minister told them there wasn't a business case for it. I don't know which industry people he spoke with, but clearly not the same ones who are advocating for the growth of the industry.

Then, we saw disruption in the world. We saw Germany sign on to Russia, which is basically financing the war against Ukraine, despite warnings against that. The conflict happened. We've seen pipelines disrupted; therefore, supply starts to get disrupted. Of course, demand was ramping back up after the pandemic and other things. Therefore, we have a shortage of supply, not to mention that some other countries are cutting their production. Canada could have played a leadership role had we been promoting this industry and the extraction of this resource. There would be tremendous wealth earned and generated from some of these projects.

When we talk about the cost of gas, we mentioned the carbon tax as a major point, but another way to bring down the price—which would bring down the price of almost everything, including food and fuel, things that Canadians are having a tough time affording—is to add supply. The law of supply and demand is almost absolute. By adding supply to an already stretched system, doing it the best way we can, and providing jobs, wealth and opportunity in all communities, we could have a win-win situation here. At the same time, we'd help our residents and citizens—the people of this country who would like to have lower prices at the supermarket and who would love to have lower energy prices when filling up their cars and the tanks in their trucks, which they use to transport the goods. It is all combined.

When you have an industry that is handcuffed—basically shut down because of bad government policy, with no way to increase it when the world is itching for it—you have an increase in price.

I find it very frustrating that these indigenous leaders.... I'm going to quote Stephen Buffalo very shortly, and I will wrap up my comments, because, again, we do have witnesses and we want to ask them some questions.

The warnings were there, all the warnings, that this was going to cause problems. All of the warnings were there in terms of the investment that was going to leave the country, and we saw billions of dollars leave. Even when the government bought Trans Mountain, what did the company that sold the government Trans Mountain do? They took that money and invested it in infrastructure in Texas, so Texans and the Americans get to use Canadian dollars, Canadian taxpayer dollars, to invest in their infrastructure and create job opportunities and wealth in their country while we lag behind.

I'll quickly quote Stephen Buffalo, and then I'll wrap up, because I do want to get to the witnesses.

For some of our communities, oil and gas projects, pipelines and related infrastructure, and a vast service sector have produced jobs, supported new Indigenous-owned companies and produced large returns for Indigenous governments. We used the money to build houses, support cultural programs, and pay for our administrative operations. The revenue also gave us more financial autonomy and created a real sense of optimism in some of our communities.

Again, Stephen Buffalo just appeared at the committee last week. He was advocating for this. There are lots more opportunities here if the government would reconsider some of its anti-energy policies, especially at a time when the world is asking for it to do so.

Thank you, Chair.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank the witnesses for being here today. I'm going to depart a little bit from questioning the witnesses.

I put a motion on notice the other day around Bill C-69. I would note that the Supreme Court has deemed Bill C-69 to be unconstitutional. This bill affected many communities in northern Alberta.

I was wondering if we could take a moment to pass my motion. The motion doesn't call for a study or anything like that. It just asks for this committee to state an opinion and that the opinion be reported back to the House of Commons. My motion notes the Supreme Court's decision and that Parliament should work quickly to ensure we abide by that decision.

I would note that at the time of the passage of Bill C-69, Chief Isaac Laboucan-Avirom from Woodland Cree First Nation was quite upset about the passage of this bill, as it ended a number of pipeline projects that were anticipated in northern Alberta, the Eagle Spirit pipeline being one of them and the northern gateway pipeline being another one. At that time, he was concerned about this, and it seems as if his concerns have been upheld by the Supreme Court of Canada.

Mr. Chair, I would seek that we pass this motion.

Second Reading

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am rising today to express my serious concerns about Bill C-50. This bill is called the sustainable jobs act, which is typical of what Liberals do. They pick a name that sounds good. Who does not like sustainable jobs? I like sustainable jobs. I think all Canadians want sustainable jobs. It sounds really good, but the problem is that in this bill there is no plan to create sustainable jobs. This is a plan to get a plan.

The bill outlines how the Liberals are going to put together a council. Based on past behaviour, I suggest that it would be highly paid Liberal insiders who will get these jobs and advise on what the plan ought to be. As to the timeline of when they are going to come up with what the plan ought to be, it be should by 2025, coincidentally just after the next election.

The Liberals do not have a plan. Nothing says there is no plan like a bill that is introduced to get a plan. That is the first thing.

The second thing is the Liberals have another role, a secretariat, that is going to do some coordination, with another highly paid Liberal insider when they get the plan. The problem is that is it; that is all. It is a plan to get a plan, with some principles that are motherhood and apple pie and that we would all agree on, such as well-paying jobs, caring about the environment and the need to respect labour, all of these good things. They are all motherhood and apple pie, but the bill does not have a specific action that is going to help.

On the other hand, it is going to hurt. The analysts of the government have said that Bill C-50 would kill 170,000 direct Canadian jobs, would displace 450,000 workers directly and indirectly working in the energy sector and would risk the livelihoods of 2.7 million Canadians across all provinces. The bill would destroy as many as 2.7 million jobs when there is not a single action in it to create any sustainable jobs at all. That is a problem.

The other thing is that it is going to cost a lot of money. Right now the energy sector provides 10% of Canada's GDP and pays over $20 billion in taxes to all levels of government every year. Last year, $48 billion in royalties and taxes were contributed by the energy sector. This bill purports to get rid of that by eliminating the sector.

We can look at other places in the world that have come up with a sustainable jobs plan and are starting to implement it, Scotland being one example. If we took the cost per person of its plan and did the equivalent thing here, it would cost $37.2 billion. The Liberals are taking away as much as $48 billion and adding a cost of another $37 billion. If we do the math, they are increasing by greater than $70 billion the loss to the Canadian economy.

I do not know why the Liberal government cannot learn the lesson when countless people can, like former Liberal John Manley, who said that when it runs these huge deficits, it is putting a foot on the inflationary gas pedal, which is causing the Bank of Canada to put its foot on the brake with higher interest rates. This raises the cost of mortgages. Canadians are suffering from coast to coast, so definitely not only is the bill not going to create jobs, but it will come with a huge cost.

It is not like this is the first time there has been an attack on oil and gas and the energy sector. This has been a continual theme from the time I got elected in 2015. Let us start with the tanker ban, Bill C-48, to keep Canadian oil from getting out there when everybody else's ships are out there full of oil. Then we had Bill C-55, which created marine protected areas so we could do no oil and gas development there. Then there was Bill C-69, the “no more pipelines” bill, which was just called unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. All of these things were intended to be a war against creating oil and gas projects.

There is evidence. When the Liberals took power, there were 18 LNG projects on the books and there were four pipelines. Zero pipelines have been built and all the LNG projects but one are cancelled. Meanwhile, back at the ranch, our friends in Germany were going to give us $59 billion to replace their Russian oil and coal with our green LNG. The Prime Minister said there was no business case, so Australia took that deal.

Then Japan came up with a similar deal and again we would not take the deal, so Saudi Arabia took it. Then came France and the Netherlands. There were all these opportunities for Canada to be a leader, supplanting higher-carbon fuels with our green LNG, the most responsibly produced product in the world with the best human rights record, but again the Liberal government refused. Instead, it is focused on its own ideology and things that it wants to do that continue to destroy the economy.

We can talk about the electric vehicle mandates. That was another great idea. Let us give away $31 billion to create 3,000 jobs. For those who can do the math, if we just gave each of those 3,000 people $10 million, they would never have to work again and there would not be any footprint. There is a total misunderstanding of how to create a growing economy.

Then there is the clean electricity standard, another hugely divisive bill that was introduced by the Minister of Environment and Climate Change, clearly not understanding that where the Liberals want to go with all the electric vehicles, electricity and the grid would require building the equivalent of 19 nuclear facilities, like the one from Bruce Power. They cannot build anything, so I do not know where they get the idea that they are going to be successful in achieving that.

At the same time, they are ignoring the fact that only 7% of the public even wants an electric vehicle because the technology is not there. No one wants to be trapped in a snowstorm at -30°C because the batteries do not work. They catch fire. In addition to that, they do not have a very long range. Instead, the government decided to pick a winner and loser with the battery plants that are being built.

Now Toyota has come out with a solid-state battery, with a 1,275-kilometre range, that works at -20°C and does not catch fire. That will make our technology obsolete, with $31 billion after the fact. Maybe the Liberal government needs a few more engineers so that it can actually make science-, fact- and data-based decisions, but that is not what is happening today.

The Liberals continue to move ahead with the carbon tax and the second carbon tax, putting punishment on the backs of Canadians and achieving nothing. Emissions have gone up under the government. At the 2005 level, we were at 732 megatonnes. We needed to get to 519 and now we are at 819. They are not achieving their targets and keep putting bills like this in place, talking about sustainability, the environment and creating jobs. They are not actually achieving that.

Sarnia—Lambton has a huge oil and gas sector, but it knows how to do a transition and is doing a transition. It is creating good-paying, sustainable jobs like the ones at Origin Materials, a net-zero plastics plant in my riding. My riding has one of the largest solar facilities in North America. There is a whole bio-innovation centre that is growing different kinds of bio-facilities that are all either carbon sinks or carbon-neutral. These are the kinds of actual solutions and actions we need. That is not what is in Bill C-50. It is a plan to get a plan with nothing else. For that reason, I will not be supporting Bill C-50.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Sarnia—Lambton.

Before I get into the substance of Bill C-50, I will state unequivocally how important it is to acknowledge the conflict that is taking place in Israel and Gaza. As Canadians, we stand with Israel and the right for it to defend itself and to look out for the many victims of this conflict.

I would note that when I asked a question a few minutes ago of the member from the Liberal Party who preceded me, he said that I did not understand what the bill was about, and they are clapping about that. However, what they are clapping for is seeing Canadians descending into poverty, because the government is forcing them in that direction. They are going to see that Canada is pushed to the back of the line when it comes to our ability to displace dictator crude and gas.

It is unbelievable the ignorance from those Liberal members who would suggest this to those of us who actually understand the energy sector, not just traditional oil and gas, although that is a big part of the opportunity that Canada offers, and the full extent of what Canada's energy future can be. Those Liberals are dragging behind and dragging us down. They should truly be ashamed of themselves. I dare that member to come to my constituency, look my constituents in the eye and tell them why they do not deserve well-paying jobs. Those members are accusing my constituents of somehow not caring about the environment. It is disgraceful, shameful and shows that they have lost the moral authority to govern on these issues, especially when we look at the results.

Let us look at the facts. When it comes to Canada's energy future, the reality is clear. Canada can be a world leader if not held back by these Liberals, whether it is the so-called just transition, and there is nothing just about it, or when it comes to the no-more-pipelines bill, Bill C-69, which we just saw thumped down by the Supreme Court and called unconstitutional because of the government's meddling in provincial affairs. The government is holding back Canada's potential to be a world leader.

Shortly after the Prime Minister was elected, he said that Canada was back. After eight years, the evidence is so very clear that he has been holding Canada back every step of the way, and the world is less safe because of it. The world has a less clean environment because of it. That is the record of the Prime Minister and the Liberals' coalition partner in the NDP. They should rightfully be ashamed of themselves.

When it comes to what we are debating today, I would encourage us to keep looking at the facts. Let us go to the conversation around net zero. Here is the reality. Canada could flip a switch today and we would reduce global emissions by 1.6%, or we could be world leaders and encourage investment in our energy sector, in our traditional oil and gas, and in clean tech, which I support.

The result of Canada reducing emissions by 1.6% would be by throwing our people into poverty, shutting down our factories, making it so nobody can afford to live in the country. The only people who would have any ability to resemble something of prosperity would be those who are connected to a Liberal government where they pick winners and losers. To achieve the reduction in emissions by 1.6% globally, we could flip the switch tomorrow. However, and this is the contrast between what Conservatives are offering and what Liberals are offering, we could empower Canadians, empower Canadian industry and use the natural resources that are so abundant in our country and reduce emissions globally by multiple factors of that 1.6% by getting our clean, green LNG to markets that currently burn coal.

The environment minister went to China, to a Communist-controlled so-called environmental forum, of which he is one of the vice-chairs, and encouraged and promoted Chinese—

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is always difficult to follow my colleague for Calgary Forest Lawn. He has articulated so very well the concerns with Bill C-50, and that is on top of the work of our great colleague, the member of Parliament for Lakeland.

I want to talk about the implications of the bill and how dangerous this proposed mandated threat is to the hundreds of thousands of Canadian jobs that are entailed in this just transition legislation. I want to be clear to members of the House that this careless Liberal-NDP government and its bill before us would shatter the prosperity, stability and economics of Canada and the provinces, as well as our energy and agriculture sectors. Indeed, rather than being proud of the sustainability, innovation and skill sets we have developed here in Canada, the Liberal-NDP government is proud of the number of jobs it would be eliminating through this legislation.

I want to be very clear because these are the stats, right from the government's own memos, that come with the just transition legislation. According to the government's internal briefings, this legislation would kill 170,000 direct jobs, displace 450,000 direct and indirect jobs and cause large-scale disruptions to the manufacturing, agriculture, transportation, energy and construction sectors, impacting 2.7 million jobs. The Liberals and the NDP talk about jobs, but the jobs they are talking about are the jobs they would be eliminating through this legislation.

This legislation is also targeted and divisive. There is no question that it would disproportionately harm the economies of and the jobs in primarily B.C., Alberta, Saskatchewan, New Brunswick, and Newfoundland and Labrador. There is no doubt that it is no coincidence that the energy sector is a large contributor to the GDP and the economics of these provinces. For Alberta's GDP, it is about 27.3%, and in Newfoundland and Labrador it is 36%. This would affect 187,000 jobs in Alberta and more than 13,000 workers in Newfoundland and Labrador.

The commissioner of the environment and sustainable development stated, “the government is not prepared to provide appropriate support to more than 50 communities and 170,000 workers” who would be impacted by this legislation. The government can talk about this being a just transition to new jobs, but the new jobs are not there. As my colleague said, about 1% of the employment provided in Canada is from renewables. The bill would impact 450,000 direct and indirect jobs, and maybe 2.7 million jobs across the other sectors, but the new jobs do not exist, so to say that this is a transition to future employment is simply being misleading.

Where have we seen something like this before? Where have we seen the Liberals plowing ahead with legislation based on ideology and activism without listening to the concerns of other parties, or of the provinces and territories? It was Bill C-69, and we have just had the Supreme Court rap the knuckles, or maybe a bit more than rap the knuckles, of the Liberal government for plowing ahead with divisive, vindictive, ideological legislation just for the sake of hammering the provinces that have industries it does not agree with. Bill C-69 was an attack on provincial jurisdiction. It was legislation that all provinces and all territories either opposed or demanded massive changes to, but the Liberals ignored every single one of those concerns.

However, the damage has already been done from Bill C-69. It chased billions of dollars of investment out of this country and cost our economy thousands of jobs. Do not get me wrong, as a result of Bill C-69, members can bet that projects were built and jobs were created, just not in Canada. They were built and created in other jurisdictions around the world. Canada lost billions of dollars in investment, and we also lost our best and brightest, who had to go to other jurisdictions to get that employment and to have their research and innovations accepted.

Just as the provinces and territories are trying to stop the bleeding as a result of the Supreme Court decision on the no pipelines bill, here the Liberals go again with more ideological, vindictive and divisive legislation, which would eliminate hundreds of thousands of jobs, and it is aimed at only a few provinces. Not only that, but the legislation would increase the likelihood of energy poverty and food insecurity not only here in Canada but also perhaps around the world.

On a global scale, the Liberals would jeopardize Canada's ability to provide clean and sustainable energy and agriculture for customers around the world, certainly in those countries that need it the most. Bill C-50 plans to phase out the oil and gas sector, and it would have harsh and real consequences that should not be taken lightly. I cannot be more clear: This unjust transition legislation would leave Canada in economic shambles.

Today, I want to highlight something specific that has not been given enough attention. This half-baked legislation from the NDP-Liberal government would not only certainly increase the cost of living for Canadians and ignore our world-class energy and agriculture industries, but it would also cost us almost 300,000 jobs in the agriculture sector.

Most of the speeches today have been about fossil fuels and energy. However, in the government's own memos, the bill would also target 300,000 jobs in the agriculture sector. There are about 65,000 vacancies in agriculture already, so I am not exactly sure where these 300,000 jobs are going to come from, and one in nine jobs in Canada are directly linked to agriculture and agrifood. The minister's own memo brags about cutting 300,000 jobs from agriculture and the agri-food sectors.

Globally, food security and affordability is one of the top priorities. Therefore, rather than trying to find ways to address that by reducing taxes, reducing red tape and ensuring we have reliable supply chains to get our products to market, the Liberals have found another way way to add on additional red tape, additional regulations and additional burdens on one of our most important industries. Food inflation is already up 7% over last year, and the government has made these ideological promises. The industry minister said yesterday in question period that they have done what no other government has done before and called the five grocery CEOs here to Parliament to give them a little what for. He made it sound like they landed a man on Mars.

We actually had the five grocery CEOs at the agriculture committee eight months ago, so way to be on top of it. The minister sent a letter to the agriculture committee to study this issue two days after the government tabled its reply to the study that we did eight months ago. It just shows how out of touch the government is with what is actually happening on the ground.

What it also ignores is the incredible results we have had here in Canada, without government intervention and without government taxes. Canadian energy could be exported around the world, as should have happened with Japan and Germany, who came to Canada to access our LNG. The Liberals said no, so instead they went and signed an agreement with Qatar for natural gas. Do members think Qatar has the same environmental standards as Canada, or the same human rights or labour standards as Canada? If the government was trying to reduce emissions, it did the exact opposite by turning those countries away and making them go to Qatar.

If we were allowed to get our energy to market, we would actually reduce global emissions by 23%. That would be a success. Canada's oil and gas sector is about 0.3% of global emissions, and our record in agriculture is even more impressive. Canada is about 2.6% of global emissions, and agriculture is about 8% of that 2.6%. Compared to emissions globally, the global average for each other country is about 26%. That shows the incredible success that Canadian agriculture has had. However, instead of rewarding that impeccable record for Canadian agriculture, Canadian energy, and the workers, scientists and researchers who work in those industries, the Liberal-NDP government wants to punish them and eliminate these industries, which are so critical to Canada's economy. The revenue from these two industries builds schools, hospitals and roads and pays for the social programs that we rely on, but the Liberals ignore that.

In conclusion, Conservatives are the only party that will find common sense solutions to the problems facing Canadians, and we will be proud of our resource sectors and the men and women who make their living in those industries.

[Jasraj Singh Hallan, Conservative, Calgary Forest Lawn, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am going to be splitting my time with my good friend and colleague, the great member for Foothills, who is from the great province of Alberta.

Before I get started, let me give another shout-out to another fellow Albertan, another colleague in this House who has done incredible work on this unjust legislation, the member for Lakeland. She has been an absolute advocate not only for our province but also for our world-class and world-leading energy sector.

The world needs more clean, responsible low-carbon energy. Not only does the world need Canada's world-class energy, but Canadians need it too. They need it not only to heat their homes, keep the lights on and fuel their vehicles, but for the economic benefit it brings.

After eight years of the incompetent Liberal-NDP government, it is just not worth the cost for Canadians or our resource sector. Canada is last among developed countries for GDP per capita growth. Canadians are suffering with the worst GDP per capita growth rate since the Great Depression, or since the 1930s. GDP per person in Canada today is just under what it was halfway through 2018. That means Canada has had five years' worth of economic productivity wiped out.

According to the OECD, Canada will remain last among developed countries for GDP per capita growth through 2060. The government has been doing one thing really well, which is chasing investment out of our country. As our leader once said, all of our exes are running away to Texas.

The costly Liberal-NDP coalition has not just been chasing investment out of our country, but chasing out jobs, people and talent as well. People do not want to move to this country because they do not see a future here anymore. When my family came here as immigrants, there was a hope in Canada that if one put in hard work, one would be able to see the fruits of that labour. However, after years of the Liberal-NDP Prime Minister, all that hope has been wiped away by bad economic policy that has told the world that Canada is not open for business anymore.

This unjust legislation would further hurt Canada's economy and reputation on the world stage, as if the Prime Minister's reputation has not already damaged Canada enough.

The Coalition of Concerned Manufacturers and Businesses of Canada was formed just a few years ago to advocate against the government's anti-competitive and antiworker policies. Now half of its manufacturer members have already moved or are moving their operations out of Canada.

The green industry in Canada will not even make a dent in the kind of economic development and growth needed for recovery. In 2007, the clean-tech sector was 3% of Canada's GDP. Today, even after billions and billions of tax dollars and government subsidies and billions more in private sector investment, it is still only 3%, and 1.6% of employment.

Despite the anti-energy agenda by the Liberal-NDP government, the unconstitutional “no more pipelines” bill, Bill C-69, the tanker ban bill, Bill C-48, cancelling Energy East, cancelling Keystone XL and not building any of the 18 LNG projects proposed when the Prime Minister took office, Canada's energy sector still represents 10% of our GDP and, with the related manufacturing that comes with it, contributes over $120 billion to our economy. Canada needs its energy sector to be strong to attract businesses, investments and jobs in order to get our economic growth and productivity back on track.

The Liberal-NDP government loves nothing more than to vilify profit or the success of large Canadian industries. When it comes to Canada's energy sector, it is like a sport for the left to see who can hate it the most. There is a big cost to these failed Liberal-NDP policies, these anti-energy and anti-Canada policies. These attacks will throw at least 170,000 people out of work across the country, many of them in my home province of Alberta and many in my riding of Calgary Forest Lawn. They will displace another 450,000 workers and risk the livelihoods of 2.7 million Canadians in all provinces and sectors, regardless of whether they are working class or middle class.

We know that people would lose jobs with the unjust transition the left is proposing. We already saw it in Ontario under Kathleen Wynne with the green energy program, which killed off nearly 100,000 jobs directly. The 50,000 green jobs those Liberals promised to create never materialized. In Alberta, the Rachel Notley NDP, in 2015, implemented a just transition, and in small mining towns like Hanna, just north of Calgary, workers were promised new green jobs once their coal mining jobs were wiped out. Just as in Ontario, over 1,000 workers left town because the jobs that had been promised were not there. This was in a town of just under 3,000 people, and 1,000 were driven out of work and out of town.

The sheer number of job losses we are talking about on a national scale is devastating, especially at a time when Canadians face a cost of living crisis. Sixty per cent of Canadians are choosing cheaper, less nutritious food because they cannot afford healthy options. Millions of Canadians are visiting food banks as families choose between keeping a roof over their head and keeping food on the table. Nearly a third of mortgage holders are concerned they will not be able to afford their mortgage, as interest rates could increase monthly payments by 40% or higher.

It is not just the jobs, livelihoods and communities that suffer when the Liberal-NDP government attacks our energy industry. It is also hurting Canadian pensions. The Canadian pension plan and Ontario pension plan invest billions in Canada's oil and gas sector because they know it is a good return on investment. In fact, seven of the largest pension funds in Canada remain invested in Canadian oil and gas. By firing energy workers and attacking our world-class energy sector, the Liberal-NDP coalition is attacking the retirement security of Canadian seniors and workers.

There is a huge impact of this unjust transition on communities and Canadians. There is nothing fair, equitable or remotely just in this blatant anti-energy attack. The Liberal-NDP government, with its war on Canadian jobs and paycheques, is not worth the cost. Canadian energy companies provide good-paying jobs, even good union jobs, for Canadians.

As an example, the Keystone XL pipeline project was to employ 1,400 direct and 5,400 indirect jobs in Alberta alone. The province and TC Energy partnered with Natural Law Energy, an indigenous-led and indigenous-run company. Many of the Canadians who worked on the project were indigenous. The economic benefit for Albertans in surrounding rural communities kept people employed and businesses running.

Canadian energy companies are also leaders in the investment and development of clean technology. Seventy-five per cent of private sector investment in clean technology comes from the oil and gas sector.

Canada's energy sector contributes $48 billion in taxes and royalties to all levels of government. These continuous attacks on our energy sector drive up the cost of gas, groceries and home heating. We do not need to go very far to ask a Canadian about that. We have talked to Canadians all across this country who just last winter were hit with the failed policies of the Liberal-NDP government when we saw the cost of heating homes double and saw gas prices at record levels. All of these things are contributing to the cost of living crisis we see today with the failed carbon tax scam that the Liberal-NDP government continues to introduce.

It was not like this before the Liberal-NDP government and it will not be like that after the Liberal-NDP government, because when the member for Carleton becomes prime minister of this country, we are going to bring it home. Conservatives will bring home energy production to Canada to produce energy here and create jobs to get Canadians good paycheques instead of giving dollars to dictators. We will green-light green projects like tidal water, hydro, hydrogen and LNG. We are going to make sure that we support our seniors by axing the failed carbon tax to bring down the cost of gas, groceries and home heating and bring home lower prices. We are going to bring it home for Canadians.

Natural Resources

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the incredible irony here is that the portions of the impact assessment law that the Supreme Court found were in excess of federal jurisdiction were the sections created by Stephen Harper in wrecking our previous, predictable, strong environmental assessment legislation and the so-called designated project list, which was a very bad idea. The expert environmental law panel created under former minister McKenna, and then ignored by the government in bringing forward Bill C-69, has the answers the government needs.

Will this minister commit to reviewing those recommendations and putting them in place?

Oil and Gas Industry

[Len Webber, Conservative, Calgary Confederation, AB]

Mr. Speaker, Canada's Supreme Court has verified what Conservatives have been saying for a long time, and that is that the Liberal government is out of line, out of step and out of touch when it comes to respecting provincial jurisdiction.

Its reckless spending is only outdone by its unconstitutional attack on Canada's energy sector, the very sector that we will need to pay off Canada's debt. After eight long, miserable years of this Liberal-NDP government, Canadians know this Prime Minister is not worth the cost.

Will the government, for once, work with Canada's provinces and industry, and commit today to repeal Bill C-69?

The Economy

[Shuv Majumdar, Conservative, Calgary Heritage, AB]

Mr. Speaker, grocery inflation is up this year over $1,100 for families. Emissions are up 2.1%, making Canada 58 out of 63 in its commitments. The job-killing, no-more-pipelines Bill C-69, coupled with the carbon tax, now quadrupled, comes precisely at a time when our energy would secure the world, lower emissions and guarantee Canadians could eat, heat and house themselves.

Will this Prime Minister admit that, after eight years, his NDP-Liberal government is not worth the cost?

Canada—Newfoundland and Labrador Atlantic Accord Implementation Act

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to Bill C-49. The legislation would amend the Newfoundland and Labrador accord act, as well as the Nova Scotia accord act, legislation that governs and regulates offshore petroleum management between the federal government and those provinces: Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia. The legislation before us, in short, would establish a single regulator with respect to conventional offshore petroleum, as well as offshore renewables.

I will say in that regard that Conservatives fully support the principle of establishing a regulator responsible for all offshore energy projects. Moreover, we recognize the need to establish a regulatory framework in order for Newfoundland and Labrador, as well as Nova Scotia, to leverage the opportunity to take advantage of the shift toward offshore wind, in particular, and the opportunities that this would provide those two provinces.

That is not the issue. The issue is in the details of the bill, and a very quick review of the bill evidences that it is a badly drafted piece of legislation. It is indeed another disastrous bill from the disastrous Liberal government.

With respect to the environmental assessment process, the bill incorporates the Liberals' anti-energy Bill C-69's Impact Assessment Act. This is legislation that, last Friday, was largely determined by the Supreme Court of Canada to be unconstitutional. Indeed, of the provisions of the Impact Assessment Act that have been incorporated into Bill C-49, each and every one was determined by the court to be unconstitutional.

Members can think about that for a minute. We have a bill, a substantial component of which pertains to something as significant as the environmental assessment process, and it incorporates a statutory scheme that was deemed to be unconstitutional. The environmental assessment process is a pretty big deal when it comes to offshore energy projects.

One would think that a responsible government would go back to the drawing board to get it right. One would think that a responsible government, at the very least, would reflect on the impact of that very clear repudiation of the government's disastrous Bill C-69, which was supported by its coalition partner, the NDP, against the objections of all 10 provincial premiers. However, this is not a responsible government. It is a reckless government.

On Friday, the Supreme Court of Canada in no uncertain terms repudiated the government. On Monday, the government's response was to shut down debate and impose time allocation to see that the bill receives as little scrutiny as possible. It is a bill that would achieve the opposite of what it is purported to do.

The bill would kill offshore renewable projects before they even got off the ground as a result of a significant amount of new red tape, delay and uncertainty. Indeed, if the Liberals were honest, they would call the bill what it actually is: “an act to kill offshore renewable energy”.

I will give you, Madam Speaker, and all hon. members examples of why that is. Pursuant to the accord acts at this time, the minister has a 30-day period to respond to a decision of the regulator as to whether to approve or reject a project. With respect specifically to renewables, not oil and gas offshore, the current government would double the time for the minister to respond from 30 days to 60 days, which is more delay. This is from a government that talks so much about championing renewable energy. However, that is just the beginning, because this bill would provide that the minister may initiate multiple 30-day extensions, so even more delay. This bill would provide the possibility of an indefinite bidding process, even where the regulator gives the green light to a project. That is an indefinite delay.

Where have we seen that before? It was none other than with the Liberals' disastrous and now largely unconstitutional bill, Bill C-69, the no pipelines bill, the Impact Assessment Act. That law came into effect four years ago, again, with the full support of the NDP over the objections of all the provinces. More than 25 projects have been in the queue for approval. How many projects have been approved over four years? The answer is not one, zero. Therefore, the bill has done what we said it would do, which is kill energy projects as a result of delay, uncertainty and red tape. It has also negatively impacted Atlantic Canada, with the $16-billion Bay du Nord project, which is hanging by a thread.

Therefore, they have a disastrous record of zero projects in four years, almost all of them languishing at phase two of a four-phase process. Moving ahead, in the face of that, Liberal MPs from Atlantic Canada have the audacity to stand up and say that the way to develop renewable offshore energy is to duplicate, copy and paste the very regulatory regime that has resulted in zero projects moving forward. It is really quite incredible.

However, it gets worse—

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Madam Speaker, could my colleague expand on how it is possibly the case that we are in this House of Commons, debating a bill that imports sections from a law that was supported by the NDP and the Liberals, that has been in place for the last five years and that was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court on Friday, when specific sections, such as section 61, section 62 and section 64 of Bill C-69 are in Bill C-49?

Conservatives want to green-light green projects, and we want to expand the Canadian oil and gas sector so that the world and all Canadians can have energy security and energy self-sufficiency.

The NDP-Liberals warned expert witnesses and warned every province and territory that was against Bill C-69 at the time or called for major overhauls, but this bill contains sections that, as of Friday, the Supreme Court said were unconstitutional. Could my colleague comment on how it can possibly be that the NDP-Liberals are now trying to ram through a bill containing these sections?

[Tracy Gray, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the constituents of Kelowna—Lake Country.

I rise today to speak on the government's latest attempt at over-regulating, bureaucracy-building legislation, Bill C-49.

I have noted in this debate that several speakers on the government side have scarcely spoken about the details in their own legislation. They have spoken solely on the offshore renewable revenue they believe this bill would potentially offer to applicable provinces. I say “potentially” because if the government members had taken more time to study their own bill in greater detail, they would have found that Bill C-49 features such a mess of new red tape, it would be surprising if anyone could complete an offshore project of any kind, let alone have it generate revenue.

This is symptomatic of the government's approach to Canada's resource sector. For every talking point, there are miles of new regulations, new levers for federal bureaucracies to kill jobs and projects, and endless delays. Shovel-ready projects that start with Liberal photo ops are left to be strangled by bureaucratic Liberal laws and regulations.

After eight years, the Liberal government has continued to drop the ball on project after project. We would think the government might act with some humility after last Friday when the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that the government's previous pipeline-killing legislation, Bill C-69, was unconstitutional.

Conservatives warned the Liberals repeatedly that their no-more-pipelines act, Bill C-69, did not respect provincial jurisdiction, and was a power grab by the Prime Minister and his career activist environment minister to phase out these key sectors.

Liberals were called out by energy workers who wanted to keep their livelihoods; by indigenous communities wanting to sustainably develop their lands; by stakeholders in multiple sectors, including wind, hydro and critical minerals; by nine out of 10 provincial governments and every territorial government; and now by the Supreme Court of Canada.

I could speak for hours on the comments made by provincial and business leaders on the Supreme Court of Canada ruling against the unconstitutionality of the Liberal bill, Bill C-69, but I will mention just a few.

The Premier of Alberta said, “The ruling today represents an opportunity for all provinces to stop that bleeding and begin the process of re-attracting those investments and jobs into our economies.” The premier also said, “And we will continue to fight against Ottawa’s unfair overreach”.

The economies of British Columbia and Alberta have been closely intertwined, especially with the resource sector. Many residents in my community of Kelowna—Lake Country have worked in the resource sector in Alberta in the past.

The president of the Independent Contractors and Businesses Association of B.C. said in an interview on Bill C-69 that there is complexity, confusion and cost, and as a result, investors did not know if they were going to be investing in Canada, and whether or not they could get projects to “yes”. That was causing investors to pause and look at other countries rather than Canada.

The World Bank came out a few years ago and ranked Canada number 64 in the world in the length of time it takes to approve a project. That is a very embarrassing statistic for the country.

A 2019 C.D. Howe Institute report titled “A Crisis of Our Own Making: Prospects for Major Natural Resource Projects in Canada”, stated:

With investment in Canada’s resources sector already depressed, the federal government’s proposed Bill C-69 would further discourage investment in the sector by congesting the assessment process with wider public policy concerns and exacerbating the political uncertainty facing proponents with a highly subjective standard for approval.

That is exactly what happened. The cost of the Liberals' refusal to reverse course was billions of dollars in potential investment that was taken out of Canada. Energy projects that would have been built in Canada were instead built in countries with lower environmental standards and fewer labour protections.

This new bill, Bill C-49, should be removed by the government and completely revised because it applies provisions from that now unconstitutional bill, Bill C-69, to Canada's Atlantic offshore sector.

Looking at the core details of Bill C-49, it is very clear in the needless political roadblocks it seeks to create that it would stall projects in our offshore industries.

It triples the approvals timeline from the current framework and takes the final authority in the decision-making away from on-the-ground regulators to ministers in Ottawa. This is once again the Liberal philosophy of “Ottawa knows best”. What would be the result of handing the final approval of offshore energy projects to our Greenpeace activist environment minister? The answer is obvious: no good-paying jobs for hard-working Canadians and instead, political decision-making. We know this from other legislation, like the government's just transition bill, which is seeking to take away jobs from energy workers in exchange for employment that cannot guarantee the same levels of benefits or pay.

Why is the government seeking to hand operational control of the Atlantic offshore industry to a Liberal environment minister who the Newfoundland Liberal member for Avalon said did not understand the “issues of the region”? It is a question only the Liberals can answer.

Regulators who have worked in this sector and this region for years are better placed to make these decisions on a timeline that already works for both regulators and industry. Adding more red tape, which often does nothing more than repeat pre-existing environmental reviews, will do nothing to create good-paying jobs, particularly in renewables. We know this because of the unmitigated disaster the government made of a viable tidal energy power project in Nova Scotia.

Sustainable Marine Energy's Bay of Fundy tidal energy project had enormous potential to deliver clean energy for Canadians. Had it been built, it could have generated up to 2,500 megawatts, while bringing in $100 million in inward investment and eliminating 17,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide annually, the equivalent of taking nearly 3,700 cars off the road. The project was proceeding at pace under the Harper government, but after the Liberal government's election, Sustainable Marine Energy was snagged in a forest of red tape from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.

After eight years, that company withdrew the project completely last spring. Despite $28.5 million of taxpayer money having been invested into the project, the government refused to release this clean green project from a regulatory trap of its design. The result: taxpayers are out $28 million, Canada loses out on a powerful source of green energy, and the people of Nova Scotia, who had this environmentally friendly project killed in front of them in Ottawa by bureaucrats, are forced to pay Ottawa's carbon tax now.

Bill C-49 will never deliver a dime of renewable revenue to provinces so long as the Liberal government regulates renewable projects like tidal energy out of existence. It will also not deliver revenue from vital offshore drilling projects when the now unconstitutional Bill C-69 enforces impact assessment reviews that last for more than 1,600 days, or when Bill C-55 allows the fisheries minister to select prohibited development areas solely on her call, the power which the legislation today also reaffirms.

The Prime Minister, in the aftermath of Russia's illegal invasion of Ukraine, said there was no business case for LNG exports to be shipped out through Atlantic Canadian ports to our European allies. The United States became the largest exporter of liquefied natural gas in 2021, as projects ramped up production and deliveries surged to Europe to alleviate the energy crisis there.

Just last week, one of Canada's closest and historic allies, France, signed a 27-year deal with Qatar for its LNG production. A 27-year deal would have been a fantastic way to generate revenue for Newfoundlanders, Nova Scotians, Albertans, British Columbians and Canadians. Instead, the Liberal government has no clue about the value of Canada's resources. Instead, it is focused on gaining more political control and its ideological job-killing agenda. It is not even a green agenda because, as I mentioned earlier, the government is happy to kill green projects just as slowly.

A Conservative government will support Canadians in every region by responsibly building energy projects of every variety that bring home jobs for Canadians. We will build green projects to sustain our environment, not just regulate them out of existence. We will champion Canada's world-class resources to our allies and we will deliver results.

The Liberal government only creates more red tape, regulates projects out of existence, drives away investment and brings more control to Ottawa. The Liberal government is just not worth the cost.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Madam Speaker, I want to acknowledge that it was the NDP and the Liberals who voted for Bill C-69 at the end stages.

On Friday, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that significant sections of Bill C-69, in exactly all the ways that Conservatives warned, were unconstitutional. This is important because the Government of Quebec also opposed Bill C-69 as the Liberals were ramming it through in the end stages. The NDP and the Liberals ignored both the Government of Quebec and the Conservative Party which was raising all the issues that the Supreme Court has now highlighted.

Conservatives want to green-light green projects. We want to see petroleum offshore development and renewable offshore development for the people of Atlantic Canada, but here is the problem: Sections 61, 62 and 64 of Bill C-69 are in Bill C-49.

Does the member agree that we need to get that right and make sure that we can pass this bill with the certainty, clarity and confidence that all Canadians deserve?

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Winnipeg North for his compelling speech. I say that with a bit of sarcasm.

I want to congratulate the member, though, on his daughter's re-election in Manitoba, the only provincial Liberal elected west of Toronto. I would note that every single Liberal gave resounding, long applause for the announcement that the NDP won the election. All his colleagues are as happy that the Liberals are gone in Manitoba as the Manitobans themselves.

The member repeated quote after quote from Atlantic ministers and premiers on that, but I have a couple of quotes for him that I would like to mention. Sonya Savage, the former Alberta minister of energy, said that Bill C-69 takes “a wrecking ball to the Constitution”. Former premier Kenney said that Bill C-69 is a “prejudicial attack on Alberta”.

Why does the member care only about quotes from ministers who are not from Alberta?

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, I did oppose Bill C-69. Some of the hon. member's colleagues have said that anyone who voted for it obviously did not understand environmental assessment.

I do support Bill C-49. The Canada-Nova Scotia and Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador offshore petroleum boards need to have an expanded regulatory capacity to approve offshore wind.

I want to know if he would not agree with me that the tremendous potential for the economy in Atlantic Canada is in wind-generated hydrogen.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Madam Speaker, the hon. Premier Furey has stated that he wants this bill and needs this bill to pass, for clarity, for his own well-being.

It is our job in this House to clear up any confusion. The Supreme Court ruled 5-2 that Bill C-69 was unconstitutional. Over a third of Bill C-49 includes policy from Bill C-69. We need to fix this bill now, before it goes further.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today to speak to Bill C-49.

We are all painfully aware of the Liberal government's track record when it comes to tabling confusing legislation: more gatekeepers, more red tape, longer delays and the politicization of decision-making.

Canadians everywhere are tired of the Prime Minister, who scares businesses away from investing in our country. They are tired of stifling bureaucracy and costly Liberal bills. This bill is full of this.

The Prime Minister and his Liberal government have been in power for eight long years. They have nothing to show on the renewable energy front and have made no progress on attracting investment to Canada's energy sector. It is quite the contrary, so forgive me for being somewhat skeptical about the state of this current legislation as it is written.

We have seen this dog-and-pony show over the last eight years, over and over again. We had Bill C-55, Bill C-68 and Bill C-69, to name just a few. The Liberals consult, they equivocate and they blur the lines. They do everything they can to muddy the water, except get the job done.

Bill C-49 proposes to make the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board and the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board regulators. At the same time, it would create a regulatory framework for offshore wind and renewable energy, the regulation of which would be added to their mandates.

As my colleagues have stated before on this subject, the Liberals have finally decided to include the provincial governments as partners in decisions affecting their jurisdiction. Of course, they did not do this with Bill C-69, and we all know where that unconstitutional legislation stands.

Bill C-49 would triple the current regulatory timeline for project approval. Currently, the provincial review boards have the final say on the approval or rejection of a project, at which point the relevant provincial or federal ministers are given a 30-day period to respond before the decision is finalized.

Under Bill C-49, ministers would be given 60 days to respond, with the possibility of a further 30-day extension and a further possibility of an indefinite extension.

Thanks to nearly a decade of the Prime Minister, Canada is a country that is characterized by a strict and stifling red tape regime. We are now among the most costly and regulated business environments in the world.

Liberals continue to attack traditional energy development, trying to recklessly phase it out, to the detriment of all.

I will remind the House that the first thing the Prime Minister did after his election in 2015 was to publicly apologize for Canada's natural resources, saying that he wanted Canadians to be known more for our resourcefulness than our natural resources under his government.

It does not get much more out of touch than that. Liberals say they want to boost alternative energy, yet they use a bill like this to suffocate it in regulation and red tape. The proposed framework is not only one that creates more bureaucracy and red tape, but one that politicizes each and every step of the decision-making process. By giving final authority to federal and provincial ministers, the regulators are reduced to the position of giving recommendations only to the government.

To be clear, Canada's Conservatives support the responsible exploration and development of offshore resources, but we also believe it should be done responsibly, through an arm's-length regulatory process, not political decision-making.

An even more disturbing aspect of this legislation is its potential to be used to impose a complete shutdown on offshore oil and gas development projects at any time. I will say this again. This bill could end offshore petroleum extraction in Atlantic provinces for good at the whim of a minister.

This bill is a direct attack on one of Newfoundland and Labrador's key industries, one that generates billions of dollars of revenue and thousands of jobs. Section 28 and section 137 would allow the federal cabinet to halt an offshore drilling or renewable energy project if the area “may be identified” as a marine protected area in the opinion of cabinet.

I bring us back to Bill C-55, a bill Conservatives staunchly opposed. It allows the fisheries minister to unilaterally declare an area to be a marine protected area, essentially using the precautionary principle to shut down projects in the absence of any scientific proof.

Bill C-49 would do exactly the same, and this should scare every Atlantic Canadian. There could be a unilateral decision by a minister that is not based on science, leading to an arbitrary opinion from the cabinet that leads to the shutdown of a vital offshore resource development project our country desperately needs.

This is not the way to govern if Canada ever hopes to attract business investment in our energy sector. Furthermore, this cancellation process for new or currently operating projects provides no meaningful consultation with indigenous or community interests whatsoever. There is zero responsibility for any stakeholder consultation. This abdication of responsibility, this failure to fulfill the Crown's duty to consult with indigenous interests, may also invite extensive court challenges, leading to further delays as was the case with the Trans Mountain pipeline debacle.

As I alluded to before, there are also a number of practicalities with the bill that beg for clarification. For instance, the bill requires some degree of federal funding to cover the expansion of mapping by the regulators, as well as the expansion of offshore activities generally. As for these financial implications, there is no specific funding allocated. We must also question whether the regulators will need additional personnel for technical expertise, along with additional funding to allow them to properly fulfill their new responsibilities under their new mandate. If so, where is this money coming from? Is it even realistic to expect the regulators to be prepared in a timely fashion to deal with this new work that is currently outside their scope? Bill C-49 leaves much to be desired in the way of clarity.

After eight long years of this Prime Minister, Canadians should be very wary of a government that says, “Don't worry about the details; we'll deal with them later.” They need answers now and they deserve answers now, answers this government must be prepared to provide the House.

I was hoping the government would learn from its failure with Bill C-69, which had the same lack of detail on crucial issues, uncertainty about roles and responsibilities and vague timelines, but this legislation shows that they have learned absolutely nothing, which comes as no surprise.

We see the same inefficiencies of Bill C-69 imported into Bill C-49. Not only does the Impact Assessment Act have provisions to allow the federal minister to interfere in any given project if they deem that it is “in the public interest”, but it would also allow them to create any arbitrary conditions to which a project proponent must comply. How does that create confidence or certainty for investors? Is it not the responsibility of government to create an environment in which businesses want to invest, and in which businesses want to create jobs and opportunities for Canadians? This Prime Minister seems to have forgotten this part of his very own mandate.

These provisions go further and would allow the minister, again, to impose arbitrary conditions during project review, which would serve to further delay timelines for an unspecified amount of time, potentially even years. This will only drive industry away from Canada. It provides absolutely no certainty to these businesses that want to invest potentially billions and billions of dollars in our country.

It cannot be overstated how detrimental the consequences of more Liberal uncertainty are. Shamefully, this has been the effect of taking Canada out of the global competition for energy development, both traditional and alternative, when instead we should be a global leader.

Going back to my earlier comments, perhaps this is exactly what the Prime Minister meant. Not once has he championed the Canadian energy sector on the world stage. Instead, he apologized for our existence, which only drives investment to other countries and squanders opportunities for Canadian workers. We have the resources and we have the workforce and industry leaders. We can be a global leader in the energy sector. Instead, the Prime Minister prefers to cede market share to overseas dictators whose environmental human rights standards are non-existent.

It is time to put Canadian energy first, it is time to put Canadian jobs first and it is time to put Canadians first. It is time to bring home powerful paycheques. We need a Conservative prime minister who will green-light new technologies, reduce approval timelines and remove the Liberal gatekeepers so that major energy infrastructure projects can finally be built in this country once again.

With that, I would like to move, seconded by the member for Lakeland, that the bill be amended by deleting all the words after the word “that” and substituting the following:

the House decline to give second reading to Bill C-49, An Act to amend the Canada—Newfoundland and Labrador Atlantic Accord Implementation Act and the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Resources Accord Implementation Act and to make consequential amendments to other acts, since sections 61 to 64 of Bill C-69, 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, have been ruled to be unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of Canada, and those same sections are embedded in Bill C-49.

[Gerald Soroka, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Madam Speaker, I must admit that was a very lovely statement that the member for Winnipeg North just cast upon us. However, he is also a member who supported Bill C-69 that was found unconstitutional.

The member talks about how this is going to make it much easier for green projects to be built. I am quite sorry, but that is not true. There are a lot of burdensome regulations in there, and it does not matter whether it is going to be traditional or renewable energy resources. Either way, this bill is going to stifle any kind of development.

[Gerald Soroka, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Mr. Speaker, today. I rise to speak on Bill C-49, a piece of legislation that has garnered significant attention, concern and debate, both in this House and across our vast nation. As the representative of Yellowhead, a region known for its profound commitment to responsible energy development, I feel compelled to voice the concerns of my constituents.

At first glance, Bill C-49 may appear as a simple regulatory measure. However, digging deeper, we unearth layers of bureaucratic red tape that could stifle our nation's energy ambitions. History has shown that Canada's west, which is rich in resources and determination, has the potential to drive our national economy, yet time and time again, we find ourselves grappling with legislation that seems more intent on creating roadblocks than pathways.

A case in point is Bill C-69, which has been dubbed the no-more-pipelines bill by many. While the bill promised streamline processes and heightened project approval rates, the results have been far from encouraging. The stagnation is not just concerning, it is alarming.

Recently, large portions of Bill C-69 were deemed unconstitutional, casting a shadow over its legitimacy and efficacy. Instead of learning from these missteps, Bill C-49 threatens to echo these sentiments.

It layers on more gatekeepers, prolongs timelines and moves us further from our energy development goals. The current 30-day window for cabinet decisions could be stretched out, making it harder for projects to gain momentum. Is this the vision we have for Canada's energy sector?

Section 28 and section 137 of this bill would grant unchecked power to select officials by allowing them to potentially halt projects based on speculation rather than solid evidence. This is not how we should be governing our energy sector, or any sector for that matter.

Furthermore, I am deeply troubled by the absence of consultation with the fishing industry. Our commercial fishing communities play a pivotal role in our national fabric. To leave the industry out of the conversations surrounding Bill C-49 is not just an oversight, but a grave error.

I implore my colleagues, especially those representing Atlantic Canada, to critically assess Bill C-49. It is essential that we do not find ourselves down a path reminiscent of the failed and recently found unconstitutional bill, Bill C-69.

It is not just about looking at Bill C-49 in isolation. It is about understanding its place within a larger tapestry of regulations with potential cascading effects and how it communicates our nation's stance on energy development to the world.

When global investors see a nation riddled with regulatory obstacles and prolonged approval processes, they hesitate. They wonder if their investments would be bogged down in red tape, rather than contributing to tangible development and returns. In this globalized era where nations vie for the same pool of investments, we cannot afford to send mixed signals.

Yellowhead, the region I am honoured to represent, embodies the pioneering spirit of Canada. Our people understand the value of hard work, the balance of harnessing resources while preserving the environment and the importance of creating sustainable futures for our children.

When faced with bills like Bill C-49, my constituents cannot help but feel their ambitions are being curtailed and their efforts marginalized. What kind of message are we sending to innovators and entrepreneurs when we allow bureaucracy to overshadow ingenuity? Do we want to be a nation that says we value green energy, yet simultaneously creates hurdles for its implementation?

Our constituents deserve clarity. They deserve to understand where we stand as a nation on energy, be it traditional or renewable. Bills like Bill C-49 do not provide that clarity. Instead, they further muddy the waters, leaving our energy sector, investors and countless Canadians whose livelihoods depend on it in a state of uncertainty.

As we move forward in our deliberations, I urge all members of this House to reflect not just on the specifications of Bill C-49, but on the broader message it sends about Canada's energy ambitions. Are we paving a way for innovation, sustainability and prosperity, or are we creating more roadblocks?

Our path should be clear. It should be one that aligns with our nation's values, our people's ambitions and our shared vision for a prosperous future.

While we have discussed the energy sector at length, there is another point we need to address, which is the overarching issue of governance, checks and balances. The manner in which projects are approved and by whom is critical to any democracy. Our systems are set up to ensure that no single entity has unchecked powers, but Bill C-49 challenges that foundation.

Let us examine the discretionary powers given to certain departments and ministers. This bill is granting a level of authority to officials that is a profound overstep in proper governance. To be clear, this is not about the mistrust of any individual or department; rather, it is about preserving the balance of power and ensuring that our projects undergo rigorous, unbiased scrutiny. The way the bill is written allows for the potential blocking of projects based not on existing tangible concerns but on speculative future possibilities. The implications of such a provision are profound. Can we in good faith stall or reject initiatives based on what might or might not happen in the future? This is a slippery slope.

Today it is a hypothetical future establishment of a marine protected area, but tomorrow it could be any number of speculative scenarios.

Furthermore, the recent decision of Bill C-69 rings in my ears, a bill that was found to be largely unconstitutional.

We are tasked with a duty to create and uphold laws that not only serve our nation's interests but also align with the foundational tenets of our Constitution. We must tread carefully, ensuring that the powers we grant and the decisions we make stand the test of constitutional scrutiny. As representatives, it is our duty to stand up and ensure that any bill, including Bill C-49, does not undermine the checks and balances that are integral to our democracy. It is not just about energy, fisheries or any singular domain, but about ensuring that we safeguard the processes, checks and balances that have served our nation well for over a century.

Let us pivot our attention to the precedents this bill may set, especially in regions like Yellowhead. My constituents are hard-working individuals who are deeply connected to their land and environment. Our region boasts an abundance of natural resources and we wear our badge of responsible stewardship with pride. The decisions we make here have profound ripple effects on their lives and they anticipate a bill that resonates with their aspirations, traditions and future, yet Bill C-49 emanates an unsettling ambiance of unpredictability. By extending decision-making durations, we risk strangling potential projects in the web of red tape. Every additional day waiting for decisions translates to missed ventures, evaporating investments and, tragically, job opportunities slipping through the fingers of deserving Canadians. In an era where global competition is fierce, Canada's industries must remain nimble and compelling. While addressing environmental concerns is non-negotiable, our approach must also facilitate growth and progress. Burdensome regulations that deter investment and impede rapid action can render Canada an unattractive site for both local and global investors.

While the essence of Bill C-49 is noble, its present rendition leaves several questions unanswered. It is incumbent upon us, as representatives of Canada, to ensure our legislation strikes the right chord of fairness, dynamic progress and inclusivity.

I urge my colleagues to reflect deeply on the ramifications of this bill. I intend to hear from our diverse constituents.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, I noted earlier in debate that some members incorrectly said that the findings of the Supreme Court of Canada in the reference case on the impact assessment meant that there would be overreach in this bill, Bill C-49. As a formerly practising environmental lawyer who did not think Bill C-69 was constitutional, I would like to say that Bill C-49 is absolutely constitutional. There is nothing more federal than the offshore. This is federal jurisdiction.

Is my hon. colleague aware that the race is on right now between the United States and China to see who can get more offshore wind in faster?

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer—Mountain View, AB]

Mr. Speaker, this past weekend marked a significant milestone for many of us in this House. It has been 15 years since the class of 2008 began its journey of service to Canadians. I still have the picture on my refrigerator of my brothers and my father celebrating that special evening.

My first duty as an MP in this House was the spectacle of the multi-vote Speaker selection, which was particularly significant to me.

During the first break, I crossed the floor to speak to a hockey idol, or nemesis, of mine, the hon. Ken Dryden. I relayed to him how, as an eight-year-old, I had been told by my aunt that we had this relative who may even make it to the NHL some time. She was an Orr. We had a lot to discuss.

During the second vote break, I noticed the Right Hon. Stephen Harper doing paperwork at his desk in the House, so I went over to chat and enjoyed a fantastic one-on-one discussion with him. I proudly relayed those two experiences to my father while he lay in his hospital bed just a week before he passed away. It was the last smile we shared.

I am happy to speak to this legislation today, as it fits well into the responsibilities that I have been engaged in over this past decade and a half. The committees that I have served on that have touched this file include international trade, science innovation and technology, indigenous affairs, environment and, most recently, natural resources.

I have also advocated for Canadian resources on the global stage through the OSCE, ParlAmericas and Asia-Pacific. Most specifically, this advocacy has been on food security, energy security and addressing global conflict with rogue states, as well as international terrorism.

On the international front, when the Liberals, particularly the Prime Minister, get the opportunity to grandstand, it is a bewildering sight. Whether it be disruptive trade irritants with our trusted allies, ill-conceived and anti-natural resource eco-activist proclamations or unprofessional statements to global leaders, sadly, we now have a global reputation where we are showing others just how unreliable we are.

When it comes to the actions of the Prime Minister and his numerous environment ministers, the effects on both the energy industry and the global environment, as well as the lost revenue that could have kept our economy strong, could not be more dire.

This bill would amend the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board and the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board by adding offshore renewables to their mandates. It would also create a regulatory regime for offshore wind and other renewable energy projects similar to those that currently exist for petroleum operations.

It would also allow the federal government to rely on regulators for indigenous consultation. Unfortunately, this might result in court challenges and detrimental judicial decisions. This bill would add more red tape and uncertainty to an already overburdened bureaucratic framework.

The Atlantic offshore drilling ban could end offshore petroleum drilling in the Atlantic provinces in any designated region deemed to be a prohibited development area. Again, this would be done by political decree.

Let me express my admiration for the thousands of Maritimers who shared my home province of Alberta and became experts in oil and gas extraction. As with any job so far from home, it was a true family commitment. It has also helped enhance the energy expertise needed to explore and extract oil and gas in the Atlantic offshore. Sadly, the government views any criticism of its lauded legislative goals as being anti-Atlantic. That could be no further from the truth.

The energy industry knows far too well the effects of Liberal policy on its Canadian assets. The industry does not need even more investors turning their backs on ethically produced and carbon-reduced energy, as well as strong workers rights, to satisfy the ideological fantasies of the Prime Minister and his cabinet.

The proposal to rely on regulators to satisfy the duty to consult with indigenous people, particularly in the proposed section 62, is of concern. It is well known that the government does not have a solid track record when it comes to serious discussions with indigenous people. The proposed section may face challenges in the future and jeopardize both offshore petroleum and renewable energy proposals on the grounds that it is the Crown's duty to consult, and this cannot be delegated elsewhere.

In the past, judicial decisions on major energy projects consistently cited the failure of a two-way dynamic and the lack of a decision-maker at the table during Crown-indigenous consultations. Is that what is being created here?

The legislation also speaks of indigenous collaboration. The history of the government's policies could leave billions of dollars of indigenous assets at risk. Will this be addressed?

The government currently formulates most of its environmental goals around the American Inflation Reduction Act, thinking that we will somehow benefit from American benevolence. Where was the government when the Biden administration's first action was to cancel the Keystone XL pipeline? There is not a chance that it was advocating for Canadian energy. It was too busy gleefully rubbing its hands, because someone else had done the dirty work. What are the consequences of these actions?

The Americans are not fools. Instead of allowing Canadian products to get to world markets, the U.S. is now flooding these same markets with their oil and gas. Indeed, we were outsmarted and outplayed, because the Americans knew the Liberals were more concerned with ideology than practicality. So much for ensuring that the energy produced in the most environmentally friendly way in the world makes it to our trading partners' shores.

However, there is a chance that our Atlantic offshore energy could help make this happen, as long as we do not put too many obstacles in the way. Many of the provisions and regulations that we see in this bill mirror the legislation that has just been struck down by the Supreme Court of Canada. On the issue of the recent SCC decision, there is much more to it than just this proclamation.

In September 2019, the Alberta government announced its court challenge of Bill C-69, and on May 10, 2022, Alberta's Court of Appeal deemed Bill C-69 unconstitutional. This of course prompted the Government of Canada to appeal that decision, which is its right.

Meanwhile, other provinces chimed in, stating their disapproval of the Impact Assessment Act provisions and the act's intrusion on provincial jurisdiction. I state this because the mechanism associated with Bill C-69 is mirrored in this legislation.

The jurisdictional overreach of Bill C-69 allowed for political interference in the regulatory process by the Minister of Environment and cabinet. It has been disastrous for Canada's extraction industries.

Conservatives have warned the government and its NDP enablers that this unprecedented power over provincial infrastructure, industry and natural resources, including wind, hydro, critical minerals, and oil and gas, would hurt Canadian workers and was unconstitutional. This was upheld in the SCC decision this past week.

One of the other features of this bill addresses the full life-cycle analysis of renewable projects. This has been one of my missions when discussing both renewable and non-renewable energies. We have to analyze the environmental impact of all forms of energy, including its transmission. We must also measure the impact associated with the machines that are powered by this energy. Only then can we fairly determine what is the best type of system available for each region of this vast nation. This is important, because we are sorely needed on the world stage.

As I mentioned earlier, I have spoken up consistently in support of Canadian resources, both for agriculture and renewable and non-renewable energy. We hear from the government how European countries are onside with Canada's aggressive carbon tax and its anti-oil strategy. It may make them feel good that other ideological governments share their vision, but that is not the reality on the ground.

On the political front, we see those governments that continue to push the global green agenda onto its electorate being laid waste. The Liberal members seem to be too blinded by their leader's aura to see that it is happening here as well. This strategy of pitting one group against another is a logical tactic for combat, but not an honourable formula for governing. This is why this legislation needs to be amended.

Oil and Gas Industry

[Tim Uppal, Conservative, Edmonton Mill Woods, AB]

Mr. Speaker, after eight years of the Prime Minister's gatekeeping, anti-pipeline, anti-resource development policies, hundreds of billions of dollars of project investments have fled Canada, taking countless powerful paycheques away from Canadian workers.

The Liberals are just not worth the cost. Conservatives warned the Liberals that their plans to steamroll provinces by giving themselves unprecedented powers over provincial infrastructure, industry and natural resources through their no-more-pipelines bill, Bill C-69, was unconstitutional.

Will the Liberals repeal Bill C-69 now that the Supreme Court has ruled it unconstitutional? Yes or no?

Canada—Newfoundland and Labrador Atlantic Accord Implementation Act

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Nova Scotia for addressing this legislation and for speaking the truth about the negative impacts it would have on both offshore petroleum development and the future of renewable offshore development.

I wonder if he would expand on how disastrous it would be to proceed with Bill C-49 now, given that sections from Bill C-69, sections 61, 62 and 64, which are all embedded in Bill C-69, have now been declared by the Supreme Court of Canada, on Friday, to be largely unconstitutional.

I wonder if he would expand on exactly the perils of proceeding with this legislation, which they are rushing through on time allocation, given that we would all know that we were passing a bill with significant clauses that are unconstitutional.

[Stephen Ellis, Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester, NS]

Madam Speaker, I do not need that Liberal member to get me a meeting with Tim Houston. As a matter of fact, I met him on Saturday, oddly enough.

Do members know what Premier Houston said? He said that the Liberals need to think more clearly about what Bill C-49 means now that we know that Bill C-69 has been declared unconstitutional. He also made reference, very clearly, that they are not taking seriously the problem with the Chignecto Isthmus in Nova Scotia.

He also made it very clear that he knows that Atlantic Canadians, and specifically Nova Scotians, are suffering under this punishing carbon tax. He wonders how, in heaven's name, the Atlantic Liberals could stand up and vote 23 times for a carbon tax, which they continue to want to raise, punishing Atlantic Canadians for living rurally, mainly living in single family dwellings, not having public transit and those kinds of things. When I met with the premier on Saturday, those were the things that were important to him.

[Stephen Ellis, Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester, NS]

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise in the House on behalf of the folks from Cumberland—Colchester, especially when it is to speak to a bill that would negatively affect potential development in Nova Scotia. We have heard from many people in the House, Atlantic members of Parliament specifically, wanting to now portray themselves as the saviours of Nova Scotia. They are going on, touting how many people really want to be a part of the bill, which we know is utter hogwash.

We know that Bill C-49 would create uncertainty and control. By that, I mean it would create uncertainty and control related to the cabinet members of the NDP-Liberal coalition government. The difficulty we see there is that they are the ones who would assume the ultimate decision-making process when looking at the development of the offshore industries in Nova Scotia. We know very clearly that they would want to stop projects in the ocean to have ultimate control of their fiefdom, as they have had on land now for many years, and to effectively kill the oil and gas industry in Nova Scotia. It is really quite shocking.

We know that representatives from Germany came to specifically Nova Scotia in Canada and said that they would like to have our natural gas. The Prime Minister said that there is no case for natural gas. He asked who would need natural gas and why anyone would want natural gas. We also know that the NDP-Liberal government has killed 17 natural gas projects in this country, which obviously shows its true colours. Those members not only want to control it, but also to control the destiny of people in Atlantic Canada.

We know that the bill is rife with difficulties, red tape, long delays, stifling unproductivity and an unfriendly business environment. That part of this really hearkens to the words of a friend whom I had an opportunity to see during the break week, who said that, for people who build houses, the red tape, delays, bureaucracy and cost that the NDP-Liberal coalition has created really make it absolutely unpleasant, unpalatable, unfair and unpredictable for someone to even want to build simple housing in this country. Going forward, why would Canadians want to continue to have the voice of the NDP-Liberal coalition, and cabinet members in particular, making those decisions?

We know that, as my colleague spoke to before, at the discretion of a cabinet member, it could possibly create marine protected areas for anything that could possibly, at any time in the future, be examined or have difficulties. With any of the ambiguous language put forward, they would create marine protected areas that, of course, would stymie development.

We also know that the track record of the government, when it comes to offshore projects, is absolutely atrocious. We know that Sustainable Marine's tidal energy project, offshore in Nova Scotia, partly in my riding of Cumberland—Colchester, was effectively stopped by the government. We know that Sustainable Marine simply asked for direction going forward from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, and it got absolutely nothing from the department.

This was the first time a project in the development of tidal energy had put energy back into the grid, and it was measurable. It also had significant abilities to monitor for fish strikes. Even the government arm of monitoring, called FORCE, on the tidal energy project, readily admitted, when I met with those folks and Sustainable Marine energy, that there were no worrisome signals or fish strikes. There was one fish that swam through one of the turbines, but other than that, no fish were harmed in this process.

The scope of Sustainable Marine's tidal energy project is really related to the fact that, if it were able to harness a significant amount of the energy off the Bay of Fundy, which has the highest tides in the world, there would be potential there to power all of Atlantic Canada in perpetuity with minimal cost. When we look at that kind of a project, which the Liberal government has absolutely no ability to support or go forward with, then I ask again why Canadians would want to say that we should allow the cabinet minister to have the opportunity to decide when projects should or should not go forward.

The difficulty, and my colleague, the member for Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame mentioned this, is that there are many sections of overlap from Bill C-69 embedded in Bill C-49. We know that the Supreme Court of Canada has very clearly declared Bill C-69 unconstitutional.

Just a few things, if I may. Clauses 61, 62, 169 and 170 of Bill C-49 invoke section 64 of Bill C-69, the Impact Assessment Act, where the minister finds that a given project's adverse effects within federal jurisdiction and its adverse direct or incidental effects are in public interest, section 64 allows, and in fact requires, the minister to create any conditions which they deem appropriate in relation to those effects and with which the project proponent must comply.

In Bill C-69, the Liberals forced all offshore drilling to be subject to a review panel, increasing the timeline from 300 to 600-plus days for offshore reviews. Conservatives raised this as a major point of concern with Bill C-69. The impact assessment by the agency can take 1,605 days, which, sadly, is four and a half years, if all aspects of the process are followed.

This bill specifies section 64 of IAA, which allows the minister to create any condition they wish, based on an impact assessment report, which could add another 330 days to the process, if it was stated in clause 62 of Bill C-49, required by the regulator or prescribed.

What we are talking about is a country where people cannot afford to feed themselves, to put a roof over their heads and to generally look after their families. When we understand that the NDP-Liberal coalition continues to want to put up red tape, barriers and concerns, then we know what is on the mind of Atlantic Canadians.

Those of us who went back to our ridings last week talked to people, and they talked about the carbon tax and the cost of living. We know that the Atlantic Liberals over on that side of the House have voted 24 times in favour of a carbon tax, over and over again.

There is one person on that side of the House, a Liberal, who has suddenly found religion, or perhaps he has found the Conservative common sense. I cannot exactly explain why, but we do know that he was on TV and was quoted multiple times. I think it is germane to read into the record one of the great quotes:

I believe we have to change the way we're approaching the climate change incentive, whatever you want to call it. I think what we're using right now, at this point in time, is putting a bigger burden on people who are now struggling with an affordability crisis.

A gentleman on the opposite side said that. When we go back to our ridings in Atlantic Canada and hear of the difficulties, we understand very clearly that the Atlantic Liberals continue, over and over, to vote for a punishing carbon tax. What do they want to do now? They want to create further problems for Atlantic Canadians by stopping projects in the ocean.

We already know that they continue to do this on land with the statistics that I quoted previously, the delays of four and a half years on projects. Again, I will tie that to the builders we hear from to understand very clearly that they are giving up on their dreams of building houses and projects for Atlantic Canadians because it is an untenable position.

It is intolerable. It is unacceptable. It is unexplainable why the NDP-Liberal coalition wants to continue to stymie development in Atlantic Canada. That is something, on this side of the House, that we will not stand for.

[Clifford Small, Conservative, Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL]

Madam Speaker, I wish the member for Kings—Hants were as familiar as my hon. colleague about what is going on with the gatekeeping in our offshore oil and gas industry.

In response to the member's question, anything that is related to Bill C-69 in Bill C-49 needs to be scrapped, given how the court just ruled and how Bill C-69 is now in total jeopardy.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Madam Speaker, the Supreme Court recently ruled that Bill C-69 is unconstitutional. Since Bill C-69 is embedded in the bill we are discussing, Bill C-49, it would also make this bill unconstitutional. What does the member think the proper response should be?

[Clifford Small, Conservative, Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL]

Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned in my opening remarks a couple of days ago, Bill C-49, an act to amend the Atlantic accord, desperately needs amendments. As with all Liberal legislation, the devil is in the details, or, in this case, the lack thereof.

Bill C-49, as it stands, would end all future expansion of the Newfoundland and Labrador offshore oil and gas industry. In addition, the entire fishing industry in Atlantic Canada is fearful of the mass installation of wind turbines on its fishing grounds.

The fishing industry is not against the development of offshore wind energy; however, Bill C-49 pays lip service to consultations, from its point of view. That industry has a history of a lack of meaningful consultation with the Liberal government, especially when it comes to the setting up of marine protected areas, otherwise known as MPAs. MPAs have been arbitrarily created, oftentimes on prime fishing grounds, even though objections have been raised by fishermen. Their concerns are never taken into account, but the Liberal government goes ahead and forces fishers off their lucrative fishing grounds, endangering their livelihoods.

Why am I talking so much about fishermen and their experience with MPAs? It is because they fear that the exact same thing will happen in the designation and development of offshore wind farms. Bill C-49 is far too inadequate in relieving those fears. The process of consultation, negotiation and, in some cases, compensation needs to be clearly defined in this legislation. Fishermen are sick and tired of attacks by the Liberal government on their livelihoods, and they tell me that it is time for them to have an effective seat at the table. The bill before us needs to address this.

The fishing industry is not the only industry concerned with the arbitrary implementation of MPAs. The oil and gas industry has similar concerns. Bill C-49 would effectively kill all offshore oil and gas exploration and development in the future in Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia. Any significant petroleum discovery or renewable energy project not yet developed would be governed by amendments to the Atlantic accord.

I see my hon. colleague, the member for Avalon, looking across at me. I am sure he has read the bill inside and out. However, I will read from the summary of the bill. It says:

the Governor in Council may make regulations to prohibit the commencement or continuation of petroleum resource or renewable energy activities, or the issuance of interests, in respect of any portion of the offshore area that is located in an area that has been or may be identified as an area for environmental or wildlife conservation or protection

That is an area that may be identified as an MPA. Also, item (h) would give out the power to decide whether or not to compensate for the cancellation of such projects.

We all know that the Liberal government and its extreme environmental restraints have one goal in mind when it comes to Newfoundland and Labrador's offshore oil and gas industry, and that is to shut it down. The stakeholders I have talked to say that Bill C-49 puts the long-held fears of their industry on paper in black and white.

The Liberal government destroyed the Bay du Nord project by delaying approval after the longest environmental assessment in Canadian history. It used Bill C-69 as its tool to do that, and it can still do that in the future because that part of the bill was not destroyed by the court, unfortunately. Bill C-49 would be another tool in the anti-oil tool box, and Liberal MPs from Atlantic Canada, especially those from Newfoundland and Labrador, should be ashamed to support the bill as it stands.

What oil and gas company would want to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to explore the offshore in Atlantic Canada and have a significant find, only to be told that it cannot develop because the area may become a future MPA? The answer is none. This bill would drive much-needed investment dollars out of our offshore, which is already protected by the most stringent environmental regulations in the world, and would send that investment into jurisdictions with not only a poor environmental record but also a poor human rights record.

I cannot, as the lone supporter of Newfoundland and Labrador's oil and gas industry in the House of Commons, vote for a bill aimed at killing that industry. Liberal MPs from Atlantic Canada should feel the same way, but they do not. They tell me that I need to vote with them to support this bill for the good of my province. I ask if they are cracked. How can a bill that has the potential to kill all new oil and gas production off our shores be good for my province? This bill was created to wedge Conservatives in Atlantic Canada, and our propaganda machine, the CBC, even said it itself.

The member for St. John's South—Mount Pearl said that the Conservatives should not be meddling in the Atlantic accord, that we should support their amendments. If he is in this place, where he should be, he can get on his feet when I am done speaking and explain how members on my side of the House are meddling in the Atlantic accord when it is his party, under his ineffective guidance, that brought these amendments forward. How can Conservatives be meddling when we did not bring these amendments forward?

Then there is the Liberal member from Nova Scotia, whom I chatted with not that long ago. He said that consulting with non-indigenous fishermen was looking for trouble. It is unbelievable. If he wants to stand and clarify what he said when I am finished, he can do so as well. The fishing industry is all ears.

Trying to use this Liberal legislation to wedge Conservatives, the only party in this House that supports the oil and gas industry in Canada, is just a distraction. It is a distraction from the eight-year record of the current NDP-Liberal government, which sees Canadians reeling from the effects of the carbon tax on everything they buy and from food bank usage at the highest rate in 42 years. However, we will not be distracted. Not only do we support the oil and gas industry, but we support the mining industry.

Guess what else supports the mining industry. It is the wind power industry. To produce a single gigawatt of wind power, it takes 44 million pounds of copper, 150,000 tonnes of steel, 24,000 tonnes of iron, 1,000 tonnes of aluminum, 700,000 tonnes of concrete and a whopping 12,000 tonnes of fibreglass. That is what is required to produce one gigawatt. Where does fibreglass come from? It will not come from oil produced on the Grand Banks if the Liberals have their way; I can say that.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Given that I would anticipate that every elected member of this committee would see the utter indictment by the Supreme Court of Bill C-69, which has been in place as law for five years, I absolutely imagine members will give us unanimous consent to prioritize this topic.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

No. I'm speaking to the one that you got notice for on Friday.

It's that the committee recognize that the bill has been ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of Canada in a 5-2 decision, that the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court said Parliament has to “act within the enduring division of powers framework laid out in the Constitution” and that all provinces and territories called for major changes to Bill C-69 that were ignored; therefore, it's the opinion of this committee that Bill C-69 should be repealed and report that finding to the House in order for the House to vote on the viability of the bill given the Supreme Court's majority ruling.

This is extremely important, of course, because the judgment said that Bill C-69 invites the federal government to make decisions where it has no jurisdiction. It requires assessments of projects with little or no possibility of federal effects to have a federal review. It represents an unconstitutional arrogation of power by Parliament in which the decision-maker gets practically untrammelled power to regulate projects whether Parliament has jurisdiction to regulate or not. The purposes of the IA are considerably broader than what is—

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Thank you, Chair.

Unfortunately, I do hope that we will be able to have witnesses called back, because now I must speak to the motion that I put on notice. I'm going to do that now. What I hope is that Adam Waterous at some point today, or in the future, will be able to expand on the importance of oil and gas to lift all Canadians as well as vulnerable people right around the world out of energy poverty, with higher standards of living and quality of life.

I would also mention to Mr. Vaillant...and, of course, he talked at length about a region that I'm from. My riding was the front lines for helping evacuees coming from Fort McMurray. Of course, the investigators did note about that fire that it was caused by a combination of human activity related to recreational vehicles, power lines, arson and some other human-caused factors. Hopefully, that will be expanded later on for a fact-based conversation about that particular fire, which impacted the communities and the indigenous people whom I represent.

At this time, I want to speak to a motion that I think needs to urgently become the absolute top priority for this committee, which is that the Supreme Court on Friday ruled that Bill C-69, which has been in law for half a decade and was supported by the Liberals and the NDP by the time it left the House of Commons but faced opposition from all provinces and all territories, either outright opposed to it or calling for major overhauls....

To that end, I want to speak to the motion that I put on notice, which asked that the committee recognize that Bill C-69 has been ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of Canada—

Bill C-49—Time Allocation Motion

[John Williamson, Conservative, New Brunswick Southwest, NB]

Madam Speaker, the minister likes to talk about listening and consulting with Atlantic Canadians, and he has talked about the premier of Nova Scotia. I would add the premiers of New Brunswick, P.E.I. and Newfoundland and Labrador when it comes to the carbon tax and the opposition that the government faces.

Just last week, the Supreme Court of Canada found its legislation, Bill C-69, to be unconstitutional. I would think this would give the government and the minister pause when it comes to invoking closure. We should look at these bills properly as parliamentarians and debate them, so the government does not make the same mistake and ram another bill through Parliament that is poorly written and will face challenges down the road.

Your record is awful on bills such as this one. The Supreme Court of Canada just ruled that you rushed it. Why are you now rushing it again?

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people of Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo.

I am very much struck by the fact that we are here on what the Liberals would characterize as a bill of critical importance, and yet we are again ramming it through Parliament. On Bill C-69, time allocation was invoked, and here we are again. There was a time when the New Democratic Party stood for something, which was to be the conscience of Parliament; it would not shut this down. Now it has become the NDP of no democratic principles; it is now prepared to ram everything through that the Liberals ask of it.

From Tommy Douglas to Tom Mulcair, time allocation was invoked an average of 1.2 times per Parliament. Here we are with time allocation for the 35th time. The government says it cares about jobs. Does it care about democracy, or is that just inconvenient for it?

[Ryan Williams, Conservative, Bay of Quinte, ON]

Madam Speaker, this is a debate on the motion for closure. Just this last week, we saw that Bill C-69 was deemed unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of Canada. On June 13, 2019, that bill was also subject to a motion of closure. If only we had a couple more hours of debate to really look at the subject, maybe we would not find that there are bills at the Supreme Court that are deemed unconstitutional. I can understand that from the Liberal government, but what happened to the NDP?

There were House leaders of old, such as Stanley Knowles, who was quoted as saying in 1967:

I submit, therefore, that you do not have full political democracy let alone the economic as well as political democracy unless you include a full and unquestioned recognition of the rights and functions of the opposition to the government of the day. Only in this way can you protect the rights of minorities. Only in this way can you make sure that the force of public opinion will be brought to bear on the legislative process.

Forcing closure on debate on a bill as important as this to Atlantic Canadians, as well as all Canadians, is just a blight on this democratic process. What has happened to the NDP of old? Is this the new NDP?

[Clifford Small, Conservative, Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL]

Madam Speaker, the hon. minister knows the debate that took place on Bill C-69. Where is it today? How fulsome have those consultations been with the provinces?

I am looking at the proposed change to subsection 56(1), which basically says that, if there is going to be a future oil development and there is a possibility that it could be turned into a future marine protected area, the Governor in Council could then pull the permit. That is the Prime Minister and the federal cabinet. The industry has said to me, “Cliff, this puts in black and white what we feared all along.”

If Bill C-69 could not do the job on Newfoundland and Labrador's offshore, this bill here will not do the job. Bill C-49 needs to be amended.

[John Aldag, Liberal, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

It's not about what the Bill C-69 court decision was. It's just because of the situation there.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

I agree with Mr. Angus. I'm so sad about it because Elizabeth May and I had agreed completely on all the problems with the project list in Bill C-69. As you know, the Supreme Court came out on Friday saying that Elizabeth May and I were right—although, we have opposing world views—on exactly that. It would have been great if people had listened—

Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Atlantic Accord Implementation Act

[Rick Perkins, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

Mr. Speaker, our mutual friend, the late Hon. Pat Carney, did negotiate those deals, and from our perspective, I appreciate that the member thinks this was an unusual year. This was an El Niño year in North America, where we got less rain in the spring than we did last year or the year before. I expect, when we do not have an El Niño year again, that will change.

With regard to the issue of where wind power generation goes, of course we believe in tidal power and wind power. That is why I spoke for a great deal in my speech about the only project that has ever worked, which was the tidal power by Sustainable Marine Energy, which the government shut down. It, without damage, continued to return power to the Nova Scotia power grid, and they did not get paid for it, yet the government used this as an excuse to shut it down. DFO had given it four approvals and would not give it the fifth.

That approach to shutting down all energy projects, whether they be in oil and gas or on the renewable side of things, is the problem with the bill. It would put in place the terrible provisions of the IAA and Bill C-69 into this process.

[Rick Perkins, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-49, an act that would amend the mandates of the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board and the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Atlantic accord. The primary goal of this legislation is to provide for a new approval process for the development of oil and gas projects off Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador, as well as the mandates of these two boards.

When second reading of this bill started a week or so ago, Liberal MPs from Atlantic Canada thought they would use their speeches and the speeches of the official opposition to try to make this about some sort of strange “If one is not with the Liberals on Bill C-49, then one must be against Atlantic Canada” idea.

In fact, they came out of their caucus meeting and actually said that they think they could distract people after giving the Prime Minister all of this bad news about what we have been hearing in the summer. They thought they would come out of the caucus meeting and try to hold a shiny thing over here to see if their constituents would be distracted. The distraction attempt for Nova Scotians and Newfoundlanders and Labradorians was from the Liberals' failure to address the primary concern they heard over the summer from their communities: the cost of living.

There have been 24 times that all of them, except for one now, have voted to increase the cost of everything. One can almost hear the Liberals in their meetings saying that, maybe, if they talk about Bill C-49, people might forget that their home heating oil bills have more than doubled under the NDP-Liberals; that, maybe, if they talk about Bill C-49, all the complaints they heard from people in the summer, of having lost faith in this government and forcing the cost of everything up, might be forgotten; and that, maybe, all of the damage they have done to themselves and their constituents will be forgotten.

Just so everyone knows, it is tied to Bill C-49 because they were using that as a bright, shiny object to try to distract from those failures. What are those failures they are using Bill C-49 to try to distract from? I think they are actually best captured by the words of the member for Avalon. For those watching, the member for Avalon is a Liberal member of Parliament from Newfoundland. On the show Power and Politics, he said this, and let me start with this quote, as I think it is a great one: “I believe we have to change the way we're approaching the climate change incentive, whatever you want to call it. I think what we're using right now, at this point in time, is putting a bigger burden on people who are now struggling with an affordability crisis.” That affordability crisis, of course, is that which Conservatives have been talking about for the last year, and of which Liberal members of Parliament live in denial.

The Liberal member for Avalon goes on, on the program, to say, “I think [the carbon tax is] hurting them a fair bit”, with “them” being his constituents. He says, “Everywhere I go, people come up to me and say, ‘You know, we're losing faith in the Liberal Party.’ I've had people tell me they can't afford to buy groceries.” The Liberal member for Avalon then goes on to say, “They can't afford to heat their homes, and that's hard to hear from, especially, seniors who live alone and tell me they go around their house in the spring and wintertime with a blanket wrapped around them, because they can't afford the home heating fuel. They can't afford to buy beef or chicken.” We have been telling the Liberals that, yet they are trying to use Bill C-49 as a distraction from the day-to-day challenges they have caused Canadians.

The member for Avalon obviously had a private conversation with the Minister of Finance around this time. He said, “I told the minister, when she came to Newfoundland, about this, and she told me, she said, ‘I'm going to correct this. You're right.’” She actually said she is going to correct it. We are still waiting. Not only do they break promises to Canadians; they also break promises to their own backbenchers.

The Liberal member for Avalon goes on to say, “We can't keep adding on to expenses, and David,” which is the name of the host, “you know that everything in our province comes in by boat and truck. They burn fuel. Lots of it. That's the cost to bring it in, and it's going to be added to every item that gets on a store shelf somewhere.”

That is punishing anybody who goes to buy something, whether it is a chocolate bar or a tin of milk. It is anything. A piece of two-by-four will go up, which will make homes more expensive to build. I think our leader has been saying that for a year, and there has been nothing but deaf ears on the other side, except for one fellow who found religion after talking to his constituents for three months in the summer.

The same Liberal member went onto say, “I think they,” being the Liberals, “will lose seats not just in Newfoundland, not just in Atlantic Canada, but indeed right across the country if they don't get a grasp on this the way that I think they should”. It is interesting that he is calling his own party “they” as if he is not part of them anymore and had not voted 23 times before this for the carbon tax. Now, on the 24th time, he has changed his mind and flip-flopped. It is unusual for a Liberal to flip-flop.

He said “get a grasp on this the way that I think they should”. This one is hitting home to everybody I speak to and it is a grassroots issue. If an election were called today, I am not sure the Liberal Party would actually form the government. I am pretty sure that would not happen if an election were held today, and they would not be in government.

The hurt and pain that has been caused by the Liberals out there, because of their inflationary deficits and carbon tax, is causing a great deal of hardship that is not recognized by 157 Liberal members, and their cohorts in the NDP who support all of this, but the 158th member has finally got it. Maybe it will take another two years for the other Liberals to get it.

This is the counter to the bright, shiny distraction the Liberals are trying to do with Bill C-49. They are trying to make some crazy accusations about who supports Atlantic Canadians. Apparently, according to the member for Avalon, Liberals do not support Atlantic Canadians. He goes on to say, “And I know the government is pushing people to switch over to heat pumps.” We hear that all the time, including today from the member for Central Nova. He says, “Many homes, especially the older homes, are not designed for that. They are not built to sustain the heat from a heat pump, so I don't think it works.”

Quite frankly, to show how out of touch the member for Central Nova is with his bright, shiny $10,000 heat pumps that he is pushing for all the companies that he knows and likes in Nova Scotia, the fact is if someone is living on CPP, disability or a fixed income, they do not have $10,000 for a heat pump.

Apparently, in the golden world the Liberals live in with $200,000 vacations for the Prime Minister and the fancy world the member for Central Nova lives in with his chauffeured car as a minister, he thinks people on CPP, OAS and GIS can afford $10,000 out of their cash flow for a heat pump. The Liberals' disconnection from reality knows no bounds.

Finally, in that interview, in response to the issue of the messenger, the messenger being the Minister of Environment who believes orange is a very nice colour to wear, the member for Avalon said, “No, he is not”, meaning he is not the right messenger. “No, he's not, and because he's so entrenched in this, and I get it, I mean, where he came from and his whole idea of making a big difference in climate change, but you can't do it overnight. You can't make it more expensive on people than what they can handle, and that's exactly what's happening right now.”

The member from Atlantic Canada's request was that they actually increase the payments to people so that the revenue-neutral carbon tax, which they claim, would cost more out of the treasury. The solution for cancer was to give us more cancer. It was not to say that they were going to get at the root of the disease, and the root of the disease, the cause of this inflation, is the carbon tax. That is what they should be getting rid of.

Bill C-49, which they are trying to use as a distraction from this reality, includes a process to review renewable energy projects in the ocean. I can inform this House that while the NDP-Liberal government claims to support renewable energy projects in Atlantic Canada, the track record says that it actually does not do that. Over the decades, we have been trying in Nova Scotia to harness the enormous power of the Bay of Fundy tides to generate clean renewable electricity. There have been about half a dozen projects and hundreds of millions of private-sector dollars spent trying to figure out how to harness the Bay of Fundy tides. All but one project have failed. These are very large turbines. The projects that failed had these large turbines built and put on the floor of the Bay of Fundy. These turbines are about five storeys high.

For those members who do not know, the Bay of Fundy rises and falls every day by 52 feet. Twice each day, 160 billion tonnes of seawater flows in and out of the Bay of Fundy, which is more than the combined river flows of the world. The Bay of Fundy's tides transform the shorelines and tidal flats and expose the sea bottom as they flood into the bay and its harbours and estuaries. It is estimated that by 2040, the tidal energy of the Bay of Fundy could contribute up to $1.7 billion to Nova Scotia's GDP and create up to 22,000 jobs. That is almost as many people as work in our number-one industry, which is the fishery.

Besides the money, how big is that in terms of energy? Three hundred megawatts of tidal energy can power a quarter of all Nova Scotia homes. That is just a fraction of the Bay of Fundy's 2,500-megawatt potential. That means Nova Scotia could become a net exporter of clean renewable tidal power.

However, how are we doing on that? With respect to every project, as I said, that has had these turbines placed on the bottom of the ocean floor, within about 48 hours they failed. The power of the tides had blown the turbines apart. However, people at an innovative company called Sustainable Marine Energy had a different idea: What if we floated those turbines on the top of the water instead of sinking them to the ocean floor? Guess what: It worked. The first project to consistently put power into Nova Scotia's power grid and to be paid for that power by Nova Scotia Power was successful. They were the first turbines not to be destroyed by the power of the Bay of Fundy tides.

One would think that the NDP-Liberal government would be thrilled and that the approval of such a successful green renewable-energy project would be fast-tracked, but that is not what happened. The Atlantic Liberals had the Department of Fisheries and Oceans refuse to extend the permit for further piloting of the project. They used DFO to kill the project. That is important to Bill C-49 because of the power it would give DFO over all energy projects in Atlantic Canada. Those turbines are now out of the water. They are disassembled, the technology is shelved and the company is bankrupt. I say thanks to Atlantic Liberals and their commitment to renewable energy from our oceans. They talk the talk, but walk away when it comes time to move forward. It is typical of these Liberals. It is all about the input, without any results.

Therefore, this bill is not about approving projects in renewable ocean energy and oil and gas development to get the world off coal and dirty dictator oil. No, it would formalize a process designed to make sure these projects never see the light of day. What the NDP-Liberals have done here in this bill is put more gatekeepers in place to stop energy project development in Atlantic Canada. They imported four sections from the disastrous Bill C-69, the no pipelines bill, into Bill C-49. With Bill C-69, the NDP-Liberals had said that more projects would get approved when they approved that. How many have been approved? There have been none. How many have been proposed? There have been none. It magically drove all capital out of Canada for energy projects.

Now, Bill C-49 would bring that process and that incredible success rate to Atlantic Canada's offshore energy projects. It would impose the same process, and imposing the same process would yield the same result. This bill would triple the current timelines for approval of offshore energy projects. Currently, a decision by the offshore regulatory board has 30 days for cabinet to agree or disagree. The Liberals would extend that in this bill.

Sections 28 and 137 give the federal cabinet the ability to end offshore drilling and renewable energy projects and also give the Minister of Fisheries a veto to propose developments in areas that the minister said that there may be a time in the future when there might be a marine protected area, MPA. It is not that there is a marine protected area, but maybe someday, if the minister thinks there might be one, and so, no, we cannot go there. It is sort of like Whac-a-Mole, which is what DFO has been doing on land with the rivers for any energy projects, and using the passage of one shrivelled up river as a reason to stop a project. Now, that same power would be given to DFO.

Why is that possible? An MPA is a part in the ocean. Fish swim and do not know the boundaries of the parts. However, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans a few years ago met with the fishing groups in Nova Scotia and, in effect, said, “We're going to shut down 30% of the commercial fishery in Nova Scotia using MPAs. Work with us and you can pick which fisheries we shut down. Don't work with us, and we'll pick what is on.” The department uses its excessive power for other political purposes, and that is being imposed in the bill.

The bill brings the inefficiencies of the federal government's Impact Assessment Act into the bill as well. It adds sections 61, 62, 169 and 170 of the IAA where the federal minister has the power to impose conditions on authorizations. It also invokes section 64 of the IAA, which allows a federal minister to interfere in a project if they think it is in the public interest and create any condition, without limit, they think is necessary regardless of what the regulator decides.

Adding these Bill C-69 provisions to Atlantic Canada's offshore energy process extends the process through unlimited federal delays at any time, but at a minimum it is going to be over 1,600 days, which is four and a half years. That is the process that Bill C-69 sets out. It is a minimum of four and a half years for the approval of any project. That really efficient process, which has led to no projects being approved in western Canada, is now being imposed on Atlantic Canada. It is a recipe to end all our offshore energy projects in Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia.

There are no provisions in the bill that require commercial fishing communities to be at the table when all of these projects are being considered. There has been no consultation with the fishing industry about these projects. Why is that important? It is because, in Atlantic Canada, that is our largest industry. To not require their involvement when most of these projects impact their ability to earn a living is a betrayal by Atlantic Canada MPs to the critically important industry they supposedly represent as members of Parliament and to the tens of thousands of people who work in it.

Finally, the current Atlantic accord treats Nova Scotia and Newfoundland differently. The Nova Scotia government has the ability to designate areas under provincial jurisdiction as energy projects within the bays of a province, or the “jaws of the land” as it is called. However, Newfoundland and Labrador does not have that power. I am shocked, frankly, and they should really give their heads a shake, a favourite saying of one of the MPs over there. Newfoundland and Labrador Liberal MPs are okay with Nova Scotia having authorities that the Newfoundland and Labrador government does not. What else would we expect from these silent Liberals? Well, they are silent except for the member for Avalon who apparently is not comfortable in his own caucus any more.

It is time for Atlantic Liberals to get their heads out of the sand. It is time for them to speak up and recognize that the bill before us does for Atlantic energy projects what Bill C-69 did for energy projects in western Canada. Atlantic Liberal MPs need to join us in fixing these issues in committee when we propose solid and thoughtful amendments to ensure that projects get done and not stopped by Liberal gatekeepers.

It is also time for Atlantic Liberal MPs to stop voting with the NDP-Liberal government to increase the cost of everything with the carbon tax. It is about time they do that. Well, this week, they voted once again to impose a quadrupling of taxes on their own constituents. If they truly care about the economy, they will speak up for their region and axe the carbon tax and they will amend this bad bill so that projects can actually get approved.

[Jasraj Singh Hallan, Conservative, Calgary Forest Lawn, AB]

Thanks, Chair. Once again my questions are for Mr. Cross and Mr. Dehejia.

We know that the demand for oil and gas is going to be strong until 2050. Mr. Cross, you mentioned things like regulations, and that we don't have enough pipelines in this country. We've been saying that. For the last eight years, we've seen a Liberal government that's anti-energy and anti-growth. I think one of your papers, Mr. Cross, literally says that Canada's anti-business culture undermines our growth. We've seen anti-energy bills like Bill C-69, the “no new pipelines” bill. We've seen a carbon tax that hasn't really helped the environment or helped emissions come down, and it's just made the cost of everything go up.

Would you both agree that some of these laws and some of these anti-energy bills are not letting Canada's growth rate increase and increase jobs in our economy?

Canadian Sustainable Jobs Act

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Madam Speaker, I really appreciate that question because it gives me the ability to address the reality of Bill C-49 rather than the Liberals' false claims.

Here is the truth about Bill C-49. It imports a number of clauses from Bill C-69 and includes a number of clauses from another bill, Bill C-55. The consequences of both of those bills embedded in Bill C-49 are exactly what has unfolded and what Conservatives warned about in previous debates. Bill C-49 would hold up, delay, road block and gatekeep alternative and renewable offshore development, just as it is also a simultaneous attack on petroleum offshore development.

I am not sure if Liberals do not read bills, do not know what they are talking about or are just reading what someone says, but these issues are grave. They are serious for the underpinning of our economy and our standard of living. We oppose Bill C-49 because it is an attack on energy to end petroleum offshore opportunities, and it would hold up, road block, delay and gatekeep renewable and alternative offshore energy development. Conservatives are going to accelerate approvals, make sure projects can get built, cut timelines and make both traditional and alternative energy sources available at affordable—

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Madam Speaker, my apologies, but I have a very difficult time believing the sincerity of the government with this bill, and that is a result of its constant retaliation against the natural resources sector. We saw this with Bill C-48. We also saw this with Bill C-69. We have seen this with the endless carbon tax after carbon tax, as well as with emissions standards, which the government forced industry to meet. This results in a larger mental health crisis among industry workers and higher suicide rates. Perhaps it is even fuelling the opioid crisis.

With a $41-billion deficit and $2.1 trillion of debt across Canada, and with oil and gas making up 7.5% of the GDP, how are the Liberals going to replace the funds in the coffers from a dying industry that they have killed at a time when they are also overspending?

Opposition Motion—Carbon Taxes

[Jasraj Singh Hallan, Conservative, Calgary Forest Lawn, AB]

Madam Speaker, before I start, I would like to inform you that I am splitting my time with my very eloquent and passionate advocate and colleague from Mégantic—L'Érable.

It was all a scam. The carbon tax was sold when a bumper sticker should have been slapped on that said, “Not as advertised”.

The Liberals sold it a few ways. They said that more Canadians would get more back into their pockets with these phony rebates than what they would have to pay into it. The Parliamentary Budget Officer proved that was false and made it very clear in his report that Canadians would pay more into this scam than what they would get back in these phony rebates.

The Liberals also said they would solve climate change and make everything better, that they would make emissions come down. That was proven false by their own Parliamentary Budget Officer, as emissions keep going up and they have not hit a single emissions reduction target they set for themselves. This is why they should have thrown on a bumper sticker that said, “Not as advertised”. This was a scam from day one and it is coming to light now.

The carbon taxes and the carbon tax scam are also very discriminatory because every province feels them differently and gets charged differently. For Albertans, it is yet another attack on our province by the Prime Minister. Not only has he repeatedly kicked Albertans down, he has also made sure that Alberta does not again become the prosperous province it used to be. By introducing Bill C-69, supported by the NDP, the Liberals and NDP made sure that no good pipeline projects would be able to be completed in this country. Pipelines are great way to lower emissions and not have our products transported on trains and trucks. They are safer, more secure and will bring down emissions. They can bring home not only more powerful paycheques for Canadians, but jobs, prosperity and a better economy.

We can see that the world today wants clean, responsible, low-carbon Canadian energy, but the policies and radical left ideology of the Liberal-NDP government are not allowing it. It has repeatedly blocked projects. What is the result of that? We see dictatorships around the world making profits. We see emissions going up. As an example, Germany's chancellor came to Canada within the last year literally asking for our liquid natural gas and was willing to take it immediately. The Prime Minister had more than 15 good LNG projects on his desk when he became Prime Minister. Not one has been completed yet. When he turned Germany's chancellor away, the chancellor went to Qatar, which has fewer human rights and environmental regulations than Canada. He bought LNG there, when he could have got it from Canada, which has the highest human rights and environmental standards when it comes to producing clean, responsible energy.

What is the result of all of this? Last winter we saw heating costs double. We heard stories of seniors having to turn down the heat in their homes and literally making do with blankets during the wintertime because, after eight years of the irresponsible Liberal-NDP government, things are way more expensive than they have ever been before. These costs have driven up everything and have made it so that 1.5 million Canadians are now visiting a food bank in a single month. Liberal inflation has driven up interest rates and Canada is most at risk in the G7 for a mortgage default crisis. This has also driven up rents and everything else.

When I met this single mother, she told me the reality of her situation. She is a single mom of three kids. Her rent went up by $600. She could not afford to eat. She could not afford to feed her kids and heat her home at the same time. What did she have to do? She had to move in with her abusive ex-husband once again and live in that same situation because she could not afford to feed her kids anymore.

The Liberal-NDP government refuses to acknowledge that the carbon tax has real consequences. When the government is taxing the farmer who makes the food, the trucker who ships the food, the manufacturer and the people who are storing the food, that tax ultimately goes on the Canadian who is buying the food. That is the sad reality after eight years of the current incompetent Liberal-NDP government.

Canadians' disposable income is getting smaller and smaller due to the deficits that the Liberal government continues to drive up. It is not just that: The Liberals have increased the cost of a house by doubling the amount of mortgages and rents and the time it takes to save up for a down payment on a house. They are also increasing the costs inside the house, like heat, gas and grocery costs. All of these have gone up and they are all inflationary, which was proven by the Governor of the Bank of Canada.

Canada could be the world leader today in clean, responsible energy that could actually bring down global emissions, and not just emissions in Canada. We could provide for the whole world. We have enough. We just have a Liberal-NDP government that is the ultimate gatekeeper of the success of Canada. There are many marginalized communities that work in the energy sector. The Liberal-NDP woke government, due to its crazy left ideology, has stopped those marginalized communities from being able to be successful here in Canada. Over and over again, we see authoritative, crazy left ideology out-trump common sense.

However, common sense would be restored once again in this country when the member for Carleton becomes prime minister of this country. We would green-light green projects. Canada is 64th in the world for permitting. We would make sure that good projects like hydro, tidal and nuclear would actually be built in this country. We would get pipelines built so we could bring down world emissions. We would make sure that our first nations and indigenous brothers and sisters would also become prosperous once again, under a Conservative government, when we partner with them and make sure that we get Canada back to the successful state it needs to be once again.

We would scrap this failed carbon tax so the cost of gas, groceries and home heating would come down. We would make sure that we get more energy produced in this country so that we could lower the cost of energy.

That is what the world needs, that is what Canada needs and that is what Canadians need. When the member for Carleton becomes prime minister, we would bring those things home. We would bring home powerful paycheques and we would bring home lower costs for our people.

Opposition Motion—Carbon Tax

[Rick Perkins, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

Madam Speaker, what does not make sense is that the member voted 23 times to support the cost of living increase. What does not make sense is that the Green/NDP member, trying to make up her mind on what her belief is, is willing to actually vote for a bill that would impose a process on the development of offshore energy in Atlantic Canada using the same process exported from Bill C-69 into Bill C-49. That process has resulted in absolutely no energy projects being developed in western Canada. That same approach would have the same result on Atlantic energy development in Atlantic Canada, which is that zero projects would get approved, even the renewable energy ones that we all want.

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer—Mountain View, AB]

I believe it. Just to that point, I know that even though oil and gas is regulated differently, it doesn't mean they're doing it right or that there couldn't be improvements. When you have a massive tract of land and they're laying down steel in order to put in solar panels, or that type of thing, that's really where the concern is. If they leave, then it's not just sending somebody to clean up an oil well site. That's the concern I have.

I will come back to some other things. We've had Calvin Helin here to discuss some issues with the economy and the frustrations that his and other indigenous companies have had in trying to work their way through some of the nuances with the federal government.

Has Bill C-69 affected your projects? Do you fear that the billions of dollars your people have put into oil and gas structures and facilities could end up becoming a stranded asset for which there is no recourse?

Strengthening the Port System and Railway Safety in Canada Act

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Speaker, I will let the comment about my facial hair stand in the record now forever, but I thank him.

I would like to correct the member because the member asked a question in question period that I found really interesting. It was about how there is support for the bill that he referred to. However, he is quick to point to when premiers and stakeholders will support a bill, while failing to acknowledge when they oppose bills.

What is interesting is the bill he refers to, Bill C-49, specifically references provisions that were implemented through Bill C-69 from a previous Parliament. The very premiers who have said they want energy development, which we all do, whether it is new tech or something associated with traditional energy, also asked the government to repeal Bill C-69. They are now talking out of both sides of their mouths when it comes to the government—

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to join the debate today on Bill C-33, the strengthening the port system and railway safety in Canada act.

The parliamentary secretary asked a great question about how we could fix this bill once it went to committee. Being on the Standing Committee on Agriculture, the bill was very interesting to me, especially being from Saskatchewan where we are landlocked. The railways are an important mode of transportation for our commodities. It is a bit disappointing that this has missed the mark in improving the efficiency of the railway system and ports.

I will talk about agriculture for most of this speech, because it is interconnected between agriculture and our supply chains in our transportation system.

Like most of us did, I had a lot of time this summer to go around the riding and visit folks. I was able to get the member for Thornhill out to Regina this summer, and we got her on a combine. We were combining lentils just outside of Regina. We were also able to get the chief superintendent from the Depot Division, F division, on a combine as well. That day we were combining durum.

What these all have in common is that once they go from the field to the combine to the bins, the next step is to get them to the port. That is the transportation system we have in the country.

The thing that happens so often, almost like clockwork every winter, is a slowdown of the trains because they cannot pull as many cars because of the cold weather. We really need to focus on this and have more options available to get our commodities to market. We have heard this time and time again from producers across Saskatchewan and the Prairies.

I know my friend from Red Deer—Lacombe would hear many of the same complaints from producers and from the agriculture sector as a whole. They are very good at getting their yields off the field; the problem is getting them to port.

My colleague, the member for Lethbridge said it very well, that one of the aspects we were looking to strengthen is the efficiency of the port system. Not being able to load grain cars and ships in the rain in Vancouver is a substantial problem. This could have been addressed in this legislation to strengthen it.

Bill C-33 would amend seven existing laws, including the Canadian Marine Act, the Customs Act, the Canada Transportation Act, the Railway Safety Act, the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act, the Marine Transportation Security Act and the Transportation Appeal Tribunal of Canada.

My colleague from Lethbridge talked about the ever-increasing bureaucracy and red tape that was added in this current iteration of Bill C-33. We do not need more red tape when it comes to our ports. I think everyone in this chamber would agree that we have to be more efficient at transporting our goods. Canada is an exporting economy. We see that now more than ever in Saskatchewan.

We have some big players in Saskatchewan. The head office of Viterra in Saskatchewan. I talked to its CEO and he put it very clearly that we needed more efficiency at the Port of Vancouver. We did talk about this bill a little this summer when we ran into each other. He was looking forward to seeing what was in it. I had a chance to give him a call the other day and he was quite disappointed. In fact, many stakeholders have been disappointed in what this bill has provided so far.

Some of the people who were not consulted on the bill were CP Rail, the Association of Canadian Port Authorities, Canadian Marine Pilots, Western Grain Elevator Association, Port Nanaimo, Canadian Canola Growers, Global Container Terminals and the Chamber of Shipping.

One of the comments from CP Rail was that after working on this for four years that it was a whole bunch of nothing. That is one of our main stakeholders with regard to the bill. When one asks what could be done better, we could have a conversation with CP on how this bill could be improved. I hope CP Rail representatives are on the witness list when we get this to committee.

Another one of the people who could be consulted is a man from Saskatchewan, Murad Al-Katib of AGT Foods. This company transports and ships across the world. One thing he says is that getting container ships is a difficult thing to do in Canada.

What we could do is have conversations with the people on the ground who need the railway system improved. One thing I would like is to have the witness list include some of these people when this legislation comes to committee, people like Murad Al-Katib and companies like Viterra. These people have used the port system.

The Port of Vancouver is the gateway to the world for us as exporters. There are efficiencies we could improve on, obviously. Like I said earlier in my speech, we really need to be able to load grain cars in all weather. We have to do it safely, of course, but we need to be able to do it in all kinds of weather.

When we are trying to get our goods to market, in talking to the railways about the huge inefficiencies, another thing we could do is get some pipelines built. If we take some oil cars off the railways, then we would have the ability to actually ship more grain on a daily basis.

When it comes to Saskatchewan, and my colleague from Alberta agrees, there is no more efficient way to ship oil than through a pipeline. We have seen through other legislation like Bill C-69, the no-more-pipelines act, that we cannot get things built in this country.

When we talk about the overall vision for infrastructure across this country, that vision needs to include more pipelines being built to get oil from west to east. We do not have those conversations. There needs to be infrastructure debate in this chamber about how we are going to move forward into the 21st century. This also includes building pipelines. It includes the electricity grid as well, because we need to become more efficient when it comes to shipping materials across our beautiful country.

One of the other things I found very interesting is some of the amendments and the impacts they would have on the ports, such as the proposed amendment to expand Canadian port authorities' mandate over traffic management, including vessels moored or anchored. We talk about expanding the port authorities' mandate. Have we had that discussion with the port authorities? Do we know if they have the capacity to even expand that mandate? That is the question I have for the parliamentary secretary, and hopefully we can get that answered when we are in committee.

Another question I have is on enabling the development of inland terminals. Have they talked to some of the proponents that would be building and expanding these terminals and what they need to see in this legislation?

Another amendment would be to streamline the review process for port authorities' borrowing. Obviously, that is something we could have a conversation about and discuss in committee as well. On establishing new regulatory authorities to oversee Canada's marine security framework, whenever there is talk about expanding authorities, I would like to have conversations on what that means to shippers and distributers across the country.

I would also like to have the conversation about how we are going to be able to get goods then across the ocean. We talk about getting to the port. We also need more efficiency when it comes to having the ability to load ships with grain. We need to be building more capacity to ship LNG. We have had Germany and Japan come to our country and ask for help when it comes to LNG. One of the reasons we cannot do it is because we do not have the capacity to load these vessels to get the LNG to different areas of the world. That is a conversation we should be having as well.

The United States built five, six or seven LNG terminals over the last three or four years and we have built nothing. We have become a country where it is almost impossible to build infrastructure under the current government. People want to be able to invest in our country, but the goalposts keep moving on when we can actually get something built. We are then really having trouble attracting foreign investment to our country because they do not see how we would have the capacity to export.

We have lost hundreds of billions of dollars in this country over the last eight years because of investment flowing from Canada straight to the United States. This is because investors believe our infrastructure is not sufficient to be able to transport the goods they want to produce in our country.

We have a wealth of natural resources and we do not have the ability to get those resources to port and then to the destination after that. Therefore, this bill, unfortunately, misses the mark in trying to create more efficiencies at the Port of Vancouver. It misses the mark and increases our capacity on the railways. For that reason and many reasons, after reaching out to stakeholders, they do not like the bill, we do not like it either and we will be voting against it.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

Thank you, Chair.

I want to follow up on what my colleague Mr. Perkins was saying about the importance of reporting back to the House.

Really, if you look at the notice of motion again, it's really about how terrible the atmosphere to create these kinds of projects in Canada is now. This government has successfully scared away billions and billions and billions of dollars of capital and scared away not only the capital but also the innovation. It's taken away a whole bunch of innovation and innovative people who really wanted to make a change. This government keeps on penalizing. Every time a province wants to stand up and say, “Here, I want to try this. I want to do this,” Bill C-69 zips in there and just absolutely creams them.

I know. I experienced this back in Manitoba. Back in 2016, when the government first brought in Bill C-69, I believe, and this whole carbon tax regime, we thought it was a really good idea to engage. I was a farmer at the time. I thought we would try to elongate with it.

I think it's really important that we get this motion passed and get on with the vote.

Thank you.

[Rick Perkins, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I believe I've been subbed in and I appreciate listening to this important discussion that we've had today.

With that, I'd like to move another motion, if I could:

That the committee express its disappointment with the regulatory environment created by this government that has led to tidal power projects pulling out of Canada and acknowledges that one of the primary factors contributing to the departure of these capital investments has been recent changes that have created an intricate regulatory landscape.

I believe the clerk has a copy of the motion, and the motion is being distributed. Thank you.

For those who are not aware, obviously for me as the member of Parliament for South Shore—St. Margarets in Nova Scotia, the issue is the attempt to create renewable energy opportunities in Atlantic Canada so that we can meet the net-zero target and get off of coal by 2030, as the government has mandated. Nova Scotia is the province that generates the second-largest amount of electricity from coal. The coal comes from Colombia.

There have been a lot of attempts to deal with the power of the Bay of Fundy. If you're not familiar with the Bay of Fundy, it has the largest tides in the world, with a range of 52 feet. It rises and drops every day. The flow of the water through the Bay of Fundy is equivalent to the flow of all rivers in the world. In one day, it goes in and out of the Bay of Fundy. That being the case, there have been many projects trying to harness the tidal energy of the Bay of Fundy. Most of them have involved putting turbines on the ocean floor. Most of those did not succeed.

However, there was a recent experiment on tidal energy that had a great deal of success, but it was an experiment and it had a temporary permit. It was by a company called Sustainable Marine Energy Canada. It involved a floating turbine that was on top of the water. It's the first project that actually didn't get destroyed by the tide. Within 24 to 48 hours the power of the Bay of Fundy tide had destroyed all those turbines that were put on the ocean floor. The actual turbines were destroyed by the power of that tide, which you can actually surf on when it comes in.

A new approach was to put it on top of the water, and that succeeded. In fact, it didn't get destroyed. Not only did it not get destroyed, but it actually produced energy into the Nova Scotia power grid directly and is the first tidal project in Canada that has actually produced revenue for the company from the generation of that tidal power.

As some of you may be aware, though, when the project moved to the next stage, the process was stopped. It was stopped by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, which has a great deal of power, and not only land-based energy projects to stop pipelines because of fish in a stream or some sort of thing. This has happened many times. They actually have a lot of power. Of course everything in the ocean is a federal responsibility and, therefore, DFO has the ability and responsibility to manage the oceans. In this case, after five years of a project and $60 million of capital invested, when the project was moving to the next step of the first successful tidal power project, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans under this Liberal government stopped it.

Now that turbine has been removed from the water and actually disassembled, and the company is leaving. That doesn't mean they're not going to try to continue to challenge these things, but to understand what's being missed here and why I think this committee needs to express its disappointment on the issue, I will say that it is estimated that by 2040, the tidal energy industry in Nova Scotia could generate $1.7 billion for Nova Scotia's GDP. It could create 22,000 full-time jobs and generate as much as $815 million in labour income.

More important than that, though, because of the obvious predictability of these tides, because of the moon and the rise of the sea, this zero-emission energy, which has had a successful target.... Three hundred megawatts of generation, which isn't a lot relative to power, could actually power one-quarter of Nova Scotia's homes through tidal power.

Maybe it doesn't seem like a lot, but that's estimated to be just a fraction of the potential tidal energy power—clean renewable energy—of the Bay of Fundy that we all see. It is estimated that 2,500 megawatts could be generated, which means Nova Scotia could become an exporter of clean renewable energy.

However, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, under the Liberal government, decided that this wasn't worth pursuing and that the first successful project in the history of harnessing tidal power in the Bay of Fundy should be stopped.

As a Nova Scotian and as somebody who cares about getting our province off coal.... Our province is the second-largest generator of electricity from coal, Alberta being the first, and we've already heard from my colleague Mr. Kmiec that most of that generation in Alberta will be ending soon. That would leave Nova Scotia as the largest generator of electricity from coal. More than 50% of our electricity is generated from coal, and it's not the good old Cape Breton coal that we all used to get a lot of jobs out of in Nova Scotia. It's coal that is open-pit mined in Colombia and shipped to Nova Scotia to those coal-powered generating plants.

Our premier, Tim Houston, has been very vocal about, what I'd call, his incredulity as to why this determination was made. In fact, DFO never even told the public or the company why they refused to allow this project to go forward and just used its excessive power under the Fisheries and Oceans Act. The CEO of this company said that the department wouldn't show Sustainable Marine the evidence behind the claims that they were going to harm fish in some way.

However, they did approve every other project that went to the ocean floor, which apparently didn't harm fish. I can tell you, as a former fisheries critic for my party and as somebody who has 7,000 commercial fishermen in my riding, there's a lot of important seafood on the ocean floor—lobsters, crab and all of those things, so it's not just fish that swim—or, as we call them, pelagic fish, but it's crustaceans that move on the floor.

Therefore, if turbines were to harm the fishery, they would have harmed the fishery in the Bay of Fundy, which is quite lucrative in terms of lobster. For some reason, though, the arbitrariness of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans kicked in. The company has given enormous amounts of information on this.

Premier Tim Houston, at the time of the announcement in the spring, said, “Shame on the federal government.” He posted it in a video. It was important that he speak publicly on it. This is a quote from the premier:

“You likely know from the media that the federal government is excited about reaching into your pocket and taking your money in the name of a carbon tax,” he continues, “...yet when faced with real opportunities, to make meaningful positive change...like the one Sustainable Marine is creating, it's shut down.”

Now, I don't know what the ultimate objective of the government is in shutting down an important power project like this. I don't know how the federal government wants Nova Scotia to get off of coal if we can't build a natural gas pipeline. In Bill C-69 they made sure we could not get one to come to Nova Scotia with good ethical Albertan natural gas to replace coal, which would reduce our carbon emissions in Nova Scotia by half. If we can't harness the power of the tides in Nova Scotia, one of the greatest untapped energy sources in the world....

Also, it's really quite ironic, given that the government has introduced Bill C-49, which started second reading this week in the House, and which gives a new mandate to the Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board as well as the Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board and sets in C-69-type processes for the development of offshore oil and gas in Atlantic Canada. That means none will happen, because that's the intent of Bill C-69.

Also, it imposes that same rigorous, lengthy, excessive and bureaucratic process on wind energy in the ocean. Obviously DFO will use its ability, because under Bill C-49 DFO has the ability to say no. If they think somewhere in the future, down the way, 50 years from now, they might put a marine protected area, perhaps maybe sort of in that area that you're thinking of putting wind power in, they're not going to let you do it. They have a veto power to do that. That's the kind of excessive overreach on power that the government is doing.

On top of that, there's the inconsistency of the government in putting its message forward saying it believes we should have clean renewable energy, yet when we have the opportunity to do it, it either uses the power of DFO to kill the project or it uses the power of imposing C-69-type bureaucratic processes on the future approval of wind and tidal power projects in Atlantic Canada.

What are we supposed to do but continue to import coal if this government says one thing and does another? It says it wants us on renewable resources, but it puts barriers in the way of actually producing and creating those renewable resources—clean zero-emission energy projects that are right here on the coast of my province, Nova Scotia.

It's incredibly disappointing, and I would ask that this committee seriously consider this motion and the trail of contradictory decisions by this government of saying one thing and doing another when it comes to Atlantic Canada and renewable resources.

I know some of my colleagues have a few things they would like to add as well, because my colleagues—on this side anyway—have shown a great deal of interest in all of the issues around Nova Scotia, certainly the ones I'm passionate about, including all of the issues around the ocean and the issues around the fishery.

It's mind-boggling that DFO would stop such a renewable resource project.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

I'll move my questions now to Mr. Gaudreault.

You indicated that you have a phosphate resource that you would like to develop. Recently, this government gave close to $20 billion to two automakers to invest in production plants here in Canada. One of the targets they're pursuing is the production of batteries for the electric vehicle market. You need critical minerals to do that, and you have access to a phosphate resource. In addition to that, you have something that Mr. Saik needs, which is fertilizer for his crops.

Can you tell me how Bill C-69 has impacted your ability to open that resource, to exploit it and to actually contribute to meeting some of the climate aspirations these governments have?

Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Atlantic Accord Implementation Act

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Speaker, as always, it is an honour to be able to enter into debate in this place about the important issues facing Canadians, and to be back after a summer break. I am sure I am not alone, but I would like to take a moment to specifically talk about the fact I had the opportunity to travel across Battle River—Crowfoot and the more than 60 municipalities I have the honour of representing; over 53,000 square kilometres of beautiful east country Alberta real estate.

Although I make it home every weekend, it is always good to spend a little more focused time chatting with those good common-sense thinking Canadians who make up those communities across east central Alberta. I can tell the House that what I heard from so many of them emphasizes exactly what I am going to talk about regarding this bill. It comes back to the basic foundation of trust.

One needs to be able to trust, whether it is a bill like we see before us in Bill C-49, whether it is the words of a Prime Minister or whether it is the actions of a cabinet behind closed doors and the cabinet confidences associated with that and the whole range of other elements that make up our institutions within this country. From the thousands of kilometres I drove across east central Alberta, communities where there is no such thing as public transit, from small hamlets to the small city of Camrose, I know these folks are ready for somebody they can trust. Definitively, I can say they do not trust these Liberals. They do not trust their agenda. They do not trust what they say. The unfortunate reality is that history proves that point.

I bring it back now specifically to Bill C-49. We are talking about, in broad strokes, a bill that brings forward a whole host of changes that have the intent, and I use the word “intent” specifically, to provide that framework to allow for renewable development in two of Canada's Atlantic provinces.

I heard the previous speaker, who I do not think actually spent much time listening to some of the concerns Conservatives brought forward over the course of this debate. It is a laudable goal. What is unfortunate is the Liberals, the NDP and I think the Bloc as well are so blinded by the politics of these energy issues that they refuse to acknowledge the reality that exists. I am proud to represent a constituency that is, and I am not sure it is the most but certainly one of the most, bullish on renewable development. There are wind farms being built.

I also am proud to be involved in my family farm. I could go on a lot about some of the complaints I heard from farmers, but I will save that for another day. What is interesting is about the vehicles driving by. In fact, we had to time some of the moving from one field to another and moving large equipment on the roads because of the shift change that was being dealt with at some of these renewable developments.

People in Alberta get energy. We get oil and gas and we get renewables. We get the whole spectrum of it, but the unfortunate reality is the government does not.

I brought forward the issue of trust. I heard about it constantly over the course of the summer. The reason that is so key when it comes to the debate surrounding Bill C-49 is because the government is saying it wants to accomplish all of these things. It is saying it wants to model these regulations and have these objectives, but by the way, it is allowed to interfere in the process, so to just trust it. It is going to model it after the Impact Assessment Act, Bill C-69, so it is saying to just trust it on that.

They have dealt with the consultation of the provinces, and I heard many times from members of the Liberal Party that we should support this because there is provincial support. I acknowledge this fully. I am glad there was that consultation that took place and I am glad they were able to come to some sort of consensus.

However, what I find absolutely tragic is that we cannot trust what the Liberals say because, time and time again, when it fits their political narrative, they will throw their provincial partners under the bus. Bill C-69 is referenced in the context of this bill. All 10 provinces in this country wanted that repealed, so how dare the government stand up and righteously say that provinces support the bill? There are not many issues that all 10 provinces of this country will agree upon unanimously, but the Prime Minister accomplished it with the opposition to one of the most absurd pieces of legislation to cross the floor of this place. Forgive me if I come back to the basic premise that we simply cannot trust the Liberals.

When it comes to many of the details of this bill, we look at how it could add red tape. Liberals say that it is okay because they will create a framework and it will be dealt with in regulations. The unfortunate reality is that, when those words are uttered by Liberals, it effectively means that they will accomplish nothing.

I will sum up the energy situation in our country after eight years of a Prime Minister who is absolutely clueless on energy. If I could sum up the conversation of those eight years, I would sum it up in two words: missed opportunity. Why is that? We have seen the untold cost of these additional delays, the red tape, the impacts of Bill C-69, the carbon tax and the fact that the Liberals seem to care more about piling things on their desks than actually dealing with these problems. Hundreds of billions of dollars of investment are gone. That is a missed opportunity, and I will say why it is so significant and why I highlight it here.

We talk often about the fiscal situation of the country, the debt and the deficit. I know provinces talk a lot about investing in schools and hospitals. Municipalities will talk about paving roads and water infrastructure, the whole deal. However, when it comes down to it, the missed opportunity here is the hundreds of billions of dollars that did not get invested in our economy. That means fewer schools, fewer hospitals, fewer paved roads. That means fewer resources to invest in the benefits that the Liberals talk so much about. It is a missed opportunity.

There are the situations around wind, solar, battery production, minerals and resources. These are all very real issues. Once again, I would sum up the last eight years as a missed opportunity. The American president came to this very House and said he wanted to partner, but why would any company invest in a country that it cannot trust would ever be able to build a mine? Once again, I ask the question about trust. There is a whole host of questions on whether the Liberals can be trusted, and their history shows otherwise.

When it comes to the development of renewables, a tidal project got cancelled because the government cannot be trusted when it comes to dealing with the economy. Specifically, that project was cancelled because of cost overruns. Again, we come down to a very fundamental premise: Can we trust that Bill C-49 would build renewable energy projects in Atlantic Canada? The Liberals' history makes that very question one that we cannot answer. The Liberals stand and say a lot of things about that, but the reality speaks otherwise. We need to make sure that we are pragmatic in the way we approach energy issues. There is one way that I think we should be able and willing to do that.

I often hear from my NDP colleagues, and there are only two here from Alberta. They seem quite quick to diminish our oil and gas sector. Sometimes when I listen to them speak in this place, I wonder if they have forgotten that they ran for federal office and not provincial office. I certainly hear quite often from my constituents after they have listened to either question period or some of the debates, and they ask that very question.

We need to be pragmatic and realistic about energy. We need to ensure that, when we are talking about solutions, we understand the impacts that exist. I know there has been a whole host of conversations about renewable projects in Alberta. I did talk about how there are those investments being made, and I know there are other investments.

I had the opportunity for a couple of years, and it was truly an honour and a privilege, to work with former Saskatchewan premier Brad Wall. He was proud to be leading at a time when Alberta had fallen into a deep socialist chasm where it had a government that was so clueless that it tried to tell farmers that, if they set foot outside their front door, they might be subject to the rules and regulations put forward by a bureaucrat in the province's capital. Can members believe that? It was a dark time for the province of Alberta and one that I am very thankful the people of Alberta resoundingly rejected only a number of months ago.

However, when it comes to the energy reality we have to face, costs are up. On that subject I hear two things, and quite often they are disconnected. We hear Liberals talk about wanting to address things such as the cost of living crisis, but they also want to increase costs.

Let us look at the former of those two. The Liberals want to address the cost of living crisis, often in the form of government payments. There was support, and I believe it was unanimous support, to increase the GST rebate, which the Liberals renamed the “grocery rebate”. I am not sure the Prime Minister should be bragging that his economic management has led us to so many Canadians not being able to afford groceries without the help of the government. That is a whole other conversation, though.

The cost of living crisis is real. I was replying to some constituents' emails today, and seniors are talking about how they cannot afford energy. They just got a power bill, and they are scared about their upcoming gas bill, not to mention the fact that winter is coming. That is part of it, but let us look at why. Let us have a realistic, pragmatic look at why that is the case.

Part of the reality is a carbon tax. The Liberals do not like it when we bring this up to bridge the connection I am about to make because the reality is that they want costs to go up. The carbon tax, by its very design, is made to increase costs, yet we have the government talking about how one has to address affordability. Can members believe that? The Liberals are intentionally making costs rise, yet they talk a whole host about affordability. That is part one.

Now here is the latter of the two points I made, and it is related to the environment. Let us be real here. The carbon tax and the Liberals' environmental plan are not accomplishing the objectives that they set out to, nor are they truly even an environmental plan. The Liberals talk often about needing to address climate challenges, yet they have failed to do so every step of the way. It is terribly ironic how they laud an increase in costs, yet they are not accomplishing anything. They are subjecting Canadians to so much pain, yet there is no gain. I said that we needed to be real here, and it is that lived reality that so many Canadians are facing.

When it comes to the realistic nature, we need to be a country that can say yes to development. Processes and structures have to be in place to ensure we respect the environment and to ensure human rights. Alberta specifically, but our nation generally, is a leader in this. I applaud my provincial counterparts in Newfoundland.

I spent close to a decade batching wells and throwing pigs. That may be a strange reference to many in the House, but basically that is doing environmental work in the oil patch. If members have questions about that, I would be happy to talk to them about what batching wells and throwing pigs is all about.

The lived reality of what Alberta is, and the unprecedented prosperity in the western world, quite frankly, that we have seen, is an example for so many. I applaud Newfoundland and Labrador. They are visionaries in being able to continue to use their resources, to look at the opportunities that exist and be a leader.

I believe the press conference was in Newfoundland. I may stand corrected on that. When the German chancellor came to Canada with a metaphorical cheque in hand, saying they want our LNG, what did our illustrious Prime Minister say? He said, “Sorry, there is no market for it.” What he forgot to add is that was because he had closed down the market. It is that reality that exists.

I have had conversations with constituents. One constituent called me a number of weeks ago. I want to bring this up because I think it is an interesting idea. Often what happens is that the thinking that takes place in Ottawa, our nation's capital, and sometimes even in corporate headquarters and whatnot, is a little blinded to the reality that exists. Let me throw a couple of things out there.

For those who have seen wind development, they are impressive machines. They are absolutely massive. For those who have seen them moved on trains and trucks, I would note the resources that are required to move them. They are massive machines. I had a constituent bring up an interesting point the other day. They asked, “Why not put solar panels on a windmill?” Why not? Maybe there is something that could be practical about that.

I had another constituent who was frustrated because a solar project was being built without adequate consultation. I am paraphrasing, but he basically shared how frustrated he was that 160 acres, a quarter section, was going to be gravelled over and have solar panels built on it. A quarter section of land was going to be gravelled over, productive ranch land. This constituent brought up to me something that was really interesting. He asked, “Why do they not build the panels an extra three feet tall, and then at least goats or sheep could be run on the land?”

The reason I wanted to bring those things up is that, so often, in what is being discussed in this place, we lose sight of what matters to Canadians. We lose sight of regular folks going about their business, the individuals who are hard at work. They are those who are working in the oil patch, those who are building the wind turbines, those who are driving the trucks and those farmers who are currently, in many places, in the field, including my father. I will say hello to my dad, and I think my wife was in the grain cart today, so I will say hello, sweetheart.

So often, we forget the reason why all of us are here is not for some ideological objective. It is not for some nuanced, political whatever. We are here because of the people. Let us make sure we work for the people. When I spoke to many people across my constituency this summer, they said that they could not trust the Liberals. I stand here today in this place and say history proves that right.

Therefore, we need to work at bringing back trust to our institutions. When it comes to making sure there is energy development in this country, let us get it right, because whether it is traditional energy or new energy, Canadians deserve better than what they have been getting from the Liberals.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Madam Speaker, the member says that he was listening to the debate all day, but it seems like he has not heard what the Conservatives have said.

On the point about the carbon tax, I think the reason the member was raising it is because the Atlantic premiers said they did not want the carbon tax. They have also asked for a suspension of the clean fuel regulations. They also, by the end of Bill C-69 leaving the Senate, opposed Bill C-69. The government ignored all of them. I think that is why this is being brought up.

Since the member wants to know what issues the Conservatives are raising in the actual bill, if he were to read it, I will tell him. It is because this bill would not only allow for the potential arbitrary decision-making to end both existing and future offshore petroleum drilling, but that would also impact renewable energy offshore development according to this bill.

This bill is an attack to end offshore petroleum drilling, as is the government's track record, and it will also hold up the development of renewables too. This bill actually triples the timeline for final ministerial decisions on renewable offshore energy development. In section 28 and 137, it gives the ability for cabinet to arbitrarily prohibit development in areas. It imports—

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Madam Speaker, I apologize.

Sustainable Marine Energy started developing an alternative energy project in the Bay of Fundy. After 10 years of hard work, it was providing clean, green energy, which is what we all want, to Nova Scotians. For all their trail-blazing efforts, Sustainable Marine Energy was awarded a tide of red tape from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.

The repeated delays and a bombshell permit rejection, which the Liberal government refused to justify, were the straw that broke the camel's back. After five years of insurmountable regulatory challenges, the pilot project in Digby county was cancelled.

Let us think about the common elements here. Even though the project was the kind of renewable energy that the Liberal government is saying it wants to have, the company had to jump through hoops for 10 years. Finally, the government was able to pull the permit. The federal government can pull the permit without any justification. This is just a precedent of what is to come with the other projects currently existing in the petroleum sector on the coast. I am very concerned about that.

The other thing I would say is that Bill C-49 contains language to put Bill C-69 in it. It directly references the Impact Assessment Act, which, as I said, is a process that makes project approvals longer and their consultations more complicated. At the same time, someone could start and stop the process as many times as they wanted. There is lots of uncertainty. I am very unhappy about that one.

If we look at the access to offshore infrastructure, this bill says that the cabinet, the governor in council, would regulate access to that infrastructure, including enforcing tolls and tariffs. Here we go again. It is another opportunity for the Liberal government to toll, tariff and tax something that is already in place.

Who is going to pay the extra cost of those tolls, tariffs and taxes? The consumer of the energy that has been created will ultimately pay those costs. Have we not learned anything? We have seen the carbon tax get put in place. It drives up the cost of gasoline. It drives up the cost of home heating.

People in the Atlantic provinces are already struggling. All the premiers have asked for the removal of the carbon tax, and even the Liberal MPs from that area are asking for the removal of the carbon tax because it is increasing the cost of everything. It is increasing the cost of food.

They are not just taxing the farmers and putting tariffs on the fertilizer, which is another tariff and another cost that is being passed along, but they are also taxing the transporting of the goods to the processor. There is a carbon tax on the processor. They are shipping it to the grocery store with a carbon tax on that.

At the end of the day, the consumer is paying. When I see clauses such as this saying that the government can enforce tolls and tariffs on the infrastructure, I am concerned for the ultimate consumer because these costs are significant.

If we think about the carbon tax, we know from the Parliamentary Budget Officer that the carbon tax is costing, depending on what province one lives in, from $1,500 to $2,500. Then there is the second carbon tax that was put in place, and the cost of that is another $1,800. That one is in every province, even in Quebec, although they are trying to deny that it is.

We talk about extra tariffs on top of that, and Canadians are out of money. The government is out of touch when it comes to understanding that there is no more money that people can pay. They were within $200 of not being able to pay their bills before the pandemic. Now, with the increase of all these taxes, people are borrowing money to live, and some of them have lost their houses and become homeless. People are skipping meals. They cannot afford to eat. Honestly, I am very concerned when I see this kind of language in the bill.

There is also a financial stipulation in the bill. It came with a royal recommendation, which says there is some level of federal funding that is required. An obvious question may be how much the funding is. There is no answer to that. It was not in the budget. It was not in any of the forecasts.

Where is this magic money going to come from? Are we going to run additional deficits? That is inflationary spending. We keep telling the government about this. In fact, the finance minister herself said that it would be pouring fuel on the inflationary fire to have this extra spending, but then we see things such as this, where there is extra spending. It is not even defined how much it would be. That is not going to be an acceptable alternative, as far as I can tell.

I will be clear that Conservatives support the development of renewable resources, but we support those developments without political interference. We do not want the government of the day picking winners and losers and deciding what to shut down based on its ideology. That is not where we want to be. We want to see the free market drive this. There is an opportunity to create jobs, create prosperous industry and do the right thing for the environment. That is what Conservatives want to see.

I do not think this bill is capturing that. I think there is a lot of political interference put into the mechanisms of this bill in ministerial powers, cabinet powers, and tolls and tariffs. There are lots of mechanisms for the government to interfere.

Canadians are struggling, and the government's new draft regulations on clean electricity will push up costs even higher. Reporting from CTV in August indicates, “Electricity infrastructure expenses are expected to increase significantly over the next several decades as maintenance and increased demand is estimated to cost $400 billion”. That is already before we know how much the offshore renewables are going to cost.

I ask members to remember the lesson from Ontario, which was that it drove the price of electricity up so high that we were uncompetitive and people could not pay their power bills. This is not just a lesson from Canada. Germany experienced the same thing. It went heavy on renewables, which drove the cost of everything up. It then went back onto Russian oil and coal. Of course, we refused to take $59 billion to put Germany on low-carbon LNG from Canada, so Australia took that deal. It was the same thing with Japan, which gave us the same offer. Saudi Arabia took that deal.

Gee, I wish we had $120 billion more to put in our health care system so that everyone in this country could have a doctor. That is what I think. All I can say is that those are some of the concerns I have. There are many things in the bill that I do not object to. There are some administrative things that are taken care of. Those are fine.

Do I think we can fix all of this at committee? Call me skeptical, but my experience under this NDP-Liberal coalition is that its members will ram through an agenda to shut down oil and gas, and it does not matter what reasoned amendments the Conservative Party will bring at committee, as they will be refused. They will ramrod it through. They will time allocate it to make sure this thing is rushed through. They will be skimpy on the details and say, “Trust us. We'll get it in the regulations.” I have been here long enough to know that that is not good for Canadians.

Our job here as the official opposition is to point out what is wrong with these bills. It would be so nice if we could be consulted before the thing was written, when it could still be altered, but here we are with something that honestly has way too much political power in it. I do not think it is going to be good for the Atlantic provinces. They do not think it is going to be good for them. They are already crying out against the policies of the government with respect to the carbon tax.

Those are my initial thoughts. I may have more thoughts as we go forward, but I would be happy to take questions.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to be here, back in the House. Today I will be speaking about Bill C-49, which is the act to amend the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Atlantic Accord Implementation Act and the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Resources Accord Implementation Act and to make consequential amendments to other acts.

I have listened to the debate today, and a lot of times, members opposite have said they want to know what it is that the Conservatives do not like about the bill. Therefore, I am going to tell them what I do not like about the bill, and I am one of the Conservatives over here.

Let us start off with the name change to remove the word “petroleum” and change it over to “energy”. I am not opposed to “energy” at all, but words are important, and we have had an entire history of a war against oil and gas in this country from the NDP-Liberal government. Continually it has shut down projects. There were 18 LNG projects on the books when it came to office, and it shut them all down. It has shut down pipelines and shut down various expansions, so I think the removal of the word “petroleum” tells us where it thinks it wants to take this direction in the future.

We just heard the minister from Newfoundland talk about the importance of petroleum drilling projects there, so I am very concerned about the bill and the change to get away from petroleum, because Canada could be self-sufficient. We import $15 billion a year of dirty dictator oil, and the government seems fine to continue that. That is the wrong direction. We should be taking our environmentally sustainable oil and gas and making sure we are self-sufficient here in Canada. The whole eastern part of the country could use that.

That is the first problem I have with the bill.

The second thing about the bill is that it would award new powers to the regulators. Today we have people who are regulators in the petroleum drilling industry. Now, with a wave of the magic wand, they would be regulators of offshore renewable energy. This is another example of the Liberals expanding regulators' scope when they are not experts in that area. They did the exact same thing with the CRTC when we were talking about Bill C-11 and Bill C-18, and the CRTC has said clearly that it had no experience overseeing digital media, but the government made it the regulator of it. This is an opportunity for disaster.

I am not opposed to renewables. When I was a chemical engineer, I worked in renewables. I worked on solar projects, wind projects and even offshore Lake Erie wind projects, so I am a fan of transitioning and coming to better renewable energy, but let us learn the lessons from Ontario. All of those solar and wind projects were done in a hugely subsidized way that drove the cost of energy in the province of Ontario from eight cents a kilowatt hour to 23¢ a kilowatt hour and made us totally uncompetitive.

I am thus very interested in the details of this offshore renewable energy and what kind of subsidization the government is going to do, because if it does the same it did to batteries and puts $31 billion of taxpayer money into trying to attract people to build a facility, then the taxpayer is on the hook, and this is not an economically sustainable thing. It is another concern that I do not see that detail here in the bill.

The most concerning element of the bill is the addition of a new layer of decision-making and the granting of ultimate authority to federal and provincial ministers. It would increase the timeline for a final decision to 60 to 90 days from 30, with the possibility of an indefinite extension as the call for bids is issued.

I have an issue with letting federal ministers have the power to, first of all, issue land licences in a province. The province's jurisdiction has to be respected, and we have seen numerous occasions where the government wants to overreach into provincial jurisdiction, with the carbon tax, for example, and with many of the other health initiatives the government has had where it has wanted to reach into provincial jurisdiction. Clearly the provinces have pushed back, as they should. We need to make sure that, if ministers are being given these powers, there is some kind of limitation on those powers, because we know that we have already heard concerns about the bill with respect to indigenous consultations being given to the regulators.

The regulators would have the responsibility to consult with indigenous peoples. That is an abdication of the responsibility of the federal government. I am not sure that the regulators actually have the resources to do adequate consultations, which could result in court cases and challenges that would further delay and cause uncertainty in projects as they move forward. That is a concern to me, absolutely.

The other thing that gives me great concern is that the bill would give the federal cabinet the authorization to end any operational petroleum drilling on a whim. We have just gotten through saying that the government is against oil and gas. It is trying to shut down fossil fuels. Now we would be giving cabinet the power, federally, to arbitrarily, on a whim, shut down petroleum projects that we have heard from the minister from Newfoundland are extremely important to the province. This would be without the province's permission and without adequate consultation necessarily.

This is an obviously bad idea. We can see where this is going. The first initiative of the government would be to shut down as much oil and gas as it can. That is what it has done in Alberta. I am from Sarnia—Lambton, which accounts for 30% of the petrochemicals. Believe me, when the minister came to Sarnia to hear the concerns of the people about getting a transition, we were not even mentioned in the plan in the go-forward. That tells us exactly how much the Liberals care about the oil and gas workers at risk in this whole equation.

The bill would also create a new licensing system for offshore drilling. There is language in the bill that says the government would impose a 25-year cap on licences. Any licences would be limited. After 2050, everything would be off. Why would we do that to ourselves as a country? We do not know what is going to happen in the next 25 years. We do not know whether or not there will be wars or a need for those resources. Why would we arbitrarily limit our licences and cut them all off at 2050, especially considering the expression of indigenous people to have economic growth and get involved in projects? If they have a licence, is their licence going to be pulled as well after 2050, arbitrarily?

We do not need to restrict ourselves in this way. It is concerning to me that this would be in the bill, because there is no need to do that. If it is decided in 2050 that the situation warrants fewer licences, that is the government of the day's decision. Again, it is very troubling to see what is in here.

Today, petroleum activities are subject to a fundamental decision by the existing review boards in Nova Scotia and in Newfoundland and Labrador. A decision on approving or rejecting a project allows 30 days for provincial or federal ministers to respond, or the regulator's decision is accepted. However, for offshore renewable energy projects, under this new process, the regulator would give recommendations to the federal and provincial ministers. Ministers would have 60 days to respond, with a 30-day extension allowed if given in writing, and with, again, the possibility of an indefinite extension if they decide a call for bids is issued.

This is exactly, once over again, Bill C-69, in which the government took the approval process for projects and made it longer, and made it possible, at a minister's whim, to restart the process as many times as necessary to frustrate the private investors and drive them out of the country. This is what has happened with multiple projects: the LNG and the pipeline projects I have mentioned. More than $80 billion of foreign investment has been driven out of the country. The uncertainty of having to spend billions of dollars and wait six years to get a project approved keeps anybody from wanting to do a project in Canada unless the taxpayer is willing to give them $31 billion to do it.

This is not moving in the right direction. We need to be nimble when it comes to our decision, responsible but nimble. Again, I do not agree with the red tape regime that would hinder both traditional and alternative energy development in the bill. The broad, unilateral, discretionary cabinet power for arbitrary decision-making increases timelines and adds uncertainty around onerous requirements that are already driving away investment.

I want to read a quote from Saskatchewan premier Scott Moe, who talked about the lack of consultation with provinces. He said, “They’re un-consulted, notional targets that are put forward by the federal government without working with industries, provinces or anyone that’s generating electricity”. The provinces are concerned that they are going to see infringements from the government and I think, based on what has happened before, that they are right to think that.

There was a project that was a renewables project. It was in New Brunswick. It was the first North America tidal power project deal, and the Trudeau Liberals killed it. Sustainable Marine Energy started developing an alternative—

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

Mr. Speaker, it is hard to take this member seriously. In one breath he says that we should not engage in petty politics; in another, he says that people who disagree with him are flat-earthers.

Listening to this member speak, it is also clear that he is more interested in holding Danielle Smith accountable than in holding the Prime Minister of Canada accountable in this chamber. That is because New Democrats have negotiated a deal with the Liberals whereby they vote for every single significant proposal the Liberals put forward but still want to be able to criticize them for electoral reasons. However, they are here every time, voting with and supporting the agenda of the government.

I can say that these policies are not popular in the member's home riding, which is why our leader has been so warmly received in his riding. Maybe the member is preparing for a political future where he will run for the legislature in Alberta. I would certainly welcome him to come to my constituency and do that. However, he is also very clearly misstating the Conservative position. Our position is that the red tape the Liberals are constantly piling on industry is as much a problem for green energy as it is for traditional sources of energy. Moreover, the Liberals are not helping any aspect of our economy with such measures as Bill C-69, which make it harder for any industry to create projects and jobs. The real problem is gatekeeping across the board, including the way it negatively impacts the green energy sector.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Madam Speaker, I do recall finding interesting points of agreement on Bill C-69 around the arbitrary, unilateral and unclear impacts of that bill, but as she noted, we had wildly diverging world views and aspirations for the energy sector in Canada.

Since we are debating this federally, let me just emphasize what Conservatives believe. We believe in lower taxes and less red tape, and the elimination of duplicative and onerous regulations so businesses can thrive. Conservatives want Canada to be the supplier of choice for our responsible oil and gas development, for our own energy affordability and security and for our allies.

As prime minister, our Conservative leader would green light green technologies so brilliant engineers can advance more affordable electricity. We would reduce approval timelines for all energy projects, and remove unnecessary, duplicative red tape and punishing taxes so that entrepreneurs and companies can invest in Canada and so that major energy and infrastructure projects can actually get built in this country. This is unlike the NDP-Liberals, who gatekeep, roadblock and make traditional energy more expensive while delaying and driving out new energy opportunities.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague from Lakeland is probably the only one in the House who will not be surprised by what I am going to say, which is that Bill C-69 was not in the interests of environmental assessments in Canada. It was so poorly designed. It was all discretionary. There were no timelines.

The only thing that made environmentalists think it was a good bill was that Jason Kenney called it the anti-pipeline act. It could just as easily have been called the pro-pipeline act because it is discretionary and lacks the basics that have been in our environmental assessment law since the mid-1970s through to the early 1990s, when former prime minister Brian Mulroney brought forward a very good environmental assessment act.

My hon. colleague from Lakeland knows that we will disagree on the notion that we want to expand oil and gas demand across the world and that there is any such thing as responsible oil and gas. There are only fossil fuels, and burning them destroys our future.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Madam Speaker, I sure did enjoy our time together on the natural resources committee in my first term.

I spent a lot of time talking about Bill C-49. Aspects of this Bill C-49 are imported from bills such as Bill C-69 and Bill C-55. I talked about them to give context for policymakers, elected representatives in this debate and all Canadians.

I suspect the provinces of Nova Scotia and of Newfoundland and Labrador are supportive of the intent of this bill because they also want to have effective, efficient regulatory frameworks for both petroleum and alternative energy offshore development. A crucial thing that we support in this bill is that this does include the requirements of provincial ministers to be consulted in the case of any of the decision-making around development areas, regulations and the framework for development offshore.

Obviously, those provincial governments should be partners. I suspect that is why they support it. Of course, that does stand in contrast to the provincial governments the Liberals attack on energy when they disagree with them.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is great to be back in the House of Commons on behalf of the people of Lakeland, and Canadians everywhere, who want life to be more affordable, and also want energy and food security, which is the most important economic and geopolitical question facing the free world.

Unfortunately, Bill C-49 is another step in a long line of Liberal laws and policies since 2015 that appears destined to drive investment out of Canada with more uncertainty, red tape and extended and costly timelines.

Hopefully, this time the Liberals will actually listen to cautions and analysis during debate and committee consideration to prevent the rather ridiculous current spectacle they are now caught in, claiming to want to reduce permitting and regulatory timelines even though they have been in government for eight years, and are actually talking about the extra red tape, confusion and potentially endless timelines they themselves imposed through Bill C-69, which Conservatives and then municipalities, indigenous leaders, private sector proponents, and all provinces and territories did warn about at the time. As always, the Liberals figured they knew best, and they sure did create a heck of a broken mess.

Ostensibly, the bill would amend the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board and the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board to become the regulators and add offshore renewables to their mandates, while creating a regulatory regime for offshore, wind and other renewable energy projects that currently exist for offshore petroleum operations.

It is a reasonable and necessary initiative, and Conservatives are glad to see the inclusion of the provincial governments as required partners in final decisions on this joint jurisdiction. I might note that is a principle the Liberals often abandon when it comes to other provincial governments with which they disagree. However, it is both unfortunately and unsurprisingly clear that Bill C-49 would also subject offshore renewable energy to the same web of uncertain regulations, long and costly timelines and political decision-making that has driven hundreds of billions of dollars in private sector energy investment, hundreds of businesses and hundreds of thousands of energy jobs out of Canada and into other jurisdictions around the world.

Bill C-49 also includes provisions that could impose a full shutdown and ban on offshore oil and gas development at any time. That is a direct attack on one of Newfoundland's key industries, risks undermining the rights of indigenous communities and local communities to meaningful consultation, and ignores the work and aspirations of other locally impacted communities and residents.

The Liberals have already threatened offshore activity in Newfoundland and Labrador with a minister saying that the decision on Baie du Nord was the most difficult one they had ever made. Baie du Nord would have provided more than 13,000 jobs overall; $97.6 billion in national GDP; $82 billion in provincial GDP, more than 8,900 jobs, $11 billion in taxes and $12.8 billion in royalty revenues for Newfoundland and Labrador; $7.2 billion in GDP and more than 2,200 jobs for Ontario; $2.6 billion and more than 900 jobs for Quebec; $3.1 billion in GDP and almost 700 jobs for Albertan. Like the usual pattern under the government, the private sector proponent has put that project on hold for three years because of uncertainty.

As written, the bill has many gaps. The Liberals must clarify, sooner than later, a number of practical implications.

For example, will the offshore boards need more resources for technical expertise or personnel, or more funding to fulfill the additional responsibilities? If so, who will pay for it? What is a realistic expectation of when the regulators would be fully ready for the work outside of their current scope? What about the responsibility for health and safety regulations for renewable energy projects at sea, which are currently the job of the respective offshore boards on offshore rigs and under the department of labour on land? These obligations should be clearly defined jurisdictionally in the bill.

What about environmental considerations relating to offshore renewable projects? The boards, the truth is, currently have no experience in activities around wind, tidal and other sea-based energies that may disrupt ecosystems and seaweed growth; harm sea birds, whales, fish stock, lobster stock; or interfere with organisms that live on the sea bed, like anemones, corals, crabs, sea urchins and sponges. What provisions are needed for the regulators to adequately assess risks to key habitat and vulnerable species?

I cannot imagine, nor would I ever suggest, that the NDP-Liberals will add upstream emission requirements as a condition for such approvals, like it did, along with downstream emissions, in a double standard deliberately designed to kill the west to east pipeline that could have created energy self-security and self-sufficiency for Canada, by refining and exporting western resources on the Atlantic Canadian coast for export. European allies and Ukrainians definitely would appreciate that. However, it would certainly be a significant hurdle if they did, given what is really involved in the manufacturing of steel and concrete for offshore renewable projects, which create a lot of hazardous waste on the back end, for example. If the Liberals actually cared about the cumulative impacts, like they always say they do, they would clarify all of that in this bill also.

The Liberals must account for these considerations. At this point, after eight years, Canadians should be skeptical if the government says that it will work out the details later or in regulations after the fact. That has alway been a disaster under those guys, no matter the issue.

On top of these unanswered questions, the reality is that the bill would triple the timeline for a final decision on alternative energy projects and would give political decision-makers the ability to extend that timeline potentially indefinitely.

If this all sounds familiar, a lack of details on crucial issues, uncertainty around roles, responsibilities or requirement, and timelines that actually have so many loopholes for interference that no concrete timelines really exist at all, that is because it is. This is what the Liberals did in Bill C-69, which the Conservatives warned would help prevent any major pipeline projects from being approved or even proposed in Canada since it passed in 2019. It has become a gatekeeping roadblock to private sector proponents in all areas of resource development and the pursuit of major projects in Canada.

The reality is that companies will not invest billions in building energy infrastructure in Canada's uncertain fiscal and regulatory framework, where excessive and duplicative red tape means there is no consistency or certainty in the assessment process, no clear rules or a path to completion, and no guaranteed return on investment, which can all be lost at the whim of a government minister's unilateral decision.

As much as the Liberals wish it were true, alternative energy projects are not in a separate magical category from oil and gas, where they are somehow immune from these basic economic and fiscal considerations, except for those publicly funded through subsidies or paid for by utility ratepayers, definitely a significant proportion of renewable and alternative energy to date, especially outside of Alberta, where it is done by the private sector primarily. The fiscal and regulatory framework is a crucial and definitive aspect of what private sector proponents politely call the “lack of a business case” every time a major project is halted or abandoned after years and millions of dollars of working toward it, usually moving their focus and tragically their money, jobs, innovation, initiative, creativity and expertise to other countries. The Liberals have already created these same adverse conditions for wind, solar and tidal as well.

Let us take the Pempa'q tidal energy project in the Bay of Fundy. It would have provided clean, green energy to Nova Scotia's electrical grid and could have generated up to 2,500 megawatts, while bringing in $100 million in investment and significantly reducing emissions. However, after repeated delays, a tide of Liberal red tape and “Five years of insurmountable regulatory challenges” the proponent withdrew, and it folded.

Sustainable Marine was not the only victim of multiple layers of red tape that involved departments. Other renewable projects, like a pulp mill that would have created biodegradable plastics from their waste stream, left Canada because the Liberals told the proponents that the approval phase under their gatekeepers would take 20 years.

The bottom line is that energy companies, like any company, need certainty to invest, whether in the oil sands, natural gas, critical minerals, pipelines, hydrogen, petrochemicals, wind or solar farms or hydroelectricity. Proponents need concrete timelines, consistent, well-defined and predictable regulatory measures. They need to be confident that a government will respect jurisdictional responsibilities, be willing to enforce the rule of law and take action if necessary for projects after approval so proponents can know that if they follow the rules, meet the conditions and act in good faith, they will be successful.

Companies and the regulators also need to account for possible risks posed to local activities, most notably the impacts of offshore wind development and other technologies on the livelihoods of Atlantic fishers and lobstermen.

In this case, all impacted parties need to be involved in the consultation process from the get-go. Unfortunately, the Liberal's Bill C-49 creates the opposite for both alternative energy sources and offshore oil and gas. When it comes to crafting anti-energy legislation, the Liberals, with their NDP power broking coalition, just cannot seem to help themselves. Sections 28 and 137 of this bill give the government the power, as I mentioned before, to completely end any current offshore drilling for oil and gas, as well as any offshore alternative energy development. Obviously, that is an immediate threat to the sector because of the uncertainty, even for existing operations, and it risks any future projects in these provinces by designating prohibited development areas.

Notably, the bill states that any activity may be suspended in those areas. That obviously includes offshore petroleum drilling and exploration, but the language could also include offshore wind and other alternative energy development. One thing that is predictable is this pattern because it is similar to a previous Liberal bill, Bill C-55, which allowed a government minister to unilaterally designate any marine area in Canada as a prohibited development zone.

The Liberals must answer whether their increasing targets and the language in Bill C-49 would cancel and/or prohibit both traditional and renewable energy projects if located in those areas. What are the restrictions? How could developers make investment decisions if the areas where they operate may suddenly be declared prohibited?

The Liberals are so comfortable with their nearly decade-long pattern of piling on layers of anti-energy, anti-development and anti-private sector laws, policies and taxes on Canada's key sectors that they hinder both traditional sources of energy, which they recklessly want to phase out prematurely, and stand in the way of the renewable and new technologies they purport to want.

This discussion cannot be removed from the context of Canada still operating, or rather more accurately not operating, under the rules and red tape the NDP-Liberal government imported into this bill.

Bill C-69 completely erased the concept of having any timelines for approving energy infrastructure, and instead allowed for limitless and indefinite extensions of regulatory timelines, as we warned. Unfortunately, this just creates a swath of potential maybes on project applications because of the potential for suspensions and delays, and the uncertainty about measures for applications and outcomes.

With Bill C-69, as many Canadians said at the time, the Liberals might as well have hung a sign in the window that said, “Canada is closed for business”. What is clear, and should be stunningly and frankly, through this total travesty, clear to all Canadians by now, is that clear timelines and requirements, as well as predictable rules and responsibilities, provide certainty for private sector proponents, which benefits the whole country.

After eight years of the NDP-Liberal government, Canada ranks 31st among peers in the burden of regulations, as of 2018, and is less than half as competitive as the OECD average in administrative burdens on energy project start-ups. Canada is second-last in the OECD for construction permits, only ahead of Slovakia, and 64th in the world for building permits.

The Liberals touted creating certainty and predictability for energy companies with clear rules and regulations to follow, but the actual bill created a massive new web of poorly defined criteria for companies and gave cabinet ministers the power to add any criteria to the list that they wanted at any time. There is no predictability or consistency. Bill C-49 is an extension of that pattern.

Another concerning part is the provisions that specify the regulators in Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia as the parties responsible for indigenous consultation for offshore oil and gas and affordable energy projects. I must say that Conservatives believe in greater authority and autonomy for provinces to govern their own affairs. We want less Ottawa. Conservatives believe in smaller governments and a shift of power to individuals and local communities. The many indigenous communities where I am from, and those from across the country, who are reliant on and depend upon traditional and alternative energy development, all say the same thing.

However, I want to caution the NDP-Liberals that this section may invite court challenges if it is not clarified, which would create even more costly delays in an already drawn-out and unpredictable process. Through years of extensive legal challenges, precedent and judicial decisions on major energy infrastructure, courts have emphasized that it is the Crown's duty to consult indigenous people and that a failure on the part of the government to ensure a two-way dialogue, and that actual decision-makers are at the table during the consultation process, is what has overturned approval decisions.

That was the case with the Liberals' approval of the Trans Mountain expansion under their own process. Indigenous consultation was overturned and the minister had to spend months meeting with indigenous communities to redo it. Of course, they could have also done that with the northern gateway pipeline before that, and they would have saved everyone time and money later on with TMX. Instead, the Prime Minister vetoed northern gateway, blocking exports from the west coast to countries in Asia that desperately need our energy and killing all of the equity and mutual benefit agreements for the 31 indigenous communities along the pipeline that supported it, but I digress.

As currently drafted, this bill explicitly delegates the regulators as responsible for indigenous consultation. It is silent on the Crown's particular duty to consult, and it also shifts the power of final decision-making to federal and provincial government ministers.

On top of the fact that indigenous leaders often consider a federal minister specifically as the appropriate decision-maker to engage with them, if current or future governments rely too much or exclusively on the regulators for all assessments not captured by the Impact Assessment Act's consultation process, as is suggested in this bill, this section risks court challenges to proposed and approved projects in the long run and jeopardizes future offshore renewable and petroleum projects.

The impact of the uncertainty created by the Liberal government cannot be overstated. It takes Canada out of the global competition for energy development, punishing the best in class, and cedes market shares to dictators and regimes with far lower environmental and human rights standards. It costs Canada billions of dollars in investment and hundreds of thousands of jobs, and it robs Canadians and Canada's free and democratic allies of many irreplaceable opportunities, of energy security and of hope for the future.

I believe the impact on provinces such as Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia deserves special attention. Anyone who has worked in Alberta's oil patch has no doubt worked together with many Newfoundlanders and Nova Scotians. Certainly, that is where my own family came from.

My mother was from Newfoundland. My father was from Nova Scotia. My grandmother was the first female mayor of Dartmouth, and I am a first generation Albertan.

My own constituents have been hit hard by the hostile, divisive NDP-Liberal government. Other than the people of Saskatchewan, our neighbours who are often interchangeable citizens based on the free enterprise policies of our respective provincial governments at any given time, the people most concerned about the damage done to Alberta are consistently Atlantic Canadians.

I wish that more of our neighbours could hear directly from Atlantic Canadians, who are always effusive in their reverence for Alberta and our main industries. Atlantic Canadians share with Albertans a feeling of distance and neglect from Ottawa. They are concerned about the exact same consequences of NDP-Liberal policies, and the skyrocketing costs of living, as well as those of fuel and food prices. They are being forced to choose between heating and eating, and they are concerned about a reliance on energy sources, for which there are few affordable or immediate options. They are worried about how to make ends meet and are wanting to hope for the future.

Thousands of people from Atlantic Canada, every year, come to Alberta to support their families and communities through the array of diverse opportunities offered by Alberta's globally renowned energy and renewable energy sectors. Alberta has steady work and high-paying, quality jobs that contribute revenue to all three levels of government for the public services and programs that Canadians rely on.

That impact was unprecedented. In 2014, for example, nine out of every 10 full-time jobs created in Canada were created in Alberta, and every job in the oil sands creates two indirect and three induced jobs at home and in other regions and provinces.

While public enemy number one for the NDP-Liberal anti-energy and anti-private sector policies during the last eight years has been Alberta, the truth is that the costly coalition's approach hurts the whole country, especially Atlantic Canadians.

While Albertans and Atlantic Canadians are inextricably linked and have helped to build each other's provinces, there is always a human cost to having to move away for work. Generations of parents, grandparents and great-grandparents spent a hundred years working hard to build lives, businesses, farms and futures for their kids. Now their children and their grandchildren are being forced to seek out opportunities elsewhere.

Legacies left behind is the very real generational impact of anti-development and anti-resource policies. Conservatives, in conclusion, want to see the same opportunities. We want to see the same high-paying, quality jobs for people in Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia as there are for those in Alberta and for every Canadian.

Conservatives want families to be able to stay together, parents to be able to see their kids, cousins to know each other and people to be able to build upon legacies secured by generations before them.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Madam Speaker, obviously, Conservatives support expanded development of offshore petroleum resources and the development of innovative, green and new technology development. Conservatives have, for years, highlighted concerns around permitting timelines and gatekeeping roadblocks of uncertain conditions.

Could the minister clarify how many of the details around the scope, mandate and requirements of the additional responsibilities of the new boards and regulators will be clarified before this bill passes the Senate? How much of that will be left to regulations such as what was done in Bill C-69, creating the disaster that Canada now finds itself in?

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Thank you very much.

Thank you, to the officials, for your presentations.

Mr. Des Rosiers, I'm going to start with you for a little bit. You talked about being a dependable supply chain to new energy sources. We know that mining is going to be critical to that. We know that exporting clean energy like LNG is going to be critical to meeting those objectives. How has Bill C‑69 impacted what you say is critical to moving forward?

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you to the officials for being here. It's nice to see all of you again as well.

Mr. Moffet, certainly on your comments, Conservatives on this side of the table looked at each other in full agreement with you that global oil and gas demand will continue to increase. That's why Conservatives believe that the very last barrel of oil and gas used in the world ought to be from Canada, instead of the Liberal approach, which is to cede ground to dictators, despots and regimes with much lower environmental standards.

I must confess that it's a little odd to hear comments about the clear requirement in Canada to reduce permitting and regulatory timelines and fix the Impact Assessment Agency. I say this on behalf of all Conservative colleagues at this table, but I guess in particular because it just happened to be specifically me during the debates on Bill C-69 who warned that the government spin on the legislative timelines the bill would implement wasn't, in fact, true, and that there were multiple ways in which the bill had the ability for members of both the regulatory body and the cabinet to stop, start and extend the regulatory process repeatedly over private sector proponents.

I can also say that at that time—because it was again, oddly, specifically me—Conservatives warned that what that would do would be to create potentially endless timelines and uncertainty for private sector proponents and therefore make the regulatory decisions and permitting for all kinds of energy projects in Canada uncompetitive against the rest of the world. I'm not sure why Canadians ought to believe that the government that brought in this system, which was broken in the first place, will be the ones to fix it, but suffice it to say Conservatives agree with those two main principles you talked about.

For the finance department officials, one thing I'd like you to explore a bit more for this committee and for Canadians is the difference between investment and production tax credits. One of the main reasons the U.S. IRA is a threat to Canadian competitiveness, of course, is their inclusion of production tax credits, which are ongoing and based on actual outcomes—actual environmental and energy results—rather than, in Canada's context, only first-time early initiative incentives.

I invite any or all of you to make any comments on maybe the relative advantages and disadvantages of investment versus production tax credits and any consideration of that in Canada's context.

Canadian Environmental Bill of Rights

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to speak in the House, especially on a subject is important as the environment and our vision for the future of the planet and our country for our children and grandchildren.

The bill introduced by our NDP colleague deserves our attention. First of all, we feel that the key element of this bill is that it ensures that people can live in a healthy environment. It is a principle we share, of course, and one we shared in Bill S‑5, as the member stated earlier in response to a question from the member for Terrebonne, my Bloc Québécois counterpart. The bill we are currently studying certainly does go much further than Bill S‑5 in protecting the environment and ensuring that people can live in a healthy environment. We recognize that.

As we see it, however, the bill goes too far in the judicial area. This is a delicate issue. Ultimately, we believe that the judiciary must enforce laws, and that elected representatives of the people must make the laws and vote on them. This is a fundamental principle. Based on the wording of the bill, we think that the judiciary will become the legislative authority. This is where our visions differ. Ultimately, we do not believe that the role of judges is to decide how laws are made, but rather, to decide how they should be enforced. It is the role of the legislator, the elected representatives of the people, to establish legal frameworks. This is not to say that the bill should be scrapped. On the contrary, it contains some positive elements that could serve as inspiration for other legislation and other parliaments. These strong elements could be used to create an even more forceful argument in support of the need for people to live in a healthy environment. We recognize and support this principle.

This gives us the opportunity to discuss the environmental issue. We all know that climate change is real and that it directly affects peoples' lives. Humans contributed to climate change, so they have a responsibility to take steps to reduce the impact of climate change and, essentially, reduce pollution. Members will recall that just a few days ago, on Monday afternoon, the deputy House leader of the official opposition and member for Mégantic—L'Érable read a motion that was unfortunately rejected by the Liberal government, a move we vigorously condemn. The motion included all the elements of our vision for the environment. Unfortunately, it was rejected by the Liberals. I will read the motion moved by my colleague from Mégantic—L'Érable:

That the House:

(a) stand in solidarity with and express its support for all those affected by the current forest fires;

(b) acknowledge that climate change is having a direct impact on people's quality of life, and that it is exacerbating the frequency and scale of extreme weather and climate events, such as floods, tornadoes, forest fires and heat waves;

(c) recognize that the federal government must do more to combat climate change, prevent its impacts and support communities affected by natural disasters;

(d) call on the federal government to take concrete action in the fight against climate change, which is at risk of becoming increasingly expensive for both the public and the environment.

That text outlined our vision concerning climate change. It unequivocally stated that we acknowledge that climate change exists, that it has an impact on the extreme weather events that we are experiencing, that it makes them worse and that it is our duty, as parliamentarians, to take concrete steps to address that situation. It is unfortunate that, for the sake of petty partisan politics, the government rejected our motion. The Liberals simply had to say yes. I cannot believe that they had anything against a single word or sentence of that motion. However, they could not acknowledge that we Conservatives are thinking about this issue. I understand them, in a way, because they have nothing to be proud of. After eight years of this government, where does Canada stand on the world environmental stage?

I would remind members that, after being elected in 2015, the Prime Minster was proud as a peacock to stand up at the Paris climate conference and say, “Canada is back”. Eight years later, Canada is way back.

It is not me saying it, it is the UN itself. In November, at COP27 in Egypt, the United Nations tabled a report containing a scathing indictment of this Liberal administration. The report assessed the 63 most industrialized countries and scored each country on effectiveness in fighting climate change. Scientists from around the world who were brought together by the UN gave the following report on the Liberal government that has been in power for eight years. Liberal Canada ranks 58th out of 63 countries in terms of fighting climate change. It is not the Conservatives saying that, it is UN scientists who said it in a report.

Since the UN released that report, I have asked for unanimous consent from the House over a dozen times, if not more, to table that scientific UN document. Once again, the Liberals in power decided that that UN assessment should be swept aside and that they should continue as if nothing were wrong.

The problem is that they talk a good game but cannot deliver. That is also why Equiterre, the group co-founded by the current Minister of Environment and Climate Change that recently marked its 30th anniversary, decided to sue the Minister of Environment and Climate Change, because it feels that the government is good at rhetoric, but not so good at fighting climate change. Once again, it is not the Conservatives saying that, it is Equiterre, the group co-founded by the current Liberal Minister of Environment and Climate Change. On May 6, 2022, he was sued by Equiterre, the group he founded.

The government has chose to fight climate change with taxes. That is not the road we want to take. The Parliamentary Budget Officer, who I just questioned at the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates, confirmed that the Liberal approach of creating a second carbon tax on clean energy, as they themselves have stated, will have a direct impact on every family in Quebec. Quebec families will need to spend an average of $436 more because of that double carbon tax. In other words, Quebec families will have $436 less in their pockets because of that double carbon tax. People really do not need that when we know that interest rates are rising. We know that everybody is struggling right now. Creating a new tax during a period of inflation when people are struggling is absolutely ridiculous. I would go so far as to say that only the Liberals could come up with such an idea.

Let us talk about the future. Let us talk about hope. We Conservatives want the government to put in place concrete, realistic and responsible measures to tackle climate change. If the Liberals do not, we will. The fundamental principle to consider is the need to reduce pollution. That will take concrete action. What does that mean? It means reaching out to polluters and asking them to cut their pollution as much as possible. It is a bottomless pit, but that is okay.

If we somehow manage to lower our pollution by 20% in one year, I say bravo. However, what is to be done on January 1 to reduce the impact of pollution on our environment? For that, we must rely on research and development, new technologies and tax incentives for businesses to invest in them. Real, concrete measures are needed to reduce pollution.

Then, the green light needs to be given to green energy. In Canada, we have tremendous solar, wind, geothermal and nuclear energy potential. We can develop our green energy potential even further. To do that, however, the government would have to be willing to move forward and not constantly throw up roadblocks every time we come up with an idea.

Under Bill C-69, which was passed in 2019 with the backing of the Bloc Québécois, the federal government gave itself veto power over hydroelectric projects in Quebec. That is crazy. If the Government of Quebec wants to propose a hydroelectric project, it should get every facility to move forward, but the federal government gave itself veto power with the surprising and disappointing backing of the Bloc Québécois.

In addition, our Canadian know-how must be exported. Our natural resources must be exported. It is unfortunate that rare metals like lithium, cobalt and other similar elements are currently being mined in countries where human rights are unfortunately not respected.

We need to promote Canadian potential. The fourth part is more than just a pillar; it is the foundation of our whole vision. It is that all this needs to be done in partnership with first nations, as our leader said at a press conference in Vancouver three months ago.

Budget Implementation Act, 2023, No. 1

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Mr. Speaker, let me address the first and third questions to begin with.

The reason we have so much foreign direct investment is because of LNG Canada. In fact, much of the manufacturing and investments we are seeing in western Canada are related to pipelines and natural gas development. The natural gas development, which was the largest private sector investment in the history of Canada put forward by the Liberal Prime Minister, was exempt from the carbon tax. That is the only reason Liberals built it. It was because they knew that with carbon tax, it did not make economic sense for that project to go ahead. The Prime Minister and the premier of British Columbia decided not to apply the highest carbon tax in our country when that project went forward.

When that project is completed in the next five years, we are going to have an exorbitant number of skilled workers in northern British Columbia who will not have another project to go to because under the government's Bill C-69 from the 2015 Parliament, barely any single natural resource development project has been approved. We have to get more natural resource projects approved to supply Asia with clean LNG from Canada that is going to reduce global emissions and fight climate change.

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, there are several things one could say about my colleague's great question. One is that he knows in British Columbia there were something like 15 LNG projects that could have been built when the Prime Minister came into power, and not one of them has ever been completed. Those dollars could have been used for what natural resources have been used for in this country, and that is to build the coffers of the federal government to make those transfers in education and health care back to the provinces so that we can all have the same level of health care across the whole country.

The other thing is that the profits from those companies are being used to make those transfers, but the member knows full well that the government has stymied the development of those industries with Bill C-69. If we want to talk about percentages of profit increases, we are talking about $40 barrels of oil a number of years ago that are now $80 a barrel. There is a doubling right there. It is very hard to compare percentages when we have a product that has doubled in price over the last five years.

Sitting Resumed

[Gerald Soroka, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Madam Speaker, there is absolutely no reason for the government to buy a pipeline. The only reason it did so was because of its own policies, which created the issue. If this pipeline had been built by the contractor and the company, we would not have seen a $30-billion increase to the project. That is an outstanding amount, which is ridiculous, and no private industry would have ever built this pipeline for that kind of money.

This is, once again, the government's ineptness in getting projects done in Canada. First, they are hugely overrun and probably would have been built by now, but Liberal policies, such as Bill C-69, have stopped pipelines from being built in Canada, and they are intentionally causing the high costs to make sure Canadians think it is ridiculous and a pipeline will never get built again. They are right. If the government owned the pipeline, we will never own it. That is why it should go back to the private sector, where it belongs. The government should never have been involved in the private sector for pipelines.

Opposition Motion—Carbon Tax

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise in the House and especially today for this opposition day motion, which talks about how the first carbon tax would increase the price of gas by 41¢ a litre and how the second, the clean fuel regulations, would add 20¢ more to that when sales tax is included. This will further exacerbate the cost of living issues that people are facing across the country.

What I want to do today in my speech is talk about what the carbon tax will do, talk about what it will not do and talk about what real solutions should be offered.

First of all, what does it actually do? It increases the price of things. It is not just the price of gasoline that is going up, because it is an escalator. For example, if we look at food, it has increased in price, on average, by 12%, but some items of food are up 30% and 40%.

When we are talking about a farmer who is producing the food, they will have to use more diesel and fuel to heat their barns and take care of growing their products and drying them. There is a carbon tax on that. To make it worse, there is a tax on the tax. The Liberals are applying tax on top of that, and it is a substantial amount of money. We are talking about $150,000 for a farmer. That is a real thing that they obviously have to pass on to the consumer.

Then they are shipping the product to a processing facility, and there is a carbon tax on that and a tax on the tax. Then at the processing facility, depending on the type of processing facility, there is a carbon tax on emissions. Then we are talking about shipping it to the grocery store. Again, that is another carbon tax and a tax on the tax. Then we get to the grocery store, and it has to be put in refrigerators. If the Liberal do not buy them, that is another expense, but then they are spending more energy trying to keep the products preserved.

What is happening is this is hurting individuals. Before the pandemic, the data reported said that half of Canadians were within $200 of not being able to pay their bills. Let us think about that. Then fast-forward to where we are now, where we have added a second carbon tax that is estimated, according to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, to cost each individual $538 a year. Half of Canadians were within $200 of not being able to pay their bills every month, and now the Liberals have added $600 more. That is on top of the estimated cost of the already existing carbon tax, which the Parliamentary Budget Officer says, depending on the province we live in, is between $1,500 and $3,000 a person.

By the time all these taxes, carbon taxes and the tax on the tax get to an individual, we are talking about $4,000 per Canadian. That is a substantial amount of money. If we break that down by month, we are talking $300 a month, which puts us way over the 50% of people who could not pay their bills if they had an increase of $200.

The Liberals are going to say that Canadians get back more than they give, but we know that is not true. I have seen my climate action rebate cheque come to me, $128.55 four times a year. Adding that up, it is nowhere near $4,000. It is absolutely a misrepresentation of the facts to say the government is giving Canadians more back. No, it is not.

I am getting calls at my office, continually, from individuals who are saying they cannot afford to pay their bills and are losing their house. I have a lot of seniors in my riding, and some of them have had to go back to work at 74 years of age in order to afford heating, gasoline, groceries, the whole thing. That is what the carbon tax is doing. It is adding to inflationary pressures that we already have from the out-of-control spending happening on the other side. That is what the carbon tax does.

Let us talk a little about what it does not do. It does not reduce emissions. It is a tax plan; it is not an emissions plan. If we look to who has met their Paris targets, our neighbours to the south have met their Paris targets, and they did it through emissions reduction technology and switching to fuels like nuclear, LNG and lower-carbon fuels. These are actual, concrete solutions. They put capital incentives in place so that businesses would put emissions reduction technology in place. That is how they did it, and they did it in four years.

If we look at where we are, we were supposed to reduce our targets by 30% from the 2005 level. The 2005 level was 732 megatonnes and we are now at 670 megatonnes. In 20 years, we have reduced 60 megatonnes, but the target we have to get to is a reduction of 538. We are nowhere near the plan.

In the approach the Liberals have, they talk about tree planting. They are going to plant two billion trees. Do members know how many trees we already have in Canada? We have 318 billion trees in Canada and this is two billion more. More trees are always better, but the reality is that recent reports said the Liberals have planted less than 2% of these in years. It is because the program that was introduced does not work.

I know a great group, Climate Action Sarnia-Lambton, that wants to plant trees. I approached the minister and said that we have lots of volunteers who are willing to come out. They have all the tools. We just need the money to get the trees and get them in the ground. Do members know what I heard? We have to plant 10,000 trees or we cannot get any money. We have to start somewhere with a program that works a little better than that. That is what the carbon tax does not do.

I have heard this a lot in the discussion today during the debate: Well, what about the wildfires and what about the floods? We are seeing severe weather events and we are seeing them at a frequency that we have not seen before. However, Canada is less than 2% of the carbon footprint of the world. We could eliminate the whole thing and we are still going to get all of those wildfires and all of those floods, because we have countries, like China and India, that are building coal plants. China is 34% of the footprint.

What would be better is if we exported Canadian LNG. We could reduce the global footprint by over 10%. We could reduce five times our existing footprint. That is real climate action. Instead, 12 LNG projects have been shut down by the Liberal government.

The Germans approached us. Germany decided to go down the green energy path, and they found out that it was so expensive that they got rid of it and went back onto coal and LNG. They approached us to get a contract with us for $58 billion, which we refused. The Australians used to have a carbon tax. They got rid of it. It made everything more expensive and it did not help them meet their goals.

We have a situation where countries are in need of our fuel. We are the most environmentally responsible producers of LNG in the world, but we cannot get anything built because a Bill C-69 project approval thing was put in place. We have seen the disaster that the government is making with the Trans Mountain project. It was supposed to be $7 billion and is up to $30 billion, and it is not even built yet.

The carbon tax hurts Canadians. It inflates their costs. People cannot afford to live. They are struggling. I know that Liberal MPs are hearing this from their constituents and they need to listen.

What we need to do is have emissions reduction technology, get on lower-carbon fuels, export them to the world and work together to get a better planet. That is what we need to do and that is the vision on this side of the House.

Strengthening Environmental Protection for a Healthier Canada Act

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois member began his speech by talking about Quebec's primary jurisdiction over the environment and about how Quebec should have full power over environmental matters within its territory.

My question is this. The Bloc Québécois avoided saying much of anything about independence during the past two election campaigns, but this weekend, it talked about little else. Why did this party, which claims to be more separatist than ever, support an amendment by the Liberals, the New Democrats, the Greens and the independents that is a direct attack on a provincial jurisdiction?

More importantly, how is it that, on June 13, 2019, in the House, this member and other colleagues behind him voted in favour of Bill C-69, which gives the federal government veto power over hydroelectric dam projects in Quebec?

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as some often suggest, people on opposite sides of the world eventually come together. Perhaps that is why the Greens and the Conservatives will be voting the same way, but obviously for different reasons.

The only thing I would like to add about Bill C-69 is something Alexandre Shields wrote in an article on the subject. He said that the office of the environment minister declined to comment on the matter, because it remains a “hypothetical project”. However, the minister did recall the provisions of the act, which clearly stipulate that a new dam would be subject to the act.

If the Quebec government decides to go ahead with a new hydroelectric dam, Ottawa has no say in the matter.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the Green Party also opposes the bill. The two parties that will be voting against Bill S-5 are the Green Party and the Conservative Party, but they will do so for completely different reasons.

We think this is a bad bill. It runs counter to the goal of modernizing the Canadian Environmental Protection Act.

The hon. member talked about Bill C-69, which, for the Greens, was also a bad bill. I also voted against Bill C-69 because it establishes a system that is entirely at the discretion of a single minister, with no regulations across all federal regulation.

That was more of a comment than a question.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as I said a few moments ago, I am very pleased to be participating in this debate.

As members know, since October, I have had the privilege of being the official opposition's shadow minister for climate change and environment. I am honoured by the confidence placed in me by the hon. member for Carleton, the Leader of the Opposition and our future prime minister. Of course, I intend to take this responsibility very seriously. In fact, this is essentially the first bill I have been able to devote 100% of my time to. I participated in almost every stage of the bill.

Climate change is real. Humans have an impact on the creation of climate change, which is why humans must find solutions. That is why we offered our full support to the committee, along with the government and the other political parties, to make sure that the bill can be passed, balanced with the necessary political debate. Let me explain.

This bill seeks to update an act that was adopted nearly 24 years ago, the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999.

It is totally normal and useful to review a bill that was tabled almost a quarter of a century ago, so this what we did in a committee of the House. The Senate also did that job of adapting what was tabled in 1999 to the reality of 2023 and more.

That is why we wanted to strike the appropriate balance between protecting the environment and the future of this planet and taking the Canadian economy and Canadians' lives into account. That is what this bill tries to do.

The bill has received support from environmental groups and the industry, but not unqualified support, not blind support. These two groups often disagree on the common good, but they did agree on one thing, which is that it was time to move forward.

I recall that the bill was tabled in the Senate, and all the people who are interested in environmental issues will say it is time to move forward and act. For sure, it is time to act, but unfortunately the bill, though it may be passed today or tomorrow, will be a year to two too late. This is because this piece of legislation was tabled in the old Parliament, and it was before the Prime Minister decided almost two years ago to call the shots and call an election during the fourth wave of the COVID pandemic. It was an election that cost more than $600 million of taxpayer money for almost exactly the same result we had. This was only because the Prime Minister wanted to move by himself, but for that we lost a full year of parliamentary work on that piece of legislation.

The bill as it stands is essentially the same as the earlier version that was introduced during the previous Parliament. This time, the government has decided, and that is its right, to introduce it in the upper chamber. It was debated in the Senate as Bill S-5. It was then sent to the House of Commons to be debated here. That is interesting, and this is where we have some concerns. I will come back to that.

Essentially, at the heart of the matter, as I said, this bill is a revision of the environmental laws that we have had for almost a quarter of a century. However, there are also new elements. First, we recognize the right of citizens to live in a healthy environment. That is a principle that we Conservatives support. This is obvious. However, it must be precisely defined.

The bill provides for two years of work to be able to define the legal framework, since, as we know all too well in our business, the devil is in the details. We therefore have to be sure that we have a really good law and proper regulations. The profile of populations said to be vulnerable must also defined. When there is mining or natural resource development, this may have a direct impact on people’s lives, just as the construction of a plant or new infrastructure can have a direct impact on a population. This is what we define as vulnerable populations and we need to make sure that all this goes well.

There was an agreement to move forward. That is what we did.

In fact, as the parliamentary secretary said earlier, there have been more than 50 hours of committee work to be sure that we could directly address many aspects. Noting is perfect in this world, but we still worked well together, hand in hand. In addition, it always made me smile to see that we were finally getting along more often than we may have thought with the Minister of Environment and Climate Change. As a resident of Quebec, I have known him for many years, as well as his very active role in defending the environment. Let us remember that 30 years and two weeks ago, he founded the group Équiterre with a few friends. As we know, Équiterre is now suing him for damaging the Canadian environment. Bill S-5 is off to a good start. We have clear objectives and we support them.

However, now in our parliamentary work, something surprising, if not disappointing, has happened. That is what we call a flip flop. A party voted for something during parliamentary committee work and, when it came to the House, changed its mind and voted against it. They have that right. We do not dispute that right. It is just that we were a bit surprised and shocked, particularly since the flip flop was not related to a misplaced dash or comma in the text of Bill S-5, but instead about a fundamental element, respect for provincial jurisdiction. In our view, the amendment adopted by the House, particularly with the support and assistance of the Liberal government, the Bloc Québécois, the NDP, the Green Party and the independents—in short, the Conservatives were the only ones who opposed it, and I will have the opportunity to clearly explain why—is an intrusion into areas of jurisdiction.

The amendment as presented was not in the main bill when it was introduced in the last Parliament and in the Senate a year and a half ago. That element was not in it. It is an amendment that was proposed on June 1 2022, almost a year ago, by the senator from Manitoba, an amendment that essentially seeks to regulate tailing ponds and hydraulic fracturing. Basically, when work on natural resources is being carried out and there is hydraulic fracturing, that leaves tailings. That is why a legal framework was developed for that situation. In our view, this amendment, as proposed and adopted by the Senate, is an intrusion into provincial jurisdiction. That can be challenged, but that is our view.

In fact, our perspective has been so well explained that, when we came before a House of Commons parliamentary committee, the member for Calgary-Centre suggested that these elements of the bill be withdrawn and that this amendment not be adopted. When the member for Calgary-Centre says something, it is because it has merit and is based on facts. There is jurisprudence to support it and relevant documentation. I have learned a lot from the co-operation and work of the member for Calgary-Centre.

He was so convincing that he was able to persuade the government party in the parliamentary committee. All the liberal members, who are not the majority, but the largest parliamentary group in parliamentary committee, decided to support our proposal to set aside Senator McCallum’s amendment presented in June 2022.

Let us review the facts: The bill does not provide for the regulation on hydraulic fracturing. Senator McCallum proposed an amendment to give teeth, depth and political weight to the federal government’s authority over this event. We get to committee and our party says stop, this is an intrusion into provincial jurisdiction, and the Liberals vote with us. It is great, it is perfect, we agree. This is just one of many aspects, and I am focusing on that.

I am being honest, and I am sure that the Liberal MPs will agree with me. It is impossible to fully agree on all of the items.

In fact, I have been known to say that, if someone ever meets a politician who says they are completely in agreement with their leader, their party, all of their colleagues and the election platform, they are looking at a complete liar. It is humanly impossible, and the same is true for everyone. I see the hon. member for Winnipeg North, who I am sure is nodding in agreement with me.

What I am trying to say is that the more than 50 hours of work done in committee was an attempt to achieve consensus. Sometimes we succeeded, sometimes we did not. Sometimes we agreed, sometimes we disagreed. That is the big picture.

We are supportive of the big picture of this bill, but we have some disagreements, as all of the parties have disagreements with some aspects of this bill.

Everything was going well, it was great. We did our work in committee. When we got to the House to make a few speeches and accept the tabled report, three amendments were proposed: two by the Green Party and one by the NDP. The NDP’s amendment is essentially the same as Senator McCallum’s.

That was a surprise and a disappointment, a bitter turn of events. Although we had the support and the agreement of the Liberal Party to make sure there was no interference in provincial jurisdiction, the Liberals switched sides and voted in favour of the NDP’s amendment. I acknowledge that that is their right. Anyone can change their mind. That is called evolution. Sometimes, when we change our minds, we evolve. I will say it that way to be polite.

Some of my colleagues suggested that that is the nature of the coalition. As we know, the government has been working collaboratively with the NDP for a year now, even though they were certainly not given that mandate during the election. Canadians were not asked to vote for a coalition. The NDP said Canadians should vote for them and against the Liberals, and the Liberals said they should vote against the NDP, since they were not the NDP. Now, everyone is perfectly cozy, working together. That is the reality.

The Liberals then flip-flop and support their coalition with the NDP, going against what they did in committee, against protecting provincial jurisdictions, against the fact that a bill should not lead to a constitutional dispute. On the contrary, we need to clarify the situation.

These people crashed the debate and created this situation. What a disappointment. That is why, unfortunately, we will be voting against the bill, which, as amended, creates a legal precedent rife with consequences.

This is why, last week, many of my colleagues from Alberta published a communiqué that says, “Canada's regulatory oversight framework is based upon clear division of responsibilities between the provinces and the federal government, as defined in our Constitution. The continued attempts to muddle this jurisdictional responsibility have led to a convoluted process of project approvals, duplication of costs, and uncertainty amongst investors.”

Basically, what they are saying is that jurisdictional squabbles between the federal and provincial governments slow down projects, slow down the process and create uncertainty. They do not encourage people to move forward. People always hold back a bit. That is unfortunate because Canada is needed now more than ever. The world needs Canada's energy and natural resources more than ever, because we develop those resources responsibly and with respect for human rights in order to ensure they are sustainable. That is what Canada is known for.

When layers of debate are created between the federal and provincial governments, it stalls all of that. Canada deserves better than another squabble between the federal and provincial governments. That is why we do not support this bill. I must also say that I was rather surprised that, both in committee and in the House, the Bloc Québécois voted in favour of this interference in the debates between the federal and provincial governments. We know that the Bloc Québécois always says that it is there to defend the interests of Quebec and that, by so doing, it is also defending the interests of all the provinces on jurisdictional matters, and yet in this case, the Bloc is giving the federal government more power to intervene in an area of provincial jurisdiction, natural resources.

This should come as no surprise. As members will recall, the Bloc Québécois supported Bill C-69. This actually goes back quite some time. It goes back to June 13, 2019, during the first Parliament of this Liberal government. The Bloc Québécois supported this Liberal government's Bill C-69. One could say that this goes way back, and wonder what it has to do with today's subject.

Bill C-69 established a federal authority that supersedes the provincial authority for the development of hydroelectric resources. Everyone knows that Quebec has extraordinary hydroelectric potential, with dams that were all developed in the 1950s. Most were completed in the 1960s. We are very proud of them. Some that come to mind are the Beauharnois power station, which was expanded three times, or the Bersimis-1 and Bersimis-2 power stations, built in 1953 and 1956. There is also the Carillon generating station, which was given the green light in 1958, and the Manic-Outardes complex, which was developed in the 1950s and completed in the 1960s.

Quebec is very strong on hydroelectric production, but Bill C-69 contains a clause that says that the federal authority has the power to order environmental feasibility studies for these projects. This was well explained in an article by Alexandre Shields in Le Devoir. No one can really say that Mr. Shields and Le Devoir are Conservatives. That is the last thing anyone can say.

In an article published on September 29, 2022, Mr. Shields gives a clear description of the situation saying, “That means that a major project...would involve the submission of an impact assessment study [to the federal government]. The federal government would then lead a process including public consultations and the drafting of a report....Then, the federal Minister of Environment would have to publish a ‘decision statement’ to authorize, or not, the construction of the concrete work.”

Bill C‑69 granted the federal government the option to exercise veto power over hydro projects in Quebec, and the Bloc Québécois voted in favour of it. The Bloc Québécois voted for the NDP-Liberal coalition amendment, which allows for federal involvement in provincial jurisdictions. That does not make any sense to us. Natural resources are Canada's resources and we should be proud of that. We should be proud of the women and men who work in this sector. We should be proud of these people who, along with many others, create wealth in our country.

The last thing this industry and these people need is a jurisdictional squabble. That is what the Liberal-NDP-Bloc-Green-Independent amendment does. That is why we are voting against this bill.

In closing, I want to say this: This government prides itself on its fine words, but the results are sorely lacking. Let us recall what it said in 2015:

“Canada is back. Canada is back."?

Canada has far to go. The UN handed down a severe verdict in a report tabled at COP27 in Egypt concluding that Canada ranks 58th out of 63 nations on environmental issues. I am not the one saying this. It is written in black and white on page 11 of the UN’s document. This is unacceptable from people who are constantly lecturing everyone. Need I remind members that the Liberals never managed to achieve their own greenhouse gas emission reduction targets? They will say that is not true, that it has happened. The only time it happened was when the country shut down its economy because of COVID-19. I hope that their plan is not to shut down the economy to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Our plan is based on four basic pillars. First, we want to reduce greenhouse gas emissions through fiscal incentives to invest in new technologies. We need to give green energies the green light so they can be more accessible to Canadians. We need to export Canadian know-how. We should be proud to be Canadians and to develop our natural resource potential because, here at home, in Canada, we do it right.

The fourth pillar is that everything should be done in partnership with the first nations. Together we can meet the challenges of climate change and the environment. Unfortunately, this bill, because of an amendment adopted at the last minute following a reversal by the Liberal Party, with the support of the NDP, the Bloc Québécois, the Green Party and the independent MPs, is going to trigger another federal-provincial dispute.

First Nations Fiscal Management Act

[Jaime Battiste, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations]

Mr. Speaker, I want to start off by thanking the Leader of the Opposition for his critics, who did a wonderful job in terms of making sure that we got this, in a timely manner, in front of us to debate. I agree with you; this is quite good in terms of common-sense legislation.

I would have to just kind of correct the member opposite. I know he does not often get up in the House to speak to indigenous issues, but when you use the term “our first nation” it comes across as possessive. Many first nations across Canada have said they do not want to be considered our possession or the possession of anyone.

The question I have concerns Bill C-69, which you talked about as an important thing. I agree with you when you say that indigenous communities are becoming far better places to do business. A lot of the time, when they are doing that business, indigenous communities are prioritizing what the impacts are on the environment. A lot of the things that we heard during UNDRIP were about communities wanting free, prior and informed consent when it comes to development on their area. That does not mean that they are against development but that they are for sustainable development.

Do you stand with indigenous communities and their free, prior and—

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, as members know, I am running for Prime Minister to put Canadians back in charge of their lives, and nowhere is this more true than when it comes to our first nations, which have suffered for far too long under a paternalistic and overpowering federal government and a so-called “Indian Act”, which seems determined and designed to prevent first nations from making their own decisions and controlling their own lives. That is why Conservatives have long called for empowering first nations governments to take control of their land, resources, money and decisions.

That is why we are so happy that the government has copycatted one of our central proposals to make that happen with regard to infrastructure. The Liberals have included it in their budget, and we are pleased that they have carved it off the budget and allowed it to pass through the House separately, expedited as we asked for, so that we can get it done.

Let us talk about what this bill would do.

I just got off the phone with the great Manny Jules. He is the head of the First Nations Tax Commission. He and his family were among the architects of allowing first nations to collect their own local property tax revenues. He has fought his entire life to allow first nations governments and decision-makers to take control of the money that would otherwise go to Ottawa and to allow the local first nations to decide for themselves, rather than relying on the incompetence of the bureaucracy and politicians in Ottawa.

In other words, he told me that he is tired and first nations are tired of being the fastest turtles in the room, because that is how the system of infrastructure finance, he says, has worked, or failed to work, under the existing rules that we are about to change. In the past, a first nation that wanted to build something would have to apply for financing from Ottawa. Sometimes, it takes as long as 10 years for the bureaucrats to wrap their heads around the most basic infrastructure project that other communities would take for granted.

Many of my constituents ask why it is that our first nations cannot have clean drinking water systems in their communities. The answer is that none of us would have clean drinking water if we had to live under the same impossible and incompetent rules that the federal government imposes on first nations. Having to apply to a government that is 2,000 miles away and to deal with bureaucrats they have never met and do not know, who have never been to their community, to sign off on every single detail of every infrastructure plan, of course, is going to prevent things from getting done.

What we need to do is stop stopping and start starting, and to do that, we need to get Ottawa out of the way. The bill before us would do that.

It is a common-sense proposal. Here is how it would work: If a first nation wants to build something, instead of just asking for permission from the bureaucrats in Ottawa, it can monetize its future revenues to build long-standing assets. Let us say they are building a bridge that will last 40 years; they would be able to amortize the cost over the 40-year period and use their annual revenue streams to pay that cost. Of course, they would issue debentures, or debt, like any other government would normally do, and they could pool their risk with other, similar first nations that have similarly high financial and infrastructure standards. This would allow them to make their own decisions about projects today using the future revenues that they will inevitably bring in, which they can guarantee and certify.

That is how things get built. It would also allow public-private partnerships. This would, of course, send the New Democrats into a panic, because they do not want any private involvement in any aspect of our lives, but it would allow first nations to team up with the pension funds and other major investors to build projects that are both profitable to investors and also extremely effective for local communities. It would allow them to build schools, hospitals, water systems, bridges, roads and training centres. All manner of things that we take for granted in the rest of Canada could be built through this. It would also allow them to own the projects and use the assets for leverage for future investments.

This is the kind of common-sense infrastructure finance that we would expect if we were living in any other part of the country, so we as Conservatives support this. We want it to happen as quickly as possible, but we also want to go further.

We believe that the government's paternalistic, anti-development laws, like Bill C-69, are a major attack on indigenous rights by blocking first nations from developing projects that they support, preventing paycheques and preventing revenues for programs that would lift people out of poverty. We would repeal Bill C-69 and allow first nations to build projects with their resources. We would work with them on a new model so they can keep more of the money that comes from those projects.

This is an exciting time, when first nations entrepreneurs are leading the way. Let me give one example of this. Vancouver has become a city held back by government gatekeepers. It costs $650,000 in red tape for every new housing unit, because the city hall there is run by gatekeepers and the Prime Minister sends more money for gatekeeping. There is no wonder it is the third most expensive housing market on planet Earth. The Squamish people have their own land within the city of Vancouver but, luckily, they do not have to follow the zoning and permitting rules of city hall. They were able to approve, and are now building, 6,000 units of housing on 10 acres of land; that is 600 units per acre. If they were part of the city of Vancouver, they never would have gotten it done.

We can also look at what the Tsuut'ina Nation is doing near Calgary, building incredible business plazas that would still have been tied up in Calgary city hall bureaucracy if it had had to follow the rules in that jurisdiction. What we are seeing across the country is that first nations communities are, increasingly, far better places to do business than the municipal jurisdictions next to them are. We can imagine what they could do if the federal government in Ottawa would get out of the way and let them get things done.

This bill would do that for traditional infrastructure projects that governments normally run and regulate. Let us imagine allowing for the same with private sector and resource development projects. It would mean more business opportunities for first nations to generate revenues to provide Canada with lower-cost goods and more powerful paycheques for all our people. Now let us imagine further, that, instead of all of the revenue coming from those projects going to Ottawa to be gobbled up by bureaucracy, and forcing first nations to ask for it back, the money stayed in those communities in the first place and they could reinvest it to create a virtuous cycle of more and more opportunity. This is the vision we have: by getting rid of the gatekeepers and getting out of the way of first nations, allowing more local autonomy in decisions about resources, construction, jobs and financial management, we believe that, over the next century, first nations can lead the country in prosperity.

That is the empowering vision that we have, but we have to get back to common sense. It is wonderful that we have one bill, just one bill, with some common sense in it from the government, which proves that even a broken clock is right twice a day. The government should listen to Manny Jules more often, listen to our first nations leaders more often and listen to the people on the ground, the people who know what has happened, the people who have the traditional wisdom. If it did that more often, we would get more bills like this, we would have more paycheques for our people, we would get more built for our country and we would all be better off. It is the common sense of the common people, united for our common home. Now, let us bring it home.

Oil and Gas Industry

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, actually, the LNG Canada project was approved before the Prime Minister even took office. He showed up for the photo op. The only way it could get built was exempting it from the carbon tax and exempting it from Bill C-69. There were 18 proposed LNG projects on his desk the day he walked in on his first day on the job; zero have been completed. That is because his gatekeeping keeps our resources in the ground and the money in the pockets of foreign dictators.

Why will he not bring it home to Canada for our people?

An Act Respecting Regulatory Modernization

[Corey Tochor, Conservative, Saskatoon—University, SK]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate this opportunity to rise and speak to Bill S-6. How I came to this bill is probably like many people. We read the title: “an act respecting regulatory modernization”. It reminds me of going through Netflix when someone wants to watch something new so they look at the title and think that it kind of fits, and maybe they see the trailer or read the bio and a bit of what is going to go on in the video, and they say that it is something they can probably get behind.

We have lots of regulatory issues in Canada and modernizing them is probably a good thing. We know that over these eight long years, the current Liberal government has introduced more legislation that restricts people. It restricts our ability to get the services we need from our government and it restricts our freedoms and our rights in Canada. If any bill talks about “respecting regulatory modernization”, I would be all over it. There is a list of the departments. There are 12 organizations. I am not going to read all of them, but all of these are things that we should modernize, especially on the regulatory side. We have so much red tape. It has been said that we are the most heavily red-taped country in the world, which holds back our freedoms.

All this excess of regulation makes people sick and tired of dealing with government. They throw up their papers and say, “To heck with this, I am not doing this, not applying for that, not going to get into this program, not going to get this grant and not going to apply for this opportunity”, because there is no end to the red tape, the forms and the excess of regulation that Liberals are known for.

It goes back to the philosophy, I believe, of the Liberals, which is that government knows best, that someone knows better than the citizens. We have seen this time after time with respect to different legislation that gets introduced here. There is this feeling that the poor citizens need the government's protection and they need the hands of the all-knowing government to reach into their lives and make them difficult. I just think it is garbage. I think of all the waste we have in government, all the duplication and all the unnecessary things that everyday, common people go through just to interact with their government. The government is supposed to help them, but in a lot of ways it hurts Canadians. It hurts Canadians' productivity. It hurts our potential to grow our country, to expand, and to create opportunities for the next generation.

That is where the current government has failed miserably in some of the regulatory changes it did early on. I do question how history is going to look back at these eight long years. Hopefully they are coming to an end here soon. I think of the lost opportunity and of the regulatory change in Bill C-69. This is one bill that is terrible for our country. We have seen the results of the restrictive nature of shutting down everything. This goes from coast to coast to coast. I think of one of the largest missed opportunities for Canada. When we look back on these eight long years, what was the worst missed economic opportunity for this generation and probably the next? I think of the impact on liquefied natural gas.

When the Liberals came to government, they knew better than the industry and the citizens about what we should be doing to hopefully lower our emissions and grow our economy. There were 15 liquefied natural gas plants proposed for Canada. This is not just a mom-and-pop gas station down the road; this is $10 billion to $20 billion of economic driving force in those communities, and we had 15 of them proposed. Do members know how many got built? Zero of these plants were built. They were going to be massive economic drivers, and it was all derailed because of Bill C-69 and the Liberal government.

This is the regulatory framework that the Liberals put in. Their end goal was to shut down industry, and they shut it down. They shut down not only the opportunity on the coasts but also the opportunity for well-paying jobs in my province. In Saskatchewan, the drilling rates for natural gas dropped. I shudder to think of how many opportunities and powerful paycheques these families would have had if the Liberals had not brought in this regulation. It would have released so much natural gas out of Canada. That would actually have lowered emissions.

The gas from those plants, for the most part, was headed to Asia and the European market. We are positioned perfectly. Canada can supply the two largest markets with liquefied natural gas. There is no other market that has the known reserves that we have in the ground, positioned in the perfect location in terms of both Europe and Asia.

When we fast forward to what has happened since these plants were cancelled because of the regulatory regime, where the goalposts kept moving, we find that Asia has more coal plants. What the Liberal government does not understand is that we need energy to survive in this climate and to prosper. It is the same in other countries, where our liquefied natural gas could have offset all the tonnage of coal that Asia has been using. What a missed opportunity.

We could have lowered our emissions, provided well-paying jobs for Canadians and collected royalties that could be put back into our society. This is the virtuous circle that we should be encouraging in every industry, but this is an example of the heavy-handed regulatory changes and the red tape that the Liberals have introduced and that have canned so many projects. It is a shame. I think of the missed economic opportunity. There is no larger one that I know of in the history of our country other than the government's change in the regulatory process that killed those 15 plants.

That is on the environmental side. We know that natural gas is a superior source of energy over coal. It lowers emissions and provides good paycheques in Canada. Moreover, it could have saved lives in Europe; this is probably the area that I hope the members on the other side realize most. Energy security is the number one issue in Europe right now. Putin had the control of European countries for natural gas. As we know, unfortunately, what has transpired with the invasion of Ukraine has brought about a real challenge in Europe's energy security. How many lives would have been saved if we had these plants? Putin may not even have invaded Ukraine or, if he did, the war would have been that much shorter because of those countries that rely on natural gas.

It is not going away. As much as there are people who would wish oil and gas away in our lifetime or on our planet, it is always going to be within our mix. I think of how much more Ukraine could have counted on its neighbours in Europe if they were not worried about Putin cutting off their natural gas. That relates exactly to Bill C-69 and why the Liberals changed the goalposts and killed this industry that was just getting on its feet. I cannot think of another regulatory change that has had as much of a negative impact on our planet, be it environmentally or for energy security, as the regulatory change on liquefied natural gas has done.

I forgot to mention that I will be sharing my time.

Going back to the regulatory side of things, any time one puts a break on productivity, it hurts the citizens that one is supposedly there to serve. That is wrong. It has affected my home, the Speaker's home and all our homes. We are going to bring it home.

[Daniel Stuckless]

I wholeheartedly support it. I am on record representing multiple communities in support of that approach.

I was a public supporter of Bill C-69 and the new agency that has been created. I have worked favourably with the agency on a number of projects with the approach that it's taken.

I will point out a bit of potential conflict, in that I'm also a rostered panellist and had been before the creation of the new IAC. However, that's how I see it being done and done correctly.

I haven't been appointed to any panels yet. I hope to be. This is something I've started to do in my profession that I've really enjoyed. I am passionate about the issue.

Justice

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

Mr. Speaker, I also have the pleasure and honour of tabling a petition concerning provincial sovereignty.

The over 3,000 petitioners note that the government's continued appeal of decisions regarding Bill C-69 and the constitutionality thereof is a violation of provincial sovereignly and jurisdiction.

The petitioners are calling upon the government to respect the ruling of the Alberta Court of Appeal by not seeking further appeals, to recognize Bill C-69 as unconstitutional and to immediately repeal this legislation.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Thanks, Chair.

Thanks, Minister, for being here, and thanks to your officials for giving their time to us today too.

Minister, I have a question for you about the $12.8 million allotted in these estimates “to implement the Impact Assessment Act”. I think it's helpful for Canadians to know the context, which is, of course, that your government froze project assessments as far back as 2016, delayed and then implemented interim measures and applied some arbitrary standards to certain proposals that weren't applied to others. Then, of course, it took three years until Bill C-69 was imposed, despite the near-universal opposition from nine out of 10 premiers, indigenous communities and entrepreneurs, municipalities and private sector proponents that warned that it would be a barrier to development.

Of course, the first major decision wasn't made under the new assessment until a year and a half ago. It's very obvious, despite the periodic positive words, that the actual outcomes of your regulatory changes to the policy framework are killing billions of dollars of investment projects and jobs, and driving them into other competitive jurisdictions.

The consequences and the costs to Canadians are real. For example, your government has had 18 LNG export terminals proposed in the time that you've been in office, and only three of those have been approved. Of course, zero have been built, while the U.S. has built seven and permitted 20 more in the exact same time frame. Germany permitted and got a terminal up and running and built in 194 days.

You talk passionately about a critical mineral strategy, but your own documents show that critical mineral mines won't be operating or producing in Canada for 25 years. There is the same challenge with your aspirations around electrification.

I just wondered if you could speak specifically about what that $12.8 million will do. What are your specific outcomes for implementing the act that you have imposed?

Opposition Motion—Rising Inflation and Cost of Living

[Rick Perkins, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to rise in this House to speak to this important motion that our party has put forward on the issue that is of most concern to Canadians today.

I know all of us in the House, and I am sure government members are hearing it as much as we are, receive calls and emails to our offices every day from struggling working people having trouble paying their bills. People who live on fixed incomes are having to make the most difficult choices in life, like the choice between paying for heat, paying for food, paying for medication or paying for gas in the car to go get food. These are the choices that people are making as a result of the actions of the Liberal government after eight years.

We are in an unprecedented situation of a 40-year high in inflation caused by the policies of the government after eight years. After eight years, people are working harder, but they are falling further behind. I know members of the Liberal Party love it when we raise Pierre Trudeau, so I will raise Pierre Trudeau. We have not had inflationary numbers like this since Pierre Trudeau was in government. That was a difficult time in the 1970s and 1980s for people. The sins of the father are now being delivered through the sins of the son.

Housing prices are now twice as high as they were in 2015. After eight years of the Liberal Prime Minister, the cost of groceries is up 11%. After eight years of the Liberal Prime Minister, half of Canadians are cutting back on groceries. After eight years of the Liberal Prime Minister, 20% of Canadians are actually skipping meals. After eight years of the Liberal Prime Minister, the average rent for a two-bedroom apartment across Canada in the 10 biggest cities is $2,213 per month, compared to $1,171 per month when the Liberals were elected.

After eight years of the Liberal Prime Minister, 45% of variable mortgage rate holders say they will have to sell or vacate their homes in less than nine months due to current interest rates. After eight years of the Liberal Prime Minister, the average monthly mortgage costs have more than doubled to now over $3,000 a month.

We can see that these costs are going up and that is why we are getting these calls. I am going to relate it a bit to what we experience in the Maritimes. Mr. Speaker, as a Nova Scotian, I know you are getting calls along these lines. The policies of the government have killed the investment in most industries in Canada. Bill C-69 is affectionately known as the “no pipelines bill”. I call it the “no capital bill” because it has really killed all capital investment.

The result of that is that in Nova Scotia and in New Brunswick, and my predecessor who spoke, the member for New Brunswick Southwest, has the same issue, we have to burn oil from Saudi Arabia to heat our houses. To give members an idea of what that costs, because of the policies of the government, it costs $1,800 to fill a tank of oil. Half that tank will be burned in four weeks.

These are the expenses that are killing people on fixed incomes in my part of the world and making them think about selling their houses. We have good, clean, ethical Canadian oil and natural gas that we could be bringing to Atlantic Canada to reduce our cost of living, but the government has brought in policies to stop that.

Of equal impact on inflation is the fact that the Liberals never saw a tax they did not like. What is the first thing they did? They thought they could put in carbon tax, a tax they thought would stop everything that goes on in the world with regard to weather. Carbon tax is inflationary by its nature. If it were to work, which it does not, the design of it is that it has to make everything much more expensive in order to cause people, theoretically, to change their behaviour.

In my rural riding, we do not have transit. We do not have options for how we get around, how we take our kids to school, how we get to work, how we get groceries, or how we go visit our parents and family members. We have to drive. Transit is not an option that we have. The Liberals believe that imposing a carbon tax would actually change the fact that we have to drive everywhere in rural Canada.

The imposition and tripling of this new tax, which would come into place this year in Nova Scotia, because the Liberals have not had enough of destroying our economies with their taxation, will make fuel cost an extra 40¢ a litre by 2030. For the mom taking her kids to hockey practice or taking her kids to school, this is a huge amount of money, on top of having to burn gasoline produced from oil from Saudi Arabia.

That tax costs families thousands of dollars a year when they are trying to make healthy meals and trying to figure out how to heat their houses. Heating houses, and this may come as a shock to the Liberal government, is not optional in Canada. We actually have to do that, and a tax that makes home heating more expensive for seniors living through our frigid winters is nothing short of cruel.

I am talking about the Liberal carbon tax, the tax on everything, the tax making everything more expensive. If the Prime Minister was serious about making life more affordable for our seniors, workers and families, he would cancel the carbon tax imposition in Nova Scotia, and he would cancel the tripling or quadrupling of the carbon tax that he is planning to do to make life more unaffordable for Canadians.

Instead of freezing that obscene tax, the Liberal government is raising taxes on the people who are struggling to make ends meet. Of course, the Liberals pretend that somehow, magically, in their world of math we could actually get more money back than we pay. That math does not add up in grade 6, but apparently it adds up for the Liberals.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer, in his reports on the carbon tax that exists now, has actually pointed out something the Liberals tend to ignore. I will read from the report: “most households in Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Ontario will see a net loss resulting from federal carbon pricing” by 2030. That is a little different from the lines we hear. By then, the carbon tax levy will have increased to $170 a tonne. The moment we decide to decarbonize the economy in a relatively short period of time with a tax, if it were to work, we are talking here less than 10 years to significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions, it is clear that there is going to be a cost.

The PBO goes on to report, “Most households...under the backstop will see a net loss resulting from federal carbon pricing under the HEHE plan” in 2030-31. The Parliamentary Budget Officer continues by stating, “Household carbon costs—which now include the federal levy and GST paid...and lower income...—exceed the rebate and the induced reduction in personal income taxes arising from the loss in income.”

In other words, this is not what the Liberals say during question period, that somebody magically pays into taxes to Ottawa and gets more back. I do not think anyone has believed that existed since the temporary imposition of income taxes when they first came in. It is just about as believable.

An additional element of this high-priced system that the Liberals have brought in is that we have fallen behind the U.S. in our per capita economic output. In 2015, we were equal to the United States, and now we are 40% less. That is $100 billion a year lost to the Canadian income, according to the IMF. I know the Liberals like to make up their own numbers, but the IMF says that is $100 billion a year that is lost to our income relative to the United States because of the policies of the government. Up until 2015, we were fairly equal.

I have many more issues, which I am sure I will get to address in the question and answer period, particularly with the member for Kingston and the Islands. I look forward to those questions.

Fall Economic Statement Implementation Act, 2022

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, sadly, no.

We repeatedly hear from the Liberal government that it has Canadians' backs. We hear this phrase quite often in this place and outside this place. It is a term the Prime Minister likes to use almost incessantly. The question is, does it really have their backs? That is what I want to explore in my time today.

The reality is that many Canadians are finding life difficult. They are dumfounded by the Liberals' lack of care, lack of concern and lack of wisdom. Food prices continue to rise, energy prices continue to skyrocket and Canadians continue to need to beg to receive some sort of positive difference. That should not be the case.

In preparation for this fall economic statement, we asked for two things on this side of the House. We asked that there be no new taxes applied to workers or seniors. We also asked that there be no new spending and that every dollar committed to would have an equal dollar in savings; there would be a match. Sadly, these two requests were entirely ignored.

The Liberals' inflationary scheme will triple the carbon tax, which means the cost of home heating, gas and groceries will continue to rise. During question period, when my Conservative colleagues and I have asked the members opposite if they would demonstrate a wee bit of compassion and perhaps relent on tripling their carbon tax, the folks across the way have pulled out these crazy talking points and obscure studies to try to convince Canadians they are better off. It is as if to say that Canadians do not understand the reality that is happening to them. It is as if to say they can be demeaned and that it should somehow help them. How heartless is that?

I have heard from many constituents who are struggling to meet their daily needs. They are hopeless and they are desperate. The Liberals can continue to use their tired talking points, but at the end of the day, the senior who is turning her thermostat down to 17°C to afford her heating bill will not be comforted by a Liberal talking point. The 1.5 million Canadian families that are accessing a food bank in a single month will not be comforted by a Liberal talking point. The one in five Canadians skipping meals to try to make ends meet will not be comforted by a Liberal talking point.

These are realities. This is the reality Canadians face each and every day. Make no mistake: The Liberal carbon scheme is not an environmental plan; it is simply a tax plan. It is punitive. It goes after the Canadian people who are working to put fuel in their vehicles so they can continue working. It goes after individuals who need to heat their homes because they live in Canada. It goes after individuals who continue to produce food for us despite the attacks of the government, because they care deeply for their land and the people who live here.

The government is forcing the Canadian people to pay a whole lot to get a whole lot of nothing in terms of environmental impact. Canadians are struggling to get ahead and are asking for help, not help in the sense of a government handout but help in asking the government to please back off.

We are living in a credit card economy. We are consuming more than we produce, we are buying more than we sell and we are borrowing from the world to buy from the world. We are sending money and jobs to foreign countries, and we are bringing goods back in. Others get the job, others get the investment and others get the savings. Canadians get left with the debt.

Governments do not have money of their own. What they have comes from taxation and borrowing, and that is it. The less revenue that is brought in through taxation, the less the government has to spend on things like social programs, health care, infrastructure or education, unless it chooses to borrow, and we know this government has chosen to borrow a whole lot.

When the Liberals shut down the development of natural resources and drive investment out of our country, it is individual people, including moms, dads, seniors and workers, who have to pick up the bill. They are the ones who have to carry an astronomical tax burden placed on them by the government. It is therefore perplexing why the government chooses to drive industry out of our country and chooses not to develop agriculture, not to develop manufacturing and not to develop natural resources.

Let us talk about our superpowers. By halting energy development and penalizing farmers, the government is choosing to restrain two of our country's superpowers. Instead of focusing on the economic prosperity and the security of our country, the Prime Minister has advanced anti-energy policies such as the carbon tax, Bill C-69 and Bill C-48, proving that he is far more interested in his own plan and agenda than he is in looking out for the well-being of Canadians.

Canada has the third-largest oil reserves and we are the fifth-largest producer of natural gas. The world needs more energy and we have the answer; we just need the political will. We could be stepping up and taking our place as a leader on the world stage to meet the demand. We could displace the reliance on dictators' oil. However, the Liberals have done all they can to block our own energy sector and prevent us from thriving within this market space. The Liberals instead insist that Canadians as individuals should be picking up the tax burden, and hence the cost of living continues to rise.

Let us talk about agriculture. The production of food is another one of our superpowers. It is incredible. Canada has been blessed with abundance. In my constituency of Lethbridge, the bounty is incredible. We send produce all over the world. However, instead of being proud of our producers and farmers, we have a government that wants to be punitive toward them by implementing a carbon tax on their ability to produce food and implementing reductions in fertilizer use, which reduces the amount of food that can be produced. This ridiculous policy will certainly not save the planet, but it will definitely cost Canadians a whole lot more because it will drive up the cost of groceries. This means Canadians will get punished too, and the cost of food is already significant.

The Liberals have added more debt to our country than did all former governments combined. If we let that sink in for a moment, it is pretty scary. They say they did it in the name of COVID, but we know that 40% of their spending had nothing to do with COVID. They are spending a whole of money just for the sake of spending, and of course why would they not? They spent $54 million on the arrive scam app, which could have been purchased for $250,000 and built over a weekend. They spent $6,000 on a hotel room that included a butler. The Liberals are able to spend like this because they know that at the end of the day, they do not foot the bill; Canadians do. This is the type of government we are staring at.

I am calling for a government that puts the Canadian people first. Ronald Reagan famously said, “The greatest leader is not necessarily the one who does the greatest things. He is the one who gets the people to do the greatest things.”

Frankly, Canadians are tired of being told by the Liberals to sit down and shut up. They are tired of being put on the benches. What coach benches his best players? Canadians are the problem-solvers, the solution makers and the wealth generators that this country needs for getting back on track. It is time to put Canadians back in control of their lives.

Building a Green Prairie Economy Act

[Michael Kram, Conservative, Regina—Wascana, SK]

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise in this chamber to speak in favour of good legislation and against bad legislation. This evening I am doing the latter.

Bill C-235 represents yet another top-down, Ottawa-knows-best approach to the western Canadian resource sector, continuing a legacy that goes all the way back to Pierre Trudeau's national energy program, and also includes more recent legislation, such as Bill C-69, the no more pipelines bill, and Bill C-48, the west coast oil tanker ban.

Opposition to this bill from elected politicians in western Canada should come as no surprise to even the most casual of political observers. This bill applies to the provinces of Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba only. When we voted on this bill at second reading, of the 62 members from those three provinces, only 10 voted in favour; 51 voted against, and one MP abstained. Put another way, this bill is opposed by fully 82% of the MPs from the provinces to which it applies.

When this bill was being studied at committee, this opposition was echoed by our provincial counterparts. The committee heard from two of the three affected provincial governments, and they basically said the same thing, that this legislation was neither wanted nor needed. The only provincial government we did not hear back from was Alberta, because it was in the process of installing a new premier, who had just finished campaigning on a platform of asserting provincial sovereignty and resisting interference from Ottawa. I am quite confident that if we had heard from Danielle Smith, her feedback would have been very similar to what we heard from her counterparts in Saskatchewan and Manitoba.

I hope that the views of these provincial representatives are not lost on the members of this House from the other parties and from the other provinces when they are making up their minds about how to vote on this bill. Just imagine for a minute if there were a federal private member's bill about Hydro-Quebec or Quebec's aerospace sector that applied only to Quebec. If 82% of Quebec MPs voted against the bill, and Premier François Legault testified at committee against the bill, I cannot help but think that the MPs from the other provinces would take notice, and those MPs who voted in favour of the bill at second reading would be thinking that maybe they should reconsider before they vote for the bill again at third reading.

The stated objective of Bill C-235 is “the building of a green economy in the Prairies”. While the bill never defines the term “green economy”, I think that in general, the term “green” has become synonymous with “environmentally friendly”. However, the bill does not seem to recognize the good, environmentally friendly work already being done in the prairie provinces independently of the federal government.

In addition to hearing from provincial government representatives, the committee also heard from municipal representatives, organized labour, the mining sector, oil and gas workers, farmers and ranchers. They all spoke in considerable detail about the work that is already being done on the Prairies to be more environmentally friendly, often because being good environmental stewards makes good economic sense as well. In fact, about the only people the committee did not hear from were representatives of Canada's indigenous peoples. I will leave it to the proponents of this bill to explain why they were not consulted.

Particular concerns were raised about paragraph 3(3)(b), which focuses on fostering job creation and skills transfer in regions that rely on traditional energy industries. It is implied that these actions will be necessary because of the Liberal government's continued opposition to the development of the western Canadian resource sector and the continuation of the Liberals' policy of leaving Canadian oil and gas in the ground where it does not do anybody any good.

In any case, at committee, Mr. Bill Bewick cautioned against transitioning workers out of the oil and gas sector too quickly and argued in favour of recruiting more workers to the sector to increase production. I would like to quote what Mr. Bewick said at committee. He said, “If you really care about the environment, the single greatest thing Canada can do to reduce emissions is to get LNG flowing in copious amounts off our west coast.”

Mr. Bewick went on to explain that Canadian liquefied natural gas should be exported to China, which would enable that country to shelve its plan to dramatically increase coal production and energy generation from coal. Doing so would save emissions equivalent to the size of Alberta's oil sands. This would be far preferable to landlocking Alberta's oil sands, as some Liberals have advocated for in the past.

The war in Ukraine was also discussed. Here we are, more than nine months into Russia's illegal invasion of Ukraine, and the images on our TV screens are just as disturbing as when the war began back in February. Vladimir Putin and his thugs continue to commit genocide against their peaceful neighbours. Where does Vladimir Putin get the money to buy all the tanks, missiles and artillery that make up the Russian army? Even the most high-level analysis of the Russian economy will show that it is heavily dependent on oil and gas exports to western Europe. Instead, if we could export ethical Canadian oil and gas to western Europe, we could seriously inhibit Russia's ability to wage war against Ukraine or any of its other neighbours.

This next point is very important. Even if the war in Ukraine were to end tomorrow, and even if Vladimir Putin decided that he wanted to be friends again with the international community and to give everyone a big group hug, it would be profoundly irresponsible for the international community, and Canada in particular, to allow western Europe to once again become dependent on oil and gas from Russia. The world needs more Canadian oil and gas, but we cannot do this if we are transitioning workers out of the oil and gas sector, and this is why Bill C-235 is so problematic.

Finally, I would like to touch on the issue of Senate reform. If there are any political science students watching this debate, let me tell them right now that if they ever have to write a paper about Senate reform in Canada, Bill C-235 should be one of their examples. This bill applies to Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba only, and the vast majority, 82%, of MPs elected from those provinces voted against it.

Unfortunately, this bill is probably going to become law, because unlike bicameral legislatures in other countries, Canada does not have an elected Senate with equal representation from all provinces. This is a problem that is not experienced by our American neighbours south of the border. If there were ever a bill in the U.S. Congress to take all of the money from North Dakota, South Dakota and Montana and give it to, say, California and Texas, such a bill may very well pass in the House of Representatives, but it would not pass in the Senate.

That is because, although the seats in the House of Representatives are allocated by population, in the American Senate, every state, large or small, has the same number of senators, and every senator is elected. That means the large states like California and Texas cannot gang up and enact legislation that is detrimental to the small states, because any such bill would be defeated in the Senate.

Sadly, there are no such safeguards in the Canadian parliamentary system. The larger provinces, namely Ontario and Quebec, can outvote the smaller provinces, in this case Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba, and there are no safeguards in the Senate to stop it. However, given that I am almost out of time, my thoughts on Senate reform will have to wait for another day.

In conclusion, Bill C-235 represents an additional, unnecessary layer of federal government bureaucracy that will only get in the way of the good work already being done by provincial governments and the private sector. The only provinces affected by this bill, Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba, did not ask for it. They do not want it, they do not need it and they are better off without it. I would encourage all members to vote against Bill C-235.

National Council for Reconciliation Act

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am grateful to speak today in support of Bill C-29, which would establish a national council for reconciliation.

It was, of course, the previous Conservative government that first launched the TRC, along with other measures that sought to better the outcomes and the lives of indigenous Canadians, especially indigenous youth, the fastest-growing group of young people in Canada.

Unfortunately, it must be said that the Liberals took far too long to bring in this bill, given they have been in power for seven years and that the Prime Minister claims the relationship with indigenous people is the most important to him.

That is why Conservatives pushed an amendment to ensure that it is the Prime Minister who will respond to the national council’s annual report, as the TRC’s call to action says, unlike the Liberals’ original draft, which delegated this responsibility to a minister.

That was just one improvement of the 19 substantial amendments from Conservatives to uphold the principles of transparency and independence, to increase accountability and accelerate the timelines for government responses, and, most importantly, to implement concrete, measurable targets and outcomes.

What is crucial is ensuring that good intentions and well-meaning words deliver actions and better outcomes. It is a testament to the good will, spirit of collaboration and shared aspirations that all parties supported 16 of the 19 Conservative amendments.

I am proud to represent nine indigenous communities in Lakeland, just as I am proud to represent every Canadian in the 52 communities across the region. As always, those people and those communities are foremost on my mind, so, like my neighbour from Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, I will address an extremely consequential Conservative amendment that was inexplicably rejected by the MPs of all the other parties. Conservatives wanted to ensure that one seat on the board of directors of the national council would be filled by an indigenous economic national organization.

It makes little sense to talk about mutual commitments between governments and citizens to tell the truth about historical, systemic and paternalistic injustices for societal reconciliation but to also simultaneously reject entrenching economic reconciliation as a priority so communities can move from managing poverty to generating prosperity. There are so many ways that can help resolve the disproportionate socio-economic challenges that indigenous people and communities face as a consequence of generations of oppressive and discriminatory government policies and programs.

This especially matters when it comes to ongoing challenges for indigenous leaders and entrepreneurs who want to secure jobs and create jobs, equity ownership, mutual benefit agreements and other economic opportunities in natural resources development. These are a main source of employment, and often the only source, for communities in rural and remote regions. It also matters in the public policy debates and duties around definitions of decision-makers, roles in consultation, consent and consensus, identity and local impacts.

In Lakeland, four of the nine indigenous communities are Métis settlements, half of all the settlements in Canada. They are unique to Alberta, with legislated Métis land bases, local governments and infrastructure costs, like water treatment facilities, roads and schools. They pay taxes, including carbon taxes.

For years I have pushed for their recognition, and I was finally able to get an indigenous and northern affairs committee report to cite them as “distinct entities with unique needs”.

In September I urged the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations to include the settlements in Bill C-29, because it is an obvious hindrance to reconciliation if they are excluded from meaningful participation in the council, but I am still waiting for a response.

Representatives of the settlements in Lakeland often tell me they feel abandoned and forgotten by the government. Lee Thom, a Kikino Métis Settlement councillor, says that the Métis settlements must have a seat at that table to advocate for their indigenous communities, which are stand-alone and not a part of existing Métis nations in Alberta and nationally.

Still, the settlements have never been mentioned in a federal budget and are often excluded from federal initiatives. To me, this remains a glaring omission.

It is particularly relevant to the pursuit of economic reconciliation because the Métis settlements in Lakeland, along with most of the first nations, are currently, and have been, heavily involved in energy and natural resources development for decades. Many have previously met all their community needs with their own source revenue from their businesses and contracts.

The NDP's and Liberals' anti-energy agenda and aim to phase out oil and gas, which have already driven away investment, cost over $150 billion in lost projects and hundreds of thousands of jobs, have hit indigenous communities as hard as everyone else.

Last year, the indigenous and northern affairs committee tackled barriers to indigenous economic development. We heard from dozens of witnesses and one thing was clear: Empowering indigenous communities to set up businesses, develop their natural resources and create wealth for their communities and surrounding areas is crucial.

In later work, witnesses said that housing, health care, governance, infrastructure and emergency preparedness challenges all come back to the core concept of economic reconciliation. Several elected leaders from Lakeland participated.

Chief Gregory Desjarlais, of Frog Lake first nation, talked about the importance of access to capital to get projects built, like the carbon capture proposal led by Frog Lake and Kehewin, both in Lakeland. Frog Lake is heavily involved and invested in energy operations, whether through jobs or their community-owned Frog Lake Energy Resources Corp.

The benefits of indigenous-owned businesses are many. As Chief Desjarlais put it:

Look at these projects.... Look at indigenous ownership. If you involve the first nations, you allow them to build homes. You allow them to send kids to school. You allow them to send people to treatment. You allow them to deliver water to these homes. You allow them to remove mould. That's problem-solving. That's a takeaway, instead of all the money leaving Canada and still having poorer first nations living on CFAs and begging for handouts.

These benefits were echoed by Stan Delorme, chair of the Buffalo Lake Métis Settlement, as they would help to meet their major infrastructure needs for the disproportionate number of unemployed youth and to lift Buffalo Lake’s average annual income of $27,000 a year.

The ever-increasing carbon tax hurts them even more, as the cost of lumber, fuel, and home heating skyrockets, and the accessible oil and gas jobs that used to exist for them have disappeared because of the Liberals’ anti-energy agenda. Lee Thom says, “Our settlements are communities—living, breathing—with roads, schools and water, with everything that comes with a small municipality and are in dire need of funding.”

Those are three of the nine indigenous communities in Lakeland who are now part of the 23 communities that are now all proud owners of over a billion dollars' worth of pipelines in the Athabasca region.

Many other indigenous-led and indigenous-owned projects and partnership projects have been outright killed by this anti-energy government, like the Prime Minister’s unilateral veto of the northern gateway pipeline, which destroyed the aspirations of and all the work of 31 communities, which had mutual benefit agreements, and he did that without consultation, or all of the projects that are at risk by anti-energy policies and activists who threaten projects and are often not even from the locally impacted area.

The outright cancellation or the deliberate policy-driven delays to force private sector proponents to abandon major natural resources development and infrastructure projects have all been major concerns, and often totally devastating to numerous indigenous communities, leaders and business groups.

Those projects are opportunities for economic reconciliation. They are tools for indigenous communities to meet their core social and economic needs, invest in their cultures, and preserve and nurture their heritage and their languages for future generations.

For example, Chief Councillor Crystal Smith from Haisla Nation opposes Bill C-48, the shipping and export ban, and supports Coastal GasLink as a way to bring her community out of poverty.

Last week, Calvin Helin, an indigenous author and entrepreneur, said that what really irks indigenous Canadians involved in responsible resource development is the meddling and interference from “eco-colonialists”, these groups whose only interest is in stopping projects, and government interference where the government is only listening to the side of the project that supports their politics.

There are countless examples of the Liberal government trampling on indigenous Canadians’ work and hope, roadblocking their pursuit of self-determination, including Eva Clayton of the Nisga’a, whose LNG export facility is on hold because of Liberal red tape; Natural Law Energy, 20 prairie first nations who lost a billion-dollar investment opportunity when Keystone XL was cancelled due to Liberal inaction; the Lax Kw’alaams, who are litigating against the Liberals’ Bill C-48 export ban, which violated their rights and title and ruined their plans for a deep-water port and oil export facility without consulting them; and the 35 indigenous communities with the Eagle Spirit Energy Corridor proposal, whose work and hopes for economic benefits were quashed by Bill C-69, the no more pipelines act.

The Liberals and the anti-energy activists’ anti-resource, anti-business and anti-energy agenda, usually outside and far away from the local indigenous communities, sabotages all their efforts to benefit from natural resources development and to participate in their local economies.

These actions look a lot like those of a centralist, colonialist government imposing its views against the goals and priorities of the majority of directly impacted indigenous people and leaders, like those in Lakeland.

While Conservatives will support this bill, the Liberals still need to fix their own paternalism that prevents economic reconciliation to ensure that indigenous voices, not just those that align with Liberal political priorities, are all represented in reconciliation efforts.

[Jasraj Singh Hallan, Conservative, Calgary Forest Lawn, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Minister, your government is projecting that, next year, Canada will only have a 0.7% growth in GDP. Your government had 15 good LNG projects on the table when it took over in 2015. Not a single one has been completed. You oversaw the cancelling of northern gateway, energy east and Keystone XL. Your government brought in Bill C-69, the “no more pipelines” bill, and Bill C-48, the tanker ban, which shut out Canada's potential to supply the world with Canada's responsible oil and gas, at a time when there's energy poverty around the world. It's caused home-heating costs to almost double.

In 2020 alone, 28,000 direct and 107,000 indirect jobs were lost in the energy sector, according to CAPP. The carbon tax is killing the energy sector, which is now unable to invest more of its capital into clean technology and emissions reduction. The Liberals demonize the energy sector, which is the same energy sector that helped any growth on the government's books. That's quite ironic. Also, the OECD predicted that Canada will be the worst-performing advanced economy over 2020 to 2030.

Would you agree that, without the success of Canada's energy sector growth, growth would be far lower than 0.7%?

Division of Bill C-27 for the Purpose of Voting

[Andrew Scheer, Conservative, Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am rising to add to this morning's point of order raised by the NDP House leader concerning the application of Standing Order 69.1 to Bill C-27.

In general, we have reviewed the hon. member's submissions and concur with them. That said, there are a couple of additional citations I want to put before the Chair for your consideration. I will not repeat the arguments, because you already have them before you, Mr. Speaker, but we do agree that the measures proposed in part 3 of Bill C-27 are significantly different from and unrelated to parts 1 and 2 such that they warrant a separate vote at second reading.

As my NDP counterpart articulated, the purpose of parts 1 and 2 of the bill concern privacy protections, the powers of the Privacy Commissioner and the establishment of a new government tribunal. Part 3, meanwhile, would create a whole new law respecting artificial intelligence. The mechanisms under the minister and department's powers are completely unrelated to those in parts 1 and 2. That last point is significant in view of another aspect of the March 1, 2018, ruling of Mr. Speaker Regan, which my colleague cited. Allow me to quote your predecessor, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Regan said:

As each of the first two parts of the bill does indeed enact a new act, I can see why the hon. member for Berthier—Maskinongé would like to see each one voted separately. However, my reading of the bill is that the regimes set out in part 1, the impact assessment act, and part 2, the Canadian energy regulator act, are linked in significant ways, reflected in the number of cross-references. For example, the impact assessment act provides for a process for assessing the impact of certain projects, but contains specific provisions for projects with activities regulated under the Canadian energy regulator act. There are also obligations in the Canadian energy regulator act that are subject to provisions in the impact assessment act. Given the multiple references in each of these parts to the entities and processes established by the other part, I believe it is in keeping with the standing order that these two parts be voted together.

Deputy Speaker Bruce Stanton also encountered a similar situation in his June 18, 2018, ruling at page 21,196 of the Debates. Unlike the case that I quoted just now respecting the pipeline-killing former Bill C-69, Bill C-27 does not feature any significant or intertwining cross-references. In other words, Speaker Regan found that the two parts should be voted on together because of all the intertwining and cross-referencing in so many parts, and one part mentioning and referencing items in the first part.

This is not the situation we have today with part 3 of Bill C-27. In fact, part 3 of Bill C-27 does not explicitly cross-reference the personal information and data protection tribunal act, which part 2 would enact. Furthermore, there appears to be only one single, tiny, solitary cross-reference to the consumer privacy protection act, which part 1 would enact, and that is solely for the purpose of proposing a definition of personal information, which would be common to both of those laws. That is certainly not enough to warrant any kind of grouping when it comes to votes.

Part 3 is completely separate. It is its own independent section. There is not anywhere near the level of cross-referencing and intertwining that previous Speakers have ruled are justification for deciding not to have a separate vote. Therefore, it is clear in this situation that Bill C-27, should you, Mr. Speaker, agree with the arguments, should be dealt with in such a manner that there can be a separate vote on part 3.

Standing Order 69.1 is a relatively recent innovation. It has only been in the last number of years that Speakers have been given the authority by the House to separate aspects of bills for separate votes. I will read it:

(1) In the case where a government bill seeks to repeal, amend or enact more than one act, and where there is not a common element connecting the various provisions or where unrelated matters are linked, the Speaker shall have the power to divide the questions, for the purposes of voting, on the motion for second reading and reference to a committee and the motion for third reading and passage of the bill. The Speaker shall have the power to combine clauses of the bill thematically and to put the aforementioned questions on each of these groups of clauses separately, provided that there will be a single debate at each stage.

If we think about the context in which this standing order developed and was ultimately passed by the House, it was to allow members more flexibility and latitude to make their votes count on various aspects of the bill. It is important to think about why the House decided to adopt this measure. There had been, over the course of several Parliaments and across different governments at various times, more and more subject material being included in bills, and this was done at the time to give members the option of voting in favour of some aspects of a bill and oppose others and to clarify for their constituents and Canadians which parts of a bill they supported and which parts of a bill they opposed.

The reason I am talking about this context is I do not believe that at the time, the rationale and impetus for the inclusion of this measure in the Standing Orders was meant to be terribly restrictive. The whole point of the standing order was for it to be more permissive to allow greater latitude and flexibility. This is a relatively new innovation that has only been used a small number of times, and in parliamentary terms certainly a very small number of times, and I believe it would not be in keeping with the spirit and intent that was guiding members when we adopted it to start off, early on in its new use, with being very restrictive, because things around here tend to go in one direction and powers or flexibilities accorded the Chair over time often get more and more rigid as rules and precedents develop around them.

If the Speaker were to adopt a very restrictive interpretation of this standing order, I believe it would take away the point of this innovation, as it was proposed. I do not believe it would take a permissive interpretation of the standing order to agree with my hon. colleague from the NDP and the points that I raise here today. It is very clear that these parts are separate. Part 3 of Bill C-27 is completely independent, stands on its own and is not related, intertwined or cross-referenced in earlier parts of the act.

I only mention the point about restrictive interpretation as one further point to urge the Speaker to consider what the spirit, intent and purpose of this innovation was meant to do, which was to allow members to clearly differentiate which parts of legislation they support and which parts they do not. I would urge you, Mr. Speaker, to keep that in mind as you study the arguments that were put before you. I hope you will find in our favour and allow members to vote separately on part 3.

Fall Economic Statement Implementation Act, 2022

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, when I take a walk through this country, I cannot help feeling like everything is broken.

Inflation is at a 40-year high. In a single month, 1.5 million Canadians visited a food bank. In the GTA, the greater Toronto area, that number was 180,000, in one general metropolitan area. One in five Canadians is skipping meals, because they cannot afford their groceries. About half of Canadians are $200 or less away from insolvency. The number of insolvencies is up by a fifth compared to a year ago, the biggest increase in 13 years. One in six businesses is considering closing their doors.

Households now face the prospect of 15% of their income going to debt servicing alone, a recent record. Mortgage interest costs for the average family are up 11%. Year over year that is the biggest increase since 1991. If someone renewed their mortgage today, after having secured it five years ago, they would be paying about $7,000 more per year for the very same house they lived in last year.

If people think home ownership is expensive, they should be careful about renting. That now costs $2,000 a month in the average Canadian city. Vancouver has the world's third most inflated housing market. Toronto has the 10th. In fact, Vancouver is more expensive than New York, Singapore, London, England, and countless others of the world's most famous cities where they have more people, more money and less land.

If we took a walk out of our homes onto the street, we would find ourselves 32% more in danger of being attacked. That is the increase in the violent crime rate since the Prime Minister took office. In fact, there were 124,000 more crimes committed this year than in 2015, when the Prime Minister came to office. There were 788 homicides in Canada last year. That is up from 611 back in 2015, which is another 29% increase. There has been a 92% increase in gang-related homicide and a 61% increase in the reports of sexual assaults since 2015. Police have reported hate crimes are up 72% over the last two years alone. After the government tells us it is investing so much of its rhetoric and its money in fighting racism, we see hatred and hate-based violence has increased by three-quarters.

Some 31,000 Canadians have lost their lives to overdoses. If we take a walk down streets like East Hastings in Vancouver, we will see tent cities where adults are lying face-first on the pavement, having just completed their most recent dose, not sure whether they will actually awaken. Police and social workers literally have to scour the streets 24-7 to check pulses of people lying on the pavement, not as extraordinary circumstances or one-time emergencies, but as daily events. In fact, there were 71,069 Canadians who died of overdoses in 2021. Twenty-one people are dying of overdoses every single day. That is up from 11 per day.

More than six million Canadians do not have access to a family doctor. The most simple expectations that we have for our health, like going into a pharmacy and getting painkillers for our children have now become out of reach. Canadians are now forced to drive south of the border to get the same medications that are not available on this side of the border. In fact, according to an association of pharmaceutical wholesalers that represents businesses in 19 countries, only Canada is suffering from these shortages.

Meanwhile, speaking of the rest of the world, there are still people who want to come here, and we hope they do, but 2.6 million of them are waiting in immigration queues. Over a million have been waiting longer than the acceptable wait time. When they arrive, they would arrive at Pearson, one of the worst-ranked airports on planet Earth. Montreal is not far behind when it comes to records for delays. The port of Vancouver is now ranked 376th out of 380 ports around the world. Speaking of getting people into the country, 10,000 Canadians were sent wrongly into quarantine by a $54-million app that we did not need, that did not work and that could have been procured for $250,000.

Speaking of building stuff, whether it is apps or anything else, our country is now ranked the second slowest for the time it takes to get a building permit. The average building permit takes over 250 days in Canada, but only 28 days in South Korea. It is no wonder we cannot build the factories, the pipelines and, most important of all, the houses that give people homes. We import 130,000 barrels of overseas oil every day even though we have the third-biggest supply on planet Earth.

All of these things are broken. What is most interesting about them is that they all happened under the Prime Minister's watch, while he refuses to take responsibility for any of them. Any one of these things in isolation would be considered a catastrophic embarrassment, but together they show the story of a country that cannot get anything done and that has accepted dramatic reductions in its quality of life and its expectation for what a person can receive living in this country of ours. The Prime Minister, who is in charge of the central government, ought to take some responsibility, but he takes none.

He says that a 40-year high in inflation has something to do with the war between Russia and Ukraine, even though inflation was already two and a half times the target before the war even began and less than 0.3% of our trade is with Russia and Ukraine combined. As for the stuff they produce, the stuff we already have here, he is not responsible for the massive increases in cost.

The Prime Minister is not responsible, he says, for the doubling of house prices or the fact that rental costs are out of reach. He is not responsible for the skyrocketing crime rates in our streets, even though his government oversees the Criminal Code and the national police force and border security. He is not responsible for the overdose deaths of so many Canadians. He is not responsible for the fact that so many people are going to food banks. He is not responsible for the fact that our children cannot get medication.

He says he is not responsible and he is right: He is not responsible. He is not responsible, even though he has the power to affect all of these things and, in many cases, he is the one who caused them in the first place.

I have never seen a prime minister who is so desperate to have more power with less responsibility. He wants to take over what we see and say on the Internet. He wants to control a greater share of the money that Canadians earn by constantly increasing spending faster than the economy grows. He wants to have more power over dental and pharmaceutical and child care, rather than allowing Canadians to control those things for themselves. He wants to have more control over health care by dictating terms to our provinces on how they should run their hospitals, even while he does not want to be responsible for any of the health outcomes that we see in our emergency rooms across the country. He wants more power, but he does not want more responsibility.

When we ask him about these failures, his constant refrain is that he is spending more money, and on that count he is right. There is no question that the government is the all-time heavyweight champion of spending. It has increased spending by 30% over pre-COVID levels even though COVID programs have now ended, but the results, as I have just listed, speak for themselves.

It is not a consolation prize that we are spending more to achieve these failures. The only thing worse than failing is failing expensively, and that is what the Prime Minister is doing.

Only in government, by the way, would politicians think that it is acceptable to measure their success by how expensive they can be. For example, this week, the Auditor General came out and said that the Liberals have spent an extra $1 billion-plus specifically on homelessness. Well, that sounds good, but they cannot keep track of how many homeless people there are in Canada. They have no idea what the results are. They have an overall housing program of $40 billion, which is supposed to make housing more affordable, but all the while house prices have doubled. The more they spend, the more things cost and the worse the results.

In the real world, people judge things by the outcome. For example, if I go to the grocery store, come back home, pull out a receipt and say to my wife, “I spent $700 on groceries” while I am holding two bags of groceries, she is going to say, “Where did all the money go?” I would say she has to give me a high-five because they were really expensive and that whatever I have in those bags must be terrific because it cost more than when she goes grocery shopping.

The reality is that nobody in the real world judges their success that way. We do not have restaurants that say, “Come dine with us. It is $500 a night to be in our dining room. We will not tell you anything about the service, the ambience or what ends up on the plate. What is most important is that our meals are the most expensive and therefore must be the best.” Only in politics do people think it is appropriate to judge success by how expensive government can be. What if instead of judging our success by how much we spend, we judged it by how much we delivered and the results that we actually achieve?

Everything feels broken in the lives of everyday Canadians, but the good news is that we can fix it. We live in the greatest country in the world. Our country has overcome these difficulties before and has rebuilt and given new hope where before there was hurt. There is a very clear path to achieving that result, and that is to start with the issue of money. Instead of spending more, let us achieve more.

How do we do that? Why do we not cap government spending and cut waste, and bring in a dollar-for-dollar law that requires the government to find a dollar of savings for every new dollar of spending measures? That would force politicians to make the same either-or trade-offs when they spend our money that everyday Canadians make in their lives.

When a local mechanic decides he is going to spend a little more on advertising, he has to spend a little more somewhere else in order to free up that money. When a family decides they are going to build a new porch, they might decide not to go on vacation or might try to find a bargain on both. They might get a deal on a vacation and go to the local construction yard to get some discarded lumber in order to build a porch more affordably.

Politicians and bureaucrats do not make those kinds of calculations because they do not have to. There is always more in the pot. They can tax more, borrow more or print more.

That scarcity gets passed on to the taxpayer. Every creature in the universe has to live with scarcity. The great economist Thomas Sowell once said that the first law of economics is scarcity. There is always more demand than there is supply. The first law of politics, however, is to ignore the first law of economics. That is what politicians do by simply putting scarcity onto other people by driving up their costs and externalizing the consequences of spending decisions.

If instead we forced politicians by law to live with the same laws of scarcity as every other business, consumer or taxpayer, we would force better results. Politicians would need to go into their departments and ask themselves, “If I want to increase spending on this initiative, where can I find savings somewhere else?" They would be incentivized to go line by line, year after year, to find low-priority items in order to redirect the money to high-priority results for Canadians.

Let us get the Bank of Canada back to its core mandate of 2% inflation rather than printing money to pay for political spending. Let us also get rid of the obvious examples of wasteful spending. We could cancel the ArriveCAN app and get rid of the multi-billion dollar Infrastructure Bank, which has achieved no projects but has guaranteed the profits of large multinationals and the bonuses of executives. Getting rid of this waste would allow us to save money and free up more resources for things that could achieve results for our people.

Instead of creating more cash, why do we not create more of what cash buys in this country? Why do we not grow more food, build more houses and generate more Canadian energy?

Speaking of energy, I had the privilege of visiting the single largest infrastructure project in Canadian history, LNG Canada, a $40-billion private sector investment approved by the previous Conservative government. It could only come to pass because the Government of British Columbia agreed to exempt the project from the carbon tax. Otherwise, it would not have been economical. What result will actually be achieved by this project? The answer is that it will cut 60 million tonnes of carbon out of the atmosphere by replacing overseas coal-fired plants with clean Canadian natural gas.

Is it not interesting that this project had to be exempt from both Bill C-69, the government's environmental law, and the carbon tax in order for it to go ahead and reduce emissions? In other words, for this environmentally friendly project to occur, the government's environmental policies had to be ignored. That proves how backwards they are.

If the carbon tax had been in place, the project would not have been economical. If Bill C-69, the anti-energy law, had been in place, there is no way it would have been approved. What would have happened? About 60 million more tonnes of greenhouse gases would have gone into the global atmosphere because there would not have been clean Canadian natural gas to replace the dirty coal in Asia.

We have an enormous advantage reaching Asia. B.C. is the shortest North American shipping distance to Asia. We also have the shortest North American shipping distance to Europe from the east coast of Canada. Speaking of the east coast, when the Prime Minister visited there, he was asked about approving natural gas projects in Canada's east coast. He said there might not be a business case. He was standing next to the German Chancellor when he said that.

Ironically, the Germans just announced that they completed a new natural gas import terminal in 194 days. Do members know what they will not be importing there? It is Canadian natural gas. Why? It is because we do not export any natural gas overseas. We do not have any terminals completed. Despite 15 of them having been proposed when the Prime Minister took office, not one of them has been completed. Only one is under construction, the aforementioned LNG Canada. The rest are in limbo.

We could be sending the Germans our natural gas to break European dependence on Putin and to transform dollars for dictators into paycheques for our people in this country. Why do we not do that?

Let us think of the human benefit that would bring. When I was in northern British Columbia, I spoke to a Haisla Nation grandmother who broke down into tears when she said that her granddaughter had been diagnosed with autism. After decades of federal promises that these kinds of conditions would be met with services and treatment, there is no treatment in her region of rural, remote northern British Columbia. She said that if natural gas projects like LNG Canada were allowed to go ahead, and if her nation could sign agreements to share in the benefits of those programs, there would be local resources under the control of first nations communities to provide children like her granddaughter with autism treatment and countless other things. Why do we not empower first nations to do more things like that by allowing these projects to go ahead?

We need to get the government out of the way so these opportunities can occur. We need, for example, to incentivize more home building by requiring our large municipalities with overpriced markets to approve fast and affordable building permits so that we could build the millions of new homes that are required for our existing population and for those who have yet to come to our country. We need to require that every federally funded transit station be pre-approved for high-density housing around it so that our young people do not even need to own a car to live in an affordable house.

We also need to sell off 15% of the 37,000 underutilized federal buildings so they can be made into affordable housing for our young people. We need to get government out of the way so that our projects can get completed and our people can have homes and energy.

Finally, we need to get government out of the way and off the backs of our farmers so they can produce more nutritious food in this country. Is it not an outrage that Canada has the sixth-biggest supply of farmland per capita on earth, but in one in five households, people are actually skipping meals because of the excessive cost of food?

We should not only be able to feed our own families but be the breadbasket of the world by cancelling the carbon tax, not just on primary farming but on drying food and transporting it. We need to cancel the carbon tax on our truckers so they can bring that food affordably to our supermarkets. We also need to remove the ridiculous fertilizer tariffs and taxes the government is bringing in so we can produce more food on every acre of land in order to have greater output and reduce the amount of fuel that has to be burned to produce that prodigious output. Let us unleash the fierce power of our farmers to feed us again.

Let us also make it possible for our people to walk safely in the streets once again, something we used to take for granted. The answer is clear: The vast majority of crime is committed by a tiny minority of criminals. A recent letter from the Union of B.C. Municipalities demonstrated the number of instances of crime and criminality that are generated by a tiny minority. For example, in Vancouver, 40 individuals were responsible for 6,000 negative interactions with the police, most of them arrests. Let us think about that. The same 40 people were arrested 6,000 times in a year. That is like 150 arrests per person per year.

We all agree that if a young person makes a mistake, we should invest in rehabilitating them to get them back on the street once they are ready and into a job as productive members of society. However, when someone commits 60, 70, 80 or 100 violent offences and we consistently and automatically release them early on bail and even after they are convicted, that is contributing to the criminality that has grown by one-third since the Prime Minister took office. Let us target that small minority of criminals with serious consequences to get them off the streets and keep the streets safe.

It is not out of hatred for the criminal that we take these actions. It is out of love for the victims, the people who desperately want to live safely in our neighbourhoods. Instead of investing money in going after the lawful, licensed, trained and tested hunters and sport shooters, we should put that money into bolstering our borders to keep the smuggled drugs and guns that are terrorizing our communities out of our country altogether.

Finally, we need to come to the rescue of the people living in these all-too-common tent cities, whether they are in Vancouver, Toronto or Montreal, or in smaller centres like Peterborough, where this phenomenon is growing out of control. We see people who could be our brothers, sisters or, God forbid, sons or daughters who have lost their homes, are living on the streets and are playing Russian roulette with their lives. Every single time they ingest these poisons, they risk stopping their hearts, and we can change that.

We know that the government's current approach is to liberalize access to the most dangerous opioids and, in fact, use taxpayer funding and public resources for so-called safe supply to make them even more abundant. There is no such thing as safe poison; it is all deadly. We know what we can do to save these people's lives, because they are doing it in Alberta today.

Alberta has redirected the resources away from a so-called “safe”, taxpayer-funded supply of drugs over to recovery and treatment, getting addicts off the street and into a recovery centre, where they are first given detox, which cleans the poison out of their system, and then given 60 to 90 days of treatment, in-patient care, building up the habits of a clean, drug-free life. They are then gently reintroduced into society in jobs and opportunities, during which time they have counselling that keeps them on the right track. What is the result of that approach? It has cut overdoses in half and they are saving lives, proving there is always hope. It is possible to save these people.

Everything feels broken in this country, but it is our role in the House to turn all of that hurt into hope. It is our job to come forward with the practical, common-sense solutions that have made this the best country on earth. It is our job to take responsibility for the suffering that exists in this country today and replace it with opportunity, to give people back control of their lives here in Canada, the freest country on earth, where people can chart their own destinies and be masters of their own fate.

Climate Change

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, it is true that they have to meet environmental standards. We had real environmental standards under the previous Conservative government. In fact, the only way that the LNG Canada project in western Canada went ahead was by exempting it from the new anti-development, Bill C-69.

She is right also that first nations have to be consulted. One person is an indigenous grandmother from the Haisla first nation who told me that LNG Canada and projects like it meant that her autistic grandchild would have the resources for treatment. That means help for first nations, paycheques for people and clean energy for the world.

Why will the Liberals not get out of the way and let it happen?

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Leader of the Opposition]

Revenue neutral, Mr. Speaker? It is not neutral for taxpayers who will pay thousands of dollars more in the tax than they get back in any rebates, according to the government's own Parliamentary Budget Officer.

If the government really wanted to fight greenhouse gas emissions, it would approve projects that do that. For example, there were 15 LNG projects proposed when the government took office. Not a single one has been built. The only one that is under construction was approved by the previous Conservative government and it required subsequent governments to exempt it from the carbon tax in order for it to be economical and to speed up its approval by ignoring Bill C-69.

Will the government get out of the way and let our projects go ahead to protect the earth?

[Lucie Perreault]

I can't particularly speak to Bill C-69. I'm sorry; it would be a different department.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Thank you very much.

I'd like to move over to FedNor for a minute.

You talked about the Ring of Fire. I met with the Mining Association of Canada this past week, and they talked a little bit about the approval process. Can you speak specifically to Bill C-69? Has that increased or decreased the speed at which approvals can be granted to small and medium-sized prospectors and miners?

Natural Resources

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, on June 3, I asked the Minister of Natural Resources a question about Canada's role in providing the world with energy solutions. I pointed out the government's failures in having Canadian resources delivered to world markets. My question was one about long-term impact, the result of the government's constrictive policies on Canadian resource development and delivery to world markets, and Canada's role in providing the world with energy security.

The minister told me I was wrong, that I was wrong in pointing out that hundreds of billions of dollars of investment projects have left this country since the government was elected. He said I was wrong that government-funded delays on resource development projects have left Canada with a reputation as an unreliable place to invest. He said I was wrong in indicating that their flagship Impact Assessment Act, the famous Bill C-69, has led to more uncertainty in the process of having projects approved. He said I was wrong in protesting the constraints on Canada's signature contribution to reducing worldwide CO2 emissions by exporting the world's cleanest natural gas to world markets and, in the process, displacing coal burning for electricity production in the developing world. He said I was wrong in actively working to get Canadian resources to world markets like Germany, which were thrust into the arms of Russia, as it filled the void left by Canada these past seven years. This led to a transfer of hundreds of billions of dollars of wealth from democratic countries to authoritarian regimes, the most problematic, of course, being the funds that flow to Russia to wage war against our friends in Ukraine.

The government has made this bed and now it is saying that it would take too long for Canada to provide solutions to the obvious problem.

Well, I am not wrong.

The government has failed the world by constraining clean Canadian energy development for the past seven years. It has failed the developing world in providing clean Canadian energy to a growing world demanding more energy. It has failed the environment by keeping Canadian natural gas from markets that have had to burn more coal and emit more CO2. It has failed the democratic nations around the world by forcing them to source their energy at great expense from the world's most authoritarian regimes. We should have developed these resources for the world seven years ago. It is true. These are great policy failures for Canada and for the world.

The best time to move forward was seven years ago, then six years ago, then five years ago, then four years ago, then three years ago. The best time to move forward is right now. Let us get these things off the building blocks and let us get some things going in Canada.

Let us talk about the supply disruptions. I know one of the excuses I am going to hear is that these are global supply disruptions. Well, who is causing the global supply disruptions? It is Canada. We cannot get projects built.

On inflation, if we think about the mounting cost of energy around the world, it is because Canada has not been there to provide energy to a growing world. This past summer alone, energy was $60 per thousand cubic feet in Europe and $10 per thousand cubic feet in the United States. That is a big difference. It was worth negative at times in Canada.

We have to get our resources to market.

Government Business No. 22

[Kerry-Lynne Findlay, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock, BC]

Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the NDP-Liberal attack on parliamentary committees in the form of Government Business No. 22.

This undemocratic motion is a crass attempt at frustrating the work of committees by further limiting their resources. On the face of it, the motion allows the government House leader to extend the hours of any sitting of the House to midnight until June 2023. The Liberals say they are simply seeking more time to debate their legislation, but we must look at the broader implications of the adopting this motion.

With the persistence of virtual Parliament, workplace injuries for interpretation staff have increased ninefold. Since 2019, there has been a 25% decline in the number of interpreters employed by the translation bureau and nearly 40% fewer freelance interpreters available to the House. These unionized professionals work each day to ensure that our business is conducted in both official languages.

The Liberals and NDP dismiss the plight of these workers, demanding that our work continue in a hybrid fashion against the objections of interpretation staff. Due to the lack of interpreters, there is a strict limit on how many parliamentary activities the House administration can facilitate in any given sitting week. As a result, every time the hours are extended in the House, two committee meetings must be cancelled. Put simply, more time for the House equals less time for committees.

Let us keep in mind the government is in complete control of the House agenda. It determines the business each and every day, including which of its bills will be debated. It has tools at its disposal to cut off debate as it deems appropriate. It even designates which days will be allotted for opposition days. With the blind support of the hapless NDP, the Liberals have the votes to pass their legislation.

In other words, the Liberals are in complete control of the House, propped up by the NDP. However, they do not control committees in the same way. Conservatives have secured several committee investigations that are holding the Liberals accountable for their failures. For example, the government operations committee is digging into the $54-million ArriveCAN app, including Liberal misinformation reported to the House that contractors were paid millions when they did not receive a dime. That committee is tasked with answering two key questions: Where is the money and who got rich?

The heritage committee is investigating the Minister of Housing and Diversity and Inclusion for providing funding to known racist and anti-Semite Laith Marouf. The procedure and House affairs committee is investigating the Prime Minister who has known for over a year about foreign interference in our elections and has yet to act. The public safety committee is investigating allegations made against the Minister of Emergency Preparedness for political interference in the investigation into the mass killings in Nova Scotia. It is shameful.

The veterans affairs committee is looking into allegations that a government employee recommended medically assisted suicide for a veteran struggling with mental health. The declaration of a public order emergency committee has heard considerable testimony that contradicts the Liberal rationale for invoking the Emergencies Act. The transport committee recommended the repeal of the Canada Infrastructure Bank, a Liberal-made organization that has failed to get any infrastructure built. Conservatives on the foreign affairs committee continue to advocate for the listing of the IRGC as a terrorist entity, so that this brutal regime about to execute 15,000 of its own citizens cannot fundraise and organize in Canada anymore.

These are just some examples of how Conservatives are making parliamentary committees work for Canadians. Under Government Business No. 22, this and all work of committees would be restricted and constrained. The motivation for this motion is clear, the Liberals want Parliament to serve only their purposes. To them, Parliament is only useful when they can control it.

Canadians expect Parliament to hold the government to account, and Conservatives will fight to maintain the dignity of this institution.

There was a time, if we can believe it, when Liberals believed that committee work was essential. In the 2015 election, they made the following promise:

We will strengthen Parliamentary committees so that they can better scrutinize legislation.

Better government starts with better ideas. We will ensure that Parliamentary committees are properly resourced to bring in expert witnesses, and are sufficiently staffed to continue to provide reliable, non-partisan research.

The Liberals made that promise when they still believed they were the party of sunny ways, but after seven years of corruption and cover-ups, the mirage of an open, transparent and accountable government has been exposed.

Last week, in mainstream media, the government House leader justified his motion, claiming that Conservatives were employing tactics that amounted to “parliamentary obstruction by stealth.” The irony of this claim is not lost on me. He is the one, under the pretext of expanding debate in the House, who is attacking committees by stealth. I will address his claim directly.

Conservatives do not obstruct for the sake of obstruction. In recent weeks, we have allowed several bills to proceed in a reasonable time frame. We supported the swift passage of Bill C-30, which provided GST tax relief for low-income Canadians. The government did not need to use time allocation to shepherd that legislation through the House.

On September 29, the Conservative member for Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, with whom I am splitting my time, secured the unanimous consent of the House to pass the national council for reconciliation act at second reading and send it for study at the indigenous and northern affairs committee.

We allowed for Bill C-22, the disability benefit act, to be sent to the human resources committee after just two days of debate. Again, time allocation was not required.

Just before the last constituency week, Conservatives supported Bill S-5, which will strengthen environmental protection in Canada. No time allocation was required.

Conservatives can be counted on when the government brings forward proposals on which common ground can be found. The government House leader's accusation about obstruction is simply not true.

Having said that, Conservatives are openly opposed to the Liberal agenda. There is no “stealth” about it. We use every tool available in the parliamentary tool box to both expose Liberal failure and corruption and propose our ideas for Canadians to consider as an alternative.

If the government House leader had been paying attention, he would know that the new Conservative leader and our Conservative team are putting the people first: their paycheques, their savings, their homes and their country. We are against deficit-driven inflation. Instead, we demand that all new spending be matched with savings found somewhere else. We are opposed to payroll and carbon tax hikes in the middle of this cost of living crisis.

We defend energy workers against the Prime Minister's attacks on their livelihoods. We would repeal anti-energy laws like Bill C-69 and remove other Liberal-made barriers to producing our natural resources. We oppose the failed climate change plan of this government, which has not achieved a single emissions reduction target. We say no to the oppressive carbon tax and yes to technology in the fight against climate change.

We abhor $6,000-a-night hotel stays for the Prime Minister while Canadians are visiting food banks in record numbers, like 1.5 million in one month. We oppose wasteful spending and the $54-million “arrive scam” app that did not work. We did not need it, and it could have been designed over a weekend for about $250,000.

We are vocal when the Prime Minister is silent about foreign actors interfering in our elections. We reject Liberal inaction while shelves that should be stocked with children's medication sit empty. We stand with victims, not criminals, as the rates of violent crime have spiked in our cities under this government's soft-on-crime policies, and we oppose this outrageous attempt at seizing control of parliamentary committees.

There is no “stealth” about our opposition to the NDP-Liberal government. We proudly oppose the costly coalition on all these fronts, in broad daylight, for all to see.

Fall Economic Statement

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am not allowed to mention the presence or absence of the Prime Minister, but I will just say that some people bring happiness wherever they go and others bring happiness whenever they go.

Conservatives are going to cap government spending. We are going to get the Bank of Canada back to its core mandate. For 25 years, the Bank of Canada had a very simple mandate of 2% inflation, brought in by the Mulroney government. It was to stick to 2%. Interest rates and money supply were all governed to that purpose, and it worked. It worked until the current Prime Minister came along and pushed the bank to print cash to pay for his spending. We are going to have no more of that.

Conservatives will fund our programs with real money, rather than printed cash, because we know that there are no freebies in this world and we know that, ultimately, the taxpayer and the consumer pay for everything. We will reinstate that mandate and we will audit the central bank through the Auditor General to make sure that never again is there such a horrendous abuse of our money as we have seen over the last couple of years.

Instead of creating more cash, we are going to create more of what cash buys. We are going to grow more food, build more houses and produce more resources right here in Canada, and here is how we will do it. We will incentivize our municipalities to remove their gatekeepers so that we can build more houses. We will remove the gatekeepers off the backs of our farmers by cancelling the tariffs and taxes on their fertilizers and fuel so they can produce more in this country. We will remove the government gatekeepers that stand in the way of our resource sector.

Do members know that Canada today has the second-slowest time for building permits of any country in the OECD? The only other country that is worse is the Slovak Republic. In Canada, if we take all the types of building permits that exist, everything from a renovation permit on a house all the way up to a full uranium mine, and we average it out, the average permit time is 250 days. In South Korea, it is 28 days.

We wonder why investors are taking their money to places like South Korea, Singapore, Australia, New Zealand, Switzerland and Ireland. It is because they can actually get things built in those countries. That is what Conservatives are going to do in this country. We are going to compress the timelines and speed up approvals. We are going to challenge all levels of government to meet the goal of Canada being the fastest place to deliver a building permit anywhere in the developed world.

The minister said today she is going to pitch the world on our critical minerals. The problem is that she cannot get them out of the ground. She is going to tell everyone that they exist. Out there in that field there is some lithium, copper and nickel, but companies have to wait seven years for us to give a permit for anyone to dig that mine. She says she is going to give out a bunch of corporate welfare to mining companies, which can fill their bank accounts with taxpayers' cash. If they cannot get a permit to dig the mine, they will not be able to turn it into anything other than big, fat boondoggles for taxpayers.

Conservatives will repeal the anti-energy law, Bill C-69, so that we can build Canadian pipelines with Canadian steel to take Canadian energy to Canadian marketplaces and around the world. We are going to eliminate the anti-investment taxes that pile on the backs of our entrepreneurs so that it is actually rewarding to build things in this country. We are going to axe the carbon tax so that it is possible for our industries to compete and for our people to afford energy in this country.

As for energy, there are two very different approaches. Across the aisle, they believe that we should tackle climate change by making traditional energy that Canadians rely on more expensive. Conservatives believe in tackling climate change by making new alternatives more affordable. We will do that by incentivizing and speeding up permits to mine lithium, copper, cobalt, graphite and other necessary minerals that will eventually go into Canadian-made electric cars and other forms of renewable energy. We will incentivize the production of these energies here in Canada. We will incentivize nuclear energy here on Canadian soil so that we can power our economy emissions-free.

We will also get rid of the red tape to get dams built in Quebec. We know that in Quebec, there will not be enough electricity in the future to charge electric cars and to meet all the needs of a green future.

Their solution is to build dams. However, the Prime Minister wants to prevent or delay the construction of those dams with duplicate processes.

We agree with the Government of Quebec. It is not necessary to add three or four years to the time frame for these projects since the Government of Quebec already has processes in place to protect the environment. Quebeckers are capable of protecting the environment, and we are going to help them by approving the construction of hydroelectric dams.

Finally, we will make this a country where work pays again. It does not pay to work for a lot of people. Let us look at someone on disability who recovers to a point or arrives at a point in their life where they realize they can work 10 or 15 hours and they want to get out into the world and contribute. The clawbacks right now mean many people on disability lose more than a dollar for every extra dollar they earn.

The government published a report showing that if a single mother with three kids who earns $55,000 a year earns another dollar, she loses 80¢ of that dollar. She earns about $25 an hour. She loses in clawbacks of her benefits and taxes on her income 20 of those dollars, so her real wage on that extra hour of work is five dollars an hour. Nobody in Canada should be expected to work for five dollars an hour. That is an outrage. That is why my government will reform the tax and benefit system to ensure that whenever somebody works an extra hour, takes an extra shift, or earns an extra bonus, they are always better off and they always keep more of that dollar.

We will do this to restore the Canadian promise. I look around this chamber and I see many inspiring stories, like my finance critic, who rose today to ask the first question. He is the son of immigrants. He grew up in a tough neighbourhood and had a difficult childhood, but he was able to get a diploma in accounting, which he is putting to very good use in this House. He started a business, built homes and was elected to serve in a G7 Parliament.

I, myself, am the son of a 16-year-old unwed mother who had to put me up for adoption to two school teachers. They always taught me it did not matter where I came from, that it mattered where I was going, and it did not matter who I knew, that it mattered what I could do. That is the country I want my children to inherit, and that is the country we will fight for every single day in this House.

Strengthening Environmental Protection for a Healthier Canada Act

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I will start by wishing you a belated happy birthday.

I am pleased to rise on Bill S-5. I have not spoken in the House for a while. I have been too busy covering committees. It is nice to be back.

Of all the hundreds of bills I have debated, this one has to have the sexiest title: an act to amend the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, to make related amendments to the Food and Drugs Act, and to repeal a couple of words that I cannot pronounce Virtual Elimination Act. This bill basically replaces Bill C-28, which the government brought in during a previous Parliament.

When introducing this bill, the environment minister talked up the usual propaganda. He talked about Canadians knowing the urgency of the need for this bill and said that the government is responding to this urgency. I have to laugh, because, again, this bill existed in the previous Parliament, but the environment minister was part of the government that called an early election and effectively killed the bill, using crass political opportunism to take advantage of what were favourable polls at the time and also to kill the Winnipeg lab inquiry. Basically, it killed the bill, the same one that is so urgent that the government was seized with it but decided to waste a year by killing it with a cynical election.

Generally, as my colleague from Oshawa commented before me, we support Bill S-5. Our chemical management plan is probably the best in the world, along with our chemical engineers, especially in Alberta at DuPont. I used to work in Fort Saskatchewan, at a chemical plant there, with lots of great jobs, lots of very strong investment and high-paying jobs, which is very good for Canada.

This bill will also modernize the CEPA and ensure it sticks with a risk-based approach to management, as opposed to the more burdensome red tape and growing hazards-based approach.

The bill also recognizes a right to a healthy environment, which I generally support. I mean, who would not support a right to a healthy environment? However, I have to say I have great concerns that it does not define what that is in this bill, and it gives the government two years to do this. The failure to define this issue can have great implications in the future. I am very wary of a bill from the Liberal government that says, “Just trust us on this issue and we will get back to you.” There were five years of consultations on this specific issue, and the government is asking for two more.

Of course, I have to say that five years late from this government is not bad. The government is seven years behind on icebreakers; seven years behind on joint supply ships; seven years behind on fighter plane replacements; seven years behind on the offshore patrol ships; six or seven years behind on fixing the Phoenix pay fiasco; years late on buying handguns for our armed forces; years late on the frigate program, which has gone from $92 billion to $306 billion; years late on introducing whistle-blower protection; years late in getting ATIPs processed. I actually have some ATIPs that are so late and so old that they could have gone through a graduate program at university in the time it has taken for them still not to have been brought before this House. That is just to give colleagues the idea.

Those are just the examples that I am dealing with out of the operations and estimates committee. I imagine every single person in this House has further examples. While I fear outright malfeasance from the Liberals in leaving this issue open, I generally accept it, knowing that given the incompetence of the government, it will never get done.

Speaking of not getting stuff done on the environment, we have had lots of big announcements from the government. As I mentioned, the environment minister, when introducing Bill S-5, talked about the urgency of getting it done. He said Canadians have an urgency; the government has an urgency.

The Liberal government talks a lot but delivers very little. At the same time, we have the same environment minister in the paper this week, with a headline saying something about the environment minister slamming oil companies for sitting idle on the climate. That is from the government that killed Bill C-28, this bill, the urgent bill that was before the last Parliament, yet it is blaming the oil companies for not taking action.

We have some Alberta oil companies and transmission companies that are working on the environment, not sitting idle.

TransCanada PipeLines is investing in solar and wind for both its customers and to power its ops. Enbridge is building green energy to power its products. It is investing in 24 wind farms, five waste-heat recovery facilities and hydrogen facilities as well. These are companies that are investing in green technology, despite the government planning to phase them out and despite getting slammed by the environment minister for doing nothing. Both these companies, as well, have committed to zero carbon emissions by 2050, or neutral anyway. Suncor, CNRL and others, since 2012, have spent $10 billion on green energy R and D. Suncor, CNRL and Synovus have spent over a billion dollars in 2020 alone in green R and D.

If members remember, in 2020, during the worst of COVID, oil had a negative price. Oil companies and people had to pay to store the oil. CNRL lost a quarter of a billion dollars in 2020, Imperial Oil lost $1.3 billion and Suncor lost $3.2 billion, yet they were still investing in green energy R and D. Those are the same people the environment minister is slamming for sitting on the sidelines. They are actually getting stuff done while the government is not. That was $5 billion in losses just for those three companies, yet they still invested a billion dollars. It was $10 billion alone in the last decade.

This is from an industry that has had to weather the downturn in 2014 in oil, the 2020 crash and the Alberta provincial NDP trying to block the pipeline. The former NDP premier actually went on TV and said that she would block northern gateway. Of course, we also had the Liberal government with Bill C-69, which was the “no more pipelines” bill; Bill C-48; and everything else it has been trying to do to destroy that industry, which is investing in green R and D.

The environment minister attacks the companies for not doing enough, but they are doing their part for Canada. I would suggest to the environment minister, when he attacks these people for not doing enough, that people in glass houses should not be throwing rocks, or in his case people in glass greenhouses should not be throwing rocks.

I am going to look at the minister's own department results. These are numbers from the Treasury Board. These are not my numbers. These are not made-up numbers. This is from GC InfoBase, from the departmental results. In 2021, the environment minister achieved, with his department, 14% of its targets. That is one out of every seven. In 2020, it was 27%. In 2019, it was 23%. In the department's best year in the last three years, it barely got to 25% or one-quarter of its targets.

The minister has the gall to attack Alberta's oil industry for not doing its part. He attacks Canada's largest exporter of goods. The minister attacks the largest industrial employer in Canada of indigenous people. The largest investor in green R and D in the private sector, he attacks for not doing enough, yet he presides over the abysmal failure in his own department of just 14%. I am wondering if the environment minister would have stopped at scaling just 14% of the stairs at the CN Tower when he was illegally doing his protest and consider 14% a success.

There are other failures from the current government. The Auditor General reports in the “Greening Government Strategy” report that the government has failed on its results. Those are the exact words from the Auditor General. The report states:

...government decision makers, parliamentarians, and Canadians do not...know...whether the government will meet its...target.

It actually gets worse. The Treasury Board requires, as part of the greening government strategy, that assistant deputy ministers sign off on the integrity of the government's emissions reduction reports. Seventy-four per cent of the bureaucrats have refused to sign off on their mission targets.

We will support Bill S-5, but we actually need action and not just talk from the government.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I first want to say happy Bandi Chhor Divas and happy Diwali as well.

I have sat through the Bill S-5 debate, which has been riveting. I think the pages are wide awake, maybe not so much after my time.

Bill S-5 deals with the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, which has not been significantly updated since it was passed in 1999. Bill S-5 is the first major update since 1999.

We agree that this outdated act needs to be updated, but we have some concerns. Throughout the course of my 20 minutes, I will speak to that. First off, it is hard for us to take lessons from a government that has failed at every step of the way in the last seven years. It has promised a lot and talk a big game, yet it has failed every step of the way. Earlier on, I mentioned that the government likes to fly the flag and say that it is here for reconciliation and that it is the environmental steward of our economy and our country, yet it is still approving billions upon billions of litres of raw sewage being dumped into our waterways right across the country.

I do not need to remind the House, although I will, that this is also a government that has waged war on our natural resource sector from day one. The Prime Minister apologized. He said that under his tenure Canada would be known more for its resourcefulness than its natural resources. That is not true. He has absolutely waged war.

I will remind the House that it was the government that brought in the no more pipelines bill, Bill C-69, which absolutely punishes Canadian producers. The government has waged war. It has sided with these third-party groups that helped the Liberals get elected in 2015. I will remind the House of that. Over 105 different organizations waged war against the Conservatives and sided with the Liberal Party to get it into power, and now it is paying them back. These organizations have infiltrated even the highest offices of the PMO.

Bill C-68 was an act to amend the Fisheries Act. I debated and studied that. I stood in the House and talked about it for hours on end. That is the act to amend the Fisheries Act where we looked at the harmful alteration or destruction of fish habitats, which we showed and proved. Not one government scientist or biologist could prove that any of the changes that were done by the previous government resulted in or had harmful alteration or destruction of fish habitats.

Bill C-48, the oil tanker moratorium act, is another one where the government waged war on our natural resources and energy sector. It essentially said that any tankers coming to the west coast to get Canadian products would be banned, yet American or other foreign vessels could come. Nothing similar was done on the east coast, where hundreds and hundreds of tankers each week are bringing in foreign dirty oil into our country.

I know that we have just a short time before we get into a riveting session of question period. I am excited about that, too. I know the gallery is, and so are my colleagues. We have a lot of concerns about this, notwithstanding the 24 amendments that were passed, 11 of which I will get into when I have more time after question period.

The government talks a good game on climate change, yet it has failed to reach any of its targets in the seven years since it was elected. It really has no plan. It was the member for Timmins—James Bay who mentioned this. My colleague from Saanich—Gulf Islands said she has many concerns about what is in this bill and that amendments need to be addressed.

However, we have heard the government say over the last seven years to just trust it and that it will deal with it in committee, yet it failed to do that. Trust is earned; it is not just given. Time and again, the government continues to burn that trust and any goodwill with not only the opposition, but also Canadians.

[Rick Perkins, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

Has the bill that my colleague Mr. Kram referred to earlier—known most publicly as Bill C-69—lengthened the process and increased the number of hurdles your company has to go through?

Climate Change

[Steven Guilbeault, Liberal, Minister of Environment and Climate Change]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his question and remind him that we have one of the most rigorous environmental assessment processes. It is a process, by the way, that the Conservatives opposed with Bill C-69.

We are also committed to supplying clean, renewable energy to European countries. That is why the German chancellor came to Canada to sign an agreement on hydrogen that will be produced with wind power. This is exactly what we are doing in Canada: supporting Canadians and Canadian businesses and fighting climate change.

[Bronwyn Eyre, Minister of Justice and Attorney General, Government of Saskatchewan]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Hello. It is a great pleasure to be here with you, this morning, virtually.

Thank you, committee members, for having me today, and to MP Michael Kram. Thank you for the invitation to appear before the committee.

Mr. Kram, you are right to pay attention to this proposed bill and what it represents. It really isn't quite clear where it fits in and what gap it's supposed to be filling. It's frankly hard to keep track.

I'm going to start with its name, which is what really jumped out at me initially—an act respecting the building of a green economy in the Prairies—except that, of course, no one bothered to ask the Prairies, and of course we're already building a green economy, as are our sector partners.

By NRCan's own figures, emissions from the Canadian oil and gas sector have been more or less flat for over two decades. If every oil- and gas-producing nation on the planet extracted and produced oil and gas the way we do in Canada—the way we do in western Canada—energy-produced GHGs globally would instantly fall by 25%. That's according to Dr. Joule Bergerson at the University of Calgary. She was looking particularly at the strides we've made in methane reduction.

This bill would require federal ministers “to develop a framework for...the implementation of federal programs”, which to us in Saskatchewan sounds pretty top-down, pretty definitive language, and what we call here “assertive federalism”. It really goes to another deeper tendency on display from this government, which we see again and again, which is to veer into sections 92 and 92A and the exclusive jurisdiction that provinces have over property and civil rights and over natural resources.

Whether it's this or the federal regional tables on critical minerals or the federal low carbon economy leadership fund, they're always saying, “There's nothing to see here.” They're just integrating or prioritizing or fostering whatever it is into what are provincial areas such as forestry, such as energy; or they're retraining, or they're establishing programs or preparing infrastructure projects, but the thing is that all of these, committee members, come with strings attached for the provinces, and right now we have some pretty big strings.

If we take, for example, the coming federal fuel standard, you could say it's just a bit of ethanol conversion, but the reality is it will result in the import of billions of dollars per year of mainly American-produced biofuels. We're going as fast as we can with infrastructure, but that is still the reality. It will result in millions in new cost increases in Saskatchewan—on gas, $300 million, and on diesel, $400 million—which will impact residents and sectors that rely on these fuels as a production input or to transport products to market, particularly in the agriculture, rail and trucking sectors. That is the economic reality.

On the federal clean electricity regulations, again one could say that's just about integrating more clean power and clean energy, except that it's also about banning any power generated by fossil fuels by 2035. The way those regulations are envisaged right now equals Saskatchewan freezing in the dark. It is literally impossible—and this is SaskPower saying this—to transition that quickly.

Our premier released a white paper last week that put a dollar figure generated by the Ministry of Finance on federal initiatives to our economy, and that dollar figure is $111 billion. All these initiatives are not free, and the types of initiatives now envisaged by Bill C-235 are paid for by federal taxpayers, and there's an enormous economic impact.

The reason Saskatchewan is weathering the challenging economic time as well as we are is that we've invested in and fostered our natural resource sector, our forestry sector and our agriculture sector. Because we've been energy self-sufficient—unlike Germany, for example, as we're seeing—we can balance our budget because of resource revenues.

On the speed of transition, TD came out with a report a couple of years ago that said a green transition that is carried out too glibly, too quickly and too politically will impact some 450,000 Canadians, and 450,000 Canadians could lose their jobs. This bill doesn't talk about that. It also doesn't talk about the eye-popping cost of transitioning to an export-based hydrogen market, which is what the federal government is proposing, or green hydrogen, or geothermal.

On Friday, Deputy Prime Minister Freeland talked about how now LNG apparently is a transition fuel. Of course, it's a shame that we didn't think of that sooner, before Bill C-69 helped to shut down the Saguenay LNG project and Warren Buffet's Berkshire Hathaway group walked away from that project.

Of course, most recently, we also saw Germany walk away. Foreign investment has dropped at least 25% in Canada over the last five years, and yet apparently we're on this great cusp of innovation and investment. The Deputy Prime Minister said that the green transition is on the scale of the Industrial Revolution. Say what you will about the Industrial Revolution, it did lead people out of poverty. It modernized. It didn't antiquate. It didn't go backwards, shutting off the lights or diminishing choice or increasing costs.

There's green innovation happening in the energy sector, of course, but unfortunately those who hate the energy sector are wilfully blind to that innovation, so when it comes to the federal support that has been trial-ballooned in this proposed bill and in so many others, we're left with only the costliest experiments out there, and we're left pretending that there will be no effect on workers, which isn't transition at all.

I'll leave it there.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I'm certainly happy to move into questions.

[Raymond Orb]

The environmental Impact Assessment Act—I think that's the bill you're referring to, Bill C-69—does have implications for rural municipalities and our rural economy. Part of that is actually the Navigable Waters Act. SARM was really concerned about that, about the federal government making a new bill and bringing in amendments that would affect how municipalities do business from day to day. It has to do with transportation on rivers and streams and being able to build bridges in some places. It would be very expensive to do that because of the bureaucratic red tape created by that bill. That's a big concern to us as well.

The tanker ban, the moratorium in Bill C-48, was something that we were concerned about because we saw that it was taking away from our western transportation system for the movement of oil. We're satisfying part of our country, but we're hurting another part of our country. We had a big concern about that as well. We testified on a few occasions that we were opposed to that act.

The carbon tax is something that we have been working on with our province to try to figure out how we could come up with something that would appease Ottawa. It's something that hurts our farmers right now, even as far as trying to convince the federal government that we need rebates for grain drying, for propane especially. We still haven't seen any meaningful action on that file. I think that's something that hurts agriculture, because it puts our farmers in Saskatchewan at a disadvantage compared to American farmers, who are our competitors. It's really unfair that the federal government is not acting sooner on some kind of rebate plan.

[Michael Kram, Conservative, Regina—Wascana, SK]

This bill is not the first time that the federal Liberal government has waded into the debate about oil and gas in western Canada. We've had Bill C-69, the “no more pipelines” bill; we've had Bill C-48, the west coast oil tanker ban; and, of course, we've had the ever-increasing carbon taxes.

I was wondering, Mr. Orb, if you could comment on the effects of these policies on Saskatchewan.

[Bill Bewick]

Sure. Thank you.

I get the sense that the bill is trying to ensure that the west gets its share of spending and attention in the decarbonization efforts, but the direction of the spending is problematic.

When anybody hears “retraining workers”, whether it's the cod fisheries or various sectors in the past, that basically means the government is saying, “We're going to regulate your company or industry out of business, but we'll retrain some of your workers and hopefully they'll be okay.” Prairie communities know this will hurt them. It shouldn't be in this bill. Look at the cod fishers in Newfoundland or even the coal workers in Alberta right now. You can't just retrain people to jump into new jobs that will last for 20 years. If you announced that you're going to retrain auto workers in Ontario or dairy farmers in Quebec, you wouldn't get a thank you in response; you would get a panic.

As I've explained, the world really needs our valuable resources more than ever. In addition to the direction being misguided, because it's trying to transition away from this super valuable resource that the world needs more than ever, it also intrudes on our provincial management of resources. It's not just that the federal policies are misguided; it's that they really shouldn't be the ones making some of these decisions. Our Constitution makes it clear that the provinces have the jurisdiction over their resources. These policies are severely impacting our ability to develop them. Provinces recently unanimously joined a challenge of Bill C-69, and the carbon tax was hotly contested in the courts by many provinces.

I did a political philosophy Ph.D. There's a famous change that happened in the Enlightenment. Thomas Hobbes said that the government's role is to keep you safe, and you should obey it as long as it's keeping you safe. Then John Locke came in and said, well, unless the government's taking your property and making it so that you can't make a living. That's also grounds for speaking up and demanding better.

This isn't just a difference of opinion on a political issue; it's a clear attempt to throttle the largest economic sector in the Prairies. That will impoverish us in particular, but it will also impoverish all of Canada. We have to stop talking about transitioning away from oil and gas and start talking about the opportunities for oil and gas to provide immense prosperity for Canadians, help with energy security and help our European allies get out from being under the thumb of Vladimir Putin and Middle East dictators.

If you really care about the environment, the single greatest thing Canada can do to reduce emissions is to get LNG flowing in copious amounts off our west coast so that China isn't producing...all these coal plants it's building. China has announced new coal that will double the oil sands emissions. They announced that in 2020. That's just their new coal. If they were doing LNG instead of that, it would be 50% less in emissions, and much less in other things that are emitted by coal. In particular, the emissions would be reduced by 50%. That would save the entire oil sands, if we could replace their coal with our LNG.

It's becoming more obvious. It's obvious to lots of western Canadians. As I said, 60% of Quebeckers agree that we should be doing LNG. This whole notion that we should be transitioning away from gas is wrong. It's offensive, and it is leading to people wanting to say, “If we can't even produce our resources, why should we be in this country?” We're trying to prevent that. It is an understandable sentiment, and people need to take it seriously.

Opposition Motion—Moratorium on New Taxes

[Tim Uppal, Conservative, Edmonton Mill Woods, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my father has worked very hard ever since he immigrated to this country. He has worked in sawmills and in coal mines in Alberta and B.C., and to this day he continues to drive a taxi, because he just cannot stay at home, so he would rather go out and work. He has always said that in Canada, if people work, they can pay their bills and provide for their families, and if they work hard, they can buy really nice things, too. That is the reason so many people, like my father and many others, have come to this country. They came to Canada for the opportunities and to be able to provide for their families.

However, the Liberal government has created a Canada that many Canadians struggle to recognize now, where working hard no longer means people will be able to pay for fuel, heat their homes or even own a home at all. Affordability is a top concern for Canadians across the country. When asked in a recent survey what issues we should focus on during this parliamentary session, almost every response listed the cost of living as a top concern.

Now in Canada we have college students living in homeless shelters, single mothers who cannot afford to buy nutritious food for their children, and seniors turning to food banks as a last resort. Even in recent reports, those same food banks are saying that they are struggling to even stay open, that they do not have enough food to provide to those who show up for help and support.

We have a generation of young Canadians living in their parents' basements without the hope of ever moving out. Young families who were once saving up for a down payment are now having to use that down payment to buy groceries and pay for gas. Grandparents watch as their adult children struggle to provide for their own children, despite having jobs. There is much pain and struggle among Canadians. They did everything we asked them to do, yet the government is failing them.

When the Prime Minister took office, Canadians were paying 32% of their income, on average, to maintain a mid-size house. Now the average family has to pay 50% of its income just to keep that house. Canadians are putting themselves in debt to cover their basic expenses and repaying this borrowed money at an unpredictable and growing interest rate. The government told Canadians that rates would remain low for a long time, but now we can see interest rates rising every few months and Canadians just cannot keep up. Instead of providing relief to Canadians, the government is increasing taxes on those who are already struggling.

I have heard from many people across my riding, single mothers, small business owners and families in Edmonton Mill Woods, who cannot afford the government's spending agenda, a spending agenda that the government itself cannot afford. As one constituent said to me, we need a government that works for Canadians, not the other way around. I could not agree more.

My riding of Edmonton Mill Woods is very much a multicultural community. Many immigrants have come to this beautiful place to make their lives here. I know many hard-working immigrant families that work long hours, trying to provide a good life for their children, but still fall short of meeting the inflationary demands created by the government.

A constituent of mine, Abdul, is a local business owner and a new immigrant from Nigeria. Like most small business owners, he works a lot more than the usual eight hours per day. This is a person who is driven, hard-working and passionate about his business, yet he struggles to make ends meet. He confided in me that he cannot afford to put his children in hockey or put his daughter in dance. Unlike the government, he cannot spend money he does not have.

Kim, another constituent, is a single mother and the sole provider for her children. She continues to struggle to afford to put gas in her car in order just to get to her job. Unlike the government, she has to save up money in order to spend it on her children. She had to save up just to buy school supplies this year, which, of course, cost more because of the government-created inflation crisis right now. I believe single mothers like Kim and many other Canadians have something to teach the government. It must find a dollar to spend a dollar. It must have the money to spend the money.

Now the government is making things worse for Canadians. The government must scrap its planned tax hikes on Canadian families and Canadian businesses. Canadians cannot keep up with this out-of-control spending, which is driving interest rates and inflation. Instead of just printing more money, we need to produce more things we can buy. We need to produce affordable food, energy and natural resources right here in Canada.

Our farmers are the best in the world. By removing the barriers the government has placed on them, we would increase our food production and make food more affordable. We must scrap these taxes on farmers, scrap the government's plan to reduce the use of fertilizer, and eliminate even the red tape that makes it more expensive for farmers. Let our farmers do what they do best, which is to grow our food.

In fact, if the government would just get out of way, farmers would not only be able to provide more food for Canadians, but could also help in this looming food shortage crisis around the world.

I would also suggest the government go out and speak to Canadians and hear from them. I suggest the government speak to my constituents and other constituents across the country about what is actually happening to them, their families and their businesses. I recently sat down with a group of truckers, and I was astonished to hear that some trucking companies are actually finding it cheaper and saving money by parking their trucks. Diesel and the cost of paying for and finding a driver have become so expensive that they are saving money by not working.

We must ensure Canadians keep more of their paycheques in their pockets and that energy, gas, heating and other costs become more affordable. Instead of importing foreign energy, we must get rid of laws like the ones arising out of Bill C-69 and allow energy to be produced here in Canada. Bill C-69 itself was a major roadblock for bringing new investments and projects into Canada.

Canada currently imports over 130,000 barrels of overseas oil daily, mostly from dictator countries. This is despite the fact we have the third-largest supply of energy right here in Canada, with much of it in Alberta. That is all because the government prefers dirty dictator oil to responsible Canadian energy.

We will repeal the government's anti-energy laws and replace them with laws that protect our environment, consult our first nations and actually get projects done. That will mean more jobs for Canadians and more ethical Canadian energy for the world. This will also help the value of our dollar.

It is never the right time to raise taxes on working Canadians, yet that is exactly what the government is doing. We continue to call on the government to cancel all planned tax hikes, including payroll taxes planned for January 1 and tax hikes on gas, groceries and home heating on April 1. I hope the government and all other members of the House will support our motion today.

Cost of Living Relief Act, No. 2

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Leader of the Opposition]

Madam Speaker, in my 18 years in politics, I have never seen Canadians suffer as much as they are suffering now. I just criss-crossed the country and met a lot of people. In fact, 93,000 people registered for my events. I make a point of listening to all their stories, and I never leave the room until I have spoken to everyone who wants to meet me. I heard some heartbreaking stories.

We are talking about young people, 35-year-olds, who have done everything they were supposed to do. They earned a degree and they are working hard, yet they are still living in their parents' basement or in a small, 400-square-foot apartment because the price of housing has doubled since this Prime Minister took office. Our housing bubble is the second largest in the world. Yesterday we learned that the percentage of Canadians who own their own home is at its lowest level in over 30 years.

When the Prime Minister took office, Canadians were paying 32% of their income on average to maintain a mid-size house. Now, the average family has to pay 50% of their income just to keep their house. This increase is due to higher costs, but also to an increase in interest rates, which this government had promised Canadians would not happen for a long time. It told Canadians not to worry, to go ahead and take out big loans, since interest rates would remain low for a long time, and there would never be any negative consequences. Now we are seeing interest rates rises 300 basis points, or 3% in simple terms.

This phenomenon is not only affecting the housing sector, it is also affecting the price of food. I will take this opportunity to read out some headlines, because even the media is starting to notice a problem. “Rents are so high in Toronto that students are living in homeless shelters.” “Inflation: Child hunger a major concern in Canada amid skyrocketing food prices.” “GTA food banks say they're facing the highest demand in their history.” “Nearly 6 million people in Canada experienced food insecurity in 2021, U of T study says.” People can no longer pay for food. Some single mothers are even watering down their children's milk because they cannot afford food.

As for gas prices, I met a young man who works in the mines in northern Ontario, and he told me that he could not go see his dying parents in Thunder Bay because diesel was over $2 a litre. He was not able to say goodbye to his own parents.

What is the Prime Minister doing to respond to this crisis? First, he is trying to divide people by attacking them because he thinks that if Canadians are afraid of one another, then they will forget that they cannot pay their bills. The Prime Minister is keeping in place vaccine mandates that every other country has lifted. He is still insisting on the use of the ArriveCAN app, which really does not work. He is trying to divert people's attention away from the cost of living by dividing Canadians and creating problems and division.

The next part of his plan involves increasing income taxes and taxes on gas, heating and food. The first thing the official opposition has called for since I became leader is for the government to do away with the tax hikes so that Canadians can keep more of their paycheques in their pockets and so that energy, gas, heating and other costs become more affordable.

That is our role, here in Parliament, to turn pain into hope. Canadians need hope. The comment I heard most from the people who attended my events was “Thank you for giving us hope”. For the first time, people believe that things can improve, and they will. We can change things.

The first thing we need to do is axe all the tax hikes, but we also need to control spending. Today's inflation is the result of a spendthrift government. The government's spending is increasing the cost of living. The $500-billion inflationary deficit increased the cost of what we buy and the interest that we pay. Inflationary taxes are increasing costs related to our businesses and our workers who provide products and services. The more the government spends, the more things cost. That is “Justinflation”.

We can reverse this trend by introducing legislation to limit government spending. This will subject politicians to the same economic rules that families have to follow. When a family increases spending in one column of their budget, they have to cut spending elsewhere. They have to find a dollar to spend a dollar. The same principle should apply to governments. During the Clinton years, the United States passed a law that helped Americans balance their budget and pay down $400 billion in debt. It was, at the time, the largest debt repayment in the United States. As soon as the law was struck down, Americans were plunged back into a deficit. This is proof that we need to put legal limits on politicians' spending and that politicians should have to follow the same spending rules as single mothers and small business owners.

Furthermore, instead of just printing more money, we need to produce more of the things that money buys, produce affordable food, energy and natural resources here in Canada, and we need to build more houses. We need to remove the barriers that the Prime Minister has put in place.

Let us start with food. The Prime Minister increased farmers' taxes. That increases the cost of fertilizer and of the energy needed to produce food. Now he wants to limit the use of fertilizer. That will require farming more land to produce the same quantity of food. Tractors and other equipment will have to cover a larger area, burning more diesel and other fuels. More food will have to be imported. Bringing this food from other countries to Canada will again require using more energy.

Did we not learn during the COVID-19 crisis that it is irresponsible to rely on other countries for what we need?

We should be able to grow our own food here, in Canada. Our farmers are the best in the world. We should remove the barriers that the government has put in place. We will cancel these taxes on farmers, scrap the government's plans to reduce the use of fertilizer and eliminate the paperwork that is so expensive for our farmers.

Second, we will provide incentives to our municipalities to cut their red tape. At present, Canada has the lowest housing units per capita in the G7, even though we have the largest land area. That is ridiculous. That is why housing prices in Canada are the second highest in the world relative to household income. With regard to home ownership, Vancouver is the third most expensive market in the world, and Toronto is the sixth. A Conservative government will tie the dollar amount for infrastructure in big cities where housing prices are too high to the number of houses built.

This will encourage them to cut red tape and reduce the cost of building permits so that more housing can be built. Every time a federal government funds a public transit station, we will make sure there is intensive densification in the surrounding areas so that young people can live in homes and apartments next to public transit.

Third, we will sell 15% of the 37,000 federal buildings so that they can be converted into housing and create millions of homes that our young people could buy in order to start a family.

Instead of importing foreign energy, we will get rid of laws like the ones arising from Bill C‑69 and others to allow energy to be produced here in Canada. This will create jobs and make the cost of energy more affordable. It will increase Canadians' purchasing power by raising the value of our dollar. When our energy sector is strong, our dollar goes up. The value of the dollar is tied to our purchasing power. When the dollar is low, it costs more to buy anything on international markets. Let us strengthen our dollar, produce our own energy and end oil imports.

By the way, where are the Liberal and NDP environmentalists to protest the foreign oil we are importing? Why are we funding dictators? We should be funding Canadians' paycheques here at home.

Finally, we want to give Canadians back control of their lives, in the freest country in the world, where the dollar keeps its value so that Canadians can have the life they work so hard to build. We should be a country that rewards hard work, a country where people can keep more of their money. We need to reform the tax system so that hard-working Canadians who contribute to the economy can keep their hard-earned money and provide better for their families. We should be a country that encourages and supports those who work hard, take risks and help build our country.

It is good to be back in the House, but would it not be nice if our young people could have a home? That is what we should be working towards. Unfortunately, yesterday we learned that the rates of home ownership are at their lowest levels in a generation. House prices have doubled under this Prime Minister. In fact, when this Prime Minister took office, the average family could afford their monthly housing costs with 32% of their paycheque. That has rocketed up to almost 50%. Vancouver is the third-most overpriced housing market on planet Earth. Toronto is the sixth. We have the second-worst housing bubble on planet Earth. No wonder nine in 10 young Canadians say that they cannot even dream of affording a house.

Now, from housing to food, we see the headlines. Even the media has noticed: “Rents are so high in Toronto that students are living in homeless shelters”; “Child hunger a major concern in Canada amid skyrocketing food prices”; “GTA food banks say they're facing the highest demand in their history”; and “Nearly 6 million people in Canada experienced food insecurity in 2021, U of T study says”.

Then there is energy. I met a young man in northern Ontario who said that he could not afford to put the diesel in his car to go and see his dying relatives one last time, who are hundreds of miles away in Thunder Bay. I met a working man, an energy worker ironically, in St. John's, Newfoundland, who said that the rising cost of gas meant he could not afford to replace his boots so he was taping them up with duct tape.

Canadians are suffering, and why is this happening? The cost of government is driving up the cost of living. Half a trillion dollars of inflationary deficits means more dollars chasing fewer goods, leading to higher prices, bidding up the cost of the goods we buy and the interest we pay. Inflationary taxes drive up the cost of businesses and workers to make our goods. The more Liberals spend, the more things cost. It is just inflation, and Canadians are paying the price for it.

What has been the Prime Minister's response? His first response was to attack the people who were suffering, to call them horrible and disparaging names, to divide and distract. His strategy is simple. He thinks if people are afraid of their neighbours, they will forget that they cannot pay their bills, so he keeps in place divisive and unscientific vaccine mandates to shut truckers out of their ability to transport goods across the border and soldiers, who have served our country bravely and loyally, out of their jobs. He does this all to stigmatize and attack so a single mother who is putting water in her kid's milk might forget, he hopes, how badly she is suffering under his watch because she will be afraid of her fellow citizens. It is time to replace fear with freedom. It is time for us all to unite.

The Prime Minister's second approach has been ever predictable. He wants to raise taxes with a new tax hike on paycheques that will take effect on January 1, meaning that Canadians will take home less of what they earn. Small businesses will have to pay a higher cost for every single person they keep on the payroll, forcing many to make the painful choice of laying people off. A few months later, on April 1, April Fool's Day, he will continue to carry out his plan to triple the carbon tax. He wants to increase gas taxes, home heating taxes and, indirectly, food taxes because, of course, food requires energy. This is going to make things worse. The Conservatives have made the demand that the government must cancel all its tax increases on our workers and our seniors so that their paycheques go further and their energy becomes affordable.

We in this House have a duty to transform the hurt into hope. That is what Conservatives will do, because things can get better. There is nothing wrong with Canada, with our country, that cannot be cured by what is right with this country. We have the answers that will counter this inflation and reinforce the purchasing power of Canadians.

We will call for a cap on taxes so that Canadians pay no more to the government and can keep more for themselves. We will call for the government to cap its own spending, and it can do this by simply following the same rules that everyday families follow. If a family decides it wants to build a porch in front of their house, they cancel their vacation or, better yet, they go out and find a deal on lumber and look for a way to keep their vacation costs down so that they can do both but for the same budget. This is how small businesses function as well, but not government.

The great Thomas Sowell said that the number one law of economics is scarcity, that people always want more than there is to have and that the number one rule of politics is to ignore the number one rule of economics, because politicians are the only creatures in the universe who do not have to live with scarcity. The birds in the trees, the fish in the seas, all must make maximum use of limited resources, but the politician just passes the cost on to someone else in higher inflation, debt and taxes. A “pay-as-you-go” law would force politicians to make the same either-or trade-offs that everyday Canadians make in their lives.

The principle is very simple. If the government brings in a new dollar of spending, it should find a dollar of savings to pay for it. All of the existing spending that is in the budget goes ahead into the future, but when the government steps into this House to introduce a new measure, it should accompany it with savings to pay for it. The government did this in the United States during the 1990s and that allowed the American government to balance its budget, pay off $400 billion of debt, have booming job growth, record-low unemployment and a massive increase in prosperity, but as soon as it let the law lapse, it went right back into deficit, proving that politicians need the same legal limits on their spending that families follow every single day. Our families have been pinching their pennies long enough. It is time for government to pinch its pennies, too.

Instead of just creating more cash, why not create more of what cash buys? Why do we not grow more food, build more house and produce more Canadian resources right here in our country instead?

Let us start with houses. As I have said, we have the fewest houses per capita of any country in the entire G7, even though we have the most land on which to build. Why? Local government gatekeepers stand in the way.

In Vancouver, the cost of government gatekeepers, that is permitting, delays, consultants and taxes, is $600,000 for one unit of housing. It is about $350,000 in Toronto. This prevents people from owning a home.

I propose is this. The government should link the number of dollars big overpriced cities get for infrastructure to the number of houses that actually get built, so we have an incentive for them to remove the gatekeepers, lower the costs and increase the speed of building permits so we can get more houses.

Let us require every federally funded transit station be pre-approved for high-density housing around it, so our young people do not even need to own a car. They can live right next to transit. Let us sell off 15% of the underutilized and overpriced 37,000 federal buildings, so we can convert that into housing. Let us create millions of new homes, so our newcomers, immigrants, young people and working-class people can re-establish the dream of home ownership.

Let us put an end to importing overseas oil into this country. Where are the protesters? Where are the Bloc, the NDP and the Liberal protesters standing in Saint John, New Brunswick to greet all those big tankers coming from overseas? They say that they are against oil, but they have no problem if that oil comes from foreign dictatorships. There are 130,000 barrels of overseas oil every single day arriving at our shores and taking our money back to their countries at the same time.

Meanwhile, the Prime Minister violates his own sanctions against Putin by sending back a turbine so the Russians can continue to pump gas into Germany, so the Germans can fund the Russian war against Ukraine. It is incredible. Those members are against pipelines in Canada, but in favour of maintaining the turbines for Russian pipelines that fund foreign wars.

Meanwhile, we have 1,300 trillion cubic feet of natural gas that could be used to free Europe from its dependency on Putin, meanwhile bringing back paycheques to this country. We have the ability to produce it cleaner than anywhere else on planet earth. In fact, the shortest shipping distances to both Asia and Europe from North America are right here in Canada.

What else do we have in Canada that allows us to liquify natural gas so it fits on a ship? Cold weather, which is our most abundant natural resource. That actually lowers the cost of liquefying natural gas by 25%. With Quebec, Newfoundland and British Columbia hydro, we can do it emissions-free. Why do we not ship our clean Canadian natural gas to Asia to shut down coal-fired plants there and ship it to Europe to break European dependence on Putin? Let us turn dollars for dictators into paycheques for Canadians.

Let us make work pay again in our country. Let us stop punishing people for the crime of getting up early in the morning and putting in a hard day's work. According to a Finance Canada document, if a single mother with three kids who earns $55,000 a year goes out and earns another dollar, she loses 80¢ of that dollar to government clawbacks and taxes. If she makes $25 an hour, she takes home $5 of that. No one should work for $5 an hour. That is below minimum wage, and yet our tax and benefits system punishes her for trying to work a little harder so maybe her kids can go to camp in the summer or maybe they can join the little league team.

We should reward hard work in our country. We should set out to reform our benefit and tax systems, so that every time someone works harder, takes another shift, earns a bonus and gets up a little earlier they keep more of what they earn.

My parents raised me to believe that it did not matter where I came from; it mattered where I was going. It did not matter who I knew, but what I could do. That is the country I want my kids to inherit. I want this to be a country again where it does not matter where people start off. If they work hard, if they take risks, if they study, if they learn, if they build and if they contribute, they can achieve anything they want. Right now, people do not feel that way, but hope is on the way.

We are going to bring change to our country. We are going to put change back in your pocket and we are going to make this the freest country on earth.

[Edouard Saab]

That's a good question.

I guess the truthful answer is that with more rigour would probably come more questions and then more time to ensure diligence is made. Ultimately, if it's going to answer questions that had not been answered by an environmental assessment or any of the internal work done by a reactor developer such as Westinghouse, or an end-user, or even under the requirements of the licensing process under the CNSC.... I would not anticipate any questions or challenges to be posed that were not identified through those current steps, so no, I don't think the benefit, at least for Bill C-69, would be truly there for the public.

[Edouard Saab]

Yes, I was referring to the technology itself. Thank you for the question.

In terms of legislative requirements, yes, I wouldn't say that there are challenges, but there are processes that we need to follow. As a nuclear reactor provider, we would work with utilities, end-users and customers to follow the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission environmental assessment requirements.

Should we be looking at a microreactor under 200 megawatts, although Bill C-69 may not be mandated for us, there might be a possibility that impact assessment would be required. Now, the impact assessment does add a burden. It does add costs. It also would slow down for anything less than I think 300 megawatts the allowances that are required. There is a potential for us to take a technical process and make it a little longer and more expensive, and ultimately, the sad part of it is to delay some of the solution that could be provided to these remote communities and these industrial users of technology.

[Gerald Soroka, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you to all the witnesses for being here this evening.

I'll start with Mr. Saab.

Did I hear you correctly when earlier you said that there are really no challenges, policies or issues with building nuclear—such as SMRs—in Canada? Would this also include Bill C-69?

[Edouard Saab]

I don't have the specific fact, Ms. Gladu, but my understanding is that the number has been incredibly low. Any death related to nuclear has come from construction, not from the operations of nuclear. In fact, nuclear has probably one of the best records for energy generation compared to any of the comparables.

To your point about the environmental assessment and impact assessment, I think it's Bill C-69 you're referring to. The requirement is for an impact assessment for anything over 300 megawatts, but the truth is there is also the allowance for the environment minister to call upon an impact assessment for any project. It's not like anything is hiding under the bill. The bill does allow for the right projects to have the right reviews when necessary.

[Evelyn Gigantes, As an Individual]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I am not a supporter of the development of SMRs, either in Canada or anywhere else. The reason is that our weather over the last few years is giving us clear evidence that climate change is rapidly becoming a challenge to all life on this wonderful planet.

SMRs are being touted by the nuclear industry as a necessary part of slowing and containing climate change. I believe the complete opposite: I think the nuclear industry is trying to save itself from a downward spiral and is waging a desperate campaign to convince the public and elected representatives to invest massive public funds in an ill-placed effort to battle climate change through SMR development.

The fact is that here and abroad the best-informed scientists and economists are stating the obvious: The surest, least costly and quickest way to reduce the carbon emissions that threaten life on our earth is to limit our energy use through conservation measures, to use electricity as our major source of energy and to generate that electricity with renewable resources. In Canada, that means a combination of wind, solar, geothermal and hydro.

I have provided your committee with an article co-written by two experts, a Canadian and an American. It describes the way we can electrify our major energy usage while deftly shifting energy supply sources and meeting backup demand. I've also provided an article about the recent study by the David Suzuki Foundation that comes to the same conclusion. That's the positive part of what I'd like your committee to be ready to report.

There is also a negative part, which I hope you will consider and determine to report. Nuclear power is not an answer to any problem. Nuclear power has generated waste that threatens life and health wherever it is in use or has been in use. Its history both here and abroad is linked to preparation for war, and that history repeats itself to this day as we watch, pained and frightened by the terrible threat to nuclear reactor sites in Ukraine.

Here in Canada, we have scandalous nuclear waste piled up in places like Chalk River and Elliot Lake. We are engaged in the pretense that there will soon be a new nuclear waste management policy, which will deal with these kinds of awful, life-threatening messes. Meanwhile, the former chair of the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission ensured that most SMRs would not even require an environmental impact assessment under the Impact Assessment Act of 2019 because he managed to arrange matters to ensure that most SMRs are not included on the project list associated with the act. It's an astonishing fact that most current Canadian SMR proposals will not be subject to any environmental review.

I've also provided a third article on the subject of the extraordinary levels of nuclear waste that would be generated by developing SMRs. It outlines the fact that per unit of energy produced, SMRs would produce much larger amounts of high-level nuclear waste than the much larger CANDU reactors.

To sum up, I believe that SMRs are unnecessary given that there are alternative methods of electrifying our energy sources, which will be much cheaper, faster, more flexible and environmentally acceptable, and the last thing this world needs is SMRs sold to countries where their existence would add to the dangers posed by terrorism and war.

Thank you.

[Brett Plummer]

Yes, Bill C-69. That's correct.

One of our technologies, the first of a kind, fits within the project list. It basically will go through an existing environmental assessment utilizing the province and the CNSC, but as you build out, especially with Moltex, which has a larger capacity, and also with fuel conversion, it really falls into the impact assessment of Bill C-69, as well as the additional units associated with our ARC clean energy, the other technology. Presently, this is a long process, so we're looking for ways not to get around the process but to streamline it.

The other aspect, to your question associated with Mr. Rencheck, is that the CNSC, the regulator, has been extremely co-operative to this day and, as Mr. Rencheck said, is ramping up, but again, we need to look ahead to the future with the build-out and building the nth of a kind, and we're not going to be able to go through the same process for the nth of a kind versus the first of a kind. Once the reactor design is standardized and has been reviewed and approved, really the only assessment at that point should be around any changes associated with the site characteristics or location.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Is that the assessment from Bill C-69?

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Is that Bill C-69?

[Chief Delbert Wapass]

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Chair and committee members, for the opportunity to speak to you today.

My name is Delbert Wapass and I'm the former chief of Thunderchild First Nation and currently a board member on the Indian Resource Council. Our organization represents over 130 first nations that produce oil and gas or that have a direct interest in the oil and gas industry. Our mandate is to advocate for federal policies that will improve and increase economic development opportunities for first nations and their members.

I'm very pleased your committee is studying barriers to indigenous economic development, because we face a great many, not least from federal policies and legislation. Our communities benefit from involvement in oil and gas. The relationship has not always been perfect, but now it is positive and getting better. We are more involved in oil and gas jobs in reclamation, in procurement and in equity shares than ever. There isn't another industry in the country that has engaged indigenous peoples more meaningfully, in terms of the scale of own-source revenues, than the oil and gas industry have, and that's a fact.

That's why it is so important to our economic development and self-determination that Canada have a healthy and competitive oil and gas sector, but it often feels as though Canada is trying to eliminate the sector instead of support it. The cost overruns on TMX that indigenous groups want to buy, the cancellation of Keystone XL, the cancellation of Northern gateway, the tanker ban, the Impact Assessment Act, Bill C-69, the lack of LNG export capacity, the cancellation of Teck Frontier mine, the tens of millions in royalties that we lost in the past decade due to the differential in price between WCS and Brent crude—these have directly harmed our communities. These have cost first nations hundreds of millions in lost own-source revenues. I think everyone on this committee knows that none of our communities can afford that.

The lost own-source revenues and royalties are one big thing, but on top of that, these missed opportunities have cost our people procurement opportunities that probably would have numbered in the billions. When you talk about economic development, that's what's important: Giving our people well-paid jobs, getting first nations-owned businesses big contracts from trucking and catering to earth moving and reclamation so they can grow their businesses and hire more people and create opportunities for our entrepreneurs. There is no sector—no solar panel installation, no tourism, no golf courses—that can replace the economic opportunity that oil and gas provides for first nations, so you can eliminate the biggest barrier for indigenous economic development if you stop hampering our oil and gas industry.

I note that government is even now considering a cap on emissions, which is poorly drafted and which will in practice be a cap on production. Instead, I ask that you promote and encourage our involvement by making sure that first nations have the access to capital we need to be real partners in new projects.

I know you've heard in this study how [Technical difficulty—Editor]. I and our chairman are also involved in the Alberta Indigenous Opportunities Corporation. We've been able [Technical difficulty—Editor] in power plants, carbon capture facilities, pipelines and more, but at the federal level some people consider government-backed loans to indigenous communities to get involved in these things to be fossil fuel subsidies.

If the federal government is truly committed to reconciliation and the principles of UNDRIP, then you should be supportive of whatever kind of economic development we want to be part of, regardless of what industry it's in. You shouldn't be picking and choosing for us. You don't know better than we do what the right balance is for development in our territories. For our members, for many other first nations, oil and gas provide the best opportunity. It doesn't mean that we aren't interested in other sectors or that we don't want to be part of the net-zero economy, but this week of all weeks it should be obvious that having a strong oil and gas sector that has meaningful indigenous involvement and ownership and that is a global leader in environmental, social and governance principles is in the interests of all Canadians. I can tell you that it is in the interests of the Indian Resource Council.

Regarding the just transition, that's been put forward without consulting nations and their communities. It was handed down without any discussion. These discussions need to take place at the chief and council tables, not simply in Ottawa, for moving oil gas to alternative energy.

Thank you very much.

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Thank you. I have one more quick one here.

On the night your government approved Bay du Nord, to cushion the blow to those who wanted the project scrapped, your government announced you'll be introducing even more regulations, which have yet to be fleshed out.

Now that the Alberta Court of Appeal has ruled that Bill C-69 is unconstitutional, how could you possibly move forward with further regulations, without having any certainty before the Supreme Court weighs in?

Will you commit today to not introduce any new regulations until the Supreme Court rules on whether Bill C-69 is unconstitutional?

Opposition Motion—Subsidies for the Oil and Gas Sector

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, I have some questions about the member's figures, but I am going to get to something that I think is more important.

We are talking about 53,000 families in Alberta that were suffering during the oil and gas downturn. It is no longer in a downturn, I will point out. The Court of Appeal of Alberta came out last week and indicated very clearly that Bill C-69 was ultra vires of the federal government. That being the case, the NDP leader in Alberta indicated that the main cause of the layoffs in Alberta was a punitive regulatory regime as a result of Bill C-69.

Would the member agree with her party leader in Alberta that it is the Alberta Court of Appeal's decision on Bill C-69 that led to those 53,000 families being laid off in Alberta?

Finance

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for Barrie—Innisfil for putting this motion forward and the discussion on splitting up the budget implementation act. There are so many pieces in that bill that really should be separated and discussed, debated and considered at committee separately, not pushed through the way the government has pushed legislation through in the past.

I recall Bill C-69, when there were literally hundreds of amendments proposed that could not even be debated. Does the member for Barrie—Innisfil expect the same is going to happen with the budget implementation act?

Natural Resources

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, for 10 years, Stephen Harper tried to create large projects in this country to solve problems by ramming them through by gutting environmental protections, and big surprise, nothing got done because Canadians know that the environment and the economy need to go together. We brought forward Bill C-69, which actually protects the environment and gives clarity to companies.

We have been able to move forward on large projects since. Canadians know the environment and the economy go together. Why do Conservative politicians not know this?

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister can learn that we can have both. If we did not have the unconstitutional Bill C-69 limiting our Canadian oil and gas exports, then Canadians would actually be able to afford to fill up their tanks so they could go to work and take their kids to school. When will the Prime Minister take responsibility for his role in this cost-of-living crisis and finally stop making life harder for the average Canadian?

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the truth is zero pipelines have been proposed or built under the Liberals, and they have killed billions in projects and hundreds of thousands of jobs. The PM ignored experts, workers, indigenous leaders and investors in every province and territory on Bill C-69. The court said it is a “profound invasion” that places a chokehold on provinces. It called it a “wrecking ball” that “smacks of paternalism” and overrides indigenous agreements. It is uncertain, unpredictable, unquantifiable and unreliable, just like Conservatives warned. Therefore, instead of wasting more time and tax dollars to appeal, will he just repeal Bill C-69?

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, in a strong and clear decision, Alberta's highest court ruled that the job-killing Bill C-69 is an ugly power grab. In her ruling, Alberta's justice stated, “History teaches that government by central command rarely works...[and] Canada...by deliberate choice, is a federation, not a unitary state.”

The Prime Minister was very quick yesterday to say that his government would appeal this decision. His tactics are well entrenched: my way or the highway. With all the bright lights around this Prime Minister, how did they not see that this overreach would not withstand a constitutional challenge?

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, Conservatives have always opposed Bill C-69, the no more pipelines bill. It has kneecapped Canada's ability to develop and export our natural resources, and it has killed jobs across the country. Bill C-69 was bad for Canada and, frankly, the world because of its negative effects.

Alberta's top court has just ruled Bill C-69 as unconstitutional. Will the Liberals now reverse this terrible piece of legislation and let Canadians get back to work building pipelines and selling our energy to the world?

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

Madam Speaker, I am honoured to represent the riding of Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan in this place. Two things in particular about my riding are that it is very involved in the energy sector and it has a large Ukrainian community. People in this riding are asking me what we can do to support Ukraine in the midst of this horrific invasion by Russia. I think they understand just how critical energy supply and security are in combatting the Russian invasion and allowing Europe to impose the kinds of sanctions that will effectively starve Putin’s war machine.

So much of the Russian economy is dependent on the export of gas and other energy-related projects, so Canada’s critical contribution could be to supply the vital energy resources to Europe and to other parts of the world, to displace their dependence on Russian gas. We have been asking these questions as the opposition. We have been calling on the government for years to recognize the economic opportunities associated with our oil and gas sector and to do more to support the construction of pipelines. We have also called on it, particularly in the context of the Russian invasion that we are seeing, to recognize that building the energy infrastructure we need to displace Russian gas in Europe is not just about the economy. It is also about security. It is about doing our part to support Ukrainians who are resisting by saying we want to give our European friends, allies and other nations around the world an alternative to buying oil and gas from Russia.

It has been interesting that since we have been raising this question, the government is more willing to broadly say that it buys into the idea. There is some language in the G7 communiqué that speaks about working together to phase out dependency on Russian energy, so it is encouraging to see that. The government is starting to talk the talk in response to some of these opposition questions, but what we do not see from the government is a willingness to step up and take action and walk the walk, to recognize that if we are going to displace Russian gas in Europe, if we are going to do our part to be able to supply energy resources to Europe, it is going to mean that we build up that infrastructure and make legislative and policy changes that allow us to move quickly to get those energy resources to where they need to go as quickly as possible, recognizing that the world is in a war.

We are in this very acute security situation, and doing our part should mean re-examining the antienergy policies the government has put in place in the past. It would be good for our economy to do these things, and these are things the Conservatives have been calling for for years, but recognizing the particulars of the situation we are in. Now is the time to be thinking about, for instance, repealing Bill C-69, which makes it very difficult for us to build pipeline infrastructure. We need to have a faster, smoother process for getting infrastructure approved so that we can support Europe in being able to impose energy-related sanctions on Russia and end its dependence on Russian oil and gas. It is not going to be good enough to just talk the talk, to just say the words of solidarity, and to say that we stand with Ukraine, but then to actually fail to make the legislative and policy changes that are going to help achieve that result.

If Canada believes this G7 communiqué it has signed on to and the words that ministers are now starting to say about sanctioning Russia, about having the kind of debilitating sanctions that will stop Putin's tanks in their tracks, and if the government is serious about these things, then it has to think about the kinds of changes we can make that are going to support the development of our energy sector and the export of those energy products, in particular to Europe.

Therefore, I want to ask the government if it is really serious about this. Are these just words, or are we going to see concrete action with respect to Canada playing a greater role and contributing to global energy security?

Budget Implementation Act, 2022, No. 1

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to be in the House and to speak on behalf of the people of Calgary Midnapore, and here I am today addressing the BIA.

I will start with an anecdote. Last Friday, when my husband picked me up at the Calgary airport, we were making the left-hand turn we usually do in an effort to merge onto Deerfoot Trail. Halfway through our turn, the light turned yellow and my husband stopped in the middle of the intersection. I turned to him and said, “James, what the bleep are you doing here?” Well, that is what I have to say: What are we doing here? What is the government doing here?

When I arrived here in 2017, there was the same sentiment that existed in 2015 when the Liberal government came into place. Among Canadians, although we were disappointed as Conservatives and sorry to see the departure of former prime minister Stephen Harper, I think there was a feeling of hope and enthusiasm across the country. We often think of sunny ways at that time, when the Prime Minister and the Liberal government came in. Those same sentiments existed when I arrived here in 2017. I was just outside those doors getting ready to be walked into the House of Commons for the first time, and there was still that same feeling of excitement and of sunny ways.

I have to say, that is not there anymore, and this budget reflects it. This budget is a mishmash and a patchwork of legislation. Any individual reading through this content could not determine the goals, aspirations and theme of the government. Is that not what leadership really is? What are we doing here?

When I reflect upon the reasons for the lack of direction we now see from the government, I would attribute it to three things. Number one is now the failure to implement any vision the government to the Prime Minister might have once had. The second would be an unuseful and impractical adherence to ideology. The third would be ignoring the real problems affecting Canadians. I will take some time now to expand on each of those.

When I talk about the failure to implement the vision, I am talking about the sunny ways and hope and enthusiasm the Prime Minister and the government arrived here with. Unfortunately, when they have tried to execute these sunny ways and implement them in Canada and Canadian culture, it has been nothing but an absolute failure. We saw that with the attempts for democracy reform. We saw it when the attempt was made to go to proportional representation, which was a 2015 election promise. It was failed upon by the previous minister for democratic institutions, who is no longer in the House. That is one example of the failure of the implementation of vision we have seen from the government.

We saw this with the climate plan. We saw this with the Paris climate accord. I sat back there in my second week, having to vote on the Paris climate accord. The fear and division it created in the House, which I will expand upon, was for no reason. These targets that we voted upon and that divided us were never actually achieved by the government, so what is the point?

It is the same thing we saw with the Liberals' grand idea of planting two billion trees. As I look around this room, I see nary a tree. They have failed on these climate initiatives as well.

The third is unity, and I will speak to this from two perspectives. The first is regional. Liberals have pitted region against region in this country, needlessly creating division at a time even before the pandemic descended upon us. Of course, with the pandemic, it was the Prime Minister who used inflammatory language, name-called and attacked Canadians who had valid concerns about the mandates. He actually rejected a Conservative motion to create a plan to roll back the mandates, which could have lowered the temperature, and he then of course invoked the Emergencies Act for the first time in Canada's history. We, on this side of the House, are still reviewing that to this day. It created terrible disunity not only in the House, but among Canadians.

The second is a unuseful adherence to ideology. We have seen this in two places in particular. The first was the killing of the natural resources sector. As an Albertan, I take personal offence to this. How has the current government done this? It has done this by not providing support for Line 5. My colleague, the member for Calgary Centre, has talked and encouraged ad nauseam about this. Of course, at this moment in history, while Ukraine faces its most difficult time, the most difficult time we have seen in recent history, the government failed to pass a motion to get natural gas to Europe. At a time when our natural resources could be used for good in this world, the government turned its back against it. It brought in Bill C-48, the tanker moratorium, and who can forget Bill C-69, the no new pipelines bill, which again showed an unuseful adherence to ideology.

We also saw that with the mandates, the mandates that still rest with us today. I can tell members of the House that the parliamentary precinct, and frankly airports and airplanes, are the only places now where I am required to wear a mask. The government should lift the mandates on that and stop using this unuseful adherence to ideology. It is not helpful for Canadians at all.

What I think is most important here is that, if we look at the ways the government has failed and how this budget reflects that, it shows an ignorance of the real problems that affect Canadians. What are they? I will list a couple.

At the industry committee we saw a rejection to support the lithium mine, which would have been very important for semiconductors, something that is becoming increasingly important as we evaluate supply chains going into the future. In addition, we saw a government that was useless and unwilling to take a stand until the very last moment on the CP Rail strike, which would have had devastating impacts on not only western Canada, but also all of Canada.

We have seen this lack of action in labour shortages. The CFIB's recent report “Labour shortages are back with a vengeance” found that 55% of businesses could not find the staff they needed. Food and Beverage Canada said that it lacked 300,000 workers within its industry and has companies with vacancy rates of over 20%. The government throwing money at this is not helping. It needs to address the backlogs it has within its immigration processes.

We hear about housing endlessly here, with the average price of a home now reaching $874,100, a jolting 27.1% increase over the last year. The initiatives of the government, such as the first-time homebuyer incentive and the shared equity mortgage fund, are failing terribly.

I can talk about the failures of the government and how this budget and the budget implementation act do not address the cost of living and inflation. For the first time in 31 years, prices are up 6.7% compared to a year ago. Families are spending nearly $1,000 more a year on groceries and gas. Gas and home heating are costing more, and housing prices have doubled since the Prime Minister became the Prime Minister. More than half of Canadians are $200 or less away from not being able to pay their bills or rent, with three in 10 already falling behind at the end of the month.

In conclusion, the government has run its course. It has received a minority not once, but twice now. It just had to buy a mandate until 2025. When it was elected in 2015, there was a sense of hope, optimism and possibility. That is gone now. This budget reflects it, and the budget implementation act reflects it. What are we doing here?

Financial Statement of Minister of Finance

[Michael Kram, Conservative, Regina—Wascana, SK]

Madam Speaker, it is always an honour to rise in this chamber and to represent the people of Regina—Wascana. I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak today on the budget.

My grandmother would always say to me, when I was growing up, “If you can't say anything nice, then don't say anything at all.” While that may be good advice for getting along with the neighbour kids, it does not work so well as an opposition member of Parliament. I would like to at least partially take some of my grandmother's advice today and focus on one area of the budget on which I think there is broad agreement. That is the need for Canada to support Ukraine as it defends itself from the Russian invasion.

When the finance minister was presenting her budget earlier this month, I believe she received one standing ovation from both sides of the House, and that is when she said that the Russian army invading Ukraine needed to be vanquished. I agree. Vladimir Putin's war of aggression against Ukraine is completely and totally unacceptable. Countries around the world, including Canada, need to do their part to ensure that free and democratic countries are not overrun and annexed by a dictator like Vladimir Putin.

The finance minister went on to say that it was the brave people of Ukraine who would be doing the fighting against convoys of Russian tanks rolling into their country. There is one fundamental principle the minister did not mention in her budget speech that I believe everyone needs to understand. Every time one of those Russian tanks is destroyed by the Ukrainians, it is soon replaced by another Russian tank rolling off the assembly line.

If we are going to help the Ukrainians win this war and make the world a safer place for our children and grandchildren, then it is not enough to simply destroy the Russian tanks and other weapons on the front lines. We must also stop Vladimir Putin's ability to buy more of them. Tanks cost money. Bombs cost money. Battleships cost money.

Where does Vladimir Putin get his money to buy all these weapons? By far, the biggest source of funding for the Russian war machine is oil and gas exports to western Europe. That is Vladimir Putin's steady paycheque. That is Vladimir Putin's spending money: oil and gas exports to western Europe.

In fact, western Europe imports approximately 3.4 million barrels of oil and gas every day from Russia. The money western Europe spends on this oil and gas goes toward Vladimir Putin's war machine. He spends the money on tanks, bombs and battleships, all of which go toward the Russian war efforts against the Ukrainian military and toward committing atrocities against Ukrainian civilians, such as the bombing of a hospital maternity ward in Mariupol and the slaughter of civilians on the streets of Bucha.

If the international community could figure out a way to send an additional 3.4 million barrels of oil and gas to western Europe, we could seriously inhibit Russia's ability to wage war. How can the international community make up this shortfall? Canada alone could provide almost that entire amount from just four projects. These four projects have been debated many times in the House over the past few years. They are the Keystone XL pipeline, the energy east pipeline, the northern gateway pipeline and the Trans Mountain expansion.

All four of these projects have either been cancelled or significantly delayed over the past several years because of the government's Bill C-69, Bill C-48 and other roadblocks it keeps putting in the way.

Recently, the Minister of Natural Resources announced that Canada would increase oil exports to western Europe by only 300,000 barrels per day from existing infrastructure. Unfortunately, the minister has also described this increase as a short-term solution and only a temporary measure to help our friends and allies fighting in Ukraine.

I would strongly caution the government against reverting back to its old policy of keeping Canadian oil and gas in the ground, for a couple of reasons.

First, no one knows when this war will end. As many of us probably learned in high school history class, when World War I broke out, all of the experts of the day said that the war would be over by Christmas. Four years later, the war was still raging. Today, we are 62 days into the current conflict and it would be foolish for anyone to try to predict with any degree of accuracy when this war will be over. It could very well be the case that our allies in western Europe will need oil and gas for the foreseeable future from countries other than Russia.

Second, even if the war were to end tomorrow, it would be foolish for us not to learn from our past mistakes. One of the reasons why the world is in this situation is because, for far too long, peace-loving democratic countries have fallen into the bad habit of relying on petty dictators for their energy needs. All the while, Canadian oil and gas has stayed in the ground.

If this country could increase its oil and gas exports by 3.4 million barrels per day and displace Russian exports to western Europe, it raises the question of what Canadians could do with this extra money. The short answer is they could do whatever they wanted. Many people who work in the natural resources sector would love the opportunity to pay down their mortgages, save for their children's education or take a well-deserved vacation, especially after the last two years.

It is not just oil and gas workers in the private sector who would benefit. In my home province of Saskatchewan, in any given year between 10% and 15% of the provincial government's budget comes from natural resource royalties. That is money that can go toward roads, schools, hospitals and other services that people rely on. Over a decade ago, when resource royalties were at their height, the provincial Government of Saskatchewan announced that it would build a new children's hospital in Saskatoon. This hospital opened just a few years ago and it has since helped thousands of children.

I believe that the vast majority of people who let their names stand to run for public office do so with good intentions to make the world a better place for our children and grandchildren, but we all know what they say about good intentions. The cost of our inaction could not be more clear and the contrast could not be more stark. Instead of oil and gas revenues going toward bombing children's hospitals in Mariupol, they should be going toward building hospitals here in Canada.

Clearly, any objective observer would have to agree that Canada has a tremendous amount of potential to do a great deal of good on the world stage. It is not necessary for democracies in western Europe or the rest of the world to rely on petty dictators for their energy needs. It is not necessary for them to fund the war machine of Vladimir Putin or any other hostile regime.

Canada can be a force for world peace and stability by simply extracting and exporting the resources that we have in this country literally sitting beneath our feet and not doing anyone any good. If Vladimir Putin's army is to be vanquished, to use the finance minister's term, then we need to get serious about building pipeline capacity in this country so that western Europe and the rest of the world can buy their oil and gas from Canada instead of from Vladimir Putin's Russia.

The Environment

[Steven Guilbeault, Liberal, Minister of Environment and Climate Change]

Mr. Speaker, when we reformed environmental impact assessments under Bill C-69, we made a commitment that we were going to depoliticize the process of environmental projects in Canada. Our government has accepted the environmental impact assessment done by the agency, which conducted a rigorous, robust and transparent process that lasted almost four years. This project will include requirements for net-zero emissions by 2050 and 137 other environmental protection measures. The project aligns with the government's ambitious emissions reduction plan and will need to fit under the emission cap for the oil and gas sector.

Economic and Fiscal Update Implementation Act, 2021

[Rosemarie Falk, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Madam Speaker, when I said the quote the member pulled out, I was referring to our Canadian energy sector. I represent mothers and fathers who have lost their jobs because of bills like Bill C-69 and Bill C-48, the tanker ban. Oil companies have moved from Canada to other places in the world. Why are we buying oil from those places? Why are we supporting them when we have the most ethical human rights and environmental regulations in the world? I am sorry, but when I have parents contacting my office saying they cannot afford to put food on the table to feed their children, it is because the government took away their jobs through its policies.

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I think we have demonstrated, as I indicated in my speech, that we have supported legislation in moments of crisis when it was absolutely necessary for Canadians. What we will not do is give the NDP-Liberal coalition a blank cheque. We will not do that. We are responsible to Canadians to watch the spending of the NDP-Liberal coalition.

If this member is so passionate about legislation that helps Canadians, then why did his government put forward Bill C-69 and Bill C-48, which hurt so many Canadians?

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, I cannot sing, but it was still nice to hear my colleagues from the Bloc Québécois, with whom we form the opposition in the House.

We are here today to talk about Bill C-8, of course. This is not long before we are actually going to be presented with the next budget, so I think it is very important that Canadians evaluate the past performance of the NDP-Liberal coalition before deciding to even consider approving the next budget.

I want to start by saying that my colleagues and I, here in the official opposition, have been very positive in our spirit of collaboration in the last couple of years as we have gone through the difficult time of the pandemic, but we also certainly have our limits, as individuals and groups must have their limits, in terms of what they are willing to accept.

I look at the beginning of the pandemic, when we passed, in November of 2021, Bill C-2, the first COVID relief package, worth $37 billion. There was certainly a lot of funding there. We went on to pass other legislation in the House with significant price tags, including Bill C-3, which went through the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities. That was a $7-billion price tag.

In December 2021, we also had Bill C-8, which we are debating here today, with additional spending of $71.2 billion. These are not small amounts.

I will say that we certainly have done what was necessary throughout the pandemic. Everyone in the House, certainly on this side of the House, supports Canadians and wants to see Canadians get the help they need, but it has certainly become incredibly excessive and even growing, perhaps, with this new NDP coalition. We have to be wary about the items that we are seeing in the new NDP-Liberal coalition, which will cost billions upon billions of extra dollars, potentially.

At the same time that we saw the House helping Canadians, eventually leading to overspending even beyond what was necessary, we can go further back than that to something that I brought up today in question period: the destruction of the natural resources sector. This is something that did not start two years ago. This started seven years ago, when we saw the initial election of the NDP-Liberal coalition government, which continues to play out today.

To start, we saw it in November of 2016, when the northern gateway pipeline was rejected by this coalition. We look to October 2017, when TransCanada cancelled the energy east pipeline project as a result of pressure from this coalition.

This is something that this NDP-Liberal coalition likes to do. They create impossible environments for industry, whereby industry has no other choice but to abandon these projects. Then the NDP-Liberal coalition says that it is not their fault because it was abandoned by industry, when they have made conditions impossible to complete these projects.

We cannot forget January 2017, when the Prime Minister said he wanted to phase out the oil sands. He said, “You can't make a choice between what's good for the environment and what is good for the economy.... We can't shut down the oilsands tomorrow. We need to phase them out. We need to manage the transition off of our dependence on fossil fuels.”

Right there, we see the Prime Minister had committed to his continued path of destroying the natural resource sector, with the help of the NDP-Liberal coalition. This, of course, led to April 2018, when Kinder Morgan halted the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion because of “continued actions in opposition to the project”, which was not surprising.

In May of 2018, we saw the NDP-Liberal coalition buy the Trans Mountain pipeline for $4.5 billion, but it again created impossible conditions for the project to be completed, whereby Kinder Morgan eventually abandoned the project. Once again, the government created impossible conditions for this industry.

Of course, I cannot help but mention Bill C-48, the oil tanker moratorium, and of course Bill C-69, which were both passed in June 2019 and completely destroyed that sector. We often refer to C-69 as the “no more pipelines” bill.

Therefore, I find it very rich that I hold in my hand here a Canadian Press article from March 20, 2022, which indicates that Liberals may find extra spending room in the budget created by rising oil prices. It is reported that it is a position similar to the one the Liberals found themselves in last December when a rosier economic picture gave the government $38.5 billion in extra spending room. Guess what. The NDP-Liberal government quickly ate up $28.4 billion with new expenditures. This extra funding, as a result of the natural resources sector, could be up to $5 billion, but we know that the NDP-Liberal government will eat that up in a moment before spending even more than that.

In fact, the former parliamentary budget officer Kevin Page said, “It would be a policy mistake for the government to assume that higher-than-anticipated inflation will create extra fiscal room which could be used to deficit finance longer-term programs,” many of which we are seeing in the NDP-Liberal coalition. That is very interesting.

We see that the government has a habit of spending any money we give it. It will not pay down the record debt or the record deficit. Instead, it will spend it, so why should we trust it and give it more money? Why should we not look at this upcoming budget with scrupulosity and hesitancy?

More insulting than the government's spending what it does not have, and spending it on the back of the industry that it has destroyed entirely, is that it announced yesterday that now it plans to boost oil exports 5% in an effort to ease the energy supply crisis. This was an announcement that the Minister of Natural Resources made yesterday, following the second day of meetings at the International Energy Agency's annual ministerial gathering in Paris.

He said that Canadian industry has the pipeline and production capacity to incrementally increase oil and gas exports this year by 300,000 barrels per day, comprising 200,000 barrels of oil and 100,000 barrels of oil equivalent per day in natural gas. The Alberta natural resources minister had a response to that. She said:

We can increase production if we can get more infrastructure built and I think that's what was missing in the conversation.... It's really not ambitious to talk about a short term potential of 200,000 barrels when we sit on top of the third largest [oil] reserves in the world.

In addition to that, we have seen a labour shortage. The NDP-Liberal government fired hundreds of thousands of workers when it set out to destroy the natural resources sector, so this sector has been struggling with a lack of workers since last year, according to a Canadian Press story, when rebounding oil prices first spurred an uptake in drilling activity in the Canadian oil patch.

In conclusion, on this side of the House, we have tried to work with the NDP-Liberal coalition. It has shown it cannot handle funds responsibly, time and time again. Now it is turning to the industry it destroyed. Now it has decided it is time to step up given that Ukrainians and Europe are suffering, while Canadians have suffered for a long time under this coalition.

Natural Resources

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

Madam Speaker, I would simply put it to this member that if the government takes energy security seriously, I do not know why the Liberals voted against our motion on Monday, which was precisely about recognizing the energy security dimension here and the need to move quickly to address those gaps.

The member made no mention of Bill C-69 in her response, nor the fact that the government has intentionally prolonged the review process and created an environment in which it is very difficult for the private sector to come forward with projects. She said no LNG projects are currently being put forward on the Atlantic coast. We would like to see more of these projects proposed by the private sector. That would only happen if the government recognizes that the policy conditions it has created are very unfriendly for energy investment.

Will the member address the problems with Bill C-69? Will she commit to urgently looking at the need to change the policy environment to restore confidence by creating the conditions that will attract that energy investment to this country and allow us to move forward quickly?

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

Mr. Speaker, the invasion of Ukraine by the Putin regime demonstrates the urgent need for the government to take security more seriously, and one key element of that security is global energy security. Nations need energy in order to attend to the basic needs of their people. It is a fact of modern life that we cannot live without energy.

Energy is not just an economic issue; it is also a security issue. Nations need secure access to energy and will be forced to compromise collective security interests as much as necessary in order to guarantee that access. While many Canadians take energy security for granted, other free democracies are in a very tenuous position when it comes to reliable access to energy and already have to consider uncomfortable trade-offs. Some of our democratic partners in the Asia-Pacific region rely on energy that comes from the Middle East and is transmitted through the South China Sea, introducing multiple points of potential disruption. Many of our European allies rely on Russian gas.

Countries struggle to take necessary steps to protect their security or deter aggression, fearing that their vital supply of energy will be impacted. While severe energy-related sanctions could further devastate the Russian government's economic capacity to wage war against Ukraine, the community of free nations has struggled to apply such sanctions because of their current dependency.

Tough energy-related sanctions would be a game-changer in this conflict, shortening the war and saving many lives. We must work in particular to end the dependency of our European partners on Russian gas. We should act quickly to kick Putin’s gas out of the free world. Canada should fuel democracy by providing our European friends with a conflict-free and reliable alternative, and one that is, in many cases, better for the environment than the other options available.

In response to our call to urgently address the issue of European and global energy security, the NDP-Liberal government has said no. On Monday they voted against our motion to push urgently to expand energy infrastructure to confront this problem.

In the process they make three arguments. They say that now is not the time to be talking about this issue; they say that we should be focused on renewables; and they say that we cannot build the energy infrastructure fast enough anyway.

I totally reject the idea that the current crisis is not the time to be talking about solutions to the crisis. We should be talking about concrete acts of support and solidarity that help Ukraine and deprive Russia of its capacity to wage war. It is absurd to think that we should sit on our hands and mouth solidarity without doing the hard work of talking about concrete solutions that will save lives. Reducing European dependency on Russian gas and supporting European efforts to improve energy security is one example of a concrete solution.

I am all for renewables, but the current reality is that the science and the capacity is not there for Europe to simply flip a switch to renewables. Europe can take an all-of-the-above approach, developing its renewable capacity while working to displace Russian gas in the short term. The current limits on renewable capacity are why European countries continue to rely on Russian gas today, and also other fossil-fuel-based sources, such as Polish coal. Let us expand Canadian energy exports to Europe to provide a good alternative to the status quo as renewables continue to develop.

The final excuse, the excuse that we cannot build energy infrastructure fast enough, is particularly absurd, because delays in building vital energy infrastructure are entirely a problem of the government’s making. The Liberals cancelled approved projects. They complicated the review process through Bill C-69. They piled conditions on the energy east pipeline that had never existed before. They appointed a strident law-breaking anti-pipeline activist as environment minister and they repeatedly attacked confidence in Canada as a destination for energy investment, and now they are acting surprised with the consequences.

I agree that it takes too long to build a pipeline in this country, but let us fix that problem and let us recognize the urgency of the current situation. Canadians understand that energy development is an economic and a security imperative. The government should stop making excuses and finally get to work supporting that development.

[Greg Rickford]

I've written extensively about it, Michael. I want to keep this discussion going without some of the partisanship that sometimes infects conversations like today's, because they're important.

A heads-up would have been good, and I have a couple of quick points there. I still am concerned about what I call some of the “windows” for cabinet-level government and/or other stakeholders and potential partners to press the pause button on a given project at a given state.

I think critics, on balance, still have some of those concerns. I would have preferred that we test drove Bill C-69 on a project that crossed provincial boundaries instead of this project, but it's there. We've successfully negotiated it as different levels of governments and private partners, and I think we're in a decent place. We'll learn the lessons moving forward.

[Michael Kram, Conservative, Regina—Wascana, SK]

In a response to an earlier question, you brought up Bill C-69 as it relates to the Ring of Fire.

If you were back in federal politics, Minister Rickford, and you could make some changes to Bill C-69, would you offer any recommendations that might be helpful?

[Greg Rickford]

That's a great question, Bernie, and it's great to see you.

I think two things come to mind. The first one is political and perhaps government-related. The other one is strategic business concepts.

In the first instance, I think that the federal government has to ensure that it's aligned with things that are happening on the ground. Sometimes we wind up at cross-purposes. I've written about Bill C-69 and some of my concerns about it, but you know, it didn't take very long and it was plonked down on the Ring of Fire without any consultation with the provincial government. That was unfortunate. To the credit of Minister O'Regan, he saved the day and we were able—with our partners in the private sector and some of the indigenous communities, and hopefully the federal government will announce it shortly—to ring-fence the impact assessment, or whatever they're calling it, to the mining activity itself, leaving us alone to move ahead with what we're calling the “corridor to prosperity”.

We don't build mines in Ontario as a government. We provide the right conditions for those to proceed. Certainly, the levers that are most accessible to us are things like building legacy infrastructure for health, social and economic policy objectives that I think isolated indigenous communities and more remote municipalities have a serious interest in.

There was a good recovery on the part of the federal government, as we understand, and hopefully the federal government will bring more clarity and certainty in the coming days or week that that's the case.

There's getting together on legacy infrastructure projects. Watay Power in northwestern Ontario, one of the largest-scale hydro projects, has a great relationship with the federal government, a joint investment that will electrify communities that I've lived and worked in back in the day as a nurse, working as a lawyer, and represented politically, Bernard—

Equalization

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

Mr. Speaker, my next petition is from people from across Alberta. These petitioners note that Alberta is the single largest per-capita contributor to the federal equalization program, contributing over $600 billion since the 1960s. They comment that the current equalization formula was set when Alberta had record growth. Since then, we have experienced job losses and high unemployment. Bill C-69 and Bill C-48 and the failure to build pipelines have devastated the Alberta economy.

They are calling on the government to fix the equalization formula, and they are calling on the government to defend and advocate for the building of pipelines so that Keystone XL, in particular, and others can be built.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Okay. This may be a precursor to my next question, because I have only two and a half minutes.

The City of Ottawa has called for a regional assessment of radioactive disposal projects in the Ottawa Valley under the Impact Assessment Act, but the request was turned down by the Minister of Environment and Climate Change.

I was hoping the minister would be here to answer this question directly, but since he's not here, for my next questions I'll be asking about why the request for the regional assessment was turned down given—

[Stephen Buffalo]

Thank you for the question. I truly appreciate this discussion on UNDRIP. There are a lot of articles, such as article 3 and article 4, on communities determining their own rights and political will in terms of moving to sustain their culture and their heritage. We obviously support that.

We've found with a lot of these bills that have come forth from the federal government that they've always been one-sided. With regard to Bill C-69, the Impact Assessment Act, a lot of the communities under the Indian Resource Council were not consulted, but yet the act passed. There was the tanker ban as well. A lot of the communities that did support the initiative were not consulted, but the act passed.

In free, prior and informed consent, it is definitely up to the community. I have even asked our good colleague here, Chief Robert Louie, for his opinion on it. It's something that needs to be further discussed as we move toward really having the United Nations declaration as the staple.

Some communities have the process of electing a leader through democracy. We're hearing in the House today how important democracy is. With communities that have their own hereditary leadership, it's up to them to figure that part out as to who decides for the community.

I hope the best for everyone, but at the end of the day, regardless of what happens, this tool of UNDRIP is definitely an opportunity for first nations to get out of poverty. As we all know, we want our own dependency. We want our own sovereignty. I call being under the Indian Act “soft communism”. It doesn't help being told how to spend money and what to do.

Despite some of the issues with regard to climate change and everything like that, trying to find a balance of economic development and protecting the environment is what we should be striving for to get ourselves, as I said, out of poverty. A lot of communities are very fortunate with their geographic location. They are very fortunate to be beside major infrastructure and be part of it. Their communities benefit. But a lot who aren't by a major centre struggle with getting to the hospital, struggle with having clean water and struggle with having proper health care and everything else.

We just hope that in utilizing this sector, in utilizing UNDRIP, we find that balance for not only first nations to benefit but all of Canada.

[Stephen Buffalo, President and Chief Executive Officer, Indian Resource Council Inc.]

Thank you, Chair and committee members, for the opportunity to speak today.

My name is Stephen Buffalo and I'm the president and CEO of the Indian Resource Council of Canada. Our organization represents over 130 first nations that produce or have a direct interest in the oil and gas industry. Our mandate is to advocate for federal policies that will improve and increase economic development opportunities for the first nations and their members.

We also play an oversight role with Indian Oil and Gas Canada, a federal special operating agency, to ensure that they fulfill their legal and fiduciary roles in the management and regulation of oil and gas resources. Right off the bat, I must say that Indian Oil and Gas Canada is doing a very bad job as a regulator and a fiduciary. In that sense, they are one of the major barriers to our economic development and energy development.

Our communities benefit from involvement in oil and gas. The relationship with mainstream industry has not always been perfect, but it's getting better. We are more involved in oil and gas jobs—in reclamation, such as the first nation site rehabilitation program, and in procurement—and in equity participation more than ever. There isn't another industry in the country that has engaged indigenous peoples as meaningfully in terms of scale of own-source revenue as oil and gas, and that's a fact. That's why it's so important to our economic development and self-determination that Canada has a healthy and competitive oil and gas sector.

However, it often feels as if Canada is trying to eliminate the sector, instead of supporting it: the overruns on TMX with indigenous groups wanting to buy it, the cancellation of Keystone XL, the cancellation of northern gateway, the tanker ban, the Impact Assessment Act in Bill C-69, the lack of LNG export capacity and the cancellation of the Teck Frontier mine.

We have lost tens of millions of dollars in royalties in the past decade due to the differential in price between Western Canadian Select and Brent Crude during the COVID-19 pandemic. These have directly harmed our communities, costing first nations millions in lost source revenue. Everyone on this committee knows that no communities can afford that.

The loss of own-source revenues and royalties is one thing, but on top of that, these missed opportunities have cost our people jobs and procurement opportunities that would probably number in the billions. If you look at the dependency of...federal funding under the Indian Act from 2010 to 2015, it rose from 33% to 36%. That has to change.

When you talk about economic development, that's what's important: getting our people well-paying jobs; getting first nations-owned businesses big contracts from trucking to catering to earth moving and reclamation, so they can grow their business and hire more people; and creating opportunities for entrepreneurs.

There's no sector—not solar panel installation, not tourism, not golf courses—that can replace the economic opportunity that oil and gas provides for first nations. The biggest barrier you can eliminate in indigenous economic development is to stop hampering or choking out the oil and gas sector. I note that the government is now considering a cap on emissions which, if not drafted properly, will in practice be a cap on production. Instead, I ask you to promote and encourage our involvement by making sure that first nations have access to the capital we need to be real partners in new projects. I know you've heard from others, and I know you'll hear...but that's an issue.

I am also the chair of the Alberta Indigenous Opportunities Corporation, which was created by the Government of Alberta to address some of the access to the capital challenge I mentioned. We've been able to provide many first nations the capital needed to participate in power plants, carbon capture facilities, pipelines and more. However, at the federal level, some people consider this government-backed loan to indigenous communities to get involved in these things to be a fossil fuel subsidy, which it is not.

If the federal government is truly committed to reconciliation and the principles of UNDRIP, it should be supportive in whatever kind of economic development we want to be a part of, regardless of the industry. The government shouldn't be picking and choosing for us. For our members and many other first nations, the oil and gas sector provides the best opportunity for economic well-being. It doesn't mean that we aren't interested in other sectors, nor that we don't want to be part of the net-zero economy. We can and should strike a balance between economic development and a net-zero economy.

I look forward to your questions. Thank you very much.

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Thank you. That's interesting.

The other side is that if Russian energy was removed completely from world markets, does Canada have the distribution and production means to help fill that gap in order to cut off the Putin regime from those dollars right now? Bill C-69 comes to mind, but there are other areas. I'd be most interested in your thoughts in regard to what our distribution production systems would look like if Russian energy was completely cut off.

[Dr. Andrew Leach, Associate Professor, University of Alberta, As an Individual]

Thank you very much.

Thank you for inviting me today. I'm pleased to be here to speak to you about this very important issue.

Canada will undoubtedly require more stringent policies to meet its commitments, its international and domestic commitments, to reduce emissions. I strongly support and have worked on the implementation of these policies, but with that in mind, I'm not convinced that a regulatory cap on emissions from the oil and gas sector is needed.

A sector-wide declining cap on emissions could represent a financial, technical and constitutional challenge, and lead to less cost-effective emissions reductions attributable to Canadian policies.

The oil and gas sector is Canada's largest emitting sector. Oil and gas production accounted for 191 megatonnes in our last inventory year of 2019, which is just slightly more than the 186 megatonnes that we measured for transportation. Importantly, forecasts show that these emissions are unlikely to decrease meaningfully unless more stringent policies are imposed.

There should be no question that oil and gas production contributes substantially to Canada's emissions. As Professor Keith so eloquently said, the emissions embodied in Canadian hydrocarbon production are a significant source of global emissions. Absent significant decreases in emissions from the oil and gas sector, Canada's goals will become increasingly challenging and eventually, for all intents and purposes, impossible to meet.

When you say something like that, a lot of times people will respond and say that the emissions intensity has been improving. I'd like to point out that this is not consistently true. The average Canadian barrel of oil has become more emissions intensive over the past three decades. The reason for that is simple. More of our barrels are coming from the more emissions-intensive oil sands. More of those oil sands barrels are produced using more emissions-intensive in situ processes. Within individual sectors the stories have been good, but overall there is not as much to sing about as some might have you believe.

The story is slightly better for natural gas, but there we only see a slight long-term decrease in emissions intensity.

What's driving this story? We know that the biggest driver for production and thus for emissions in the oil and gas sector are factors beyond our own borders, like commodity prices. Commodity prices are influenced by everything from technology to global development to the war that we've all been talking about these last few days.

High prices will generally mean more willingness to invest to maintain production in spite of carbon policy changes, but that type of analysis begs the question of whether oil prices, combined with carbon pricing and with a regulatory cap on emissions are going to lead, as Professor Keith said, to sufficient investment to decouple emissions from production.

My belief, like his, is that this is unlikely to happen, perhaps for a slightly different reason. Echoing some recent statements from industry leaders, there's just not enough long-term certainty on the policy side. There are some measures that can close this gap, like tax credits, etc., but a regulatory cap doesn't get you farther towards that goal.

The next thing I'd point out is that, in arguing for the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act before the Supreme Court, the Attorney General argued strongly that economists support carbon pricing because it's the most cost-effective way to reduce emissions. They cited my own testimony before the finance committee of this House to support that claim, so I have to stick with that.

The cost-effectiveness of carbon pricing comes from applying the same price to a whole set of emissions—to as many emissions as you can.

With that in mind, I would ask two questions.

First, would we want more stringent policies applied on some sectors than on others?

Second, even if we did, do we need another mechanism or another policy to do so?

My answer to both of these questions is no.

I say we do not need more stringent policy on one sector than others and we do not need new policies, even if that is what we choose to do. Carbon pricing gives us all the tools we need.

That emissions in one sector are more resilient to carbon pricing is indicative that there is more value there per tonne of carbon emitted, which is what carbon pricing drives our economy towards. The judgments about whether that value will be present in the long term are generally not best made by governments. But, if government chooses to do so, Parliament has the means to ensure that carbon prices are reflective across the investment, production, export and combustion decisions related to hydrocarbons.

The carbon pricing regulation is there. The clean fuel regulations, the Bill C-69 measures and the tax code are all there.

In conclusion, if this proposed oil and gas cap is just an expression of what we expect policies to bring, so be it, but I question the need for and the efficacy of a new regulatory mechanism.

Thank you. I'm sorry for being 10 seconds over.

[Tim McMillan]

It's not the resource, because ours is world class and cost effective. It is the Canadian regulatory process that is not as transparent as we would expect a democracy like Canada to have.

It changed a few years ago with Bill C-69, which made that more difficult, and I think large global investors look at Canada today as a place where it is very difficult to get major infrastructure built, energy infrastructure or otherwise.

[Michael Kram, Conservative, Regina—Wascana, SK]

This has to be quick, because I'm almost out of time.

Three years ago, PDAC made a submission to the Senate committee on energy, the environment and natural resources about Bill C-69, indicating that the numerous costly studies earlier in the process would be a significant burden.

Is that still the position and experience of PDAC?

[Michael Kram, Conservative, Regina—Wascana, SK]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, and thank you to the witnesses for joining us today.

My questions will mostly be for Jeff Killeen and Lisa McDonald of the Prospectors and Developers Association of Canada.

The mining sector is extremely important to my home province of Saskatchewan. There is broad public support for the mining sector. There is considerably less public support for the government's Bill C-69, brought in a few years ago. The Saskatchewan Mining Association has said that a majority of its members did not support the extra regulatory process brought in by Bill C-69.

I'd be curious to hear how the member organizations of PDAC feel about the additional regulations brought in a few years ago by Bill C-69.

Canadian Navigable Waters Act

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-214, an act to amend the Canadian Navigable Waters Act (lakes and rivers in British Columbia)

Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to introduce my bill. I thank my colleague from Skeena—Bulkley Valley for seconding it.

It is a bill that would restore protection to all the lakes and rivers in my riding that were protected under the Navigable Waters Protection Act, but were stripped of that by the Harper government. The Liberal government promised to fix this, but its half measures in Bill C-69 did not do that.

The bill would restore protection to the Okanagan River, home of one of the greatest success stories of salmon restoration in Canada, the Kettle and Granby rivers that flow through Boundary Country, the Slocan River, one of the most beautiful rivers on the continent, and lakes such as Osoyoos, Skaha and Slocan, as well as Vaseux Lake, one of the first federal bird sanctuaries in the country. All of these waterways and more are at the heart of South Okanagan—West Kootenay and fully deserve the protection they once had.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

Opposition Motion—Housing Supply

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Madam Speaker, I will share my time with the member for Wellington—Halton Hills.

It is always an honour to rise in the House and to speak, especially on the important motion we have before us today, which is our opposition day motion. Before I get started, I would like to give some credit. I am a shameless team promoter. I love this team. I will say it time and again. I want to give credit to the member for Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon for all of the incredible work he did on this file in the last Parliament. In fact, his work was used as the basis for a lot of our platform development. It received accolades from many groups across the country for the great ideas within our platform regarding housing. I wish him the best in the Asia-Pacific development file as he continues on. I also wish the best for the residents of B.C. as they come out of the difficult time they have been going through.

I would also like to recognize the wonderful member of Parliament for Edmonton Riverbend, who gave me the honour of speaking here today. I do not know if members know this, but he is the father of three children, including the beautiful baby Hugh. He knows this issue very well, because he is a family man. I have family who lives in his riding. I have mentioned that to him before. This affects him and his family and everyone in his community, so I am really happy to see him taking the charge on this motion and on the discussion here today.

I held this file under families, children and social development when I served as the shadow minister in that role. With that, I would like to recognize the new member for Fort McMurray—Cold Lake. What a fireball she is. I love that lady. She is a new mother and a strong voice for her constituents and for Albertans. When she got this role, I told her that this file was hard. I will tell members what I saw when I held that role of families, children and social development and housing was still under that file.

I saw government members traipse across the country, announce new housing initiatives, pat themselves on the backs and call it a day. They would make outrageous claims. In fact, the Minister of Housing and Diversity and Inclusion continues to make claims. For example on November 29 of this year, he said, “Mr. Speaker, every Canadian deserves a safe and affordable place to call home. Since we came into office, we have helped over a million families get the housing they need”. He also said, on December 2, 2021, “We will keep working to make sure every Canadian has an affordable place to call home.”

That is not what I saw in my role at that time. I read the files. I looked around my community and I saw two things. I saw a government destroying my local economy with glee and forcing businesses and residents to vacate buildings, because all the business was gone and all the jobs had been lost. These buildings were being purchased by the government for a song and being turned into subsidized housing, and then the government declared a victory. This is what I saw time and again.

I will repeat that. The government would destroy the economy, force all the businesses to close, take all the good jobs away, purchase the buildings for a song, turn them into subsidized housing and say it had done a great job. It was terrible. There are no winners in that model.

While the government was passing Bill C-69, the no-more-pipelines bill, Bill C-48, the tanker moratorium bill, and the clean fuel standard, jumping, cheering and drinking out of their soggy paper straws, my constituents were suffering. They were wondering whether they could keep their houses or if they would have to move in with their sisters. They wondered how they were going to make rent that month, but the government did not care. Its members would show up on this floor week after week, claiming victory.

The second thing I saw was that all of these government programs the government was claiming victory over were the result of two things: a poor economy and higher taxation.

Every single benefit and every program that I considered, and wondered why Canadians would need, always came back to no jobs or no good jobs. While the government was destroying the economy, killing good jobs and taxing Canadians with one hand, it was handing out a measly little portion of what it had killed and collected with its other hand. What could Canadians do? Could they say no to the small amount that was offered to them? There were no jobs, and certainly no good jobs, to go back to.

I have the best riding in all of Canada. Calgary Midnapore was built on the backs of the generation that fuelled this nation for decades. Communities thrived in lakes and parks that were created by a love of what they did and what it meant for Canada. However, that all started to change six years ago. Jobs became scarce. Businesses went out of province and out of country, and people had to turn to these benefits. They had no choice, and they were grateful because their jobs were gone. I am starting to worry that some people are getting conditioned to believe that they do not deserve any better.

Now, we add affordability and inflation to this mix.

Canadian housing affordability deteriorated for a third consecutive quarter in Q3 of 2021. The mortgage payment on a representative home as a percentage of income rose 1.7 points after a 3.2-point increase in Q2 of 2021. Seasonally adjusted home prices increased 4.6% in Q3 of 2021 from Q2 of 2021, while median household income rose only 0.8%. Affordability deteriorated in all 10 markets covered in Q3. On a sliding scale of markets, from worst deterioration to least, were Vancouver, Victoria, Toronto, Ottawa-Gatineau, Hamilton, Montreal, Calgary, Quebec, Winnipeg and Edmonton. That was the third consecutive quarter with a worsening in all of those markets. Countrywide affordability deteriorated 0.7% in the condo portion, versus a 2.3% deterioration in the non-condo segment. Prices continued a relentless upward trajectory, rising 4.6% in the quarter and 18.6% year on year. That annual figure was the most it has been since 1989, which was before I graduated high school in Calgary Midnapore.

Let us talk about inflation. There is hardly a commodity that has not been touched. Natural gas is up 18.7%. Gasoline is up 41.7%, and I certainly think twice before I decide that it is time to fill my car. Ground beef is up 8.2%. Sausages are up 11.3%. Steak is up 13.6%. I examine the cuts way more thoroughly now before making my choices at the grocery market. Eggs, which are not even a direct meat product, are up 7.4%. Butter, another Canadian staple, is up 5.5%. Syrup is up 11.6%. Coffee is up 3.7%. Chicken is up 8.3%. A year ago I could buy the whole bird, and nothing but the whole bird, for $10. Now it is $14 when I go to the grocery store.

The current government wants to claim victory on this file, but I will not let it. The Liberals destroyed our economy, took away the good jobs and increased taxation, and they want to pat themselves on the back. I will not let them, and neither will Canadians.

Public Services and Procurement

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer—Mountain View, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my riding of Red Deer—Mountain View is now almost fully open, despite the Liberal government's total failure to address the COVID-19 pandemic. We have succeeded because we are Albertans. Not only is Alberta now leading the way when it comes to vaccinations and reopening our economy, but we are poised to lead the way for an economic recovery across Canada providing the Liberal government gets out of the way.

Why does the Liberal government ignore Alberta's leadership role and continually punish it with draconian measures like Bill C-69?

Budget Implementation Act, 2021, No. 1

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Speaker, the member emphasizes the problem. Time and time again, he refuses to acknowledge that there are regions of the country that demand respect in our federation. The Liberal government has refused to do this too, even in various pieces of legislation. I think about Bill C-48, Bill C-69 and even the debate around carbon pricing. The federal government has the ability to impose its will on provinces, but the question that should be asked is whether or not it should. The problem is that we have a Liberal government that refuses to respect anyone who disagrees with any aspect of the way it approaches politics, the legislation it puts forward—

Government Business No. 10—Broadcasting Act

[Steven Guilbeault, Liberal, Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Madam Speaker, let us start at the beginning. On November 18, 2020, Bill C-10 had just been introduced when the member for Richmond—Arthabaska said this during oral question period: “There is nothing in it that would regulate social media or platforms like YouTube.” That seems pretty clear to me. The member himself was criticizing the government, saying that Bill C‑10 did not go far enough.

I am somewhat surprised, not to mention amazed, to hear an experienced parliamentarian like the member opposite say that the minister did such and such a thing in committee. I would remind my colleague that the Minister of Canadian Heritage does not sit on the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage. I was invited to testify on several occasions, and I went every time.

The member says that there were 120 amendments and that that means the bill is a mess. That is a great way to try to mislead people, because it is perfectly normal to have many amendments. I could cite Bill C-69, another bill the Conservative Party opposed.

Finally, the member says that he is speaking on behalf of many people. I would like him to say on whose behalf the Conservative Party was speaking when the member for Lethbridge said that artists were a bunch of outdated people living off government handouts. Her comments were widely panned. On whose behalf—

Offshore Health and Safety Act

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, in the interests of getting this important legislation passed so we can get it to the next stage and provide these protections for workers I could give a 20-minute speech, but I will be giving a significantly shorter speech on this.

There is one personal note I want to add. I was texted this morning, after I completed my speech, that my first niece was born today. Her name is Maeve Elizabeth Danielle Penner, and her mom is doing great. We are all very happy and blessed to have this new beautiful baby girl in our family.

I am pleased to rise to speak to Bill S-3, an act to amend the Offshore Health and Safety Act. It is about time this important legislation to protect the safety of workers made its way through the House of Commons.

The Liberal government failed to get this legislation passed in a timely manner, which has put the safety of offshore workers at risk. We debate a lot of important issues in the House, but out of the many pieces of legislation I have seen the government put forward over the past few years, few bills could be more important than ensuring the safety of workers. In this case, we are talking about offshore energy workers.

How did we get to this point? We are now in a situation where important safeguards have been allowed to lapse. These safeguards were put in place by a previous Conservative government over five years ago, but not acted upon by the current Liberal government until it was too late. Thankfully, no one appears to have been harmed by the lack of action on this file, but it remains inexcusable that we have come to this point in the first place.

At the end of last year, the Liberals allowed the existing temporary safety regulations for our offshore oil and gas workers to expire. In effect, this stripped key health and safety protections for these Canadian workers who risk their lives every day to ensure we have the resources to heat our homes and drive our vehicles to work. These workers, in this case primarily from the province of Newfoundland and Labrador, are a pillar that supports the economy of the province and this country.

The province has elected a lot of Liberal MPs. The Minister of Natural Resources comes from the province, yet it appears that little attention has been paid to this important issue.

Most people would not know it, but I had the privilege of working in our onshore energy sector. I donned my personal protective equipment and H2S monitor and went to work in Canada's energy industrial heartland in Edmonton, Alberta. I spent two summers in university working the shutdowns at the Imperial Oil refinery in Strathcona. On site we had plenty of heavy equipment moving around and we did the jobs that needed to be done to ensure the facility could run smoothly, create jobs and support our economy. I remember working the night shift, 12 hours a day, day in and day out, for weeks. I picked up extra hours at the end of each shift and put on a HiVis vest to do traffic control and ensure that the tired workers would not accidentally be run over as they went home from their shifts. I stood watch as skilled workers went deep into systems to ensure that first aid would be readily available for them in case of danger. This was on the land. I can only imagine the dangers faced by those on the east coast who get on a helicopter and head out to platforms far at sea, sometimes in bad weather.

Tragedies from our past demonstrate just how critical it is for these safety regulations to be in place. Canadians were devastated in 1982 by the news of the Ocean Ranger rig and 84 workers who lost their lives when it capsized during a storm, and again in 2009 by news of Cougar Helicopters Flight 491 crashing into the North Atlantic, resulting in the tragic deaths of 17 offshore oil workers. This tragedy led to the Cougar inquiry, the results of which were taken by governments to pass this important legislation. After each of these disasters, there were investigations into their causes and recommendations on how to avert these dangers in the future. I am sure that politicians spoke to the devastated families, promising that never again would this be allowed to happen, yet here we are today debating legislation that should have been passed months, if not years, ago.

It was the previous Conservative government that recognized the very real need for these protections. That is why, in 2014, the government passed safety regulations through the Offshore Health and Safety Act. That is exactly the kind of leadership that we need in this country: We need a government that is proactive and not reactive, and that takes prompt action to protect the safety of our workers.

These temporary regulations were set to expire in 2019. They gave the Liberal government years to implement permanent offshore energy safety regulations. The Liberals had to extend that deadline for another year. They extended those temporary regulations to December 31, 2020. The Liberals had time to get the job done.

For many of those years, they had a majority. The fact is, even now in the current minority government, the Liberals have the political support to get the job done but they have not, until now, and that is inexcusable. It was not days, and it was not the month of the deadline in December, that the Liberal government finally introduced Bill S-3 in the other place. Where was the Liberals' sense of urgency? It really feels like an afterthought, as if the safety of these workers was not of great importance to the government. Why did the Prime Minister, the Minister of Natural Resources and the Liberal government wait until the last minute to do their jobs? An important deadline has been missed. Key protections are missing. The Liberal government dithers. Perhaps if the government had not chosen to prorogue Parliament and waste many additional days of productive debate, we could have had this passed before the deadline. We will never know, but what we do know for sure is that the Liberal government did not care to make this a priority.

I am also disappointed, for another reason, that this legislation was not introduced until last year. It would have been a fitting tribute to Judge Wells from Newfoundland and Labrador, who did so much to advocate for the safety of offshore workers. Sadly, in October 2020, Judge Wells, who headed the Cougar inquiry, passed away at the age of 87. Judge Wells was a former Progressive Conservative cabinet minister provincially, and was a Rhodes scholar. As commissioner, his key contribution to the inquiry was the recommendation that helicopters have 30 minutes or more of run-dry capability. He also recommended founding a full search and rescue base in St. John's. I wish the government had its act together and had passed this legislation in advance of the deadline so that Judge Wells could have seen his legacy put permanently into action. All the same, I want to commend him for his service to our country and to his province. He will be remembered for his commitment to the welfare of offshore energy workers and their families.

The delayed passage of Bill S-3 is just another example of how the current Liberal government has failed to prioritize the needs of the men and women who work in our oil and gas sector. In fact, I noted with some surprise that the minister said the words “one of three oil-producing Canadian provinces”, seemingly unaware that more than three provinces in this country produce oil. If it was not bad enough that the government was failing to get key safety legislation passed by the deadline, it also seems intent on phasing out the livelihoods of these oil and gas workers.

We know that Newfoundland and Labrador relies on the energy sector more than every other province, including Alberta. We know that the future of Newfoundland and Labrador requires a strong offshore oil and gas sector. In fact, it is so important to that province that the word “oil” is mentioned nearly 150 times in the recent Greene report outlining the economic future of Newfoundland and Labrador, yet the Liberal government continues its attack on the oil sector with bills like Bill C-69 and Bill C-48 in the previous Parliament, and by not acting on key legislation like Bill S-3, which we are debating today.

Something close to 147 days have passed since the Liberal delays allowed for the existing legislation to expire. That is 147 days that hard-working offshore oil and gas workers have been left in limbo without protections.

I want to recognize the hard work done by those in the other place in passing Bill S-3 as expediently as possible. Recognizing the urgency of this bill, it is unacceptable that after passing in the Senate so quickly, the bill waited in the lineup to get through the House of Commons' agenda. We knew that members in the House were intent on getting the legislation through quickly at second reading and passed immediately.

I sit on the natural resources committee, and we moved with unprecedented speed to get this bill through. It was one meeting. It is my sincere hope that we can push forward with the debate today, get the bill passed and secure these key protections for our offshore oil and gas workers.

As members of the House, protecting Canadian workers must be a key priority. That is why the Conservatives have been co-operative in working to get this bill passed as quickly as possible. The failure to protect offshore energy workers is unconscionable and must end. It is time that we finally get the job done and secure these protections so these workers can continue going about their jobs safely and so we can ensure the prosperity and future not only of Newfoundland and Labrador but of our nation, Canada.

Budget Implementation Act, 2021, No. 1

[Tim Uppal, Conservative, Edmonton Mill Woods, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the problem is that, even just yesterday, our shadow minister asked the government about its plan, how many jobs it would create and when the budget would be balanced. The government had no answers to any of those questions. The unfortunate thing is that Liberals can call it a plan, but they really do not have the answers to very basic questions.

What we need is a plan to create jobs, especially in Alberta. The Liberals' policies, such as Bill C-69 and Bill C-48, and their overall disregard for the energy sector have hurt investments. Thousands of jobs have left. We need a plan to bring those jobs back. We need to bring investor confidence back, and this budget does none of that.

[Tim Uppal, Conservative, Edmonton Mill Woods, AB]

Mr. Speaker, as always, it is an honour to rise in this House on behalf of my constituents of Edmonton Mill Woods.

In the lead-up to this budget, the longest lead-up ever, as we went over two years without a budget, there were dozens of news stories and trial balloons talking about how innovative this budget was going to be. We heard time and again about how this budget would be a stepping stone for the Liberal government to build back better, whatever that means. Instead, at 739 pages and nearly a quarter of a million words, the longest budget in the history of our great country is also the greatest disappointment.

There is no plan to deal with inflation. There is no plan to make the dream of home ownership more attainable for Canadians. There is no plan to create new jobs and economic opportunities for families and young people across this country. Instead, we are left with a budget that says so much, proposes so little, and leaves Canadian jobs, productivity, and economic growth behind.

Let me start by looking at the full picture. In my riding of Edmonton Mill Woods and right across Canada, there are countless families and businesses on the brink of losing everything. The jobs numbers that came out earlier this month revealed that another 207,000 people across Canada had to come home and tell their family and loved ones one of the most difficult things to hear, that they had lost their job.

To be clear, Alberta’s economic problems didn’t just start because of this pandemic. The Liberals' Bill C-69, which many people called the “no more pipelines” bill; Bill C-48, the tanker ban; and general disregard for the energy sector have driven away billions of dollars of investment and, with it, thousands of Canadian jobs. The government has failed to produce a plan for one of Canada’s largest economic sectors, the energy sector.

There are some things in this budget that we and our Conservative team are in favour of. For so many Canadians who continue to struggle throughout this pandemic, the budget does have the extension of emergency programs that our Conservative team supports, measures like the wage subsidy, rent subsidy and other recovery benefits, but there are still issues that remain with some of these programs. My office has heard from so many Canadians. It has heard repeatedly from small businesses that opened just before the pandemic or during the pandemic, which have been left behind by these wage subsidy and rent subsidy programs. When asked about it, the Liberals continue to repeat what everybody already knows, that small businesses are the backbone of our community, yet they continue to do nothing to rectify this issue, leaving many small businesses, and the Canadians employed by them, behind.

One thing that I know would bring jobs to Alberta and to Canadians from coast to coast is pipelines. Our natural resources sector accounts for nearly two million jobs and nearly one-fifth of Canada’s GDP. There are mentions of pipelines in this budget. They talk about a vaccine pipeline, a talent pipeline, an innovation pipeline and a PPE pipeline, but no mention of a pipeline to carry our natural resources. Once again, the Liberal government continues to ignore our energy sector, which will be instrumental in our economic recovery coming out of this pandemic. Instead, we continue to import oil from the likes of Saudi Arabia and Venezuela, where there are much lower environmental standards and horrific human rights records. Talk about a failure.

Perhaps the biggest failure, and the focus of my speech today, is the government’s failure to take inflation seriously. Canada’s inflation rate in April was 0.6%, or roughly 7% on an annualized basis. For the average family in my riding of Edmonton Mill Woods, that means the inflation tax is going to take nearly $6,500 out of their pocket this year. This has been seen right across the board, as Canadian consumer prices are climbing at the fastest pace in a decade. The average family will pay nearly $700 more in groceries this year because of inflation. Everything from meat and vegetables to cereals and bread has increased by about 5%. Gas prices are continuing to increase dramatically. As Bloomberg reported last week, they have increased more than 60% in a year.

Perhaps the most explicit case I can make here is with lumber prices, which have increased by 300% over the last year. As Kevin Lee, the CEO of the Canadian Home Builders' Association, points out, this drastic rise in lumber costs will add tens of thousands of dollars to the average price of a home.

This leads me to another area of failure in this budget, which is the lack of any semblance of a plan to address overwhelming housing affordability issues in Canada, which has pushed the dream of home ownership further out of reach for far too many Canadians. Prices across Canada are skyrocketing, with young families who were saving for their first home at the beginning of this pandemic even further behind than when they started.

This has led to feelings of hopelessness. A poll from the Royal Bank of Canada released last month revealed that 36% of non-homeowners under the age of 40 have given up on ever buying a home and 62% of respondents said they expect the majority of people will be priced out of the market over the next decade.

What is the government doing to address this concern of people being left out of the market? The hallmark of this budget’s efforts on housing affordability is a 1% tax on foreign owners of vacant housing, which will simply be seen as a very minor inconvenience for wealthy foreign investors who have seen their investments appreciate by 42% this past year. This will not solve the problem at all. Instead, the current government should be focused on the root of the problem, which is the shortage of supply right across Canada.

As a recent Scotiabank report points out, Canada has the lowest number of housing units per capita of any G7 country. If Canada set the modest goal of simply catching up to the United States, Canadian builders would have to complete an extra 100,000 homes. To catch up to the U.K., it would require an extra 250,000 homes. To put these gaps in perspective, we have had an average of 188,000 home completions in the last 10 years.

I believe this serves as a perfect microcosm of the government’s philosophy. When it identifies a problem, it does not address the root cause. Instead, it takes a small reactive step, creates a new government agency or program for it, and then dumps millions, if not billions, into it.

The budget introduces another $101 billion in new spending, pushing our debt-to-GDP ratio to over 50% over the next few years. What are we getting out of this increased spending and debt? The budget predicts that the growth rate will slow steadily starting in 2022, all the way down to 1.7% growth in 2025.

As Robert Asselin, the former policy and budget director to Bill Morneau and policy advisor to the Prime Minister, said of this budget, “it is hard to find a coherent growth plan.... [S]pending close to a trillion dollars [and] not moving the needle on…growth would be the worst possible legacy of this budget.” While the budget is entitled, “A Recovery Plan for Jobs, Growth, and Resilience”, there seems to be much concern about whether or not it will deliver on jobs or growth.

The budget has no investments to address the structural problems that have plagued productivity and our ability to compete on the global stage. There is no plan to address the unprecedented level of investment that is fleeing Canada. There is no plan for regulatory and tax reform to help us win on the global stage. There is no comprehensive innovation strategy to ensure Canadian tech start-ups keep their job-creating investments here at home.

This budget is not meant for the growth of the economy. I believe Canadians are looking for hope that things will soon get better and they will still have a bright future to look forward to. They want their jobs and small businesses back. They want their lives and communities back. They want the hope of being able to afford a house. Simply put, they want to return to normal and live the Canadian dream.

This budget fails to deliver. There is no growth plan. It is not meant for the people of Edmonton Mill Woods, Alberta or our future generations. It is a failure. That is why we will not be supporting it.

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer—Mountain View, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly can. The first thing that we would do is get rid of Bill C-69, which is stopping all opportunities for natural resource development. If we want to have green economies and green jobs, we have to recognize that we have to use the tool we have, which is Canada's oil and gas industry.

As we do that, we will be able to move into some of these other areas that are important to those who care so much about the environment, but we cannot shut down one part of it in order to try to promote a secondary one. From that same position, we know that there are going to be a lot of requirements for rare earth minerals. We have to make sure we get the government out of the way if we think those will be part of our future.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to begin my speech by addressing some of the things that we heard from the Green Party member just before this. He was talking about stranded assets. The eastern part of Canada could be significantly stranded if Line 5 gets shut down, and that is the reality.

He was talking about oil and gas being a sunset industry. That may be true, but that sunset is not likely to happen until several hundred years from now. We are still seeing an increase in demand for oil production around the world. Even if one believes all the projections, that increase in demand, not a reduction in demand, will continue for the next 30 years at a minimum.

What better place to get those hydrocarbons from than Canada? We have some of the most ethically produced oil on the face of the planet, with some of the lowest-carbon-intensity oil, right here in Canada. Never mind the fact that we are importing hydrocarbons from around the world to continue to supply Canada. That alone seems to be ridiculous, in my opinion. We are an energy-rich country. We have endless amounts of natural resources in this country, yet we rely on other countries to supply our energy.

In the case of Line 5, we are relying on another country to keep the licensing going for that particular pipeline. As far as I know, right now that pipeline is operating illegally. The most recent Line 5 news is that the easement through the State of Michigan has been revoked, but the pipeline continues to operate. We are hanging in limbo as we go forward.

I am speaking to Bill C-30, which is the budget implementation act. It has been fascinating to listen to all of the discussion around this particular budget. We hear repeatedly from folks about the subsidization of the oil and gas industry. I was just discussing with one of the Bloc members how the government subsidizes oil and gas, but does not subsidize the forestry industry. I have not seen any direct subsidies to the oil and gas industry, with the exception of buying a pipeline.

The Trans Mountain pipeline was being built by private industry. Due to the actions of the government, the pipeline was no longer to be built. The government subsequently bought that project. If that is what the Bloc member meant by subsidizing oil and gas, I get it. I do not think we need to be publicly funding pipelines either. Pipelines have been built successfully in this country for generations by private industry, and I would assume that would continue.

The Bloc member was commenting about the forestry industry in Quebec. In Northern Alberta, the forestry industry is a big contributor to jobs and the economy. Oil and gas are a shiny spot in our economy, but Alberta's economy is diversified. Where I come from, we do the three Fs: forestry, farming and fracking. Those are the big job creators in my area, and they are basically what support all of the population in the area. I am always interested in the challenges we see.

One aspect of this budget implementation act is the removal of interest on the apprenticeship loans that have been given out. I think that is a noble cause. I am the product of one of the apprenticeship programs in Alberta. I was one of the first to go through the rapid apprenticeship program when it was introduced back in 2003. I got my automotive ticket from Northern Alberta Institute of Technology.

The apprenticeship programs we have developed in Alberta are world-renowned and recognized. There is also the good work of NAIT, the Northern Alberta Institute of Technology. I went through there in classes full of apprentices.

Many of my friends have been apprentices. I got my journeyman's ticket back in 2007, so I know about the life of an apprentice. The beauty of apprenticeship programs is that people typically get to work while they are getting their training. Believe me, all of the apprentices I know are tradesmen. They are proud of what they do. They work with their hands. They would all very much appreciate having jobs right now, rather than having the interest on their loans waived. While I appreciate that in this particular bill, I do not see a lot in this bill that will get these people back to work.

I call Line 5 the magic pipeline because it has changed the Liberal rhetoric on pipelines dramatically. The Liberals are now starting to sound like Conservatives: Pipelines are the safest way to move petroleum products. If we did not have this pipeline there would be 8,000 rail cars and 15,000 tanker trucks on the road.

There is one way to get all of these apprentices back to work, and that is to start building some of the pipeline projects that had been proposed and were ready to be built back in 2015. One, in particular, runs parallel to Line 5 and is called energy east. That pipeline was ready to be built back in 2015 when I was first elected. The Liberals kiboshed that project, but we do not see anything. We do not see a repeal of Bill C-69: the “no more pipelines” bill. That would have been something they could have put in the budget to promote the development of our natural resources, promote jobs and promote private industry spending its own capital to get folks back to work and get us back to the lifestyle we were used to before COVID.

This seems like a prime opportunity to get us all back to work. It would ensure that we would have apprentices across the country making paycheques and being able to pay the interest on their student loans by going back to work. They could be raising their families, making money and doing all of the things that they do. I do not see a lot of those kinds of initiatives in this particular bill.

One thing that I saw in the budget was around the home renovation tax credit. I was hopeful we would get some details on it in this bill, but they are not evident. It was an initiative that the Conservatives undertook during the last great recession. We rapidly passed the home renovation tax credit, which allowed people to update their windows, insulation and other kinds of things. It could also be thought of as a green initiative. It was in the budget. We were talking about a particular $5,000 tax credit on a $40,000 loan. We do not see details of that in this particular bill, so I am disappointed about that.

Lastly, I want to talk a little about equalization. This bill touches on equalization, and on what is called the federal-provincial transfer act. One of the things that Albertans have been requesting for a number of years is the removal of the cap on that financial stabilization program. It is currently capped at $60. The Liberals have moved that cap to $166. That is a movement in the right direction, but there still is no logic as to why there is a cap on the equalization stabilization program.

Why is there a cap? If a province is suffering under duress and having less revenue than it had in the past, the stabilization program is there to maintain funding for programs while we go through a dip in revenue. Nobody can explain the logic for why there is a cap on that. We see that the government has acknowledged that maybe the cap is too low and it is going to raise the cap to $166, but the Liberals do not provide us with any logic whatsoever as to why there needs to be a cap on that program. If government revenues in a particular province are suffering in a major depression, the stabilization program is supposed to balance that out and ease the pain of that. Why would it have a cap on it? There has been no logic whatsoever provided for that. I am also quite frustrated by that.

I see that my time is up. I am always grateful to represent the people of Peace River—Westlock.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

Madam Speaker, after waiting two long years for the Liberals to table a budget, they have instead presented a massive new debt burden for Canadians rather than a hopeful plan for a path forward post-pandemic—in a word, failure.

Unemployed Canadians wanted to see a plan to create new jobs. Workers who had their wages cut and their hours slashed had hoped to see a plan to reopen the economy. Families that simply cannot afford more taxes were looking for relief. Instead, this costly plan will add over $100 billion in new spending and will increase Canada's debt to a whopping $1.2 trillion. Yes, that is trillion with a “t", for the very first time in Canadian history.

It is a staggering amount that most Canadians cannot even begin to comprehend: $1.2 trillion. It is equivalent to every single Canadian being responsible for $33,000 of federal debt. Canadians and their children, their children's children and their children's children's children and on and on will be forced to pay off this massive debt of the government.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer recently released a report saying that this budget even underestimates the size of the federal deficits by about $5.6 billion per year. To quote the PBO, it “puts Ottawa on a long-term path of higher debt”.

What about fiscal anchors? No, there are none of those in there. There is only a vague mention on page 53, which says, “The government is committed to unwinding COVID-related deficits and reducing the federal debt as a share of the economy over the medium-term.” That sure sounds reassuring, does it not?

Canadians are right to be concerned about this Liberal spending. They will be footing the bill of $40 billion in taxes every year to pay the interest expenses on that debt alone. This is all predicated on a very risky assumption that interest rates and inflation will continue to remain low.

With all this spending and fiscal risk, one would expect some actual substance, but many Canadians are being simply left behind or ignored in this budget. How about a plan to unleash the prosperity-producing, economy-boosting Alberta energy? No, that one is definitely not in the budget. The government has been abundantly clear on its plan to landlock Canadian oil with Bill C-48 and Bill C-69 in the previous Parliament and the Prime Minister's comment that the oil sands need to be phased out.

The Liberal government already stood by idly while the U.S. administration cancelled Keystone XL, and of course it itself caused the cancellation of things like northern gateway and energy east. With Enbridge's Line 5, of course we know about the jeopardy it is in, and it is responsible for supplying half of the oil needs of Ontario and Quebec. The closure of that pipeline would literally create an energy crisis here in Canada, and then of course we would see more of Alberta's oil stranded, when Alberta's economy is already suffering. Instead, that biases it toward oil from places with far less environmentally friendly records elsewhere in the world.

All of that is due to the Liberals strangling Alberta oil in favour of that less environmentally friendly oil from other countries, which certainly do not share our commitment to environmental protection or to human rights. Again, the budget is completely silent on Alberta energy.

Despite this deafening silence by the Liberals, Conservatives will always continue to advocate for pipelines and projects that end our dependence on foreign oil and that will unleash our energy sector. Energy- and job-killing legislation from the Liberals has only decreased Canada's ability to produce and trade environmentally sustainable energy resources and to create more jobs.

Alberta's energy sector could be the key to economic growth and to success post-pandemic in Canada, but the Liberals have chosen instead to denigrate and ignore it. Its absence is glaringly obvious and Albertans will not forget it. Instead, this budget proposes a reimagined Canadian economy that dabbles in risky economic ideas that will leave the Canadian economy in a very precarious position.

However, so much more is also missed in the budget. For start-up businesses that are in desperate positions and do not meet the government's narrow rules of assistance programs, there is nothing either. For small businesses, there are major gaps and issues with federal programming that the Liberals continue to ignore. The CFIB said of the budget that “the government did not deliver on many of the major program gaps affecting thousands of small businesses facing restrictions, closures and huge amounts of COVID-related debt.”

Many of those small businesses are tourism businesses, and tourism businesses are desperate to have the government table a safe plan with metrics and targets to be able to open their businesses for the key summer season. I am sorry; there is nothing for them in the budget, either.

In my beautiful riding of Banff—Airdrie, tourism is a key economic driver that has been devastated by the pandemic. Lockdowns and border restrictions have stifled businesses. Many have been forced to lay off employees and in some cases, unfortunately, have closed down altogether.

This is happening everywhere, right across Canada. Tourism and travel-related businesses lost approximately $19.4 billion in revenue last year from the absence of international visitors. However, the government just extended, once again, the U.S.-Canada border closure well into the key summer tourist season without any kind of plan or any metrics on how or when it might be willing to safely reopen that border. Now, tourism businesses are looking at losing another key summer, and the budget is completely silent on a safe plan for reopening and for a safe way forward.

The government has unfortunately chosen winners and losers in this budget and unfortunately left many people out to dry. The Liberal government loves to tout the saying “We are all in this together,” but recently I heard another metaphor about the pandemic, which I thought was very apt to the chosen winners and losers in this debt-heavy Canadian Liberal budget. It is this: We are all in the same storm, but some are in yachts and others are in leaky rowboats. The Liberal government should not be waving to Canadians struggling in the pandemic storm in leaky rowboats while the Liberals are drinking champagne from the deck of their taxpayer debt-paid yacht. Spending without a proper plan is failure.

To the government, I say this: Fix this budget and give Canadians a hopeful path forward for economic recovery post-pandemic, not a lifetime of taxes and debt. That is what we see with this budget. We see a lot of money being spent, but a lot of people still being left behind, and what we then see is people being burdened. Canadians, their children, their grandchildren and their great-great-great-grandchildren will be seeing that burden of debt to pay for all of this spending.

That is the thing I think the Prime Minister and the Liberal government fail to understand. Money does not grow on trees. The government does not just manufacture the ability to spend money. That money comes from hard-working Canadian taxpayers who have earned that money, and it takes away from their ability to meet the needs of their families, to meet their own needs, to keep their businesses running and to keep their employees with jobs. That is not just now, but it is well into the future, to pay for the kind of debt burden that we have seen put on by the government.

It is just staggering to imagine the amount of money being spent and how there are still so many people being left behind. I talked about our oil and gas industry in Alberta. I talked about our important tourism industry across this country, about the small business owners, about the many people who have started new businesses and are left out of many of the government programs. The Liberals have been able to spend a lot of money, but they have not been able to help so many of the people who actually need it, and those are the same people who are going to have to pay for the burden being left by the government and all of its massive spending.

I say to the government that it has to try to do things to make sure it is not leaving people behind and that it is creating a hopeful and optimistic future, instead of burdening people with massive amounts of debt that will do the exact opposite.

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB]

Madam Speaker, today I am speaking to something very historic, which is the budget implementation act for the largest and most anticipated Liberal deficit budget in Canadian history. Usually when history is being made, there are those who will be remembered well and those who will not be.

Judging by this budget, it is clear that the current government will not be well thought of by future generations. These generations will be the ones tasked with the consequences of this massive Liberal deficit budget, one that will mean higher taxes than what we pay today, fewer services, higher inflation and bigger debt servicing costs. All of these factors will vary based on the policy choices made in the years to come, but as a whole, they represent a much higher likelihood that future generations will not be as well off as folks are today.

I know how hard my great-grandparents and grandparents worked to make this country as strong and prosperous as it is today. They sacrificed through two world wars and a depression, building their families while keeping our country's finances under control. I think of my parents' more recent generation, which sacrificed so much in the late 1980s and early 1990s, when the last Liberal government drastically cut spending and services for Canadians while leaving their tax burden the highest in Canadian history to date. All of these sacrifices are at threat of being made in vain because of the lack of fiscal accountability and responsibility shown by the Liberal government over the past five and a half years, particularly in its new plan for future years.

We are facing unique challenges, and the Liberals have proven in this budget that they are not up to dealing with them. The fact is that we cannot count on the factors that previous generations counted on to make and keep our country prosperous. There is no postwar baby boom around the corner, and the steady flow of skilled immigrants to this country is likely to tail off in the near future, as the rest of the world wakes up to the demographic aging crisis and the implications of mass population decline. Fewer and fewer productive taxpayers will be around to service the ever-increasing annual deficits and debts.

Many of the commodities and goods that have made Canada an economic powerhouse are at risk of being phased out by the policies of the World Economic Forum and our own Liberal government. Goods such as oil, automobiles and minerals are at risk of facing drastic reductions in production because of demand destructive policies implemented by woke governments.

Even with the growth in electric vehicles, the scarcity of necessary raw materials such as copper, cobalt and lithium, among others, will make these transportation solutions less accessible for working families. With Liberal legislation like Bill C-69 in the previous Parliament, it is unlikely we will even get new mines permitted in time to benefit from any green commodity booms, making us beholden to foreign global competitors such as China, which will set prices for our consumers and control market supply.

The confluence of factors that made our country prosperous, such as a young population, high immigration, fiscal responsibility and increasing consumption of resources, has been inverted. Now we have an aging population, out-of-control debt, and soon-to-be-more-limited immigration prospects, and the resources that have made our country prosperous in the past are being phased out. Nowhere in this Liberal budget did I see a direct plan to address these challenges. It is a failure.

On the environment, which makes up a significant part of this Liberal budget, I see other key failures. The natural resources committee is studying low-carbon and renewable fuels. I agree with the consensus that we need to do more in this area in order to be competitive economically and lower carbon emissions. I was interested to learn that the Liberals have launched a new tax credit to promote carbon capture utilization and storage. There is a big catch, however. On page 168 of the budget, the Liberals make clear, “It is not intended that the investment tax credit be available for Enhanced Oil Recovery projects.”

This is a slap in the face to my constituency. It basically means that Alberta and Saskatchewan should not bother applying. It will significantly undermine investment in carbon capture, which is already effectively being used in my riding at the Sturgeon Refinery, which has sequestered over one megatonne of carbon dioxide in under a year. We could create tens of thousands of jobs and produce the lowest diesel emissions in the world, but the Liberals have essentially barred them from accessing this tax credit.

It is out of line with our trading competitors in the U.S., where under the 45Q policy, a more limited tax credit is available for enhanced oil recovery producers. Why are the Liberals turning their backs yet again on the energy industry of this country, especially when they are taking the important step of decarbonizing their operations with expensive investments in carbon capture?

Is the real reason that the Liberals cannot stand to see a successful, sustainable hydrocarbon industry in this country? That is the only reason I can see, and it is shameful. It is shameful because it exposes that the Liberals are not really interested in finding the most cost-effective solutions for carbon emissions. They are only interested in looking for solutions that come from groups that are not interested in working with our oil and gas sector.

The government claims it is not picking winners and losers in this industry, but its actions speak differently. I am proud that, under a Conservative government, we would support carbon capture across all industries, regardless of whether they are engaged in enhanced recovery or not. Under the Conservatives, our emissions would be significantly lower, while growing jobs in our oil and gas sector.

I am over halfway through my speech and I have not even mentioned the government's failure during the COVID-19 pandemic. We all recognize that Canada is going through a tough time. We have been in and out of lockdowns for over a year now, and it is taking a huge toll on families and small businesses. That is exactly why, over the past year, the Conservatives have supported the government by allowing it to pass massive income support measures on an expedited basis.

We trusted that the Liberals would take that goodwill and do the job right, or at least that, if they did the job wrong the first time, they would make it right as soon as possible. Unfortunately, they did the opposite. They have used this pandemic and the political logjam in this Parliament to govern as if they had a majority, threatening a snap election in a health crisis rather than working with opposition parties to do what is best for Canada.

We see it in question period on a daily basis. Our basic questions are met with disgust. Ministers do not even bother to listen to the questions and choose to throw around unparliamentary language accusing the opposition of lying or misleading Canadians. They have no interest in hearing constructive criticism or implementing our proposals for positive change.

For example, let us look at the Canada emergency wage subsidy. In theory, it is a great program aimed at protecting jobs and our economy, yet as I read through the company quarterly reports, I am shocked by how many profitable businesses have been using taxpayer dollars, delivered on a silver platter by the Liberals, to pad their bottom lines. Many of these companies took these benefits while laying off hundreds of workers, yet the Liberals put no strings attached. There is no accountability for these businesses.

I read in the budget that the Liberals have a big solution for this. They will claw back the wage subsidy for companies that raise executive pay. I thought it was a joke. These companies are spending billions on share buybacks and dividends, and the Liberals are saying that, if they raise executive compensation, they will claw it back. It is laughable. It is a feast for big business and government relations executives put on by the Prime Minister, and the taxpayer is footing the bill.

We need to chart a new course to maximizing growth in the years to come while returning to fiscal responsibility by setting a clear plan to get our country back to a balanced budget and address the rising debt load and face the challenges of tomorrow. We have faced them before, as in the 2008 financial crisis. Under Conservative leadership, this country came out stronger than ever, and we are ready to do the hard work to get our country back on track to secure our future.

In my short time to speak today, I have raised serious problems with the Liberals' economic mismanagement, whether it be their poorly designed programs, or their programs designed to outright exclude important industries and regions in this country. I have highlighted some deeply concerning trends, such as the threat of a reduced population, lower immigration and an aging population. These are challenges that would be difficult for governments to face even at the best of times.

What we have seen from the Liberal government is that it has a willingness to spend whatever it takes to get re-elected rather than spending to face the challenges of the future today. It is clear that only a Conservative government can get our country back on track and secure our future.

[Steven Guilbeault, Liberal, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair and Ms. Dabrusin.

Earlier on in one of her questions, Ms. McPherson said that because the bill had around a hundred amendments, it was a flawed bill. That's a false premise. I know that, just like me, she's a new MP, so we're not used to this. It's not uncommon for bills to have 200 amendments. Going back in the previous Parliament, I can recall Bill C-69, which I followed closely in my previous career, had around 200 amendments. There's nothing extraordinary about that. In fact, a hundred may not be so much after all.

She pointed out that we've heard about experts who have raised concerns. I think just yesterday this committee heard from a number of experts who have actually clearly said that they thought there were no issues regarding freedom of speech. We've heard from a previous director of the CRTC, Janet Yale, and from a law professor from the Université de Montréal, Pierre Trudel.

I could quote this because I don't think it has been done in this committee and I think it is important. It's in French, so I'll switch to French. It's the unanimous resolution from the National Assembly.

The motion recognizes that Bill C-10 “constitutes a significant step in protecting and promoting Quebec culture and..., therefore, [the National Assembly of Quebec] affirms its support for the measures proposed by the bill.”

I think Bill C-10 actually has a lot of support across this country given the benefit it will bring to our artists as well as to the broadcasting ecosystem.

Bill C-10

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

Madam Speaker, the heritage minister has dismissed and insulted critics of Bill C-10 as “extremist” while peddling his own tin-hatted conspiracy theory about big tech being in cahoots with Canadian academics just to spread disinformation about his bill.

Despite all the backlash and the minister's vague promises of future clarity amid his own incoherent and contradictory statements, the bill remains “a full-blown assault” on freedom of expression.

Remember, this minister is a lifelong, radical, anti-energy activist. He admits that the whole point of Bill C-69 was to ensure that no Canadian energy project ever gets built again, and now he wants the power to regulate online content to be, in his words, consistent with the government's vision.

To the energy workers who have lost their jobs at the hands of this government's vision, the prospect of this minister and his government regulating their posts should be terrifying. However, if this deeply flawed bill passes in this Parliament, do not worry, a Conservative government will appeal it in the next one.

[Jonathan Wilkinson, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

The project list was developed as part of what was then called Bill C-69 and is now the Impact Assessment Act. We did an enormous amount of work to look at how you put into place rules that will ensure that projects go through appropriate assessments, that good projects can proceed, and that projects that are more challenging get caught early on in the process.

We don't have any intention right now to revisit the project list, but as you noted, I have the ability to designate projects where there are impacts on federal jurisdiction. Let me be clear: I cannot designate projects where there are impacts on provincial jurisdiction only, but Highway 413 was one and the Vista coal mine was another that I designated recently because of potential impacts on federal jurisdiction.

Leader of the Liberal Party of Canada

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Mr. Speaker, this is my last statement of this session and possibly before we go to the polls. I am grateful for the four years that the good people of Calgary Midnapore have allowed me to be their voice, so I cannot let this opportunity pass without expressing the following.

Mr. Prime Minister, you have failed the people of Calgary Midnapore. You have taken away their right to make a living. You implemented Bill C-48 and Bill C-69. You delayed Trans Mountain. You did not stand up for Keystone XL and Line 5. You cancelled energy east and the northern gateway. You have called my small business owners “tax cheats” and attacked their retirements and succession plans. This was all before 2020.

You failed to protect them. You squashed their ingenuity of therapeutics, rapid tests and pilot projects. It is you who has delayed their freedom with your horrific procurement of vaccinations, delaying their lives and dreams.

You may want to forget what you have done to the people of Calgary Midnapore, but I will not let you.

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer—Mountain View, AB]

Thank you very much.

Thank you to all of our witnesses.

One of the things we've been hearing lately from environmental activists and their commentary is so much an anti-oil rhetoric. We forget that our aboriginal voices are out there saying that they need oil and gas, natural resources and jobs, so they have been committed to that. We sometimes forget that this highly skilled workforce that we have has come about because of our commitment to our natural resources sector and the wealth that it has been able to attain for all Canadians.

Again, as we've heard from some of our other witnesses, we may want to talk about mining so that we can become leaders as far as the battery industry is concerned. However, what makes us think that this is going to be easily attained when we have Bill C-69, which is probably one of the biggest barriers for this? Over-regulation.... We heard how it takes months in some countries to get approval, and it drags on for years and years here in Canada.

Obviously, we have a lot that has to be done for us to deal with this. We talk about our ethically sourced coffee, but we don't talk about ethically sourced oil and gas. These are some of the concerns that I have.

Today Bloomberg has just indicated that China's emissions now exceed the emissions of all of the developed world combined, yet we keep talking about how great it will be that China will be on side and that all will be right with the world as far as the environment is concerned.

Mr. McTeague, I wonder if you could tell this committee what the impact of the Liberal government's decision to triple the carbon tax will be on the Canadian economy. Will it help to meet our emissions reduction targets, or will it simply cripple businesses, stifle innovation and make Canada even more uncompetitive on the international stage while doing very little to reduce emissions?

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer—Mountain View, AB]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

It has been interesting to listen to the witnesses this morning. I have heard various views. We looked at tax credits to make things work, and others were saying that the worst thing we could do is give tax credits because that would encourage bad behaviour.

I'll start with Mr. Fagerheim of Whitecap Resources.

I've seen the type of work that our oil and gas industry has done to become world leaders, and your work with carbon capture utilization and storage is amazing. Other projects in Alberta are doing the same, taking the equivalent of hundreds of thousands of cars off the roads. Of course, it's happening in Alberta, and it doesn't seem like anybody really cares about what is taking place there.

I'm concerned somewhat, because the way I look at it, we talk about all these great things we're going to do and that we are going to take all these minerals out of our landscape. Our last witness indicated we have to protect our landscape; therefore, we're not going to want to advance that in all areas. A couple of days ago we heard from indigenous leaders who were saying they need to have jobs and to be part of our natural resource development, and oil and gas is critical for them. We've heard from miners saying that any place else in the world you can get a project done in nine months, and it takes years and years here. We have Bill C-69, which ensures that is going to happen forever.

Where are we going to get all these minerals to create this electric vehicle battery development project when we have people who just don't want to see any development anywhere?

Mr. Fagerheim, I know the great work you've done. How do you convince others that our oil and gas industry is the best in the world and that it's better for us to be developing our great resources than giving it to somebody else to do?

[Sean McCoshen]

As mentioned earlier, we're looking at a late-June-to-July application going in, depending on our consultation with indigenous communities on the route. That's going to dictate, essentially, how long the process will take. I mentioned earlier that Bill C-69 was sort of designed with some advancements on the old bill, but it was also sort of designed to have meaningful consultation. That's where we're at right now, and that's driving the process. Once that's done, we're going to submit. Like I said, we're shooting for about June.

J.P., do you want to add to that? I mean, the NET team is kind of handling that more than I am.

[Michael Kram, Conservative, Regina—Wascana, SK]

Environmental impacts are another component of Bill C-69. I understand that the Yukon and Northwest Territories have large caribou herds that migrate across the north.

What can be done to protect the caribou herds that migrate along the proposed railway route?

[Michael Kram, Conservative, Regina—Wascana, SK]

A major component of Bill C-69 is indigenous consultation.

Can the witnesses expand on the indigenous consultation they have done or plan to do with respect to the proposed Alaska—Alberta railway?

[Michael Kram, Conservative, Regina—Wascana, SK]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to the witnesses for joining us today.

My questions are for Mr. Gladu and Mr. McCoshen of the Alaska-Alberta Railway Development Corporation.

A couple of years ago, the federal government brought in Bill C-69, which adds a considerable amount of overhead to major pipeline and resource projects, and that law would also apply to the building of the Alaska to Alberta railway. Can the witnesses speak to the effects of Bill C-69 on major projects in Canada and on this railway proposal in particular?

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer—Mountain View, AB]

Maybe instead of giving Tesla owners the subsidies they now receive, we could start a little bit of a fund when this does happen. I'm just afraid that it's going to be people who don't own cars and so on who are going to be caught with the cost of the upgrade.

In the minute I have left, Dr. Exner-Pirot, I want to stress how critical it is that we look at the great industrial leadership we have in our indigenous community. You had talked about the requirements with regard to Bill C-69 and talking to our native population. Do you see ways that we could make this work better when we are trying to engage with the mining sector?

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer—Mountain View, AB]

Thanks once again, Madam Chair.

We've just finished a study on the red tape permit economy and the like. This is one of the questions I'd like to start off with. In Canada, it takes years to get projects approved, whereas in other places in the world, they certainly don't have to deal with that. We've seen this with Bill C-69 and the other issues associated with that. We've seen billions of dollars leave Canada because of the time it takes or projects perhaps not being allowed to get on the road here.

Mr. La Salle, can you give me a quick comparison of the time it takes to get through the red tape we have here in Canada? If we're going to come up with a solution, we have to look at that first and then take it from there.

[Sonya Savage]

I would agree with that. We've certainly heard from investors. Of course, we're trying to attract $30 billion of investment to Alberta, and we have a lot of economic and competitive advantages with a skilled workforce and an industry that's committed to carbon reduction.

We've heard from investors that there is a great cloud of uncertainty in Canada over what this means. That's piled on top of a lot of other uncertainty that's out there. Remember, we're still dealing with Bill C-69, which gives us regulatory uncertainty on even getting a project through a regulatory process. You add on this piece of legislation and the labelling that plastic is toxic, and it adds on a whole new layer of uncertainty. Again, those investors have choices of where to invest in other jurisdictions.

In fact, we've seen a huge investment of a petrochemical facility going into Pennsylvania. That facility would have been nice to have in Canada, because there were jobs. To give you some perspective, the opportunity in Alberta for jobs is, we believe, to create 90,000 direct and indirect jobs over construction and operation. Those are 90,000 jobs that Alberta desperately needs, and those are 90,000 jobs that Canada desperately needs. They are also 90,000 jobs that could go to some other jurisdiction with lower environmental standards.

I would agree with what you just said, and it's a very significant concern for our province.

[Laurie Sargent]

I will be pleased to provide an initial response and then see if my colleague Ross Pattee from Crown-Indigenous Relations might wish to add, because it really has been a whole-of-government effort to implement and reflect the principles of the UN declaration across the federal system.

Minister Bennett mentioned that there are already many laws that reflect the declaration itself in their language, their preambles or their purpose clauses. We have Bill C-92, the act respecting first nations, Inuit and Métis children, youth and families; the Indigenous Languages Act passed in the previous session; and the preamble to Bill C-69, the impact assessment legislation. There are many examples in legislation itself.

Then, of course, the declaration has been informing a lot of the work that Crown-Indigenous Relations is doing in a number of different areas, including in the recognition of rights tables and the negotiations there.

With the chair's permission, I could ask if Ross might also wish to add anything.

[Carolyn Bennett, Liberal, Toronto—St. Paul's, ON]

It's been very clear that this free, prior and informed consent must not be interpreted as a veto. In some ways it's easier to define what it's not than to insist, like in Bill C-69, that indigenous people are at the table at the first idea of a project. What that means is it's an ideal opportunity to form those partnerships for indigenous people to have the benefit of the kinds of economic opportunities that would come out of building a project together, or in the seizing of those kinds of opportunities.

I think it's the opposite, that without this understanding that indigenous people will be there at the table, unfortunately, some projects went forward without talking to indigenous people, and they ended up in court for a very long time, or with blockades, or those kinds of things.

This gives you the clarity to say “nothing about us without us”.

[Carolyn Bennett, Liberal, Toronto—St. Paul's, ON]

That's a great question, Jamie.

It really is important for people to understand that, even with Bill C-69, the issue is “nothing about us without us”. This means that, for good projects to go forward, indigenous people should be at the table at the original design of the project. This is happening in the north all the time. Inuit are at the table to determine.... Good projects go forward; mediocre projects get made better; bad projects get rejected. That's known right from the beginning.

We're in a transition now where there are a number of projects that may have been seen as controversial, but this is what will provide the clarity, going forward, as to how it works.

I think you've also underlined an important point. Consensus is not unanimity. There are going to be times when certain people object, but I think the courts are holding up the duty to consult and accommodate, and this will be the way forward. I think that this is....

The work I'm doing on self-determination, nation rebuilding and trying to make sure that, like in the north, there's a voice for a nation that is consistent with the will of that community and that we are able to go forward with a true government-to-government, nation-to-nation approach, in a true partnership going forward.

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer—Mountain View, AB]

Thank you so very much.

But then, there are decisions that are made by government: let's stop moving our energy to the east; let's not allow northern gateway to proceed; let's put other barriers in place. In Bill C-69, there are additional regulations that, as far as they are concerned, seem to be barriers to the general industry, but they're barriers to your people as well.

Mr. Ross, you mentioned that there are concerns involving Chevron. They have thrown up their hands in despair and essentially walked away from this large job and wealth-creating projects, rather than take what we need to sell to the world to help where greenhouse gases are concerned and to sell our technology.

Can you explain how much the regulatory processes we put in place are damaging that opportunity?

You mentioned before, in talking about the U.S., how our stopping what we do is going to help supplement their markets. Yes, we know who it is that benefits from all of the eco-activists who stop investment in Canada.

Could you quickly comment on that?

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer—Mountain View, AB]

There are other projects that have been presented and looked at. It seems as though, because they are energy projects, the regulatory burden that has come from Bill C-69 and so on is just putting roadblocks beyond that which you were speaking of.

Do you think governments would listen to you with regard to how damaging those regulations are, or are we just going to be spinning our wheels and talking about this forever?

[James Cumming, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Mr. Swampy, thank you for being here today.

Coming out of COVID, we're going to need enormous economic growth in this country, and we had anemic growth prior to COVID. We were about 1% of GDP, so it was quite slow. You're offering some alternatives, saying that first nations people want to participate and were willing to participate with northern gateway.

How frustrating is it for you, with the added regulatory burdens to try to stop major projects like this? Bill C-48 would be an example of that, the tanker ban, as well as Bill C-69.

I want to hear more from you. Are you frustrated, because it sounds like you want to be part of the solution?

[Dale Swampy, President, National Coalition of Chiefs]

Good morning.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak to you today on the study of competitiveness in Canada.

My name is Dale Swampy. I'm a Samson Cree Nation member and a COVID survivor. I'm honoured to be presenting to you from the traditional territory of the Tsuut'ina Nation and the Treaty 7 first nations in southern Alberta.

I'm the president of the National Coalition of Chiefs, or the NCC, a coalition of industry-supportive chiefs. Our mandate is to defeat on-reserve poverty through participation in our country's development of its natural resources. We work in co-operation and in partnership with natural resource proponents in an effort to enhance the economic prosperity of reserve communities. We also support indigenous-led natural resource projects.

I appreciate that you have included an indigenous perspective on the panel today, because Canada's ability to attract investment is a major challenge, more so today than at any other time in our country's history.

As you are aware, Canada has experienced a significant loss in its ability to compete on the international market, as well as within its own boundaries. We are no longer able to trade effectively even between our own provincial borders. Many would agree that this is a direct result of restricting regulatory barriers that have been introduced over the past few years.

For example, we believe the tanker ban, or Bill C-48, was passed in order to ensure that Alberta's oil does not cross the borders of British Columbia and on to tidewater. International trade of our most valuable commodity would have increased the standard of living of all Canadians, including first nations. First nation communities in B.C. and Alberta lost $2 billion in benefits when the northern gateway project was cancelled. The cancellation had no effect on world greenhouse gases. It only created uncertainty for would-be investors in Canada's economy.

The new national regulatory regime, or Bill C-69, was forced onto an existing regulatory process, the National Energy Board, which was already a world leader in safety, integrity and environmental protection. We feel there was no need to amend this process.

The new UNDRIP legislation, Bill C-15, will create additional uncertainty and legal ambiguity in an economy that is already hindered by major project delays caused by lawsuits that challenge our own Constitution. The NCC has already expressed its issues and concerns regarding this legislation, and has asked, through its participation in hearings, that the federal government consider alternative legislation to fulfill its promise for reconciliation with first nations in Canada.

The NCC believes that increased indigenous community participation in the natural resource industry, through employment, contracting and ownership, will increase Canada's competitiveness. We want the federal government to give first nations a share in ownership and control of Canada's natural resources in a manner similar to what the U.S. gave the 13 tribes in Alaska.

Who better to give ownership of natural resources and natural resource development than first nations. Our people have lived on this land for thousands of years. We respect and want to protect the land. Many people will come and go, but first nations people will never leave this land. We have a spiritual tie to the land. We will never sell our lands or resources. Since 1971, the Alaskan tribes have had the authority to sell their lands and resources, and not one tribe has ever considered selling their land.

We have missed out on 150 years of natural resource development in this country, along with countless billions of dollars' worth of projects, projects that would have supported thousands of jobs in indigenous, rural and remote communities. It is time for Canada to grant first nations the right and ownership of their natural resources.

Instead of using new legislation, such as UNDRIP, as a form of reconciliation, the NCC requests that the federal government consider an act similar to that of the Alaskan tribes, which will provide ownership of lands and resources currently owned by the Government of Canada.

In 1996, the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, in a report issued by the Liberal Party under the leadership of Jean Chrétien, recommended that the federal government grant to aboriginal peoples of Canada 30% of all the lands and resources owned by the federal government as a form of reconciliation. Through this report, the federal government possesses the ability and justification to grant this to all first nations in Canada.

We are hoping your study will provide our chiefs with an opportunity to create a reconciliation process that provides real and tangible benefits for first nation communities and supports Canada's economic growth and competitiveness. Together we can defeat on-reserve poverty.

Thank you, and I look forward to your questions and further discussion.

[Bronwyn Eyre]

Yes, and it's become a diplomatic issue now, based on the very unilateral decision of Governor Whitmer of Michigan. It's now a diplomatic and legal issue.

As for energy east, I think we all know some of the difficulties around that. One would need, again, a private proponent. The pipeline would cross a number of provinces, so again, Bill C-69, the environmental assessment act, certainly would come into play. Every province involved would have to be on board, so it's not an effortless thing to overcome, but it certainly would be a desirable one.

With regard to Mr. Blaikie's point earlier about where product is going, I guess it's so important to keep in mind—with regard to Minister Savage's points—that there is a very clear export aspect to this and that price is affected for smaller and larger operators through the differential as a result of the fact that they can't get product to tidewater because it's interrelated also through exports like potash, uranium and many commodities. It's not only a buy local, stay local sector. I think that is absolutely crucial to point out.

Obviously, energy east would be buy local, stay local, except to get to the refineries out east, but as we say, it's not as if that isn't an issue now, certainly, with the Panama Canal situation we saw last year. That was to get to a refinery out east, and the company had to use the Panama Canal to get to a refinery in its own country. It's not as if contortions aren't taking place here, and we have to address them through whichever means possible, including this issue with Line 5.

[Bronwyn Eyre, Minister of Energy and Resources, Government of Saskatchewan]

Thank you very much, good afternoon and bonjour, Mr. Chair and committee members. I'm pleased to join you today on behalf of the Government of Saskatchewan to speak on this important issue that has a crucial bearing, not only on Canadian energy security, but North American energy security.

Enbridge Line 5 is a bricks and mortar—in this case, welded steel—manifestation, a tangible symbol, of a traditionally strong relationship, a friendship, between the United States and Canada, one we must not jeopardize.

As we know, no single political issue in recent years has been as divisive, as charged, as pipelines because no single issue has become as dominant as climate change. But pipelines produce no CO2. They are a mere mode of transport, and yet they have become a symbol of the fight.

Project after project has been cancelled: northern gateway, which had substantial first nations support; energy east, which I'm convinced would have led to stronger national unity in Canada at a time when we needed it; and of course most recently Keystone XL, for the second time, this time by President Biden.

The more this happens, the more we cancel projects and prevent producers from getting oil to tidewater, to global markets, the more oil we have to import, including up the St. Lawrence River, from countries whose human rights records are dire. The more we'll also see strange, hyperexpensive concoctions such as the western Canadian oil that had to be transported via the Panama Canal last year just to get to a refinery on our own Atlantic east coast, the more we diminish our own energy independence.

While we wait in Saskatchewan and in the west for what we hope will be an in-service TMX pipeline someday, the only real pipeline egress for our producers is the Enbridge main line and indirectly, Enbridge Line 5, which connects to Canada from Lake Superior.

The main line, which emanates from Hardisty, Alberta, then goes cross-country and cross-border to Superior, Wisconsin, is the great spine, backbone—pick your metaphor—and the only major pipeline left for Saskatchewan oil producers. It transports 70% of our oil.

The Line 3 replacement project, I always like to point out, was accomplished—beautifully accomplished—before Bill C-69 even came along. It demonstrated that you could consult meaningfully with literally thousands of communities along the route, including first nations communities, and empower them and earn their trust, just because it made sense to do so.

But let's talk about Enbridge Line 5. I always like to use the reasonable-person-on-the-street test. If you told that person that Enbridge Line 5 and the portion that crosses the Mackinac Straits was built in 1953 to the highest engineering standards and has operated without any release incident since and that now, given heightened concerns that we all understand, Enbridge is going to spend $500 million to build a super-tunnel of reinforced concrete that would prevent the risk of an anchor strike, protect the aquatic environment and enable high-tech inspection and maintenance going forward, I think that person would say, “sounds good to me”.

If you mentioned that Line 5 helps to generate over half the propane used in Michigan, supplies regional refineries, powers the agriculture sector and heats homes, schools, hospitals and businesses, I think that person on the street, one who isn't blinded by an irrational hatred of pipelines, would say that sounded good too, especially when they learned the new propane proposal put forward in the Michigan propane security plan is woefully inadequate.

As for Ontario and Quebec, which Line 5 and then Line 9 feed into, those provinces will speak to the importance to them of this crucial line and what their own reasonable people on the street might have to say.

As provinces, we all hope diplomacy and mediation between the Canadian and U.S. governments will work on this one. But the transit treaty signed between Canada and the U.S. in 1977 sounds pretty definitive to me. It provides, “ government-to-government assurances on a reciprocal basis that pipelines carrying hydrocarbons owned by one country across the territory of the other will be free from interruptions in flow...."

I understand that we all want to make sure the environment is protected.

Unilaterally shutting down Line 5 strikes me as some sort of nightmare scenario dreamt up by Ayn Rand. Such a crucial means of keeping families working and warm, businesses and crucial sectors powered, and successful cross-border relationships thriving would simply be shut off.

Certainly we, in Saskatchewan, haven't always agreed with the Prime Minister's policies, most recently around the carbon tax. However, I believe that Governor Whitmer should examine how politically and ideologically akin she and the Prime Minister are, along with President Biden, even with those who spirited the green new deal.

I would ask her not to do this to her friends in Canada and her own Michiganders, to workers and their families, and to remember the strong trading relationship that Michigan has with, for one, Saskatchewan. That was worth $109 million in exports to Michigan last year from our province, and imports into Saskatchewan from beautiful Michigan of $137 million.

I would also ask her to keep in mind the powerful statistic that I reference a lot, speaking more globally: That if every oil- and gas-producing nation in the world extracted oil and gas the way that we do in Canada, global greenhouse gas emissions would instantly fall by one quarter.

Madam Governor, I would say we are good at this. Let's work together and not jeopardize a beautiful friendship over Enbridge Line 5.

Thank you.

[Stephen Buffalo]

Traditionally when we produce oil and gas it's controlled by the federal government, and right now it seems we have one customer and that's the United States. The pipeline capacity we see that was supposed to go to foreign markets is not there with the legislation that's been put forward in Bill C-48. Now the challenge is to build further infrastructure with Bill C-69.

With the oil and gas prices where they're at today, it's been increasingly difficult. In the past the ripple effect is that the federal government looked at some of the producing nations as rich, which isn't true. Obviously we have a lot of needs. Our populations are growing, and our demographics are growing. A lot of the social issues plaguing a lot of our communities are rampant, and we need to deal with that. The price of our resources is very important, but right now it's not getting to where it used to be.

[Stephen Buffalo, President, Indian Resource Council]

Thank you, Chair and committee members, for the opportunity to speak today. I am in the Treaty No. 7 territory. My name is Stephen Buffalo. I'm the president and CEO of the Indian Resource Council of Canada.

Our organization represents over 130 first nations across Canada that produce or have a direct interest in the oil and gas industry. Our mandate is to advocate for federal policies that will improve and increase economic development opportunities for our first nations. Few will be more impacted in the short term than the 130 members of the Indian Resource Council if the proposed UNDRIP legislation is not clearly drafted. Otherwise this will compromise the ability of our members to engage in resource development.

The members of the Indian Resource Council, like all first nations, obviously find a lot to like in the UNDRIP, which we support without question. I'm personally from the same nation as Dr. Willie Littlechild, one of the architects of the declaration. I've spoken to him at length about understanding the spirit and the intent behind it, but I'm very concerned about the unintended consequences of this legislation. I think, in practice, it will slow down or even reverse the economic development that we've achieved in our nations.

Within our communities, the majority of our members support involvement in the oil and gas industry—not all but most. That's because the royalties and profits we generate from this sector have been essential to the well-being of our people. They pay for things like elder services, housing, cultural programs, bereavement costs, recreation centres and other programs and services that are chronically underfunded by the federal government, or not funded at all. They provide us some autonomy in spending that we do not have with federal funding. They allow us to exercise our self-determination.

In my own community of Maskwacis, we've created a trust company, Peace Hills Trust, a scholarship fund to encourage our youth to pursue post-secondary education. The energy sector has brought many benefits to us, and we don't need any additional barriers that will impact or eliminate these benefits. Creating a competitive and stable investment environment in Canada would help bring new development projects in our territories. Having sufficient pipeline capacity, for example, would allow our members to earn full value of their products instead of having to accept a discount due to transportation and market constraints, as we see now today.

We've already seen countless jobs, procurement opportunities and equity stakes lost in the cancellation of tens of billions of dollars from energy projects across western Canada as a result of legislation such as Bill C-48 and Bill C-69. We have a lot to lose if this legislation, in its current form, further impacts our ability to attract investment.

Let me share with you the biggest concern about Bill C-15. The legislation says that indigenous people need to provide consent for a project to go forward, but it doesn't say who can provide or deny consent and how it's to be demonstrated. If you're saying consent is provided by chief and councils through band council resolution or referendum, then that's one thing. But if you're saying that a small group of indigenous activists who declare that their consent is required, and that they have the right to blockade any project they do not like, or just to get a standing in court to contest it, then that's a recipe for disaster.

It would be much better if this committee could define “free, prior and informed consent” in the legislation and determine who can represent and make decisions on behalf of indigenous peoples for the purpose of project approvals. Better yet, this committee can engage indigenous people across Canada to come to a consensus on what “consent” means before passing this legislation, because you know as well as I do that some people think it's a veto, and if the committee doesn't think it's a veto, then they should make that clear.

Putting the declaration verbatim into federal legislation without these definitions is going to allow special interest groups to weaponize the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples as a tool to stop any extractive project they do not like. This isn't my being paranoid. This is in our communities and in our projects all the time. I even heard it from some MPs using UNDRIP as a reason to cancel TMX, for example.

Many of our members are actually involved in negotiating and purchasing it, but whether or not you support the oil and gas industry, it's the right of the 130 first nations in our organization to develop their resources as they see fit.

At the end of the day, if the bill remains vague, as it is in its current form, I believe some judge down the line is going to decide what FPIC means in the context of resource development. No one is going to want to invest in any major projects in this country until that day comes.

IRC members want better protection for indigenous rights, and there's obviously a lot of good that can come from using the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples as a shield and framework for reconciliation. However, investment requires certainty, and if we're going to self-determine, reduce our dependency on government and move beyond meagre royalties, we'll need to attract investment of our own.

Thank you for the time. I'm happy to take questions.

The Environment

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Madam Speaker, once again Canada could fall behind as a result of the Liberals' weaker version of NAFTA. After a three-year grace period, there will be tariffs if we do not regionally source the vast majority of lithium for electric vehicles.

The government makes big plans and promises for a green transition, but there is a problem: Approval for new projects will take at least three to 10 years. The anti-pipeline Impact Assessment Act is also creating uncertainty for the Liberals' green transition.

Will the Liberals finally admit it is time to repeal Bill C-69?

Employment Insurance Act

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

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my excellent and hard-working colleague from Calgary Midnapore.

Today, we are debating Bill C-24. I have a couple of quick observations about the context of this debate. This is another example where we can clearly see the willingness of the Conservatives to work constructively on areas where we share a perspective on the need to move forward with the government on a particular bill. We saw this earlier this week: As a result of a Conservative motion, we were able to debate quickly and pass Bill C-18. Today, we have worked with the government to create a framework to move forward on Bill C-24.

In the case of both of these bills, there is a relevant deadline the government has ignored up until this point. The leadership of our party has pushed the government to move forward with things that are supposed to be its legislative priorities but have clearly not been. We see how the Prime Minister has been trying to spin a narrative that Parliament is not working, as a way to justify his plans for an election in the middle of a pandemic.

There is no doubt that the Conservatives do not support some aspects of the government's legislative agenda, and some require further study and debate. However, in this Parliament in particular, the 43rd Parliament, the Conservatives have worked constructively to quickly advance legislation when there is a shared sense of essential urgency on matters.

Bill C-24, like Bill C-18 and other legislative measures we have seen in this Parliament, is in the category of measures that we are supporting and have worked with the government to move forward. I hope the government, members of the media and the public will take note of the instances of co-operation that have taken place, often led by the Conservatives, and will point out the flaws in the narrative the Prime Minister is trying to spin to justify his pandemic election plans.

Bill C-24 is an important bill that expands benefit programs in the context of the pandemic, and the Conservatives are supportive of it. At the same time, we have highlighted the need for the government to have a broader vision of where our country is going economically in the midst of the pandemic and what we hope will soon be the economic recovery coming out of it.

While other parties are talking only about spending and the benefits, the Conservatives recognize the need to have strong economic growth as the basis for providing strong benefits. We have legitimately pointed out the issues around the significant debt and deficit we are accruing during this period of time. Other parties in the House want to present a false choice: either we support benefit programs and have dramatic growth in our debt and deficit or we do not have the debt and deficit and leave people out in the cold. We view that as a false choice. We believe it is very possible and indeed important to support a strong social safety net, but that exists on the foundation of a strong economy. If we support the development of a strong economy, with a vision for jobs, growth, opportunity and investment in this country that gives people the opportunity to work, then we also increase our capacity to provide people with support when they find themselves in situations where they are not able to work.

Our vision for an economy of the future is one that involves a strong economy, a strong community and a strong social safety net. We believe those elements need to exist in tandem. A strong economy means repealing some measures the Liberals have put in place, like Bill C-48 and Bill C-69, which impede the development of our natural resource sector. It means working to strengthen our manufacturing sector. It means taking note of some problems, like the slave labour around the world that is producing cheap products that come into the Canadian marketplace. That is obviously terrible from a human rights and justice perspective, but it also impacts Canadian workers. It is an economic issue and a justice issue when human rights violations are linked to unfair trading practices.

We need to stand up for Canada's manufacturing sectors that may be impacted by those kinds of practices. We need to support the development of our natural resource sectors. We need to expand access to markets, especially in like-minded countries. That is why the Conservatives support working to expand trade and partnerships around the world with like-minded partners in the Asia-Pacific region. We are also looking to expand our economic engagement with Africa, building on some of the trade agreements we have signed previously, such as the Trans-Pacific Partnership and the Canada-EU free trade deal negotiated under the previous Conservative government.

We need to think about rationalizing regulations and approving projects that make sense so that Canada can once again be seen as an optimal destination for investment and growth. If that plan for investment, growth and jobs includes an appropriate respect for our natural resource and manufacturing sectors, we will be able to create the conditions that allow unemployed Canadians to get back to work.

That is the strong economy piece. Of course, a strong economy helps to generate the revenue for governments that allows governments to provide support to people without creating the kind of unmanageable deficits that we currently face. Having a strong economy is therefore very important.

I talked about a strong economy, strong communities and a strong social safety net. For many people who face challenges, whether they are unemployment challenges, health challenges or personal struggles of various kinds, the first line of support is the communities they are a part of. In recent decades, we have seen a decline in the strength of community ties, a greater social atomization. As a society, we need to think about how we can strengthen the forms of local community that are such a vital form of initial support. We should think of a big society, a strong society and strong community as being the first line of support and defence when people are confronted with various challenges in their lives.

Part of how the national government can be a part of supporting the idea of strengthening the community is to work constructively in partnership with community organizations and look for opportunities to learn from what communities are doing. These could be cultural associations, faith communities or service clubs. We should better partner with local organizations in the delivery of public services.

There are so many ways this applies. One thing that has been a great interest of mine is the model for the private sponsorship of refugees. Through it, the government works collaboratively with private organizations that are sponsoring refugees to come to Canada. We know that those who have community connections through private sponsorship generally have better outcomes than people who are publicly sponsored, because those who are publicly sponsored are not immediately brought into an existing community that knows them and wants to work with them. Across the board, whether it is combatting addictions, supporting families, addressing joblessness or addressing recidivism, the government needs to have a much better vision of the opportunity for partnership as a means of addressing challenges and building strong communities.

As I said, we need a strong economy, a strong community and then a strong social safety net. If we have the strong community and strong economy pieces in place, we will also be in a position collectively to put the full extent of our resources into supporting those who fall through the cracks with a strong social safety net.

The Conservatives are very supportive of that. We believe, though, that if we neglect the strong economy and the strong community pieces, it will become much more difficult to have a strong social safety net while preserving some degree of fiscal sanity. What we see with the government is a desire to push forward spending on the social safety net, but a lack of vision for the strong economy and strong community pieces.

The social safety net needs to be there for those who are not able to benefit from a strong economy or from strong community structures that are in place. However, if we only have the social safety net piece, and not the economy piece or the community piece, then the pressure that falls on that social safety net will be so significant that we will find ourselves in an unsustainable fiscal situation. That is the challenge we need—

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Kildonan—St. Paul for an excellent speech that will be very difficult for me to follow.

Here are the hard facts. While it is important to provide interim support for people who are jobless during COVID, what people really want are paycheques. This is all against the backdrop of an unemployment rate that is by far the highest in the G7. It is higher than the rates of the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Italy, Germany and Japan.

The government has tried, since these data points have come out, to claim that unemployment rates no longer matter and that we should look at some other statistics that it has cooked up. The problem is that since the Prime Minister took office, he has said, on 49 occasions in the House of Commons, that the unemployment rate is precisely the measure we should look at to determine how our job market is working. However, right now it is not working.

There are 850,000 more people unemployed today than there were in February 2020. Interestingly, the government brags that Canada has secured a larger recovery of the lost jobs in percentage terms than other countries. That is, of course, the result of the fact that we lost more jobs in the first place and had more to gain back. Even with the minimal recovery we have had of jobs, we still have a higher rate of unemployed than our competitors.

It is getting worse. The most recent monthly data showed the loss of another 200,000 jobs in the same month that the United States gained jobs. The leading indicators of what job losses are to come are even worse. According to the largest association of small businesses in Canada, the CFIB, between 70,000 and 220,000 business owners in Canada are thinking of closing their businesses for good. This is between 7% and 21% of all businesses in the country. If they were to close, we would lose between one million and three million jobs, a catastrophic outcome for our economy.

Forget the fact that other countries are roaring back, recovering and putting their people back to work, and that foreign workers are getting paycheques while ours are getting credit card debts. Let us stop talking about stats and start talking about people, because a job, though it means a paycheque, means so much more than that. It means the pride, purpose and independence of getting up in the morning and taking control of one's life. People who lose jobs lose this pride and independence, and the data shows that their mental health suffers dramatically. According to a study by the University of Calgary, the suicide rate rises by two percentage points for every one percentage point increase in unemployment. People take their lives when they lose their jobs.

Since the pandemic began, we have had a 50% increase in opioid overdoses in Alberta and Ontario. In British Columbia, 911 operators reported a surge in phone calls from family members and loved ones who are begging for a paramedic to come and rescue someone who has overdosed, usually on opioids. This is the result of depriving people of work. It is good and necessary to provide interim income for those people, but it is not the ultimate resolution to their problem, which is that they do not have a job and do not know how they are going to pay the bills in the long run.

This is not just because of COVID. The whole world is facing COVID, yet all the other G7 countries have lower unemployment than Canada. This is the result of a government policy that has systematically destroyed employment in this country for four years.

The government has blocked the energy east pipeline, which would have delivered a million barrels of western oil to eastern refineries, creating jobs for energy workers out west, refinery workers out east, steelworkers in central Canada and trades workers everywhere across the land. It vetoed the northern gateway pipeline and therefore deprived dozens of first nations communities of thousands of jobs and billions of dollars' worth of agreements to share revenue, money that would have paid for schools, hospitals and job training for the youth.

It has imposed job-killing taxes that have driven employers out of Canada and into the United States. Right now, Canadians have $800 billion more invested outside of Canada than foreigners have invested in Canada. Why is that? It is because right now Canada is not the place to invest to get things done. In Canada it takes 170 days longer to get a building permit for a pipeline, business park, factory, warehouse or any other economic infrastructure in this country than it does in the United States. In fact, we are ranked 34 out of 35 OECD nations for the delays associated with getting approval from government to build anything.

Our first nations communities are forced to send their own revenues to Ottawa and then apply to get some of them back, rather than being allowed to harvest the revenues directly from their own economic activities. Leading first nations entrepreneurs talk about how long it takes for bureaucrats and politicians to sign off on commercial and other development activities on first nations lands, preventing them from giving paycheques and purpose and pride of a job to their own people.

When immigrants come to Canada and seek out the chance to work in the fields for which they were trained, they are prevented by professional bodies and other occupational licensing regulators from getting a permit to work and are not told what they have to do to get one. Therefore, we have doctors earning minimum wage, architects who are unemployed and mechanics who are stuck only changing oil and tires when they could be running a full service mechanical operation and earning six figures. These people deserve the paycheques for which they were trained, but because of the bureaucracy of our permit-driven economy they are prevented.

The government should put paycheques first. The federal government should set the goal and drive all other levels of government toward it to be the fastest place on planet earth to get a building permit for any kind of economic project, to allow first nations people to approve their own economic developments and to welcome home ownership for their people. We should allow first nations communities to keep more of the revenue from these projects.

We should repeal Bill C-69, the no new pipelines bill, so we can actually deliver our oil to market and get full world prices. We should end the offshore shipping ban off the northwest coast of British Columbia so that our energy producers can get world prices as well.

We should reduce the tens of billions of dollars of regulatory red tape costs that hold back businesses and force them to spend their time serving bureaucrats rather than hiring workers and serving customers. We should knock down interprovincial trade barriers so that Canadians can buy and sell goods from one another rather than importing and enriching foreign businesses abroad. We should reform our tax system so that it rewards work, savings and investment, and allows people to climb the income ladder rather than being penalized for each extra dollar they earn.

Right now we should be encouraging municipalities to make it easier for new and long-term vacant office space to be repurposed for housing for people who desperately need it. Here in Canada, despite having one of the most sparsely populated countries on earth, we have among the highest real estate costs for people trying to find a home.

These are all actions we could take right now to get—

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Okay. That's a “no”, Minister. Thank you very much.

My second question has to do with a project that you've mentioned several times and that your colleagues in the last meeting mentioned as well. It's the Alberta irrigation project. Actually, every time I hear the name of this project, it's like nails on a chalkboard to me, because I'm not certain how you could possibly feel that one infrastructure bank project could replace an entire industry, which your government, under your helm, destroyed, and that is the natural resources sector. That was a result of the implementation of Bill C-69, Bill C-48 and the carbon tax.

Also, just yesterday, your government had an opportunity to help offset that by supporting the agricultural sector, which you claim you are trying to help with the Alberta irrigation project, by supporting Bill C-206, and instead, you and your government didn't support it. You voted against it.

How can you possibly feel that a single project for Alberta could resolve the entire destruction of the industry here under your leadership over the last five years?

Aeronautics Act

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada and to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-225 is a bill that causes a great deal of concern, as it would amend certain acts to subordinate the exercise of certain powers to the applicable provincial laws concerning land use, development and environmental protections. This concerns me greatly, and I suspect it concerns anyone who feels that the Government of Canada should play a strong role in land development or anything of that nature.

The off-loading of powers is what I find interesting. I believe it is a member from the Bloc who has brought the bill forward, and I think it embodies the principle of what the Bloc is trying to do in the House of Commons, which is to decentralize the national government. In essence, it would take away anything the government does with one exception, which is, of course, to give money. If the Bloc has to participate in Canadian Confederation, it would be quite happy if the only role for the Canadian government would be to provide money to individual provinces, or at the very least to the Province of Quebec. In fairness to the people who might want to follow this debate, that would give a sense of why the Bloc has proposed the legislation before us.

In essence, the federal government does play a role, and we saw that with Bill C-69, which we introduced a couple of years back. It shows that the federal government does have a role when it comes to issues such as land, our environment and the mutual benefits of ensuring that there is a proper process in place to protect the interests of the nation.

I believe that in essence it has been working quite well. We have seen provincial governments, municipal governments and the national government working together on numerous projects, and there is a great deal of consultation that takes place. I think in terms of things like projects that are proposed for funding by Canada's infrastructure programs and provisions to incorporate provincial legislation by reference in Canada. We could talk about the Canada Marine Act. There is also a good-neighbour policy for federal real property. All of this is critically important. We need to recognize, at least from my perspective, that the national government plays a role in a wide variety of areas of jurisdiction, and there is an expectation from Canadians that we live up to our jurisdictional responsibilities.

I have not heard anyone in my political career talk about what the Bloc would hope to accomplish with this piece of legislation. However, I often hear from constituents who talk to me about how the federal government should be fulfilling its responsibilities in the many areas where we have jurisdictional control, and the best example I can use is health care.

Often we will talk about the federal government having a role in health care. There is some irony here. If we take a look at it, the Bloc will say that it does not want Ottawa in this but the province, and yet it is Ottawa's jurisdictional responsibility. The Bloc will say that it does not want Ottawa there, but on the other hand, when it is a provincial jurisdiction, it will again say that it does not want Ottawa to interfere because it is a provincial jurisdiction.

There are areas of cooperation where Ottawa may have the primary jurisdiction but there still is an obligation, at least in part, to work with other jurisdictions, whether provincial, municipal or indigenous. There are all sorts of ways in which Ottawa can cooperate with the areas in which it ultimately has jurisdictional responsibility.

Equally, I think, the reverse applies, with the best example being health care. There are a couple of debates we have been having during the pandemic and the bill we just finished discussing. Both of them are related to health care and the importance of the national government playing a role. One of them was with regard to long-term standards, while the other was with regard to assisted dying legislation and that area of mental health. I can talk about what I believe the majority of my constituents would like to see: a national pharmacare program.

All of those things I just cited can only be done to the benefit of all Canadians, no matter where they live, if we have the two levels of government prepared to work together. It is important that we recognize jurisdictional responsibility, as this government has done. When it comes to health care, we will do that. When it comes to the issue of land usage and our environment, we do not tell the provinces or the municipalities that that aspect is completely or 100% federal jurisdiction and that we do not need to hear from them at all on it. We continue to work with the different levels of government because we are in a confederation. Canadians expect us to be working in partnership with the different levels of government.

I would not say that the Bloc has a hidden agenda, but it is an agenda that is not healthy for the Canadian confederation, for those who see the value of living in the best country in the world, and those who are so proud of the French factor that we really identify with and have a great deal of pride about, like I especially do. We are appealing for governments to work together on the important issues that Canadians want us to work cooperatively on. Even if a government has primary jurisdictional responsibility, it should still work with the different levels of government for the benefit of all Canadians.

Economic Statement Implementation Act, 2020

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

Madam Speaker, my colleague comes from Saskatchewan and I am from Alberta; we have similar issues with the impact on energy workers. There is a lot of frustration with some of the earlier bills: Bill C-48 and Bill C-69. We know those bills predate the pandemic. However, when we are thinking about how the economy is going to recover post-pandemic, those bills are a big barrier to Canada's looking like an attractive investment destination.

Could the member speak further to some of that legislation and share his feedback on what could and should be done in response to that climate of Canada's not looking like a great place to invest with these bills in place, particularly in the context of our energy sector?

Environmentally Conscious Labelling

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Madam Speaker, I guess we have changed our speaking times. My apologies for the confusion for the Chair, and for the table as well. I am sincerely sorry.

They started a warehouse format. As I said, I have had a lot of time to reflect on wicker and rattan throughout the years. We are very fortunate. My younger brother made the decision to accept the business from my parents after several years.

Upon reflection on the business and, most important, the product of the business, I recognized maybe five years ago that it was to be of more interest to Canadians, society and the world in general. People were thinking of buying responsibly and choosing responsible products, and for years my family had been contributing to the environmental cause by selling a renewable product.

This is something that struck me as quite significant. All this time, as this evolution in the world had been going on toward the environment and a greener existence, my family had been contributing to this effort for over three decades.

My message is that the market will always determine these things. The market will make the decision as to the products that are successful within our society and the products which are not successful. Oddly enough, unforeseen to my family and my family business, this pandemic has been a time when wicker and rattan have thrived, as Canadians, Calgarians and people B.C., where we have extensions of our business as well, look to have products to beautify their environments and their back yards, since they are stuck at home at this time.

My fundamental point regarding all this is that there are already voluntary rules that exist for this. Business owners, if they feel so inclined, may certainly put whatever labelling they want upon their products in an effort to indicate what is within the product or how environmentally friendly it is. As the story of my family's business proves, the market chose an environmentally responsible product, and I am very proud of this.

It is always very dangerous when the government tells us what we should buy and what we should not buy. The current government has been terrible at that. It has consistently chosen winners and losers throughout industry and throughout our economy.

Unfortunately, I have seen up close the end result within two sectors. The first is the natural resources sector in my home province of Alberta, where we have seen industry-killing legislation such as Bill C-69 and Bill C-48. This is what happens when government intervenes incorrectly, as could be the case with this private member's bill, which is that industry dies.

I have also seen this up front and personally with the airline sector. This was a case where the government should have intervened. It should have come forward with rapid testing, testing on arrival and on departure, and certainly with, what we had hoped for, what should have been the good distribution of vaccines. Unfortunately, to the disappointment of all Canadians, it has not. Again, it is always very dangerous when the government intervenes within business. We have seen this in both the natural resources sector as well as the airline sector.

I would like to point out the incredible burden that this would place upon businesses, and small businesses in particular. We know that the government has been no friend to small businesses at all during its time.

Who can forget 2017 and the changes that the government tried to implement against small businesses, things that would have major impacts, such as income sprinkling, passive income, passing on businesses within families, something I referenced earlier in my speech? Thank goodness my colleague, the member for Brandon—Souris, put forward legislation that would at least attempt to go against that. Fundamentally, it is never a good thing when government attempts to intervene, to control and direct markets. Also, that legislation would do what the government does not do well, and that is to keep focused on the big picture. At this time, coming out of this pandemic is about restoring the economy and bringing jobs to Canadians.

This motion would not allow businesses to focus on this. It would force them to focus on labelling at a time when they should be thinking about increasing revenues, employing more Canadians and bringing the economy back. Unfortunately, the motion does not focus on that.

Who could have foreseen the legacy of my family business, which started and thrived in Alberta and beyond, would have been with the use of an environmental product. In fact it was, it succeeded and the market chose that. We see the government's intervening has destroyed the natural resources sector. Make no mistake about it. It was a joint effort in Alberta with all levels of government to bring my poor city to the place it is now. This year, 2021, brings the opportunity for change at the civic level and perhaps we will see that.

Unfortunately, I cannot support this private member's motion. I do not believe the opposition will not be supporting it. The market knows what it is doing and this private member's motion does not support that.

Economic Statement Implementation Act, 2020

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a novel sensation to rise in the House today to speak to Bill C-14, for several reasons. First, it is always a tremendous privilege to rise in the House, even though it is not as populated as it has been in the past, to represent the constituents of Provencher and speak to the issues of the day regarding this great country of Canada. Second, it is novel to speak to an economic statement that does not typically lead to legislation. This is an unusual speech in that respect.

Third, this marks the very first meaningful budget-like document that the Liberals have produced since 2019, almost 650 days ago. To be sure, this is not a budget. However, I am grateful to have the opportunity to address Bill C-14 given the fact that the Liberals have flat out refused to present a budget since 2018.

I am a member of the Standing Committee on Finance, which is just now concluding its pre-budget consultations and entering the drafting stage of the report. It is now time for the committee to review the recommendations from Canadians, and to consolidate into the report all the needs that have been identified by Canadians from coast to coast to coast to present to the finance minister. My hope is that the Minister of Finance will take this process seriously, that her response will be thoughtful and that she will come up with a realistic plan for our nation's finances.

Conservatives have been clear right from the beginning that we want to make sure that Canadians struggling as a result of COVID-19 have the support they need. We recognize the challenges that so many are facing, including those of us living under stringent public health restrictions that have dramatically impacted our well-being. The government has a duty not only to help Canadians get through the crisis, but to develop a plan to help us get out of it. I said earlier today in the House that it seems as though the government has no plan, and failing to plan is planning to fail.

It is perfectly fair for governments to react quickly when faced with a crisis. One cannot get everything right when trying to sort out something new and unexpected on the fly. However, a year has now passed since COVID-19 came on Canada's radar in a real way. By now, the government has had plenty of time to prepare a solid, long-term plan for Canada's economy. By now, we know where the damage is most significant. We know who is hurting, and with this knowledge comes the power to plan for the future: to show Canadians a way out and a plan for things to return to normal.

One tangible way that the Liberals could do this immediately is by setting a fiscal anchor. A fiscal anchor is driven by rock-solid foundation principles and will be an anchor or reference point to hold things together and provide stability on which we can establish policies. The principles of financial anchors are missing from the Liberal government.

The Business Council of Canada defines fiscal anchors as follows:

...notional ceilings or caps to the levels of public spending, deficits, and debt that governments are prepared to reach in their fiscal policy. They serve many purposes including:

1 Retaining the confidence of lenders and global markets...;

2 Establishing a positive investment climate for businesses;

3 Providing a measure of fiscal discipline inside government...; and

4 Ensuring that the government has the ability to respond to future economic shocks and unforeseen crises.

In practical terms, this is about creating good jobs for Canadians. It is about creating the conditions for local small businesses to succeed and thrive. It is about moms and dads being able to put food on the table for their families. However, it is also about governments being able to sustainably fund the social services that many rely on: health care, education and the social safety net. Fiscal responsibility, or a fiscal anchor, signals to Canadians that the government is not merely acting for its own immediate interests today, but for the good of the country and its future.

Former parliamentary budget officer Kevin Page told the National Post in October, “There’s a cost to having effectively no fiscal plan. And right now it’s fair to say we have no fiscal strategy.” He added, “This is about where the government’s rudder is. Where is the policy strategy that guides us through the pandemic, and to the post COVID-19 recovery? We’re missing that.”

In a November piece for The Globe and Mail, Mostafa Askari, Sahir Khan and Mr. Page write:

All governments need constraints. Politicians do not like to raise taxes. There is a bias toward deficits. Higher debt can create the risk of future economic instability. It can reduce fiscal room to address the next economic downturn. Constraints also signal future policy intentions of governments and are essential to promote accountability.

The Liberals' refusal to adopt a fiscal anchor is such that they continue to avoid accountability for their spending. We are facing a historic deficit of almost $400 billion. The total federal debt will reach $1.1 trillion this year, and the federal debt, as a percentage of GDP, has risen dramatically. If ever Canadians deserved transparency and accountability, now is the time.

With this in mind, I want to speak about part 7 of the bill. In this section of the legislation, the Liberals propose to amend the Borrowing Authority Act and the Financial Administration Act by increasing maximum borrowing authority for the federal government of Canada from $1.1 trillion to $1.8 trillion. Even as someone with years of experience in the financial sector, those figures seem very daunting to me. This increase is considerably more than the government needs to get through this next fiscal year. Moreover, it authorizes a massive expansion of the national debt all while the government refuses to identify a fiscal anchor and refuses transparency.

If the Liberals were swiping their own personal credit cards during these transactions, it would be one thing, but they are swiping the nation's credit card, knowing full well that hard-working Canadians will ultimately be stuck with a bill that will likely have to be paid through tax increases and will be passed on to future generations. This is money out of the pockets of real people, real families, and not just this generation.

Young parents trying to set aside money for their children's education, small business owners trying to meet payroll for employees and seniors on fixed incomes will all be affected by this increase to our national debt.

In the real world, when Canadians want to obtain a line of credit they have to show the lender that they are good for it. They have to show they will be able to make payments. They have to show that they are responsible stewards of the money that is being lent to them. That is how the three Cs of credit work: character, collateral and capacity. I, for one, do not see why the House should authorize such a significant increase of the government's maximum borrowing authority when it cannot even establish a baseline for its spending. Liberals have not demonstrated the ability to be responsible for increased debt.

This is about taking care of Canadians today and tomorrow. We owe it to future Canadians to ensure our public finances are sustainable. Debt is a moral issue: It is something that is owed to one by another with the understanding that what is owed must be paid back. This is a basic principle, and one that is almost universally understood within the context of business, finance and even personal relationships. If we borrow money from the bank to finance the purchase of a home or vehicle, there is an understanding and a binding agreement as to how and when that loan will be paid back. The borrower is taking on that debt, and with it the responsibility to repay the amount borrowed from the lender. A commitment has been made to restore the financial situation of the lender. The refusal or failure to do so will result in penalties, or at the very least adverse effects to the credit and financial well-being of the borrower.

To borrow without the ability or a clear plan to repay is foolish. While in our culture some debt is usually unavoidable, it is a reality that most of us try to avoid it. We do not want to be in debt. We do not want to be enslaved to interest payments. We want to be free. The government does not have its own money, it only has the money that it receives from the taxation of its citizens. When it needs more money, the government only has three choices: raise taxes, cut spending or borrow.

As my colleague, the member for Carleton, has so succinctly put it, paycheques are the solution. Canadians need opportunities to work. This puts food on their tables and produces tax revenue governments need to provide important services. It is time that the Liberals focus on creating opportunities for Canadians. There are many ways to achieve that objective. Stop raising taxes such as the carbon tax and the CPP payroll tax. Accelerate project permit application processing for infrastructure. Repeal Bill C-69 and Bill C-48. Ideas like these create space for a real recovery.

Let us pursue sustainability and fiscally responsible policies that get Canadians not just through this economic slump, but actually out of it.

Oil Tanker Moratorium Act

[Karen Vecchio, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Kingston and the Islands. Yes, I know that is liked. However, the fact is that what we have actually seen is the huge disconnect between the economy and the environment, so I would ask that we have a more balanced approach.

We have talked about Bill C-69 and Bill C-48 of the 42nd Parliament many, many times. We know that the current government has put through policies that are stopping any of the oil sands work that is being done and not focusing on what we need to do here. We are a country with great resources, and it is very important that we ethically source these resources and then get them out for export.

We are a country that currently is bringing in our fuel from places like the U.K., and I still cannot fathom that, as well as from Algeria, Venezuela and Saudi Arabia. We should be looking at what we have in our own backyard. Knowing that it is ethically sourced and knowing that we can do a great job here in Canada, we should be doing made-in-Canada projects.

I respect the members who are talking about this bill and talking about what we can do on the west coast. This has very important impacts on knowing what we need to do to keep on with our environment. When we speak about first nations and indigenous people, we have to understand that many indigenous groups are asking for work like this to be done. They recognize that the environment can be used with environmentally friendly methods.

I hope we can have an honest discussion where we try to find a balance between the economy and the environment, unlike what we are doing right now.

Agriculture and Agri-Food

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is a privilege to be here at the late show tonight to speak about farmers, ranchers, the carbon tax and clean fuel standards. A carbon tax hike is set to make things a lot harder for Canadian farmers and ranchers. A tax hits farmers from many different directions with very few exemptions.

For inputs and fertilizer, add a carbon tax. For seeds, add a carbon tax. Equipment, machinery and parts cost hundreds of thousands of dollars, and a combine is close to $1 million. Add to that a carbon tax. For grain drying, which costs tens of thousands of dollars, add a carbon tax. For heating buildings, and there are many, add a carbon tax. We have a crop, and now what do we do? We have to truck it and deliver it, with a carbon tax added on. For grain companies and elevators, add a carbon tax. What about the railway? Yes, we have to move things, so add a carbon tax.

Producers pay all the downstream costs with no ability to increase the price they receive. Agriculture sector producers use the most energy efficient and innovative means in the world. Agriculture producers are also carbon sinks.

As Brian Cross noted in The Western Producer, Alberta Federation of Agriculture President Lynn Jacobson said, “the carbon tax increase highlights the need for additional carbon tax exemptions for prairie farms.” He also noted, “The establishment of national carbon credit system that allows farmers to capitalize on carbon sequestering activities would go a long way”.

The government is hiking the carbon tax, or the clean fuel standards tax, without a comprehensive plan to address the damage it is going to cause to our agriculture sector and supply chain.

Speaking of challenges on the Prairies, the cancellation of the Keystone pipeline is devastating to real people, families, businesses and communities. We need jobs and growth, and the pipeline supplied both. The Prime Minister talks about support for the resource sector, but killed northern gateway and added barriers to energy east that killed it. The government legislated Bill C-48 and Bill C-69, which did in pipelines as well.

The Liberals also bought a pipeline from a private company that just wanted to build it and wanted the government to get out of the way so it could do it. Now it is many billions of dollars over budget and years behind completion. Will it get built? Is Enbridge Line 5 through Michigan next on the hit list? It would mean thousands of jobs in Ontario and Quebec.

Post-COVID-19 jobs in the resource sector are an essential part of getting Canadians back to work and recovering Canada's economy. We need this sector working. Where is the plan to do it?

Speaking of plans, was the COVID-19 plan a Canada-focused plan? We all know the first thing the government should have done was protect the most vulnerable and protect front-line workers. How do we do that? It is with rapid testing, tracing and isolation. Instead, the government's plan was lacking significantly, and we slowed down the economy to almost a crawl. Then it was basically closed twice.

Sadly, many vulnerable families have been lost forever. Many businesses are closed and many more will be. Students have lost an academic year, and hundreds of thousands of jobs are lost. Mental health challenges are now exploding.

Now in January, 10 months later, the government has started asking for COVID tests. Where was that 10 months ago? Where was the support for Canadian industries to develop rapid testing and vaccines?

We need to protect lives and livelihoods. That is the key to getting out of this crisis and getting people back to work. The government's handling of this situation has prolonged the economic damage and is risking lives.

Instruction to the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development

[Joël Godin, Conservative, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Madam Speaker, thank you for your help.

I would remind members that the government prorogued Parliament while the country was in the midst of the COVID-19 public health crisis.

As far as I know, few parliaments shut down during the crisis, but that is the bizarre strategy the Liberal government opted for.

We all know that protecting freshwater is crucial. We need to protect this resource. We need to take urgent action. We also know that climate change is affecting freshwater. According to Statistics Canada, Canada produces 3,478 cubic kilometres of renewable freshwater per year. That is twice the volume of Lake Ontario, or an average of 104,000 cubic metres of water per Canadian.

According to the website of Quebec's ministry of environment and climate change, freshwater accounts for 10% of Quebec's surface area. Quebec has tens of thousands of rivers and over three million bodies of water totalling 3% of the planet's renewable freshwater reserves. Almost 40% of all that water is in the St. Lawrence watershed. Numbers like that might suggest that this resource is not in jeopardy, but nothing could be further from the truth. Rising water levels and freshwater salinization are real threats.

An article published in Le Soleil in January 2016 reported that Quebec City and Lévis were concerned about the salinity of the St. Lawrence. According to the article, the area where the salt and fresh waters meet is located at the eastern tip of Île d'Orléans, but scientists are saying that climate warming could push it towards Quebec City and Lévis. A study was launched to identify the danger to drinking water intakes in the St. Lawrence River, in particular to determine if and when salt water could make its way westward and into our faucets. None of this is new, and yet the Liberals introduced their bill on the environment just a few hours before the House of Commons rose for the holiday break. Once again, they did everything at the last minute.

For five years it has been the same old thing. The Liberals introduce bills with good intentions, but no substance. They are driven only by their image. Let us not forget Bill C-69, 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, which received royal assent in June 2019. They used a lot of words to accomplish nothing.

In December, the government certainly could have added something about water, a major resource for our country. We are here to talk about freshwater and its protection, but when it comes to water we have our doubts about the government's promises.

Today, less than seven days after his inauguration, the new President of the United States, Joe Biden, signed an executive order on his plan for the environment. In the meantime, after five years in power, this government has been unable to get any tangible results for Canadians.

Here is a clear example. The federal government admitted that it would likely not meet its objective of putting an end to all long-term boil water advisories in indigenous communities by March 2021, and experts all agree that the government is still a long way from meeting that objective.

My colleague from Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, with whom I have the honour of serving on the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development, also expressed concerns about the management and protection of Canada's fresh water. On October 29, he said, and I quote: “Our survival and the survival of our communities depend on sources of safe, clean water. In my riding there are many rivers and lakes, such as Okanagan Lake and Nicola Lake.” He went on to say that he has repeatedly advocated for protections for the lakes and rivers in his region.

It is the same thing in the wonderful riding of Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, which I have the great honour of representing. There are many lakes, rivers and other waterways in this beautiful region, which is located near the St. Lawrence River.

These precious resources add to people's quality of life and make an enormous contribution to the region's economy. One thing that I think is important and that I care about as a member of Parliament is doing everything I can to protect the environment. I would like to remind members that, we, the Conservatives, do not wake up every morning with the goal of destroying the planet, quite the contrary.

We are the best protectors and keepers of our land and of nature. We, the Conservatives, have an excellent record on environmental issues.

I am a father. It is important to me to leave a healthy environment and sound economy to my children, grandchildren and, of course, future generations.

I remind members that respect for jurisdictions is important to the Conservative Party. Our party is the only one that respects that principle in the House of Commons.

We agree that the study proposed by Motion No. 34 should go ahead. This is my colleague's motion. He is currently the chair of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development; when he moved the motion, he was a member of that committee.

However, my colleagues and I seriously question the government's tactics. The Conservatives have long been opposed to the dumping of sewage into our waters, and the motion would give us the opportunity to examine the government's ability to address this issue.

I share the concerns of my colleague from Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola about the motion, especially those he stated last October with respect to creating the Canada water agency.

The Constitution assigns much of the jurisdiction over freshwater to provincial governments. We must ensure that there is collaboration with the provinces and that the Liberal government does not dictate the provinces' course of action, as it is wont to do. We are seeing this with the management of the pandemic.

Quebec has an extensive hydroelectric power network, which is regulated by the provincial government. An attempt by the federal government to take control over fresh water would interfere in provincial jurisdictions. It is not surprising that the Legault government has already expressed concerns about the creation of this agency. As I was saying, our party is the only party in the House of Commons that respects provincial jurisdictions .

I want to conclude with a quote from an article published in November 2019, which rightly sounded the alarm. Bob Sandford, a co-author of a report by the Global Water Futures project, which involves 22 universities, said, “We've enjoyed the luxury of the myth of limitless abundance of fresh water in Canada.” The article concluded with the following statement: “We have to commit to changing what we do and how we do it. And we need to have done that yesterday.”

Now is the time to act. The current government has done nothing but make empty promises since 2015. To wit, not a single tree has been planted. Protecting the environment is not a priority. It is all smoke and mirrors.

I urge the government to reflect, respect the environment, take meaningful action to protect fresh water and respect provincial jurisdictions.

Economic Statement Implementation Act, 2020

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

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise virtually today to join the debate on Bill C-14, an act to implement certain provisions of the economic statement.

The bill has seven parts, mostly containing items to which I do not object and aims that I support under the circumstances that Canada currently finds itself. Having said that, I have three main criticisms of the bill. First, it does not contain a plan or indeed any reason for hope for the millions of Canadians who own, work for or otherwise depend on small businesses, especially new businesses that have been ignored in aid measures that have been either adopted or proposed by the government. Second, the bill contains nothing to address the significant problems that were facing the Canadian economy before COVID. Third, the government should not be granted the unnecessary increase to the borrowing authority contained in the bill.

To my first two issues, some would say that it is not fair to criticize a bill for something it does not say. Ordinarily I would agree, but this is not an ordinary bill, nor is this an ordinary time.

The government is closing in on two years without a budget. The fall economic statement is as close as the government has come to tabling a budget, and that statement followed a period of chaos and crisis management. Here I am not referring to the COVID crisis, but to the tumultuous months during which we saw a government that should have been procuring vaccines, approving and distributing rapid at-home test kits and figuring out ways to allow the economy to function, if and when the second wave would hit. Instead, it was consumed by the scandal that saw the resignation of the former finance minister, prorogation of this Parliament and the appointment of a new finance minister. The bill is the government's missed opportunity to help small businesses that have fallen through the cracks in its aid measures and to fix its series of failures that left Canada on the brink of a recession before COVID.

As the shadow minister for small business and the member for Calgary Rocky Ridge, I have spoken to many small business owners who had been left behind by the government. These small business owners are the pillars of our communities.

There are millions of owners, workers and customers who depend on small businesses and who are paying the price for the government's failures, like the owners of the Bitter Sisters Brewing Company in Calgary, whose owners live in my riding. They do not qualify for the wage subsidy or the rent subsidy, because they reopened their business in March 2020 after spending most of 2019 refurbishing it. The owners of this business exhausted their capital. They went through a lengthy period when reinventing their business, and they opened literally within days of the declaration of a global pandemic. They do not have access to government aid measures. I spoke to another constituent last week who had expanded his successful tattoo studio in early 2020. As a result, he does not qualify for either the rent subsidy or the wage subsidy. His rent is $30,000 a month and his revenue is zero.

I know that every member of the House has heard similar stories from their constituents and from other members during debate on the bill. The fall economic statement and the bill do not help these constituents.

It is easy to forget the extent to which the government's fiscal and economic mismanagement was coming to a head before COVID. This is a government that was elected in 2015 on a promise, which it immediately broke, to run modest deficits to fund infrastructure for three years, returning to surplus in the fourth. Its maximum deficit of $10 billion was to be its fiscal anchor.

That anchor was cut immediately after the Liberals took office, and the 2015 election promise was seemingly obliterated into an Orwellian memory hole never again to be acknowledged by the government. It was replaced by a new anchor: that Canada's debt-to-GDP ratio was low and would always shrink.

The finance minister clung to that anchor until it was clear, before COVID, that the deficit was going to rise as a percentage of GDP, and replaced that anchor with the last one, which was maintaining Canada's AAA credit rating. That anchor was cut loose as well, and there have been no fiscal anchors articulated by the government since then.

We saw all of this backsliding into a serious structural deficit before COVID. The Liberal government piled on nearly $100 billion in new debt at a time when it should have been running surpluses, like the one it inherited, in order to prepare for a financial disaster like COVID, but it did not. Furthermore, the government piled on job-killing laws, like Bill C-69 and Bill C-48 that devastated the western economy and will harm Canada's ability to recover from COVID.

This bill does not contain elements that would undo the damage the government did to our economy that prevent and reduce our ability to recover from COVID. It brought in a carbon tax in the last Parliament and has announced that it will almost immediately break its promise not to raise it in this Parliament.

There is nothing in this bill that will address the hostility of the government to the energy industry, which is an essential part of the federal government's tax base. It is historically Canada's largest and most valuable export. It is the creator of great high-paying jobs in every province across Canada, not just in Alberta.

The fall economic statement that this bill is to implement does not address the past economic mistakes the government made and that had Canada teetering on the brink of recession before COVID. It does not repeal the red tape that killed projects, like Teck Frontier, and scared off the private sector investors that would have built Trans Mountain without taxpayer support.

There is nothing in this bill for the thousands of Canadian workers who will lose their jobs due to the devastating Keystone decision or those already without jobs, whose hopes for returning to work are now reduced in the wake of the Keystone decision.

There is nothing in this bill to rein in the culture of wasteful corporate welfare that the government has and the ease with which it ran up significant debt, again, before COVID.

This brings me to my third criticism of this bill and that is the unprecedented increase to Canada's borrowing limit. Make no mistake, and I will say this again, that at a time when governments force businesses to close and lay off workers, governments need to support them. Governments do need to support Canadians who are being compelled not to work and to support businesses that are being compelled to close their doors.

This crisis has created a temporary necessity for extraordinary spending measures to support Canadians, but the government's proposal in this bill to increase its borrowing limit to $1.8 trillion is simply not justified. It is not justified by the government's present needs, not by its short-term needs, not by its medium- or long-term needs, and certainly not by its past enthusiasm for non-crisis deficit financing.

Parliament at its most basic function exists to authorize taxation, expenditure and borrowing by the government on behalf of the governed. As legislators, we have a responsibility to vote whether or not to grant the government these powers, and there is simply no reason to grant such an extraordinary sum for the government to borrow when its own fall statement and the estimates that have already been voted on do not require the authority for the level of borrowing that is contained in this bill.

If the Liberal government, or indeed a future government, needs to increase the national debt to $1.8 trillion, then that should be left for a future debate in this Parliament or a future Parliament. In the meantime, I urge the government to focus on establishing a coherent COVID policy, one that would result in a vaccinated population, a reopened economy and a full employment workforce fuelled by private investment into Canada's economy, unshackled by job-killing regulations.

We must return to an employment-based economy as soon as possible. While there are items in this bill that would help some Canadians cope with the difficult circumstances of the present, I urge the government to get serious about giving Canadians more hope for the future, especially for those small businesses that have consistently fallen through the cracks of the government's aid measures.

With that, I look forward to questions from the floor.

[Mark Scholz]

I think there are a lot of unknowns right now. I would just give you the example of Bill C-69. When you talk about the pipeline infrastructure that's desperately needed in Canada and will continue to be needed here, I just have to recall what Chris Bloomer, the president and CEO of the Canadian Energy Pipeline Association, said. He and his association say that don't really see a proponent that would be willing to go through the process under Bill C-69 to actually see another pipeline get built here in Canada. I'm not a pipeline expert; I'm looking at other sources that would indicate to me that Bill C-69 in many ways is broken from an industry perspective.

I think the industry worked really hard trying to provide some amendments that would make the bill it workable. We weren't successful in that. I do think that Bill C-69 is still problematic. There are still a lot of unknowns with the clean fuel standards and how they ultimately are going to be implemented.

I think that at the end of the day, when I say that we want some certainty as to what the goalposts look like, it really means, what is the regulatory framework that we're going to be operating in? I think we need industry and government to really work hand-in-hand to ensure that when we have these emission objectives, we're not going to throw the baby out with the bath water, but are actually going to work with these industries that are ultimately going to help us achieve some of those long-term, aspirational goals.

Broadcasting Act

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Madam Speaker, to the latter point by the hon. member, we have seen that a lot of the legislation introduced in this place really has had that power consolidated through the executive branch of government. I look to some of the environmental bills that we have dealt with in the past, such as Bill C-48 and Bill C-69, for example, where the minister has the ultimate say. The power is not distributed among Parliament or even within the government, but within the executive branch. I am not surprised by that assertion, quite frankly, given the history of this government.

Secondly, the example in P.E.I. speaks to the insatiable appetite that people have for news, not just national or international news, but local news as well. It is not surprising to me when people push back as they did in P.E.I. They are seeking the truth as well.

[Kim Moody]

The continuation of the wage subsidy and rental subsidy will certainly help, but non-budgetary matters, such as quickly approving resource projects and accelerating permitting time for construction projects would greatly assist the acceleration of employment.

From the perspective of my home province of Alberta, it's my belief that Bills C-48 and C-69 should be repealed, which would go a long way to restoring foreign investor confidence back in our oil and gas sector.

Finally, as many presenters have told you in the past, this country needs comprehensive tax review and reform. Yes, I know, many of you are tired of hearing this. Your committee has recommended this very thing and so has the Senate. Perhaps there is something to all the smart people that have appeared before you. Perhaps certain academics, bureaucrats and parliamentarians who think that comprehensive tax review is not necessary or that Canadians are not ready for such a review are simply wrong. Just maybe....

In my view, Canadians are ready, ready for real and refreshing change for the better, ready for positive change to assist our taxing statutes to get ready for the next generation. Forget the cries for patchwork quilt fixes. In addition, ignore the calls by some who want significant change, such as the addition of a wealth tax, without comprehensive review and reform.

Any big changes should only be made after a well-represented panel of tax experts, economists, academics, public policy experts and other stakeholders conduct a thorough and well-represented review of our current system and recommend a new system for our future, a bigger and better future.

Thank you. I'd be happy to answer any questions.

Natural Resources

[Matt Jeneroux, Conservative, Edmonton Riverbend, AB]

Madam Speaker, since I came here in 2015, the government has waged a full-fledged attack on my home province of Alberta. It began with flippant statements by the Prime Minister even before he was elected as the Prime Minister. I remember when he forgot to mention Alberta on Canada Day. There is the carbon tax, Bill C-48 and Bill C-69. These are all attacks on Alberta.

We are now seeing the new clean fuel standard, which is once again a full-fledged, frontal attack by the Liberals on what the energy sector is all about. I have some statistics: 30,000 jobs nationally and approximately 20 billion dollars' worth of capital will leave Canada if we put in the clean fuel standard.

Yesterday at committee, I had the opportunity to ask the minister about the CFS. He told me not to worry, as the government is diversifying the economy, and that Alberta should be thankful for the new standard being put in place. Nothing could be further from the truth.

About a month ago, Alberta released a brand new recycling hub idea to recycle plastics in the province. Not even 24 hours later, the government labelled plastic a toxic substance. What will that do to the energy sector and Alberta as a whole? It attacks the workers and the jobs in that sector. At the end of the day, vehicles are largely made of plastic, as are the pipes that go into the ground. This is yet another unfortunate piling on by the government.

We have seen the government add red tape and cause constant delays in approval processes. When I got here in 2015, I could not have imagined the extent to which the current government, the Prime Minister and the ministers have gone on to attack my province.

Thankfully, we were able to change the provincial government. Unfortunately, we had a Notley NDP government there for a full four years, which added more burden to the energy sector. We still have yet to get rid of the federal government.

Issues have now been going on for five years. Why does the government continually insist on implementing policies that hurt Albertans?

Employment

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the 591 families do not want CERB, they want jobs. Four jobs are created in Regina for every one job at Evraz. This is devastating for Regina’s local economy and is a direct result of anti-energy bills, Bill C-48 and Bill C-69, and the Liberals’ ever-increasing carbon tax.

These layoffs are not an unintended consequence. They are a desired outcome. The Prime Minister promised to phase out our energy sector, and apparently this is the one promise he intends to keep.

When will the government stop attacking western Canadian families?

Fall Economic Statement

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance has proven her government has no plan. Without a plan for vaccines, there can be no long-term plan for our economy. Without rapid testing in wide distribution, we have missed out on a critical medium-term tool.

The Minister of Finance, in her speech, seems to realize she is putting the economy on hold. She will say that the economy will be rebuilt once COVID is beaten. Rapid tests could help preserve the economy and the vaccine will help us beat it. The government is late and has no plan for both. Canadians should see that off the start.

This year has been a very difficult year for Canadians. We all know that. The year 2020 will be remembered as the year a global pandemic came to our shores and took the government completely by surprise despite many departments warning of it for months. It will be remembered as a year of foreclosures, rising unemployment and uncertainty. Worse, for 12,000 Canadian families, it will be remembered as a year of grief and tragedy.

This year has been hard for everyone, for people of all ages. It will be remembered as the year of the pandemic that took this government by surprise. It has been a year of shutdowns and unemployment, but, even worse, a time of sadness for nearly 2,000 Canadian families who have lost a loved one.

However, Canadians have shown courage. They have been following the guidelines and helping small businesses. They have been there for friends and family.

Through it all, Canadians have shown courage and fortitude. They have respected directives from our health authorities. However, Canadians are hurting. Canadians want their lives back. This fall economic statement shows that they cannot rely on the Liberal government to get their lives back.

Canadians are not difficult people. They have complied, followed rules and tightened their belts. They are reassuring their worried children and taking care of aged parents. To this effect, I am really glad the Liberal government and the minister took my proposal from this spring on support for parents by boosting the Canada child benefit. There it was, on page 10 of my leadership platform. I am so glad the Liberal cabinet was reading it, just as hundreds of thousands of Conservative members were. I am glad because this was a concrete proposal to help families, especially working moms juggling it all, helping families through the toughest time in our modern history.

However, we know that Canadians need more. As I said, Canadians want their lives back. They have only asked one thing from the government, one simple thing, “What is the plan?”

What is the plan for widespread use of rapid tests? What is the plan for rolling out the vaccine? When does it arrive? Who gets it first? Do we have the freezers for the -70°C vaccine? A robust portfolio in 2023 does not help us as we enter 2021.

This fall economic statement answers the question on whether there is plan, and it answers that no, there is not a plan. As the red ink on our balance sheet turns a dark crimson, we are facing a $399 billion deficit, not $400 billion. It is a bit like spending $19.99, not $20. It is only $399 billion. Canadians know that not even half of that went to the emergency programs.

The government is not providing a plan and it is not providing clarity. It is clear, having been late on rapid tests and on the border, that there is no clarity or competence.

What is their plan?

The Liberals have turned their backs on millions of Canadians, and all this government can think to say is that there will be more debt, more unemployment, no vaccines and no transparency.

Why has it taken months to deliver rapid tests? Why does the entire population not have access to them? When will we get the vaccines? Who will be vaccinated first?

Today's announcement just proves that the government is improvising. Canadians are fed up with the government's incompetence and chronically delayed responses.

This economic statement is another disappointment. Is that all the Liberals have to say to the thousands of unemployed workers left behind by the mismanagement of the government? Is that all they have to offer to Chris Rigas, owner of the Old Firehall restaurant in Niagara, who is struggling to get by because of restrictions? How does this statement help Rodney and Tina Grace, who have been working seven days a week to keep their Best Western open in Bridgewater, Nova Scotia? Of the businesses in Surrey, British Columbia, 30% still do not qualify for the wage subsidy because of red tape and rules from the government, but most of their staff qualify for the CERB benefit. Guess which decision businesses are faced with.

If the government spent half as much time meeting with real Canadians and small business owners than it spends on photo ops, it would know that workers and small business owners are asking for clarity. Canadians in a pandemic are not asking it to ban single-use plastics. They are asking for details on when the vaccine will get here, how it will be distributed, how it will preserved at -70° Celsius, how they can save their aging parents from a seniors home or hospital bed. The Prime Minister needs to get his priorities straight.

It is hard to take the government seriously when we know how this all started. We should think about how much better off Canada would have been if the Liberals had not shut down the pandemic early warning system. They did that in 2019, without any consultation with scientists or opposition parties in Parliament.

For 20 years, Canada had the world's leading pandemic early warning detection unit. It helped stem the advance of H1N1 and Ebola. In other parts of the world, Canadians were helping to protect others. However, the government's incompetence led to that department not helping Canadians. The government preferred to shut that down and rely on open-source data from China rather than intelligence work gathered by Canadian experts. As a result, we had zero warning of the incoming pandemic. In many ways, the Liberal government took the batteries out of our smoke detector.

The Liberal government closed the borders two months too late. It flip-flopped on the risk of transmission between individuals and mask wearing measures.

The Conservatives were good sports. We tried to work with the government as much as possible. We tried to improve its erratic response. Above all, we were there to help workers who really needed it. We voted in favour of emergency measures and programs to help them.

The Prime Minister's idea of leadership was to tell people to apply for the CERB instead of helping workers keep their jobs. He really must live in an ivory tower if he thinks that Canadians like that solution. People want to work, not wait around for government cheques.

The truth is that the economic response by the Liberals has been erratic and confused at every step. We wonder why the Liberal government underspent on its own estimates for the wage subsidy by tens of billions of dollars, while overspending on the CERB by tens of millions of dollars. It did not have a plan to preserve the economy amid the storm of the pandemic. Millions more Canadians were put on the CERB than necessary when their jobs could have been maintained easily through an effective and swift wage subsidy.

This approach perfectly illustrates the difference between the Liberal Party and the Conservative Party. The Liberals believe that Ottawa has all the answers and has to give orders. We believe that the best solutions come when Ottawa works with the people on the ground. We want to work with partners, not a paternalist like the Prime Minister.

If only the Liberals had a clear plan. What we are hearing today is a government in panic mode that wants money to hide its incompetence. That is unacceptable. Canadians deserve better.

From my experience in the military and in business, I know one has to learn from setbacks and failures. We must strive for excellence in what we do and promote an approach of continuous improvement. Teams do that, businesses do that and charities do that; why does the Liberal government not do that? It has not even learned from what it got wrong or slow in the first wave of the pandemic. We were last in line on rapid tests, and now we are virtually last in line for vaccines. Countries with populations of about 2.7 billion will be seeing the vaccine before Canadians, many this year, and we cannot even get answers from the government on whether we have the logistics to receive it.

The job of government in a crisis is to provide certainty and confidence in citizens who are worried. We must provide a plan, clarity, stability and competence for those who rely on us. The upheaval we are seeing in our country lately is in large part because of the misguided measures of the government. It was late on the border, late with programs, late with rapid tests and now late with vaccines. While the Prime Minister prefers to compare himself to the worst student in the class, when it comes to the spread of COVID-19, I want Canada to strive to be the best. That is what Canadians expect. Unfortunately, we are far from that right now, after the ongoing rapid test debacle, and this week Canadians are learning. Even today, the minister, in response to her speech, will not let us know which month next year vaccines will first start arriving. The government had the duty to learn from its errors in the first wave, but, instead of that, it has failed to provide vaccines for Canadians at the same time we will be seeing vaccines roll out with all our allies.

The Prime Minister has played the victim card; he has said his government was helpless and that Canada did not have the capability to manufacture vaccines. Not only is that complete rubbish, in the words of a leading scientist at the University of Ottawa, it is complete political spin, and it also does not explain why millions of people from Indonesia to Brazil will be receiving the vaccine before Canada will be. Again, the truth is that the Liberal government was slow to respond, and it made a critical, and sadly in some cases fatal, error to put all its eggs in a basket with China. Since the CanSino deal fell apart in August, the government has been scrambling to catch up, and it does not want anyone to know that it is months behind other countries. As I said earlier, countries with 2.7 billion people will be served before Canada. This means we are near the back of the line.

While Americans are talking about mass vaccination throughout all of January, our government is only speculating about getting part of our population vaccinated by September. That means 10 extra months of health risks for Canadians, business closures and economic uncertainty. Canadians want their lives back. The Minister of Health talks a great deal about the whole of government effort and the robust portfolio, but there is only one way to describe the performance of the government when it comes to vaccines: incompetent. Canadians, in the midst of the second wave, would rather have one dose of the vaccine in the next month than the largest portfolio 18 months from now.

This Liberal government does not inspire confidence, whether because it paid $370 million for medical gowns from a company with almost no experience or because it gave its friend Frank Baylis a $237-million contract for ventilators. The WE Charity scandal showed that friends of the Liberals were trying to profit off a pandemic. At a time when public confidence is so important, the Liberals are continuing to use their donor list to select future judges. It is one scandal after another.

“Uncertainty”, “lack of focus”, “massive spending”, “special treatment for friends” and “out of touch with the reality of Canadians” are the only ways to describe this government. The damage is real. Millions of people no longer trust the Liberals and know that they have been forgotten.

This should not come as a surprise. The Canadian economy was already showing serious signs of weakness before the pandemic hit. Ignoring the Conservative warnings, the Liberals took pride in running large structural deficits and raising taxes in good economic times, and in ideological policies opposed by the entire country, like Bill C-69. Tanker bans, pipeline cancellations, bad trade deals and the inability to negotiate tariff avoidance have resulted in $160 billion leaving Canada before the pandemic.

Within two weeks of one another, a great Canadian company, Teck, cancelled a $60-billion project for our GDP out west and the world's most famous investor, Warren Buffet, pulled out billions from a project in the east. There were already signs being sent by the Prime Minister that Canada was not open to job creation or investment at a time we need it. It will take a change in government to change that sign for the world. British Columbia has seen half a dozen sawmills close and the aluminum smelter in Kitimat, one of the greenest operations of its kind in the world, were left out to dry in both NAFTA and aluminum tariffs.

Canada was already at a crossroads under the Liberals before the pandemic and they are setting this country up, for the first time in our history, to pass on to our children a country with less opportunity and more division. However, it does not have to be that way and I want to prove it.

The middle-class values that myself and many of my colleagues were raised with, mine in Bowmanville, Ontario, taught me to work hard, help my neighbours and strive to be the best I could be. I was taught to learn from setbacks, never to accept failure, to pick myself up, dust myself off and get better. This led me to serve 12 years in the Canadian Armed Forces, alongside some of the most exceptional Canadian citizens around. It also led me to respect the value of hard work and perseverance and the nobility in work itself.

My first job was as a dishwasher and a short-order cook in high school and my last job before the military was with TransCanada, inspecting pipelines back at a time before the current government when that company was still proud to have Canada in its name. I respect people, and my colleagues do, who work hard to provide for their families, whether they are uniformed and unionized plant workers or entrepreneurs, whether they work the night shift in Mississauga, Ontario, or get up at 5 a.m. to open their small businesses in Cape Breton, Nova Scotia.

There is a nobility in that act of discipline, perseverance and working hard for one's family. We cannot lose that in this country. Conservatives will fight hard to ensure that we never lose touch of that fundamental value upon which Canadian society has been built.

I believe it is my duty to be a partner to the provinces and the first nations. I will be a champion for small businesses and non-profit organizations. I believe in the tremendous potential of Canadian energy, softwood lumber and minerals. Canada produces the most ethical and environmentally friendly energy in the world, and we want to work more closely with the first nations to develop that energy.

Reconciliation needs to be about more than just fine words. We need to do more than just look at the mistakes of the past. We need a real plan for the future, a plan that instills pride in communities that are all too often forgotten and brings them sustainable wealth. The James Bay Cree and the Huron-Wendat in Quebec are an example to all of Canada.

We need to get this country working again. Hard work emboldens the soul and builds a nation. Hard work helps families. Those families build communities and make us proud to be Canadian.

Let us just think of Jacqueline and Barbara's 7Rooms Home Décor & Gifts in Ocean Park, British Columbia. They bought the store just before COVID. It has been extra tough for businesses like that, but Jacqueline and Barbara persevered, worked harder, rebranded and they recently reopened. Congratulations to Jacqueline and Barbara. That is the Canadian spirit. They do not want more debt saddling the next generation. They just want an opportunity. They could have packed it in, but they did not. They stayed open, they adapted, they persevered.

When I questioned the Minister of Finance in the House on behalf of energy workers in Alberta, she boasted about how many people she had put on the CERB in that province. Albertans especially, but Canadians do not want the CERB. They want the ability to get their lives back and to get back to work. They want a government that helps them build their livelihood in their communities, rather than pushing them to close shop and move away. It comes down to a clash of vision between the somewhere and the anywhere: those who love their trade, their pursuit, and are loyal to local businesses versus those whom the government wants to flock to a trendy job that is no way connected to the community or the betterment of our country.

While this Prime Minister seems to think that every Canadian can simply work on their laptop from the local café, that is not reality nor is it what Canadians want. Conservatives are here to fight for those who build things in Canada, those who get their hands dirty and take pride in doing a job well before they come home for the night. Whether they are pulling resources out of the ground, in Canada, or pulling resources out of their brain, educated in Canada, we need to applaud and help them do that. That is why we were hoping for a plan for rapid tests and for a vaccine. Unlike the finance minister, I do not want the economy to crash and be rebuilt after the pandemic; I want to save it and make sure it is stronger after the pandemic.

We are here for the manufacturers, the aluminum and steel industry, the small business owners and the first-generation Canadian who started a business and now hires and employs seven other families. We are here for the farmers and the commercial fishermen. We are here for the indigenous entrepreneur and the working moms and dads juggling child care and the ability to get on the GO train to go into work in the city. We are here for those Canadians who want their lives back, who want the ability to work hard and want the ability to pass on to their children a Canada that is limitless in its potential. They deserve a government with a vision like that, not a government that is late at every step in the worst year in our modern history.

Canadian workers deserve a government that fights for them, a government that is not obsessed with the idea of pushing our industries to make a transition in the midst of a pandemic, a government that is patriotic and is not afraid to fight on the world stage for quick access to vaccines, a government that knows that Canada has an identity and a history we can be proud of.

This crisis and the rebuilding from it will take grit. It will take determination, perseverance and bold decisions, but, most important, it will take a plan to chart our course forward. That is why it is so disappointing. After a record period without a budget, there is a stealth budget introduced today with no plan.

COVID has set us back, but COVID will not stop us with the right ideas, with principled, ethical leaders who understand the value of a job, whether it someone's first job out of school or their last job before retirement, and with a government that will put the prosperity of all Canadians ahead of the special interests of a select few.

If we have a government like this, Canada will emerge from COVID-19 stronger, richer and more determined than ever before. That is my mission. That is the mission of my colleagues with me here today and that must be our country's mission. That is why I am so disappointed with the finance minister's update today. There is no vision. There is no expression of values, including the value inherent in working Canadians.

The lack of a plan to address the most critical issues facing our country, in one of the most challenging years in our country's history, will only fuel the fears and uncertainties facing Canadian families across this great country.

Now is not the time for experiments. Now is the time for experience. Now is not the time for building back with slogans. Now is the time we show we have our citizens' backs. We need to have a plan for the challenges we face today so that our children will have the same opportunities we did, tomorrow.

Aeronautics Act

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the Bloc Québécois member. I am sure he worked hard to draft and introduce Bill C-225.

We should ask ourselves two very important things every time we look at a piece of legislation at this point in history. First, this is a time to come together as one nation. When we review legislation, we have to consider whether the legislation promotes the good of Canada. Second, and this is very important with the fall economic statement coming out later today, this is a time to build the economy.

Every time we review a piece of legislation in the House we should be asking if it brings Canada together and if it will further Canada's economy. This is not just because of the fall economic statement, but as we emerge from the pandemic and start to consider how we will do vaccine procurement and distribution, we have to think about these things.

I want to go over Bill C-225 briefly for those listening who may not be aware of what it proposes.

The bill would amend six federal acts. It would change legislation regarding land use and development and environmental protection. The Bloc is very motivated to put forward this legislation for two reasons. First, the Supreme Court sided with the federal government in numerous court cases where federal jurisdiction overrode provincial jurisdiction. The Bloc is looking for more provincial power. Second, several of these cases actually originated in the Province of Quebec. For these two reasons, Bloc members are very motivated to change this legislation.

In my observation, Conservatives are concerned because of potential jurisdictional disputes. We think that more cases would have to go before the courts. It is not good to tie up the courts because of discrepancies between two pieces of legislation or determining which one takes precedence in which situation.

As well, we are very concerned that some sections of the bill could be considered unconstitutional. It is surprising to me that the Bloc would put something forward that would be deemed unconstitutional, considering how hard the party fights for the principle of the two founding peoples of the nation and, in particular, the province of Quebec. However, I would say how good both my leader and my colleagues from Quebec have been regarding the modernization of the Official Languages Act. I had the pleasure of sitting on the official languages committee for a brief period of time. When it comes to the Constitution, I would expect the Bloc to consider it.

For those who are not aware, my leader was on Tout le monde en parle yesterday. If members did not have an opportunity to see him, I would suggest they watch it.

Going back to my main points, it is time to come together as a nation and build the economy.

There are concerns that the bill before us could have negative economic implications, as it may deter private investment and infrastructure projects because of additional red tape. Provinces could amend their legislation on land use and environmental protection to block federal projects. Also, and this is very relevant to me as a member of Parliament from Alberta, the bill could block federal economic development projects, such as the Trans Mountain pipeline or other infrastructure projects.

In a time when we are looking to come out of the pandemic united, we really need to think about legislation that will be nation-building. I would certainly count on my colleagues from Quebec to support infrastructure projects all across Canada, as I would, as a member of Parliament from Alberta, support any projects that are in the national interest of Canada. I think it is very important that we all take this into consideration as parliamentarians for Canada. We really have to think about the effects of legislation such as Bill C-69 and Bill C-48 and the way they so negatively impacted the natural resources sector here in Alberta.

People have to put themselves in other people's shoes. If legislation such as this bill were to come across that another province could potentially have the possibility to impact an infrastructure project that would be of benefit to Quebec, I do not think that they would like to see that any more than we do, as members of Parliament from Alberta who see the potential of this happening to us. More importantly, at this time, I think we really have to question what legislation like this would do.

This is the time to build this economy. This bill would create more insecurity around investment in Canada at this time. I will hand it to the Prime Minister and his cabinet, who have done a masterful job of driving away investment from Alberta, the Prairies and the entire energy sector to the detriment of Canada. We are all suffering as we come out of this pandemic with the trillion-dollar debt that we have in front of us; the hundreds of billions of dollars of deficit that we have. We really need to come together as a nation to think about how we are economically going to respond to this. The Prime Minister and his cabinet just do not seem to get that when one part of the nation benefits, the entire nation benefits. I would ask my Bloc colleague to consider this at this time as well.

With that, I ask Canadians to really listen to the fall economic statement today. I really hope we do not see what we saw in the Speech from the Throne, which was a complete disappointment with more poor ideas based upon ideology as opposed to real, solid ideas to build the economy going forward. That is what I am expecting more of today.

When Canadians are listening to the fall economic statement today, I want them to ask themselves three questions:

Number one, will this improve the economy? Listen to what they are saying. Will it improve the economy for Canada? Goodness knows, we need that coming out of this pandemic.

Number two, will this protect my job if I have a job? Is there anything in the fall economic statement to protect my job? I am in a place where I have seen so many people lose their jobs. There is another round of layoffs coming from a major employer, Imperial, this week here in Alberta. It is terrible to hear about. Again, I completely blame the Liberal government for this, for its investment-destroying legislation. I do believe this bill will add to that.

Number three, will this fall economic statement create more jobs?

Will this improve the economy? Will this protect my job? Will this create more jobs? Those are the three things that Canadians have to be asking themselves. At the end of the day, I believe that Canadians have to ask their parliamentarian and government if they are taking actions and passing legislation to support the country and economy or taking actions and passing legislation that is destroying the economy, which is essentially destroying Canada. That is what is happening bit by bit.

This is the time to come together as a nation. This is the time to build the economy. The Liberal government has not done this and Bill C-225 does not do this either.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to speak to Bill C-225. The bill touches upon intergovernmental relations, federalism and the paramountcy principle: matters that have been debated in both Houses of Parliament on a wide range of subjects. In essence, this bill seeks to subordinate the exercise of federal power in certain areas of provincial law and to allow provincial governments to impose restrictions on environmental protection activities and land use for projects the federal government undertakes across the country.

These same topics came up when this bill was discussed in the House on June 19, 2018, when Bill C-392 proposed similar amendments during the last Parliament. At the time, Bill C-392 sought to strengthen environmental protection and scrutiny of land use. Since then, Bill C-69, introduced by this government, positively strengthened consultation mechanisms and consideration of the environmental impact of projects under federal jurisdiction.

I congratulate the hon. member for his initiative to heighten the consideration given to land use and development, as well as to environmental protection, when projects and activities under federal jurisdiction are being considered. The government is also invested in protecting Canada's environment, and in ensuring effective consultation that accounts for local concerns related to land use and development and the environment. Canadians should know that all levels of government work in the interests of their well-being.

Every day, millions of Canadians go about their lives in an orderly and predictable way. They routinely use safe roads, drink clean water, consume food free of contaminants, rely on safe transportation systems and know that their safety and security are guarded by police, fire departments, paramedics and military personnel. Even today, while the world is facing COVID-19, Canadians can count on federal, provincial and municipal governments to continue to collaborate until the end of this challenging time so they can maintain as many of their routines as possible.

Our society depends on laws and rules to function, and each level of government is responsible for those things that fall into its jurisdiction. Education, building codes and highways, for example, are primarily provincial responsibilities. Matters such as defence, aeronautics and radio communications, for example, extend beyond provincial borders and impact the country as a whole. In these areas, it falls to the federal government to implement a nationally consistent approach that serves Canada and its people.

Over the last several years, the Liberal government has sought to promote co-operative federalism as a way to face challenges concerning more than one level of government. As we all know, there are many issues that transcend municipal and provincial boundaries, and many others where the federal government may be unaware of a local concern. For this reason, taking a co-operative approach achieves the best possible outcome for Canadians. With a country as large and diverse as Canada, we must all act in good faith and work together to achieve the best possible results for our economy and our environment.

There have been, and will continue to be, times when differences arise despite our best efforts to work together. However, there are already numerous federal statutes, particularly those implicated in Bill C-225, and regulations that accommodate provincial laws concerning land use and development and environmental protection. Efforts are ongoing to encourage co-operative federalism in ways that do not restrict core federal operation.

In order to build on its desire for co-operative federalism, the Liberal government demonstrated its commitment to consulting Canadians when it introduced Bill C-69, which strengthens Canada's environmental assessments and regulatory reviews through legislative changes and amendments. This bill explicitly reflects the consideration of environmental, social, safety, health and socio-economic issues, including gender-based impacts and economics as well as impacts on indigenous peoples. Bill C-69 also includes several provisions that enhance public participation and transparency, which provides members of the public with an opportunity to express their views during the review process.

The changes we made in Bill C-69 exceed the amendments proposed in Bill C-225. As we know, the division of powers in Canada is defined by the Constitution Act, but we also know that the division presents some ambiguity.

There are many areas and many issues where interests cross jurisdictional lines. Two or even three levels of government have stakes in issues such as the environment, health, safety and employment. Our different levels of government need to work together to discuss problems, develop strategies, leverage resources and find solutions.

To reinforce the importance of collaboration, the Supreme Court of Canada encourages all levels of government to work co-operatively. In recent decisions, the Court has indicated that provincial and municipal legislation cannot impair core matters of federal jurisdiction over aeronautics or radio communication infrastructure.

In addition, where possible, it prefers to allow valid provincial laws to apply, if they are not in conflict. While these decisions quite clearly establish federal authority on matters such as aerodromes and cellphone towers, the federal government does not rely on court decisions to impose projects on Canadian communities. Instead, it chooses to use processes for consultation, and the consideration of environmental laws and land use, to ensure that local concerns are taken into consideration regarding activities and projects that fall under federal jurisdiction. A division of powers is essential to maintaining order and predictability in our society and ensures that we avoid the scenario of too many leaders in one situation, or a leadership void when no one wants to take responsibility in another. In Canada, all jurisdictions must work together on certain issues to promote and protect the interests of all Canadians. Even when we agree to work together, we must still respect jurisdictional boundaries.

I would like to provide the House with examples of three areas of federal jurisdiction in which a co-operative approach and consultations play an essential role. First, in January of 2017, following a regulatory consultation process, Transport Canada implemented a new regulation requiring proponents of certain aerodrome projects to consult with the municipalities, citizens or other concerned stakeholders before starting work, so that local concerns could be identified and mitigated. I add that many of these projects do not move forward if there are serious doubts expressed regarding the quality of the consultations carried out by their proponents, or if these projects are deemed not to be in the public interest.

Another example under the Canada Marine Act is that there currently exist provisions for the Governor in Council to make regulations situated on a port, whether a Canadian port authority or public port facility, or on use of the seaway and its property. These provisions include development, use and environmental protections that incorporate provincial legislation by reference.

My third and final example is the Canada Infrastructure Bank, which acts as a partner in delivering federal support to infrastructure projects in the public interest alongside co-investment by the private sector, institutional investors and sponsoring governments. Projects supported by the infrastructure bank must respect all applicable laws in their relevant jurisdictions, including any applicable environmental or labour laws. Project sponsors provide assurance to the bank and other investors that applicable laws in a province have been respected.

These three specific examples were chosen because these initiatives all require consultation and consideration of local issues related to land use and the environment. These would be taken away from the very acts the private member's bill seeks to amend. There are countless other examples, in the same act and elsewhere, that demonstrate the government's commitment to hearing the concerns of Canadians, and advancing the health, safety and economic well-being of our citizens and the stewardship of our natural resources, such as our forests and waters. These duties are the responsibility of all governments, whether municipal, federal or provincial. Our best successes occur when we come together, listen to one another and work together to support policy development, new programs and effective enforcement that serves all Canadians. We have every intention of continuing to listen to and work with other levels of government.

The federal government has worked effectively with provinces, territories and municipalities over many years in response to the requirements of the communities they serve and to the needs of the country as a whole. Like our provincial and municipal partners, we take that responsibility very seriously. The Liberal government will continue to prioritize co-operative federalism and consultation with its citizens. Bill C-225 would represent a major shift in federal-provincial dynamics in Canada and would undermine the co-operative federal relationship we worked so hard to establish.

It is for these reasons the government strongly opposes Bill C-225.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

moved that Bill C-225, An Act to amend the Aeronautics Act, the Fishing and Recreational Harbours Act and other Acts (application of provincial law), be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity this morning to talk to all my colleagues about Bill C-225, especially since this bill was introduced back in 2018 as Bill C-392 by my party's passionate environmental advocate, the charming member for Repentigny. This Bill C-225 is virtually the same as that one.

I will get into more of the details a little later, but first I would like to point out what the bill might represent. It fits perfectly with my political goals, since it implies more political autonomy for Quebec. Everyone seems to be aware of the path towards self-government that Quebec has taken.

We can go back as far as Jean Lesage's famous slogan “Maîtres chez nous”, when environmental matters were perhaps not as urgent as they are today. As for Lesage, he went even further than that slogan.

I remember the early days of what was known as the Quiet Revolution, when Lesage came up with the wonderful phrase, “the Quebec state as the primary instrument for the collective emancipation of Quebeckers”. That phrase, which is also quite famous, means that what we want, perhaps above all else, is to give political substance to the Quebec nation, and I think this can only be achieved through self-government.

We know that when the federal government takes action in areas of federal legislative jurisdiction, Quebec and the provinces cannot force it to respect their laws. In our Constitution, there is a type of hierarchy and we know that federal legislation subordinates provincial legislation.

In the meantime, federal Parliament can impose strict parameters on governments in the application of the legislation it passes. If federal legislation required compliance with Quebec law and provincial law, the federal government could no longer authorize plans that violate those laws. This circumvention strategy may be the purpose of Bill C-225, which would amend seven federal statutes.

Bill C-225 would amend the Aeronautics Act, which governs airports, and the Fishing and Recreational Harbours Act, which governs wharves and harbours for small watercraft. The bill also amends the National Capital Act, which governs the activities of the National Capital Commission in Ottawa and the Outaouais, and the Broadcasting Act, which governs telecommunications infrastructure, including cellular antennas.

The other laws that this bill amends include the Federal Real Property and Federal Immovables Act, which governs all federal properties; the Canada Marine Act, which, as we all know, governs ports; and the Canada Infrastructure Bank Act, which governs projects carried out through the bank. Such projects currently benefit from a form of federal immunity from provincial laws and municipal bylaws.

By passing Bill C-225, Parliament would force the federal government to ensure that it is respecting provincial laws and municipal bylaws before authorizing an activity or infrastructure project, so I believe that this bill is in keeping with Quebec's pursuit of self-government.

What would the impact of this bill be? If this bill passes, Quebec laws governing environmental protection and land management would apply to the entire province of Quebec. At the beginning of my speech, I mentioned Jean Lesage. In my opinion, this bill would be a way for Quebec to be the master of its own house when it comes to the environment.

The privileges of an airport developer would therefore cease to take precedence over the provisions of the Quebec Act Respecting the Preservation of Agricultural Land and Agricultural Activities or the municipal bylaws. Telecommunications companies would have to come to an agreement with the municipalities and respect the wishes of local residents when putting up their towers and antennas. Major federal infrastructure projects and any other similar projects would be subject to the assessment process of the Bureau d'audiences publiques sur l'environnement du Québec. As a result, these projects would have to be given a certificate of authorization from the Government of Quebec before they could go forward.

Along the same lines, federal government property, including large tracts of the Gatineau urban area that belong to the National Capital Commission, will have to comply with development plans and municipal regulations adopted by local authorities.

In addition to providing better environmental protection and more cohesive land development, the bill will establish legal certainty in areas marked by numerous judicial disputes related to shared jurisdictions. By approving a project that contravenes a provincial law, the federal minister would be contravening a federal law. This would resolve the issue of conflicting jurisdictions once and for all.

We all know the Canadian constitutional context. Constitutionally, Quebec land belongs to Quebeckers. Its occupation, use, development and protection fall primarily under the laws and regulations of Quebec and its municipalities. The British North America Act of 1867, however, distributed legislative powers between the provinces and the federal government, which gives to Ottawa many powers that cover the environment and land.

The British North America Act was signed in 1867, at a time when telecommunications, for example, did not exist. As a result, anything that was not named directly in this legislation now falls under federal jurisdiction. Telecommunications are part of that. Other examples are navigation, wharves and ports. I could also mention public property, such as land and buildings that belong to Ottawa, as well as interprovincial transportation, including transportation infrastructure, such as pipelines.

This topic came up quite often during the last election campaign. Our Conservative colleagues had the unfortunate idea of developing an energy corridor that would have seen a pipeline built across Quebec. Judging by my colleagues' quick reaction and raised eyebrows, I can see that they are not happy about that comment, but this bill could provide a framework for similar excesses at the federal level. This is something that can be discussed later.

The Constitution does not classify environmental protection as a jurisdiction in itself. Either provincial or federal laws will apply, depending on the project. If a project is under the exclusive jurisdiction of the federal government, the provincial laws will only be enforced if they do not prevent Ottawa from exercising its own powers. There are all kinds of examples in our past that demonstrate why this bill is necessary.

For instance, Quebec or a municipality could probably adopt regulations or bylaws allowing cell towers to be painted green. That would be entirely possible, and the courts would accept it. Conversely, any laws or regulations made regarding the location of towers would be struck down, which has happened on several occasions.

What does this actually mean? It means that a provincial government's power to act is significantly reduced by the federal government's power. Just between us, I do not think the colour of a telecommunications tower really matters, but where it is located is critical, and Quebec does not have the power to decide that.

As folks will see, I am a good sport. During the 2015 election campaign, which brought the Liberal Party to power, their party platform promised to ensure that projects have social licence. The term “social licence” is on everyone's lips these days. In 2015, the Liberal Party said that social licence should be a priority for projects to be accepted and authorized.

I take no pleasure in this, but I will quote from the 2015 Liberal Party platform: “While governments grant permits for resource development, only communities can grant permission.” Being a charitable man, I thought to myself, why not support my Liberal colleagues so they can fulfill one of the election promises they made in 2015?

I do so purely out of the goodness of my heart. We in Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean are good people. Out of the goodness of my heart, I am willing to do this for my Liberal colleagues.

We live in a democracy. Our laws and regulations are passed by the representatives of the people and reflect a certain social licence. Bill C-225 will help deliver on a Liberal election promise, in a sense.

I gave some examples earlier illustrating how the federal government's prerogative over Quebec's environmental laws can sometimes lead to unfortunate circumstances. We can come back to that.

Over the years, we have adopted several laws, regulations and institutions that have helped us protect our land and ensure its harmonious use. Examples include Quebec's environmental protection legislation, the Act Respecting the Preservation of Agricultural Land and Agricultural Activities, and the Act Respecting Land Use Planning and Development, which governs development plans and zoning regulations, as well as the Government of Quebec's mechanism for ensuring social licence, the BAPE, our bureau of environmental public hearings. However, certain activities and infrastructure are only partly covered by our laws, because they fall under federal jurisdiction. Wharves, harbours, airports and telecommunications infrastructure, as I was saying earlier, are all federal property.

In these cases, even though Quebec laws and municipal bylaws are not completely squeezed out, they can apply only if they do not have a substantive effect on the activity that is the federal government's responsibility. Earlier I was talking about certain cases. In 2010, the Supreme Court ruled that the Act Respecting the Preservation of Agricultural Land and Agricultural Activities could not protect a parcel of agricultural land from a developer who wanted to turn it into an airport.

There was a similar case in 2016, when Rogers appealed to the Supreme Court to strike down Châteauguay's bylaw regulating the proliferation of cell towers. Also in 2016, the Quebec Superior Court ruled that a private business, IMTT-Québec Inc., which was blanketing the Limoilou neighbourhood of Quebec City with red dust, was exempt from Quebec's Environment Quality Act because the business was located on Port of Quebec land, which is under federal jurisdiction. That makes absolutely no sense.

The Alberta company behind the whole energy east saga did not feel that its ridiculous plan to build a pipeline across Quebec had to comply with Quebec laws. This piecemeal enforcement of Quebec's laws and regulations is an affront to democracy. These laws were passed by the Quebec National Assembly, which represents all Quebeckers, and these regulations were duly adopted by the representatives of the people. Furthermore, this arrangement deprives residents of the ability to make decisions about their own land. Earlier I mentioned the famous slogan “Maîtres chez nous”.

Some have pointed out that the bill does not mention municipalities, but they are included indirectly. Constitutionally, there are two levels of government: federal and provincial. Municipalities, which are not part of the constitution, are included by virtue of Government of Quebec legislation.

I am going to pick up the pace here and just say that Bill C-225 has a lot of support. Let me go back to my colleague's Bill C-392, which is essentially a copy of what is before us today. At the time, my colleague from Repentigny had the support of twenty or so municipalities whose bylaws applied to federal projects within their city limits, including airports, ports and telecommunications infrastructure. The City of Gatineau also supported the bill because it wanted the National Capital Commission to stop acting like a separate enclave outside the City's purview. The Union des producteurs agricoles wrote to all Quebec MPs, asking them to support the bill and ensure that the Act Respecting the Preservation of Agricultural Land and Agricultural Activities applies at all times.

Quebec's three major unions also supported the bill, as did the Quebec Environmental Law Centre. The Government of Quebec is constantly lobbying for Quebec's land use and environmental laws to apply to federal projects. When Bill C-69 was before the House, the intergovernmental affairs minister, Jean-Marc Fournier—a confirmed sovereignist, no point in denying it—published an open letter in La Presse seeking an amendment to ensure respect for Quebec's laws and assessment processes. Bill C-225 ensures that.

Lastly, the Quebec National Assembly unanimously adopted 11 resolutions to that effect for various federal projects.

If both my Liberal and Conservative colleagues are serious when they say that they want greater recognition for Quebec, their only option is to accept this bill and vote in favour of it.

Canadian Net-Zero Emissions Accountability Act

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am going to start off with a quote from George Bernard Shaw: “We are made wise not by the recollection of our past but by the responsibility for our future.” I think that is a timely comment as we are talking about a bill that is not going to take effect until 2050.

I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-12, the important issue of climate change and how we must rise to meet the challenge of the country. I want to take this important time to point out some things about Canadian energy producers and why our industry can be a part of the solution to climate change, not a contributor to the world problem.

First off, we cannot talk about climate change without acknowledging that this is truly a global issue. The atmosphere cannot distinguish between two sides of a political border or even opposite sides of the planet. Environmental policy abroad impacts us here at home, and vice versa. When it comes to the planet, all of humanity is interconnected, whether we like it or not.

There is no question that Canada must do its part to fight climate change through increasing the use of renewable resources, employing Saskatchewan's innovative carbon capture and storage technology, expanding our use of nuclear power generation and using new technology to make our existing infrastructure greener and more efficient. I am confident that we can, should and will be leaders in the fight on climate change.

I will say once again that climate change occurs, and human activity influences this. However, our strategy must always keep the global nature of this problem in mind. Canada is not an island and cannot assume that rivals, or even allies, will follow our lead. We need to work with countries from around the world collaboratively to find ways that Canada can minimize environmental impact in the short term while investing in long-term solutions.

When we measure the total life-cycle emissions of liquefied natural gas and coal based on extraction, production, shipping and burning, liquefied natural gas burns roughly 40% cleaner than coal. If Canada were to expand its production capacity and increase LNG exports to developing countries currently using coal to bring electricity to underdeveloped regions, we would be taking a huge step forward, a concrete step in reducing emissions in the short term.

China currently has a coal-fired electrical generating capacity four times larger than the United States' and plans to increase that number by over 25% in the coming years. If only a quarter of China's coal-fired plants transitioned to liquefied natural gas, it would result in emission reductions of around 750 megatonnes per year, based on current levels. For reference, Canada's total emissions in 2019 were 729 megatonnes.

The old saying “perfect is the enemy of the good” comes to mind here. While this government repeatedly fails to meet its emissions reduction targets, our energy industry, which is a world leader in environmental sustainability, continues to be crippled by regulations like Bill C-48, Bill C-69 and the ineffective job-killing carbon tax.

Instead of leading a global strategy to reduce emissions based on research and development, technological innovation, and finding economically viable climate solutions, the Liberal government has reduced Canada's ability to compete and receive a market share with countries with zero track record when it comes to fighting global emissions.

Canada needs to strive toward energy independence, create a business environment that mobilizes green innovation in the private sector and export those green innovations around the world. Shutting down energy production in Canada would do nothing to impact the behaviour of countries whose entire economies relies on oil production. If anything, it would drive up global oil prices due to decreased supply and create even more incentive for oil production abroad.

Until we have long-term renewable energy solutions that are economically viable, natural resources such as oil and natural gas will continue to be a part of our way of life. It is not a matter of choice, but a matter of necessity. None of this is to say that it is acceptable to sit back and do nothing about this issue.

My colleagues on the other side of the aisle often scapegoat Conservatives as people who are indifferent about the environment or claim that we do not care about our children's future. Nothing could be further from the truth. We care, and we also want to work hard to bring our climate crisis under control.

We need to find solutions to these problems to guarantee the future of my three children, James, Sinclair and Nixon, alongside that of every child in Canada. We want them to grow up on a healthy planet.

We need to reduce global emissions to avoid reaching the point of no return. I also know that Canada cannot sabotage our own industries as the rest of the world sits back. We cannot be the only country making drastic changes to our energy production capacity, and we cannot assume that we are setting an example for others. Currently, I cannot think of a single country that is looking to emulate Canada's emission reduction strategy and hamper its own ability to grow its economy.

If Canada wants to be a world leader in the fight against climate change, what we do to change our share of global emissions is not enough. We must invest in economically viable green energy solutions that we can export to the rest of the world. Canada has been behind countless green energy innovations. We have been an examples to the world.

One source of Canada's climate innovation is the careful management of our vast boreal forest spread across the country. Canada's network of forests is massive at over 347 million hectors, or 9% of the world's total forest area. Canadians continue to plant hundreds of millions of trees every year without the help of the federal government.

Canada's forest industry alone plants an additional 600 million trees every year, making its commercial activities sustainable for generations to come. Canadian energy companies are doing their part as well. Syncrude has planted 11 million trees, Suncor has planted 8.9 million trees, and the faster forests initiative has planted over five million trees, just to name a few.

Using forests as a natural climate solution is about keeping thriving forest ecosystems alive. Around 70% of carbon in the forest is stored within soil and debris on the forest floor. I know the government has set a target to plant two billion trees, but they have planted zero. Even on Father's Day, my wife asked me to plant five trees in our backyard, so I am doing more than our federal government.

Alongside capturing and storing carbon emissions, our forests are also home to another solution: biofuels. Canada exported 498.3 million dollars' worth of wood pellets in 2019, a solid renewable biofuel that grows back and recaptures the carbon that it emits when the biomass is burned.

I also want to talk about carbon capture and storage solutions. As a Saskatchewan MP, I am proud of the innovations we have made and are leading on this technological front. As an innovator and pioneer, Saskatchewan is proud of our carbon capture. Experts agree that carbon capture and storage is a solution that simply works.

Dr. Julio Friedmann, a senior research scholar at the Center on Global Energy Policy at Columbia University, says that when industrial facilities implement variations of this solution, they see emission reductions of between 55% to 90%. About 300 million tonnes of CO2 is captured from large-scale carbon capture, utilization and storage facilities every year. The technology is effective and could lead to real world emission reductions in the short term if we embrace it. The downside is that currently 70% of this is done in North America when it should be done throughout the world.

These are just a few examples of solutions that can drive economic activity, create jobs and act as long-term investments in emissions reductions. None of them involve new taxes, energy austerity or hurt our economy. In fact, all of the solutions I have raised would create new jobs and increase economic activity, instead of dampening it.

I believe in green innovation and I believe in clean technology, but I also know that shutting down Canadian oil and gas production would do nothing to change the course of history. The only way that Canada can have a meaningful impact on this issue is the same way we changed health care forever, through the development of revolutionary technologies like insulin and pacemakers. Both of these inventions saved millions of lives around the world and would have never been possible without Canadian ingenuity and perseverance.

We can meet these ambitious targets. I have unlimited faith in the sheer intelligence and capability of Canadians, but I also know that if we are not focused on solutions, we cannot be embraced by the rest of the world. It will be too little, too late, and our contributions will be in vain. We need the rest of the world to join us in our commitment to reducing emissions.

Net-zero emissions does not mean net-zero growth in the oil and gas industry, the agricultural industry and the manufacturing industry. We need to continue to rely on those very important sectors in our community.

For every step taken, we must take into account Canada's existing obligations to provide secure energy to all of our global customers.

[Matt Jeneroux, Conservative, Edmonton Riverbend, AB]

Madam Speaker, through you to the parliamentary secretary, forgive me for consulting with my constituents on certain questions that are before the House.

Obviously my personal view is that we can certainly get to net zero, but it is working with the opposition. It is not going through with a photo op of walking across a field pretending this is something that is visionary. There is no plan here.

We are hearing over and over again in Alberta that this, on top of everything else that has already been put on us, is just so debilitating to jobs and the economy. We have already suffered through Bill C-69 and BillC-48, the clean fuel standards and now this: a plan to have a plan. Again, I want to make sure we get this right. I am more than prepared to work with the government to do that, but we need to do it and we need to it soon.

[Matt Jeneroux, Conservative, Edmonton Riverbend, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to join members from beautiful Edmonton Riverbend, albeit it is a little snowy here today.

I am pleased to participate in the debate to speak to Bill C-12. I want to start specifically by addressing how bills like this impact my home province of Alberta.

Most Canadians are aware of how tough the times have been here in Alberta over the past several years. Thousands upon thousands of jobs have been lost in the energy sector and my city of Edmonton has an unemployment rate of over 12%. Calgary is about the same. These two cities already had some of the highest unemployment rates in the country before the COVID-19 pandemic. The pandemic has made the situation even worse. Unfortunately, many businesses will not reopen and many Albertans will have no jobs to return to after the pandemic is over.

Why have times been so tough for Alberta? Federal government legislation that appeared designed to decimate the energy industry and rapidly deplete the oil and gas industry has been introduced. Bill C-69 overhauled federal environmental assessment processes for construction projects, effectively deterring investment in Alberta. Bill C-48 bars oil tankers from loading at ports in northern B.C., making it impossible to export Alberta oil to new markets. On top of all that, we suffered through a regulatory attack like no other from the Notley NDP government, which really set us back decades. Just as all this was occurring, the government announced a new clean fuel standard, which is yet another blow to Alberta.

Honestly, it will be impossible for Alberta to fully recover, with yet more regulation that makes our province unattractive to investors. Our leading-edge energy industry will not be competitive against other countries if we have so many regulations tacked on by the federal government.

To help counteract this attack, the Alberta government just launched a natural gas strategy that would see the province become a leader in hydrogen production and liquefied natural gas for export. Natural gas will be regulated under the clean fuel standard. No other jurisdiction in the world is applying this type of standard to liquefied natural gas. However, the clean fuel standard will once again exacerbate the economic depression, as reported by Canadians for Affordable Energy, which estimates this standard will cause 30,000 job losses nationally and at least $20 billion of capital will leave Canada. Alberta will disproportionately experience this loss, but all Canada will be impacted.

I agree with my colleagues across the aisle that it is well intentioned to strive toward net-zero emissions. However, we do differ on how to get there. Harnessing the energy sector and its talent is, in my opinion, key to meeting that target. We must include energy industry stakeholders when developing any environmental plans. From what we have been hearing initially on Bill C-12, the government has failed to do just that.

At the end of the day, climate change is a global problem that requires a global solution. For decades more, the world will continue to use oil and gas. The question then becomes as to whether energy will come from democratic countries like Canada with strong environmental protections or from dictatorships with no environmental protections or respect for human rights.

Domestic energy production, including oil and gas, is an important part of making our country more self-reliant and more resilient in the future. In today's world, we cannot afford to become reliant on energy from any other countries and, quite honestly, we have no need to. Getting to net-zero emissions in the energy industry requires a plan, not just a plan to have a plan. What we see here is a mission to develop a plan in the future and the government's plan is already being poked full of holes. The focus could have been on harnessing energy and the use of technologies from sources such as nuclear and wind carbon capture, with the government providing incentives similar to those that were used to stimulate the early development of the oil sands. Many governments have a long record of practical and successful environmental initiatives.

Under our previous Conservative government, Canada successfully tackled acid rain, expanded national parks and removed dangerous chemicals from the biosphere. We must persevere on our shared environment for future generations without sacrificing the jobs Canadians need today or damaging the economic engine that helps fund our vital social programs.

Our recent report from the Canada Energy Regulator found that, even with policies in place to curb emissions, oil and gas will still make up two-thirds of energy sources in 2050. This report also found that there will be increased demand for natural gas, which I mentioned before as a fuel that will become more heavily regulated under the clean fuel standard. This is again a deterrent for investors in foreign markets. We have an opportunity to help with emissions globally, by being part of the switch from coal-fired plants in Asia and other parts of the world to natural gas, a much cleaner form of energy.

Exporting our natural gas, technology and talent to other parts of the world will go a long way in the fight against climate change. Removing coal-fired plants makes a huge dent in emissions globally. We all agree everyone has a role to play in tackling climate change and Canada is no exception, but aggressively regulating our energy industry when there is still known demand for its products is short-sighted.

We can do more good globally by using our technologies in oil and gas to help tackle climate change both abroad and in Canada than by abruptly shutting it down. Natural gas is a huge opportunity for Canada to be a world player in other markets. More excessive regulation by the federal government not only hinders this opportunity but threatens the livelihoods of many Canadian families.

The bill before us would set targets to achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by the year 2050. This is a laudable goal and I want to be clear it is one I fully support, but it is once again a big shiny object over here being used to distract Canadians when the government cannot be clear on what the vision of its plan is to get there.

Is this a bill to strike a 12-person committee? If it is, then be honest and tell us that. Do not promise this is a visionary piece of legislation that requires three ministers to walk across an open field that some communications person somewhere decided would make good optics to distract the Canadian public.

We see the government continue to make new environmental commitments, while still failing to meet its previous climate promises. The government's own projections show it is not even close to meeting its current commitments, yet it is setting new targets that are higher and even further into the future. According to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, Canada is on track to significantly miss its 2030 emissions commitments. What about the two billion trees promised in the last election? I have not seen a single tree planted by these guys. Actually, there is not even a plan to plant a tree, let alone a budget to do it.

I, for one, would really like to work with my colleagues across the aisle to produce a comprehensive plan to tackle greenhouse gas emissions and to meet net-zero emissions by 2050. I have kids and I desperately want their future to include a safe and healthy environment. It is hard to support the government when it delivers an optical illusion of a plan that continues to include more regulations and taxes that hurt our economy by deterring investment in Canada. Life has become more expensive for Canadians as a result. Eventually Canadians are going to ask, “At what cost?”

I truly believe here in Canada we can develop a plan that harnesses the technology and brainpower of our energy industry to help other countries transition to energy sources that are much less harmful to the environment. We can make Canada and Canadian energy independent instead of importing oil from countries with brutal regimes and human rights abuses. We can remove regulations and red tape, and at the same time make Canada more attractive for international investment.

I am here and fully on board with achieving a net-zero goal. We can do this by creating a comprehensive plan and policies. We simply need the government to work with us in opposition as opposed to continually pretending to the world it cares without any necessary targets required. I plead to the government to please consider working with us, especially at the environment committee, to strengthen the bill so we get it right for all Canadians.

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

Thank you to the ministers who are present today. I'll be sending my questions in the direction of Minister Joly.

First I want to thank Mr. Duguid and Minister Joly for giving me a glimpse into the psyche of Liberals when talking about western Canada. It's a rare opportunity when I can see two Liberal members have that discussion.

Minister Joly, you were very happy about saving 23,000 jobs in western Canada—except, prior to COVID-19, Alberta and western Canada lost almost 200,000 jobs, so it's really like cheering in a hockey game after scoring your first goal, but you're still down 10 to one.

That's something you guys should keep in mind. Before COVID-19, there was a double whammy in western Canada. It was called Bill C-69 and Bill C-48, the no-more-pipelines bill and the anti-tanker bill. As well, the carbon tax has continued to cripple our economy. You increase the carbon tax every April 1, which is a terrible April Fool's joke on western Canadians.

I'm going to focus some of my question towards the regional economic growth through innovation program. In the estimates now, the spending was supposed to be $631,000,726. It combines southern Ontario, Quebec, western diversification and northern Ontario economic diversification. I'm wondering if there's a complete list of programs that this has funded and if you could table that with the committee.

Keystone XL Project

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today on an imperative matter for discussion requiring urgent consideration by the House, pursuant to Standing Order 52.

A new administration has just been elected in the United States, and it indicated during its campaign that it intends to cancel the Keystone XL project. Of course, the Liberal government has made it clear that it will give no more than a half-hearted, supposed attempt at advocacy for such an important project for this country.

This is a vital project that would bring billions of dollars to the Canadian economy every year, and it requires urgent and sustained advocacy immediately from the government. That is why Parliament must give this matter emergency consideration.

“We are all in this together” is a phrase we have heard often as of late, but it appears to only be empty rhetoric for the Liberal government when it comes to standing up for Alberta, for our natural resource sector and for the Keystone XL project.

Within days of the Liberals being elected in 2015, the American administration rejected the Keystone XL proposal and the Prime Minister infamously refused to stand up for this important project, instead saying, “The Canada-U.S. relationship is much bigger than any one project and I look forward to a fresh start”. In other words, he was just brushing it off and brushing it aside. He refused to initiate a NAFTA challenge for the project. He refused to support any legal challenges in support of the project. In essence, he refused to show any actual tangible support for the project.

The Prime Minister has also been abundantly clear on his plan to landlock Canadian oil with Bill C-48, Bill C-69 and his comment that the oil sands need to be phased out.

Every day I hear from Westerners about how they are struggling to make ends meet, feed their children or pay their rent because they are out of work. I received a text from my brother recently, after I asked him if he had been able to find a job. He is one of many people in this situation. He said to me that he had phoned 18 different companies the other day, like he does basically every week, and that not one of them had a job right now. He said that last winter they all would have had at least one project on the go and some of them would have had two or three projects, but now none of them do. He said that out of all the guys he knew from the industry, and he has worked in the industry for decades now, only three of them were working right now. That is three out of the dozens and dozens of people he knows. He talked about how on his street alone basically none of his neighbours were working right now and four of them had homes up for sale.

That is very typical of what we see in my province of Alberta right now, and that is because the government has shown no attention, care or concern for the need for this project and for the need to put this industry, which supplies so much for this country, back to work. The responsibility clearly then lies directly at the feet of the Liberal government and its misguided policies that have absolutely kneecapped the Alberta economy.

I want to make it clear that this is also bigger than just Alberta or the west. This is a project for all of Canada. It is a way forward for economic recovery post-COVID-19. For every direct job created in the oil sands industry, there are two and a half indirect jobs created in the rest of Canada, so when Alberta succeeds Canada succeeds.

I am thankful for your consideration on this very important matter, and I sincerely hope you will grant this request. Thousands of jobs and thousands of families' livelihoods are at stake. Frankly, the very unity of this country could be at stake.

Natural Resources

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Mr. Speaker, here is the problem with the Liberals' answer. The Prime Minister said that he wants to phase out the oil sands. He said this in 2017. He attacked pipelines with Bill C-69. He implemented a tanker ban and a job-killing carbon tax. That has meant thousands of jobs lost in the west. Losing Keystone would mean at least 2,800 more jobs lost.

What is the Prime Minister's plan to ensure that the Keystone XL project goes ahead so that more Canadian jobs are not lost?

Environmental Restoration Incentive Act

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Madam Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I join this debate on the second reading of Bill C-221. I am very honoured to support my friend and colleague, the member for Lakeland. As this is my first speech over Zoom through the virtual Parliament, it will take a little while to get used it, but I am looking forward to adding my voice to those who think this bill should be supported by all parties.

I will go through a couple of discussions on why this is a bill that should unify members of Parliament to come together to support this option of doing the right thing environmentally and making sure we have an idea of how we are going to clean up orphaned and abandoned wells.

I have listened intently to my colleague's speech, as well as those of the members from the Bloc, the NDP and the Liberal party, on what should have been done and the now growing issue of abandoned wells. Obviously we can look to the past and say some things were not done right, but as the government is famous for saying, we need to take a team Canada approach. What we need to do now is look at options for getting these orphaned and abandoned wells cleaned up.

One thing that has come to light that shows why a bill like this should be pursued is the recent Redwater decision of the Supreme Court. None of my colleagues from the opposition parties have mentioned this, so I will mention it. As a result of the Redwater Supreme Court ruling in 2019, federal bankruptcy laws do not supersede provincial environment obligations. This results in many companies no longer being able to find the financing to drill wells to increase their cash flow because, in the case of bankruptcy, investors and creditors would only get paid after all well closures and reclamation costs were incurred.

What we have to do now is figure out how oil and gas companies are going to get access to liquidity in order to continue operating, so these wells can be cleaned up in the long run, as it comes to the environmental part of Bill C-221, an act to amend the Income Tax Act or the environmental restorative incentive act.

For a quick overview, Bill C-221 aims to provide support for the energy industry by implementing a 13% non-refundable tax credit for oil and gas well decommissioning costs. It also instructs government to evaluate the feasibility of flow-through shares.

The bill has received support from many key energy industry and government stakeholders that are focused on orphan well cleanup instead of new extraction projects. Opposition from environmental groups has been minimal. This bill is an attempt at a win-win for energy and the environment. It is being presented as a Conservative solution to an environmental crisis, as well as a way to help energy companies survive and create new jobs.

The member from the Bloc talked about unemployment rates. Right now unemployment rates in Saskatchewan and Alberta continue to climb because of new proposals and policies brought forward by the government. I listened to the member for Lakeland talk about two of the main issues behind the oil and gas sector not doing well. She forgot the third and fourth issues, but she said the two issues were oversupply and pricing during COVID-19.

However, a third and, I would say, more prominent issue that explains why the energy sector is not doing well is the government putting in place policies that have been damaging. We can talk about Bill C-69 and Bill C-48, as well as the continued overburdening with regulations, which energy sectors have continued to meet.

My Bloc colleague brought up the fact that the government bought a $7-billion pipeline. I would respond to the member by saying the government would not have had to buy a $7-billion pipeline if the regulations had been in place and it had not kept moving the goalposts.

A private company would have built that pipeline at zero cost to taxpayers across our country. If those regulations had not been changed, we would have had a private proponent building the pipeline and allowing our energy sector more options on how to transport goods to market.

Another thing about the environmental restoration incentive act is that it is for small and medium-sized producers. As we have talked about already, through no fault of their own, some of the policies that have been put in place have really hamstrung their ability to make ends meet and continue to work and employ people across our country.

The reality is that oil and gas wells that companies intend to decommission are now being suspended, so I think all members in the House can come together and say that we need to ensure we are able to clean up oil and gas wells. I do not think that is a debate among members of Parliament. I know they have been talked about many times.

I think our NDP, Bloc and Green party colleagues should take long look at this bill to make sure that the environmental measures are going to be met and that we will have the ability to clean up these wells once they are decommissioned and abandoned.

I will read a couple of quotes from either late shows or things that have been said in the House of Commons. The NDP member for South Okanagan—West Kootenay rose in the House on February 21, 2019, and stated:

There are over 122,000 inactive wells across western Canada, and most of those wells have absolutely no prospect of ever operating again. That is almost a quarter of the wells out there. Most will require cleanup and reclamation in the near future. Many are on private land, on farms, where they impact the work and lives of farmers who are no longer receiving rental payments for those wells.

That is absolutely true. I agree with his statement. So far there have not been many proposals from the NDP on how we are going to make sure these wells get reclaimed, and I would ask the member for South Okanagan—West Kootenay to take a look at this bill once again, because it does bring forward a reasonable approach to ensuring some of these wells get cleaned up and the land goes back to its original state of being.

The former member for Edmonton—Strathcona rose in the House on February 20, 2019, and said, “[the] government did commit $30 million in budget 2017, when the cost, according to some people, is $260 billion, in support of Alberta's efforts to advance the reclamation of orphan wells.” The former member Linda Duncan is in favour of work to reclaim these wells, and I would like to have an idea of where she would be on this. I think she would be in support of this private member's bill.

The member for Saanich—Gulf Islands on June 17, 2019, during the climate emergency debate, stated:

We must, in that process, include a transition for the skills of workers.

One great example that I will give are the orphan oil wells. There are thousands of them throughout Alberta and northern B.C., which have tremendous potential for geothermal energy production.

Therefore, there are ways to work together on this. Many MPs from across political stripes know that we need to have a policy in place to ensure these orphan wells are cleaned up, and I am looking forward to working with them on Bill C-221, so we do have the ability to ensure that the Government of Canada is coming together for the environmental purpose of making sure these orphan wells are cleaned up.

The other side of this is that it also has the ability to create jobs and employment in the hard hit sectors across Alberta right now. I want to say that this bill would allow friends and families across western Canada to go back to work and help provide for their families once again. I need to know that the federal government is going to be there and is in support of the energy sector.

The Liberal MP who was on her feet today spoke about the support her government has shown to energy and oil workers in the energy sector, and I would like to see that support continue. It has been a minuscule amount of support at this point in time, but with this bill we could put in place the opportunity for companies across Saskatchewan, Alberta, Manitoba and B.C. to continue to stay afloat. We are looking for the ability of these companies to have options to keep their people employed and keep people working across our sector.

On one final note, I realize that a couple of my colleagues have said that the energy companies need to step up and they need to be responsible. I do want our colleagues to stop looking backward. That was in the past. We need to have these companies stay in business and work together to allow them to clean up the orphan and abandoned wells.

I am proud to support the hard work of the member for Lakeland. She is a tireless advocate for her constituents and I am happy to be able to be seconding this bill, Bill C-221.

Income Tax Act

[Jamie Schmale, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to stand today and speak to Bill C-9, an act to amend the Income Tax Act.

The legislation has three main components to it. The first is to create the Canada emergency rent subsidy, which would provide rent relief for qualifying businesses until June 2021. The second is to provide some lockdown supports, providing a top-up from the Canada emergency rent subsidy. The third is to extend the Canada wage subsidy until June 2021. All these pieces have been called for by the business community, as a whole, due to the conditions they are facing during this pandemic.

I will talk about some of the concerns the opposition had with the legislation. These things could have been dealt with had Parliament been sitting, as the opposition was calling for. Members may recall that the Conservatives were the only party consistently calling for the return of the House to deal with the hundreds of billions of dollars that were literally going out the door with little to no debate. Of course this caused some problems.

In the last rent program, in order for businesses to qualify, they to prove that had a 30% drop in revenue. That caused a number of problems. Obviously, a great number of businesses, mostly small business, had that hurt.

In part, this was due to provincial restrictions as they were told to lockdown. I will not even go into the side of the debate where the big box stores were allowed to stay open, many of which provided the same service small businesses provided. However, the mom and pop shops and stores on main street were told to lockdown and their employees were told to stay home. However, the big box stores continued to operate, most likely stealing some market share on top of what they already had and increasing their profits as a result, while almost breaking the backs of small business.

In order to qualify, businesses had to show that they had a 30% revenue drop during this pandemic. Obviously, some sectors are doing very well during this pandemic. Some sectors are hurting. What it did is it caused some businesses to watch that 30% line that had been drawn by the government. If a business earned $1 more, it would not qualify for that subsidy.

The other problems we had were that the initial rent subsidy only covered about 10% of businesses across the country, which left 90% of businesses without that coverage. If anyone needed more proof that this was a complete disaster, the Prime Minister initially gave control of this program to the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, which does residential mortgage insurance and not commercial rent. Incapable of running that program, the Crown corporation subcontracted that to a company whose vice- president was married to the Prime Minister 's chief of staff.

We have businesses that are hurting, trying to get by and figuring out a way through. They are being hampered because of problems with government legislation. As I have mentioned before, the House was not back in a meaningful fashion to debate these pieces of legislation.

Early on, we saw problems with the CERB. We had problems with the wage subsidy. When it first was announced, the government said someone would only get 10% of the initial wage subsidy. Thankfully, through opposition parties, business communities and stakeholders alike, they were able to raise that level. Other countries such as Germany already had upward of 70%.

These key pieces in the legislation should have been debated. However, Parliament was then prorogued. The Liberals said that they were so focused on looking at the programs and developing them. This was done basically in a silo because Parliament was not sitting and legislators were not allowed to debate in this place.

As we move forward, we need to talk about recovery and how we do that. Rapid testing is a key part. Rapid testing has been approved in numerous countries around the world. There are products available in the European Union and the United States, but not approved here in Canada. If we want to return our economy and give it the firepower it needs, without a cure, vaccine or treatment, tools like rapid testing are our path forward.

We can imagine tourism, which has been massively impacted. We can talk about local marathons or running events. Any event and any kind of travel has been severely impacted. Hotels are feeling it. Restaurants are feeling it. However, if people can get on an airplane knowing they can take a test and in a few minutes have their result, it is our path forward. They can know the results with confidence because a number of these tests have a higher accuracy rate than the swabs that are being done now. Anyone who has had a swab knows it is not the most pleasant feeling in the world. This is our path forward. If people want to go on a cruise ship, they could go with confidence, knowing that everyone was tested and everyone had a clean result, yet the government continues to drag its feet on this.

Yes, we are in a pandemic and yes, Canadians were told to stay at home, lock down and stay safe and we continue to do that. However, we also need to talk about those businesses that are able to reopen in a safe manner because, at the end of the day, outside of all the printing the government is doing of hundreds of billions of dollars out of thin air, we still need the tax revenue coming in to continue to spend into the future. If the businesses shut down, where is the government getting the money from? If people who are working in these businesses are unemployed, where does this money come from?

The simple truth through all of this is that if we want to ensure economic expansion as we move forward, and we talk about it all the time, we need to ensure that we are prepared for this.

A number of anchors within our economy, such as the oil and gas industry and the mining industry, have taken a hit because of the current government's policies. I can name a few: Bill C-69 and the tanker ban. I could go on and on. We have, coming up, the clean fuel standard, which would significantly increase the price of food that is produced in our country. Of course, I am sure the government will come up with yet another program to solve the problem it caused in the first place, and around and around we go.

When the economy is firing on all cylinders, more people are able to keep more of their money, and that means more spending outside their necessities of housing, clothing and food. They have more discretionary spending. With discretionary spending, people are able to make purchases beyond those needs that I just listed. There are some people who believe it is just frivolous. Why would anybody want anything extra? It is because we like it. It gives us joy in our lives.

If our factories are shut down, people are not able to go back to work because we have seen uncompetitive advantages that the government has brought in through the tax code, that are forcing jobs elsewhere. I can give an example. Here in the province of Ontario, where there are some of the highest electricity prices of anywhere in North America, manufacturing is running out the door. During the Ontario Liberal rule, we lost 300,000 jobs in manufacturing.

As we go on, we need to ensure that businesses remain strong, that these programs are debated in legislatures such as this, and that the provinces work with the federal government within their own jurisdictions to manage this pandemic. Also, we need to work to ensure that we are able to safely reopen the economy. Rapid testing is one way, but so is ensuring that the programs, as in Bill C-9, are implemented in the best fashion possible. We do that through debate back and forth in chambers like this.

I appreciate the time and I look forward to the questions.

Oil Tanker Moratorium Act

[James Cumming, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

moved that Bill C-229, An Act to repeal certain restrictions on shipping, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, I stand today to speak to my private member's bill, Bill C-229, which I think frames a very, very important issue for our country.

On June 21, 2019, the Liberals celebrated victory in the passing of Bill C-48 in this chamber. The Oil Tanker Moratorium Act was celebrated in Ottawa while thousands of Canadians in western Canada, in those two million square kilometres to the left of Ontario on the map, were grieving over yet another blow to their way of life. It was another blow to the economy of my home province of Alberta and ultimately to the entire Canadian economy.

This was an election commitment by the Prime Minister in 2015, and it was in ministers' letters less than a month after the election. There was no time for due diligence, which would set the precedent for a lack of due diligence for years to come.

Bill C-48 prohibits oil tankers carrying more than 12,500 metric tons of crude or persistent oils as cargo from stopping, loading or unloading at ports and marine installations in northern B.C. The bill was never about marine traffic, nor about transportation safety or the ecological life of northern B.C. It was the first step in the Prime Minister's singularly focused goal of phasing out the country's strong oil and gas sector.

Since 2015, Canada's energy industry has been repeatedly attacked by the Liberal government. There has been a mass exodus of billions of dollars of energy projects because of the government's anti-energy policies, such as Bill C-48, the shipping ban, and Bill C-69, the pipeline ban. By 2019, 100,000 jobs in this sector had already been lost because of Liberal policies. Capital investment in Canada's oil and natural gas sector has dropped by over half since 2014. I cannot imagine what these statistics would mean in other industries and what the reaction of the government would be.

It was looking like every attempt to get oil out of Alberta was being choked, whether it was by pipeline, by ship or by rail. It was looking like the only way we could get oil out of Alberta was to buy a barrel of oil a ticket on an airplane. That is why in February of this year I introduced my private member's bill, Bill C-229, an act to repeal certain restrictions on shipping. Once COVID-19 hit, it was all hands on deck and the bill was put on the shelf, but I am just as excited as ever to reintroduce the bill and am more excited than ever help our oil and gas sector and our economy.

In retrospect, the dismal outlook of the economy in 2019 was the calm before the storm that nobody could have predicted. Here are some facts, and quite frankly, they are not pretty.

Today, our federal debt-to-GDP ratio is at 50% and climbing. We are on track to reach a federal debt in excess of $1.2 trillion by the end of the fiscal year. We have the highest unemployment rate in the G7, with pretty much the highest level of spending, and we lag in productivity and innovation when we compare ourselves with our peers. On top of this, we do not have a robust plan for the economic recovery, unlike in the fantasy world the Minister of Finance spoke about when she said that we took on debt so Canadians would not have to. Frankly, someone is going to have to pay it back.

What do we do? I painted a very grim picture of our economic future, but the good news is that to find a solution, we only need to look within. In 2019, mineral fuels, including oil, accounted for 22% of our country's total exports. They are the number one exported product. Granted, most of this goes to the U.S. In addition, we have the third-largest proven oil reserve in the world and are the third-largest exporter of oil.

In poet William Blake's Songs of Innocence, he writes:

How can the bird that is born for joy
Sit in a cage and sing?

With that, I ask this: How can a country with the ability to raise the economic well-being for all allow our resources to go to waste?

Our country is blessed with an abundance of natural resources, an abundance that can make all of us prosperous beyond our wildest dreams. This pandemic has decimated our economy, and we owe it to our children and grandchildren, particularly my new grandchild, to take care of this financial mess. One of the ways we can do this is by exporting our natural resources to new markets.

All credible climate-science experts, clean-tech innovators and scholars in the field acknowledge that as we undergo a global shift to sustainable energy, the world will still require oil for decades to come. Renewables are nowhere near ready for sole use and right now are only a marginal energy source. In Canada, petroleum and natural gas account for 73.9% of energy use; followed by hydro and nuclear at 22.3%; coal at 0.5%; and other, wind and solar at 3.3%. The switch to clean energy, ironically, is not going to be a clean break. As we invest in and grow our still undeveloped renewable sector, we can think of oil and gas as the training wheels we need for propping up our sustainable goals.

The Canadian energy sector has already started to innovate and make some green moves. The intensity of greenhouse gas emissions per barrel of oil produced in the oil sands in 2018 was 36% less than in 2000. Natural gas emits 50% to 60% less carbon dioxide than coal, which countries like Russia, China and the United States still depend on. On average, coal-to-gas switching reduces emissions by 50% when producing electricity, and about 33% when providing heat. We can think about how much lower the CO2 levels would be if everyone switched from coal to natural gas.

Private sector innovation is what is going to lead us into the future and provide us with the technology we need to shift to global sustainability. Our strong Canadian energy companies see the global demand and are responding with hundreds of millions of dollars in renewable investments. Different energy projects are funded by oil and gas companies, and to kill this industry will kill investment. Believe me, government is not the solution to innovation.

Here are a few projects to talk about.

Enbridge is one of Canada's leading suppliers in renewables. It committed more than $7.8 billion in capital for renewable energy. It has 22 wind farms, six solar energy operations and a hydro facility.

Suncorp completed Canada's electric highway project in 2019, a coast-to-coast EV charging network positioned no more than 250 kilometres apart. It also created four wind power stations.

TC Energy supported the Ontario elimination goal of coal-fired power generation through its 48.5% ownership of the Bruce Power nuclear facility, which provides emission-free electricity to roughly one-third of Ontario.

Global oil demand has grown by about 11 million barrels between 2010 and 2019 to above 100 million barrels pre-COVID. The fact is the world needs oil, and Canada is the only country on earth that can deliver this product in the most energy-efficient and ethical method.

Let us talk a bit about that. On the world democracy index, Canada came seventh, tied with Denmark. Our competitors in this industry are Nigeria, at 109th; Russia, at 134th; Venezuela, at 140th; and Saudi Arabia, at 159th. Between 2009 and 2017, greenhouse gas emissions intensity in mined oil sands fell by more than 25%. That is innovation.

These are GHG emissions by country in 2016. China is at 25.8%, and its natural gas industry produces 0.911% of overall global GHG emissions. U.S.A. is at 12.8%. Iran is at 1.7%. Russia is at 5.3%. Canada is at just under 1.6%, and of that, Canada's oil and natural gas industry produces about 0.29% of overall GHG emissions.

In switching from coal to LNG, there is 50% to 60% less CO2 from combustion in a new efficient natural gas plant compared with emissions from a typical new coal plant. From 1990 to 2018, China increased its coal consumption from 0.99 billion tons to 4.64 billion tons. In 2008, coal made up 59% of China's energy use. Since 2011, China has consumed more coal than the rest of the world combined. These are staggering numbers.

Some are referring to this time, and the economic recovery to follow, as the great reset. The inconsistencies, inadequacies and contradictions of multiple systems, from health to finance to education, are more exposed than ever, and there is great concern for the future of lives and livelihoods. This pandemic has shaken our country. There is no doubt about that. As we head into recovery, I would urge the government and my colleagues from both sides of the aisle to think very carefully about what a fair and equitable recovery is going to look like.

Never has the integrity of our country's Confederation been more threatened. From west to east and north to south, our country is bruised. It is bleeding. Some may even say it is on the brink of broken. Political stability cannot be sustained in the absence of economic growth, nor can economic growth be sustained in a state of political instability. To this end, including indigenous Canadians in the economic recovery space will be crucial and, if done correctly, will forge stronger, more understanding relationships among all Canadians.

The energy sector is the largest employer of indigenous people in the country, with about 6% of the sector's workforce identified as indigenous. In 2015 and 2016, $48.6 million was invested by oil producers into indigenous communities. Coastal GasLink has awarded $620 million in contract work to indigenous businesses for logistical operations, there was significant support for the Northern Gateway pipeline, and the Eagle Spirit proposal is indigenous-led.

Global context aside, I urge all Canadians, with the government at the helm, to hail this great reset as a call to action. Going forward, I urge the government to administer neither special treatment nor punitive action on any province or territory in its approach to economic recovery.

The punitive and retaliatory measures taken by the government are eerily reminiscent of what many Albertans believe: that the national energy program was an unjustified intrusion of the federal government into an area of provincial jurisdiction, designed to strip the province of its natural wealth. Investors need to know that they have access to markets, and Alberta should have access just like every other province. We cannot move oil by pipe. We cannot ship it. We have been left with no options, and what used to be a few marginal murmurs has become full-blown western alienation.

We need to get our product to market. There is no way around that. Bill C-48 is an overt attack on Alberta's resource sector. Some have suggested that my bill, Bill C-229, is a waste of a private member's bill, but frankly, given the absolute sorry state of this country, it is anything but a waste. This bill would right a wrong and fix an incredibly discriminatory piece of legislation. This bill is essential for an industry that has helped fuel the economy for decades. This is essential for the thousands of workers who are proud of their work in this sector and the product their efforts produce. It is essential for manufacturing across the country. It is essential to the environment, as Canada has the opportunity to displace other world players that do not produce products to the same stringent environmental standards.

Canadian oil is in everything. It is not just what we put in our cars: the hydrocarbons we use to make the green upholstery in these chairs, the glasses members wear, the shoes on my feet, the capsules that vitamins are put into and the ink in my pen contain oil, and it can all be Canadian.

I am a proud Canadian and a proud Albertan who recognizes the important part the resource sector has played in our country's economic successes. I have lived through many of the ups and downs, and firmly believe we can gain market share, grow the economy and continue to reduce global emissions. Canada has led before and continues to do so. All the sector needs is to be given the opportunity to have access to markets so that we can compete and grow.

Natural Resources

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

Madam Speaker, I had the opportunity to put a question to the Minister of Natural Resources earlier this week in the wake of massive new layoffs in the energy sector both in Calgary and in Newfoundland and Labrador. My question was particularly about Calgary. The answer was wholly unsatisfactory. Perhaps the minister came a little closer to answering the question and acknowledging the role his government played in the exodus of employment from the oil and gas sector.

He spoke about oil and gas companies having to redeploy resources and capital, while adapting to all the challenges within the energy industry worldwide. That is exactly the point. That is exactly what energy companies are doing. They are making business decisions to locate outside of Canada precisely because of the five-year war on the energy industry that has been waged by the government. In my riding, thousands of people have lost their jobs over the years since the government was formed precisely because their employers are making decisions to move to other jurisdictions. They are doing so because of the regulatory uncertainty that has been created by the government through bills like Bill C-69 and Bill C-48.

We hear the rhetoric from the Prime Minister and on down through many members of his cabinet and his party's caucus. There are real repercussions of that in lost jobs and lost livelihoods. I talked to families throughout the 2019 election. They are giving up hope, families are split because members of the family have had to go to other countries to find work. Calgary is their home and they want to be there, yet they are having to go overseas to find work. The government has to acknowledge that its legislation, its rhetoric and the signals that it sends to the investment community have a direct impact on these lost jobs.

I called upon the minister to admit that the Liberals' policies had played a role in these job losses. There are 2,000 more employees gone from Suncor. This economy and my province cannot handle 2,000 more unemployed workers. The answer that was provided during question period was completely unsatisfactory. It will do nothing to give any sense of hope to the workers in my riding and across Canada.

Judges Act

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

Madam Speaker, I want to take this opportunity to respond to what the parliamentary secretary said. I was here in the last Parliament, and what we saw from the government was an effort on its part to push through large government bills that were widely opposed across the country, such as Bill C-48 and Bill C-69. I know the member who just spoke knows this well, as the shadow minister working on natural resource issues.

The point is that the government was trying to rush those bad government bills through the Senate, and there was a backlog of private member's business. That affected many good private member's bills. It affected an organ harvesting bill I had done a great deal of work on.

The fact is that Senate rules involve prioritizing government legislation, and if the government had done a better job of listening to people and their concerns raised about Bill C-48 and Bill C-69, maybe the process would have been smoother on those bills and there would have been more time in the Senate to get to other things. The government is kicking Liberal senators out of their caucus so they have no capacity to engage the agenda in the Senate. That was a decision they made, and they are blaming other people for their inability to manage their own legislative agenda.

Natural Resources

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

Mr. Speaker, Suncor announced 2,000 more layoffs in the energy industry. This industry supplies the world with ethical energy and creates the wealth underpinning our social programs. The workers have had enough: enough of the rhetoric that has sent jobs and investors fleeing to other countries, enough of job-killing laws like Bill C-69 and Bill C-48, and enough of the project cancellations.

When will the government admit that it is responsible for destroying thousands of jobs, dividing the country and enriching foreign energy suppliers?

Infrastructure

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Mr. Speaker, we know the Prime Minister loves to kill projects in western Canada. The Alaska to Alberta railway project is a $17-billion private-sector initiative that will connect western Canadian resources to international markets. However, the Prime Minister has already hinted that he will use his old friend, Bill C-69, to kill this project.

For the sake of the west, for the sake of the Yukon and the Northwest Territories, for the sake of all Canadians, will the Prime Minister put aside his own selfish ideology and say yes to this project?

Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I dispute the member's finding that 22 billion in federal dollars went toward our energy industry, which has been a huge net contributor to our nation's economy. He will notice that, earlier in my speech, I said that we are not asking for a bailout in the energy sector. We are asking the Liberal government to get out of the way. With bills like Bill C-69 and the new mega carbon tax clean fuel standard, it is threatening to shut down industries that already exist, let alone bringing new industries to this country.

The west is very distinct from Quebec. Quebec is blessed with ample hydro resources, low-carbon hydro resources, and those are wonderful resources to have, but in Alberta we are dependent on natural gas to fuel our electricity. I hope the member would agree our economy is distinct, just like his province is distinct, and we need to have different approaches to our economic growth.

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to once again rise in this House to represent the good people of Sturgeon River—Parkland.

The past six months have been a time of tremendous trial for my constituents and all Canadians. Loved ones have been lost, families have been separated, businesses have shut down permanently and our government has failed to provide a clear plan for a way forward for this country.

Alberta and the other western provinces were hurting before this pandemic. Hundreds of thousands of jobs have been lost, including in my constituency. The Liberals have refused to sign off on new resource projects, costing thousands of jobs and billions in investments. Their infrastructure bank and infrastructure minister have failed to deliver billions of dollars in investments, costing our communities and many more thousands of jobs. Just the other day, Alberta was hurt again with the announcement that Suncor will be laying off thousands of workers, along with TC Energy.

Canadians pulled together to get us through the first wave of COVID-19. We endured lockdowns in the spring that cost hundreds of thousands of jobs and closed tens of thousands of businesses. Yes, we saved lives, but what did the Liberal government do with the sacrifice of Canadians? It dithered.

While our government could have spent the summer procuring rapid testing or planning for an economic recovery, it focused all its energy on shutting down an investigation into its own ethical failures. We have yet to receive the full details of the WE Charity scandal created by the Liberal Prime Minister, and if the Liberals had it their way, Canadians would never know the full truth. That is why we are here today, not even a year since the last Speech from the Throne: Instead of governing the nation through this crisis, the Liberals chose to play political games, prorogue Parliament and shut down any committee investigations into their wrongdoing.

Our Conservative team will not relent. We will hold the Liberal government accountable for its ethical failures. I know that on this side of the House, we are looking forward to sunny ways and sunny days indeed. While many Canadians may be dealing with a COVID pandemic, the government is dealing with an ethical sickness. The Prime Minister has been fond of telling the opposition that sunlight is the best disinfectant, and we have heard him loud and clear. We will be taking his advice and prescribing a full dosage.

There is a pandemic, and everyone out west is talking about it, but it is not COVID-19; it is the joblessness pandemic. It is a disease that has been with us for years before COVID-19 hit us. Unfortunately, rather than working tirelessly to save our struggling energy industry and the western economies, the Liberals looked eager to dance on our graves and declare our economy bust.

Why else would nearly every decision since their election in 2015 appear to be targeted toward undermining our jobs and energy industry, whether it be the pipeline-killing Bill C-69, their carbon tax or now their mega carbon tax that is masquerading as a clean fuel standard? Why is it that whenever western MPs stand up for their constituents, they are accused of only playing to regional interests? Whenever our auto sector or aerospace sector is threatened, all Canadian MPs are called together to stand up to save jobs, yet we hear nothing when our energy sector is suffering.

Alberta was proud to support fellow Canadians in the 2008 financial crisis. We carried this country's economy when the federal government had to bail out an American auto company. We were proud to support our brothers and sisters in Newfoundland and Labrador when their offshore industry was suffering. When the Atlantic economy was struggling, it was the cheques sent home by Atlantic workers working in the Alberta oil patch that kept families going.

Today, Albertans are struggling and Saskatchewan is struggling. The west is struggling. The engine of Canada's economy is facing record unemployment. Where is our federal government to lend us a hand? We have shovel-ready projects that will create tens of thousands of jobs. We do not even need a bailout from taxpayers; we just need the Liberal government to get out of the way.

The Nova Gas Transmission line, which has been waiting for nearly a year for federal approval, would create 5,500 jobs. It is the next generation of polypropylene production in the Alberta industrial heartland. At least 2,500 jobs are on the line, yet the Liberals are pushing forward with their antiplastic manufacturing agenda. With the Liberal mega carbon tax at an estimated $350 a tonne, major players that produce fertilizer to feed our farms and produce fuel to heat our homes are at risk of packing up and moving south of the border. Western Canadians do not need a minister of the middle class and those working hard to join it; we need a minister of the middle class and those working hard just to survive and stay middle class.

The Liberals are promising Canadians a lot of goodies in the throne speech, but nothing that has been promised has not been promised before by the Liberal government. The Liberals will say that this time is different, that they are working with the NDP, which holds the balance of power. We have heard this story before. I have a word of caution to my colleagues in the NDP. They can learn a lot from the B.C. Green Party or the Liberal Democrats in the U.K.: Things never really work out for the junior partner.

The throne speech should be praised for its commitment to recycling. By that I mean recycling old Liberal talking points. The Liberals have promised universal pharmacare and a universal day care system. They have promised universal broadband as well. Yet, they have been in power for five years and have failed to deliver for rural communities.

All of this is happening while the Liberals continue to plow forward with the greatest expansion of government spending and debt financing in modern Canadian history. This is over $400 billion in federal deficit, not counting the hundreds of billions taken out by arm's-length Crown corporations such as the Bank of Canada, BDC, EDC and the CMHC. This is hundreds of billions off the government's books, but hundreds of billions that Canadian taxpayers will still have to pay for if things go bust.

How exactly are the Liberals going to finance this new pandemic debt, while also launching the most radical expansion of the Canadian welfare state in a generation? It is with low interest rates, cries the Prime Minister. We can afford everything, as if we can sustain low interest rates for decades on end without the consequences of massive inflation: inflation that will erode the savings of our vulnerable seniors, inflation that will risk the opportunity for millennials and those in generation Z to buy their first home and inflation that will devalue the hard-earned wages of the working class for the benefit of big business and debt holders.

If the government chooses not to go down that disastrous path, we are left with two alternatives: They will increase taxes to finance this new spending or they will cut spending in other areas to reallocate to these new promises.

Will the Liberals be cutting the child care benefit and child care expenses tax deduction for families so they can pay for their new national day care system? Will families be denied the choice of whether to stay home with their young children or send them to day care? When the Liberals remove the Canada child benefit and tax deductions, that is exactly what they are doing. They are removing choice from parents who want to raise their children at home.

How will the government pay for this new universal pharmacare system? Will they cut health transfers like the Liberals did back in the 1990s? Will they refuse to allow new life-saving drugs like Trikafta, which miraculously saved the lives of those with cystic fibrosis.

If they do not cut spending, they will have to raise taxes. The throne speech talks a bit about this. It talks about raising taxes on digital giants and closing stock loopholes. This is not necessarily something I disagree with, but will these new taxes generate the tens of billions in new dollars that will finance universal day care and universal pharmacare? The fact is that they will not.

We are left with few alternatives. Will the Liberals raise the GST that the Conservatives lowered from 7% to 5%? Will they raise personal income taxes or capital gains taxes? Are they going to raise corporation taxes and risk capital and investment being taken to our neighbour to the south, a low-tax jurisdiction?

It is time for the Liberals to be honest with Canadians about their fiscal plan. Canadians deserve that honesty. Will the Liberals allow mass inflation to destroy the middle class? Will they raise taxes on Canadian families? Will they cut spending and benefits? Will it be a combination of all three? Canadians deserve a real answer.

[Jasraj Singh Hallan, Conservative, Calgary Forest Lawn, AB]

Madam Speaker, the Prime Minister and the Liberal government have framed the Speech from the Throne as a necessary and updated vision for the country. Before I address the speech directly, it is important for Canadians to remember that we are debating a new Speech from the Throne because the Prime Minister prorogued Parliament for six weeks to avoid accountability. All of the committees that are investing his WE scandal were shut down, and that was the point.

With a new session of Parliament, the Prime Minister is hoping that all 7,000 of his fluffy but empty words in the throne speech will distract Canadians from his corruption and the WE scandal. I believe that Canadians are a lot smarter than the Liberals give them credit for. This necessary reset, as the government prefers to frame it, was supposedly required to respond to new realities exposed by the pandemic. In actuality, Parliament was perfectly capable of responding to the pandemic prior to prorogation and the Liberals only wasted valuable time.

The Conservatives will continue to hold the Prime Minister and the government accountable, and we will keep fighting for the answers that Canadians deserve.

To respond to the details of the throne speech, I note the government has tried to sell the throne speech as a bold and ambitious vision for Canada. However, the speech has completely missed the mark and is only more proof of the government's reckless economic policy and poor grasp of Canada's economic strengths.

The government has signalled that it will be taking on more debt but has yet to provide a fiscal framework. We have no idea of how the Liberals plan to pay it all back. The government does not seem to understand that debt incurred by the government is debt incurred by everyday taxpaying Canadians. These are people like our grocery store clerks, our nurses, our teachers and so on. Without a fiscal framework, how can we be assured that our children and the future generations of Canadians are not going to be overwhelmed by the government's debt?

The throne speech claims that the government is “guided by values of sustainability and [fiscal] prudence”, but the absence of a fiscal framework thus far proves otherwise. We have a government spending recklessly without a fiscal plan as Canadians navigate the challenges of a global pandemic. The Liberals are racking up a credit card without telling Canadians how or when it will all be paid back.

At the same time, the throne speech reveals a flawed plan for economic recovery. Canada is at a major crossroads in its development. There are some very clear choices that confront us right now. These choices are even more important in light of the economic crisis brought on by the COVID-19 shutdown. The government has chosen to effectively shut down our economy by restricting resource development and exports, with economic policies like carbon taxes, Bill C-69, which restricts new pipelines from being built, and Bill C-48, which is preventing exports of crude off the west coast, and generally discouraging investment in Canada's resources.

Exports are the lifeblood of the Canadian economy. In 2018, 56% of Canada's exported goods were directly from our resource industries. The government seems to think that it can replace these core industries with pixie dust. Despite expressing a commitment to economic recovery, the government has continued to neglect and even hinder resource development in this country during a time when we need these resources the most.

It has been akin to a hockey team benching its all-star players while trying to come back from being down six goals. These industries drive our economy, provide the jobs that Canadians depend on and provide the government revenues that keep our health care and education systems alive. These industries have made Canada the great nation that it is today, yet there was zero mention of supporting struggling resource workers. There was just a continued promise to sacrifice their lives by killing their industries with more taxes and regulations, an added double carbon tax hiding as the Canadian fuel standard and more. Do members knows what the worst part is? It is that the government is taking the tax dollars paid by hard-working Alberta oil and gas workers and giving those dollars away to subsidized competitive industries that aim to end their existence. That sounds fair, does it not?

There was also a very large issue that the Prime Minister completely skipped in the Liberals' reset: western alienation. These Liberals stand up in the House day after day and completely deny that anyone in western Canada, in particular anyone in Alberta, feels alienated from Ottawa and the central government. I am here to say, as many of my colleagues have previously, that it is real and it is growing. The Liberals stand to say they are giving more money to Alberta than former prime minister Harper did. They accuse us of making up this crisis. We could not create this even if we tried. The alienation of Alberta is caused by the current government's antienergy, antiwest, anti-Alberta far-left policies that are causing this divide.

Albertans have never wanted a handout or to be bought. They just want the government to get out of the way. We want to be allowed to get back to work doing what we do best: extracting minerals and other resources from the ground, adding incredible value to them and selling them to the world. We have amazing resources and opportunities in this country, but the government wants to ignore them until they go away, because resource development does not fit into its ideological framework.

So many people have said this before me, but let me add my voice. Canada's oil and gas producers, miners, farmers and, in fact, everyone who participates in this economy care about the environment. Canada is leading the world when it comes to environmental sustainability. The investment in innovation and clean technology is incredible. I am fortunate enough to live among those who are leading this incredible innovation, which is taking place not just in the oil sands but in all of our extractive industries.

The Prime Minister likes to talk about balance, but he has achieved none of it. When hundreds of thousands are out of work and suicides are skyrocketing, that is an indication that the Liberals do not care about the economy side of this equation. We do not need to pit one region of this beautiful country against the others when we share common goals. A strong economy and environmental protection can go hand in hand, and we have already seen this happening in Canada. I wish that the government would stop listening to the far-left voices that are opposed to all resource development and seek that balance, even though these voices are also at the government's own cabinet table.

We are so blessed to live in a region flush with resources that Canada and the world require to maintain our high standard of living. Hundreds of thousands of people are employed in resource development. These same industries employ a significant number of first nations Canadians, as high as 6% of the oil and gas workforce. More and more first nations are taking ownership positions in large projects. All Canadians have a mutual desire to see these succeed.

Unfortunately, all we have heard from the government is its desire to ban single-use plastics. Where would we be during this pandemic without plastics? In literally every room in a hospital they are crucial. Masks are single-use, as are the gloves that so many people are wearing when they go out.

If the Liberals are truly interested in a team Canada approach in responding to the global pandemic, the government must provide a fiscal plan that ensures fiscal stability for future generations and an economic recovery that does not ignore our country's core strength of resource development. However, it seems the Prime Minister is only interested in racking up the credit card—

[Rosemarie Falk, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I invite the member to come to my riding and tell that to the parents who are trying to put food in the tummies of their children. They are just trying to get ahead. That is all they are trying to do.

He could tell that to the farmers who have to supplement their egg income because of the crappy policies the government has put forward, such as Bill C-69, the carbon tax and Bill C-48, whatever it is. The government is making it more difficult to get their products to market and is taking more money out of their pockets. Farmers have to subsidize their egg income by working in oil and gas because they cannot put food on their tables with what they are receiving in egg income as it is.

Before there are suggestions about allowing investment to free this country, when all our energy investment is leaving and leaving people without work, I invite the member to come and make his comments to my constituents in Battlefords—Lloydminster.

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is a real honour to rise on behalf of the people of Barrie—Innisfil to speak in reply to the throne speech.

Before I begin, I would very much like to thank all first responders, not just in Barrie—Innisfil but right across those country, those who have been on the front line, health care workers. As a former firefighter in 2003, I recall the SARS crisis and the anxiety that was felt by myself and others who I worked with in the paramedic and police services in dealing with that crisis. That anxiety was heightened by the fact that we did not know if we would get the virus and take it home.

I really appreciate the first responders and front-line health care workers. They deserve our greatest respect.

I also want to thank the administration staff in the House. I know Gaétan is keeping all our desks clean so we do not take the virus back to our ridings.

Six weeks ago, the government prorogued Parliament. At the time, we were at the height of a scandal that was becoming more emboldened as new information became available. The Prime Minister said that the reason why he would prorogue Parliament was to come up with a bold and ambitious new course for the country. I would suggest that the ambition was on the part of the Prime Minister to save his political skin at that time.

Members will recall that the government was becoming more embroiled in the scandal. More information was becoming available. There were more indictments of individuals who were involved. Therefore, the Prime Minister and the government simply decided to prorogue Parliament so they could make it go away. It is not going away.

Let us look at the Prime Minister's bold and ambitious plan. If any of us looked back to the 2015 election platform of the Liberal Party, “Real Change”, we would see that much of what was promised back then was recycled or rehashed in this throne speech. Many of us will recall that at the beginning of the current government, in 2015, Liberals were big on “deliverology”, but we have seen very little in that regard, except for this rehashing and recycling of promises.

At the beginning of this crisis, all of us were working together in a team Canada approach. I said this the other night when I spoke to Bill C-4. Many MPs were on the front lines. We became the front line voice of the government, because in many cases Service Canada offices were closing. People were calling our offices because they were anxious. The level of anxiety was heightened as a result of the fear, the unknown and the uncertainty of what was going to happen next.

All of us worked together. Many programs that were announced initially became woefully inadequate, and were found to be that. The Canada emergency wage subsidy, for example, started off at 10%. If it was not for the opposition, all opposition parties, and I am sure the government heard about it as well from business, then that wage subsidy would not have been brought up to the level it was.

There were problems with the CERB. People were falling through the gaps. Maternity benefits is an example of where people were falling through the gaps on CERB. It was the same with the CEBA, the Canada emergency business account. A lot of businesses did not qualify for that benefit.

We all parliamentarians worked together to ensure that these programs were in place. Of course, they were meant to be temporary.

Now as we enter into a new wave of COVID-19, clearly we as parliamentarians and the government need to be there to help Canadians. However, we need to be there in recovery as well, not so much as an issue of dependence on the government but to create a recovery plan. What I fail to see in the throne speech is that recovery plan.

What does recovery look like?

We have to ensure the government gets out of the way of recovery and allow the power of the free market, allow the power of Canadian businesses, the people they employ and the products they produce to do that. It comes in every sector of our economy.

The other thing we did not see in the throne speech was any sense of investor confidence in those sectors of our economy that have been decimated as a result of government policy, legislation and regulation.

Clearly the natural resources sector has been impacted has been impacted as a result of the government. We hear many stories of Alberta being on its knees as a result of the legislation, Bill C-69 and Bill C-48, regulation and taxation policies that have been imposed on the sector. We want to ensure we move from dependance to recovery, and there was very little in the throne speech that spoke to this.

With respect to recovery, the other area we really need to focus on is the issue of rapid testing. I find it curious that just yesterday the government approved a rapid test for which an application had been filed with Health Canada just 24 hours before. It is amazing how rapidly the government and Health Canada will move when there is a tremendous amount of anxiety on the part of Canadians who are standing in line for COVID-19 testing. The fact is that rapid testing has been around in other countries. Twelve countries around the world have approved rapid testing, many of them our allies. We have trade pacts and trade agreements with them. Many rapid tests have been put in front of Health Canada, so why the delay? Why the delay that further causes problems for Canadian families that have to wait in line for testing and then for the results?

Rapid testing is going to become critical for us in out recovery. I was glad to see the rapid test approved, but the government needs to do more to ensure that it is there.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer has said that the longer the spending plan goes on it will become unsustainable: $343 billion in deficits, approaching $1.2 trillion in debt. That is on the expenditure side of the ledger. We will need to ensure that we create revenue to pay for these types of programs. We have to allow the power, as I said earlier, of the Canadian economy to do that through less legislation, less regulation, fewer policies, less taxation and create investor confidence that will provide us with the revenue we need to pay for those programs.

October 1 is a troubling day for many businesses, small and medium-sized enterprises. Rents are due today, yet the commercial emergency rent assistance program that business owners have relied on, though not many of them because it is a deeply flawed program, will cause those business owners problems.

The last thing I want to talk about are veterans. In its boldness and ambitiousness, the one thing that was neglected in the throne speech were veterans. Not one word of veteran was in the throne speech. Earlier this week, we heard from the Parliamentary Budget Officer about case loads approaching 50,000 that had to be adjudicated and they had yet to be processed. That means 50,000 veterans and their families are living with additional anxiety. I would hope the government would announce a plan to help fix that.

Two years ago the NDP suggested a plan to help alleviate some of those backlogs, and we supported it. The government needs to ensure that is fixed. As shadow minister for Veterans Affairs, I will do everything I can to hold the government to account to have those backlogs fixed.

Government Business No. 1

[Jamie Schmale, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to address this House on C-2. I also want to begin by letting the Speaker know I will be splitting my time with the member for Calgary Midnapore.

As the parliamentary secretary just mentioned, the Prime Minister shut down Parliament for six weeks. He did so because pressure was starting to mount from the WE scandal. Every day new details started to emerge on the Prime Minister's intimate involvement with that $900-million scandal. Canadians, no matter where they are, want to know more details about that scandal. We say that because the Prime Minister has already been found guilty in accepting a paid vacation to a luxury island. He was also found guilty in his involvement of the SNC-Lavalin scandal.

Now, as the parliamentary secretary said a few moments ago, it was the Prime Minister's decision to prorogue Parliament. He just did not shut down debate in this chamber, which was limited to begin with, he shut down the important work of several committees, including our ability to study the COVID-19 recovery.

Just a few weeks ago, the new leader of the official opposition raised that need to quickly restart the committees. That was done on a call to the Prime Minister, but unfortunately, those calls for the committees to be reinstated were rejected. The Standing Committee on Health could be studying the Liberals' ongoing response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Its members should be talking about the need for more rapid testing and why other countries, including many of our G7 partners, have rapid testing available to their constituents.

The Standing Committee on Finance could be preparing a report on the COVID-19 recovery. The Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities could be looking at legislation that transitions Canadians from the CERB to the new employment insurance programs.

We all know a fully functioning Parliament is necessary for Canadian democracy, especially during a crisis like the pandemic, and the Conservative Party of Canada was the only party in this House consistently calling for the full recall of Parliament during that pandemic.

We heard in the parliamentary secretary's remarks that Liberals claim to have the backs of Canadians. Conservatives are the ones consistently calling for Liberals to improve their slew of programs. It was us, as the official opposition, who consistently called for the recall of the House of Commons, not the fake Parliament the Liberals agreed to, which gave opposition members very little time to critique the programs that were being laid out. We all know there was a whole slew of problems with some of those programs, including with the wage subsidy, which started at 10% while countries like Germany were upwards of 70%. It was calls by the opposition that helped move the government to where it was able to better help those small businesses needing help because they were told to shut down and people all across this country were told to stay home.

We have a lot of serious work to do, and I will quickly touch on child care because it falls under my portfolio as the critic. The Minister of Families, Children and Social Development just last week talked about the Liberals' desire to create accessible and inclusive child care spaces right across this country. For anyone in this House, or anyone watching on CPAC or any program, I do not think too many Canadians would put the two together, that the government is very accessible or flexible, for that matter. We all know a large number of Canadians who do not have access to these child care spaces, and in my community there is a waiting list, but there are a lot of people who do not want access and want flexibility in the programs.

This is where the Conservatives' plan comes in. We are talking about giving Canadians more money in their pockets to help lower the cost of those child care spaces or, if a family so chooses, they could then move their child to maybe a parent or grandparent. Maybe someone has set up a small business in their neighbourhood, following all provincial rules and guidelines to make it a safe space for those children to go. This is what we are talking about. We are talking about flexibility.

The government rarely has flexibility in anything it offers. We also know child care is in provincial jurisdiction and we want the provinces, if they so choose to move in that direction, to include flexibility in their programs.

We want to ensure competition within the provinces so that if one province is doing something extremely well, another province that is having trouble could probably take best practices from those jurisdictions and implement them within their own system, which I think allows better quality of care all around, rather than the federal government implementing its own system or imposing rules and regulations on the provinces and territories in exchange for those tax dollars to come back, which takes time too. Coming to these agreements with the provinces takes time. There are people who need the flexibility now to help them. We talked about shift workers. A lot of shift workers are excluded from government child care because the flexibility is not there. However, if they had more money in their pockets and were able to make choices in their lives with a wide variety of options, they might be able to help their case and get back into the workforce quicker.

It seems when we talk about economic recovery, no matter how many restrictions the government imposes on an industry, the solution is always another government program. Let us take the oil and gas industry as an example. It has been unfairly punished by the government, with rules and regulations one after another. One piece of legislation, Bill C-69, the tanker ban bill, comes to mind. Then, in order to make up for its careless decisions, it decided to purchase a pipeline to ensure that project was completed, and a number of other pipelines were scrapped because of the Liberal decisions, including northern gateway, energy east and many others.

We could talk about the expansion of the Billy Bishop airport in downtown Toronto, where an expansion of runway would allow business people the ability to get to their destination a lot quicker, rather than going from downtown to Mississauga, the neighbouring community, to access a plane for a short trip. When the Liberals decided to scrap that plan, Billy Bishop airport was not able to expand. Therefore, Porter Airlines was not able to buy a number of C Series jets, which then caused Bombardier to come into financial hardship. What did the government do? It brought in another government program and decided to bail out Bombardier, yet the dollars that were available for this expansion and the decision to buy these planes came from private dollars. Therefore, we have more government intervention in the marketplace.

We will go back to child care here for a quick second. Spaces are needed now and we talk about what the government had in 1993. It talked about the Red Book and that it was going to come up with a national day care program. That took well over a decade to negotiate. The deal was signed in 2005-06, so people who had a child nearing 1993 had already passed the care age needed. In many cases, depending on where the child was born, he or she might be finished high school. Therefore, the parents who need help immediately have to wait until the government figures out its plan. That is one thing it always asks for, more time and more money. Whether it works or not, whether it wants it or not, it does not really matter, it just needs more time and money. When those plans fail, it comes up with another plan.

When we talk about Parliament being shut down over the pandemic, despite calls from the Conservative Party to reinstate Parliament, we are here dealing with Bill C-2, an act we all know needed to be dealt with immediately. Parliament did not need to be prorogued. We all know why that happened. As I mentioned at the beginning of my speech, it was because the WE documents were coming out. The Prime Minister was going to be implicated in this scandal worth $900 million.

Let us go on to what Bill C-2 is talking about. I know I am running out of time.

Let us talk about a person from my riding, Katherine. She previously ran a home day care as a small business owner. A year ago her family decided to start planning for one more child, and she signed up—

Standing Order 69.1—Bill C-4

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

Mr. Speaker, to restate the first part, it is my argument that part 3 of Bill C-4, clauses 10 to 14 in the schedule, is sufficiently different from the remainder of the bill so as to warrant the question at second reading being divided for a separate decision. Again, that is under Standing Order 69.1. While it is true that the state of the whole bill's content is associated with the response to COVID-19, that alone does not qualify as a common element for the purposes of the standing order.

The National Assembly of Quebec has similar procedures regarding omnibus bills, which are instructive. I refer the Chair to Parliamentary Procedure in Québec, third edition, which says at page 400, “The principle or principles contained in a bill must not be confused with the field it concerns. To frame the concept of principle in that way would prevent the division of most bills, because they each apply to a specific field.”

This statement of the National Assembly's practice was endorsed by your immediate predecessor, the hon. member for Halifax West, when he ruled on March 1, 2018, at page 17574 of the Debates:

While their procedure for dividing bills is quite different from ours, the idea of distinguishing the principles of a bill from its field has stayed with me. While each bill is different and so too each case, I believe that Standing Order 69.1 can indeed be applied to a bill where all of the initiatives relate to a specific policy area, if those initiatives are sufficiently distinct to warrant a separate decision of the House.

The importance of distinguishing between principles and a field was articulated by former National Assembly vice-president Fatima Houda-Pepin, on December 11, 2007, at page 2513 of the Journal des débats:

In this case, the bill contains more than one principle. Although the bill deals with road safety, the Chair cannot consider that to be the principle of Bill 42. The principle or principles of a bill should not be confused with the topic to which it pertains. Coming up with a different concept of the notion of principle would disqualify most bills from being subject to a division motion because they deal with a specific topic. In this case, the various means of ensuring road safety included in this bill could constitute distinct principles.

The 2018 ruling in our own House concerned the former Bill C-69, which was an omnibus bill with disastrous consequences for the natural resources sector in Canada. The government had argued that all of its provisions hung together on the principle of environmental protection, but the Chair ruled that the argument was not good enough to avoid dividing the question. In that case, he found there were sufficient distinctions to warrant separate votes.

A similar argument was put forward by the government for the former Bill C-59. It claimed that everything was unified by the principle of national security. As the deputy speaker ruled on June 18, 2018, at page 21196 of the Debates, “while the Chair has no trouble agreeing that all of the measures contained in Bill C- 59 relate to national security, it is the Chair's view that there are distinct initiatives that are sufficiently unrelated as to warrant dividing the question.”

Turning to Bill C-4, parts 1 and 2 concern the establishment of assorted pandemic income replacement benefits for Canadians impacted by COVID-19, together with associated labour law amendments. Part 3, meanwhile, is the government's request to spend over $17 billion on a wide array of measures, bypassing the normal estimates and appropriations procedures of Parliament. One of the considerations the Chair employed in 2018 was to look at how integrated the different provisions of the impugned bill were. In the case of Bill C-69, for example, two parts that were extensively linked with many cross-references were held to have a sufficiently common element between them. However, another part was, despite the presence of some cross-references, found to be not so deeply intertwined as to make a division impossible.

In the present case, part 3 of Bill C-4 appears to have absolutely no cross-references or drafting links to the remainder of the bill. It was simply grafted on. The various components of the bill that are part of the response to COVID-19 are really about the only thing which could even link them together. In fact, I would argue that the long title of the bill itself gives away the fact that the link is tenuous: “An Act relating to certain measures in response to COVID-19”. If there were any stronger connection among these assorted provisions, a more descriptive long title would have been possible.

Before concluding, I will offer a couple of comments of the circumstances particular to the present case.

First, I recognize that time is of the essence in reaching a ruling, because the House is currently seized with government Motion No. 1, which would ram Bill C-4 through the House with barely any debate at all. In fact, it is possible that members are on track to be called upon to vote on the bill late tomorrow night. As noted by the Speaker's immediate predecessor's ruling of November 7, 2017, at page 15116 of the Debates, points of order calling for the exercise of Standing Order 69.1 must be raised promptly. I am rising on this matter on the same afternoon the bill was introduced. To do so earlier would, frankly, have been impossible.

Second, should the House adopt government Motion No. 1, there is nothing in the motion that, in my view, would change the application of Standing Order 69.1 to Bill C-4. The wording of paragraph (b) of the motion refers to voting on “all questions necessary to dispose of the second reading stage of the bill”. This language certainly contemplates multiple votes at the second reading stage and, of course, would be undisturbed by the amendment proposed by the hon. House Leader of the Official Opposition. Moreover, the chapeau of the motion does not make any provision for it to operate notwithstanding any standing order, let alone that it would operate notwithstanding Standing Order 69.1.

In conclusion, it is my respectful submission that Bill C-4 is an omnibus bill and that under the provisions of the standing order, its part 3 should be separated out for a separate vote at the second reading stage.

Natural Resources

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Madam Speaker, the government's throne speech rehashed old Liberal promises without even mentioning oil and gas workers or pipelines.

The natural resource sector lost 43,000 jobs in the last quarter alone. Western Canadians have been hard hit by the economic calamity that began under the government long before the pandemic, Bill C-69 and Bill C-48. The Prime Minister is divisive, just like his father.

Why will the government not show it cares about national unity and a real economic recovery by supporting our oil and gas workers?

Government Business No. 10

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it has become clear that the Liberals are using the pandemic to shut down accountability and transparency, potentially to usher in big government dependency, while targeted support is not actually getting to Canadians who desperately need it.

In over five years, no province has borne the brunt of the Liberals' divisive, anti-business, anti-energy, anti-resource policies more than Alberta. The Liberals outright campaigned against Albertans and the oil and gas in 2019. Now the government is using COVID-19 to finish what it started, the destruction of Canadian oil and gas. What is crazy is that the finance minister and the natural resources minister keep acknowledging how bad it is for Canadian oil and gas now that the OPEC cartel has dropped prices, disproportionately harming Canadian energy. While demand has declined due to the pandemic, with no plan to go forward for Canadian energy, and the programs they have promised to help are complete failures, Albertans can be forgiven for concluding that the lack of support is by design or intentional.

Eighty-five days after the finance minister promised help in “hours or days”, the specific help for small and medium-sized oil and gas companies has never actually happened, but just got merged into a generic mid-sized loan program. However, a medium-sized company needs $100 million in annual revenue to qualify for the program. I guess the Liberals have a different definition of a medium-sized business than the rest of us do, or are completely oblivious to the damage in the sector so far. Even if a company does qualify, the interest rate is higher than that of the banks.

The large employer program has interest rates that rise to 15% by year five, which are payday loan rates, not emergency assistance. Furthermore, the small business loan amounts are too small for oil and gas suppliers, and when drillers face one or two years of zero revenue, short-term and fixed loans are really of no use.

The $1.7 billion for orphaned wells is a drop in the bucket meant to create 5,000 jobs for a sector that has lost more than 200,000 jobs since 2015 and 20,000 since the pandemic started, with no end in sight. Orphaned wells have increased by 300% since 2015, precisely because of Liberal policies that have bankrupted operators.

The Liberals put the big banks in charge of applying for most of the BDC and EDC COVID programs, but banks are refusing because of the risk-sharing provisions, or to avoid doing work with a program from which they will not profit.

The reality is that Liberal ministers have been told all of this directly, repeatedly, privately and publicly, so their lack of action seems intentional and malicious. These Liberals are either oblivious or do not care about the damage they are doing to the fabric of our country, giving billions of Canadian tax dollars to their elite cronies and entitled, connected buddies, or benefiting Liberal friends or families, while everyday Canadians are struggling.

On a personal note, let me say that it is incredibly sad that as their federal representative, often the first thing I hear my constituents say to me these days is that it is time for Alberta to leave Canada. It is not just that of a vocal minority, but a growing view in Lakeland, and I believe it is my duty to express the scale and scope of that frustration and anger. People are not just talking about the concept, but about the mechanics, which should be particularly troubling given the unprecedented health, fiscal and economic crisis Alberta faces now. I guess it does not make the news because we are from a rural area or the Prairies, which is easy to ignore in Ottawa, but these Liberals have destroyed the faith of many Albertans in the federal government to the extent they have given up on the idea of Canada. That should shake every person in this chamber and everyone listening. It did not happen overnight, but it accumulated after five years of targeted attacks on Lakeland and Alberta, on federal jobs in my riding, on the oil and gas sector, on rural communities, on farmers and farm families. Cutting so many Albertans out of COVID-19 emergency supports is only the latest example.

From day one, the Liberals have gone out of their way to destroy livelihoods in Lakeland and Alberta, ignoring hundreds of thousands of job losses, spikes in bankruptcies, suicides and family breakdowns. They are sacrificing families and the future of their children for ideology and partisan gain.

There is a serious agricultural emergency in Lakeland after an early snow trapped crops in the field last fall. This year's spring harvest was followed by excessive rains that flooded fields, prevented seeding or drowned crops, wiping out farm incomes for a third straight year. Liberal-caused uncertainty in export markets and the pandemic made things even more complicated for all producers. To make matters worse, the Liberals hiked their carbon tax by 50% on April 1, right in the middle of the pandemic, increasing costs for farmers who did manage to get their crops off the field and making literally everything more expensive in every sector of agriculture.

Of course, no industry has endured the single-minded sabotage and vilification of the Liberal government like oil and gas. The Prime Minister tells the world he wants to phase out Canada's most valuable export and largest private sector investor in the economy. The Liberals blocked, delayed and cancelled infrastructure for Canadian oil and gas, not for the benefit of the planet, because Canadian oil and gas is the most socially and environmentally responsible in the world, but in order to burnish the Prime Minister's celebrity status in the global jet-setting United Nations crowd. It makes no sense.

Developing all of Canada's resources and exporting Canadian natural gas will do far more to address global environmental challenges than anything the Liberals have imposed on Canada, and in particular on the prairies.

After the 2019 election, Liberal campaigners admitted they vilified the oil and gas sector. They put their electoral gain ahead of the country. Clearly, the Prime Minister has learned from his father's campaign tactics. As Pierre Trudeau's strategist said when justifying the pillaging of Alberta's earnings, “Screw the West, we'll take the rest.”

Liberal cabinet ministers and Liberal MPs actively campaign against opportunities for Albertans that would benefit all of Canada, such as the Teck Frontier project, and have supported funding pipeline protesters and petitioned against oil and gas projects that would benefit Alberta and all of Canada. It has created an inherent animosity that goes even beyond changing this Prime Minister and this government.

The Liberals and the establishment's ambivalence to the thousands of mom-and-pop oil and gas suppliers shutting down in western Canada in real time, the lack of long-term assistance measures, the domino effect for financial support for producers to get drilling started again have been heard loud and clear in Lakeland, make no mistake.

For the first time since 1965, Alberta will receive more money from the federal government in 2020 than it sends. For 55 continuous years, wealth generated by Alberta strengthened the rest of Canada. The NEP in the 1980s under Pierre Trudeau took the most, at over $30 billion a year, which has since declined, but since 2005, Alberta contributed more than $20 billion a year than it received, which is more than any other province. Structural changes are needed to make Canada work for Alberta and to level the playing field. It would be good for all of Canada to value all of the regions in our country.

The Liberals are using COVID-19 as a so-called opportunity to re-engineer Canada's economy in ways that will further alienate and impoverish the west, and they are supported by their allies on the left.

Alberta punches above its weight in Canada. It is not an accident of geography or natural resources or demographics. It is not a coincidence. It is because generations of Albertans and Albertans by choice created an advantage by combining hard work, innovation, personal responsibility and free-market principles and policies to create private sector opportunities and a growing economy that attracted the best, the brightest and the youngest from all across Canada and the world to work and raise their families. It is free markets and free enterprise policies that propelled Alberta's economy to create nine out of every 10 new full-time jobs in Canada as recently as 2014 and to be a net contributor to Canada continuously for more than half a century.

The worst damage has always been done by federal intrusions into Alberta's natural resources policy, such as the NEP and now the dismantling of oil and gas through bills like Bill C-69 and Bill C-48, the blocking of pipelines, other regulations and roadblocks, barriers to exploration and to drilling, the carbon tax and now the failure of COVID support programs. Other provinces and regions have similar natural resource assets and opportunities, but they have not taken the same approach. It was the private sector and Alberta's entrepreneurial risk-taking innovation, combined with positive federal and provincial fiscal policies, that unlocked remarkable opportunities in Alberta for all of Canada.

After the 2015 election, in my first words in the House of Commons, I said, “A strong Alberta means a strong Canada.” It is really a tragedy for my riding and for our country that the Liberals have done everything they can to undermine that reality. On election night, the Prime Minister said he heard Alberta and that he would do better. He has not. My constituents are watching everything they built for generations collapse in front of them, and the federal government keeps asking them to sacrifice more by accepting one more review, one more regulation and one more tax. It is suffocating Lakeland, and because of Alberta's outside contribution to Canada, it will suffocate Canada's economic recovery.

The perspective that Canada does not work for Alberta is unfortunately pervasive in Lakeland. As elected representatives, we owe a duty of more than platitudes about our positions on industries, laws and taxes, more than politics for personal and partisan gain. This is obvious to freedom-loving Albertans and Albertans by choice. In Lakeland, it is a self-evident truth that the status quo is neither acceptable nor sustainable.

If anything I have said in the chamber today makes colleagues angry or uncomfortable, I hope it weighs on them. I hope it keeps them up at night, like it does me. I hope they stop enabling and helping the most corrupt, entitled and out-of-touch Prime Minister, who is doing all this damage to our country.

[Jonathan Wilkinson, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

As I say, Mr. Chair, there is no exemption. It is a specific process, a regional process within Bill C-69, and I'd be more than happy to ensure that the honourable member has access to the information associated with how that works.

[Jonathan Wilkinson, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

I'm sorry, but the honourable member is simply incorrect. There is no exemption to Bill C-69. This is a regional assessment that was done for the purposes of exploratory drilling off the east coast.

[Jonathan Wilkinson, Liberal, Minister of Environment and Climate Change]

Mr. Chair, I think the honourable member should go back and look at Bill C-69, which improved the environmental process in Canada to ensure that good projects could go ahead and that they were good projects.

There is a provision in there relating to regional assessments, which relates to the offshore in Newfoundland, but it is not an exemption from Bill C-69.

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

Mr. Chair, maybe he'll consider this one.

The Hibernia project was given an exemption to Bill C-69 because of flaws that we identified early when this government was passing that legislation. The exemption was given to ensure that jobs could be saved.

Will that exemption be given to all other provinces that produce energy in this country?

[Tim Uppal, Conservative, Edmonton Mill Woods, AB]

Mr. Chair, the economic turmoil in Alberta did not start because of COVID-19 or the decline in oil prices. Since this government took office in 2015, hundreds of thousands of jobs have been lost. Billions of dollars of investment have left the energy industry because of disastrous policies brought in by this Liberal government—policies like Bill C-69, the no-more-pipelines bill; Bill C-48, the tanker ban; and the job-killing carbon tax.

Alberta's energy industry creates thousands of jobs right across Canada and pays for much-needed infrastructure right across the country. Months ago, the Liberals promised support for the energy industry, but Albertans are still waiting.

Alberta's innovation and prosperity are necessary for Canada's economy to recover from this pandemic. It's time for this government to support the energy sector and let it prosper, not strangle it with over-regulation and half-hearted efforts of support.

Why don't the Liberals see that when Alberta prospers, all of Canada prospers?

[Peter Kiss, President and Chief Executive Officer, Morgan Construction and Environmental Ltd.]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good afternoon. I wish to thank the finance committee for inviting me to comment on the federal government's response to COVID-19, particularly around the response to the energy sector.

My name is Peter Kiss. I'm the owner of Morgan Construction, a heavy civil contractor operating throughout western Canada with a focus on the oil sands. I was previously in front of you on February 6 during the pre-budget consultations when I discussed competitive tax rates; differing rules for resources, our resources, which must compete throughout the world; bills C-69 and C-48; indigenous opportunities; and the tech frontier. I spoke of the economic Armageddon that is happening in Alberta. Since then things have gotten worse.

Obviously, our world has changed. My company has laid off 80% of our staff and reduced wages, and our revenues are down 87%, and I consider us fortunate. I have peers and competitors whose revenues are down 100% and the staff is reduced to a skeleton management group. The difference now in the resources sector, and specifically in Alberta, is that COVID started the problem, and a Saudi-Russian coordinated predatory oil price war caused the price to crash, production cuts, and capital spending to cease.

I would like to compliment the federal and provincial governments on their efforts thus far in providing support to families and workers via the CERB and the multitude of other measures put in place. They are certainly helpful in the near term, but when it comes to supporting business and indirectly the workers, we need to re-evaluate.

Businesses need two things only: credit or liquidity and revenue. This should be the focus. This is how people are going to get back to work.

From what we have seen thus far, the Canada emergency benefit, this $2,000 per month grant, while helpful in the beginning, needs to end. Beyond the moral hazard of paying people not to work and creating a society that lives on handouts and subsidies, it is preventing people from going back to work. It is that simple. While the story is anecdotal, workers are choosing to make less and stay at home this summer.

The Canada emergency wage subsidy is a great program. It's putting liquidity into the hands of businesses and is certainly helpful. I don't feel that it's keeping additional people employed, as no business is going to pay employees to sit around and do nothing, even with the subsidy. The greater hazard with this program is that the government artificially reduces input costs, and over the long term in a free market economy, the selling price is reduced. We are seeing this already. Once competitive businesses know how long supports such as the CERB, tax deferral, WCB premium and lease reductions are going to last, the subsidy gets worked into the selling price and creates an artificially low selling price for goods and services. Selling prices are dropping because of subsidies.

While this wage subsidy should continue, it should be extended on a one-month or even less increment, and businesses should not be allowed to plan on receiving it. Therefore, it would get worked out of the price.

EDC and BDC support loans are liquidity measures that have the right intent; however, they are not accessible to those companies that need it. The program needs to be adjusted to increase access and the velocity of capital as the economy opens up. This is when businesses require working capital the most. Companies don't go bankrupt; they run out of cash.

On the large employer emergency financing facility, LEEFF, the entire Canadian energy sector across the prairies and in Newfoundland waited hours, days and then months for sector assistance to be announced. I believe that the LEEFF program is that support and all that is coming.

From what I can tell, industry can't access this capital because of the restrictions surrounding the funds, and it's like it was written by predatory lenders of last resort with the intent of taking over the business. The credit standards are too high. The interest is accelerated over time, which is punitive, and by creating convertible debt, the federal government is looking for a clear path to board seats on E and Ps. This is not what the energy sector or Canada needs.

If we want to recover in this country and pay for all the COVID-related expenses, we need a viable energy sector paying royalties. We need real support now with easily accessible liquidity.

Before the questions, I'll leave you with a couple of thoughts. Stop the handouts. We're over the hump now, and everyone needs to get back to work. Accelerate project approvals. There are enough projects in energy, mining and commercial waiting for federal approval to turn this economy around. Don't start paying sick leave. There are only two groups that are going to pay for this: taxpayers, since there's no such thing as government funding; and businesses. With 10 days of paid sick leave, 10 statutory holidays and two to six weeks of holidays, we are not-so-slowly turning into Europe, but without the historical charm. Layering on more costs for our nation's businesses and taxpayers is not helpful.

Finally, protect Canada's largest industry. Saudi Arabia and Russia started a price crash with predatory pricing and production. If this was steel, aluminum, automobiles, agriculture or aerospace, we would have immediate countervailing duties, but with regard to energy, we are left to twist in the wind. Liquidity problems in the resource sector are a direct result of foreign interference, and now they are buying our assets at a discount. If the federal government wants to help, it can start with protection. Again, we don't want handouts; we need a hand up.

In conclusion, I wish to thank the federal government for inviting me to present today. Please remember this: The social cost of not getting the energy sector and its 850,000 people back to work will be paid with—and I'm not trying to be an alarmist—the destruction of families, alcoholism and drug abuse, social welfare and suicide.

Thank you.

[David Sword, Board Member, Coalition of Concerned Manufacturers and Businesses of Canada]

Thank you, Mr. Chair and committee members, for having us.

My name is David Sword, and I'm in the energy field. I'm also here to support the coalition in its overall position on manufacturing and energy in Canada.

There's a strong relationship between energy projects and the manufacturing sector in Canada. When anything energy-related needs to be built in this country, manufacturing benefits immediately and directly. Canadian manufacturing provides the necessary ingredients to help the energy sector both build and maintain its operations.

That brings us to natural gas. It's a vital fuel, and thankfully Canada has an abundant supply. Natural gas is in demand both within our country and worldwide.

That's where LNG comes into play. LNG is liquid natural gas, of course, natural gas that has been supercooled to form a liquid to enable ease of long-distance transportation. Natural gas is being used to help fuel economic growth and replace coal, and it is also a perfect fuel complement to the intermittent nature of renewable energy.

It's valued because of its cleaner-burning aspects in terms of air particulates, but the fuel also contains a fraction of the GHG content of coal. That's a fuel that's in wide use in Asia, and it continues to grow. For example, in China and India they add new coal plants annually, and now Japan is seeking to do the same.

Canada can and should play a vital role, a global role, in providing that fuel of choice to improve air quality and to be a supplier of choice, and also to get the capital investment and jobs that are in the sector and jobs in manufacturing. Doing that would help Canada's overall contribution to lowering global emissions. What goes up must come down somewhere, and it is truly a global issue.

We have to get more projects going. Just consider a tale of two countries, Canada and the United States. We are both rich in natural gas. We have abundant supplies, but the United States has gone from having virtually no exports and being poised to import to being one of the world's top natural gas exporters in less than a decade.

According to the FERC, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission in Washington, the United States has seven existing export terminals, eight under construction, and 14 that have been approved for construction and are awaiting final investment decisions. Canada has two, and both are experiencing some form of difficulty. So in the LNG hockey game, the score is 29-2 for the United States.

We're a nation of builders, but we simply can't get big projects going well. The path must be cleared for such valued projects. Approvals have to be strict, but there must be a clear path to yes. If a proponent follows a very strict set of guidelines and strict rules, with public input and participation and with reasonable time frames, there has to be a signal to the proponent that they stand a strong chance of success if they follow the rules and the criteria.

We don't seem to enjoy that in Canada. That applies to all major projects going forward, and not just to the resource sector. Changes to major approvals were significant under Bill C-69, so it is our recommendation that the bill be amended with the series of recommendations that were submitted to the Senate during the debate on the legislation.

Virtually all sectors agree that in the absence of such a change, no large-sized project will be advanced, and certainly none will be undertaken, under this set of conditions. We do not think that stopping major projects and resource developments was the intended end result of Bill C-69, but it appears that that is what it has been.

Together, through effort, we can create jobs, improve air quality, have more successful manufacturing, and create an energy and economic future for Canada. LNG and manufacturing want to play that role. Our organization is going to be releasing a more comprehensive list of recommendations to help restart the economy, but this will be a major centrepiece of it.

Thank you for your time.

Proceedings of the House and Committees

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate your giving me that extra six and a half minutes, because I was mentally prepared for 16 and a half minutes, and I appreciate your clarifying that time.

I was listening to an online conference of Alltech, a large agriculture company, this week. One of the presenters said, “A crisis does not build character; a crisis reveals the character of you and your team.” I think that is very apropos right now, because Canadians are looking to us not only as parliamentarians, as elected officials, but certainly as their beacon of democracy, of what Canada stands for. They are looking to us for inspiration and to be leaders. In a time of crisis, we are the ones who should be at the forefront, taking the leadership role. I think that leadership role includes going to work.

I want to give those in the House who were not here yesterday a bit of a review.

Yesterday, my colleague from Ottawa West—Nepean said in her speech that the House does not matter and that being in Parliament should not matter. I think that is wrong. I know for us there is no greater honour than being elected by our constituents and representing them here in Parliament, in the House of Commons. I believe that this is the foundation of our democracy.

Somebody told me once that there have been fewer members of Parliament than there have been hockey players in the National Hockey League. I am sure most of us had our parents tell us we would never make it in professional hockey, but I do not know if they would have ever said we would never be members of Parliament. Here I am, and that is thanks to my constituents.

When I was elected by the constituents of Foothills, I believed it was my job to be here to represent them, to be their voice in the House of Commons, and to be in Parliament. I would hope that my colleagues from all parties would understand that being here is an integral part of the job of being a member of Parliament. If they do not want to be here, I think they have to look internally to what they want to accomplish in their career as elected politicians and elected officials. If being here in the House of Commons, in Parliament, is not something they see as an essential service or a priority, they should really be taking a hard look at whether this is something they want to do, because being here is a large part of that job. It should be an honour. It is something we should all take a great deal of pride in, no matter what party we represent, and certainly our constituents are expecting us to be here.

Last night, I went through some of my emails from my constituents. We have certainly had a number of them. I know we all have. My constituents in Foothills are asking me to come back to work, not just to be in a virtual committee meeting, but to have Parliament up and running. I would like to read some of the comments that I have from some of my constituents.

Missy in Twin Butte, Alberta wrote:

Keep the pressure up for our government to get back to work! Is it not an essential service? There needs to be some opposition feedback and some questions allowed to [the Prime Minister]. At the moment there are no checks and balances....scary!

Pat in High River wrote:

I would like to know what, if anything you are doing to get the liberals back into the house so you can all do what we are paying you to do.... Letting this virus hold you back is total crap, the people that work in grocery stores and other stores are working. [Why aren't you?] I don't see any reason why you and [parliamentarians] shouldn't be working as well. If the liberals won't go back [to] parliament [it should be] dissolved and an election called.

Karen wrote:

I’m extremely disappointed that the Federal government feels that Parliament is not an essential part of the running of Canada. The justification [for this] is a slap in the face to those [of us] who work every day.... [It is] time for Canadians to be allowed to get back to work.

Rick wrote:

Parliament needs to reconvene, even in a condensed version. I watched the sitting last week and there was some great issues/ideas put forward by the opposition. this inadequate [version of] government cannot continue on its own.

Ellen in High River wrote:

We MUST get parliament back in session !!!!! [That is an] understatement. There must be some way to make [the Prime Minister] recall parliament, short of a million people descending on Ottawa [and demanding so].

Those are just a few of my constituents' comments about where they feel the critical role of Parliament is.

Yesterday, we had the Minister of Families, Children and Social Development saying that we are in a virtual Parliament. We are not in a virtual Parliament; we are in a virtual committee meeting, a committee of the whole. That is very different from Parliament.

It is disingenuous and misleading by the government to say that we are in a virtual Parliament, because we are not having opposition day motions, we are not dealing with legislation outside of COVID-19, and we are not dealing with having the majority of committees up and running. There is no question that dealing with COVID-19 is a priority for all of us. I do not think any of us would disagree with that. However, to say that there are no other issues that are almost as important is simply not true.

The leader of the official opposition yesterday talked about energy projects that are languishing at the cabinet table, 85 billion dollars' worth of energy projects. One of those projects is the Riversdale coal mine in Crowsnest Pass, Alberta, in my riding. This is metallurgical coal, which shows the lack of knowledge of the Liberals, who are now chirping at me about shutting down the coal industry. This is a metallurgical coal mine that mines coal for steel, just in case members want to do some homework.

It is interesting that she is already yelling to shut down that industry, not understanding that thousands of people in that community rely on that industry. Having the Riversdale mine would be a game-changer for that community, a community that is not doing well. This is an opportunity for more than 1,000 jobs during construction and hundreds more during operation.

It is not just about the mine and the fact that it is waiting in limbo to be approved or not. It has gone through every process. It has one permit left to go and the approval of cabinet, but imagine what that does for that community. Imagine what that does for Blair's hardware store, Dawn's bed and breakfast and restaurant, Lisa's newspaper, or events operations, or other businesses in that community.

That community is waiting with bated breath on the decision for that mine but sees it languishing at the cabinet table or within government because of COVID-19. I hope the government can walk and chew gum at the same time, so that we can deal with COVID-19 but also have Parliament back to deal with other issues that are just as important.

When we come out of COVID-19, we are going to be in a deep financial hole. We have seen from the Parliamentary Budget Officer that the deficit right now is about $252 billion. I would suspect that, with the extension of the CERB and the wage subsidy, it could double and we will see a trillion-dollar debt for Canada. To come out of that, we are going to be relying on a few industries to help carry or dig Canada out of that financial hole.

There are only a couple of industries with the landscape out there right now that Canadians can look to and government should be looking to, to ensure that they are on a strong footing. Examples are energy and agriculture. No matter what happens coming out of COVID, people are still going to heat their homes. They are still going to put fuel in their cars, buy groceries and feed their families. As part of that, there is very real discussion of having a global food shortage. Countries around the world are going to be looking to Canada to try to address that problem because of our farmers here. Would it not make sense to have those two industries as strong as possible coming out of COVID-19?

Those are two of the industries that the Liberal government is neglecting, when it should be looking at those two as pillars of our economy, pillars of our recovery. It does not make a lot of sense that they are not. If we have Parliament back, we can have those discussions here.

For example, in the energy sector, the Standing Committee on Natural Resources is not sitting. Why? It is one of the most important industries we have in this country, with more than $60 billion in royalty revenue alone going to the federal government. That does not count the hundreds of billions of dollars of taxes that go to provincial, municipal and federal governments through income tax. That is an essential revenue source for this country coming out of COVID-19, but we cannot have those discussions, because we are just having what is essentially a committee meeting and we cannot talk about issues outside of that committee meeting.

There are projects like the Riversdale mine, which are essential to communities like Crowsnest Pass in my riding. That is just one project of dozens in constituencies and regions across this country. If I am hearing from my constituents about a project of that magnitude and the impact that it could be having on their economy, I am sure others among my colleagues are having the same conversations with their constituents.

As we go through this pandemic and we start looking forward to reopening our economy, in whatever manner that happens, as provinces will have a lot of say in how that happens and we want to ensure we do that as safely as possible, we can imagine where we would be as a country and an economy if we had a strong energy sector and a strong agriculture sector. We would be in a very different position, because we were coming into COVID-19 on very weak financial footing as a result of out-of-control spending by the Liberal government.

I recall the election in 2015, when the current Prime Minister said that we were going to have deficits of $10 billion for four years and in 2019 we would have a balanced budget. That obviously did not happen. We have now seen deficits as high as $28 billion. That was even before the COVID-19 pandemic. We saw detrimental legislation like Bill C-69 and Bill C-48, which have devastated the energy sector. We have seen illegal blockades, carbon taxes and rail backlogs that have devastated the agriculture sector, not to mention more than $5 billion in lost foreign markets as a result of political blunders by the Prime Minister.

Members can imagine where we would be if those two industries were doing well coming into COVID. It would put us in a decent position to come out of this pandemic, but unfortunately that is not where we are. That is unfortunate, because those people would be working. Certainly for us in Alberta, with close to 200,000 energy workers out of work well before COVID-19, that is certainly not getting any better as a result of what we are going through right now.

When I am speaking to my constituents, they understand the position this country is in with the pandemic. We all want to ensure that our families and our friends are safe, but they also want to be back to work. I find it difficult. My wife and I leave home now and again to get groceries, and on the weekend we went to a garden centre and bought some trees and flowers for the yard, and there are 15-year-old teenagers working there. They are helping serve their community in their way, and I find it tough that we cannot do the same thing and serve our community right here in the House of Commons.

What are my Liberal colleagues and those in the Bloc and the NDP trying to hide? Why do they not want to be here? What is holding them back? We are here all this week as 60 members of Parliament, but just in a committee meeting. Why can we not go that extra couple of steps and get ourselves back to normal? I think that is what Canadians are asking us to do. As I said at the beginning of my speech, we are supposed to be the leaders, so why are we languishing behind everybody else? Why are we asking Canadians of every walk of life to start going back to work, except we are the ones who are saying “but not us”? We are saying, “It is good enough for you, but it is not what we should be doing.” I think that is wrong. It sends a horrible message to Canadians. They are looking to us every single day, as their elected representatives. They chose us. They elected us to come here and be their voice, and for the Liberals, the NDP, the Bloc and the Greens to be muffling that voice is wrong.

I do not know how they can go back to their constituents, look them in the face and tell them they need to go to work in that grocery story, in that hospital, in that pharmacy and in that hardware store, but the members of Parliament are not going to go back to work. If that is truly their attitude, they need to look at their constituents and ask themselves why they ran in the first place to be a member of Parliament if they are not willing to be out in front, be that leader, be that inspiration to the rest of Canada, be the one who shows that everything is going to be okay. We are going to be here to make the tough decisions on behalf of our constituents.

What it really comes down to is holding the government to account. We cannot have an ongoing process of doing government by press conference. Our democracy is not about that.

I know my constituents are sick and tired of the Prime Minister coming out of the cottage every morning, making his announcements, going back in and then that is it. They want some accountability. In many cases, they agree with the programs that have been put forward, and they certainly appreciate the improvements that the official opposition has forced the government to do. However, they are looking to us to be leaders, not followers. They are looking to us to get back to work, and the government should follow that lead.

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The Deputy Prime Minister says that, but this federal Liberal government has shown again and again that they don't care for the Canadian energy sector or jobs in western Canada. They introduced anti-energy legislation through Bill C-69 and Bill C-48, as all Canadians know, which have devastated the industry. In fact, these two bills alone forced over $200 billion of investment to leave Canada.

To add to Alberta's economic problems, we've also had an international oil price war and the COVID-19 pandemic, which caused a huge drop in the demand for oil. Economies across the country are starting to open up again, but the reality for many Albertans in my riding is that they don't have a job to go back to.

When will the government start supporting Canadian energy workers and remove the regulatory roadblocks that they keep putting up?

[Chris Bloomer]

Well, certainly we had a long discussion about Bill C-69 a while ago. It's now been put into law. We're working with it. We're hoping that, through the implementation of it, we'll get more clarity than we had. We just have to work with it.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Speaking a little bit about the regulatory environment, would you agree that legislation like Bill C-69 has not helped?

[David Yurdiga, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Before I start my questions, I would like to thank the various ministers, parliamentary secretaries and the Speaker of the House for reaching out to me during the severe flooding in Fort McMurray. Your support during these trying times is much appreciated.

The oil and gas industry is under severe strain. Over the past number of years, we have seen tremendous pressure on the federal government from anti-oil and gas lobby groups demanding that the oil sands be shut down.

The federal Liberal government's response to the anti-oil lobby was the introduction of the “no more pipelines” bill, Bill C-69, which will prevent any major oil and gas projects from being developed in Canada; and the oil shipping ban, Bill C-48, for the northern coast of British Columbia, which also had a negative effect on the oil industry. These two bills alone pushed over $200 billion of investment out of Canada, causing the Alberta economy to retract to recession levels. To compound Alberta's economic problems, we have an international oil price war and the COVID-19 pandemic, which caused a huge drop in demand for oil.

Mr. Chair, 48 days after the finance minister promised liquidity loans to oil producers and service companies, there are still no applications open for these loans. Can the honourable Minister of Natural Resources tell us when the Liberals will act on their promise?

[Brandon Ellis]

Thank you very much for the question.

I'll be very quick, Mr. Chair. I encourage everyone on this call to visit imaginethepotential.ca. It highlights all the wonderful things that the Newfoundland and Labrador oil and gas sector is all about and has the potential to be all about.

Noia is our oil and gas industry association. From what I've gathered, they're going to be looking for some level of investment from the federal government. I can't comment on what that might be, but what we've heard from our membership just generally is that they would like to see government get out of the way to some extent and allow some of these energy projects to move along.

As I had mentioned in my testimony, Bill C-69 is fairly problematic. We've commented on that, and the Canadian Chamber of Commerce has also commented on that.

[Brandon Ellis, Policy and Advocacy Specialist, St. John's Board of Trade]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. It's good to see you again and good to see the honourable committee members. Thank you for extending an invitation to me to provide evidence for your consideration today.

As you just said, my name is Brandon Ellis, and I am the manager of policy and advocacy for the St. John's Board of Trade. The business community of St. John’s, much like the rest of the country, is currently facing unprecedented challenges. Our board has been in constant contact with all levels of government in order to communicate what we have been hearing from our members. The St. John’s Board of Trade recognizes that COVID-19 has caused a public health crisis and an economic crisis. The two are intertwined and must be approached with urgency.

We welcome many of the aspects of the government’s programs that have been unveiled, the wage subsidy being one of them. Countless jobs will be saved because of the announced measures, but they fall short of supporting many businesses that need help during this time. Many businesses that are not essential services have been operating with skeleton staff or been completely shut down for over a month now. They have been asked to wait two more weeks before funds are available. This is too long, in our estimation, as businesses have been waiting for this support since March.

The government has proven that it can deliver funds quickly and efficiently with the success of the CERB program delivered through the CRA. Canadian businesses need the same urgency in receiving financial help. Several weeks from now will simply be too late, and we will see many businesses close their doors, some permanently. In a survey this week from Restaurants Canada, results showed that one out of every two independent restaurants do not expect to survive if conditions do not improve within the next two months. Among restaurant operators, 75% are either very or extremely concerned about their current level of debt. We know that a majority of smaller businesses do not have enough cash reserves to wait several more weeks for relief. Those affected will likely now place greater demand on the CERB.

In addition, we continue to see many businesses that need help now falling between the policy gaps of support programs. These include, as previously mentioned, sole proprietorships that do not have payrolls but pay themselves through dividends. We must cast a wider, more inclusive net to ensure that all businesses that need help can receive it.

The issue of sole proprietors falling through the cracks is of concern to us. It is unreasonably punitive if businesses are meeting the other requirements for government programs to disqualify them for not previously incorporating, as some of the rules for a few of the programs are right now. We ask that government extend the CEBA to sole proprietors who have not incorporated.

We have asked government to cast the widest nets possible with the programs that they have developed. Last week, our chair, Andrew Wadden, who is a local lawyer and concerned business owner, wrote to the Minister of National Revenue requesting a full refund of the GST to all small and medium-sized businesses. The Parliamentary Budget Officer has already completed the partial analysis of our ask. It is in our analysis that this will cover many businesses that desperately need funds to stay afloat. We ask that all businesses, not just those that are incorporated, be considered for a GST refund for the GST that they paid between January 1 and December 31, 2019.

As you may be aware, our province is facing significant financial challenges in both our short- and long-term future. We also face challenges in our offshore oil industry, given the current economic uncertainty. This industry has been a vital economic driver within our province and has contributed greatly to Canada as well. If we are discussing what economic recovery looks like in our province, we cannot do so without highlighting our oil and gas sector.

Over the past two decades, our offshore oil has accounted for 25% of our provincial GDP. Economists are projecting that over $100 billion in royalties and revenues will be accumulated by 2045, and by 2033 oil and gas will generate 19% of all Newfoundland and Labrador jobs. The Newfoundland and Labrador oil industry will provide $3.3 billion in taxes to the rest of Canada. We encourage the Government of Canada to begin implementing policies that will unleash the full potential of our offshore oil and gas policies and begin amending previous policies, such as Bill C-69, which have been proven problematic.

We also have some thoughts on the commercial rent announcement today. I'd be happy to take any questions the committee may have with respect to that.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, committee members and fellow witnesses, for the opportunity to provide testimony. I look forward to answering any questions you may have.

[W. Brett Wilson]

Four minutes is not enough.

Clearly, in terms of policy, we've been struggling with what the possible impact is on Bill C-69, and of course the tanker ban has created some concern. There's a belief that several hundred miles of our Canadian coastline are the only important miles, or the only miles at risk, when of course all of Newfoundland and the St. Lawrence Seaway feel fully protected, fully protected because they are.

We need to think about the tanker ban. We need to think about access to port. We need to think about how infrastructure projects are moved forward. Bill C-69 terrifies people. We have no proof at this point in time that we have a thoughtful mechanism for moving forward. So that's a challenge. That's not meant to be a partisan comment. That's an industry fear factor. We've yet to see....

Certainly with Teck stepping away, people will say that the price of oil is what scared them away. No, the process clearly scared them away. There were threats to their people. There were death threats to their senior officers. There were all sorts of things happening that were just wrong.

We need policy that's pro-industrial expansion and infrastructure development.

[Jocelyn Bamford]

My name is Jocelyn Bamford. I'm the president and founder of the Coalition of Concerned Manufacturers and Businesses of Canada.

For the past three years, since our inception, the coalition has been warning all levels of government that there would be catastrophic effects from policies that had the effect of driving both the manufacturing and the natural resource sectors out of this country. The green energy policy in Ontario has made the price of electricity four times the average in North America. Unaffordable electricity, coupled with even more burdensome carbon taxes, has driven manufacturers out of Canada and into the open arms of other countries that see the importance of affordable energy to attract businesses.

One can't help but ask the question: If Canada had policies that attracted and maintained a robust manufacturing sector, would we be in the same situation with the complete lack of personal protective equipment and medical supplies for our front-line medical workers and our patients during this COVID-19 pandemic?

What has Canada done? It seems that the federal government's policies are designed to push manufacturing out, stifle our resource sector and kill the same plastics industry that is so essential to keeping our front-line medical staff, patients and citizens safe. As the federal government chases its obsession with the new green economy—a strange obsession, given our country's small contribution to global greenhouse gases—it has been blinded to the very real threats to our country; threats that have become very real with COVID-19.

The federal government's push to stifle the resource sector with bills like Bill C-48 and Bill C-69 and the clean fuel standard has served to undermine our resource sector. At a time when we're incurring huge deficits, Canada does not have the income from the resource sector that we could have had if major projects had not been delayed or cancelled. The raising of the carbon tax when many businesses are on the precipice of collapse and the extra cost to transport food and medical supplies to our country seems outright irresponsible.

After the pandemic has passed, we recommend the following to help get Canada on track.

One, we recommend the immediate end of all carbon taxes.

Two, we recommend the end of taxing of passive investments, which many companies use to save in order to upgrade their plants. These are very expensive capital-intensive endeavours.

Three, we recommend a mandate to bring manufacturing back to Canada through competitive offerings and favourable tax programs.

Four, we recommend a recognition of the interconnection between the resource sector and the manufacturing sector. Many in manufacturing supply parts and pieces to the resource sector, and we also rely on affordable energy so that we can compete globally.

Five, we recommend the approval of pipelines so that we can get our resources to market and bring valuable tax revenue back to Canada.

We look forward to working with the government, because we have many ideas on how to get this country back on track and fix the situation.

I'm now going to pass it to my colleague, Veso Sobot, for his remarks.

Opposition Motion—Pharmacare

[Matt Jeneroux, Conservative, Edmonton Riverbend, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is an absolute pleasure to split my time with the member for Mégantic—L'Érable, my seatmate and a well-informed member on this topic.

I think members from all parties can agree that we want Canadians to receive the best possible health care. However, universal or national pharmacare would have serious implications for all Canadians, without changing the status quo for most. According to a 2017 report by The Conference Board of Canada, 98% of Canadians either have or are eligible for private or public drug coverage, so we know that the vast majority of Canadians can access the medications they need without financial burden.

If we implemented a universal pharmacare program, this would not be the case. To pay for a universal system, taxes would have to be raised for all Canadians. We do not know how much that could cost, but estimates are around $15 billion annually. Under a universal system, the most vulnerable Canadians would see their cost of living go up due to higher taxes.

Canadians who currently have the coverage they need would give up some of their disposable income to fund the new system, while seeing no change to their quality of life or access to prescription medication. One thing I consistently hear from my constituents is that they cannot afford more taxes. They cannot afford higher living costs. Things are stretched tight as it is.

The government needs to be mindful of the economic times we are in. Oil prices are in free fall, COVID-19 is predicted to have significant impacts on our economy, rail blockades caused millions of dollars in lost economic development and companies are rethinking investing in Canada because of our “political climate”. Just yesterday, the TSX fell by almost 700 points, and we are now in what is called a bear market.

We are in uncertain times. Some have even called it uncharted territory. Right now, many Canadians are worried about their jobs and livelihoods. Now is not the time to implement a pharmacare program that would come at a massive cost on the backs of taxpayers. I am especially worried because of the huge deficit we already have, which is close to $30 billion. In December of last year, finance department documents showed it was at $26.6 billion and expected to keep rising. We will find out more when the finance minister releases his budget on March 30, the date we finally learned just yesterday.

We have this huge deficit, and I am still scratching my head and wondering why. We have been in relatively good economic times for the past few years. Canada was in good shape until 2015 thanks to the previous Conservative government that had the restraint to save and make tough decisions. The government has squandered that good fortune. Instead, it has gone on a spending spree and racked up unsustainable levels of debt and will leave the bill to our children and grandchildren.

Most economists know that one saves money in the good times and puts money away for a rainy day, as the saying goes. That did not happen, and now we are heading into a series of stormy days. The government cannot give any sort of clear answer on how it is going to respond to a recession. My guess is that it has no idea.

This is a crucial time for Canada. Companies no longer see Canada as a place to make a safe investment. The government has actively worked to shut down the energy industry with legislation like Bill C-69 and Bill C-48. Thousands of hard-working men and women are finding themselves out of work in my home province of Alberta, and this has had a ripple effect on the entire economy. What does all this have to do with pharmacare? As I said earlier, Canadians cannot afford higher taxes, especially in these uncertain economic times.

In last year's budget, the government pledged to work with provinces, territories and stakeholders to create the Canadian drug agency and to spend $35 million to establish a Canadian drug agency transition office. The government's advisory group was headed by a former provincial Liberal, Dr. Eric Hoskins, a man who is no stranger to endless deficits and debt. It is no surprise that the report he authored recommended the creation of a universal system. It is always buy now, pay later.

The Canadian Chamber of Commerce has warned the government of the impact on workers should pharmacare be implemented. Its chief economist, Trevin Stratton, said millions of Canadians would lose access to medications they have under the current plans. He said the government needs to “carefully reflect” on how millions of Canadians who already have access to prescription drug coverage would be impacted.

Some families experienced this recently when the Ontario government implemented free prescription medication for people under the age of 25. This program, OHIP+, cost roughly $500 million a year when it was implemented in 2017. Private insurance for those under the age of 25 became obsolete. Many parents complained that medications for rare diseases were not on the list of approved medications under OHIP+. These medications had been covered under private insurance.

I worry that the same thing will happen with this government when it implements a universal pharmacare system across the country. The prescription medication that many people are currently using and covering the cost of through their private insurance may become unavailable if not approved.

Not only will a universal system put more strain on Canadians through higher taxes and deficit, but access to much-needed prescription drugs may be threatened. The Liberals have been promising a pharmacare plan for decades and have done absolutely nothing about it. It was in their 1997 election platform and was promised again in 2004. Any promises to implement pharmacare are purely for political posturing. In fact, their 2019 budget contained almost no health care money until 2022, well after the election.

We on this side of the House know that one of the best things we can do to help Canadians is keep taxes and the cost of living low. Fiscal restraint is required to ensure the prosperity of our future generations. We need to make good decisions now, and I do not believe adopting a universal pharmacare program is a smart decision. As I stated, it would have serious financial impacts through higher taxes and bigger deficits. It would threaten access to medications currently covered through private drug plans. Research shows that about 98% of Canadians already have or are eligible for private or public drug coverage.

While we know that some Canadians legitimately struggle to pay for access to prescription medications, this is not the case for the majority of our population. We already have one of the best health care systems in the world, and we should be proud of the system in place.

Instead of focusing on big-ticket items like national pharmacare, the government needs to focus on the unfolding economic crisis. We need urgent action to unleash our economy. Budget 2020 must include cuts for workers and entrepreneurs to reward investment and work, a reasonable plan to phase out the deficit and reassure investors, a rule to eliminate red tape and liberate businesses, an end to corporate welfare for favoured companies and an end to the wasteful Liberal spending that we have seen over the past four years.

We are all in the House to help our constituents and all Canadians. We want to see them be successful and get ahead. Implementing an expensive pharmacare system will not achieve this. It will put more tax burdens on hard-working Canadians and it is not needed by the vast majority of our population. These uncertain economic times are not suitable for introducing a $15-billion pharmacare plan.

[Carolyn Bennett, Liberal, Toronto—St. Paul's, ON]

The brief answer is that the rights and title.... The reason I'm there is for a durable solution, so this never happens again. The rights holders will be at the table with lots of choices at the beginning of a project. That's what Bill C-69 is about. It's what UNDRIP is—

Opposition Motion—Documents on Economic Downturns

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise to speak today on our opposition motion. We have a government across the way that for the last four and a half years has governed as if the good times would never come to an end. It appears that the government's luck has run out in the face of a slowing economy, soaring deficits and debt, and economic uncertainties arising from the coronavirus, the illegal blockades and today the collapse in the price of oil.

Therefore, we have put forward a very straightforward motion, a motion in the name of transparency, calling on the government to do something it should be quite enthusiastic to do, which is to release all documents whereby it may have been provided advice or input about the possibility of an economic downturn. Canadians deserve to see those documents to know whether the government heeded those warnings, whether the government took precautionary measures or whether the government did what it appears to have done, which is to ignore those warnings altogether.

I say that the government should be quite enthusiastic because it is what is in the mandate letter from the Prime Minister to the Minister of Finance wherein the Prime Minister states, “I also expect us to continue to raise the bar on openness, effectiveness and transparency in government. This means a government that is open by default.” Surely consistent with the finance minister's mandate letter would be a government that would be welcoming our timely motion here today.

When the Liberals came to office in 2015, they inherited a strong economy from the previous Conservative government. They also benefited, in 2015, 2016, 2017 and 2018, a period of strong global economic growth, from low interest rates and a return in terms of commodity prices from a low at the earlier part of the decade.

When I got here in 2015, I know that my Conservative colleagues and I provided advice to the Liberals in terms of encouraging them in the face of a relatively strong economy to take a responsible approach, to pay down debt and prepare for a rainy day. That is precisely the approach that Prime Minister Stephen Harper took when the times were good in 2006 and 2007. Between 2006 and 2008, the Harper government paid down $38 billion of debt, which constituted the largest debt repayment of any government in Canadian history.

Why did the Harper government do that? It was because it recognized that the good times would not last forever. As it turned out, they did not, because in 2008-09, we saw the largest global economic recession since the Great Depression. However, because of Stephen Harper's foresight, Canada had the fiscal capacity to respond to that global economic downturn, later resulting in a recovery that was faster and stronger than that of any other G7 country.

That was the Conservatives' approach. That was the approach that we encouraged the government to take, but it had different ideas. The Liberals' approach, contrary to ours, was to spend, spend, spend and spend some more. One could say that the Liberals spent like drunken sailors. However, as Ronald Reagan used to say, that would be an insult to drunken sailors.

The Liberal government has added $75 billion of new debt in just four years. By the end of this fiscal year, Canada will be on track to adding $100 billion of new debt.

The finance minister said that we should not worry, that the good times would continue. It is not so, as dark clouds are on the horizon for Canada's economy.

We have seen a significant slowdown in the Canadian economy. Indeed, in the fourth quarter of 2019, Canada experienced just 0.3% GDP growth. That constitutes negative per capita GDP growth. In fact, in November we actually saw a decline in the Canadian economy, and 71,000 jobs were lost.

While Canada grew at only 0.3% in the last quarter of 2019, our biggest trading partner, our biggest economic competitor, the United States, saw a GDP growth of 2.1%. There is quite a contrast between the growth in the United and the dismal performance of the Canadian economy.

That pattern of lagging behind the United States is projected to continue into this year. Indeed, the Canadian economy is expected to grow at only half the rate of the United States'. Meanwhile, unemployment is 30% higher in Canada than in the United States. Indeed, under the Liberal government's watch, Canada has the unenviable position of having the highest unemployment rate of any G7 country, save for Italy and France. These are hardly jurisdictions we should be seeking to emulate in terms of economic performance, yet that is precisely the approach the government seems to want to take.

The over four and a half years of spending and more spending, without any plan for a rainy day, has left the Canadian economy weak and vulnerable.

In the face of that, Canadians deserve to know the government's plan. What is the government's plan to get beyond per capita negative GDP growth of a pathetic 0.3%? What is the government's plan to stimulate the economy and restore some level of fiscal responsibility? We know that today's $30-billion deficit could very easily translate into $50-billion or $60-billion deficits if there is a further slowdown.

I know that unlike the Liberals, we on this side of the House do have a plan. It involves unleashing the Canadian economy by cutting taxes for workers and small businesses, repealing the anti-development bills, Bill C-69 and Bill C-48, and reducing red tape with a two-for-one rule that builds on the legislated one-for-one rule and is consistent with what has been undertaken by the Province of Manitoba and our largest competitor, the United States.

The Conservatives have a plan to, in a reasonable way, get spending under control by eliminating waste, reducing red tape and reducing the burden of government to eventually get to what the Liberal government inherited from our previous Conservative government: a balanced budget.

In closing, where is the government's plan? It has no plan beyond spending and spending some more. In the face of that plan versus our plan to unleash the Canadian economy, I will take our plan any day.

[James Cumming, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to the motion put forward by my colleague, the member for Carleton. I will be splitting my time with my colleague, the member for St. Albert—Edmonton.

It is a very important debate that we are having today, particularly given the circumstances we find ourselves in with the coronavirus, the blockades and a general slowdown in the economy. One thing of note is that the Liberal government has always prided itself on its fiscal anchors. Let us talk a bit about those fiscal anchors that have now put us in a situation where we have limited flexibility to react to crises like these.

The first fiscal anchor the Liberals claimed was that they would balance the budget within five years. They said they would have very small deficits and then they would balance the budget. Of course, that anchor has now fallen off. Next they said they would try to find a balance with debt-to-GDP ratios and continue to see a decline. That fiscal anchor has fallen off the boat as well.

The one anchor they have left is when they talk about employment numbers. I would suggest there is a weakening in the employment numbers and, when we compare ourselves against some of the other G7 countries, Canada's unemployment rate does not look as favourable. Here is a government priding itself on fiscal anchors. I would say the anchor has fallen through the boat, the boat has a big hole, the boat is sinking and the Liberals do not even see it happening.

The Minister of Finance keeps saying that we are in good shape and we have this great reserve built up so that we can weather these storms. I am wondering if we will ever find out what that reserve is because, from the numbers Conservatives are looking at, we do not see that being the case.

The leadership of the government and the regulations that are stopping the growth of business have resulted in over 200,000 job losses in my province of Saskatchewan. There is $150 billion in capital that has gone elsewhere.

I always hear that it is because the commodity price is low. The fact is that the money went somewhere. Norway has now opened up another field and says it will pump oil for as long as it is needed. It put that investment in. The Russians have just put a big capital investment into the resource sector, and we know the Americans have been very successful growing their resource business and market share, which is something the Liberal government has not been able to recognize.

There is also the tax structure that has been put in place, burdening small businesses with increases in CPP, EI and particularly the carbon tax. The carbon tax is a tax on everything. These hard-working small businesses are trying to produce products, trying to be competitive in the global market and are restrained by the government continuing to increase taxes. By throwing in the TOSI rules and limiting the ability of husbands and wives to split income through those corporations, it strikes me that we are doing everything we can to try to slow down these hard-working individuals and great businesses that are the strength of Canada.

Under the Liberal government's weak leadership, the energy sector alone has lost over $150 billion in investment. I can name off the projects: $20 billion for Teck, $8 billion for northern gateway, $16 billion for energy east, $36 billion for Pacific NorthWest, $28 billion for Aurora and $25 billion for WCC LNG. The list goes on and on.

I can give the government a little help. There is a quick fix to send the right message that it supports resource development, that it supports these great Canadian companies getting to market. The government can support my bill, which would take away the tanker ban and allow companies to export their products through a deepwater port, be competitive and export our clean energy to other countries.

Last week, I was in Toronto at the mining conference. There again I heard great concern about the regulatory process in this country. Project after project talked about how the current government does not understand the importance of investments. I hope it is listening to the extraction sector, whether it be the oil and gas or mining businesses. If it wants to get this economy going, it is time it recognizes these businesses are its lifeblood. They are the ones that produce the revenue, can help this economy and will pay for all these programs I continually hear about. At the finance committee, submission after submission was about spending. At some point, we have to have an economy that is growing at a rate to be able to pay for all that spending.

While I am on spending, there is spending that can work toward growing the economy and then there is outright waste. The government seems to be the expert on waste. We can talk about the $50 million to Mastercard, the $12 million to Loblaws or the $40 million to BlackBerry. It goes on and on. Those types of investments are not what we need; we need the government to invest in less regulation, to empower the private sector and let these people get back to work.

We have an infrastructure program. I will acknowledge that the Conservatives also had an infrastructure program. Here is the difference. When the Liberals put out their infrastructure program, they talked about the three anchors they wanted to have within that program: investments in productivity; a reduction in greenhouse gases; and an increase in GDP. When we had a discussion with the PBO about this program, we asked if they were hitting the mark on any of those measures. There is no evidence they are hitting the mark on the measures, particularly in the area of productivity, which is the way we can get this economy going. Putting an infrastructure program together that has a lack of accountability, focus and measurables makes it really difficult to see if it is working. I hope the government will reverse its course on the infrastructure program and recognize that it should be focusing on allowing companies to be more productive, giving them better access to markets and making sure we have the most competitive regime of any country out there.

This program is full of flaws. Now is the time to push the reset button and start to deliver on programs that would be effective, allow us to grow the economy and help industry grow, rather than grow the government's budget.

With respect to the future outlook, beyond anything else we need to see a plan that gets us back to a balanced budget. It is not unreasonable to ask government when it will finally get back to balance, and I think there is an opportunity for it to do that. We need the government to get out of the way of the private sector. The private sector offered to build the pipeline and government ended up having to buy the pipeline because of the regulatory burden the government put on that company. The private sector wants to invest in Canada and believes in Canada, but it needs the government to send the right message to say we are open for business again.

Our energy sector and the province I come from are proud of what they do. They do it well, they do it clean and they have an opportunity to gain market share if we let them. We need to expand our ability to ship. I ask the government to seriously consider making revisions to Bill C-69 to make sure there is confidence in the markets here, as well as eliminate the tanker ban off the west coast. It is certainly not there.

A pay-as-we-go principle would bring some discipline back to government. If government is going to add something new, it has to be able to pay for it, so it should be able to balance those things, which would ensure discipline in the government and make sure it gets back on a path of balancing the budget.

On the tax front for small businesses, we have to eliminate the input taxes, lower the burdens on these businesses and allow them to succeed.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Madam Speaker, as was said by someone earlier, the Liberals are living in some kind of alternate universe in terms of the way that things work fiscally.

The member for Kitchener South—Hespeler talked about how the government is spending this money, calling it investing. Does he not realize that those forestry workers that are unemployed are not paying into their tax bucket? Does he not realize that oil workers in Alberta are not paying? Does he not realize that as the stock market crashes around us, people are not paying tax on the dividends? Does he not realize that the government is driving investment out of this country with its poorly planned policies, whether it is Bill C-69 or Bill C-48. Does the member not see what is happening today?

Liberal members are standing up and saying that everything is fine, that we should not worry and that they are going to spend more money. They do not have more money to spend.

[Kerry Diotte, Conservative, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am speaking today about our important opposition motion. Just so everybody remembers what it is, I will read that motion again. I believe it is vital that the House is provided with documentation “discussing warnings or concerns of economic downturns, their potential impact on the fiscal framework, or advice or recommendations on how to deal with them” that any department, agency or Crown corporation has produced since 2015. That is what we are talking about today.

In 2015, the Prime Minister promised that he would have a few $10-billion deficits, small deficits, before returning to a balanced budget in 2019. Do members remember that? Teeny-tiny deficits and then everything would be rosy in 2019.

We know what happened. The budget deficits turned out to be a whole lot larger than $10 billion annually. The year 2019 has also come and gone and despite promises made, we are nowhere near a balanced budget, not even close. In his first four years, the Prime Minister added more than $72 billion to the national debt. That is just disgraceful. The Bank of Canada has now slashed its interest rates, citing negative outlooks for the Canadian and global economies.

A responsible government would have prepared for a downturn. A responsible government would have set money aside for future uncertainty. We are certainly seeing that uncertainty now. It is absolutely a financial mess. A responsible government would have paid down the debt during years of economic growth. However, the Liberal government has not been responsible. Instead of showing leadership, the Liberals doubled down on unnecessary spending. They called it investment and investing in Canadians.

Let us just think back at some of those wise investments. The Liberals gave $50 million to Mastercard, a multinational company that made $16 billion in 2019 alone, and Mastercard gets $50 million. They gave $12 million to Loblaws to buy new fridges. They are basically giving more than $600 million as a bailout to the media. Here is a whopper: They spent $1,900 on cardboard cut-outs of the Prime Minister. How is that for value for money? They spent more than $12 billion on the still unbuilt Trans Mountain pipeline after scaring away investors. There is also the $256 million the Liberals gave to the Asian infrastructure bank to build pipelines in Asia. It seems the foreign pipelines are the only ones the Liberals can get built.

There is also the $186-billion infrastructure program. It has been a huge failure. In fact, it is now being audited by the Auditor General because of the Liberals' lack of transparency and accountability to Canadians. The bottom line is that the Liberals have failed to responsibly manage Canadian tax dollars. That failure has left Canada much more vulnerable to global economic downturns. We are seeing that right now.

Across our country, Canadians work hard to live within their means. They know that racking up credit card debt just is not sound policy. It leaves them unable to manage unexpected expenses, yet that is exactly what the Liberals have done in Canada. The Liberals have done what is easy instead of what is best for our country.

Let us compare this to the actions of the previous Conservative government.

Prior to the global recession of 2008-09, the Conservatives had paid down more than $37 billion in debt. This allowed the government flexibility to meet the fiscal challenges of the recession head on. That was why Canada had the mildest and shortest recession of the G7 countries.

In a 2010 report, Philip Cross, then chief economic analyst at Statistics Canada, said:

One reason for the relatively mild slump is that Canada was better positioned to weather the global recession than other large western economies, primarily due to savings as reflected in our national balance sheet.

He went on to say:

...strong balance sheets in Canada stood it in good stead to endure the recession and emerge into recovery. The recession was shorter and milder in Canada than in other G7 nations, partly because the flow of credit was not disrupted as it was in other nations and a large pool of savings was available to finance spending when income fell temporarily.

That was good fiscal policy under the Conservative government.

However, The Liberals have deliberately done the opposite. It sounds like a bad Seinfeld episode. That is the reason, in the elections of 2015 and 2019, the Conservatives promised voters that we would be responsible and that we would balance the budget. We knew that a responsible government needed to be prepared for global downturns.

The chickens are coming home to roost. We see what happens with global downturns in the situation we are in now. Just today, we saw the stock market plunge. Trading was actually halted. To say the least, the economic outlook is very grim. Now the Liberals will have to deal with that from a position of weakness. True leadership requires fiscal restraint.

Despite the Liberals wasting billions of dollars, they failed to build the key projects that would have helped Canadians weather this storm. The Trans Mountain pipeline is still nowhere near complete. Both the energy east pipeline and the northern gateway project are gone, thanks to the Liberals. The Teck Frontier project that promised thousands of jobs and billions of dollars of revenue was killed by government dithering and delay. Even Warren Buffett is moving his money out of a Quebec project, citing “the Canadian political context”.

In total, more than $160 billion worth of investment have been lost under the Prime Minister's watch. This is a direct result of the policies he and his Liberal government have advanced.

Take, for example, Bill C-69, or the no more pipelines bill. Bill C-69 would make it even harder to build a new project. Many critics do not see how any new projects can be built under this new regulatory process. There was widespread opposition to this regulation, including from provincial governments, industry, communities and indigenous groups, yet the Liberals went ahead with that harmful legislation anyway.

The bottom line is this. We have to return to fiscal accountability, to balanced budgets and to paying down the debt. This is what is showing up today and it is a disaster.

[Tim Uppal, Conservative, Edmonton Mill Woods, AB]

Madam Speaker, my colleague mentions the price of oil being part of the factor here. Yes, it is true the world price of oil makes a difference, but at the end of the day I have seen companies shut down in Alberta and move south to Texas where there is less regulation and more support overall for the industry and they are able to flourish. I am talking about burdensome regulations like Bill C-69 and other bills the Liberal government has brought in that are hurting our industry, such as Bill C-48, which is hurting the possibility of taking oil from Alberta to international markets. The problem here is mismanagement by the current government.

I would hope my hon. colleagues from the Bloc would support this motion so we could see the documents and what types of warnings were given to the government. Let us see what those documents say and how the government has reacted. I think that transparency is important to allow the House and members of Parliament to do our work and to know what types of warnings were given to the government well before this economic situation that has come up now.

[Tim Uppal, Conservative, Edmonton Mill Woods, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour for me, speaking on behalf of my constituents, to rise and speak to this very important motion. It is a motion that my colleague from Carleton has brought forward, and one that I had the opportunity to second.

Throughout my ongoing consultations and interactions with constituents, I hear about the concerns of the people right across Edmonton Mill Woods. One of the most repeated concerns I hear, especially from those in the energy sector, is that they cannot find work.

Just this weekend I heard the story of James, a constituent in my riding who is just starting a young family. He had a great job, a well-paying job with benefits. He worked for a company that had been in operation in Alberta for over 25 years. Unfortunately he was laid off, as the company was forced to shut down and move its operations to the United States.

James has not been able to find work in over a year because of the economic situation in Alberta. He has seen first-hand the impacts the stalling economy has had on his living situation. It is situations like James' that are leading to the frustration, desperation and hopelessness at the root of the unity crisis we are seeing in western Canada.

To make matters worse, there is an unprecedented number of small businesses claiming bankruptcy. Canadians have seen the government raise taxes, spend wastefully and rack up massive deficits. Canadians are worried and for good reason.

We are here today for this important debate. We are calling on the government to provide documents discussing warnings or concerns of economic downturns, the potential impact on the fiscal framework, or advice or recommendations on how to deal with them, and that those documents be provided to the House within 45 days following the adoption of this motion.

We are requesting documents going back to November 2015 because today's economic situation is not something that just happened overnight. Many experts have been warning about this situation for many years.

Constituents in my riding of Edmonton Mill Woods and right across Alberta have felt the effects the Liberal government has had on the economy the hardest. Alberta saw four straight months of job losses at the end of last year, resulting in nearly 10,000 jobs lost in a four-month span. That is 10,000 families receiving the devastating news from their family members when they came home from work that they had just lost their job.

Investment is fleeing Alberta as regulations are strangling the energy sector and making it almost impossible to build pipelines in Canada. Instead of reducing regulation and bringing in smart rules to make Canada an attractive place to invest, the government brought in the most burdensome regulations on work. These have resulted in nearly $200 billion in oil and gas projects being cancelled, and 200,000 Canadian oil and gas workers losing their jobs over the last five years.

Bills like Bill C-69, the “no more pipelines” bill, and Bill C-48, the tanker ban, have unfairly targeted Alberta and have crippled its economy. We have seen the effects these bills and the lack of confidence in the government have had. This was highlighted most recently by Teck's decision to pull its application for the Frontier mine, a project that would have brought 7,000 construction jobs, 2,500 long-term jobs and billions of dollars in investment.

Investment continues to flee Canada while the demand for oil continues to climb right across the world. Foreign investment in Canada is down over 50% since the Prime Minister took power. This was most recently highlighted by Warren Buffet's decision to pull out of a $9-billion liquefied natural gas project in Quebec over concerns about how the government is handling the illegal railway blockades and infrastructure disaster.

This impact is worsened by the increased taxes as a result of the Liberal government. Since the Liberal government came to power in 2015, 81% of middle-income Canadians are seeing higher taxes, with the average income tax increase for middle-income families coming in at $840.

From the cancelled family tax cut to the cancelled art and fitness tax credit, to the cancelled education and textbook credit, the government has found a way to target every Canadian with higher taxes. As a result of these policies, 48% of Canadians are within $200 of not being able to pay their bills and their debt obligations. One-third of Canadians have no money left at the end of the month and are unable to cover their payments, falling further into debt. Adding to their growing concerns is the worry that the government has mismanaged the economy completely.

Businesses are experiencing the same harsh reality. Businesses are facing new carbon taxes and increased CPP and EI premiums. Thousands of local businesses across our great nation are no longer qualifying for the small business tax rate, or will see it reduced. While other G7 countries, such as the United States, United Kingdom and France, have all embarked on major tax reforms over the past few years to simplify the tax code and lower overall taxes, Canada continues to move in the opposite direction by increasing taxes and regulations, stifling our economy and having taxpayer dollars go up in smoke.

That is what the government is doing, while also spending these increased tax dollars at unprecedented levels. During the first four years of the Liberal government, the Prime Minister added over $72 billion to the national debt. This was after the Prime Minister, during the 2015 debates, promised, “I am looking straight at Canadians and being honest the way I always have been. We've said we are committed to balanced budgets and we are. We will balance that budget in 2019.”

However, here we are at the end of the 2019-20 fiscal year and we are staring at the reality of another deficit and nearly $100 billion added to our debt. There is no evidence that there was any increase in economic growth as a result of the spending.

There is also little to show for the frivolous spending. We can look at the $187-billion infrastructure program that the Parliamentary Budget Officer said resulted in zero increase in infrastructure built in Canada because the infrastructure plan did not exist; the $40 million to BlackBerry, where the CEO of the company candidly admitted he did not need the money; the $12 million to buy new refrigerators for Loblaws, a company that turned hundreds of millions of dollars in profits last year; or the $50-million handout to Mastercard. These examples are priceless.

Canadians are getting the short end of the stick again while seeing their hard-earned tax dollars going to waste and turned into subsidies for these Liberal-favoured companies. Let us contrast this with the Conservative plan that my honourable colleague from Carleton laid out.

Being the party of the taxpayer, we outlined our five-step plan focused on tax cuts for workers and entrepreneurs, a plan to phase out the deficit, eliminate red tape and free businesses, end corporate welfare for Liberal-favoured companies, and end wasteful Liberal spending that we have seen over the past four years. These are the types of actions needed to ensure our economy continues to function and that is why we bring forward this motion.

I am proud to support this motion in the House today. Canadians have seen the government raise taxes, spend wastefully and rack up massive deficits. Canadians are worried about the state of the economy, and for good reason, especially given the bleak reality our stock markets reflect today. The Liberals have squandered the good times, leaving us weak and vulnerable for economic turmoil.

As opposed to paying down the debt, the government racked it up while the world was stable and prosperous and spent at unprecedented levels. Canada's economic growth has slowed to 0.3% in the fourth quarter, the worst performance in almost four years, and this was all before the impact of the illegal blockades and coronavirus. The blockades have stifled our economy for weeks and affected small businesses across the country. The Prime Minister's sky-high taxes, wasteful spending and massive deficits have put Canada in an incredibly weak and vulnerable position, with the possibility of a made-in-Canada recession rapidly approaching.

As we continue to see the effects these illegal blockades have had on our economy and the increased concern of the effects of COVID-19, now is the time for the government to finally be transparent with Canadians, to provide us with its plans discussing warnings or concerns of the economic downturns and their potential impacts on the fiscal framework, and advice and recommendations on how to deal with them. Canadians are worried about what is next. The people in my riding of Edmonton Mill Woods, right across Alberta and across this country as a whole cannot handle more weakness and vulnerability from the government.

Canada's Conservatives have a plan to unleash our economy, reward hard work, eliminate waste and allow Canadians to fulfill their potential. We will continue to be the voice of hard-working entrepreneurs and Canadians today and demand that the Liberals get our economy back on track, so that Canadians can get back to work.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, today is an occasion for us to reflect upon the economic events that are unfolding before our eyes. To do so, I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Edmonton Mill Woods.

Let us begin with the story of the grasshopper and the ants:

One fine day in winter, some ants were busy drying their store of corn, which had gotten rather damp during the long spell of snow. Presently came up a grasshopper and begged them to spare a few grains. “For,” he said, “I am simply starving.”

The ants stopped work for a moment, though this was against their principles. “May we ask,” said they, “what were you doing with yourself last summer? Why did you not collect a store of food for the winter?”

“The fact is,” replied the grasshopper, “I was so busy singing that I hadn't the time.” “If you spent the summer singing,” the ants replied, “you can't do better than spend the winter dancing,” and they chuckled and went on about the work.

The ants had been responsible. They knew that the sunshine of the summer would not last, that it was merely one season of the year, so they worked hard to accumulate and set aside grain for the difficult times they knew would be ahead. What did the grasshopper do? He assumed that the sun would always shine and that times would always be good, and that therefore he did not need to do anything but dance and sing and play.

It is no so long ago that the sun was shining on the global economy. In the years 2016, 2017 and 2018, things were quite good. The U.S. economy was roaring, having some of the best growth it had experienced in two decades. Commodity prices had recovered from their lows in 2014, and interest rates were as low as one could expect them to be. In fact, it was almost a perfect coincidence of events where growth was high and interest rates were low, all of which maximized the sunshine that blanketed the economic countryside.

Conservatives said, “Like the ants, now is the time to store away the grains because the sun will not shine forever.” Liberals told us that we should dance and sing and spend. They said that we should spend the cupboard bare, and not worry about the bad times for the good times were here. They said that it was the time to squander those good times and to celebrate in a period of self-praise all the riches that fell from the sky.

Conservatives warned that one day winter would come, that trouble would arise and that we would want then to open our cupboards and find them overflowing with a surplus of supply to get us through those cold, dark months and into the economic springtime down the calendar. Of course, across the way the government said no and that it was going to continue to spend.

What did the Liberals do? In every single year since they formed government, their deficits have been bigger than they promised. They told us that deficits would never exceed $10 billion a year, yet they reached $29 billion. They told us that the budget would be balanced in 2019. That year came and went, and now they predict that the budget will never be balanced. They put us on track to add $100 billion to our national debt.

They did this all while the sun was shining, convinced that the economic laws of the four seasons had been abolished, that bad times would never return and that all we needed to do was sing, dance and spend. It appears winter may have arrived.

I looked at Bloomberg News today at 9:30. I quote:

Canadian markets were battered on all fronts as the collapse in oil sent shockwaves through a country with one of the biggest exposures to the commodity among the Group of Seven.

Stocks cratered 10% with the biggest drop since October 1987, the loonie weakened and government bond yields plunged to fresh records as investor pessimism deepened for an economy that barely eked out any growth in the fourth quarter and is already grappling with the coronavirus.

I emphasize again the last point in the Bloomberg article, that in the last three months of 2019 we had growth of 0.3%, and that was before the illegal blockades and before the coronavirus broke out and started to impact on global economic matters.

I go back to Bloomberg:

The slump in oil will exact another heavy toll on the natural resource-dependent country, which generates about 9% of its gross domestic product from energy and has the biggest exposure to the sector on its stock market at 15%.

Remember, that is the sector the Prime Minister wanted to phase out altogether, and it looks like he is achieving some success.

Not only would the ants be unhappy with the approach the government took to the good times; so too would be Keynes, the great economist leftists these days try to appropriate for themselves. In his great work The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money, Keynes explained that during good economic times governments should run large surpluses and pay down debt in order to prepare a buffer and allow for economic stimulus when troubled times later come. That is exactly the formula followed by the previous Conservative government.

In the first two years it was in office, it paid off almost $40 billion of debt under Stephen Harper and Jim Flaherty. To their credit, Chrétien and Martin in the years prior did likewise. That decision to pay down debt prepared us for the winter ahead. When the winter came, and it was a serious winter, we in Canada were more prepared than any other G7 country. We weathered that grand winter storm better than anyone else because our cupboards overflowed with the surplus of responsible planning and hard work that had happened in the summer months.

The current government, having done the opposite, now leaves us weak and vulnerable as we enter this winter period. Having rendered us so weak and so vulnerable, what can we do now to get us through the winter? We as Conservatives have a plan.

That plan would reduce taxes on workers and entrepreneurs to stimulate hard work, enterprise, investment and consumer activity. It would remove the anti-development barriers imposed by bills C-69 and C-48 which prevent us from shipping our resources from the Pacific coast, and from building pipelines to deliver them there in the first place.

We would require a two-for-one red tape reduction rule. That is to say if the government brings in one new economic regulation, it would need to get rid of two of them in order to remove the red tape that is holding back our economy.

We would replace wasteful corporate welfare, like the millions for Bombardier, Loblaws, Mastercard and BlackBerry, with lower taxes for all entrepreneurs to unleash their power to generate wealth and get us through these hard times. In other words, we want to unleash the fierce and ferocious power of free enterprise, which is the only source of prosperity that will get us through these difficult times.

We believe in responsible planning for trouble ahead. That planning did not occur, so now we as Conservatives step forward again with a responsible plan to get us through the hard times, to get us over the difficulties and to allow Canadians to fulfill their potential so that anyone who works hard can achieve his or her dreams.

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

I'm just reframing it, because I don't think you were getting to the point.

Has there been any analysis done within Western Economic Diversification on the impact of regulatory changes in Bill C-69 on the receptor capacity of the energy sector to adopt clean technology funded under the WINN program?

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

Madam Chair, thank you.

Has any analysis been done within Western Economic Diversification on the impacts of Bill C-69 and C-48 on the receptor capacity in the energy sector in terms of adopting clean technologies that have originally been funded under the WINN program?

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

Were the effects of Bill C-69 and C-48 included on the western Canadian economy? Was that included in the scope of this report?

Teck Frontier Mine Project

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the chance this evening to bring my remarks to this discussion as a rural member of Parliament from Nova Scotia.

I believe it is an important time to talk about our energy sector in this country, and I appreciate that the member for Lakeland has brought this motion forward.

I will start by recognizing the role that the energy sector, particularly in western Canada, has played and will continue to play in supporting our prosperity across this country. Many of my colleagues have highlighted that in their speeches here this evening.

The economic benefit that these projects have brought to our country have helped pay for public services from Newfoundland to British Columbia and everywhere in between. In my riding of Kings—Hants there are many residents who have benefited and continue to benefit from these types of projects, and they are not just Alberta projects or western Canada projects. They are truly national projects.

My perspective on the discourse around the Teck Frontier decision, particularly in the last month, is that it was polarized in a very detrimental way. In one sense, many of my Conservative colleagues alluded to the positive impact that this project or similar projects would have on job creation and taxation for public spending in this country, and that certainly resonates with me. However, there is very little acknowledgement of the environmental impacts of these projects and our ability as a country to meet our international climate targets.

Some of my Bloc, NDP and Green colleagues rightfully pointed to the reality that these projects, like Teck, create challenges for us to be able to meet our climate targets and that they have an environmental impact both locally and regionally. However, I think they fail to appreciate that the oil and gas industry will play a reduced but still important role in the Canadian and global economy in the days ahead.

The reality is that Canadians want balance. They want a government that is focused on climate change and protecting the environment, but also supporting a strong economy. The Prime Minister has made this clear time and time again, and we have done that. We have created 1.2 million jobs since 2015 while implementing a price on pollution and reducing the GHG emission gap that the Conservative government had left us in 2015.

I want to provide a couple of examples which I believe illustrate Canadians' desire for a government that is balanced on both sides of this issue.

Canadians overwhelmingly support a price on pollution. They overwhelmingly voted in the last election for parties that want to move forward on environment and climate change. However, Canadians overwhelmingly also support the construction of Trans Mountain pipeline. Canadians are pragmatic, and they want a government that has this balance.

My concern is the tone of this particular debate and narrative in this House. The middle ground on these issues seems to have eroded.

I want to address first the narrative from the Conservatives that Teck represents 10,000 jobs, and that somehow Alberta and western Canada's only way forward is through oil and gas.

The member for Lethbridge suggested that people in her province want to work, but suggested that seemingly the only way forward or the only type of work is in the oil and gas sector. I know that is important, but to suggest that this is the only way forward is, frankly, naive of the other opportunities. I do not mean to be unparliamentary, but I think it sells short the potential that is in western Canada.

I want to talk about the 10,000 jobs. We know that there would be 10,000 jobs if construction had moved forward. However, Teck decided not to move this project forward, and the jobs would have only been created if the project were to be built. The CEO of Teck had mentioned three impediments in being able to move that forward.

One impediment was price. The Government of Canada does not control the world oil price. The project was built on an economic analysis of $95 for a barrel of oil. I believe right now the price of oil on the global market is about $50. Although my Conservative colleagues would talk about the viability of this project, there is no doubt that the analysis was originally built on an expectation of something that is far from reality at this point or in the foreseeable future.

They talked about a partner. The Government of Canada is not involved with supporting a private sector partner to move this forward, and so that would be another impediment. Of course, our government is committed to making sure the pipeline and Trans Mountain happens so that we have the ability to get our resources to market.

However, the narrative in the House has been “if only this project was approved”, which, of course, we did not have the ability to choose to go forward with, and “if only 10,000 jobs would be created” is a fallacy. We cannot tell Canadians that if only this happens they will have 10,000 jobs, because it is selling short and not explaining the nuances of this particular project.

Here is why it is a fallacy. As far as I know, there are currently 38 petroleum or oil and gas projects that have been approved. They could start tomorrow if industry wanted to move them forward. They have gone through the regulatory process, but they are not being built. As much as my Conservative colleagues would suggest the cause is Bill C-69 or other legislative measures that we have taken forward on environment, the reality is that these energy companies are looking at a 40-year window. They are recognizing that the world is making a transition.

We are moving to a low-carbon economy. We are moving on renewable energy around the world, and they are rightfully asking whether they can return their cost of capital. We know that the Canadian energy sector is important and that they do amazing work, but we also know that the process to extract the bitumen from the oil sands is much more energy intensive.

The fact is that we have 38 projects. Some colleagues in this House would be excited by the fact that they are not being built because they would put us further and further away from our emission target, and I can appreciate that. However, I think all Canadians, not just Albertans or those from western Canada, need to understand the importance that these projects have played and the revenue that they have created for our economy to pay for public services. We need to make sure that we can transition and support, if these energy companies do not want to move forward on these projects.

Those who would suggest that the petroleum industry in Canada has no future, or that it is not economically viable, fail to appreciate that transition does not happen overnight. They fail to appreciate the work the Government of Canada has done in the last four years to meet and exceed our Paris climate accords.

In 2015, our government inherited the reality that our country was on pace to miss our international climate targets by over 300 megatonnes. In the four years that we have been in office, we have been able to reduce that gap to 72 megatonnes, and that is not including the measures that we will be bringing forward in this parliamentary session.

My message to my progressive colleagues in this chamber is that we need an industry and we need western provinces that will co-operate and help us get there. We need to be able to work with them accordingly. Having a petroleum industry that provides the needed international product and also helps our country on its path to meet its much-needed GHG emission targets is the best path forward.

I, for one, certainly appreciate Don Lindsay's words on reducing partisanship on these particular issues. We can find a way to balance the reality that the petroleum sector will play an important role in the Canadian economy and the global economy in the days ahead, but it will not necessarily play the same integral role in the next 50 years as it has in the last 50. I think we need to be mindful of that.

I have appreciated the opportunity to speak to this issue this evening, and I welcome some questions from my colleagues accordingly.

Cancellation of Teck Frontier Mine Project

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

moved:

That this House do now adjourn.

She said: Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo.

I rise tonight to address a national economic emergency, the cancellation of the $20-billion Teck Frontier oil sands opportunity, even though the expert joint panel recommended it in the national public interest seven months ago. The cancellation of Teck Frontier will cost Alberta alone 10,000 badly needed jobs and will cost all 14 local and supportive indigenous communities their long sought-after agreements with financial, education and skills training opportunities. It will eliminate the potential for $70 billion in revenue to all three levels of government for services and programs for all Canadians.

People may think oil and gas is isolated to Alberta and Saskatchewan, but the energy sector as a whole is the largest single private sector investor in the entire Canadian economy. B.C., Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec, Atlantic Canada and all of the territories have onshore and offshore oil and gas resources, some stranded and some not, with related industries at various degrees.

Canada should be proud to be home to the third largest oil reserves in the world. Canadians should also know the reality that 97.3% of it is in the oil sands, so Canada's oil future is dependent on the future of the oil sands. Every one oil sands job creates five jobs in other sectors in other provinces.

Ontario, Quebec and B.C. companies are the biggest suppliers to the oil sands. In 2017, oil sands companies, even after all the losses, spent $1.9 billion on goods and services from over 1,100 Ontario companies. Here is the alarming part. That was a 45% drop from what was spent in Ontario in 2014, before the Liberals were elected and launched their plan to “phase out the oil sands”, in the Prime Minister's words. In 2014, nine of every 10 full-time jobs created in Canada were made in Alberta, offering opportunities to everyone across the country and the world, driven by a thriving energy sector. I think most Ontarians would be surprised to learn that the contribution from oil and gas businesses to Ontario's economy is more than half of the contribution of the automotive industry. Over the next 10 years, oil and gas could generate $12 billion in tax revenues for programs and services Ontarians value.

The livelihoods of many Quebeckers also depend on the oil sands, where approximately 400 companies are direct suppliers to the industry in Alberta. The federal tax revenue generated from the incomes of those multi-generational Albertans and Albertans by choice working in the province's energy sector is shared right across the whole country. As my Atlantic Canadian family members and friends remind me, a rising tide lifts all boats.

In 2018, Canada's oil and gas sector still contributed seven times that of the auto manufacturing sector and 15 times that of the aerospace sector to Canada's GDP, even after the colossal drop in investment and activity. No Albertan and no Conservative wants to stand in the way of any other Canadian province, territory or industry. We want all to thrive. However, the attacks by the Liberals on oil and gas, their anti-resource, anti-business bill, Bill C-69, their oil shipping ban bill, Bill C-48, the drilling ban, the development prohibitions, the Liberal fuel standard, layers of new taxes, red tape, and ongoing and escalating uncertainty, are actually all attacks on all of Canada's economy.

Nearly $200 billion in oil and gas projects have been cancelled or stalled, and 200,000 Canadian oil and gas workers have lost their jobs since 2015, a flight of capital that is the biggest loss of energy investment and jobs in any comparable time frame in more than seven decades. Teck's cancellation is the 11th major multi-billion dollar mega oil and gas project to be withdrawn, and the latest in the list of 18 companies that have cancelled or frozen their Canadian energy assets in the same time frame. To put it in context, these numbers are equivalent to Canada having lost both the entire automotive and aerospace sectors combined in Canada. That would rightfully be considered a national economic catastrophe and a severe crisis by every member of every party in this House of Commons, and it has been going on in Alberta for years.

Canadian-founded juggernauts like Encana and TransCanada are removing “Canada” from their name and moving out of Canada. Drilling companies like Akita, Trinidad, Ensign, Savanna, Citadel and Precision Drilling have all moved their drilling rigs, their expertise and their world-class skills to the United States.

Let me make clear the disproportionate impact of the attacks on the oil sands by the Liberal government on Alberta.

As of 2018, capital investment in the sector fell by half, more than in the last seven decades, and the oil sands development in particular has experienced an even sharper drop in investment of almost 70%.

Whereas most provinces showed a decrease in people on EI as of January 2019, Alberta saw a major increase.

Business bankruptcies in Alberta were up 28% between August 2017 and August 2018. Business insolvencies in Alberta have skyrocketed by more than 70% from their 2015 lows, compared to a 13.5% decrease on average for the country as a whole over the same time period. Real estate vacancies and food bank use are both at record highs.

Albertans wonder why oil and gas job losses and all the related social consequences, such as suicides, family breakdowns and crime, do not seem to be occupying the permanent attention of national media and commentators. The cancellation of Teck just adds to an already existing pattern of crisis and it has been escalating since 2015.

As recently as February 2019, Devon Energy announced it hired advisers to help sell off its oil sands assets and later sold its Canadian operations to CNRL. The CEO said the sale was part of the company's “transformation to a U.S. oil growth business”. Month after month it was the same in 2019.

Imperial Oil says it is slowing down the development of the $2.6-billion Aspen oil sands project due to market uncertainty and competitiveness barriers.

Trident Exploration said it would cease operations. It left 94 people without work and a large number of oil and gas assets with no owner, including over 3,000 wells, 240 facilities and 500 pipelines.

Later, Husky Energy cut 370 jobs after announcing it would cut capital spending by 10%.

Perpetual Energy then announced it had cut 25% of its workforce.

Here is the deal: Albertans cannot see a light at the end of the tunnel. The cancellation of Teck Frontier represents a growing crisis of investor confidence overall in the fairness, predictability, independence and certainty of Canada's regulatory system, policy framework and the economy overall.

Teck invested $1 billion over nine years while meeting every requirement during a multi-jurisdictional rigorous review and was approved. In the months since Liberals moved the goalposts, the environment minister said the political approval depended on Teck's capacity to be net zero by 2050. Teck took that unprecedented step of self-imposing that exact goal far beyond the already world-leading standards of Canada and the industry average, not a regulatory requirement and found nowhere in federal law. Teck also committed to recycling 90% of the water used in processing and generating half the emissions of the oil sands industry average.

The Alberta government even agreed to adopt a 100-megatonne oil sands emissions cap to remove all the Liberals' excuses 48 hours before Teck's decision to cancel Frontier over public safety concerns, political risk and policy uncertainty in Canada became public. Teck's other assets are in unstable South American countries.

We all know the truth here. In the last couple of weeks, Liberal cabinet ministers hinted publicly that they might delay past the February 27 deadline and that they were considering any and all information, presumably new or different from the evidence, science, technical, environmental and economic merits that actual experts already evaluated. Liberal MPs spoke out and promoted petitions and admitted most of the caucus was against it.

Is it really any wonder why the whole world is looking at Canada and wondering whether any major resource project can be proposed or actually built here ever again?

Make no mistake, Canada's oil and gas is produced with the highest environmental and social standards in the world, literally second to none with an environmental performance index of 25, compared to places like Nigeria with an EPI of 100 or Saudi Arabia with an EPI of 86. This is what is so crazy about what the Liberals are doing.

Canadian oil sands producers lead the way. They have reduced emissions per barrel by 32% since 1990 compared to resources of similar kind around the world. They are the biggest private sector Canadian investors in clean tech in Canada and world leaders in R&D and innovation. Canadian energy and the oil sands can be the future, not the sunset, and it should be for Canada and for the world.

A painful truth is that this loss also represents an escalating national unity crisis. Western Canadians see political double standards for oil and gas, exemptions and blind eyes turned to projects, industries, exports in other provinces and foreign oil imports.

A strong Alberta means a strong Canada. It should be unthinkable for a sitting Prime Minister to attack the lifeblood and the primary industries of any Canadian province. Can we imagine a Prime Minister saying he was going to stand up to big auto in Ontario or big manufacturing in Quebec? Canadians would be rightfully outraged and so would Conservatives. It seems like in this House of Commons, it is only Conservatives who would be outraged at divisive political attacks on the lifeblood and industries of particular provinces and regions in our country.

The Liberal Prime Minister decided his political gains were more important than the unity of our nation. Their electoral result was as expected and all the Prime Minister did was give his empty words and here we are in a national and economic crisis today.

Natural Resources

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am presenting two petitions.

The first is from petitioners in my riding who are asking for the immediate repeal of Bill C-48 and Bill C-69. One is the anti-pipeline bill and the other is the tanker ban on the west coast. The petitioners from my riding remind the Government of Canada that over 100,000 jobs have been lost in the Alberta energy sector alone.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

The last question, if I have time, Madam Chair, is about the substitution process.

I'm told that Bill C-69 made it easier to just have a provincial assessment body do the assessment, whereas before you might have needed a joint assessment or even maybe—

Citizenship Act

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is very difficult to approach the business of the House today after weekend events that demonstrated so disastrously, yet again, the Liberal government's inability to provide peace, order and good government.

Teck Resources Limited withdrew from a $20-billion project that had passed a succession of environmental reviews; had the enthusiastic support of indigenous communities that would have shared significant economic benefits and 7,000 jobs in construction and 2,500 jobs in operation; and had the support of provincial governments, business and industry, given the $70 billion in economic stimulus it would have provided to the national economy. This took place because the Liberal government could not resolve its contradictory environmental and resource-development policies and provide certainty that the project would not be threatened by further lawlessness. This is a devastating blow to the Alberta economy, the national economy and to the concept of peace, order and good government.

With that, I will proceed to the legislation at hand.

It is an honour to rise today to speak to the importance, indeed the sanctity, of the oath sworn by all new citizens of our great country, Canada. The current oath of citizenship is a relatively short, compact and simple, but profound, promise of new citizens to faithfully observe the laws of Canada, all of the laws of Canada. It is an affirmation of patriotism and loyalty.

As we consider Bill C-6 today, I believe a few moments of historical reflection are in order.

Canada may be 152 years old, but Canada only became largely independent of the United Kingdom in 1931, under the Conservative government of Prime Minister R. B. Bennett. Even after 1931, citizens of this country remained British subjects. Anyone coming to Canada from anywhere else in the Commonwealth was not required to take the oath of allegiance. However, by 1946, the Canadian Parliament, the MPs sitting in Centre Block, now under renovation next door, moved to enact the Canadian Citizenship Act.

I arrived in Canada at Pier 21 in Halifax with my mother, a Canadian army nurse, aboard a Red Cross hospital ship in convoy, the Lady Nelson toward the end of the Second World War, a couple of years before the Canadian Citizenship Act came into effect in 1947. My parents were both Canadian: My father was a captain in the Canadian army and my mother was a nursing sister lieutenant assigned to the army medical corps plastic surgery team. I was born in a Canadian army hospital in Bramshott, Sussex.

With all of this combined, I grew through childhood and into my twenties believing that I was a Canadian citizen. I was sworn into the Royal Canadian Navy, only briefly, to my lifelong regret, and then into the Royal Canadian Army Reserve, taking the oath of loyalty to Queen and Canada each time, and I voted in two Canadian elections. I only discovered in 1966, when I applied for my first passport to travel to Vietnam as a freelance journalist, that I did not qualify to carry a Canadian passport: Because I arrived in Canada before 1947, I was not a Canadian citizen.

Fortunately in the 1960s, naturalization of this sort could be accomplished in very short order, and very quickly I was able to finally officially swear the oath of allegiance, officially becoming a Canadian citizen. I received a passport and was able to begin getting on with my life.

The actual Canadian citizenship oath only became law with amendments to the Canadian Citizenship Act in 1977. For the first time, Queen Elizabeth was cited as the Queen of Canada, consistent with Canada's status as a constitutional monarchy.

I assure you, Madam Speaker, I am moving steadily toward the proposed amendment to the oath before us today, changes that have been proposed a number of times since 1977 by Liberal governments. These proposed changes, in their time, were controversial and were either abandoned or died on the Order Paper.

In the mid-1990s, the Liberal citizenship and immigration minister, Sergio Marchi, commissioned a group of Canadian writers to compose a new oath that would have, outrageously, dropped all reference to Queen Elizabeth, our constitutional monarch. Fortunately, the Liberal prime minister, Chrétien, in a moment of exceptional clarity, told minister Marchi to park that proposed change and it was abandoned.

However, as members know, Liberals love tinkering with legislation, and a few years later another Liberal minister, Lucienne Robillard, tried to get rid of not the Queen this time but allegiance to her heirs and successors, which suggested to many that Canada's constitutional monarchy could end with her death. That bill, Bill C-63, died on the Senate Order Paper when an election was called. Two similar follow-on bills, Bill C-16 and Bill C-18, failed as well. As a matter of fact, Bill C-18 never made it past second reading in the House.

That brings us to Bill C-6, the proposal before us today to amend the Citizenship Act again.

The minister's mandate letter has directed him to achieve 12 specific tasks. Among these tasks are a number that stumped his two predecessors through the past Parliament.

The minister has been directed to effectively address the continuing flow of illegal migrants across Canada's southern border, more than 16,000 last year, and to engage the United States in closing loopholes in the safe third country agreement. As the backlog of asylum claimants, most of whom are likely to be rejected, approaches 90,000 and is still rising, the minister has been directed to reduce processing times. As well, the minister has been directed by the Prime Minister to advance reforms in the capacity of the asylum system and introduce a dedicated refugee stream to provide safe haven for human rights advocates, journalists and humanitarian workers at risk. As provinces, communities, chambers of commerce, and business and industry across Canada appeal for more timely, more efficient processing of permanent immigrants, the minister has been directed to assist there as well.

There are other directions in the minister's mandate letter, but the first legislation brought to the House by the minister is far down the mandate-letter list. Bill C-6 is, for all intents and purposes, the same proposed legislation as Bill C-69, thrown into the legislative process in the final days of the last Parliament, in June. There was no time to debate it then or for a committee study. It had absolutely no chance of passing in that Parliament. It was simply a pre-election promise.

Now we have Bill C-6. The oath as it is today, and as I have heard it many times over the years attending citizenship ceremonies as a journalist and as a member of Parliament, is this:

I swear...that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, Queen of Canada, Her Heirs and Successors, and that I will faithfully observe the laws of Canada, and fulfil my duties as a Canadian citizen.

It is, as I suggested in my opening remarks, a relatively short, compact, simple but profound promise of all new citizens to faithfully observe the laws of Canada, all of the laws of Canada.

The oath, with amendments proposed by the minister, would be:

I swear...that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, Queen of Canada, Her Heirs and Successors, and that I will faithfully observe the laws of Canada, including the Constitution, which recognizes and affirms the Aboriginal and treaty rights of First Nations, Inuit and Métis peoples, and fulfil my duties as a Canadian citizen.

The government tells us that these additional 19 words are a fulfilment of a recommendation of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. In fact, the commission only recommended that four words be added to the oath, which were “including Treaties with Indigenous Peoples”. Whether four or 19 words are added to the oath, let us look at who would be speaking these words, the future new Canadians who would be swearing or affirming this proposed longer oath.

Let me suggest to colleagues in the House to close their eyes for a moment, if I have not already led them to a somnolent state. I am sure they can visualize a familiar scene. In a council chamber, a courtroom or an event room in a historic building, or at a site or national park, there is a group of 40 or 60 men, women and children, along with as many or more friends and family.

A citizenship judge enters, often accompanied by a Mountie or two, a handful of politicians and, in recent years, very often an indigenous representative of the region or province. Canada's national anthem is sung with perhaps a bit more enthusiasm than in other circumstances. A few tears of anticipatory joy may be shed.

A smudging ceremony may be conducted, in which sage, cedar, tobacco or other plants are burned to cleanse and purify the event. Inspirational words will be offered by the presiding citizenship judge and other notables present. They will speak to the importance of the event, our country's history, perhaps their own personal experiences, and the words they are about to speak together.

Visualize again for a moment the expectant faces among the audience, faces from races, religions, cultures, communities and countries near and far who have come to Canada under a variety of circumstances. They may have come as economic migrants or refugees to join family members who came before, or as temporary foreign workers, or as international students who fell in love with this country and decided to stay and build their future lives here as citizens.

This ceremony is not a one-hour or a one-day event. One does not become a citizen overnight. This ceremony is the culmination of years of preparation, including accumulating the required residency years, learning one or both of Canada's official languages, and studying the many documents and data contained in the Discover Canada handbook or on the audio files connected to it and on the website.

This handbook is an abundant repository of Canadian history, citizen responsibilities and obligations, rights entrenched in the Constitution and the importance of the rule of law. This handbook is essential reading for new citizens, not only for the historic content, but also for the study questions provided to help them prepare for the citizenship test.

The handbook offers solid detail of Canada's first nations. As the section on aboriginal peoples explains, first nations' ancestors are “believed to have migrated from Asia many thousands of years ago.” It explains that aboriginal people were well established in Canada “long before explorers from Europe first came to North America. Diverse, vibrant First Nations cultures were rooted in religious beliefs about their relationship to the Creator, the natural environment and each other.”

The handbook also lays out in easily consumed detail the following:

Aboriginal and treaty rights are in the Canadian Constitution. Territorial rights were first guaranteed through the Royal Proclamation of 1763 by King George III, and established the basis for negotiating treaties with the newcomers—treaties that were not always fully respected.

The handbook addresses the impact of European diseases on the native culture and how traders, missionaries, soldiers and colonists changed native lives forever.

In preparation, future citizens learn of Joseph Brant, the Mohawk Loyalist military and political leader during the American Revolution; of Tecumseh and the Shawnees he led in support of British forces in the War of 1812; and of Louis Riel's fight for Métis rights as well as his trial and execution in 1885.

The handbook describes almost two centuries of injustice and abuse of aboriginal children in residential schools, physical abuse and cultural oppression. The handbook reminds readers that in 2008 in Ottawa the federal government under Conservative Prime Minister Harper formally apologized to former students. As well, the handbook defines the three distinct groups that compose Canada's aboriginal peoples.

The Conservative Party fully supports treaty rights and the process of reconciliation with Canada's indigenous people. Conservatives support real action to address reconciliation with Canada's first nations, Inuit and Métis people. Conservatives support action on clean water, safe housing, education, health and economic opportunity, and the Indian Act, which blocks many first nations from charting their own future.

The Conservative Party fully respects treaties, which are already among Canada's body of laws. The Conservative Party supports the resolution of unfulfilled treaty obligations in the process of reconciliation with Canada's indigenous people.

In the week since these proposed changes were reintroduced by the government, I have received messages from constituents, and from far beyond, which contend that this amendment amounts to typical Liberal tokenism and virtue signalling, pandering and should be opposed.

I cannot speak to the Liberal government's motivation here, because when it comes to public policy, inconsistency and contradiction are the hallmarks of legislative process and decision-making. However, I can say that I have spoken often in this House against proposals, very often from the Liberal government, to burden various sections of clearly written sections of law, of the Criminal Code, with unneeded specificities.

In this debate, I must be clear that I believe the existing oath of citizenship does not need to be burdened with 19 new words that I believe are redundant. If we are to add first nations specificity, why not official bilingualism, why not privacy, why not national security, why not anti-Semitism?

Therefore, I propose the following amendment. I move:

That the motion be amended by deleting all of the words after the word “That” and substituting the following: “this House declines to give second reading to Bill C-6, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act (Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada's call to action number 94), since the existing Oath of Citizenship already includes the profound promise of citizens to faithfully observe the laws of Canada and the bill does nothing to support real action to address reconciliation with Canada's first nations, Inuit and Métis peoples.”

Relations with Indigenous Peoples

[Carolyn Bennett, Liberal, Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to stand here this evening on the unceded territory of the Algonquin people.

First I want to thank the member for New Westminster—Burnaby for calling for this important debate this evening.

It is important for us to be able to discuss the issues and possible solutions here in this place no matter what our party lines are.

Canadians are upset. As the Prime Minister expressed so eloquently this morning, Canadians expect us to work together to get through this together. Young people have tearfully expressed to me how upsetting it has been for them to see the images and hear from their friends of being arrested for standing for what they believe in. This happened a year ago and then again earlier this month.

As we heard in the heartfelt words of the Minister of Indigenous Services, we believe we have learned from the crisis at Oka, but also Ipperwash, Caledonia and Gustafsen Lake. Last year, we said that we never wanted to see again the images of police having to use force in an indigenous community in order to keep the peace.

Canada is counting on us to work together to create the space for respectful dialogue with the Wet'suwet'en peoples. We all want this dispute resolved in a peaceful manner. We want the Wet'suwet'en peoples to come together and resolve their differences of opinion.

We want absolute clarity and a shared understanding of the Wet'suwet'en laws.

We are inspired by the courageous Wet'suwet'en people who took the recognition of their rights to the Supreme Court of Canada in the Delgamuukw case in 1997. Since 2018, we have been able and proud to invest in their research on specific claim negotiations, negotiation preparedness, nation rebuilding and the recognition of rights tables, as well as their contributions to the B.C. Treaty Commission processes.

Two years ago, I was proud to sign an agreement with hereditary chiefs of the Office of the Wet'suwet'en on asserting their rights on child and family services. Since then, our government has passed Bill C-92 so that all first nations would be able to pass their own child well-being laws and no longer be subject to section 88 of the Indian Act, which gave provinces laws of general application for things other than where Canada was explicit about the rights of first nations on health and education.

Across Canada, over half of the Indian Act bands are now sitting down at tables to work on their priorities as they assert their jurisdiction. From education to fisheries to child and family services to policing or to their own court systems, we have made important strides forward in the hard work of, as Lee Crowchild describes it, deconstructing the effects of colonization.

In British Columbia, we have been inspired by the work of the B.C. Summit, as they have been able to articulate and sign with us and the B.C. government a new policy that will once and for all eliminate the concepts of extinguishment, cede and surrender for future treaties, agreements and other constructive arrangements.

We have together agreed that no longer would loans be necessary for first nations to fund their negotiations with Canada. We are also forgiving outstanding past loans, and in some cases paying back nations that had already repaid those loans.

We have worked with the already self-governing nations on a collaborative fiscal arrangement that will provide stable, predictable funding that will properly fund the running of their governments.

This new funding arrangement will provide them with much more money than they would have received under the Indian Act.

The conditions are right to move the relationship with first nations, Inuit and Métis to one based on the affirmation of rights, respect, co-operation and partnership as written in the mandate letters of all ministers of this government.

It has been so exciting to watch the creativity and innovation presented by the Ktunaxa and Sto:lo nations in their negotiations of modern treaties.

We were inspired to see the hereditary chiefs and the elected chief and council of the Heiltsuk nation work together to be able to sign an agreement with Canada on their path to self-government. Many nations have been successful when elected and hereditary chiefs have worked together, and I look forward to having these conversations with the Wet'suwet'en nation.

It is now time to build on the historic Delgamuukw decision. It is time to show that issues of rights and title can be solved in meaningful dialogue.

My job is to ensure that Canada finds out-of-court solutions and to fast-track negotiations and agreements that make real change possible.

After the Tsilhqot'in decision, we have been inspired by the hard work of the Tsilhqot'in national government to build its capacity as a government, to write its constitution and its laws, and establish its government.

I look forward to hopefully finding out-of-court processes to determine title, as we hope for Haida Gwaii. There are many parts of Canada where title is very difficult to determine. Many nations have occupied the land for varying generations. I will never forget that feeling on the Tsilhqot'in title land at the signing with the Prime Minister, looking around, the land surrounded by mountains, where the Tsilhqot'in people have lived for millennia. It seemed obvious that anyone who stood there would understand why they had won their case at the Supreme Court of Canada.

We are at a critical time in Canada. We need to deal effectively with the uncertainty. Canadians want to see indigenous rights honoured, and they are impatient for meaningful progress.

Canadians are counting on us to implement a set of rules and processes in which section 35 of our Constitution can be honourably implemented. We are often reminded that inherent rights did not start with section 35: They are indeed inherent rights, as well as treaty rights.

The UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples is an important first step in getting there. We need to properly explain, as have many of the academics and so many of the courts, that free, prior and informed consent is not scary. Consent is not a veto. Bill C-69 means that indigenous peoples and indigenous knowledge will be mandatory at the very beginning of a proposal for any major project.

Section 19 of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples has really been described as a process for land use planning in which the rights of indigenous people are respected.

As we have learned from the experience in Nunavut, where the land claims have been settled, good projects receive a green light, bad projects a red light, and mediocre projects are sent back to the drawing board to improve their environmental stewardship or cultural protection or employment for the Inuit beneficiaries. Nunavummiut accept the decisions of this process wherein the federal, territorial, and Inuit rights holders have taken the decision together.

Canadians acknowledge that there has been a difference of opinion among the Wet'suwet'en peoples. We have heard often in the House that 20 elected chiefs and council agreed to the project in consultation with their people. Women leaders have expressed an opinion that the project can eliminate poverty or provide meaningful work for young men and reduce domestic violence and incarceration. Some have expressed that in an indigenous world view, providing an energy source that will reduce China's reliance on coal is good for Mother Earth.

However, it is only the Wet'suwet'en people that can decide. We are hoping the Wet'suwet'en people will be able to come together to take these decisions together, decisions that are in the best interests of their children and their children for generations to come.

We applaud the thousands of young Canadians fighting for climate justice.

We know that those young people need hope, that they want to see a real plan to deal with the climate emergency. We do believe that we have an effective plan in place, from clean tech to renewable energy, public transit, and protection of the land and the water.

We want the young people of Canada and all those who have been warning about climate change for decades to feel heard.

They need hope, and they need to feel involved in coming up with real solutions.

Tonight there is an emergency debate because our country is hurting. It is for indigenous peoples and all those who are being affected coast to coast to coast.

Yesterday I met in Victoria with British Columbia minister Scott Fraser, and this afternoon had a call with hereditary chiefs and conveyed that we are ready to meet with the hereditary leadership of Wet'suwet'en at a time and place of their choosing.

Together with the Prime Minister and the premier, we want to support the solutions going forward. We want to address their short- and long-term goals. We want to see the hope and hard work that resulted in the Delgamuukw decision of 1997, to be able to chart a new path with the Wet'suwet'en nation in which there is unity and prosperity and a long-term plan for protecting their law, and as Eugene Arcand says, LAW: land, air, water. We also want to see a thriving Wet'suwet'en nation with its own constitution and laws based on its traditional legal customs and practices.

We want to thank Premier Horgan for his efforts to resolve this problem and Murray Rankin for the work that he has undertaken since April of last year to work with the elected chiefs and council as well as the hereditary chiefs on their rights and title. We want to thank Nathan Cullen for his efforts to try and de-escalate this situation.

I am very proud to work with the Province of British Columbia, and I think all in this House congratulate it on the passage of Bill 41, where in Canada the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples is now legislated.

Our government is invested in and inspired by the work of Val Napoleon and John Borrows at the Indigenous Legal Lodge at the University of Victoria. They will be able to do the research on the laws of many nations so that they can create a governance structure and constitutions in keeping with those laws. It is important to understand the damage done by colonization and residential schools that has led to sometimes different interpretations of traditional legal practices and customs.

We think that, one day, Canada will be able to integrate indigenous law into Canada's legislative process, just as it did with common law and droit civil.

We are striving to implement the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's calls to action and to increase awareness of our shared history. We all need the indigenous leadership to know that we are serious. We are serious about rebuilding trust and working with respect, as the Minister of Indigenous Services and the Prime Minister have expressed today in such heartfelt ways.

We hope that the Wet'suwet'en will be able to express to those in solidarity with them that it is now time to stand down to create that space for a peaceful dialogue, and to let us get back to work towards a Wet'suwet'en nation with its own laws and governance that can work nation-to-nation with the Crown.

Although I returned to Ottawa for this debate tonight, I am hoping to be able to return to B.C. as soon as possible to continue that work.

[Peter Kiss]

Good afternoon. I wish to thank the finance committee for inviting me to these pre-budget consultations. My name is Peter Kiss and I'm the owner of Morgan Construction, a heavy civil earth-moving and environmental company operating throughout western Canada with a focus on the Alberta oil sands.

We currently employ 850 men and women from across Canada and have eight indigenous partnerships to provide real value and capacity-building to the groups we partner with. We are the definition of middle class. In 2014 and 2015 when the price of oil crashed, we laid off over 600 people. We have changed our business and innovated, but we have not really recovered. This is not a novel, one-off story; it repeats itself across the Prairies. The perception is that no one cares about Alberta and the west, and as it goes, perception becomes reality.

It was of special interest, especially to me, when I had my finance team pull these numbers together, to find out that over the last 10 years what I thought was a small business is a medium-sized business. The business and our staff have paid, including payroll remittances, taxes and fees to federal and provincial entities, $147 million. This is all while we've had our business evaporate. Again, this is paid by the middle class.

It should be noted that while we have paid our way, the company has not made significant money itself. It could be argued that we are hanging on by a thread. I am not alone. Western Canada is desperate. When I drive around rural Alberta to our work sites, the hotels and restaurants are vacant and there are “for lease” signs everywhere. Parking lots of oil service businesses are empty. The sentiment in western Canada is one of desperation and hopelessness. There is a feeling that we have been economically blockaded. We have no friends in the Dominion. It is economic Armageddon in the west.

Before questions, I'd like to provide the following suggestions for the upcoming budget and legislative session. We need investment in western Canada and we need offtake capacity and infrastructure for our resources.

First, we need to create a corporate and personal tax regime that is better than that in the United States, so investment will flow back into Canada. We have missed an economic boom and we need to catch up. As I sit down here in the United States, with unemployment at all-time record lows, there are help wanted signs everywhere and we have missed out.

Second, we cannot have different rules for our resources that have to compete on the world stage. One example of this is that oil produced in Canada has a charge for CO2 emissions, but oil produced in the Middle East does not. This makes us uncompetitive.

Third, we need to amend Bill C-69 to give investors confidence and we need to get money flowing back into western Canada. The economic engine of Canada is our resources and we cannot get them to market. This legislation, left unchecked, will only hinder activity and growth across Canada.

Fourth, I would like to pose the following question, which baffles much of the west with regard to Bill C-48 and energy east. Why is it okay to run tankers on the east coast but not on the west? Why can we not export our resources and get a global price? Do you feel that other countries have better environmental laws and human rights than we do? Believe me, as I was standing in Fort McMurray yesterday, on our job site, no one cares more about the environment than my front-line workers, my clients and me. Why are we importing oil from outside North America and not using our own resources? Does it make the middle class better off if we transfer their hard-earned money to various regimes with less stringent environmental standards and weaker human rights?

Finally, my last point is about Teck Frontier. It must be approved without conditions. If it is not, or the conditions imposed are so onerous that the proponent declines to proceed, there will be a rebellion in the west, plain and simple. For my business alone, I estimate that this project would mean 200 jobs.

In conclusion, I wish to thank the finance committee for inviting me to present during these pre-budget consultations. Please remember that we are desperate, but we don't want or need handouts. The west is resilient and hard-working and we need the economic blockade to end. We need to go to work. Thank you.

Natural Resources

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Madam Speaker, the second petition comes from more of my constituents.

The petitioners are asking for the repeal of Bill C-48 and Bill C-69. They draw the attention of the House of Commons to the fact that Canada has lost 7,000 kilometres of proposed pipeline. Well over 125,000 jobs and $100 billion in investments have been lost.

The petitioners are calling upon the Government of Canada to immediately repeal Bill C-48 and Bill C-69, the anti-tanker ban bill and the anti-pipeline bill.

[Jag Sahota, Conservative, Calgary Skyview, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the Trans Mountain expansion moving forward is helpful, but the Liberals passed Bill C-69, and that means no private sector pipelines will be built or proposed in Canada again.

My constituents in Calgary Skyview are out of work, underemployed and losing hope because these Liberals cancelled northern gateway, killed energy east and delayed the Trans Mountain pipeline for years. One pipeline to global markets is not enough.

Will the Liberals listen to constituents and Canadians and scrap Bill C-69?

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

I read that, from a competitive standpoint, Bill C-48 and Bill C-69 have not helped.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the second petition I wish to present is signed by 26 of my constituents.

The petitioners call upon the federal government to repeal Bill C-48 and Bill C-69. They draw the attention of the House of Commons and the Government of Canada to the amount of pipeline built in the previous government being substantially lower than previous ones. They state that we have lost over 7,000 kilometres of proposed pipeline and well over 125,000 jobs. The petitioners also point out that $100 billion in energy investment has fled the country.

Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement Implementation Act

[Dean Allison, Conservative, Niagara West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am rising today to speak on a subject that I have been involved in, especially in my previous role as the shadow minister for international trade, and also as a passionate supporter of free trade.

I am well acquainted with the benefits of trade with the United States. I represent a southern Ontario riding that is very close to the border. We have many successful companies in Niagara West that do a significant amount of business not only with the United States but also throughout the world. I met personally with those business owners and operators, and their companies are world-class and full of potential. They provide communities with excellent jobs and economic development.

These business owners are asking for the certainty that free trade agreements provide. Free trade is essential to our country. One in five Canadian jobs is created as a result of free trade agreements. I also believe that members of the Conservative Party are the strongest supporters of free trade. We really are the party of free trade.

The Canada-Israel Free Trade Agreement, the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement with the European Union, the Trans-Pacific Partnership, and the Canada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement were largely negotiated by Conservative governments.

Conservatives negotiated these deals to remove tariffs and quotas, and to eliminate non-tariff barriers to trade. Free trade agreements improve transparency, predictability, certainty and fairness to exporters. I believe all members in this chamber would agree that free trade agreements open markets for Canadian businesses, including small to medium-sized enterprises.

This is why it was so concerning when the United States announced that NAFTA would be renegotiated. The uncertainty had a ripple effect through virtually all Canadian industries that do business with American clients and purchasers. Why did the uncertainty cause so much anxiety in our business community? The short answer is that we are very dependent on one another.

Total merchandise trade between Canada and the United States has more than doubled since 1993, and it has grown over ninefold between Canada and Mexico. In fact, 75% of total Canadian exports go to the United States and roughly 3% go to Mexico. All told, the total trilateral merchandise trade, the total of each country's imports from one another, has reached nearly $1.1 trillion U.S.

This is a tremendous amount of business that more than 1.9 million Canadian jobs depend on. The lack of certainty over the status of the renegotiation of NAFTA caused a reduction of business investment, which I think has been well documented, particularly in Canada. Some companies moved to the United States to offset potential losses while also directing their investments to the United States.

I saw the impact of this uncertainty when I did the “defend local jobs” tour from July to September 2018. During that time, I met with over 150 businesses, trade organizations and chambers. In Ontario, I attended round tables and meetings in London, Brantford, Kitchener, Welland, Niagara Falls, Beamsville, Orillia, Windsor and Toronto.

I went to Vancouver, where the BC Chamber of Commerce organized a round table with their members, as well as Kitimat, where I met with LNG Canada. In Alberta I met with business owners in Edmonton, Calgary and Leduc, where I saw first-hand the effects of the government's misguided policies and the anger that these policies were producing.

I did that tour to see first-hand the effects of U.S. steel and aluminum tariffs and to bring those concerns back to Parliament. I also brought back the personal accounts of business owners of how the uncertainty created by the renegotiation of NAFTA was impacting business operations. What I heard at the time was very worrisome. Stakeholders were asking for immediate support in order to prevent job losses or bankruptcy in the medium or even short term. They wanted to see improvements to Canada's business environment to reduce red tape and enhance our competitiveness. I will get back to Canada's competitiveness shortly, because I believe the government has failed terribly on competitiveness.

On the “defend local jobs” tour I learned that businesses at the time had begun to cut orders, reduce shifts and, in some cases, had even laid off workers. The key word was “uncertainty”. Businesses that had been investing in Canada saw the U.S. as a safer bet because they did not know what was going to happen here.

At the time, businesses impacted by the steel and aluminum tariffs had not yet seen any of the $2 billion in support promised by the government, which was extremely slow to roll out. The Liberals were quick to announce relief, but very slow to roll out any support for our businesses and workers.

Since then, this Liberal government has fumbled the NAFTA file several times. It agreed to many concessions in the renegotiations. Most importantly, I have to mention the concessions the Liberals made with respect to our dairy sector that are particularly damaging.

By the way, there is nothing on softwood lumber, as has been mentioned by other speakers, while the forestry workers are really hurting.

I want to be clear. The Conservatives support and want free trade with the United States. It is no secret that NAFTA is the legacy of the Conservative government, but we must carefully look at the legislation first. Rushing it through would not be wise. After all, when it comes to a trade deal with Canada's largest and most important trade partner, we need to do our due diligence.

I say this because the Liberal government failed to work with us during the negotiation and ratification processes and is now rushing to get this legislation through Parliament, which is not giving us much time to do our homework on it. The government has also failed to provide documents outlining the impacts of the new trade deal despite numerous requests from opposition members. The government does not seem to recognize the realities of the new minority government and is mistaken if it believes we will simply rubber-stamp this deal.

I want to reiterate that doing our due diligence is crucial. We want to ensure there are no surprises that could hurt our businesses and our workers. Hurting businesses and workers has been something the current government knows something about, especially when it comes to competitiveness. According to the World Economic Forum, Canada is now number 14 when it comes to competitiveness. We are behind Singapore, the United States, Hong Kong, the Netherlands, Switzerland, Japan, Germany, Sweden, the U.K., Denmark, Finland, China and South Korea. This is worrisome news.

The government has put legislation forward for the updated NAFTA, but is keeping Canadian businesses handcuffed with red tape, excessive regulations and high taxes. Just look at what it has done in the west. It has been an absolute travesty. Workers in Alberta and Saskatchewan cannot find jobs for months and some for years because the Liberals have drowned the resource sector in over-regulation, overtaxation and ridiculous amounts of red tape.

Bill C-69 and Bill C-48 are the most famous examples of anti-energy legislation passed by the Liberal government. These two bills have done tremendous damage to the economies of our western neighbours. We need the government to finally do something about this. Yes, we need a free trade agreement with the U.S. We absolutely need it. However, if the government continues to stifle the growth of our business sector, including our world-class energy sector, how effective will this trade agreement be when Canadian businesses stall, fail or move south of the border, either to the U.S. or Mexico, because of the government's flawed domestic economic policies? The ill-conceived policies it is putting forward are just recipes for more wasteful spending, more sky-high taxes and more reckless borrowing, all while we are seeing worrying economic signs on the horizon.

The possibility of a made-in-Canada recession is becoming more real. If the government does not believe me, then perhaps it would like to listen to the Wall Street Journal, which stated:

Canadian exports and imports fell steeply in November of 2019, offering fresh evidence the country's economy has hit a rough patch.... The broad-based decline in trade from October [2019] is the latest in a string of disappointing economic indicators, among them a sizable loss of jobs in November and a decline in gross domestic product in October.... Some analysts...indicated the data were symptomatic of a stumbling economy.

What does the government do instead of lowering taxes to stimulate growth and job creation? It is thinking about hiking taxes again. It is looking at the carbon tax hike. It is almost as if it has spent the last four years making life harder and more unaffordable for Canadians.

Canadians should not be punished every time they drive their kids to school or turn up their thermostat on a cold winter day. In my riding of Niagara West, public transportation is almost non-existent. My constituents need to drive to work, drop off and pick up their kids from school, and drive them to hockey practice and all kinds of other activities.

We were very honest with Canadians in the last election. We warned them that the Liberals would raise the carbon tax. The Liberals denied it, but here we are today. They are thinking of raising it and probably will very shortly. This is not good for Canadian families, businesses or our global competitiveness. If they intend to raise the carbon tax, they will finally come clean with Canadians and tell them exactly by how much.

In order to hit our Paris targets they would need to raise it by an additional $50 per tonne. This would increase the price of gasoline by 23¢ a litre. Let us think of what the extra costs would do to job creators, never mind the families with children who have no other option but to drive around. Virtually everything is delivered to our favourite store by truck. The cost on gas will either be absorbed by businesses in order to keep their clients, which may bankrupt some businesses, or it will be passed on to the consumer and increase the price of everything.

In closing, I would like to say that we will carefully look at this legislation. We all owe it to our constituents to do our due diligence and ensure that Canadian workers and job creators will stand to benefit from this new NAFTA.

Natural Resources

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, once again, it is an honour for me to rise in the House to give some remarks with respect to how the constituents of Regina—Lewvan are feeling. These debates are an opportunity to ask further questions to the conversation we had in question period. Therefore, I would like to start by reiterating the question I had in question period.

I asked the hon. Minister of Environment or the Prime Minister to answer this question.

There are families across western Canada suffering. Throughout my campaign, many constituents told me their stories about losing their jobs and how many of their homes had for sale signs on the lawns. I asked the Prime Minister what he would say to these men and women who are out of work because of Bill C-69. How will he ensure these hard-working families across our country can get back to work in our world-class oil and gas sector?

This is an issue that faces people throughout western Canada. I heard the member opposite talk about the B.C. LNG project and other projects. That does not help the 150,000 people who have been out of work in the oil and gas sector in Alberta and Saskatchewan. We were sent here to be their voice and to talk about what options they have going forward. I have not heard any members opposite bringing forward ideas of how to get some of those western Canadian hard-working men and women back to work, many of whom are my family and friends. Friends that I grew up with have been out of work for a very long time. I ask the members opposite this: Are there ways we can work together?

There were 187 amendments brought forward to Bill C-69 from the Senate. The members opposite did not want to listen to any of those amendments. There are nine provincial premiers. Every territorial leader has issues with Bill C-69. We have not seen the government move at all with respect to its stubbornness and not listening to western Canadians.

I remember very well what the Prime Minister said on election night, which I hope was heartfelt. He said that he was listening to western Canadians, that he heard their frustration and that he heard their anger. He said we would work together to make things better in provinces like ours, in Saskatchewan and Alberta. However, I have seen nothing, no action whatsoever, to back up those words. Therefore, tonight I would like to have a couple of solid recommendations on how we can work together to get the hard-working men and women in Saskatchewan back to work.

I just came back from an opportunity to talk with some of the leaders of the United Steelworkers, the USW, who are here tonight. They are very concerned as to whether the LNG projects will use Canadian steel instead of steel that comes from other countries that is not as high a quality. I hear about the environment all the time from the members opposite. I can tell them, without a doubt in my mind, that the steel made from recycled materials at Evraz Steel is the most environmentally safe and meets the highest environmental standards of any steel in the world.

Therefore, if the Liberals are worried about the environment and emissions, I have the solution. We have the best steel in the world made in this country. I would like to work together to ensure those hard-working men and women at Evraz have jobs now and going into the future, so that we can get pipelines built in this country and the expansion of the TMX. We can use Canadian steel and the hard-working men and women across western Canada and put them back to work.

I am looking forward to hearing from my hon. colleague across the aisle. Hopefully, we will get a better answer than we received when I first asked this question.

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my home province of British Columbia is in a unique position to make a significant contribution to the fight against global climate change by developing its liquid natural gas industry. The objective, of course, would be for clean, green, environmentally responsible and ethical Canadian energy to replace much dirtier coal that is being burned and used by much of the developing world.

Liquid natural gas, when it finally gets going, will create a lot of good jobs in my riding, in British Columbia, in western Canada and notably in northern indigenous communities. However, the investment community and the resource industry is losing confidence in Canada as a place to invest in liquid natural gas.

Chevron has recently decided to pull out of the Kitimat LNG project, a project that we thought was a go and one that people were counting on for jobs. They are losing confidence in Canada because it has been bogged down in the regulatory quicksand known as Bill C-69, the no more pipeline bill of the government.

I was recently talking to a constituent who operates an equipment manufacturing business that is ready, willing and able to offer good-paying jobs to people so they can service the liquid natural gas development and construction industry. Those jobs are waiting for final investment decisions to be made.

I was talking to another constituent, an engineer who runs an engineering firm specializing in servicing the construction industry. The firm has had the advantage of a couple of projects, preliminary design works for the LNG industry, yet it, too, is waiting to hire more people to do the work once it finally gets going.

In the meantime, Canada is sitting idly by, bogged down in regulation rising out of Bill C-69, while our competitors are taking the opportunity. Russia has recently built a natural gas pipeline to deliver natural gas to China to satisfy its ever-growing demand for cleaner energy.

The United States, as well, is fast-tracking a number of liquid natural gas projects, and it is far ahead of us now, even though we had a head start. We are bogged down in regulations, not going anywhere.

Australia, too, recognizes the opportunity. It is also jumping on the LNG bandwagon. In the meantime, Canada is sitting there, bogged down in Bill C-69.

Will the government finally make the amendments required in Bill C-69? Will it support and work with industry, indigenous communities and hard-working Canadians hoping for well-paying jobs in the liquid natural gas industry, or is it content to continue standing by idly while our competition runs with the opportunity?

Resumption of debate on Address in Reply

[Gerald Soroka, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, this is my maiden speech, which is going to be cut incredibly short.

The Speech from the Throne is informative not because it outlines what exactly the government is going to do, but because it shows us where its priorities lie.

Equally notable are the topics the government avoids mentioning. The Speech from the Throne was notably silent on some of the most pressing concerns our country is facing today. As the people of Alberta and Saskatchewan are facing an economic crisis, all the government offered them was one throw-away line in the throne speech about getting resources to market. While the Liberal government has long said that the economy and the environment go hand in hand, the policies it implemented in the last session and those it pledged to implement going forward tell a different story. It sacrificed the economic prosperity of Alberta and the other provinces for merely the appearance of environmental protection.

As Canadians have pointed out time and again, Canada produces some of the cleanest and most ethical oil in the world. The Liberal government imposed Bill C-48 and Bill C-69, which prevented our oil and natural gas from getting to market. That demand not met by Canada is satisfied by other countries with lower environmental standards, many of which have a proven record of ignoring human rights. In the case of the no-more-pipelines bill, Bill C-69, it resulted in oil transportation by alternative methods, namely rail, which can cause significantly more pollution. The push behind these job-killing and environment-killing bills come from a surface-level understanding of an issue at hand and the misguided intolerance of domestic oil production. When it comes to policy, the choice comes down to doing good or feeling good. As Conservatives, we will always support legislation that does the former, even when there are no sound bites and selfie opportunities that go along with it.

Concerning the tanker ban bill, Bill C-48, the government has claimed the ban is necessary to protect the environment. If the government legitimately wanted to protect the environment against the remote possibility of oil spills, do members not think it would have implemented a tanker ban on the St. Lawrence River or the east coast? After all, the beluga whales that inhabit the area are on the endangered species list. The government did not implement any other tanker bans. Why not?

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to stand here and give my first speech in the House today as the member of Parliament for Cypress Hills—Grasslands.

I first need to thank the voters in my constituency for sending me here with a very clear mandate. They know what they want, and it is humbling to have received their overwhelming support.

I also need to thank my wife of 12 years, Kyla, for her unwavering support and for being willing to take this big step with me into parliamentary life. We have three of the most amazing kids, Jacoby, Jada and Kenzie, and if I did not have their full support as well, I would not have dragged them along on this journey.

To my campaign team and volunteers, I am thankful for their hard work and dedication in making sure that my first campaign was a successful one. I live in a riding that is 77,000 square kilometres, and it was a joy to meet and campaign with people from so many communities and backgrounds.

Today, I will be speaking in reply to the throne speech delivered by the Governor General, which set out the government's priorities and agenda.

After the election on October 21, when western Canadians overwhelmingly voted out every Liberal between Winnipeg and Vancouver, the Prime Minister went on national TV and told western Canadians, “I've heard your frustration and I want to be there to support you.” Naturally, the throne speech would have been a golden opportunity to show western Canadians that he had in fact heard our frustrations. However, this throne speech is just further evidence that the Prime Minister is not listening to western Canadians. In fact, the Liberals are continuing to ignore what western Canada is trying to communicate to them.

I come from a rural riding. Part of what makes it so great to live in a small town in a rural area is that one has to have a certain level of entrepreneurship and resolve to make one's farm, ranch or business succeed. Agriculture, energy, tourism and the natural resource sectors have always provided opportunities for people to start up a new business, to innovate, and then to develop their product and their business model. However, when there has been a multi-year downturn in the resource sector coupled with the lows that the agriculture sector has encountered, it puts the very businesses and people who keep small towns and small businesses viable in danger of losing everything.

With all that in mind, I will focus on a line that was used in both this year's throne speech and the 2015 throne speech, which is that every Canadian should have a “real and fair chance” to succeed. However, the government needs to understand it is the government's policies that are getting in the way and making it harder for Canadians to succeed.

The first policy we heard in the speech was that the government is doubling down on its carbon tax. So far, this has been the main method it is using to try to eliminate Canada's carbon emissions. However, it has not only proven to be a harmful policy for farmers, energy workers, seniors and everybody else, but it is also an ineffective policy. We are only seeing the cost of living go up, which is hurting the most vulnerable people, such as our seniors and low-income families. It has been nothing but an added burden for a lot of people.

In April, the cost of the carbon tax will increase from $20 to $30 per tonne, which means that life is about to get even harder. If that was not bad enough, we found out a few weeks ago that in a few provinces the government is lowering the carbon tax rebate that families could receive. Those provinces happen to be the ones that have not gone along with putting their own carbon tax in place. My home province of Saskatchewan is getting the largest cutback. When it was first introduced, the Liberals said that the tax would be revenue neutral and that Canadians could expect support for their extra expenses through a tax rebate. This is a perfect demonstration of what we can expect from the carbon tax in actual practice. As the cost and tax rate increase, the support for taxpayers and struggling families will decrease.

The carbon tax is also adding another layer of stress in agriculture. In western Canada, farmers had a year unlike any other in recent memory, from starting out the year with drought-like conditions to having way too much moisture in the fall when it came time to get the crops off. In fact, we have millions of acres of crops still out in the fields buried in snow. For the crops that are now in the bins, the next problem is to dry the grain, and natural gas is the main source of heat generation to accomplish this. It is a necessary part of grain farming, but the price for that fuel has gone up by hundreds of dollars because of the carbon tax, and then the GST is applied on top of that and so we now have a tax on top of a tax. After a difficult year in 2019, this is the last thing those farmers need. They have been calling attention to their desperate situation. I was happy to read in the National Post that the Green Party's agriculture critic agrees that we need to exempt farmers from the carbon tax, but nobody in the government seems to be listening.

Beyond the carbon tax, the Liberals' anti-energy, anti-business policies are killing jobs in resource development all over Canada. We heard a lot about how the anti-pipeline Bill C-69 would shut down energy projects, but there have also been concerns raised in mining and other industries.

In 2016, the Prime Minister said:

I have said many times that there isn’t a country in the world that would find billions of barrels of oil and leave it in the ground while there is a market for it.

But it isn’t enough to just use that resource for our short-term interest.

Our challenge is to use today’s wealth to create tomorrow’s opportunity. Ultimately, this is about leaving a better country for our kids than the one we inherited from our parents.

He was right to say that we should be making the most of Canadian energy while there is a market for it. However, after four years, the Liberals have left a lot of oil in the ground and that has left a lot of people out of work. Over the last four years, the government's regulatory changes have chased over $100 billion in investment, or four and a half per cent of GDP, out of Canada. I fail to see how we can create tomorrow's opportunities with results like that.

I could say a lot more about how the government's current policies do not make sense for either the environment or the economy, but I would much rather talk about what does make sense and what could work.

Just before Christmas, SaskPower, the power utility in Saskatchewan, held the grand opening of the Chinook power station northwest of Swift Current in my riding. It is a good example of how we have made clean, efficient use of natural gas in combined cycle power generation. This facility has the capacity to provide more power for around 300,000 homes. It runs 50% more efficiently than a coal-fired plant. The reason this power station is so important, along with others like it in the province, is that we now have strong enough baseload power generation so that we can invest further into renewables like wind and solar.

The Province of Saskatchewan, while under the guidance of former premier Brad Wall, created an ambitious plan to reduce our emissions. This plan is set to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 40% by 2030, as well as to have 50% renewable energy by then. This is a far more achievable plan than the one the Liberals have used. By creating a strong enough baseload power capacity that is reliable while utilizing technologies like combined-cycle power generation, the province can now focus its efforts further on growth in renewables. We already have a strong presence in the wind and solar industries, and further investment into these areas will continue to be encouraged.

Therefore, I find it crazy that the government has chosen to ignore the province's plan, which actually reduces emissions and shifts to renewable energy, while the Liberals' carbon tax only drives valuable investment dollars out of Canada that are needed for funding new technology.

I also need to highlight the innovative farming practices, such as zero-till farming, that have taken off in Saskatchewan. These methods remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere by keeping more of it in the soil. Our province continues to be a world leader in this regard. When it comes to the promise of this approach, I saw an article in National Geographic that noted the following:

...about a quarter of the world's greenhouse gas emissions come from land use and agriculture combined—but farmers are uniquely situated to be part of the solution.

We are seeing something like this in Saskatchewan. Due to the zero-till farming efforts, just as an example, we sequester 9.46 million tonnes of carbon dioxide per year. According to Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, that is the equivalent of removing two million cars from the highway each and every year. That is a real result. This is the type of success that comes from properly respecting farmers and their livelihood. It is a way of life that already deeply understands the close relationship between the economy and being a good steward of the land and the environment. Canadians working in the agriculture and energy sectors do not need to be lectured about it. They need to be supported in the balanced approach that they are already pursuing.

I am so proud to live in a riding that is part of a comprehensive, serious and practical plan for the environment like the one being implemented in Saskatchewan. However, the sad fact is that my province and my riding are not getting the credit they deserve from the current government. Instead, they have been blamed, neglected and ignored.

The Prime Minister said to western Canadians, “I hear you.” If this is true, then he should scrap the carbon tax and stop punishing the energy sector. If all Canadians are supposed to have a real and fair chance to succeed, then the government needs to listen to the provinces and the industry leaders who are suffering as a result of failed Liberal policies. It just sounds like more of the same from the Liberals, but I want Canadians to know that we hear them on this side of the House and we are ready to help them succeed.

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I want to inform you that I am splitting my time with the member for Calgary Centre.

It is my honour to rise in the House today for my maiden speech. I first want to thank the voters of Saskatoon West for putting their faith and trust in me as their representative in this House of Commons for this, the 43rd Parliament. I am humbled and honoured and grateful that they would trust me with this privilege. My pledge to them is that I will do my very best to represent them here in Ottawa and bring their views to Ottawa.

I want to thank my election team of Sunny, Braden, Alex, Kaitlyn, Donna-Lyn, Josh and Jared. I offer a special shout-out to the University of Saskatchewan Campus Conservatives club, which helped with a lot of door knocking. I offer big thank you to my friend the hon. member for Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek and her husband, Milton Block, for all of their encouragement, and to so many volunteers and donors who made this all possible.

As everybody in here knows, family support is critical to our success, and so I want to thank my parents, Alvin and Irene Redekopp; my sister, Gaylene Molnar, and her family; my two wonderful sons, Kyle and Eric Redekopp; and of course my beautiful wife, Cheryl Redekopp. I could not have done this without them.

It is for these people and for the 75,000 other people who live in Saskatoon West that I am replying to the Speech from the Throne today.

Unfortunately, I cannot and I will not support it.

This throne speech calls for “unity in the pursuit of common goals and aspirations.” The Prime Minister talks about listening and about parliamentarians working together, but the throne speech says almost nothing about the aspirations of people from Saskatoon. Not only that, the Prime Minister brings in policy after policy that targets the people of Saskatoon and our economy.

Let me explain the economy in Saskatchewan. If we think of a three-legged stool, the first leg is agriculture: wheat, canola, barley, oats and things like that. The second leg is mining: potash, uranium, gold and diamonds. The third leg is oil and gas. Last year, in 2018, these three sectors accounted for 36% of our GDP in Saskatchewan. The seat of the stool is manufacturing and construction. We manufacture machinery, industrial equipment and food products, while construction is the infrastructure that supports all of that work and all of the people. In 2018, those two sectors were 14% of our Saskatchewan GDP. Taken together, the legs and the seat of the stool account for 50% of Saskatchewan's GDP.

The other half of our GDP is the services that support our residents: things like stores, restaurants, education, health care and everything else. These things all sit on the stool, but the legs of our stool, the foundation of our GDP, are mining, oil and gas, and agriculture.

We all know that these three sectors are suffering in Saskatchewan.

In terms of the oil and gas leg, the no-more-pipelines bill, Bill C-69, has restricted capacity to ship our oil to markets. The selling price of oil is down, investment is down, and therefore there are fewer jobs.

The mining leg is also affected by Bill C-69. It politicizes the impact assessment process and adds significant time and uncertainty to the approval process. Companies no longer see Saskatchewan as the safe, stable place it once was to invest. Therefore, investments are going elsewhere and jobs are disappearing.

On the agricultural leg, the Liberals' continuing relationship failures with China have hurt our canola producers.

What does all this mean to the people of Saskatoon? When the legs of the stool are crippled, everyone suffers. Unemployment is up and people are struggling to pay their bills. During the election, I talked to many households and many families who were struggling to make their monthly payments, and on the campaign I spoke to many of the people we talk about who are short $200 every month.

I want to provide some vignettes of some real people and how this affects them.

I think of a young man who used to work on an oil drilling rig. He drove seven hours from Saskatoon to work in Drayton Valley, Alberta. He worked a two-week shift of 12-hour days, made really good money and spent that money in Saskatoon on vehicles, restaurants, stereo equipment, etc. I know this because this young man is my son. In 2015, the Liberals came to power. They introduced the no-more-pipelines bill and the no-more-tankers bill, and this drove down the price of our Canadian oil and reduced our investment. As a result, my son lost his job and, there was no more spending in Saskatoon.

Another example is a manufacturer who supplied components to the mining and the oil and gas industries. The manufacturer employed 140 people in Saskatoon. Those were well-paying jobs supporting 140 families in Saskatoon. I know this because my brother-in-law works at that company. Because of Bill C-69, investment in resource projects decreased, and the result was that people were laid off as the company adjusted to decreased business.

Fortunately, Saskatonians are resilient and creative problem-solvers, so they looked elsewhere and found business to keep the company going, but the business is smaller than it would have been had the oil and gas market kept going strong.

Let us think of an entrepreneur who build new homes for families, directly employed four people, indirectly hired 40 different contractors to complete all the work required and created several million dollars of economic spinoffs in Saskatoon. I know this because this was my business. Because of the Liberals' mortgage stress test, new homebuyers are forced out of the market. Because of changes in building codes, the cost to build a home significantly increased, and as a result, construction activity in Saskatoon has significantly slowed down. In fact, housing starts are at the lowest level in 14 years. Many good people in the construction industry are suffering or have lost their jobs.

What did I expect from the Liberal government throne speech in the spirit of working together? I certainly expected support for western Canadian jobs. After all, two days after the Liberals were reduced to a minority in October, the Prime Minister said he clearly has more to do to earn the trust of people in Saskatchewan. I expected support for oil and gas, mining and farmers.

What did I actually hear?

I heard a vague reference to natural resources and farmers, no mention of the Trans Mountain pipeline, no mention of a national energy corridor, nothing about repealing or even making changes to Bill C-69 and Bill C-48, and certainly no concern for our rapidly growing and dangerous debt. I think Rex Murphy said it best when he said the Speech from the Throne “is a semantic graveyard, where dullness and pretentiousness conspire, successfully, against the life and lift of our two wonderful official languages.”

Housing was mentioned in the throne speech, and I hope the government will follow through on that issue. There are many people in my riding for whom good, stable housing is out of reach. As a former home builder, I call upon the government to relax the mortgage stress test, as this has had a significant negative impact on construction in Saskatoon.

One thing barely mentioned in the throne speech was the word “job”. The Liberals are quick to offer money to Canadians for this or that and to offer handouts to make up for their lack of action on the economy, but let me tell members something about people from Saskatoon: We are proud, hard-working folks, and we do not want handouts; we want good-paying jobs.

Saskatoon is also filled with entrepreneurs, people willing to take great risks in order to employ others and build our economy. Entrepreneurs do not want handouts; they want a stable playing field with reasonable regulations and the freedom to work hard, succeed and then enjoy the benefits when success does happen.

There were two other words conspicuously absent from the throne speech: “balanced budget”. I am gravely concerned that the Liberal government has chosen to spend seemingly unlimited amounts of money on every kind of program, with no concern for the underlying economy that pays for all of this. We are burdening our future generations with debt that will have to be paid back at some point. I call upon the government to at least plan to return to balanced budgets.

Finally, Saskatchewan people care deeply about our environment. All three of the stool legs I spoke of earlier are rooted in our land. No one is a better steward of our land than people from Saskatchewan. We all understand that healthy land, water and air are critical to our long-term success, but we cannot adopt a zealot-like approach, assuming that the only way to have a healthy planet is to stop human development and to stifle innovation and economic growth. We cannot sacrifice the agriculture, mining, and oil and gas industries of Saskatchewan and Alberta in exchange for a photo op with Greta. We cannot stifle economic growth and continue to increase taxes on our people.

This throne speech made it clear that the government intends to continue to raise the carbon tax. Taxes will rise, with no meaningful impact on carbon. This will hurt ordinary Canadians and business owners.

In conclusion, Canada's Conservatives are focused on the aspirations of everyday Canadians, like the good people of Saskatoon West. We are the party of the middle class, and we will continue to present real and tangible ideas that will allow people to get ahead and get the government off their backs.

As I close, I want to congratulate and thank the leader of my party for his tireless dedication and work over the past 15 years. I also want to wish everyone in this chamber a very merry Christmas and a happy new year.

[Darrell Samson, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs and Associate Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be back here in the House for the 43rd Parliament and to have an opportunity to speak to the Speech from the Throne.

Between July and December, I missed being able to deliver speeches in the House, though I must say I got plenty of speech-giving opportunities during the election campaign.

It gives me enormous pleasure to return to the House for the 43rd Parliament. I appreciate the opportunity to speak to the Speech from the Throne. It is a very important speech to share with Canadians because it is a road map, the vision of our government. I kind of missed being in the House between June and now because of the election. I like to share what is happening in my constituency of Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook and to continue to advocate on behalf of my constituents.

I have to thank the people of Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook for putting their confidence in me once again to continue to work with them and for them. That is exactly what I shall continue to do as we move forward. I also want to thank the many volunteers in my riding and outside of my riding. A large number of volunteers participated throughout the campaign, from day one right through to October 21. That is really what democracy is all about when we think about it. These individuals want to be engaged in the electoral process and they want their words to be heard. The support that I received from them is much appreciated and I thank them for that.

As well, I want to thank my family. As members know, being parliamentarians is not a task that allows us to be home as much as we might like to be. The real work is in the community for our people, but members have to be here in the House to make laws and to work together to make life better for Canadians in general but also for the people in our ridings.

I have to say that I felt throughout the campaign that there were two elections happening. I would like to share a few words concerning the election and how my constituents and I were able to see how things were happening at the national level and at the local level. To be quite honest, at the national level, it was a different campaign that Canadians had not experienced. By that I mean there were insults and misinformation and there was even some fearmongering. All kinds of things were happening throughout the campaign at the national level on television that many Canadians did not feel very comfortable with because that is not the way we do business. We work together. We trust each other to get things done for Canadians.

At the end of the day, I ended up putting my head down and concentrating on the work at hand, working closely with my constituents, listening to them. That allowed me to articulate some of the great things our government was able to do in the last four years, talking with seniors and how we were able to support them, investing in bringing many seniors above the poverty line, and moving the age of retirement from 67 to 65. The Conservatives raised it from 65 to 67, but we stopped that quickly.

The conversation around climate change is important. Climate change is a very important file. It is probably the greatest challenge of our time. Many people in my constituency have many suggestions to make. They welcome some of the great things we did, such as increasing environmental protection of water and land from 1% to 14%, and they understand that we will move it up to 25% by 2025 and 30% by 2030. Those are very important discussions to be having.

I had the opportunity as well to speak with many veterans. Nova Scotia has the highest number of veterans and military personnel in Canada by ratio. Let me add that my riding of Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook has the most in Nova Scotia, so it is extremely important that I continue to have a dialogue with veterans and individuals in the military.

Colleagues are probably aware of this, but I have been honoured and privileged by the Prime Minister to take on the role of parliamentary secretary for veterans affairs and defence . That is a privilege because I have been working closely with veterans and individuals in the military. I have also been working at the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs for the last two years.

We have had some great conversations locally, but not such great conversations, I believe, nationally. At the end of the day, Canadians made the right decision and brought us back here to form government. However, we have been handed a new, important task of a minority government. I believe that this government is the best government to lead Canada for the future of this country.

We know that we need to do more on pharmacare. That is extremely important. We have to do more on social enterprises. We have to do more on housing.

We also know that we have to move forward aggressively on trade deals. We did so in the past. We had 14 trade deals signed in one mandate. I do not want to go too deep into that, but the three important ones are NAFTA, which we did extremely well, and of course, the Asia-Pacific one and the one with the European Union. Both of the last two brought 500 million people to the table who we can trade with. That is a billion people.

We have the challenge of how we are going to work together. I was very pleased to listen to some, not all, leaders of the opposition in the House last week who clearly stated that they understood the challenge. The challenge is that Canadians want us to work together. Canadians want us to collaborate. Canadians know that we are the party to do so and we shall do that because it is extremely important. We are going to have to stop pointing fingers, I guess, and stop blaming people. A good idea is a good idea, no matter where it comes from in this chamber. It is extremely important to remember that.

I now want to talk about minority governments. We have had some fabulous minority governments that have been very successful in making major changes for Canadians. I think right away of the Lester B. Pearson minority government. It was known as the golden age. It was given that title because it was a very important time. I will share some of the key successes during those years.

An extremely important one is the Official Languages Act. It is funny because here we are 50 years later modernizing the bilingualism act. It recognized both founding fathers or peoples. Today we are much richer not only with respect to understanding each other, but also in allowing us to trade with many countries, because of the two official languages we have in Canada.

Another is the Canada pension plan. Only last year, this government was able to work closely with the provinces and territories to bring forward a much needed updated Canada pension plan that Canadians can be proud of. Canadians will benefit more and more as we move forward.

Medicare is another success that came from a minority government. It is extremely important. I have to share this. One of the key individuals who led the Liberal government through that minority government was Allan J. MacEachen from Cape Breton Island. He became the deputy prime minister of the country and sat next to Pierre Elliott Trudeau.

We brought forward the new student loans program. We had a question today about it. Our government has made major changes to that in the last two or three years which will make life better for young students who are trying to get ahead.

We also ended capital punishment during those years.

Let us talk about the Martin minority government. I can think of two major improvements for Canadians. The first is same sex marriage. That is extremely important. Our government led the charge on that one. The second is the gas tax, which was a new program incentive to support municipal governments and invest in new infrastructure. It is so important that last year, for one year, we doubled the investments from the gas tax.

Those are some of the great changes that were made through minority governments.

Am I happy? I would rather have a majority government, but I will say this. I know that with a minority government and the people in this important chamber, we will get the job done in many areas. Canadians want us to do it and I know we can and shall do it.

I would be remiss if I did not talk about national unity. That is a very important topic. National unity did not start yesterday, last week or last year. We have a great nation because we have challenges. When we have challenges, they become opportunities, and we take advantage of those opportunities to make life better.

I have to share this with members of the House. In the very early eighties, my dad, George A. Samson, a plumber and electrician from Cape Breton Island, to be more specific Isle Madame, who had a grade six education, was a councillor in the municipal government. He enjoyed speaking and representing the people. In 1980, he was invited by the Davis government in Ontario to an assembly of many Canadians to talk about the Constitution and national unity. It was quite a pleasure and exciting for him to be part of that. He contributed to those discussions. I know that allowed many great things to happen as we moved forward in the eighties.

We have to stop this division and stop focusing on our differences. We need to focus on our strengths. What we are asking for today is something that Canadians have done so well in the past.

When I hear about prominent politicians running around saying there are differences and creating regional insecurity, it hurts, I have to be honest, because I know we can do much better.

I want to share a quote from the first Prime Minister of Canada, John A. Macdonald:

If I had influence over the minds of the people of Canada, any power over their intellects, I would leave them this legacy—“whatever you do, adhere to the Union—we are a great country and shall become one of the greatest in the universe if we preserve it; we shall sink into insignificance and adversity if we suffer it to be broken.”

I could not say it any better.

That is what this is all about. It is about working together. How great is this country? It is one of the greatest countries in the world. We have been rated number one on quality of life four years in a row. That is not bad. We are number three in education, number four in freedom, number six among the best countries to do business with and number nine in happiness. What a great country. Let us continue working together to make life better for all Canadians.

To do what we are doing, we need to continue to get support from members of all parties. We have to help and work closely with the business community to make sure it has the tools to connect and take advantage of the international trade deals we sign. We have to work together on climate change, because it is the greatest challenge of our time. We have to work together to make sure we have what we promised on pharmacare for all Canadians. It is extremely important. We must continue to work together for housing, creating more housing for seniors. That is the next challenge.

We are focused on these challenges, and that is important. We have to focus on families, youth, veterans and seniors. These are important issues and we need to work together to make this happen. I believe we will. We need to make this work.

Let me focus on Wexit. Westerners are anxious. We will work with them, because when times are hard in one part of this nation we come together and find ways to connect and support. That is what we will do.

I have already seen movement in Alberta on climate change. The premier said he is now open to that. That is what I call making a great effort to work together to continue building on this great country.

What about the pipeline? We already have 2,200 people working on the pipeline and by summer we will have 4,200 working on it. We are now moving forward on the pipeline, as we committed and promised.

I am also hearing about Bill C-69 in Wexit. I believe the Prime Minister said the other day that we are open to listening if we need to tweak it somewhat. He even asked the premiers to get together and work at it to see if they had some suggestions. That is the third thing.

The fourth issue I am hearing a lot about is equalization payments or the fiscal stability program. That is what it is for. We have been trying to support westerners and will continue to support them. One way to do it is by making adjustments. When we make adjustments because there are hard times, we are supporting those provinces, and when times are good, we expect them to support the rest of Canada.

It is a pleasure to be back in the House of Commons to speak on behalf of the residents of my riding of Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook.

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to talk about collaboration and teamship. I congratulate Winnipeg on winning its first Grey Cup, maybe since I was born.

I love to work with the government when we have common interests. One of those common interests, with the member from Manitoba, is getting pipelines built in the oil and gas sector. I am hoping we can work together to either scrap Bill C-69 or amend it so that we can get the hard-working oil and gas sector workers back to work as soon as possible, get some pipelines built and use some good EVRAZ steel to make those pipelines.

Natural Resources

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has promised to listen really hard to western Canada. I am wondering if he has heard the resounding screams of 180,000 lost jobs, the squealing tires of $100 billion of investment leaving this country or the alarm bells ringing as resource producers are forced to accept a value for our resource far below world price, all because of the current government's inaction. Will the government take out its earplugs and recognize that its approach to building energy infrastructure in Canada embodied in Bill C-69 is fatally flawed and amend this dreadful bill?

[Tim Uppal, Conservative, Edmonton Mill Woods, AB]

Mr. Speaker, many people in my riding of Edmonton Mill Woods and right across Alberta are hurting. In fact, the unemployment rate among young men is approaching 20%, something that we have not seen in almost 40 years. We are in this crisis because of Liberal policies like Bill C-69, yet the Liberals have refused to make changes to their no-more-pipelines bill. When will the Liberals make changes to Bill C-69 that will help Albertans and all Canadians?

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

Mr. Speaker, the legislation that was there before was called CEAA 2012 and everybody in the energy sector wanted it changed. Why? Because no projects were moving ahead and if they were there were duplications and delays.

With Bill C-69, the Impact Assessment Act, it is clear that there will be one review for one project. The mining industry is supportive of this act. We are discussing with the provinces to make sure that, as we implement it, we hear the concerns and we move forward in the right way.

[Michael Kram, Conservative, Regina—Wascana, SK]

Mr. Speaker, today is Friday the 13th, the namesake of one of the longest-running horror movie franchises in history. It cannot help but remind me of the Liberal no-more-pipelines bill and its effect on the western Canadian resource sector. Will the Liberal government amend Bill C-69 so pipeline projects stop disappearing like teenagers in a bad horror movie?

Resumption of debate on Address in Reply

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to rise in the House.

This is my maiden speech, so I have some thanks to go through, then I will get to the crux of what was, or what was not, in the Speech from the Throne that was presented last week.

All of us in this House have a huge responsibility to represent their constituents in each and every riding. For myself, I could not do this job without the people and volunteers who helped me win this seat. We all have great volunteers on campaigns, and Regina—Lewvan had the best volunteers in the country in my opinion. We were 300 strong on election day, and there were a lot of people who helped ensure that the Conservatives won the seat in Regina—Lewvan.

I had an amazing team of core supporters and I would like to take this time to thank Shelly and Mike Janostin. Shelley was my campaign manager and worked tirelessly to keep me on task. I want to thank her for all the support that she has given me and my family over the last 18 months. We had a great time, and without her help we would not have been able to win this seat.

Laura Ross is a great friend and our EDA president. She was a colleague of mine when I was the member for the Saskatchewan legislature for Regina Walsh Acres and Laura was the member for Regina Rochdale and she was a tireless advocate. Both she and her husband Terry worked so hard. He was a great sign guy. We had a sign crew that put over 1,200 signs up in Regina—Lewvan. I appreciate the support of Terry, Mike and all the other guys who came out and put up signs. Everyone who took a sign as well, we appreciate their having the courage of their convictions and putting a sign on their front lawn. I appreciate that very much.

As a member of the Legislative Assembly I had the honour of having the best constituency assistant in the province, Heather Kuntz. She is now my assistant in Regina—Lewvan. She is a tireless advocate for the people of Regina. She works very hard on case files, and she is honestly one of my strongest supporters.

I always make the comment that she has been one of the women who has been in my life the longest. She has been with me for eight years and my wife has been with me for 10 years, so she is like an auntie to our three young kids. She is not only a great supporter and worker, but a confidante and a very good friend. I thank Heather for all the work she has done for us over the last eight years. I am very lucky to have her heading up our office in Regina and helping the people of Regina—Lewvan.

It comes down to having so many good people on our team. Mike Emiry, his wife Taryn and my good friends Dustin and Ali are auntie and uncle to my kids, and they helped support us throughout the campaign. When Larissa and I were out doing events or functions, they were there to look after the kids. My kids are very lucky to have two people in their life who love them so much. I thank Dustin and Ali for all they have done for our family.

It is an honour to rise and thank people who helped us get here. Obviously, the people who help us the most are our families. Without the support of a spouse, there is no one in this chamber who can do this job. I am very fortunate to have an amazing woman by my side.

Larissa is by far my strongest advocate. She also gives me advice from time to time and makes sure, for example, that I wear the right suit with the right tie. It is always good to have a wardrobe consultant. I appreciate everything she does for us.

Over the last eight years, we have had three children together. We have won three campaigns, two nominations and gone through a couple of leadership races. She has been by my side through it all. She has also finished her degree, finished an MBA and worked full time as well. She is an amazing woman and I am lucky enough that I convinced her to share a life together.

People always say, “Congratulations on marrying up,” and I say, yes, I definitely did. If one does not, that is silly. I appreciate her and she obviously means the world to me. We have three young children under six: Nickson is six years old, Claire is four and Jameson turns three on January 2.

I believe the reason most of us get into this job and commit to public service is to make things better for the next generation, and that is an example I set in our household. We do this job so that our children have better opportunities going forward and into the future. I think that everyone in the House is in it for those reasons, to make sure that we have a better environment for our children and great job opportunities, so that they can be more successful than we are.

I would say to Nickson, Claire and Jameson that dad is coming home in exactly four hours. I cannot wait to be home and spend some time with the family. I think Nickson has hockey practice tonight, so I hope he makes sure to skate hard and keeps his stick on the ice. I love him very much.

Obviously, there has been a lot going on over the last 24 hours for our party. I have known the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle for a long time. I want to thank him and his wife Jill for all they have done for the Conservative Party of Canada. He was a strong leader. When Premier Wall gave his farewell speech in the legislature, he said that one thing all politicians should aspire to do is leave things better than they found them. The member for Regina—Qu'Appelle did that for the Conservative Party, so I thank him very much for everything he has done over the last 14 years for us.

I took some time to go over the throne speech. I want to talk about what is and is not in it. One thing I saw was the lowering of taxes for Canadians. I hope that the members opposite fulfill that commitment. What I heard on the doorsteps during the last campaign was that it is getting harder to get by in Regina—Lewvan. The constituents there are feeling overtaxed and that, each month, there is less money left at the end of the month.

As a government, I hope the Liberals across the aisle will commit to lowering taxes. I know they said they were going to lower it by $300-some by 2023, but on the flip side, they are also going to increase CPP commitments to $600. Therefore, if they are going to lower taxes by around $300 and raise them by $600, that leaves less money in the pockets of Canadians, which is like giving with one hand and taking with the other. Across Regina—Lewvan, people want to see a commitment to making life more affordable for Canadians across the country. The throne speech does mention lowering taxes. I hope that is something the government will commit to and fulfill.

There were a few things that were not in the throne speech, such as Saskatchewan, Alberta, the oil and gas sector and agriculture. These are all important to our constituents in Regina—Lewvan. The fact those words were not in the throne speech speaks volumes.

On election night, I remember watching the Prime Minister say, I am listening. I hear your frustrations in western Canada. I looked through the throne speech to see if he was going to follow through on that commitment and I saw nothing. It totally bypasses western Canada. We sent 14 strong MPs from Saskatchewan and 33 from Alberta. There is not a Liberal who won a seat in those two provinces.

That speaks to the frustration that western Canadians are feeling. They are feeling left out and that their voices are not being heard. I want to make sure I put on the record that their voices will be heard, not by that side but by this side of the House. We will take the concerns of western Canadians seriously and hold the Liberal government to account on following through with some of the commitments it has made.

One of the most important things I hear is that Bill C-69 needs to be amended or repealed, and preferably repealed. The no-more-pipelines bill is devastating our energy sector in western Canada. There are hundreds of thousands of people who are not working in our provinces. That is not because of the weather or anything they can control. It is because of a direct hit from government policies.

That is probably what hurts us in western Canada the most. We are hard, entrepreneurial people. We know that there are some things out of our control. With respect to agriculture, we cannot control the weather. We know that sometimes we cannot control the markets outside of our country. However, when the government can control policy and implements policy that directly affects our livelihoods, it is frustrating for us. There is something to be said for listening to western Canadians. We will ensure that we work hard to hold the government to account.

We are going to ask the government to change policies such as Bill C-69 and Bill C-48, policies that directly affect families.

There is something that reflects what the government is doing in western Canada. On social media I saw three pictures: The first was of a young couple getting married in 2014 and buying a new house. The second was taking their baby girl to their new home in 2016, and the third is a farewell picture. They have their baby in a stroller standing outside their house and there is a foreclosure sign on the front lawn. That is what many families in western Canada are facing right now.

The fact is that westerners cannot get by. They cannot make the money to provide a stable home for their young families, and it is something that needs to change in Canada. Canada should be a country of aspirations and big dreams, where big projects can get done. That is why we are here. I want to make sure our children realize that Canada can be that country, and it will be. They just need a government that listens. Hopefully in the not too distant future, Conservatives will be on that side to make sure people have the opportunities to succeed.

Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC]

Mr. Speaker, once again, congratulations on your role in our Parliament.

In my new role as the shadow minister for northern affairs and the Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency, the one thing I am really concerned about is the lack of focus on the north by the government in the throne speech.

In the throne speech, the best that we got was “in the Far North or along the Canada-U.S. border—all Canadians want to make Canada a better place for themselves, their children and their communities.” That is all we got for the entire northern part of our country. I guess defining the north is difficult, because we are generally north wherever we step foot in any Canadian territory.

Especially in those northern areas, we develop our resources. This is a government that said it is supposedly pro-north, but it is difficult to defend that. I will mention one thing that was very clear. Having a northern development strategy would have been good to hear. A national energy corridor to help get our resources to market would have been a great thing to hear in the throne speech.

A plan to restore ethics and accountability in the government is a general theme that we did not hear about. As the former chair of the ethics committee, I certainly know how lacking the Prime Minister is on that file.

There was also the lack of support for our energy workers, such as building the TMX, repealing Bill C-69 and Bill C-48. We did not hear about those either.

Why does that relate to the north? A lot of the natural resource projects are in the north. All that we have seen, even when we talk about Bill C-69 and Bill C-48, is the Liberals really limit any new development in the northern part of our country.

It is not just the Conservatives who are saying this. We have leaders in the north who have already criticized the Liberal government. I will mention some of those individuals.

Former Nunavut premier Peter Taptuna said, “We do want to be getting to a state where we can make our own determination of our priorities, and the way to do that is gain meaningful revenue from resource development. At the same time, when one potential source of revenue is taken off the table, it puts us back at practically square one where Ottawa will make the decisions for us.”

I am referring to the moratorium on development in the north by the Liberal government. At the time, the leaders in the north were not made aware of that and it was very much a surprise. We have indigenous peoples across the north who want to develop their resources and a good economy for their people and for their benefit. What we saw from the government was a complete stifling of that opportunity.

Nunavut Premier Joe Savikataaq said, “No one in Nunavut asked for a carbon tax and no one in Nunavut agreed to it.” That is another aspect of what this particular leadership has addressed, which is the effects of the carbon tax on the north.

I live in northern B.C. and the member for Yukon across the way lives where it is a little colder than where I live. One thing I would think the Liberal member across the way can agree on is that heating our homes in the north really is not an option. It is not a luxury and it is not something we can choose not to do. We need to heat our homes just to stay alive in the winter months. That is why the carbon tax especially targets the north unfairly. I would have at least expected some kind of way to mitigate that effect on northern communities. They really have no choice, whether it is transportation or heating their homes.

I am going to mention another leader, Merven Gruben, mayor of the hamlet of Tuktoyaktuk. It is a long quote, but I will read it for the benefit of members today. He said, “I agree the Liberals should be helping us. They shut down our offshore gasification and put a moratorium right across”, and I will use his language, “the whole freaking Arctic without even consulting us.” It might show his anger too with this decision. Obviously, they were expecting to develop those resources to help their people and it was stymied and shut down right there. He further stated, “They never said a word to us.”

Mayor Gruben's colleague said, “It's so easy to sit down here and make judgments on people and lives that are 3,500 klicks away, and make decisions on our behalf, especially with that moratorium on the Beaufort. That should be taken away, lifted, please and thank you. That is going to open up and give jobs to our people—training and all the stuff we're wishing for.”

Merven Gruben also made another key statement, saying, “We're proud people who like to work for a living.”

This is the opportunity they are looking for. They want to develop their resources, yet the government, which is supposed to be supporting the north, seems to be doing everything to get in the way of that development.

Mr. Merven Gruben also said:

I thank God we worked very closely with the Harper government and had the all-weather highway built into Tuk. It opened in November 2017, if some of you haven’t heard, and now we are learning to work with tourism. We all know that’s not the money and work that we were used to in the oil and gas days that we liked.

All that said, we are talking about the throne speech tonight. One thing I have not mentioned yet that alarms us in the north is the lack of a softwood lumber agreement. It is affecting many of the communities across the north.

We talked about gasification and oil and gas and referred a bit to mining, but there are great jobs in the forestry industry as well. There is lots of timber in the north. A lot of areas have not been logged for many years and the timber is sitting there, affecting hundreds of thousands of jobs across the country. It would greatly benefit the north if we signed a softwood lumber agreement. Even a signal from the Liberals that they wanted to get this done would have been appreciated by the folks in my riding and in the north, but we did not even get a signal.

As the House probably remembers, the last time this happened the government at least signalled. Maybe it is better for the Liberals not to say it; maybe that is where they are now. They did not even talk about a softwood lumber agreement.

The last time we heard about it was in 2015. In the first 100 days, the Prime Minister was supposed to sit down with the then President Obama and get a signed, sealed and delivered softwood lumber agreement. That did not happen.

Some have asked what the big deal is. The big deal is that the 20% tariff applied to our Canadian lumber has greatly affected the margins. A couple of years ago when we were making $600 per thousand, it was still profitable, but with the market going down and stumpage rates affecting us in northern British Columbia, the 20% tariff is now really affecting the sale of lumber and timber to our neighbours. Despite this, it was once again ignored by the government.

As a bottom line, the throne speech signals the direction the government is supposed to be going. We do not see a whole lot for the north or the softwood lumber industry. The Liberals are working on language to talk back Bill C-69 and Bill C-48. They seem to be ramping it up. We heard what the Minister of Environment was talking about. There is gas project in B.C., another northern project, and one of the project partners is pulling out. Is that because of the carbon tax in Canada? Is that because of other signals the environment minister has given that the Liberals will not co-operating with that particular project? I do not know.

The bottom line is that Canadians need to work. Canadians in the north, in the file that I now represent, need to work. They need to be able to heat their homes, feed their families and keep a roof over their heads. It is unfortunate that the government does not seem to take that group of Canadians seriously.

[Rosemarie Falk, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for New Brunswick Southwest.

Madam Speaker, I would like to congratulate you on putting your name forward, going through the process and on your recent appointment. I also want to thank the voters of Battlefords—Lloydminster. They have given me a strong mandate. They sent me back to Ottawa to represent them to be their voice, the voice of rural communities, the voice of the taxpayers and families.

I know every single one of us in this place would not be here without our supporters, without our volunteers. I want to thank them because they are a very important part of helping us get here.

I am not too sure how many of my colleagues know, but over the summer, my husband and I welcomed a brand new baby girl. It is very important for me to express my thanks to my husband Adam and my children Annabelle and William on the birth of Victoria. Their love and their patience go a long way, especially in the middle of a campaign. We all know how sometimes we are not even home for dinner or sometimes to sleep, especially in a rural riding like mine. It is so big and I have to travel from community to community in order to reach constituents. I also want to honour my family members for their support in my desire and ability to serve in this place and be a voice in the nation. I am so appreciative of that.

On the note of door knocking, I spent a lot of time in the riding over the summer, sometimes with the baby in tow. Two weeks after I had her, I was out at events with baby in tow. The things that I heard at the door were sometimes quite sad. In conversations with people, I would ask how they were doing and they would say, “Well, I haven't been laid off yet. I still have a job. I was laid off six months ago and I found another job but I haven't been laid off from it yet.” That is the anxiety and anguish that is being felt in my riding in Saskatchewan. It is the same thing in Alberta. People genuinely are scared about whether they are going to wake up and go to work and still have a job.

I live in a very unique city. I have mentioned before in this place that my city actually borders Alberta and Saskatchewan. Half of the residents live in Saskatchewan and half of them live in Alberta. It makes it quite a mess because we are one municipality. It gets very difficult when we have different provincial regulations covering one place.

There is a company that employs hundreds if not thousands of people within my riding. The day after the election, October 22, the company laid off 60-some people in my community. That is not including the hundreds of layoffs that happened in Calgary with the same company.

I want to put that into perspective. I do not know if I fully understand going into work one day, thinking it is going to be a normal day and then being told to go home. What kind of conversation would I have with my husband? “Look honey, I was laid off today. I am not sure what we are going to do. I think Christmas is going to look different. I am not sure if we can afford to have the kids in hockey or in dance anymore. Things need to be different.” That is the reality where I live. People, with the struggles that they are dealing with day to day, feel ignored and just wonder if they are going to be able to get by.

The Prime Minister made a point of meeting with the premiers of the provinces. He also met with some of the mayors. The mayor of my community was very proactive. He reached out to my office and asked if we had a number for the Prime Minister because he wanted to talk to him. I found the number for the PMO, gave it to the mayor and he made a call. To his surprise, the Prime Minister called him back.

I am glad that the Prime Minister took the time to call him back. The mayor stressed that it is important for smaller cities to have a voice as well, not just big city mayors, and important that he hear what is impacting them, especially being in a western province like Saskatchewan. The mayor expressed to the Prime Minister the struggles of the people in my community and my region in not being able to get their agriculture products to market, for example, their canola, and not being able to get their energy products to market. The Prime Minister said that he understood.

What was troubling for me is, was that hope? Was it false hope? Was it a facade? Was it real? Was that conversation real and genuine? People today want authenticity. They want to be listened to. They want to be heard, actually heard.

The Deputy Prime Minister said that the government needs to listen harder and that it has been sent a message from Alberta and Saskatchewan that it needs to listen harder. I had a little bit of hope. I thought that this was great and wonderful, and that the government knows something is not right and is going to take the time to listen better and maybe turn some of that listening and consulting into action.

Then came the throne speech, and unless I missed it, I did not hear mention of the Trans Mountain pipeline. I know one thing that would definitely help the constituents in Battlefords—Lloydminster is being able to get gas to market. We heard a lot about the no more pipelines bill, Bill C-69, and also Bill C-48. Are those bills maybe some of the reasons some people are being laid off, because the atmosphere and environment for energy investment just are not there and it is too restrictive? I did not hear anything in the throne speech on how we are going to help get our oil to market, and maybe lessening the restrictions that have been created in the environment that we have.

Also, what is the government's goal right now to help farmers get their products to market? In my riding, there is a lot of farming, whether it is grain or cattle. Farming is one of those things that is year-round as there is always work to be done, but in the off-season, a lot of those farmers are hauling oil and water. They are trucking. They are doing things to pay the bills while they are not able to actively farm. It was really disappointing to hear that the government understood about not being able to get the beef and the canola to market and then hearing that the agriculture minister missed the deadline to file.

It saddens me because I thought the government was listening harder. I thought, in good faith, that because of those conversations and phone calls the Prime Minister was having with premiers and mayors across the country that something would come out of it. I am so sorry to say that my disappointment with this throne speech is just overwhelming in that real actions were not taken to help reduce and alleviate the western alienation that is happening.

Natural Resources

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my home province of B.C. can contribute in a very significant way to the fight against global climate change by providing clean LNG to Canada and the rest of the world, yet this industry is suffering under excessive restrictions and investors are losing confidence.

Western Canada needs changes to Bill C-69, the no more pipelines bill, so the industry can be fully developed.

When will the government make the necessary amendments to Bill C-69?

[Gerald Soroka, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Mr. Speaker, premiers are united behind promoting our natural resources in a responsible manner. The export of more liquefied natural gas by Canadian producers will lower global emissions and create good, high-paying jobs. With 71,200 jobs lost last month, this could not come at a more important time.

Will the environment minister commit to amending Bill C-69 to allow for the construction of more LNG facilities?

Resumption of debate on Address in Reply

[Randeep Sarai, Liberal, Surrey Centre, BC]

Madam Speaker, we have taken the most comprehensive action. We are protecting our coasts and land masses, we have put a moratorium on tanker traffic along the coast and we have taken the most stringent environmental measures in the resource sector, with Bill C-69 and Bill C-48. We have committed to net zero by 2050, we have committed to the Paris targets and have implemented a price on pollution, which has been scientifically and economically proven to be the best and most effective way to bring our carbon footprint down.

We are on the right track. Canadians accepted that and it is what Canadians are looking for in their government.

Natural Resources

[Jag Sahota, Conservative, Calgary Skyview, AB]

Mr. Speaker, this is my first time standing in the House. I would like to thank my family, volunteers and constituents of Calgary Skyview who have placed their trust in me.

The Prime Minister's attack on the energy sector has hit Alberta particularly hard. He refuses to amend his no-pipeline bill, Bill C-69. The Prime Minister thinks male construction workers have a negative impact on rural areas. Yesterday, we learned that unemployment among young men in my province is at 20%.

Is this what the Prime Minister wanted when he was talking about gender impacts?

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the largest private sector investment in Canadian history is now at risk due to the actions of the Liberal government. Now the disparaging comments by the environment minister toward liquefied natural gas have put the future in doubt, as we now see Chevron pulling out of the project in Kitimat.

We need a Canadian government that stands up for Canadian jobs. Changes are required to Bill C-69 to ensure that pipelines and facilities can be built.

Does the Prime Minister agree with his senior B.C. minister that belittling Canadian energy is the right thing to do?

[James Cumming, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the people of Alberta sent a message to the Liberals this fall about Bill C-69. The energy industry has rejected the bill. Foreign investment is fleeing and 175,000 jobs have been lost in the energy sector. Premiers from coast to coast agree that the bill needs to be changed.

When will the Prime Minister and his government listen to Albertans, make the changes needed and get people back to work?

[Jasraj Singh Hallan, Conservative, Calgary Forest Lawn, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the voters of Calgary Forest Lawn for electing me to this House. It is a great honour.

The Liberal attack on our energy sector has me worried for my province and my city. Canadian LNG is a world-class product that is desperately needed to help achieve global emission reductions. We need new pipelines to move that gas to the coast, but we cannot do it without changes to Bill C-69, changes that allow Alberta gas to share the opportunity.

When will the Liberals make the changes to Bill C-69 that Alberta and Canada so desperately need?

Resumption of debate on Address in Reply

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the residents of Durham, my constituents, for giving me the honour to rise again in this House in the 43rd Parliament. It is a profound honour for me to represent my hometown in Parliament.

As someone who attended the Churchill Society award dinner honouring David Crombie last week in Toronto, and as the former director of that committee, I am very happy to start my first speech of this session with a quote by Winston Churchill.

It is self-deprecating, because Churchill once said, “It is a good thing for an uneducated man to read books of quotations.” I have read many books of quotations, not just by Churchill but also by the government and the Prime Minister.

I am going to seize upon one of the quotes from the throne speech, which I actually took away in a positive sense. The throne speech ended with a remarkable passage by Prime Minister Lester B. Pearson's speech at the opening of the Centennial Flame, just beside us in West Block, which read:

Tonight we begin a new chapter in our country’s story. Let the record of that chapter be one of co-operation and not conflict; of dedication and not division; of service, not self...

The irony is that speech was kicking off our centennial year, lighting a centennial flame using natural gas from Canada. I am not sure that irony was found by the Prime Minister's Office when it chose that aspirational quote, but that was how people celebrated. The Centennial Flame has all of our provinces and territories, now including Nunavut, around it and is burning Canadian natural gas, allowing that fountain to burn throughout the coldest winters in Ottawa.

Earlier in that speech, Pearson complimented our industrial capacity and our resourcefulness as a country. Sometimes we have to ask what was said before the quote that the government used for its throne speech. In the same speech, kicking off the celebration of Canadian natural gas in many ways, Pearson said:

Economically, we have become a rich society and a great industrial power. We have built new dimensions of progress and welfare into the Canadian way of life. The boundaries of freedom and opportunity have been expanded for every Canadian.

That was Lester B. Pearson's remark, speaking about the balance that Canada had been able to have by being resourceful, tapping our natural resources and being industrial, celebrating our industrial sectors, in order to provide for the welfare of the country.

One thing people on this side of the House have been saying, both through the first term of the Prime Minister and this one, and what is missing in the throne speech, is recognizing the economic diversity of this country. There is no mention of the serious national unity issues we are facing as a result of the Prime Minister and the Liberal government's opposition to our resource sector in Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and beyond. There is not one mention of it. This is unlike Pearson who actually understood that resourcefulness, industry and celebrating it, the hard work of Canadians allowing us to have new dimensions of progress for the welfare of our people.

The Premier of Alberta is in Ottawa today. Alberta has been very proud to share not just that wealth with the rest of the country as part of the resourcefulness of its industry, but at times, when the auto industry was struggling in my province, more manufacturing jobs in Ontario were attributable to our western resource industry than into auto assembly. When our national economy was struggling, the global recession, it was actually our resource economy that allowed us to lead the G7. That is allowing new dimensions of progress, embracing that.

The Prime Minister and his whole cabinet should read the entire Pearson speech, not just cherry-pick some aspirational sections. We need a Prime Minister who does not divide the country.

The disappointment and the frustration we see in many parts of the country are the direct result of the Prime Minister hindering the progress of provinces already struggling with global resource prices, a range of issues, pipeline challenges. They have seen a government that has had policy decision after policy decision holding them back. That is how the Prime Minister started.

I spoke about this in my speech four years ago, in January, 2016. I spoke about how disappointed I was that the Prime Minister talked about diversity except for recognizing the economic diversity that our country had. In the Prime Minister's first speech abroad as the Canadian prime minister, at Davos in January 2016, he said, “My predecessor wanted you to know Canada for its resources. I want you to know Canadians for our resourcefulness.”

What was disturbing was that only a few minutes after he went to an international forum, he essentially attacked his predecessor. What mades it worse was afterward the Prime Minister's Office changed the speech to take out the reference the Prime Minister made to his predecessor and to just put “Canada” in the quote in the official record. We know press releases often will say “check against delivery”. The Prime Minister delivered something that he should not have delivered. More important than the slight against the previous prime minister was the fact that he mocked the resource industry in Canada in his first remark at Davos. That is division.

I said at the outset that I was going to look to quotations for guidance much like the throne speech used in the Pearson speech. Here is a quote I used four years ago, which rings even more true today, from Robert Stanfield in March, 1969. He said, “Let us be quite clear that national unity does not mean uniting most of Canada against part of it.” What wise words when the division in the country at that time was caused by a Trudeau, Pierre Trudeau, and I can say that safely in the House.

We see that in practice from the present Prime Minister from his first speech at Davos, playing off resourcefulness and the resource sector as if steam-assisted gravity drainage and the ability of our oil sands to minimize the mining operations, minimize water usage and minimize greenhouse gas, those innovations somehow did not count to the Prime Minister.

The resourcefulness of our resource sector and the capital markets that developed in Canada as a result of our resources have given us the new dimensions of welfare that Lester Pearson talked about on the eve of Canada's centennial.

What has the Prime Minister done in four years to cause this national unity crisis?

After the Davos speech, there was the cancellation, unilaterally, of northern gateway; no consultations with the one-third owners, indigenous communities; and zero consultations before taking that opportunity away from them. There was the cancellation of energy east as a result of Bill C-69, which is still being brought up in question period today. Why? Because the majority of the country opposed that legislation, including my premier. With respect to Trans Mountain, the company withdrew because of a lack of confidence in Canada. We had Bill C-48, the tanker moratorium, and the 2016 Arctic ban where unilaterally the Prime Minister took away 17% of the landmass from Inuit and northerners to develop.

In fact, previous Liberal Senator Charlie Watt said this about the Prime Minister's unilateral action in Washington:

There have never been clear consultations. As a matter of fact, when the President of the United States and the Prime Minister of Canada made that decision, we were not too happy. Without even coming to us, they just turned around and said, “This is what's going to happen.”

That is not exactly reconciliation.

We can see why Canadians are upset. What is missing from the Throne Speech is a recognition that Canada can and must balance our economic diversity. This means getting our resources to market. It means prioritizing pipelines. It means ending the divisive Bill C-69. That is what we want to see from the Prime Minister.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to rise in the House.

I want to begin by thanking my constituents for sending me back here. I received one of the strongest results in Canada. I want to thank all of them for showing me that support and for helping me out on the campaign trail. I thank my volunteers and my supporters and of course my family, without whom I would not be able to stand here in the House. This is the second term that I will be serving in the House of Commons.

I want also to take the time to thank all Calgarians and all Albertans for sending back a strong Conservative team of 33 out of 34 members of Parliament. They have chosen very wisely in this Parliament to make sure that their voice is heard on the floor of the House of Commons in the Parliament of Canada. Albertans will no longer be taken advantage of.

Before I continue, Madam Speaker, I want to say that I am splitting my time with the member for Durham. I am sure he will have many important contributions to make to this debate, and also no doubt will provide the perspective of Ontarians on what their expectations are in the Parliament of Canada.

The Speech from the Throne was a very deep disappointment, a slap in the face to Albertans. We have faced some of the hardest economic times our province has faced in multiple generations. Albertans are used to downturns in the oil and gas sector. They are used to downturns in the energy sector. That is nothing new. When I moved to Alberta in 2005, it was something that every single energy worker would tell me. I remember in the last downturn, they would say to save for the next downturn, to put aside some money to weather it. It would come and go and the boom would come back. Projects would get built. We would have new opportunities to grow the economy to create well-paying middle-class jobs in the energy sector.

We have seen a government in the past four years that has failed to do that. We have seen a government that has made it its intention to phase out the energy sector, despite the fact that oil and gas companies invest in renewable energy and invest in their people. We will find no other companies as interested in maximizing the knowledge, the abilities and the type of work that people will be doing. I always tell people back home and all those whom I visit all across Canada that we spent a generation convincing young men and women that it was worth their while to pursue a degree in science, technology, engineering and mathematics because there would be well-paying jobs waiting for them when they finished. When they went into the private sector, they had co-operative jobs and internships ready to go. Some of them did not even finish their degrees and they already had six-figure salaries in engineering jobs waiting for them in oil and gas at the Suncors of the world.

Now we have heard terrible news. Haliburton announced that it was shutting down its cement operations in Alberta. We have news from companies like Suncor Energy. Encana has renamed itself and is moving to the United States. It has already moved most of its board of directors down there. Decisions are being made there for a Canadian company. It was once what we would say in French le fleuron, the main natural gas company in Canada and now those decisions are being made in Denver. Trans Canada dumped “Canada” from its name because it no longer has faith in doing business in Canada. Now it is called TC Energy to hide the fact to American investors that it is a Canadian-based company. That is a lost opportunity. I have come here to make sure that opportunity rings out again in these hallways and that there is opportunity for Albertans within Confederation, within a united Canada.

On every single street I was on and at most of the doors I went to, people would talk about it. People are fed up with being taken advantage of. I have said on the floor of the House of Commons before that people in Alberta are tired of being treated like colonials. We are not colonials. We have made an immense contribution to Canada. Over $600 billion has been transferred out of our province. Albertans do complain about it; it is just something that we do. It is true. We want to be able to create the wealth and then we are okay to share a slice of that wealth with the rest of Canada to make a contribution to Confederation. We contribute more than our fair share right now and all we are asking is that the government listen. Premier Kenney, who is here today in Ottawa, is making five simple requests, none of which happened to be in the throne speech. The federal government has listened to none of them. These are not new things. These are things that the premier has repeatedly asked for.

One request is to remove the cap on the stabilization fund. The Government of Alberta at the moment is forced into deficit spending as it is closing its deficit, which is something the current federal government is incapable of doing. Removing the cap on the stabilization fund would allow the province to get that money back, the “over-contribution”, I would call it, into Confederation, so that we can stabilize our health care system, our education system and the social services that Albertans depend on.

These are extremely important things that must be done. The premier has asked for a major significant amendment to Bill C-69 to ensure that certain major projects will not fall under the Bill C-69 rules. The “no pipelines” bill, as it is called in Alberta, ensures that there are no new projects being proposed. When I go into downtown Calgary and I talk to managers, directors and people making the decisions on whether to pursue a project in Canada, they say that there is no thought about any new projects being suggested for the Canadian market.

Most of the well-paying jobs in the oil and gas sector are in construction. Brand new projects that come online cost tens of thousands so that people can be hired for the length of the construction season to build it. For the past four years, all the government has to show for it is that it has expropriated one pipeline company and taken over Kinder Morgan's TMX contract. After dithering for years and trying to block the pipeline from being built, suddenly, the Liberal Party had a deathbed conversion. Suddenly the government is now in favour of building a pipeline, but only one pipeline. It cancelled energy east. It cancelled Enbridge's northern gateway. It cancelled more kilometres of pipeline than it actually had built. The only one that is kind of pitter-pattering away on getting built is really the last major energy infrastructure project in Canada. The same thing happened with LNG with well-paying jobs. For a generation we have been convincing people to go into the STEMs.

We also spent a heck of a lot of time convincing people to move from other parts of Canada and from parts of the United States to Alberta and earn a living there. We do not have the advantage of beautiful provinces like British Columbia which has the mountains and the ocean. Alberta is just rolling foothills and they are pretty flat on the east side. However, what we did have was an excellent quality of life, an excellent opportunity to work in a sector that was always trying to do its best, on the cutting edge of everything. There are wildlife biologists and people interested in environmental remediation. Those are the people I met at the doors, people who worked for oil and gas companies trying to remediate the land. They were proud of the work they were doing and the contributions they were making to ensure that with every single project that came online, at some point the land would be remediated and returned as close as possible to its original state.

Suncor was one of those great companies that managed to do that and earned an environmental certificate two provincial governments ago. Now there are wild bison on the territory, something we had not seen for an extremely long time. It is a bison population, by the way, that is healthier in the wilds of Wood Buffalo National Park.

This throne speech has very, very little for Albertans, so we will be looking for the government to actually reach out to Albertans and make an effort, a true effort, at bridging the gap between what Albertans are feeling and seeing on the ground, the experiences they have had over the past four years, and what we expect from the minority Parliament. There is an entire province right now that is feeling neglected. We are not asking for a handout. We are asking for the federal government to get out of our way and let us create the wealth. Let us create the jobs, well-paying private sector jobs that we have been known for over the past two decades.

It has been amazing to see how fast Calgary has grown even since I moved there. I represent the deep southeast suburbs of Calgary. There are entire communities that did not exist when I moved there. There is a hospital that was built in my riding. It did not exist back in 2005. Some 30,000 to 40,000 people have moved into my area. Cranston, Mahogany, Auburn Bay, Seton, Rangeview and Copperfield are communities that did not exist before.

Tens of thousands of people chose Calgary. They chose Alberta for those well-paying jobs in the energy sector. We have diversified our economy much more than people could ever believe.

The oil and gas sector is a much smaller proportion of Alberta's economy than it was back in 1997. We have diversified our economy. We were moving in the right direction, and we have a federal government that has impeded our ability to continue to create that wealth.

This throne speech is just not good enough. There is not enough concrete action in it that would actually provide any certainty or comfort for the people back home who have lost their jobs and whose severances have run out. They are finding no opportunities to work in the sector where they have spent 20 years, between their education and their early career opportunities, to actually make something of themselves and contribute to their families.

I will be proudly voting against the throne speech, because it has nothing in it.

[Marty Morantz, Conservative, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the reality is that for countries like Canada to transition to a low-emissions green economy, we need to have the revenue to do it. Countries with smaller GDPs have a harder time converting to green economies because they just do not have the ability to invest in sustainable technologies.

We had one of the most comprehensive environmental platforms ever tabled by a political party in the history of this country. It was not just a tax on soccer parents; it was a very comprehensive plan. It had some very good things in it. For example, it talked about the green home tax credit, which would affect millions of Canadians and incentivize them to make our homes more fuel efficient. It talked about taking the climate change globally, that a molecule of carbon does not know borders.

What I am saying is that balanced budgets, growing our economy and getting harsh bills like Bill C-69, the no more pipelines bill, and Bill C-48 out of the way so we can get our products to market will provide our economy with the strength it needs to make that conversion.

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this is my first time rising in this House ever, and I would like to congratulate you.

The hon. member mentioned how he liked that the throne speech referred to strengthening the economy. The reality is that in Canada we are actually facing a productivity challenge. Currently in the U.S., every hour of GDP generates about $60. In Switzerland it is $65, while in Canada it is $50. Wages in Switzerland are $33 on average. In the U.S. they are $23, and in Canada they are only $19.

The most affluent and highest contribution to GDP per hour is in the oil and gas sector. Bill C-69 had a huge impact on that and it is hammering our oil and gas industry. Currently, the oil and gas industry contributes $644 per hour.

What concrete steps will the member's government take to improve productivity in Canada?

Natural Resources

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, on Friday, the Prime Minister said he was open to “making improvements if necessary” to his anti-energy, anti-business Bill C-69. We assure him that it is necessary, because more than 200,000 Canadians have already lost their oil and gas jobs, over $100 billion in major projects are gone and those losses hurt all sectors in all provinces.

However, last spring, the Liberals rejected 80% of amendments to fix the bill. Today, every single premier still wants major changes.

When will the Liberals finally overhaul their Bill C-69?

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, after four years of this Liberal government, Canada has never been so divided. The problem is that the provinces have been pitted against one another and what was just local and quaint at the time, that is “Wexit”, has now become a compelling political reality.

The government is doing absolutely nothing to resolve this situation. Even worse, 200,000 Canadians have lost their jobs in the energy sector. One way to get these people back to work would be to scrap Bill C-69.

Why does the government not do that? The bill was condemned by the Government of Quebec.

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, families across western Canada are hurting. People in my riding tell me their stories about losing their jobs and are forced to sell their homes. In the last two years, over $100 billion worth of investments in the energy sector have been cancelled.

Bill C-69, the no more pipelines bill, is going to make that even worse. Hundreds of thousands Canadians are out of work because of failed Liberal policies. Many premiers are united against Bill C-69.

When will the Liberals listen and amend their job-killing legislation?

Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would first like to indicate that I will be splitting my time with the member for Elgin—Middlesex—London. I look forward to those remarks as well.

I cannot begin without thanking the constituents of Calgary Midnapore for sending me here again. I am so very overjoyed to be back in the House representing them. I am truly grateful.

My parents are my constituents, so my mom is probably watching. I promise to be extra good in the House at this time.

I am very sad for my family today. My mother is from Quebec and my father is from Saskatchewan. It is not uncommon for Canadian families to have one parent from the west and the other from the east. We heard a similar story on the other side of the House last week. Families becoming divided has become a Canadian story, and that is very sad. We are divided because the other side of the House spent the past four years playing all kinds of political games. The government split us right in half. It pit regions against one another. That is truly sad.

My region, the west, and more specifically Alberta, where the energy sector has no support, obviously comes to mind. Also coming to mind are several bills, such as Bill C-69, which makes it practically impossible to start new projects. There is Bill C-48, which makes it practically impossible to build a pipeline and transport oil. That is very sad. The carbon tax is another example. Bills that impede the energy sector have serious consequences on families and individuals. Bills like these are completely destroying families and people's lives. The government claims to want to eliminate poverty, but it is actually creating poverty with these kinds of bills.

On more than one occasion, the Prime Minister has said one thing to one part of the country and the opposite to another. The President of the United States called that behaviour “two-faced”. The President of the United States and Canadians have seen those two faces.

With the Speech from the Throne, the Prime Minister had an opportunity to put the country on a new path. Sadly, he let that opportunity pass him by. However, he had previously taken certain steps in that direction. He specifically appointed a minister of provincial relations. He held numerous meetings with various provincial premiers. The Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister promised to listen carefully to what the premiers had to say. The Speech from the Throne would have been the perfect opportunity to prove that they had listened. Unfortunately, the speech shows nothing of the kind. The situation is different from what it was before the election.

There were words, but not much was said. There were platitudes, like talking about the good of our community and clichés such as “no challenges are too big.” There were also false attempts to show empathy and understanding for regions. There were parts of the speech that said that as much as Canadians had instructed us to work together, they had also spoken clearly about the the importance of their regions and their local needs.

What did Canadians say when they spoke? Did they say how their father had not been able to find a job in three years because the corporation he was working for left because of instability due to political regulations? Did they say how their neighbours could not get out of a deep depression because they had spent their entire retirement savings on just surviving? Did they say that they sent a suicide note to their member of Parliament because they had absolutely given up hope of ever finding a job?

We do not know, and we will never know, because it was not in the Speech from the Throne.

The speech said that regional needs and differences really mattered. Today's regional economic concerns are both justified and important. However, in what year on the planetary spacecraft will Canada's energy workers get an apology from the Prime Minister; when he sheds a tear for those who have committed suicide because they are completely destitute or for the women and children who have been beaten because, after years of not having a job, dad finally snapped? What year on this spaceship is that? Is that when we will know that regional differences really matter? For now, we do not, because the speech does not say so.

This was the opportunity to demonstrate action, and if not action, true understanding, and if not true understanding, at least respect. It would not have taken much: a timeline for the TMX pipeline or a promise to look into the national energy corridor. However, it was not there.

We can pretend that the world is simple and that the solutions to Canada's problems need not be complex or detailed, but that is not true. We can pretend that we do not need one another and that we are not dependent on one another, but that is not true either. Anyone who denies those facts will suffer for it eventually, even if they refuse to acknowledge it today.

This is not the way of Albertans.

What a great day to be in the House, the day when my predecessor and now premier, the incomparable, the Hon. Jason Kenney, is here to get a fair deal for Alberta. He brings with him my counterpart, minister of children's services and MLA for Calgary-Shaw, Rebecca Schulz. Together Minister Schulz and I will work tirelessly for the children of this nation.

We Albertans love Canada. We have always been proud to work hard and to share the fruits of our labour with the nation, to do our part for Confederation. We have never told others how to live their lives or that their way of life is not welcome in our country.

We will not let the Prime Minister divide us and we will not let the government push us out of Confederation. We will not allow that to happen. The government had an opportunity to do something profound, to say something profound and to unify, and it did not.

That is why I am sad today. I am a woman from Alberta. My mother is from Quebec and my father is from Saskatchewan. I am here for unity. I am here for Canada. Unfortunately, the throne speech is not.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am going to share my time with the member for North Okanagan—Shuswap.

Though I rose briefly during Routine Proceedings last Friday, this is my first speech in the 43rd Parliament and I would like to take this occasion to give some additional words of thanks. As a temporary custodian of this seat in Parliament, I am deeply honoured to have the enormous responsibility of representing some 140,000 residents as part of a centuries-old tradition of protecting citizens by checking the otherwise unlimited power of the Crown. Parliaments exist in order to ensure that the Crown and its agent, the government, cannot impose itself on citizens without their consent. That consent is granted through votes in this incredible institution.

Once again, I thank the voters of Calgary Rocky Ridge for electing me to be their servant in the House. I also wish to thank the 270-odd volunteers who assisted my election campaign. I thank them for their support, for their commitment to their community and for their love of their country. I could not have done it without them. I would like to thank the other candidates who contested the election in Calgary Rocky Ridge for giving the voters choice, without which there is no democracy.

Finally, I wish to thank my family. My three daughters, it seems I began the last Parliament with three young girls who are now three young women. My loving wife, Kimberley, I thank for her love, her understanding, her patience, her unwavering support and for always keeping it real in the Kelly house. To my parents, Marnie and Duane Kelly, I thank them for their constant love and encouragement.

Today we are debating last Thursday's Speech from the Throne. My response to the Speech from the Throne is coloured by the recent experience of having knocked on a little under 30,000 doors with my re-election team. What I heard on the doorsteps is what informs my remarks and my impressions of the Speech from the Throne.

To be blunt, the government has virtually no support in my riding. That is simply a fact and it is supported by the election results. I knocked on doors in the communities of Calgary Rocky Ridge in every provincial and federal election over the last 30 years as an activist and in 2015 and 2019 as a candidate, and I have never experienced anything quite like it.

It was never easier. People have never been more forthright in coming forward and identifying themselves as Conservative supporters. However, at the same time, I have never had more difficult conversations on doorsteps than I did in this election with people who suggested that they intended to support me, my party and my leader.

For most candidates in most elections, conversations with our own supporters are the easy ones, but not in 2019 in Calgary Rocky Ridge. Some of the conversations I had with supporters were downright heartbreaking. I spoke with people who had not worked in years. I heard from people who told me that they were on the verge of losing their homes. I talked with people whose spouses were working in Texas and coming home for a couple of weekends a month or were working in the Middle East or other parts of the world and only coming home a few times over the course of a year.

I talked with a man who has lived in his neighbourhood for 20 years and he said that since 2015, seven previously stable families on his block had come apart in divorce. Economic stress and anxiety from unemployment and failing businesses have taken their toll on families, tearing apart the very fabric of our communities.

I spoke with people who openly and candidly expressed their despair, anger and incredulity over what they see as a failure of their country to respect their province. For decades, Alberta has welcomed Canadians from across Canada and indeed people from around the world to be a part of Alberta's economic opportunities. It has transferred much of that wealth back to other provinces and continues to do so despite a recession that has been going on for five years.

My constituents are demanding action. They cannot wait. They made it abundantly clear to me that regardless of which party was to form a government after the election, they would expect me to speak clearly and without ambiguity about just how devastating these past four years have been.

They expect me to be candid about just how upset they are with their federal government. They told me that they wanted the no-more-pipelines bill reversed. They told me they were stunned that a tanker ban on Alberta exports was brought in while tankers continued to bring in oil to eastern refineries from Saudi Arabia.

They told me that they could not understand why a government was running such large deficits at a time of economic expansion. They told me that they were appalled by the constant parade of ministers to the Ethics Commissioner, by a Prime Minister prepared to bully his own cabinet and break the law just to get his own way, and by the way the Prime Minister's personal conduct never matches his moral preening.

They told me, at door after door, that the Prime Minister is a constant source of embarrassment on the world stage, and that they do not believe that he is up to the diplomatic challenges of our times, because they believe that he is fundamentally an unserious person.

With the campaign behind us, with the country's divisions laid bare in a minority Parliament, last week the Prime Minister had an opportunity to acknowledge the failings of the last Parliament, which cost him seats and votes in every region of the country.

He had an opportunity to chart a new course to address the concerns of Canadians who rejected his government's track record. Instead, he delivered a speech full of the same flowery language and grand aspirations that we heard throughout the last Parliament with only a few inadequate words for my constituents in a partial sentence, kind of as an afterthought, where he claimed that the government would “also work just as hard to get Canadian resources to new markets and offer unwavering support to the hard-working men and women in Canada's natural resources sectors, many of whom have faced tough times recently”.

Really? “Unwavering support” and “have faced tough times recently”, is that it? Since 2015, hundreds of thousands of energy workers have lost their jobs. Over 100,000 of them are out of work in Alberta right now. There is $100 billion in energy investment that has left Canada since the Liberal government took office.

Encana, which was once Canada's largest company, and TransCanada PipeLines are changing their names to remove “Canada” from their business names and relocating to the United States because that is where the work is. However, all the Prime Minister had to say in his Speech from the Throne was “unwavering support” and “tough times recently”?

The Prime Minister has been unwavering in his stated desire to phase out the natural resources sector, and he is succeeding. One incredibly insulting sentence that contained a flagrant untruth was all the Prime Minister had to say about this in his entire speech.

If the Prime Minister meant what he said about getting Canadian resources to market, it would require him to undo much of the work of the last Parliament. It would require him to repeal Bill C-69 or implement every single one of the Senate amendments that were rejected last spring.

It would require him to repeal Bill C-48. It would require him to champion Canada as a reliable source of ethically extracted resources and to disown his own prior anti-Canadian-energy rhetoric. It would require him to actually take concrete steps to ensure Trans Mountain could be completed. It would require him to apologize for chasing its private sector proponent out of Canada and for having to send $4.5 billion to Texas so they could compete with us by building pipelines elsewhere.

The Liberals think they deserve some kind of credit for buying a pipeline that should never have been for sale in the first place. I can assure them that not one single person I met in my riding, where pipelines are a huge issue, thought that buying it was anything other than a last-ditch solution to a problem 100% of the Liberals' own making.

To sum up, the throne speech contains nothing for my constituents. I received a strong mandate from the people of Calgary Rocky Ridge, and I expect them to hold me to a high standard. My constituents expect nothing less.

[Michelle Rempel Garner, Calgary Nose Hill, CPC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my constituents in the riding Calgary Nose Hill for giving me a very clear mandate to do one thing: to stand up for them, fight for them and their voice here in this place.

I received the mandate of over 70%. I went door to door. People who I know had voted Liberal or NDP in the past looked me in the eye and we had a serious conversation at the door. They told me that they had never voted Conservative before, but they were going to vote for me because it was really bad. They needed me to fight for them. My way of thanking them is not just saying it here. It is to do that, to fight for them every day.

To the 98 new members of Parliament in this place, I want to talk about what it is like at home. I want to talk to them about what it is like to have 175,000 people who work in the primary industry of their province suddenly out of work, in a very short period of time. It is not because of commodity prices, as the Prime Minister so glibly said this morning. I will get to that. It is because of policies that were set here.

What we do here reflects on how people live in every part of the country. What happened in the last Parliament for the people in my riding meant trauma, suicide, homes lost, jobs lost and families lost. What we do here matters. I will fight for the people in my riding.

Right now in my province we are seeing some of the highest unemployment rates in the country sustained. It is happening and not because of commodity prices. If it were because of commodity prices, then why is the United States doing so well with its natural resource sector? It is because of instability and political decisions that have made it impossible for the energy sector to sustain employment. That is why. It is because of the decisions made here.

In 2017, Alberta's suicide rate was 14.9 per 100,000 people, just over three points higher than the rest of Canada. That is up really high. In 2016, there was a project by the Calgary Police Service called “Operation Northern Spotlight”. It was to help sex workers in the city. Let me read a story.

A woman who entered the sex trade in 2016, and it has gotten worse since then, said, “I never thought I would be here. I never thought I would have to hide from my family, telling them that my cleaning job runs late every night. I am here because this would have been an easy $350. I had a great job, then the jobs crisis hit and I got laid off. Two weeks later, my husband lost his job as well. The bills did not stop coming.” The problems have not stopped in my riding.

I will be splitting my time with the member for Battle River—Crowfoot.

We sit here, and yesterday's throne speech was a slap in the face. I got scrummed in the media yesterday. I heard, “It was more of a tone-setting document.” If it were a tone-setting document, it was tone-deaf for every person in my riding. It did not say anything about what the government was going to do to reverse the policies that create the instability that puts the people in my riding out of work. That needs to change.

If we are not willing to change that, then what is happening in my province is going to continue to grow. My province is saying it does not see itself in this country, our country does not have our back, and asking why it should be part of it. It will continue to fester. It is because of the decisions that are being made to put the people in my riding out of work.

People in this place say that it is a dirty industry and that the province should diversify its way out. Then they go fill up their car with Saudi oil, while they drink their kale smoothie with its component parts imported from California, while they promote their industry, like aerospace, with planes that create greenhouse gas emissions, or the auto sector, with cars that create greenhouse gas emissions, or while they go to Walmart and buy a cheap Chinese T-shirt that is created where there are the some of the highest greenhouse gas emissions in the world.

They are hypocrites. Anybody who says that the people in my riding have dirty jobs and do not have the right to work is a hypocrite, because nobody is willing to take climate action individually in this country. They are putting the entire responsibility on the people in my riding and saying that it is good, that this is what it is going to take to get this job done, and it will not.

The people in my province have a right to work. They have a right to prosper. I am sick and tired of this debate. Nothing on climate change is happening while my province and the people in it bear the entire cost and responsibility, and we do nothing. It has to stop.

I am going to tell you one thing, Mr. Speaker: It is going to stop one way or another. One way or another, it is coming to a head.

To everybody in here who thinks that what is happening in my province is just a separatist movement, just a few fringe people, I say that it is not just a fringe. People do not feel that they have a place in this country. They do not feel like they have a fair deal. Do colleagues know what they see? They see the hypocrisy that I just mentioned. They see a Prime Minister who fights for jobs with SNC-Lavalin and stands alleged of bribing Moammar Gadhafi's son with prostitutes. They see the former fisheries minister signing special deals over clam fishing that brought him ethics commission violations. They see scandal after scandal, special deal after special deal.

Then there are the people who say that people in their riding have been out of work. In Alberta, there are 175,000 people.

I do not know how many lobster fishers there are in this country, but when something happens to fisheries, we get angry. We all do here. We say that we have to fix this. They cannot stay out of work. When something happens in the auto sector, we do not say that cars create greenhouse gas emissions and we should just let that industry die. We do something about it.

When has it become acceptable to let an entire province's industry die while the rest of the country looks like a hypocrite? It has to stop. Otherwise, we will face a national unity crisis. We are in one.

I want to let the people in this House know what that looks like. The premier of my province is rightly talking about a fair deal for Alberta, and autonomy, and I support him in that.

Here is what Alberta opting out of the CPP looks like. We are the net contributor to the CPP in the country. Having higher premiums across the country means that people will not be able to retire until later ages, and that is because the Prime Minister has put them in this position.

We need to scrap Bill C-69. We need to scrap Bill C-48 and we need to understand the wealth that the energy sector creates. It creates receptor capacity for clean technology. It displaces energy from Saudi Arabia and Venezuela and if we are talking about transition and climate change, Canadian energy and what my province does are at the heart of that equation. It should not be killed. Why would we kill the heart of what Canada can contribute to when it comes to this?

Enough is enough. I will stand here for however long this Parliament lasts. I will stand up for the rights of my province because that is why I am here. Colleagues stand up and give their thanks for having been sent here, but I was not sent here to just collect a salary or stand up and just seal-clap and vote. Constituents sent us here to fight.

I am going to fight for my province and the people of my riding. If that means saying we need more autonomy and we need the equalization payment formula looked at, then I will do that. If everybody here says that they will not do that, that they will not give my province a fair deal, then I am going to tell them right now that the people in my province are going to say enough is enough. The choice is for every single person in this House. It starts here and it ends here.

I implore the people in the House to realize that what was in that throne speech was not good enough. It is not going to cut it. It is not going to fix it. It is going to take smart, tough conversations; otherwise, it is over.

My colleague from Malpeque just made an appeal for unity, and I want to tell him this: I am not here and the people on this side of the House are not here to make life politically expedient for the Liberals in a minority situation. We are here to fight for the people of our provinces, and our provinces are Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, B.C., Ontario, and every part of this country that sees Alberta as a strong part of Confederation. We will not let this continue.

I ask people who are watching today to support me by signing petition e-2303 at e2303.ca, which would send a message to every person in the House to do just that. Let us talk about setting a tone. It is time for Alberta to have a fair deal.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to take this opportunity to say a few words on the Speech from the Throne, but first I want to recognize your election as our new Speaker. I congratulate you and wish you well in a Parliament where I think there is a real opportunity to do great things for Canadians. There is a real opportunity to come together as members of Parliament.

I firmly believe that every party has some good ideas in its platforms. We have to draw those out and work together, because Canadians sent us a message that they want this Parliament to work. They do not want to see the kind of division that we saw during the election campaign, the personal attacks and the misinformation that seemed to filter out in the election, which was unbelievable. They want to see us work together in the interests of all Canadians. The leaders of all parties and all of us as parliamentarians need to try and achieve that in this 43rd Parliament. I wish you well, Mr. Speaker, in your endeavours trying to manage that.

I also give my thanks to the people in the riding of Malpeque, Prince Edward Island, for their support. This is my ninth term that I have been fortunate enough to be a member of Parliament and it is always an honour. No matter how often one gets up to speak here, this place is somewhat intimidating. Not many people get the right to stand here and state their remarks, challenge others in debate and be challenged themselves by others who may question them. This is what democracy should be all about, the give and take within a Parliament where there are views on all sides, but we come together and as a result make better policy.

I think that the debates in this place were more open quite a number of years ago. They were more forceful and not always written by speech writers and others. That is the kind of place I really believe this place should be, where we get up and spout our ideas, even though we may have to give up on some of them. When I first came here 26 years ago, I thought I had all the ideas and all the answers. I know today that I did not. In fact, I have fewer answers today than I thought I did then. However, we need to have that discussion and that debate, because everybody has some good ideas, and constructive criticism is what should take place in this parliamentary chamber and in committees.

For the new members here, it really is at committees where the work gets done. At committee, we travel together and get to know each other on a more personal level. Away from the partisanship and party lines, that is when the real work gets done, when ideas come out. We build friendships across the aisle, which is two sword lengths wide. We build friendships and move forward together. That is what this place should be all about. I hope in this 43rd Parliament that is what we can do in this chamber and at committee.

I will now turn to the throne speech and read a few sentences from the opening:

This fall, Canadians went to the polls. And they returned a minority Parliament to Ottawa. This is the will of the people, and you have been chosen to act on it.

And so we open this 43rd Parliament with a call for unity in the pursuit of common goals and aspirations.

As I said a moment ago, I know this will be a challenge. I have been through nine elections. I found that in my riding, on the ground, this was the most bitter and divisive election I have ever been in, as I have heard from many others. There was an awful lot of false information out there. When false information is produced enough times and never challenged, it becomes the truth in some people's minds. We faced a lot of that during this election campaign, and it was very bitter.

We have seen divisions across the country as a result of what I think is false information. There is the simple naming of a bill, Bill C-69, as the “no more pipelines” bill. It is not a no more pipelines bill. There may be some difficulty with it, but from the government's perspective it was a way to deal with environmental issues. It also gave us the opportunity to put pipelines and other natural resource measures in place without the constant challenge of going to court further down the road. That was the intent, but the simple naming of the bill put up a flag in front of many people and it became divisive. In this Parliament we have to try to get away from that kind of wording, stick to the facts and try to make this place operate better.

Let me turn to the first section of the Speech from the Throne, which talks about fighting climate change:

Canada’s children and grandchildren will judge this generation by its action—or inaction—on the defining challenge of the time: climate change.

From forest fires and floods, to ocean pollution and coastal erosion, Canadians are living the impact of climate change every day. The science is clear, and it has been for decades.

I know there is a strong difference of opinion on this, but there is the scientific community and the so-called experts. We have to be careful with experts, as they are not always as expert as they think they are, but the science is that a carbon tax makes sense generally. The Prime Minister talked about it extensively today. With the carbon tax in place, which is thought to be one of the best solutions to fight climate change in the world, people on the ground will actually do better and we will protect our environment for future generations. We have to move there. The fight on the bill on carbon tax has been fought, and it is wrong for the Leader of the Opposition to stand in this place with the objective of saying he is basically going to take the government down.

We have been sent here to do a job, to work together. Let us do it. Let us deal with the environment and build on our natural resources in other ways as well.

In our platform we talked about a number of things regarding environment and climate protection and building our economy. I want to name them so that members in the opposition know what we said. I expect they all have our platform anyway, but they need to hold the government to account and make sure that we address the things we said we would as a government. I expect this from my own party.

We want to make Canada a net-zero emitter by 2050, cut taxes in half for businesses that produce clean-tech zero-emissions technology, interest-free loans up to $40,000 for homeowners and landlords who want to make their properties more efficient, increase the amount of ocean and land that is protected to 25% and plant two billion trees while creating 3,500 jobs a year in doing so. Those are some the measures we proposed.

During the election campaign, I stopped at a constituent's place who had just built what is called a “passive house”. This is one of the things that we can do. This passive house has walls that are probably 18 inches thick, or maybe a little thicker, with heavy insulation and an inner wall and an outer wall. In Prince Edward Island, which does not exactly have kind winters like the ones in Vancouver and Victoria, my constituent and his wife will be able to heat that house for $300 a year because of the way it is built. That shows what is possible when the right things are done.

I was in another passive house that has been in place for about six years, and the owners have been heating the 2,000 square foot house for $340 a year. The rest of us, who are using oil on the same-sized house, are probably paying about $6,000 a year and producing a lot more greenhouse gases. This shows what is possible if the government is willing to assist with infrastructure and housing, which is what Liberals proposed to do in our platform.

It also states in the throne speech that the government will help to make energy-efficient homes more affordable, introduce measures to build clean, efficient and affordable communities and make it easier for people to choose zero-emission vehicles. That is the way we have to go to make strides on the climate change issue.

Let me turn to another section of the throne speech. The reason I quote the throne speech is that we often fail to go back to these documents after they are read and really look at what the words say. We have our own agendas that we want to push, and we have our own lines that we may want to get on the cameras with and hope our constituents hear. However, let us delve into what the government is really proposing. With regard to strengthening the middle class, the throne speech states, “As its first act, the Government will cut taxes for all but the wealthiest Canadians, giving more money to middle class families and those who need it most.”

What was proposed in the Liberals' platform was to raise the basic personal exemption amount to $15,000, which puts more money in everyone's pockets. Raising that basic exemption level helps a tremendous percentage of the population. I think the amount was $12,200 and it will go up to $15,000, so that takes taxes away from $2,800, which is good for all Canadians.

Liberals are proposing to cut cellphone bills by 25%, and that is outlined in the throne speech. We are going to try to save small businesses up to $7,500 by lowering small business taxes from 11% to 9%, which we started on in the last Parliament. We will make it easier for Canadians to purchase their first home, by giving them up to 10% of the purchase price with the first-time homebuyer incentive. Those are some of the things we are proposing to do by taking actions to strengthen the middle class.

I could also talk about the trade agreements we have signed. I could talk about some of the things done. When I was on the campaign trail, I was amazed and shocked at how many people really did not know about the Canada child benefit, even though it was coming into their homes. In my riding alone, that amounts to over $2 million a month that goes directly to families tax-free. Those are the kinds of initiatives we were able to do in the last Parliament as a government and we need to continue to build on in the 43rd Parliament.

I will not get into this in great detail, but the throne speech goes on at length about walking the road of reconciliation. There is always controversy among people over the reconciliation file with the indigenous communities. However, and the Prime Minister mentioned this as well, we have made some strides in this regard. The indigenous community is the fastest-growing sector of our population. They are the greatest human resource we have in this country to prosper for themselves and to prosper for Canadians, to build our economy, and to build safe communities and homes. There has been serious trouble in the past caused by governments and others. We need to work with those communities and build them to be safe and prosperous communities with their own culture protected in a way that they can be proud of their history and their country, and want to work together to move Canada forward for all Canadians and others around the world.

The other aspect we talk about in the throne speech relates to pharmacare and some of the health care issues. I want to quote from the throne speech, because I think it outlines the point. It states:

Too often, Canadians who fall sick suffer twice: once from becoming ill, and again from financial hardship caused by the cost of their medications.

The NDP leader mentioned this earlier today.

The throne speech continues:

Given this reality, pharmacare is the key missing piece of universal health care in this country. The Government will take steps to introduce and implement national pharmacare so that Canadians have the drug coverage they need.

It is extremely important for us to get this done. I am sure all of us who campaigned and knocked on doors met people who could not afford the pills they needed to get well, or who had other members of their family who were suffering because they were not able to have the necessary drug care, dental care or other measures to live healthy lives for their remaining time. Therefore, we need to get that done. I know that will be a strenuous debate because, as a government, we have to look at it from the cost side. Governments also have to look at what the federal and provincial responsibilities are and how to bring those two together, and how far they can go with that pharmacare program, whether it will fill in the gaps or go all the way to a full-out system. That will be a very important debate.

I see I am nearly out of time so l will close by saying this. In a former time, I was president of the National Farmers Union. In that capacity, I was given the opportunity to travel to every region of this country and live in farmhouses for quite a number of years, whether in Peace River, B.C., or Ontario. I spent a lot of time in Saskatchewan and Alberta, some time in Quebec and a lot of time in the Maritimes. There was one thing we always said within that movement, which was that when we see the country and understand the different resources and characters of each region, we have to be careful not to allow regionalism to set in as that would divide us against ourselves. There is always the ability to make this country stronger than the sum of its parts and that is where we need to go.

Given the makeup of this Parliament, that nobody has a majority, if we all work together we can make this country stronger than the sum of its parts. All of us will benefit as a result and, more importantly, so will Canadians.

Natural Resources

[Jonathan Wilkinson, Liberal, Minister of Environment and Climate Change]

Mr. Speaker, the Impact Assessment Act delivered on an important promise that we made in 2015 to fix a broken environmental assessment process that had been gutted by the Harper Conservatives in 2012.

The new process will put in place better rules that will ensure that we address issues early in the process, such that good projects will move forward and be built in this country. It is an enormous step forward, both for the environment and for the economy.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Right, Mr. Speaker. That is going well.

The Prime Minister said that he heard western Canada and would “work hard to bring our country together”, but Canada is more divided than ever because of him. Still, he refuses to overhaul his antienergy, anti-business bill, Bill C-69, which ignited the unity crisis. As recently as Monday, every single premier in this country wanted major changes to Bill C-69.

If the Liberals are serious about dousing the fire they lit, when will they stop their attacks on Canadians resource workers and on provinces?

Intergovernmental Relations

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, on the contrary, we have often heard about the concern that duplication of environmental assessments delays projects. That is why we introduced Bill C-69, which will help us improve our collaboration and ensure greater clarity for investors and more successful major projects. It will also ensure better partnerships on environmental matters and an understanding of the concerns of communities, including indigenous communities.

Natural Resources

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, as we move forward on Bill C-69, we adopted many of the proposals put forward by industry and by various parties to improve and amend that proposition. We are looking forward to working with all concerned partners on ensuring its proper implementation and making improvements if necessary.

We recognize that the current approach of CEAA 2012 is not working. If we look at the Springbank dam in Calgary and the Lake Winnipeg outlet that are delayed under the previous process, Bill C-69 will help in moving forward concretely.

[Andrew Scheer, Conservative, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, deep cracks are showing in Confederation and the Prime Minister has divided this country like it has never been before. However, he has managed to unite provincial premiers around one thing: their opposition to his failed approach on Bill C-69. Will the Prime Minister listen to the voices of our premiers of all regions of this country and commit to overhauling his approach on Bill C-69?

Resumption of debate on Address in Reply

[Andrew Scheer, Conservative, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the applause from the other side, but members have not heard what I am about to say yet, so they might want to retract it in a few moments. I appreciate it and thank them.

As we take our seats and take up the people's business in this chamber, we all share in a privilege of protecting the hopes and dreams of our neighbours, communities and fellow Canadians through the work we do.

As I return here for the sixth time, I am so grateful to once again have earned the confidence of my constituents in Regina—Qu'Appelle, because this seat does not belong to me; it belongs to them. None of the seats in this chamber belong to any of us, including the Prime Minister's seat. Instead, these seats all belong to the people who sent us here, and they sent us here to get to work. Canadians sent us here to make sure the country works for them, their jobs, their livelihoods, their cost of living, their health care, their environment, the safety of their communities and the security of our country on the world stage.

It is clear that we have a lot of work to do. No matter what party or region we are from, we all have a duty to listen, to learn, to grow and to improve. All of us, on both sides of the House, need to expect more from ourselves and from others.

This is particularly true in light of the results of the last election, in which the people sent a clear message to all of us that the status quo had failed, that the approach of the previous four years was just not good enough.

Canadians want better, and as the strongest opposition in Canadian history, we are going to make sure they get better. We will spend this Parliament proposing constructive solutions to Canada's most pressing problems. We are prepared to work with Canadians of every political stripe, focused on implementing ideas that actually work.

This does not mean we will compromise on the principles that make us Conservatives, and it certainly does not mean that we will shirk from our responsibilities as Her Majesty's loyal opposition to hold the government accountable every day in every way for its ethical lapses, errors and misdeeds. Canada's Conservatives are always prepared to look for common ground, but make no mistake, we will do our job.

It is just as important to recognize that when Canadians voted in the fall election, when they passed judgment on the previous four years, they were rendering a verdict on a four-year stretch in which the Liberal Party wielded virtually unchecked power. While the talking heads and pundits have been working overtime to spin the election results as anything else, the facts of this election are clear: The Liberal Party lost votes and seats in every region of the country. It lost the popular vote and was reduced to a minority government with the weakest mandate in Canadian history.

Canadians sent the Prime Minister a message that requires some reflection, as he himself admits.

Just because the Prime Minister avoided being fired does not mean he gets to act like he had a promotion. To be fair, he gave the appearance that he might be changing. He met with me and opposition leaders early on to discuss shared goals. He made a grand show of meeting premiers and mayors from across the country. However, yesterday in the Speech from the Throne, he revealed that he has not learned a thing, that he has not changed at all, even though the people of Canada sent a message that they demand better: better than four years of unserious, entitled government; better than four years of government that puts the interests of activists and lobbyists ahead of the jobs for Canadian families; better than four years of the Prime Minister's lecturing others about standards the he himself refused to live up to.

Canadians demand better. They demand a fundamentally new approach by a government that is prepared to rise to this moment in history. Times of fear bring times of division, and Canadians are afraid for their country. We must return to what makes us strong as a nation. We must put a stop to the divisive policies that have pitted province against province and region against region.

Canada was built on the idea that we are stronger when we work together, when we dream together, when big nation-building projects are seen not just as possible but necessary. I believe we can build that kind of Canada again. That is what we came to the House prepared to work for.

Yesterday we were sorely disappointed. This throne speech was supposed to be the first real part of the Prime Minister's new approach. That is what these speeches are all about. It is a statement of intent about how the government has changed, how it will learn and how it will improve. As I listened to the Governor General, that is what I was waiting to hear, some humility. I am still waiting.

If this Liberal government ends just like the last one, then an opportunity to learn and grow will have been missed and the message Canadians sent to the Liberal Party on October 21 will have truly been ignored.

One of the most important roles of the official opposition is to always be ready as a government in waiting to provide an alternative to the status quo. This is doubly true in a minority Parliament.

Today I want to talk about the challenges our country is facing, as well as the opportunities ahead and the leadership it will need.

I will talk about the kinds of actions all Canadians should expect from all parties in this Parliament: first, support for Canadian families that are struggling with the rising cost of living; second, keeping Canadians safe in an increasingly unstable world; third, creating and sustaining good Canadian jobs in a time of economic uncertainty; fourth, protecting the environment and fighting climate change at home and around the world; and fifth, preserving national unity and healing the divisions between provinces, between regions and between all Canadians.

Let us begin by talking about what should be the top priority for us all: supporting Canadian families who are struggling with the rising cost of living. Too many of the political games being played by the political classes are far removed from the real hardships facing real people.

Over half of Canadians have $200 or less in the bank at the end of the month. They are a breath away from financial hardship. They are vulnerable to interest rate hikes, living as they do on the brink of insolvency.

September 2019 had the highest number of personal bankruptcies since the Great Recession and the middle class is struggling. Over the past three years, the number of food bank users with jobs has gone up 27%. More and more hard-working people are not getting by. People are struggling to pay the mortgage, the rent or their bills.

More and more Canadian families are struggling to put food on the table or gas up the car.

The tax burden is going up. Studies have shown that for an average Canadian family earning $117,000 of combined income, 44.7% of that income, or $52,000, goes to paying taxes, and 53% of that goes to paying federal taxes. Nevertheless, over the past several weeks there has been a chorus of voices from elite corners of Canadian high society demanding that our party endorse the carbon tax. Let me be clear: We will always oppose a carbon tax because we know the real cost it imposes on the Canadian people.

The entire point of the carbon tax is to make essentials more expensive, making it harder to put fuel in the tank. It is about punishing a mom for driving her kids to school, punishing a dad for driving his daughter to soccer practice, punishing a senior for turning up the heat on a cold winter's day. We are not going to support that, especially when the Liberal carbon tax has granted a massive exemption to the country's largest emitters. There are better ways to fight climate change.

It is time to take action to lower the cost of living and put more money in the pockets of hard-working Canadians.

Another issue Canadians are looking to the government for leadership on is how we are going to keep them safe in an increasingly unstable world.

Let us not sugar-coat it. The world has become a much more dangerous place. The Government of China continues with an expansionist agenda that is threatening Hong Kong's vibrant democracy and the safety and security of the people of Hong Kong themselves.

Just as important to Canadians, the same Chinese dictatorship continues to hold two innocent Canadians hostage in retaliation to Canada's fulfilling its legal obligation to arrest and extradite Huawei executive Meng Wanzhou. I understand that this is a matter of very serious diplomatic sensitivity for the government, and I have no doubt that behind the scenes there is a lot of work being done to secure the safe return of the two Canadians the Chinese government is holding. However, what is incomprehensible to Canadians is that in the face of this blatant attack, the Minister of Small Business still travelled to China and posed in photo ops to promote China as a place for Canadian investment.

Canadians are asking why the government is still giving $256 million to the Asian Infrastructure Bank so that China can develop infrastructure in other parts of the world. In fact, we found out just recently that this Asian Infrastructure Bank, funded by Canadian tax dollars at a time when western Canadian energy companies are struggling to get their product to market, funded not one but two pipeline projects in other countries. Canadians want to know why the Prime Minister is so silent in the face of such a blatant outrage. He should at least respond to what his own Minister of Foreign Affairs said: “China stand[s] out as [a] beacon of stability, predictability, a rule-based system, a very inclusive society.”

While he is at it, the Prime Minister could also share how his government intends to check the Russian expansionism that threatens countries like Ukraine and the Baltic states while funding cyber-sabotage around the world that threatens our alliances and democratic institutions.

While he is at it, he could explain the calculation his government made in abandoning the State of Israel and Jews around the world when his government curried favour with anti-Semitic factions at the United Nations to earn itself a Security Council seat.

However, most of all we would really appreciate hearing the Prime Minister talk about Canada's deteriorating relationship with the United States, one that was only exacerbated by his own conduct at this week's NATO summit. We understand that President Trump is a challenging negotiator, but Americans are our partners all the same, and no international file is more important to Canadian jobs and livelihoods than the ratification of the new NAFTA.

The fact is that 80% of our GDP depends on trade. We need an effective foreign policy to ensure that our allies and trade partners continue to trust us and trade with us.

Whether we are talking about steel industries in Ontario, aluminum industries in Quebec, our forestry industry in B.C., our agriculture and agri-food industries, including our supply-managed sectors, the auto sector, the aerospace sector or the hundreds of thousands of workers who depend on our energy sector, Canada's economy, Canadian workers and Canadian jobs depend on having a government that will stand up for our country no matter what.

This brings me to what should be another very important government priority: creating and sustaining Canadian jobs in a time of economic uncertainty.

Let us have some true moral clarity in the House right now. As I speak, a network of foreign-funded activist groups is trying to permanently shut down Canada's energy sector and drive hundreds of thousands of Canadians out of work. They have already done lasting damage to the economies in western Canada and to the livelihoods of thousands of families who depend on the development of our oil and gas to pay the bills. Every single member of the House should be expected to stand up and be counted. Do they stand with the activists or do they stand with the workers of Canada?

These groups take foreign funding and interfere in our discussion around energy and pipelines in this country. It has never made any sense to me why there are loud voices in this country, including many from the government benches, that want to ban and block the exportation of Canadian energy to foreign markets. Meanwhile, they do nothing when tanker after tanker of foreign oil comes into Canadian markets.

When Canadians make these decisions for themselves, they should be doing it by themselves. That is why a core Conservative commitment is to ban foreign-funded activist groups from participating in the approval process for large energy projects.

I can stand here confidently on behalf of every single member of the Conservative caucus and say with certainty that every single one of us will stand with Canadian workers every single time. Therefore, we are going to fight for pipelines, for lower taxes and for reduced regulations to make Canada the best place in the world to invest, start a business and create jobs. This will include repealing Bill C-69 and the tanker ban that has signalled that Canada is closed for business.

We will seek to diversify our trade relationships to reduce our dependence on the United States. When we, the Conservatives, were in office, we negotiated free trade and investment agreements with 53 countries, while protecting our business interests. We will put the same amount of energy into breaking down trade barriers in Canada as we will into standing up for free trade beyond our borders.

I hear it from our provincial counterparts and I hear it from businesses: It is time to build a true single market inside of Canada that can compete with trading blocs around the world and other single markets. We can do all of this while living up to our responsibility to future generations when it comes to environmental challenges like climate change.

Fighting climate change will require honesty and it will require co-operation, but first is honesty: Canada produces less than 2% of global emissions. China alone produces over 27% and saw a 4% increase in CO2 emissions just in the first half of 2019.

That is why our Conservative plan focuses on exporting Canadian green technologies and on substituting coal in China with clean Canadian natural gas and carbon capture technology. It is because we know that Canada can make a real difference by taking the climate change fight globally. Imposing a carbon tax on seniors will not do that. Even if it were possible to drop Canada's emissions to zero, it would not make a dent in our shared global obligation.

As well, if the Liberals do take climate change seriously, why would they rely so much on imposing taxes on essential things that are known to be unresponsive to price increases? It is time to stop targeting Canadian commuters and seniors and instead focus on innovative market-based policies that prepare Canada for the future and can ensure we make a real impact on global emissions. A real plan must offer a global vision for fighting climate change.

We can fight climate change without imposing taxes on parents who are taking their children to school. We need to invest in new technologies and establish a higher standard for big polluters so that they reduce their emissions at the source.

Finally, I want to talk about the gravest danger facing our nation's prosperity and the steps we can and must take to preserve national unity during this time of peril.

We are facing a time when our country is being divided between east and west, between English and French and between urban and rural. Even the divisions between generations continue to grow. No Canadian can afford to be oblivious to this threat, least of all members of this House. As a proud MP from Saskatchewan, I would caution all of our colleagues from across Canada to not underestimate the deep alienation and anger that people of my province, along with our neighbours in Alberta, currently feel about their deal in the confederation.

The damage done over the past four years is significant. Today, 175,000 Alberta energy workers are unemployed. Proud Canadian companies like TransCanada and Encana are moving their businesses to the U.S.

After only four years of Liberal rule, the Bloc Québécois, 32 sovereignist members strong, has returned with a vengeance. Premier Legault had specific requests. The Liberal government did not consider any of them, yet the Bloc members have decided to support the throne speech anyway. During the election campaign, the Bloc claimed to be the voice of Premier Legault, and this is the result. Only the Conservative members will stand up for Quebec's interests, not the Bloc.

The rifts dividing our country are deep, but they can heal. The first rule of medicine is to do no harm. That is why we must relegate the rigid ideological approach of the first Liberal term from the front pages to the history pages. We must focus on the things that unite Canadians.

I still believe that Canada can be a place of big dreams and that the same spirit that built the Canadian Pacific Railway, the TransCanada Highway and the St. Lawrence Seaway still exist today. We can still achieve big things together. This country can work for both the west and the east and for all provinces in between, but only a Conservative government has the vision to do just that.

I do believe that national unity is not something that we do; it is something that happens when we get the big things and the little things right. Our role as an official opposition is to fight for Canadians who, inadvertently or not, are hurt or left behind by the government's agenda, so we will show up every day. We will be ready to do our job.

We will use every tool at our disposal to oppose the items on the government's agenda that could harm Canadians.

We will constantly be at the ready, with better policies and a better plan to replace the government when it falls.

Canadians can no longer afford a government that gets the big questions wrong. We know we have a better program that will help unite Canada, create jobs, help Canadians make ends meet, and allow more Canadians from all races, regions, genders, religions, sexual orientations and languages to pursue their dreams and build a better life right here in Canada, right here at home.

On behalf of Canada's official opposition, I therefore move:

That the motion be amended by adding the following:

“and wishes to inform Your Excellency that Canada is threatened by:

Declining productivity and competitiveness, a rising cost of living and challenges to our society which requires:

Offering a plan for tax relief for Canadians with a path to a balanced budget,

Restoring Canada as an attractive place to invest,

Addressing social challenges that limit the ability of Canadians to achieve their full potential, and

Developing a real environment plan that strengthens the competitiveness of our economic sectors and tackles global climate change;

A weakening position within an increasingly uncertain world, which requires:

Confronting threats such as the regimes in Moscow and Beijing and protecting Canadian sovereignty in the Arctic,

Developing a principled foreign policy that stands with traditional allies such as NATO, Ukraine, and Israel, and

Facing the rise of protectionism and strengthening the relationship with our largest trading partners;

A national unity crisis, which requires:

Respecting provincial jurisdiction and scrapping the carbon tax,

Stopping the attack on the Western Canadian economy, and

Restoring confidence in our national institutions, starting by returning ethics and accountability to the federal government.

Address in Reply

[Michael Kram, Conservative, Regina—Wascana, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour and a privilege to rise here today in the House of Commons to represent the interests of Regina—Wascana. Canada is more divided than ever before. Deep cracks are showing in our confederation. Under the Liberals, our economy has been bleeding jobs, particularly in the natural resources sector. The Prime Minister has overseen the cancellation of more than $100 billion in investment in energy projects, largely because of concerns over the no more pipelines bill, Bill C-69, and the tanker ban bill, Bill C-48.

A spokesperson for the Montreal Economic Institute said recently, “People are giving up on Canada as a safe place to invest in natural resources.... It's seen as a very hostile environment now”.

People in my riding and my province of Saskatchewan are concerned that no one in the Liberal government is listening. There is absolutely nothing concrete in today's throne speech to address these very real concerns. Can the member opposite please tell the House what the government will do to repair the damage that it has done to the resource sector and to national unity?

[Amarjeet Sohi, Liberal, Edmonton Mill Woods, AB]

In the work we have done on the consultation of late for the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion, in the thoroughness and the meaningful two-way conversation and engagement that we had, and the assurance from Justice Iacobucci that we have corrected the defects and remedied what the Federal Court of Appeal wanted us to by engaging in meaningful two-way dialogue, I am confident that we have fully discharged our duty to consult with indigenous communities.

I know some people, particularly Conservative politicians, wanted us to make consultation with indigenous communities optional in Bill C-69, which could have been devastating for energy sector projects. Then people would have taken us to court and we would have lost every time we went to court, because you cannot fail to fulfill your duty to consult and to meet the constitutional obligation for meaningful consultation with indigenous communities.

[Nick Whalen, Liberal, St. John's East, NL]

As a final very short question, there's been some scuttlebutt at the table here about whether or not a constitutional right is implicated in this process. I'm perhaps not as close to this issue as you are, but do you feel that the section 35 rights of indigenous peoples are implicated by the expansion, and was that something that we were trying to make sure we got right with Bill C-69?

[Amarjeet Sohi, Liberal, Edmonton Mill Woods, AB]

I am a firm believer that if Bill C-69 had been in place in 2013 when this review was started, the Trans Mountain pipeline would have been completed by now and would have been in operation, delivering our resources to non-U.S. markets. It is very important, because we are fixing a broken system.

As far as the exploratory oil wells in the Atlantic provinces are concerned, having a regional review done actually expedited some of that work.

[Nick Whalen, Liberal, St. John's East, NL]

We've had a lot of difficulty until very recently on clearing exploratory drilling on the east coast, and of course we have the injunction on TMX. Bill C-69 seems to achieve the right balance and seems to push us beyond the mistakes that existed in CEAA 2012 to ensure these types of mistakes don't happen again. Are you confident that's the case?

Equalization

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

Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to present a petition on behalf of my constituents in Calgary Nose Hill. I thank them deeply for the privilege and honour of serving them for the last four years.

The petitioners are calling on the Government of Canada to cancel Bill C-69 and launch a study into the economic impact of equalization, including examining the formula; examining how renewable and non-renewable resources, including energy resources, both developed and underdeveloped, are treated in the formula; and issuing a report to Canadians on the fairness, effectiveness and outcomes of the equalization program.

Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement Implementation Act

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Madam Speaker, let me say, as I probably rise for the last time in this Parliament, how honoured I am to represent the good people of Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, how much I have learned from my colleagues here, but also how invigorated I am by the greatness of this country and my commitment to work hard for the people I represent.

As I join this debate today, I feel compelled to make a few observations. To be clear, Canada did not ask to be put in this position. However, as we know, the U.S. election resulted in a new administration, with a mandate, among other things, to renegotiate NAFTA. That is where all of this started.

I think we can all agree that this particular renegotiated agreement resulted in an outcome that is less than ideal, but of course, it could have been much worse. Many concessions were made, and we still have unresolved issues, such as the lack of a deal for Canadian softwood lumber, something that is critically important to my riding.

Ultimately, it is not a secret that the official opposition will be supporting this deal. Unlike the third party, we do believe it is better than no deal. However, that does not mean that there are not some lessons to be learned here.

To me, it is deeply troubling that the Prime Minister went into these negotiations with his usual theme of demanding things that are all about building his brand and appealing to his base of supporters. In other words, the Prime Minister thought he saw an opportunity to score some political points and feed the brand. This is not unlike what he tried to do when he approached China.

In both cases, he failed miserably. Why would he not fail miserably? Would we as Canadians accept another leader trying to push his or her own values onto us? We simply would not accept that. What nation would? However, that is precisely what the Prime Minister attempted to to. Some may call this arrogance. Whatever we call it, it was easily foreseeable that it was a path to failure.

However, the Prime Minister did not care and went about his virtue-signalling anyway, so we ended up on the sidelines: Canada, a world leader, on the sidelines. There we were, on the sidelines with our biggest trading partner, while Mexico was in the driver's seat, getting the deal done.

Here is the thing. Mexico did get it done. Let us look at its approach. Mexico did not use the trade negotiations as some sort of domestic political opportunity to score points. Mexico did not use this as an opportunity for virtue-signalling. Mexico did not have a lead minister giving a speech within the United States of America that took veiled potshots at the U.S. administration. Mexico discussed issues related to trade and did so professionally. It is easy to see why that approach worked so well for it.

Our approach, led by the Prime Minister, was a complete failure. It did not have to be that way. I can tell colleagues that, on this side of the House, we would have taken a much different approach. I am actually quite confident that there are members on the government side of the House, whom I have worked with at various committees, who I suspect would have also taken a much different approach. I believe it is important to reflect on these things so that we can learn from them.

Canada should never again be in a situation where we are sitting on the sidelines with our greatest trading partner, while Mexico is driving the bus. I hope that is one thing we can all agree on. Perhaps that is why we are now hearing the name of Mark Carney, because there are other Liberals who feel the same way.

Now we have a new deal. Whether it is called the new NAFTA, NAFTA 0.5, USMCA, CUSMA, or whatever, there is something we should all think about. Recently, Jack Mintz wrote a very good piece on investment fleeing Canada. Members who have read the article would know that it debunks some Liberal talking points that had been carefully cherry-picked.

As an example, yes, investment in Canada was up in 2018. However, that sounds good until we consider that it was up from 2017, and 2017 was an absolute disaster of a year. Even in 2018, it was still below where things were in 2015. Yes, I mean that 2015.

Yes, investment in the U.S.A. is down, but that is outside investment. There is a large increase in U.S. domestic capital now staying in the United States. This means it is not coming to Canada.

Why should we care about that? Let us look at our automotive sector. Yes, there is still some investment in Canada, but there is considerably more occurring in the United States and Mexico. Mexico, in particular, has been a hot spot for automotive investment. Let us think about that. Mexico has no carbon tax. It has no new and enhanced CPP causing premiums and payroll taxes to increase every month. Much of its industrial power is cheap, and I would even say it is dirty.

CUSMA does more to address some of those issues than the NAFTA deal it replaces, but we also have to recognize that foreign investment in Canada is not the rose garden the Liberals are trying to suggest it is. This is a deal among three countries. If we become the most expensive, most regulated and most inefficient country to do business in, we lose collectively as a country.

The Prime Minister can continue to be virtuous. He can continue to ask people to pay just a little bit more. He can continue to lecture others for not sharing his values. However, at the end of the day, none of those things are going to attract the investment we need to make the most of this deal.

While we are on the subject of trade, I note that last week, during question period in this place, the Prime Minister vilified former prime minister Harper close to a dozen times. As the Liberals' good friend Warren Kinsella recently pointed out, the Prime Minister is looking “for an enemy to demonize”.

I mention that because the former Conservative government of Mr. Harper concluded more free trade agreements than any prime minister in the modern era. It is not as if the Liberals, or the Prime Minister, would be unaware of this, because they sat in this place during the last Parliament and voted in support of all those new trade agreements, yet the Prime Minister turns around and vilifies the former prime minister, who has a demonstrably more successful record on trade agreements.

However, perhaps that is preferable to talking about the lack of progress on Canadian softwood. I looked up on the Open Parliament website how many times the Prime Minister has even mentioned the word “softwood”. The answer is 18 times since 2016. The vast majority of those times were only because he was answering questions on softwood lumber asked by the opposition.

How many times has he referenced Stephen Harper? It is 190 times, and it will probably be more than 200 after today's question period. With the Prime Minister's priorities so focused on vilifying Mr. Harper instead of focusing on softwood lumber, is it any wonder he has made zero progress on this file?

Why do I point this out? I point this out because lumber mills are closing all across British Columbia at an alarming rate. My riding has lost lumber mills. I know first-hand what that does to a small rural community. It is devastating. However, there is complete silence from the Prime Minister regarding softwood lumber unless he is asked about it by the opposition in this place. Why? Maybe it is because he is too busy vilifying Mr. Harper.

In my view, that is not acceptable. B.C. forest workers deserve better. They deserve to know that they have a prime minister in Ottawa working to reach a softwood lumber deal.

I sometimes wonder whether, if Mexico had a vibrant softwood lumber sector, we would now have a deal done by extension as well. It is clear that Mexico has a more effective track record in these negotiations than the brand-first approach of the Prime Minister.

To summarize, we did not ask to be in this situation, clearly. However, I believe the approach taken by the Prime Minister to try to use this as a political opportunity was deeply flawed and made a bad situation worse.

Again, as evidence of that, I say to look no further than the approach taken by Mexico and the success that it had while we sat on the sidelines.

I have raised this point with ministers of the Crown. They told us that the meetings between the United States and Mexico were simply on bilateral issues that had nothing to do with Canada. However, they came out with a trilateral agreement, and Canada had a take-it-or-leave-it moment.

Despite the many concessions that the Prime Minister has made on this file, we can still make the most of it, but only if we recognize that we need to be more competitive. We have a regulatory environment in which things can get done in Canada. Many people have raised alarm bells, particularly the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, and not just about the lack of investment but also the ability to get things done.

The Leader of the Opposition today clearly asked the Prime Minister several times for the date for the Trans Mountain pipeline. The Prime Minister promised the Trans Mountain pipeline, one of the most important projects on the deck and one of the only ones on the deck, would go forward to help build the national interest, but the Prime Minister cannot give a date.

Originally, the Liberals said that it would be operating this calendar year. Again, I would submit that one need to look no further than the Trans Mountain pipeline as evidence as to where the challenges are. It has been four years, and still there is not a shovel in the ground. The fact that the Liberal government had to buy the project to save Kinder Morgan from the embarrassment of not being able to build it in a timely manner is all part of the problem. The fact that today even the government has serious challenges in trying to navigate the process to get it done is telling. Does anyone seriously believe that Bill C-69 and Bill C-48 will make it easier to invest in Canada?

The Prime Minister says that tankers can operate totally safely in one part of British Columbia and in other parts of Canada, but are so dangerous in another part of British Columbia that they must be banned. Does anyone seriously think that makes sense? In fact, a number of the senators in the other place have commented on the lack of scientific evidence on Bill C-48. The committee that studied it in depth recommended that the bill not proceed.

The approaches of the current government do not reconcile. These are the types of mixed messages that are just not helpful. However, I remain hopeful that we can become more competitive and that as we move forward, we can ultimately try to fully capitalize on this agreement despite the many concessions.

I would like to close on a more positive note, and I will add a few positive observations.

As we have established many times and in many areas, Canada and Canadians can compete and succeed against the very best in the world. As legislators, it is our job to ensure that they have a level playing field and unrestricted market access to do so. Therefore, I will vote in favour of this agreement as, ultimately, it will provide these opportunities.

However, I must say one more time that until we have full, unfettered free trade within Canada's borders, we are, as a country, not owning up to the promise of Confederation, and that falls on us. It falls upon the provinces that have not allowed Canada to become not just a political union but an economic one.

This will be my last speech in the 42nd Parliament, and I would like to share a few words on a personal note.

We all share the collective honour of being elected members of this place, and our families all share the sacrifice for the many times that we cannot be there for them. It is my hope that our families, particularly our young ones, understand that in this place our collective desire to build a better country starts and ends with them. I would like thank all families of parliamentarians for their understanding and support.

I would also like to share a word with other members of this place. It is so unfortunate that much of the work we do here is often summarized by many Canadians as what transpires in question period. Much of the most important work that we do collectively happens at committee.

On that note, I would like to sincerely thank the many members I have worked with on various committees. Everyone I have worked with shares the same commitment to help ensure that the federal government provides the best level of governance possible. We may disagree on programs, projects and approaches, but I have found that we share a commitment to making these programs work best for Canadians.

A final point I would like to make should not be lost by any of us. The former Conservative government introduced a program to provide supports for kids directly to their parents. At the time, the Liberal opposition mocked it, ridiculed it, and suggested that parents would simply blow the money they received on beer and popcorn, but when the Liberals formed their majority government in 2015, they did not kill that program. Liberals saw the merits of it and saw that it was working so they made improvements to it, and now it is working even more effectively. I wish to commend them yet again for that.

That is an example of two very different governments coming up with a program and finding ways to improve it to ensure that it helps support Canadian families.

Trade is similar. After all, we are a nation of traders. We need to have these things that make us collectively prosper, that allow us to build stronger ties and relationships and provide the security and the sense of certainty that it takes for someone to start a business or for a country to get behind a new program. These are great examples of the work that we do when we are here on behalf of Canadians.

Thank you, Madam Speaker, for the time you spend in the chair. I am sure there are many different ways you would rather spend your time than listening to me, but I do appreciate the work you do and I am sure my constituents do as well. I look forward to the challenges in the upcoming months and in the questions and comments I will hear from my fellow colleagues.

Trans Mountain Pipeline

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

Madam Speaker, especially in light of the announcement yesterday by the Prime Minister on the Trans Mountain pipeline, which re-announced the project, which had absolutely no start date or any sort of plan to actually build the thing, I am presenting a petition on behalf of my constituents who would like Bill C-69, the “no more pipelines” bill, repealed, as well as for the government to review the equalization formula, given the punitive positions that the government has taken against Canada's energy sector. I support this petition.

Natural Resources

[Andrew Scheer, Conservative, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, we know what to do to get these projects built, starting with replacing the Prime Minister, scrapping the carbon tax, repealing Bill C-69 and giving our investors certainty that when they meet those standards, they can actually get it built.

The Prime Minister is great at saying yes. He just cannot get it done. Yesterday was another approval without a plan. Canadians did not want to see a photo op yesterday. They wanted a date on which this project would start.

Why did he fail to do that?

Motion in relation to Senate amendments

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

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to rise to continue my response to the government's motion on the Senate amendments to Bill C-48.

As I said yesterday, I, along with millions of other Canadians, would rather that Bill C-48 be consigned to the dustbin of bad ideas. I read aloud the letter from six premiers that highlights the damage Bill C-48 and Bill C-69 are doing to our national unity. I left off quoting testimony from indigenous leaders and elected representatives on this and other bills, which underscored the hypocrisy of the government's claim to consult.

I will pick up there, considering the backdrop of Liberal attacks on the Canadian oil and gas industry, and share some of the testimony, much from first nations leaders, that the transport committee heard when we studied this bill. These are not my words. These are not the words of the Leader of the Opposition or any of my colleagues. These are the words of Canadians who, day in and day out, are working hard to provide good jobs and economic growth while maintaining a healthy environment.

Ms. Nancy Bérard-Brown, manager of oil markets and transportation with the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, said:

CAPP did not support the proposed moratorium because it is not based on facts or science. There were no science-based gaps identified in safety or environmental protection that might justify a moratorium.

Mr. Chris Bloomer, president and chief executive officer of the Canadian Energy Pipeline Association, said:

The proposed oil tanker moratorium act, Bill C-48, is yet another change that will compound uncertainty and negatively impact investor confidence in Canada....

In conclusion, the consequences of potentially drastic policy changes for future energy projects have instilled uncertainty within the regulatory system, adding additional risks, costs, and delays for a sector that the Prime Minister publicly acknowledged has built Canada's prosperity and directly employs more than 270,000 Canadians.

The approach to policy-making represented by the development of Bill C-48 contributes to this uncertainty and erodes Canada's competitiveness.

Commenting on the practical, or rather impractical, ramifications of this bill, Mr. Peter Xotta, vice-president of planning and operations for the Vancouver Fraser Port Authority, said the following on what this bill could mean for the west coast transportation corridor:

With regard to Bill C-48, the Vancouver Fraser Port Authority assumes that government understands the potential economic impact for such a moratorium, given that there are very few suitable locations, particularly on the west coast, for movement of petroleum products, as was articulated by my associate from Prince Rupert.

Notwithstanding the fact that any future proposals would be subject to government's rigorous environmental and regulatory review process, this moratorium could create pressure on the southwest coast of British Columbia to develop capacity for future energy projects.

As I said earlier, there were many first nations representatives who gave testimony at committee. Ms. Eva Clayton, president of Nisga'a Lisims Government, said:

In the weeks that preceded the introduction of Bill C-48, we urged that the moratorium not be enforced before further consultation took place and that the moratorium should not cover our treaty area.

Much to our surprise, Bill C-48 was introduced before we had been offered an opportunity to review the detailed approach that the government decided to take, nor were we able to comment on the implications of the proposed legislation on the terms and shared objectives of our treaty even though the area subject to the moratorium includes all of Nisga'a Lands, all of the Nass area, and all coastal areas of our treaty....

We aspire to become a prosperous and self-sustaining nation that can provide meaningful economic opportunities for our people. This aspiration is reflected in our treaty, which sets out the parties' shared commitment to reduce the Nisga'a Nation's reliance on federal transfers over time. The Nisga'a Nation takes this goal very seriously. However, it stands to be undermined by Bill C-48.

Mr. Calvin Helin, chairman and president of Eagle Spirit Energy Holding Ltd., stated:

In that context, first nations people, particularly the 30-plus communities that have supported our project, have told us that they do not like outsiders, particularly those they view as trust-fund babies coming into the traditional territories they've governed and looked after for over 10,000 years and dictating government policy in their territory.

Mr. Dale Swampy, coordinator of Aboriginal Equity Partners, stated:

We are here to oppose the tanker ban. We have worked hard and diligently. Our 31 first nation chiefs and Métis leaders invested a lot of time and resources to negotiate with northern gateway with the prospect of being able to benefit from the project, to be able to get our communities out of poverty.

Please listen to how Mr. John Helin, mayor of the Lax Kw'alaams Band, identified those who support the oil tanker ban. He said:

What we're asking is, what is consultation? It has to be meaningful. It can't be a blanket moratorium.

If you look at our traditional territory and the Great Bear Rainforest, that was established without consultation with members from my community. The picture that was taken when they announced that, it was NGOs from America standing there trumpeting that accomplishment. We can't let people from outside our communities, NGOs and well-funded organizations that are against oil and gas or whatever they're against come in and dictate in our territories what we should and should not do.

In contrast to Mr. Helin's comments, Ms. Caitlyn Vernon, campaigns director for the Sierra Club of British Columbia, a witness who supports this bill, actually let the cat out of the bag in response to a question, when she said:

on the south coast, tankers pose a huge risk to the economy, communities, wildlife, the southern residents, and endangered orca whales that live in the Salish Sea.... Absolutely, I would support a full-coast moratorium.

Mr. Ken Veldman, director of public affairs for the Prince Rupert Port Authority put the views of Ms. Vernon, and others like her, including, I would point out, members of this House in the NDP, the Bloc, the Green Party and likely even the Liberal Party, in perspective when he said:

As you may imagine, there are a wide variety of opinions as to what's acceptable risk and what isn't. However, the reality is that risk can be quantified, and if you're looking to achieve zero risk, then you're correct that zero transportation is really the only way to achieve that.

That said, if our appetite for risk is zero, that has very broad ramifications for shipping off the coast in general.

When speaking to our committee this spring, Captain Sean Griffiths, chief executive officer of the Atlantic Pilotage Authority, also reflected on the impact of an oil tanker moratorium on the Atlantic Canadian economy. He stated:

Twelve of our 17 ports in Atlantic Canada ship large volumes of oil and petroleum products in and out of port. I can imagine it's a way of life back in the east, and it has been for quite some time. We move a lot of oil in and out of our ports. Placentia Bay alone, for instance, has 1,000 to 1,100 tanker movements every year on average, so a moratorium would, I'm sure, devastate the region.

Bill C-48, along with Bill C-88, and the no-more pipelines bill, Bill C-69, paint a pattern of a government and a Prime Minister obsessed with politicizing and undermining our energy resources sector at every turn. Whether it be through legislation, the carbon tax, the cancellation of the northern gateway and energy east pipelines or the continued bungling of the Trans Mountain expansion, which we heard today the Liberals have approved yet again, the current Prime Minister has proven, at every turn, that he is an opponent of our natural resources sector. If the government was serious about the environment and the economy going hand in hand, it would implement real changes.

Hypothetically speaking, let us look at some the changes the government might make. It could use scientific independent studies to further strengthen our world-leading tanker safety system by making changes that would not only protect our domestic waters but the waters of any country with which we trade. It could require all large crude oil tankers operating in Canadian waters to have a double hull, since a double hull has two complete watertight layers of surface and is much safer. It could even go a step further and inspect every foreign tanker on its first visit to a Canadian port and annually thereafter, holding those tankers to the same standards as Canadian-flagged vessels.

This hypothetical government could also expand the national aerial surveillance program and extend long-term funding. It could increase surveillance efforts in coastal areas, including in northern British Columbia. It could ensure that the aerial surveillance program was given access to remote sensing equipment capable of identifying potential spills from satellite images.

This theoretical government could give more power to the Canadian Coast Guard to respond to incidents and establish an incident command system. It could amend legislation to provide alternate response measures, such as the use of chemical dispersants and burning spilled oil during emergencies, and could clarify the Canadian Coast Guard's authority to use and authorize these measures when there was likely to be a net environmental benefit.

It could create an independent tanker safety expert panel to receive input from provincial governments, aboriginal groups and marine stakeholders and then implement the changes recommended by this panel. It could focus on preventing spills in the first place and cleaning them up quickly if they did occur, while making sure that polluters pay.

Hypothetically, the government could modernize Canada's marine navigation system and have Canada take a leadership role in implementing e-navigation in our tankers while supporting its implementation worldwide. This is doubly important, since e-navigation reduces the risk of an oil spill by providing accurate real-time information on navigation hazards, weather and ocean conditions to vessel operators and marine authorities, thereby minimizing the potential for incidents.

It could establish new response planning partnerships for regions that have or are expected to have high levels of tanker traffic, such as the southern portion of British Columbia, Saint John and the Bay of Fundy in New Brunswick, Port Hawkesbury in Nova Scotia, and the Gulf of St. Lawrence in Quebec. It could work to develop a close partnership with each of these regions, including with local aboriginal communities, to develop responses to the unique challenges facing their tanker traffic.

This theoretical government could strengthen the polluter pay regime by introducing legislative and regulatory amendments that would remove the ship-source oil pollution fund per incident liability limit and ensure that the full amount was available for any incident. It could ensure that compensation was provided to eligible claimants while recovering these costs from industry through a levy. As well, it could extend compensation so that those who lost earnings due to an oil spill would be compensated even if their property had not been directly affected.

All these changes could be done by a government that actually cared about protecting the environment and continuing to grow the economy. Wait a minute. We are not talking about a hypothetical government. Every single one of the changes I just mentioned was brought in by the previous Conservative government. Unlike the Liberal government, we listened to the experts, which empowered us to make real, practical changes that made a difference.

While Liberals vacillate between paralysis and empty, economically damaging, virtue-signalling legislation, Conservatives look for real solutions. Case in point, the Liberal government is so preoccupied with appearances that it just finished its third round of approving a pipeline supported by over 60% of British Columbia residents.

I read the quote earlier by some who support this legislation. Some would like to see a complete prohibition on oil movement.

This ideological oil tanker moratorium, as I have said, is not based on science. We know that. That is why, frankly, we did not propose any amendments when this bill was before the transport committee. We did not believe that this bill was redeemable, and I still do not. There was a brief moment of hope for me when the Senate committee recommended that the bill not proceed. Sadly, that hope was short-lived.

This brings us to today and the motion that is the basis of our debate. I will take a few minutes to outline my thoughts on the government's response to the Senate's amendments to the Liberals' terrible bill.

Last week, the Senate voted on three amendments to Bill C-48. One, by a Conservative senator, which would have given the Minister of Transport the authority to adjust the northern boundary of the tanker moratorium, would have been an improvement to the bill. Regrettably, it was narrowly defeated.

The amendment in the other place that did pass cannot be called an improvement to this bill. While somewhat noble in its intent, it is a thin attempt to mask the fact that this entire bill is an affront to indigenous people's rights. The inclusion of these clauses in the bill does not change that fact.

Regarding the second part of the amendment passed by the Senate, I acknowledge that it is at least an attempt to recognize that this bill is an assault on a particular region of the country, namely, the oil-producing prairie provinces. This second part of the amendment passed by the Senate calls for a statutory review of the act as well as a review of the regional impact this act would have. The government's motion, which we are debating today, amended certain elements of this Senate amendment.

No one will guess which section of this amendment the government kept and which section it rejected. Those who guessed that it rejected the section that, at the very least, acknowledged indirectly that this bill was an attack on western Canada, would be correct.

This further demonstrates that when the Prime Minister or one of his ministers claims that others are threatening national unity with their opposition to certain pieces of legislation by the government, it is the ultimate doublespeak. Hon. senators who support this bill had the decency to propose and pass an amendment that was at least a tip of the hat to the alienation felt by western Canadians brought on by the Liberal government's actions. The motion we are debating today has stripped these sections from the bill, proving once again that this is just another step in the Prime Minister's plan to phase out the oil sands, regardless of the impact on Canada's economic well-being.

It is for these reasons that my colleagues and I oppose the government's motion on the Senate amendments to Bill C-48. We on the Conservative side will always stand up for Canada. We support Canada's natural resource sector, which contributes billions to our economy and economic growth. We support Canada's environment with practical, science-based policies that have a real and positive impact on our country's, and indeed the whole world's, environment. We support Canadians in their hope and desire for sustainable, well-paying jobs so that they can support their families, support each other and contribute to a happy and healthy Canada.

Conservatives support legislation that is based on science, research and the facts, and this bill is none of the above.

Opposition Motion—The Environment

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer—Mountain View, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join the debate on behalf of my constituents of Red Deer—Mountain View.

The motion before us today states:

That, given that the carbon tax will not reduce emissions at its current rate and it is already making life more expensive for Canadians, the House call on the government to repeal the carbon tax and replace it with a real environment plan.

How do we know that the carbon tax is not reducing emissions at its current rate? That information comes from the most recent report of the Parliamentary Budget Officer. The PBO chose a figure of $102 per tonne, which is five times the current rate. If one is to believe the numbers being thrown around by the government, the projections are that the figure would need to be even higher. Apparently, this does not matter to the Liberal government. Nor does it matter to the Liberals that Australia has realized that introducing a carbon tax is a failed plan and has repealed its tax.

If we are going to be competitive in the North American market, we should be working in harmony with the U.S. on environmental policies, not saddling ourselves with yet another barrier to our economic well-being. This is not what is happening today.

The U.S. has no such plan and has lowered its taxes for businesses, and their total emissions have fallen. In Canada, the Liberal government is forging ahead with its ill-conceived tax increases, while emissions are continuing to rise.

This leads me to the next point, which speaks to making life more expensive for Canadians.

The shell game the Liberal government is playing with carbon tax dollars and refunds is simply not logical. For starters, the plan itself is certainly not revenue neutral. Those numbers have been widely discredited as well. However, that is just part of the story.

Canadian farmers will be especially hard hit with this plan. Statistics Canada estimates that the average costs per farm will be in the tens of thousands of dollars as the tax goes from $10 to $50 per tonne. The worst part is that farmers do not have the chance to pass those costs on to their customers.

The second part of the motion before us asks all Canadians to look ahead. We need to look ahead to a brighter future, a future without the Liberal government's carbon tax grab. We need to look ahead to a future with a real plan for the environment, one based on Canadian know-how and Canadian expertise.

We are already moving in the right direction. Look at the dairy sector as one case in point. Today in Canada it takes 65% fewer dairy cows to produce the same volume of milk as it did 50 years ago. Improvements to cow comfort and feed efficiency have also helped to make our dairy industry more sustainable.

By embracing innovation and new ideas, furthering research and infusing old wisdom into modern practices, Canada's agricultural sector is continually reducing its environmental impact, while looking for ways to improve its practices on a national scale.

There is a lot of work to do to set the record straight about the cattle industry and about farming in general. We have all heard the story that cattle farming is a major source of greenhouse gases. However, at the Alberta Beef Conference in my home town of Red Deer, we heard from experts such as Dr. Frank Mitloehner who debunked this myth and noted that new processes, new efficiencies and proper management meant that beef cattle methane emissions were effectively zero.

On this and many other issues, it is our challenge to ensure that Canadians have science-based information and science-based facts about cattle farming and about farming in general.

We need to continue to use our Canadian expertise to ensure that all our products get to the global market in the safest and most environmentally responsible way possible. We need a government that will enable industry to do more to help the environment, not a government that will hobble businesses and burden Canadians with huge tax increases.

Canadians have so many things of which to be proud. We are proud of our amazing Olympic athletes, our talented artists and the NBA trophy coming home to basketball's birthplace. These are a few highlights, but there are so many others.

We can be proud of Canada's world-class oil and gas industry, which is the best regulated and the most environmentally friendly in the world. Canadians can be proud of our dynamic forestry industry, which has state-of-the-art rejuvenation projects. How about our farmers and our ranchers? Canadian agriculture produces the safest, most environmentally-friendly products in the world. However, even in this case, vested interests are doing their very best to knock us down.

However, a true environmental plan will do the opposite. It will build us up and it will enhance our efforts to protect and preserve the environment.

Let us look at this as far as the Liberal track record is concerned.

In 2016, Canada was 44 megatons of CO2 over its Paris target. In 2017, that number rose to 66. Last year, it was 103 megatons. The Liberal approach just is not getting the results as advertised.

The same is true for the Liberals' arguments about social license. Three pipeline projects, northern gateway, the west to east pipeline and Kinder Morgan, all to be built by the private sector, never got a fair hearing from the Liberal government. We all paid the bill, but got nothing in return.

However, enough about the failures of the Liberal government.

When we talk about an environmental plan, the Conservatives want to talk about things that matter, things like the amazing carbon sequestration projects that have been developed, whether it be in coal technology, oil and gas development or natural gas processing. These are major breakthroughs that Canada's business leaders and their research teams are gearing up to export around the world. Would members not say that championing our expertise on the world stage is better than wringing our hands and apologizing for the fact that Canada has abundant resources in order to score points with the environmental elites?

Of course we will develop our resources and we will do it in a manner that investors will see as the new global industry environmental standard. It will be our energy that will replace foreign tankers coming to our shores. If we proudly embrace our innovations, it will be our oil demanded by climate-conscious nations around the world.

We will also be championing our other major resource sector, agriculture. As I said before, Canadian beef and dairy producers are the most efficient managers of greenhouse gases in the world. By using technologies developed by amazing Canadian minds, we will not only be helping our soil and producing world-class products, but we will be managing greenhouse emissions in a way well above the global standard.

For the last four years, Canada has had a leader who grandstands around the world and uses every opportunity to apologize for what Canada is and for what we do. Under a Conservative government, we will have a leader who is proud not just to be a Canadian, but also proud to stand up for all of us and to champion our successes.

The incompetence of the Liberal government was plain for all of us to see last week. Just a few nights ago, Canadians witnessed the spectacle of their own government choosing to support the interest of competing oil-producing nations over the interests of Canadians. As many editorials noted, the Liberal government is the only one in the world trying to shut down its own resource sector.

The government ignored the pleas of nine provincial premiers, first nation leaders, territorial governments as well as millions of Canadians by shutting down debate on Bill C-69, the no more pipelines bill. Now, by ignoring further pleas to not move forward with Bill C-48, the Liberal government is creating even more uncertainty in the energy sector. It is a shame when the government's only fallback plan, the TMX pipeline expansion project, is only going forward thanks to billions of taxpayer dollars transferred to pipeline builders in the United States.

With the Liberal government, we know that the whole process is a crass political one, not a responsible financial one. How many hospitals will be built in Canada through our purchase of Saudi oil? How many social programs will be financed from our friends in Nigeria? How many environmental causes and human rights efforts that Canadians hold dear will be jeopardized by the Liberals shutting in the resource expertise of the world's most responsible energy producers?

By following the misguided dogma of the Prime Minister, the Liberals will be following him into the political abyss. The only way to truly protect our environment, to give certainty to job creators and to ensure Canadians' strong social fabric is to make the divisive Liberal leader is a single-use prime minister.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank our hon. colleague from Carleton. As a new father, I know that he considers this a very important debate. I know he takes this matter very seriously.

It is all about a better future for our children. The Minister of Environment has said that lots of times in this House, very loudly and very passionately. We all strive to leave our country better off for those who will come after us. This debate is about the future. It is about ensuring our children have a better future.

It has been interesting over the last three and a half years and indeed over the last couple weeks as we debate Bill C-48, Bill C-68, Bill C-69 and Bill C-88. Again, on the virtue-signalling motion that we had last night, Motion No. 29, everybody wants to know how everybody voted. I was travelling, I landed and all of a sudden the media wanted to know how we voted on it. Motion No. 29 does nothing. It declares that we all agree there is a climate emergency, but there is nothing behind it. There are no critical steps behind it to actually make things better. We have a carbon tax that the Liberal government implemented that does nothing but punish Canadians who live in rural communities.

I want to read something into the record.

“...to constrain the growth of...production by increasing the perception of financial risks by potential investors and by choking off the necessary infrastructure (inputs and outputs)...[the campaign’s original strategy states]. We will accomplish this by raising the visibility of the negatives associated with...[the production]; initiating legal challenges in order to force government and corporate decision-makers to take steps that raise the costs of production and block delivery infrastructure; and by generating support for federal and state legislation that pre-empts future demand for tar sands oil.

It also says this: How are we going to do that? Demarketing, raise the negatives, raise the costs, slow down and stop the infrastructure, enrol key decision-makers, goals, we want to influence debate, a moratorium, strategy, stop or limit pipelines, refineries, significantly reduce future demand for Canadian oil, leverage debate for policy victories in the U.S. and Canada, resources required, first nations and other legal challenges, public mobilization in Ontario and Quebec.

Members would be forgiven if they thought that was the mandate letter for the Minister of Environment. That is exactly what we are up against, the dogma that we hear, that is spread, the language that we hear time and again.

Bill C-68, Bill C-69, Bill C-48, Bill C-88, and Motion No. 29 are all aimed at our natural resources, and somehow Canada produces dirty products and our producers are going the way of just polluting our world.

It is interesting that the carbon tax targets soccer moms and small businesses, but does not go up against the very same polluters of the campaigns, Greenpeace, TIDES, the World Wildlife Fund and all these groups that now have executives or members who are former executives in the highest offices of the Liberal government. It does nothing. It gives those very same polluters a pass.

There is no denying that climate change is real. Humans contribute to the problem. We all must do our part to address the problem, but a carbon tax is not a climate plan. The Prime Minister does not have a climate plan, he has a tax plan.

Time and again it has been said that my province of British Columbia is seen as a success, yet we have had a carbon tax for over 10 years. When it was first introduced, it was supposed to be revenue-neutral, and now it is not. It goes in one hand and stays in the government coffers. It was supposed to lower emissions, and we know that that is not the case.

Over the last two summers, we have had some of the worst wildfires in our province's history. In my riding alone, we have had the worst fire season, the largest mass evacuation in our province's history.

I have stood in this House and asked how high the carbon tax has to be before we start to see those wildfires and natural disasters mitigated and lessened. I cannot seem to get an answer. As a matter of fact, I was laughed at when I asked that question.

The Liberals have pandered to the environmental lobbyists for the last four years. As a matter of fact, what we are seeing today with the legislation and all this virtue signalling they are doing with their hands on their hearts is payback for the 2015 election. Leading into this next election, they want to make sure that they are solidly behind them.

They have had four years to come out with a real plan, and the best they can do is a carbon tax. The Minister of Environment stands up here and shouts loudly so that we will all believe her, yet time and again, she has approved the dumping of millions of litres of raw sewage into our waterways.

A great Senate amendment came forward regarding third-party habitat banking, and I will go back to Bill C-68, where we talked about that. Where there is displacement of fish or fish habitat because of a project, it would allow the government to enlist people who are experts to create fish habitat. However, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and his department turned that down, and we heard testimony that they were the only people around the table who did not seem interested in creating fish habitat.

The Liberals like to stand up there, with all their environmental credits and their peeps behind them, saying that what they are doing is for the good of the country. We know that all they are doing is making things less affordable for those of us who live in rural communities.

I do not know if there is a fuel available that can power a logging truck or a freight truck. Our forestry sector has taken a massive hit since the current government has been in power, because we do not have a softwood lumber agreement. I will not put all the forestry downturn on the current government. However, it could have taken some major steps forward in assisting our forestry industry by securing a softwood lumber agreement.

We live in rural areas. Many of our first nations live off-grid. They have to power their communities with diesel. What has the government done to lift any of those first nations off their dependency on diesel and fossil fuels?

What about rural communities? At one point, we were a resource-driven economy. However, we know from the Prime Minister's very first speech that, under his government, our country has become known more for our resourcefulness than our natural resources. I guess that was a promise he has kept, because we have seen the government attack our natural resources sector time and again.

As we speak, there are forestry families who are receiving more layoff notices in my riding and in my home province of British Columbia. They do not have other projects or other opportunities to go to. What will they do? What is it that our Minister of Environment said? There is $500 million worth of opportunity. Where is it? It is not in our rural communities. In some of our northern climates, we cannot plug any of our school buses in. We cannot plug logging trucks or freight trucks in. We need them to get our goods to market.

Everything this carbon tax does makes the way of life in rural communities more expensive. This is not an environmental plan. It is a revenue plan, and it is on the backs of rural communities and rural Canadians. That is shameful.

Natural Resources

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, businesses, municipalities and indigenous communities say the Liberals' anti-pipeline, anti-rail, anti-hydro, anti-business bill, Bill C-69, would hurt all of Canada.

Canadian Manufacturers & Exporters said it will make it “in some cases, impossible...[for]...nationally significant natural resource development”. The Canadian Chamber of Commerce said “the impacts will be severe across Canada”. Nine provinces and all territories want major changes to Bill C-69. Quebec calls it a “veto” over economic development.

Will the Liberals stop Bill C-69?

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister dismissed six premiers' calls for changes to Bill C-69 as partisan, but he also rejected requests from the Liberal premiers of Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador for offshore oil and gas. The Liberals have already killed over $100 billion in major projects, and the Bank of Canada predicts no new energy investment after 2019.

The Liberals' shipping ban bill, Bill C-48, blocks the west coast. Their poison pill in Bill C-86 would allow the same thing on every other coast. Bill C-69 would harm the whole country.

Will the Liberals kill these anti-energy bills before it is too late?

[Richard Martel, Conservative, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, under Bill C-69, all natural resource development in this country will grind to a halt. Even Quebec opposes this legislation. The Quebec environment minister has said the bill “perpetuates the duplication of environmental procedures” and “expands federal government control”.

Bill C-69 will put the brakes on electricity exports, which are an essential opportunity for Quebec's economy.

Why are the Liberals undermining Quebec's economic development?

The Environment

[Catherine McKenna, Liberal, Minister of Environment and Climate Change]

Mr. Speaker, we do not believe in symbolism; we believe in action.

That is why we have phased out coal and we are ensuring a just transition for communities. That is why we are making historic investments in public transportation, so people can get around faster, greener, cheaper. That is why we are investing in innovation and companies across the country that are providing the solutions we need and the world desperately needs. That is why we brought in Bill C-69, better rules to protect the environment.

Unfortunately, we have a Conservative Party that does not believe that we need to protect the environment, that we need to—

Natural Resources

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, last summer, the Liberals defended funding anti-oil and gas groups because of “free speech” while they shut down church-run summer camps because of their “values” test. The Liberals showed their values this year, once again using taxpayer dollars to fund groups that want to block the Trans Mountain expansion and shut down Canadian oil and gas.

The list includes Tides Canada running a decade-long, foreign-funded smear campaign against the oil sands; the Pembina Institute working with American groups to “landlock” Canadian oil; the Dogwood Initiative campaigning against politicians who support Canadian oil and gas, specifically against the Trans Mountain expansion; the Sierra Club running a campaign right now against the Senate amendments to Bill C-69 that indigenous communities and nine provinces and all territories want; and the West Coast Environmental Law Association that took foreign money to push the oil shipping ban in 2015 that led to Bill C-48 and has already promised new legal challenges to the Trans Mountain expansion.

MPs review and approve the funding. It is all in Liberal and NDP ridings. When it comes to Liberals' claims to support oil and gas workers, the Prime Minister is not as advertised.

Alberta

[Matt Jeneroux, Conservative, Edmonton Riverbend, AB]

Mr. Speaker, two years ago, the Prime Minister forgot to mention Alberta in his Canada 150 speech. We were of course offended but did not think it was more than an innocent omission. However, the Prime Minister's actions have lived up to this omission, as it appears he wishes he could forget Alberta altogether.

His policies, like Bill C-69 and Bill C-48, are deliberate attempts to destroy our energy sector. Bill C-69 would impose onerous new regulations around pipeline construction. Bill C-48 would ban tankers from parts of B.C.'s coast. As a result of these bills, thousands of hard-working Canadians will continue to lose jobs in our province. The government also wants to impose a new carbon tax on Alberta on January 1. Talk about kicking us while we are down.

Approving the Trans Mountain expansion project is not enough. The Liberals must put forward a concrete plan to get the project built and tell Canadians when construction will start in Burnaby.

A Conservative government will stand up for Alberta, as a strong Alberta is a strong Canada.

Opposition Motion—The Environment

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I thought all along that the member for Winnipeg North just liked to debate so he could hear himself. However, I digress.

I am pleased to speak today to the Conservative Party of Canada's opposition motion on the topic of climate change and the environment. I will be sharing my time with the member for Perth—Wellington.

I want to say that only the Liberal government could talk about the environment for four years, break its promise to meet the Paris accord on climate change and end up taxing Canadians to cover up its incompetence, overspending and environmental management.

As I get into my presentation, for those who know me and my background, I have always strived to put forward ideas and solutions to the many issues facing my constituency and our nation. While I am not as good as giving one-liners or the pithy comments of social media that seem to attract the most attention, in my own way I have tried to reach out and build consensus to get things done.

Today, I want to apply that attitude to the larger issue of the environment, conservation and climate change. Like many members in the chamber, I represent a constituency that is geographically large. All across Westman, farms and communities dot the prairie landscape, as they have for many generations. Almost half of the people I represent live outside the city of Brandon in the 20-plus municipalities located in the riding.

These are some of the most hard-working, down to earth and determined people we will meet anywhere in this great country of ours. Living in rural Canada has its unique challenges. With those challenges also comes a way of life like none other. Our connection to the land, air and water is strong, because our livelihoods quite literally depend on it.

As someone who farmed for most of my life, I firmly believe that if we take care of the land, it will take care of us. My father raised my brother and me on those words, and I have lived by them. I want to immediately dispel any notion that farmers or rural folks who oppose the carbon tax do not care about the environment. They do care. They care about it immensely. They just have a serious issue about being forced to pay a new tax imposed on provinces that will disproportionately impact rural people.

Let us put ourselves in their boots for a moment. Many families must drive long distances to get to work. Many seniors have to drive into Brandon to go to either the doctor or the optician. Parents have to drive their kids to various towns for sports or choir practice.

Let us never forget students at Brandon University and Assiniboine Community College who still live on the farm or in their rural community and make the daily commute to the city to attend classes. These are not optional things that people can just decide not to do or do less. There are no subways or bus routes for their purposes. Trust me; if people did not have to drive in our blustery winters, they would not.

From the very beginning, I believe the government has mishandled the rollout of the carbon tax.

First and foremost, many Canadians, particularly many of the people I represent, have trepidations about the federal government's priorities at the best of times. Saying the federal government is about to impose a new tax but not to worry because people will not feel the pinch, while at the same time it will combat climate change, is not the best way to get buy-in from those who have skepticism.

Second, when we tried in vain to get the financial data out of the Minister of Finance, it was so heavily blacked out that it was meaningless.

Third, when the Province of Manitoba put forward a plan that would have reduced carbon emissions, the federal government rejected it. Officials were told that no matter how many tonnes of C02 their plan would reduce, it had to include a $50 a tonne carbon tax.

My province tried to work in good faith with the federal government and was told to go pound sand. No wonder it has decided to launch its own court case. If that is the way federalism now works in this country, it is not hard to understand why premiers are concerned about the Liberal government's other initiatives, such as Bill C-48 and Bill C-69.

It also troubles me that, in Canadian politics, the litmus test on one's commitment to the environment is now centred on supporting a $50 a tonne carbon tax. While that may be the case in some circles, I can assure MPs that everyday Canadians do not use this lens when talking with their family and friends. It is not that my Conservative colleagues or people who oppose the carbon tax do not care about the changing climate; it is that we do not believe the carbon tax is the best way of addressing it.

Tomorrow, our leader will outline the vision and present an alternative to what is being imposed by the current federal government. Due to the already challenging political discourse on this issue, I can only imagine the over-the-top language being drafted now in response. I want to urge the Liberals to hold off on issuing their canned response before the speech has even been given. The Liberals have been waiting ever so patiently, so I fully expect that they will be paying close attention. I want the government to recognize that there are more ways to deal with climate change than applying a tax on the fuel that families put in their minivans.

I want the Liberals to recognize that applying a carbon tax on the energy used to drive farmers' grain only adds further cost to the industry that is already facing challenging commodity prices and markets that slam shut. I want them to start listening to farmers who have ideas that can reduce and sequester carbon without applying a new tax. The agricultural industry has made great strides in environmental management that benefit society, virtually by its own innovation at its own cost. There are proven models out there that have had tangible and meaningful results.

I have always been a proponent, as examples, of implementing an alternative land use services program and the expansion of wetland restoration programs. For those who have not listened to the member for Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, I can assure them his message about eating more beef and how it is good for the environment is grounded in empirical science.

Over the years as a farm leader, an MLA and now an MP, I have dealt with many issues that impact our environment. Back home, people do not apply a litmus test to determine our commitment to an issue. We focus on bringing people together to work on solutions. Perhaps one day those values will rub off on all of us in this chamber when we must wade through our differences.

I want to give just one example from which we can learn. Manitoba has been prone to floods for as long as history has been recorded. Being at the bottom of the basin, we have had to deal with spring runoff and localized flooding that has impacted communities for generations. It was a Progressive Conservative premier, Duff Roblin, who implemented a series of public works projects that protected communities in the Assiniboine and Red River basins, and particularly impacted the flooding that would have occurred in the city of Winnipeg in 1997. Since then, there have been significant enhancements to flood protection up and down the Souris, Red and Assiniboine rivers. I want to say that this issue in Manitoba is non-partisan.

Our previous federal Conservative and provincial NDP governments both invested in projects that protected the city of Brandon and the towns of Melita, Reston, Souris, Deloraine, Elkhorn and Wawanesa. We also expanded the Red River Floodway, which was completed under budget.

It was after the most recent flood that many people in the Assiniboine River basin decided that we needed to work together. Under the leadership of Allan Preston and Wanda McFadyen, they spearheaded an initiative that brought the governments of Saskatchewan, Manitoba and North Dakota under one organization, alongside municipalities, farmers and conservation districts. We all live within the same watershed, and we had to stop working in silos.

We know a one-size-fits-all approach to water management does not work, and that is why a one-size-fits-all approach will not work with a carbon tax. That is why it was so frustrating to see how the federal government tossed aside the climate change plan put forward by Manitoba. Without a change in attitude, more and more Canadians will look at the rigid position taken by some in the government and tune out. We also know that climate change is a global problem that requires global solutions. The current approach does not reflect that reality.

I firmly believe that Canada is well positioned to provide these solutions. Tomorrow we will start outlining our alternative to the carbon tax and begin the conversation on what will replace it. I encourage my Liberal colleagues, particularly those who represent rural areas, to join me in supporting this motion. I ask them to please stand up for their constituents, repeal the carbon tax and replace it with a real environmental plan.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, when I think of our environment, virtually from day one, this government has had a developing climate action plan that is healthy for the environment and the economy at the same time. We often talk about Canada's middle class, those aspiring to be a part of it and helping them through different measures. We recognize that we can do both at the same time. We can continue to develop the economy and ensure we have a healthier planet for future generations.

I want to highlight a few thoughts and then provide a little more detail on some of the politics.

When we look at the budgets and legislative measures, it is fairly impressive. We have committed hundreds of millions of dollars through budgetary measures over the last few years, such as over $2.3 billion in funding to support clean technology in one form or another; $21.9 billion in green infrastructure funding, which will support things like electricity infrastructure, renewable energy and so forth; and $2 billion for disaster mitigation and adaptation funding.

Along with these budgetary measures, we have legislative measures, such Bill C-48, the oil tanker ban; Bill C-69, the environmental assessment legislation; our fisheries in Bill C-68.

From day one, this government has been on track to bring forward positive legislation and budgetary measures. This demonstrates very clearly that we understand how important the environment is not only to Canadians but to the world. These types of actions put Canada in a good place with respect to strong international leadership on this very important file. I believe Canadians want us to do this as a government.

We can look at some of the initiatives that government can take, and we hear a great deal about the price on pollution. For years now, the Conservative Party has been a lone voice in the House of Commons. The New Democrats, the Greens and, to the best of my knowledge, the Bloc understand that a price on pollution is the best way to go. It is not only the parties in the chamber, but it is very well received in many provincial and territorial jurisdictions. In fact, the majority of them already had some form of a price on pollution in place.

When we are talking about the national price on pollution, we are talking about areas where there is no plan in place, where there is no price on pollution and the federal government is imposing one. The good new is that 80%-plus of constituents I represent as the member of Parliament for Winnipeg North will be better off financially as a direct result of the price on pollution. However, the Conservatives in their spin and misinformation that they funnel out of their Conservative war room virtually on a daily basis are telling Canadians something that is vastly different from reality and truth. This is not a cash grab.

The Conservatives ask about the GST on fuel at the pumps. I remind them that they put the cascading tax on the pump price. I remind the Conservatives that their Party ignored the environment to the degree that it now demands the type of attention it has been given over the last few years. We just voted last night on the emergency facing our environment. Once again, the Liberals, the Greens, the Bloc and the CCF all voted yes that we did need to take the environment far more seriously. They recognized that it as an emergency. Only the Conservative Party voted against that motion.

The Conservatives say they have a plan. They have been saying that for a long time now. For the last 400-plus days, all they have been doing is criticizing the price on pollution, even though it is widely respected and acknowledged as the best way to deal the reduction of emissions.

However, now Doug Ford has apparently met with the federal Conservative leader and hammered out a plan. Tomorrow, Mr. Ford will share his plan with the rest of Canada. He took Ontario out of the old plan,. Now he will present a national plan, worked on with the federal Conservative Party. I look forward to seeing that plan. A little more transparency on the environment is long overdue when it comes to the Conservative Party of Canada.

It would be nice to compare our plan with the Conservative plan. Our plan talks about hundreds of millions of dollars of investment in clean energy and working with the different stakeholders. I will provide some tangible examples. In the last budget, there was an incentive for individuals to buy electric vehicles. Other provinces, like the beautiful province of Quebec, had a complementary program that would give the residents of Quebec a more substantial discount. Tesla reduced the price on a vehicle in order to get under the threshold. The biggest winner in this is the consumer, followed by the environment.

Governments can make a difference. To get a better appreciation of that, look at what happened in the taxi industry in the province of Manitoba with the Prius car. It was through government action. Government actions can make a difference. We came in with a plan after working with indigenous communities, provincial governments, municipalities, school boards and the private sector in developing ways to reduce emissions in every region of our country.

Through this debate, I have learned that the Conservative Party opposes supporting private sector initiatives with public dollars. That became very clear in the last number of weeks. I am anxious to see how the Conservatives might spin on that dime as they try to convince Canadians they care about the environment. In reality, there has been no indication that is the case.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that was also part of the question from the hon. member for the Green Party across the way, which was how do we have sustainable development in terms of pipelines and getting oil to export markets? That is really the purpose of Bill C-69 and Bill C-48 working together. How do we measure greenhouse gas emissions upstream and downstream, working with indigenous people to make sure we also have the social licence to do what we need to do?

The pipeline we are going to be talking about later this week has 200 conditions against it. This is not a matter of creating a corridor and plowing through with no environmental or social review. We are following the new review processes, which take into account climate change and our impact on the world, hopefully getting our oil to market to take off dirty coal or other emitters that are worse than what we would be providing through our resources in Canada.

Equalization

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of the hundreds of people who have signed this petition and are so frustrated with the government's policy to destroy Canada's energy sector through bills like Bill C-69 and Bill C-48. The petitioners are calling on the government to review the equalization formula, given the punitive policies against the Alberta energy sector. This is a petition that I support. They are also calling on the government to scrap Bill C-69. It is crazy.

The Environment

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member and I are friends. I want to thank him in particular for his advocacy on the reduction of plastic pollution in our environment through his private member's motion, Motion No. 151.

With respect to the decision on the Trans Mountain pipeline, I do not want to prejudge the outcome of the process. I have no information suggesting it is going to go in one direction or the other. We took seriously the advice of the Federal Court, insisting that the environmental assessment be done in the right way, particularly that we consider the potential impacts on the marine environment and do a better job of bringing the voices of indigenous peoples into the process.

We have sought to correct some of the shortcomings that existed with the previous process by implementing a new form of environmental assessment through Bill C-69, which would do a better job on the front end to air out these concerns.

We have to turn our mind to the fact that we live in a country that has traditionally been heavily dependent on the energy sector for its economic growth. As we grow our economy, we have to rely less on traditional sectors that continue to use fossil fuels and move toward clean energy.

I expect the decision will be a reasoned one based on science, facts and evidence. If the member has questions about investments in major energy products, I encourage him to clarify the position of his own leader on the LNG Canada project, which is the largest private sector investment in the history of Canada.

Equalization

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

Mr. Speaker, there is frustration among members of my community who have watched the government present draconian legislation against the energy sector. Members of my community are calling upon the government to immediately scrap Bill C-69, as well as to examine the equalization formula, which petitioners believe has been made untenable and unfair given the Prime Minister's ideological opposition to jobs in our community.

Natural Resources

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change]

Mr. Speaker, with great respect to the hon. member, we know that the mining sector, as an example, is the sector that deals with environmental assessments more than any other industrial sector in the Canadian economy. It supports the process that is outlined in Bill C-69, because it understands that we are putting forward better rules than were put forward under the previous government.

We have better rules that are going to enhance environmental protection. It is going to increase the ability of the public to take part in the projects that affect them. It is going to engage indigenous voices at the same time we bring certainty to industry.

This is not complicated. This is common sense, straightforward proposals that will help improve our ability to get major projects done in the right way.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is ironic that member would answer the question. He is the one from Burnaby who opposes the Trans Mountain expansion.

However, other changes to the Liberals' no more pipelines Bill C-69 would actually have increased the voices of locally impacted indigenous communities in resource reviews, but the Liberals rejected them.

Manufacturers, chambers, economists, provinces and municipalities are outraged too. Quebec warns, “C-69 gives the federal government the equivalent of a veto over Quebec's economic development”. Ontario says that it is the worst possible news at the worst possible time which “hinders natural resource related economic development” in Canada.

Again, will the Liberals kill Bill C-69 before it is too late?

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals must approve the Trans Mountain expansion tomorrow, which they already did before in 2016, except now this time it actually has to get built. The Liberals are blocking all new pipelines with their anti-energy, anti-business Bill C-69, which nine out of 10 provinces and all three territories oppose this.

The Nisga'a, Lax Kw'alaams and hundreds of other indigenous communities are against the Liberals shipping ban, Bill C-48, and they have been against it from day one. Instead of cancelling it, the Liberals are steamrolling opposition and indigenous communities to force it through before summer.

Will the Liberals kill these anti-energy bills before it is too late?

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Hope, BC]

Mr. Speaker, if he wanted to see Ottawa Liberal arrogance, there it was.

Nine provinces have expressed their concern about Bill C-69. Indigenous leaders from across the country have expressed their concerns about Bill C-69. The government has ignored them every step of the way, because the Liberals believe when it comes to energy, they are the only ones who know anything.

How can the government come off saying that it knows best when it has been the worst government in Canadian history when it comes to Canadian energy workers?

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Hope, BC]

Mr. Speaker, when six premiers expressed their serious concerns about the Liberals ramming the anti-energy Bill C-69 through the House, the Prime Minister attacked them and accused them of threatening national unity. When respected economist Dr. Jack Mintz raised concerns with the damaging impact of the Liberals' energy policies, the Minister of Natural Resources attacked him and accused him of undermining Canada.

Why is it that whenever legitimate concerns about the energy sector are raised with the Liberals, their response is always “shut your mouth, Ottawa knows best”?

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Trans Mountain project is essential to the economy of all Canadians, and above all, it is good for all of Canada. Unfortunately, since announcing the project a year ago, the Liberals have not done a single thing. Not a shovel has hit the ground. All they have done is take $4.5 billion of taxpayers' money and send it to Houston. They have also passed two bills, Bill C-48 and Bill C-69, that fly in the face of the principle of sound energy development.

Could the Liberals finally do what is right for Canadians by approving this project tomorrow and, most importantly, by announcing when Trans Mountain will be built?

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Mr. Speaker, four major pipelines were built under the Conservatives' watch, with not one dollar of taxpayers' money used.

Over the last four years, though, the Prime Minister has done everything in his power to destroy jobs in Canada's energy sectors. He is forcing through devastating bills, like Bill C-48 and the no-more-pipelines bill, Bill C-69. Right now, he is playing political games with the TMX pipeline.

Will the Prime Minister finally be honest with our energy workers and admit he has no intention for construction to start in Burnaby?

Oil Tanker Moratorium Act

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to respond to the government's motion on the Senate amendments to Bill C-48. While I do appreciate the opportunity to speak to the motion, what I do not appreciate, what millions of other Canadians do not appreciate, is that we have to respond to the bill at all.

I want to recap what the bill would do.

First, this legislation was created as a result of a directive in the Prime Minister's mandate letter to the Minister of Transport dated November 2015.

If passed, this legislation would enact an oil tanker moratorium on B.C.'s northwest coast. The proposed moratorium would be in effect from the Canada-U.S. Alaska border to the northern tip of Vancouver Island.

The legislation would prohibit oil tankers carrying crude and persistent oil as cargo from stopping, loading and unloading at ports or marine installations in the moratorium area. Vessels carrying less than 12,500 metric tons of crude oil would be exempted from the moratorium.

I would suggest that this bill is an open, sneering attack on our oil and gas sector, an anti-pipeline bill poorly masquerading as an environment bill.

Environmental legislation is supposed to be based on science. Bill C-48 is not. It is not science but rather politics and ideology that inform this legislation; Liberal ideology that is as damaging to national unity as it is cynical.

Afer reviewing the bill, which included travelling across the country to hear from witnesses from coast to coast, the Senate transport committee recommended that it not proceed. While the Senate as a whole rescued Bill C-48, the Prime Minister should have taken the hint and withdrawn this anti-energy legislation.

Six premiers, including Premier Scott Moe from my province of Saskatchewan, wrote an open letter to the Prime Minister outlining their legitimate concerns about the anti-oil, anti-energy legislation pushed by the Liberal government here in Ottawa, in particular, Bill C-69 and Bill C-48.

The premiers explained the damage that these two pieces of legislation would do to the economy, but more importantly, they warned of the damage this legislation has done and will continue to do to our national unity.

This was not a threat. This was not spiteful. These six premiers were pointing to a real and growing sense of alienation, alienation on a scale not seen since the Prime Minister's father was in office.

Rather than listening to their concerns, the Prime Minister lashed out at the premiers, calling them irresponsible and accusing them of threatening our national unity if they did not get their way.

The premiers are not threatening our national unity. It is in fact the Prime Minister's radical, anti-science, anti-energy agenda that is; but he is refusing to listen.

Since the Prime Minister is refusing to heed these warnings on Bill C-48 and Bill C-69, I am going to take this opportunity to read them into the record now:

Dear Prime Minister,

We are writing on behalf of the Governments of Ontario, New Brunswick, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta and the Northwest Territories. Collectively, our five provinces and territory represent 59 per cent of the Canadian population and 63 per cent of Canada's GDP. We are central to Canada's economy and prosperity, and it is of the utmost importance that you consider our concerns with bills C-69 and C-48.

Canadians across the country are unified in their concern about the economic impacts of the legislation such as it was proposed by the House of Commons. In this form, the damage it would do to the economy, jobs and investment will echo from one coast to the other. Provincial and territorial jurisdiction must be respected. Provinces and territories have clear and sole jurisdiction over the development of their non-renewable natural resources, forestry resources, and the generation and production of electricity. Bill C-69 upsets the balance struck by the constitutional division of powers by ignoring the exclusive provincial powers over projects relating to these resources. The federal government must recognize the exclusive role provinces and territories have over the management of our non-renewable natural resource development or risk creating a Constitutional crisis.

Bill C-69, as originally drafted, would make it virtually impossible to develop critical infrastructure, depriving Canada of much needed investment. According to the C.D. Howe Institute, between 2017 and 2018, the planned investment value of major resource sector projects in Canada plunged by $100 billion – an amount equivalent to 4.5 per cent of Canada’s gross domestic product. To protect Canada’s economic future, we, collectively, cannot afford to overlook the uncertainty and risk to future investment created by Bill C-69.

Our five provinces and territory stand united and strongly urge the government to accept Bill C69 as amended by the Senate, in order to minimize the damage to the Canadian economy. We would encourage the Government of Canada and all members of the House of Commons to accept the full slate of amendments to the bill. The Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment, and Natural Resources heard 38 days of testimony from 277 witnesses including indigenous communities, industry, Premiers, and independent experts. Based on that comprehensive testimony, the committee recommended significant amendments to the bill, which were accepted by the Senate as a whole. We urge you to respect that process, the committee’s expertise, and the Senate’s vote.

If the Senate’s amendments are not respected, the bill should be rejected, as it will present insurmountable roadblocks for major infrastructure projects across the country and will further jeopardize jobs, growth and investor confidence.

Similarly, Bill C-48 threatens investor confidence, and the tanker moratorium discriminates against western Canadian crude products. We were very disappointed that the Senate did not accept the recommendation to the Senate Committee on Transport and Communications that the bill not be reported. We would urge the government to stop pressing for the passage of this bill which will have detrimental effects on national unity and for the Canadian economy as a whole.

Our governments are deeply concerned with the federal government’s disregard, so far, of the concerns raised by our provinces and territory related to these bills. As it stands, the federal government appears indifferent to the economic hardships faced by provinces and territories. Immediate action to refine or eliminate these bills is needed to avoid further alienating provinces and territories and their citizens and focus on uniting the country in support of Canada’s economic prosperity.

Perhaps having heard the letter read aloud, the Prime Minister will acknowledge that it contains no threats, but rather it is an appeal from leaders who have listened to their constituents. The Prime Minister needs to understand that simply saying things louder is not going to make them go away. Shouting will not put food in the stomachs of the laid-off construction workers' children. Chanting talking points will not pay the gas bill in the middle of winter.

If this were the only piece of legislation that the government had introduced, one might argue that this is an overreaction, but it is not just one piece of legislation, it is a targeted, cynical, ongoing political attack of our resource sector. The Prime Minister has filled his cabinet with vocal opponents of the oil sands. In 2012, the now Minister of Democratic Institutions posted a tweet that read: “It's time to landlock Alberta's tar sands - call on BC Premier @christyclarkbc to reject the #Enbridge pipeline now!”

Then there is the President of the Treasury Board who said publicly that the approval of the Trans Mountain extension was deeply disappointing and who celebrated when the Prime Minister killed the northern gateway pipeline project. Here I should pause and point out the ridiculous theatrics surrounding the TMX project.

In 2016, the government approved TMX, yet tomorrow, we are told, the government will decide on whether to approve the project all over again. It is like we are in a terrible remake of Groundhog Day. Meanwhile, not an inch of pipeline has been built since the government nationalized Trans Mountain.

However, it is not only the cabinet that the Prime Minister has filled with anti-oil activists, but senior staff positions as well. Here I quote an article from the March 14 edition of the Financial Post:

Prior to ascending to the most powerful post in the Prime Minister’s Office, from 2008 to 2012 Gerald Butts was president and CEO of World Wildlife Fund Canada...an important Tides campaign partner. Butts would use his new powerful position to bring other former campaigners with him: Marlo Reynolds, chief of staff to the Environment Minister...is past executive director of the Tides-backed Pembina Institute. Zoë Caron, chief of staff to Natural Resource Minister...is also a former WWF Canada official. Sarah Goodman, on the prime minister’s staff, is a former vice-president of Tides Canada. With these anti-oil activists at the epicentre of federal power, it’s no wonder the oil industry, and hundreds of thousands of workers, have plummeted into political and policy purgatory.

Why should we be surprised? The Prime Minister is no friend of the oil sands. The Prime Minister stated that he wants to phase out the oil sands and during the election loudly proclaimed that, “If I am elected Prime Minister, the Northern Gateway Pipeline won't become a reality”.

The Prime Minister has spent his time in office attempting to do just that and he has been willing to trample on not only the rights of the provinces, but the rights of aboriginal peoples as well to get his way. When the Prime Minister used an order in council to cancel the northern gateway pipeline, he stole the future of 30 first nations that would have benefited enormously from it. This very bill is facing a lawsuit from Laxkw'alaams Indian band for unjustly infringing on their rights and titles.

Bill C-48 will prevent the proposed first nations-owned and -operated eagle spirit pipeline project from being built as the proposed route to tidewater ends within the area wherein this bill bans tanker traffic. It was done without any consultation with first nations communities. Again, this should come as no surprise.

Just last week I spoke against another anti-energy bill, Bill C-88. As I said then, C-88 makes a mockery of the government's claim to seriously consult with indigenous and Inuit peoples. Without any consultation with Inuit peoples or the territorial governments, the Prime Minister unilaterally announced a five-year ban on offshore oil and gas development. Not only did the Prime Minister refuse to consult the premiers of the territories, he gave some of them less than an hour's notice that he would be making that announcement.

Does that sound like a Prime Minister who wants to listen, consult and work with aboriginal Canadians? Does it reflect the Prime Minister's declaration that his government's relationship with indigenous peoples is their most important relationship or does it sound like a Prime Minister who says what he believes people want to hear and then does the exact opposite by imposing his own will on them? If he had consulted, this is what he would have heard:

Minister Wally Schumann of the Northwest Territories, on how they found out about the ban and the impact it will have on our north, stated:

When it first came out, we never got very much notice on the whole issue of the moratorium and the potential that was in the Beaufort Sea. There were millions and millions, if not billions, of dollars in bid deposits and land leases up there. That took away any hope we had of developing the Beaufort Sea.

Councillor Jackie Jacobson of Tuktoyaktuk said:

It’s so easy to sit down here and make judgments on people and lives that are 3,500 klicks away, and make decisions on our behalf, especially with that moratorium on the Beaufort. That should be taken away, lifted, please and thank you. That is going to open up and give jobs to our people – training and all the stuff we’re wishing for.

Then premier of Nunavut, Peter Taptuna stated, “ We do want to be getting to a state where we can make our own determination of our priorities, and the way to do that is gain meaningful revenue from resource development.”

Mr. Speaker, I note that you are indicating that my time is up. I assume that I will be able to continue at another time.

[Terry Beech, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, on what is likely the last sitting week of the 42nd Parliament, I appreciate the opportunity to outline both the necessity and benefits of Bill C-48, otherwise known as the oil tanker moratorium act. Let me begin by reminding members that Bill C-48 is the fulfillment of an election promise made in 2015. It was later included in both the minister's mandate letter and the Speech from the Throne.

Bill C-48 would provide an unprecedented level of environmental protection for the northern coast of British Columbia and the adjoining Great Bear Rainforest, one of the most pristine and unspoiled places left in Canada, and indeed the world. The Great Bear Rainforest represents approximately one-quarter of the world's remaining temperate rainforest. It is an extraordinarily rich and productive ecosystem that is often described as one of the lungs of the world because of its high oxygen production. The forest is largely intact due to special measures taken by both the federal and provincial governments over many years and by the relentless efforts of local people, including indigenous communities, to protect this extremely valuable ecosystem.

Bill C-48 would be complementary to these efforts, as well as the long-standing and well-respected voluntary tanker exclusion zone agreement between Canada and the United States that keeps Alaskan tankers like the Exxon Valdez far from our coast. Bill C-48 would effectively formalize into legislation a long-standing federal policy dating back to at least the 1970s not to allow large tanker traffic off of the northern coast of British Columbia. In fact, on my first trip to Haidi Gwaii, as the parliamentary secretary to the minister of fisheries and oceans at the time, I procured three posters that were used as fundraisers to campaign for this initial tanker ban in the 1970s, one of which is hanging in my constituency office in Burnaby.

Speaking to local residents, they are concerned about their environment and their way of life. A 2012 study reviewing offshore oil and gas development in British Columbia estimates the total annual benefits of marine-dependent activities in the traditional territories of coastal first nations at more than $30 billion. Unlike other regions in Canada, this policy legacy ensures that there is no existing tanker traffic near this coast. This means that formalizing the moratorium will not disrupt any current jobs or economic activity in the region. In fact, it would help protect existing industries, including fisheries, aquaculture and ecotourism.

Bill C-48 would continue to allow for the shipment of non-persistent oils. What this means is that communities along the north coast of British Columbia would continue to be open to economic development opportunities, including the recently announced $40-billion infrastructure project in Kitimat, B.C. Bill C-48 would not affect the estimated 10,000 jobs that are attached to that particular project. Very importantly, Bill C-48 would help to preserve the cultural and spiritual way of life of coastal first nations. As such, it is part of the Government of Canada's larger commitment to reconciliation with indigenous peoples. As we know, this is something that our government and our Prime Minister consider to be of the highest priority.

Members will recall that Bill C-48 was debated and studied in the House in 2017 and 2018. It was ultimately passed by the elected members of the House of Commons in May 2018, by a vote of 204 to 85. With the support of the Liberal Party of Canada, the NDP, the Green Party and the Groupe parlementaire du Parti québécois, only the Conservatives voted against it.

I would like to take a moment to thank the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley, whose riding largely overlaps with the proposed moratorium zone and who has been a long-time advocate of formalizing the tanker ban into legislation. Along with our colleague from Vancouver Quadra, he has introduced private member's bills in previous Parliaments proposing a tanker ban, albeit through a different mechanism. He has been working with our government to secure support for this important bill in the other place, and his co-operation is greatly appreciated.

This bill was referred to the other place on May 9, 2018, and has been studied and debated there until just last week, more than a year before it was passed with an amendment and sent back to this chamber. I am grateful for the work undertaken in the other chamber, particularly during report stage and third reading. If colleagues have not had an opportunity to read or listen to some of these debates, I would encourage them to do so. They will be impressed by the high level and seriousness of the debate. Those debates ultimately led to the amendment that is before us today.

The Senate is proposing to modify Bill C-48 in a number of ways, most substantively by requiring a two-stage review. First would be a regional assessment that would be led by the Minister of Environment under authorities that would be established once Bill C-69 came into force.

The Minister of Environment would be required to invite the provincial governments of British Columbia, Alberta and Saskatchewan, as well as indigenous communities in the moratorium area, to enter into an agreement or arrangement respecting the joint establishment of a committee to conduct the regional assessment and the manner in which the assessment is to be carried out. This body would then have up to four years after coming into force to complete the report.

This would then feed into the second stage, a parliamentary review, which would take place five years after coming into force, and which would consider evidence gathered by the regional assessment and conduct further study and hearings before presenting its report to Parliament.

Let me begin by first stating we acknowledge that this is a thoughtful, creative and substantive amendment. We also recognize that the Senate's amendment, including the regional assessment component, is a well-intentioned and honourable attempt to find a compromise between supporters and opponents of the moratorium, as well as an attempt to depoliticize what has turned into a very contentious debate on this bill by requiring a more technical, evidence-based study.

In terms of the government's response, we support the Senate's call for a parliamentary review of Bill C-48 after five years. During report stage debate in the other place, Senator Sinclair remarked:

I too have concerns about the bill because it does constitute what appears to be an absolute ban on tanker traffic in an area, for good reason that might be applicable today, but I’m not so sure it will be applicable in the future.

He went on to state:

When it comes to how we can improve the bill, one of the options I want to talk to the chamber about is whether we might consider allowing for communities to change their minds at some point in the future and if they all agree that the ban should be lifted, then we would allow the bill to say so.

A parliamentary review after five years would allow such a conversation to take place. Committees could look at scientific evidence and new developments, hold meetings outside of Ottawa and provide an opportunity for all interested indigenous communities, provinces and other stakeholders to express their views.

However, for a number of reasons, we respectfully disagree with the Senate's recommendation to undertake a regional assessment. First, we feel this is unnecessary, given the requirement for a parliamentary review, as I just discussed. Secondly, there is consultation fatigue, particularly among communities living in northern B.C. and with coastal first nations, after many years of reviews and studies.

A non-comprehensive list of these reviews include the Senate transport committee study of Bill C-48 in 2019, Transport Canada consultations with communities and stakeholders held in 2016 and 2017 prior to the introduction of Bill C-48, the Canadian environmental assessment and National Energy Board review panel of Enbridge's northern gateway pipeline proposal held between 2010 and 2012, the Natural Resources Canada “Public Review Panel on the Government of Canada Moratorium on Offshore Oil and Gas Activities in the Queen Charlotte Region British Columbia” in 2004, the B.C. scientific review of offshore oil and gas moratorium in 2002, the joint Canada-B.C. “West Coast Offshore Exploration Environmental Assessment Panel” in 1986, the federal West Coast Oil Ports Inquiry in 1977 and last, but not least, the House of Commons special committee on environmental pollution in 1970-1971. I was almost tired going through the whole list, never mind the actual reports themselves.

It is important to note that many of the reviews I mentioned were led by regulators and bureaucrats, not politicians. They looked in detail at scientific evidence in a more technical way than parliamentary committees typically do. However, none of them led to a resolution of the fundamental political disagreements over this issue. At the end of the day, many of the scientific questions about whether or not it is safe or advisable to move crude oil in tankers off this particular coast are endlessly debatable. There is no reason to believe that yet another lengthy and expensive study would bridge these differences of opinion, especially one starting so soon after the coming into force of Bill C-48.

To be clear, the amendment proposes to start yet another review only 180 days after Bill C-48 comes into force. At some point, a decision needs to be taken based on the best evidence available and using the best judgment of parliamentarians about what is fair and reasonable, taking into account the wider Government of Canada approach on energy and the environment and on reconciliation with first nations.

Furthermore, there is, in our view, a need for a cooling-off period and a break to allow passions to settle and to take a breath. Coastal first nations have been fighting for a bill like this for almost 50 years. They deserve a break and some peace of mind.

Finally, the proposed approach would result in a lack of clarity over whether the authority provided to the Minister of Environment in Bill C-48 would be inconsistent or in conflict with the authority provided to the Minister of Environment in Bill C-69.

For all of these reasons, the government is proposing to accept the Senate amendment but in a modified form. We accept the adding of a parliamentary review in five years would come into force, but respectfully disagree with the requirement to hold a regional assessment. We feel this is a fair compromise with our colleagues in the other place and will allow them to achieve much, if not all, of what they intended, namely an opportunity to re-evaluate the law after a number of years.

Turning back to the bill itself, much of the debate on Bill C-48 so far has revolved around the question of why legislation is being proposed that effectively bans oil tankers from operating off the coast of northern British Columbia and not elsewhere in the country. Critics of the bill contend that this is arbitrary and unjustified, but I would argue that nothing could be further from the truth.

As the Minister of Transport explained when he appeared before the Senate transport committee, there are a number of factors that, when combined together, account for the uniqueness of the situation in northern British Columbia and the need for special measures to protect it.

The most obvious unique attribute of British Columbia's pristine north coast is the ecological significance of the area. The coastline runs along one of the last temperate rainforests left in the world and, even more rare, one of the very few to remain largely intact. These kinds of forests are unusually productive and support an extraordinarily rich web of biodiversity. The interface between the marine, coastal and terrestrial environments in this part of B.C. is seamless.

The Senate transport committee heard from experts who testified both to the unusually pristine nature of this ecosystem and to its vulnerability to the effects of a major oil spill. Canada has a kind of jewel in the Great Bear Rainforest which needs to be treasured and preserved for future generations. This is a responsibility we owe not only to ourselves but to the world. The precautionary principle, a principle I debated often within my previous role in fisheries and oceans, is fully justified in this case.

A second distinguishing factor is the long-standing policy legacy, at both the federal and provincial levels, of extending special protections to this part of the country. In essence, Bill C-48 would simply formalize an already well-established policy of barring oil tankers from this coast. As such, it would not be disruptive to any existing industries or employment, very much unlike the case if we were to propose such a moratorium off the coast of Newfoundland or Nova Scotia, or for the St. Lawrence for example.

A third factor that differentiates the northern coast of British Columbia is its shear size and remoteness and the navigational hazards of operating in these waters.

Environment Canada classifies the Hecate Strait as the fourth most dangerous body of water in the world for shipping. Winds of 100 kilometres per hour and waves between eight and 10 metres are not uncommon in both the Hecate Strait and the Dixon Entrance. These combine to make spill response more challenging than in more populated, built-up areas like the south coast, the St. Lawrence or the east coast. Although our government is dramatically boosting our capacity to respond to accidents through our $1.5 billion oceans protection plan, resources cannot be unlimited. It will continue to be the case that northern B.C. will present special challenges, particularly during bad weather which is common on these seas.

Last, Bill C-48 is responding to a more than 40-year campaign by local people, and especially indigenous communities, who live along the coast to formalize the moratorium banning oil tankers. While it is true that opinion among indigenous communities is not universal, a clear majority of these communities that are situated in the proposed moratorium area want to pass this law. Most important, the communities that would be most vulnerable to the impacts of an oil spill, such as the Haida and the Heiltsuk, have campaigned persistently for this bill. As such, it is part of our government's larger commitment to reconciliation with the first nations.

While I am sympathetic to the voices of indigenous groups further inland, which might like to participate in the economic benefits of a future, yet highly notional, pipeline that would go to the northern coast of B.C., I cannot disregard what a major oil spill would mean economically, culturally and spiritually to those who would bear the brunt of its effects. They deserve the peace of mind that Bill C-48 would bring them.

I note as well that coastal first nations have been joined by their neighbours in communities such as the city of Prince Rupert, the village of Queen Charlotte, the district of Kitimat, the city of Terrace, the town of Smithers, and the Skeena-Queen Charlotte regional district, which have all passed resolutions or written letters in support of the moratorium. There is also support by the Province of British Columbia.

In the short time that I have been in the House, I have had the opportunity to work on the government's $1.5 billion oceans protection plan, revisions to the Oceans Act in Bill C-55, restoring protections and introducing modern safeguards to the Fisheries Act via Bill C-68 and working to restore our whale population with our $167 million action plan.

We have expanded our marine protected areas from less than 1% under the previous government to over 8%. At the same time, we have reduced unemployment to historic lows, lifted 825,000 Canadians from poverty and Canadians have created more than a million new jobs.

It is the responsibility of any government to work hard to protect and restore the environment while growing the economy and creating more opportunities for Canadians. To do this successfully, we must balance competing demands and constraints, and I believe Bill C-48 would help us accomplish this balance.

I would like to quote a colleague from the other place, Senator Harder, who recently remarked:

...I hope that, one day, the people of the coast will tell the story of when their grandparents came to Ottawa to pass Bill C-48. I hope [we]...tell the story of how Canadians worked together to save the environment at this testing time.

It is time this bill was passed. I hope our colleagues in the other place will join our government in at long last making this a reality.

Bill C-83—Time Allocation Motion

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to pose a couple of questions to the minister on this time allocation motion.

He has stated numerous times in the last few minutes of debate that there will be another five hours of debate.

I would like to ask the minister this. Has he confirmed with his government House leader that there will be no closure declared on that debate, similar to what the government did on Bill C-69 last week? It closed off debate on that. It closed off discussion on Bill C-69 at the committee stage when there were hundreds of amendments, hundreds even from their own Liberal Party on their own poorly drafted bill. The government closed off debate. It does it time and time again, because it simply does not want to hear the truth.

Will the minister confirm again that there will be no closure and there will be five hours of debate on this bill?

Transport, Infrastructure and Communities

[Matt Jeneroux, Conservative, Edmonton Riverbend, AB]

Mr. Speaker, Conservative members of the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities support the committee's report which was just tabled, as transportation corridors are integral to the safe and efficient flow of goods in and out of Canada. However, we felt it necessary to supply a complementary report as the main report does not include three important recommendations that we heard loud and clear.

Those recommendations are the following: that the government of Canada eliminate the federal carbon tax and work co-operatively with individual provinces on the carbon reduction plan; that the Government of Canada withdraw Bill C-69, because it will create delays and uncertainty for proponents of projects related to transportation corridors; and that the Government of Canada withdraw Bill C-48, because it will have a negative impact on Canada's reputation and is not based in science or navigation practices.

During our brief study, we heard testimony by witnesses from Quebec and the Maritimes on the negative impact these Liberal policies would have on Canada's transportation corridors.

I encourage the Minister of Transport and the Minister of Environment and Climate Change to read our supplementary report, but if they do not have time for that, I hope they will simply adopt our recommendations. We believe that doing this will greatly support Canada's transportation system and our vitally important trade corridors.

Natural Resources

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals have put hundreds of thousands of Albertans out of work, with brutal consequences: rising bankruptcies, family breakdowns, substance abuse, crime, suicides and a loss of hope and dreams. That hurts all of Canada.

The Liberals are ramming through laws to block oil exports and kill resource projects, and will make everything more expensive with their carbon tax. After only one hour of debate on hundreds of amendments, the Liberals forced through their no more pipelines bill, Bill C-69, even though nine provinces and all territories want major changes.

Why are the Liberals so relentless in their attacks on Albertans?

[Amarjeet Sohi, Liberal, Minister of Natural Resources]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-69 puts in better rules that allow good projects to move forward in a way that respects the environment and allows Canadians to participate in the process.

We are fixing a system that led to a number of large projects failing and being challenged in Federal Court because Stephen Harper brought in changes in 2012 that gutted environmental protections and restricted the ability of Canadians to participate in a regular process.

We firmly believe that Bill C-69 would allow—

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

Mr. Speaker, Alberta has been shown nothing but disdain from the Liberal government for the last three and a half years. The Liberals continue their assault on the energy sector. Last night they shut down debate on Bill C-69, which has devastated many of my constituents.

People have lost their businesses, their jobs and their homes. They have lost hope. Some have even taken their own lives.

When everyone is telling the environment minister that her plan is a disaster, she chooses to ignore this advice. Everyone has been repeating it so long and saying it so loud. Why will she not listen?