moved:
Motion No. 149
That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 129.
Motion No. 150
That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 130.
Motion No. 151
That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 131.
Motion No. 152
That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 132.
Motion No. 153
That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 133.
Motion No. 154
That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 134.
Motion No. 155
That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 135.
Motion No. 156
That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 136.
Motion No. 157
That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 137.
Motion No. 158
That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 138.
Motion No. 159
That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 139.
Motion No. 160
That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 140.
Motion No. 161
That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 141.
Motion No. 162
That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 142.
Motion No. 163
That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 143.
Motion No. 164
That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 144.
Motion No. 165
That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 145.
Motion No. 166
That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 146.
Motion No. 167
That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 147.
Motion No. 168
That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 148.
Motion No. 169
That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 149.
Motion No. 170
That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 150.
Motion No. 171
That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 151.
Motion No. 172
That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 152.
Motion No. 173
That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 153.
Motion No. 174
That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 154.
Motion No. 175
That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 155.
Motion No. 176
That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 156.
Motion No. 177
That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 157.
Motion No. 178
That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 158.
Motion No. 179
That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 159.
Motion No. 180
That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 160.
Motion No. 181
That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 161.
Motion No. 182
That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 162.
Motion No. 183
That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 163.
Motion No. 184
That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 164.
Motion No. 185
That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 165.
Motion No. 186
That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 166.
Motion No. 187
That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 167.
Motion No. 188
That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 168.
Motion No. 189
That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 169.
Motion No. 190
That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 170.
Motion No. 191
That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 171.
Motion No. 192
That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 172.
Motion No. 193
That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 173.
Motion No. 194
That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 174.
Motion No. 195
That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 175.
Motion No. 196
That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 176.
Motion No. 197
That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 177.
Motion No. 198
That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 178.
Motion No. 199
That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 179.
Motion No. 200
That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 180.
Motion No. 201
That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 181.
Motion No. 202
That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 182.
Motion No. 203
That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 183.
Motion No. 204
That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 184.
Motion No. 205
That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 185.
Motion No. 206
That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 186.
Motion No. 207
That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 187.
Motion No. 208
That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 188.
Motion No. 209
That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 189.
Motion No. 210
That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 190.
Motion No. 211
That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 191.
Motion No. 212
That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 192.
Motion No. 213
That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 193.
Motion No. 214
That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 194.
Motion No. 215
That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 195.
Motion No. 216
That Bill C-69 be amended by deleting Clause 196.
Madam Speaker, on behalf of Lakeland and communities in every corner of Canada, I strongly oppose Bill C-69, which would radically overhaul Canada's regulatory system, and by extension, hurt Canada's responsible natural resources development.
It is rich for the Liberals to talk about transparency and for their mandate letters to instruct meaningful engagement with opposition members while they ram through legislation with this magnitude of impact on the Canadian economy. The Liberals refused to split this massive omnibus bill, which involves three big ministries; denied all but a handful of the literally hundreds of amendments proposed by members of all opposition parties; introduced 120 of their own amendments at the last minute; did not provide timely briefings or supplementary material to MPs; and ultimately ignored all the recommendations in the two expert panel reports, from months and months of consultation, rumoured to cost a million dollars each. They shut down debate in committee and are pushing the bill through the last stages with procedural tools.
Bill C-69 would make it even harder for Canada to compete globally. More than $100 billion in energy investment has already left Canada under the Liberals. Foreign capital is leaving Canada across all sectors.
The government should focus on market access, on streamlining regulations, and on cutting red tape and taxes in Canada, especially because the U.S. is Canada's biggest energy competitor and customer. However, the Liberals are layering on additional regulatory burdens and costs that make it more difficult for Canada's private sector to compete. The Liberals are damaging certainty and confidence in Canada, putting our own country at a disadvantage.
Bill C-69, without a doubt, compounds red tape and costs in natural resources development. During testimony, the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers said:
Unfortunately, today Canada is attracting more uncertainty, not more capital, and we will continue to lose investment and jobs if we do not have a system of clear rules and decisions that are final and can be relied upon.
Unfortunately, CAPP and the investment community today see very little in Bill C-69 that would improve that status.
CAPP went on:
We see substantial risk that all the work undertaken today could be deemed incomplete. Therefore, they may have to restart and follow an entirely different process, which would add more time and more uncertainty for our investment community.
That issue was addressed in committee by amendments giving proponents the option for reassessment. What I worry about is that the Liberals have now given anti-energy activists the opportunity to demand that all projects go back through that new process, because they have spent years denigrating Canada's regulatory reputation. It has already begun. The Liberals have created years of a regulatory vacuum, destabilizing the framework for Canada's responsible resource development, and have added hurdles during an already challenging time, the worst time, for prices, costs, and competitiveness. That has caused the biggest decline in Canadian oil and gas investment of any other two-year period since 1947, and hundreds of thousands of Canadians losing their jobs. This year alone, during three-year price highs, Canadian oil and gas investment is projected to drop 47% from 2016 levels. The Bank of Canada says that there will be zero new energy investment in Canada after next year.
In committee, the Canadian Energy Pipeline Association said:
In the two years leading up to this bill, you can pick your poison: policies, including a tanker moratorium...; proposed methane emission regulation reductions; clean fuel standards; provincial GHG emission regulation; B.C.'s restrictions on transporting bitumen; a lack of clarity regarding the government's position on the implementation of UNDRIP and FPIC; and the fierce competition from energy-supportive policies in the United States, etc. The cumulative effect of these policies has significantly weakened investor confidence in Canada. It is seriously challenging the energy sector's ability to be competitive.
Nancy Southern, the CEO of ATCO said “our competitive edge is slipping away from us. ...it's layer upon layer [of regulatory burden]. It's increasing regulatory requirement, it's compliance, new labour laws, it's taxes—carbon tax”.
She called it “heartbreaking”.
What is really galling is that it makes neither economic nor environmental sense to harm Canada's ability to produce oil and gas. The IEA says that 69% of the world's oil demand growth was in the Asia-Pacific in the past five years, and global demand will grow exponentially for decades to come. Therefore, the world will keep needing oil and gas, and other countries will keep producing it, but of course, to no where near the environmental or social standards of Canadian energy.
Right now, Canada has more oil supply that it does pipeline capacity, but if Canada had more pipelines, to both the United States and other international markets, Canada could capitalize on its almost limitless potential to be a global supplier of the most responsible oil to the world.
Building new pipelines makes sense, but as if the Liberals have not already done enough damage, Bill C-69 would make it even harder for new major energy infrastructure to be approved. It is based more on ideology and politics than on science, evidence, and economic analysis.
The Canadian Energy Pipeline Association said:
...it is preposterous to expect that a pipeline proponent would spend upwards of a billion dollars only to be denied approval because the project must account for emissions from production of the product to consumption in another part of the world. If the goal is to curtail oil and gas production and to have no more pipelines built, this legislation has hit the mark.
Oil and gas proponents are seeing clearly that Bill C-69 would ensure that no future major energy projects will be built in Canada.
The Liberals claim that this bill would enhance indigenous participation. In fact, it actually would make no substantive changes to indigenous rights or duties in the approval process. Indigenous people and communities and all directly impacted communities must be consulted on major energy projects. That is the crown's duty. However, this bill plays right into the hands of anti-energy activists. It would allow distant, unaffected communities, even non-Canadians, to interfere in the review process by removing the standing test and would allow anti-energy groups to subvert the aspirations of indigenous communities that want energy and economic development.
A hallmark of both Canada's regulatory system and Canadian oil and gas developers has long been world-leading best practices for indigenous consultation and the incorporation of traditional knowledge. Canada's energy sector is more committed to partnerships, mutual benefit agreements, and ownership with indigenous people than anywhere else in the world, so shutting down Canadian oil and gas will hurt them, too. However, the Liberals say one thing and do another when it comes to indigenous people and energy development. The tanker ban was imposed without any meaningful consultation whatsoever with directly impacted communities, such as the Lax Kw'alaams Band, which is taking the government to court over it.
The tanker ban is also the main obstacle to the Eagle Spirit pipeline, which would run from Bruderheim in Lakeland to northern B.C., carrying oil for export. After five years of work, this $16-billion project has been called the biggest indigenous-owned endeavour in the world. Thirty-five first nations, every single one along the route, support it. The Prime Minister ordered the tanker ban less than a month after the last election, with no consultation or comprehensive economic, environmental, or safety analysis and no consultation with indigenous communities impacted by it. Just like the northern gateway pipeline, 31 first nations supported it, and indigenous partners had equity worth $2 billion. The Prime Minister could have ordered added scope and time for more consultation, but he vetoed it entirely, so both dozens of indigenous agreements and the only already-approved, new, stand-alone pipeline to export Canadian oil to the Asia Pacific are gone.
The Prime Minister did the same thing to the Northwest Territories when he unilaterally imposed a five-year offshore drilling ban, with no notice to the territorial government, despite intergovernmental discussions. Northwest Territories Premier Bob McLeod said, “I think for a lot of people, the prime minister took away hope from ever being able to make a long-term healthy living in the North”. This bill is part of the Liberals' pattern of enabling themselves to make political decisions about energy development in Canada.
This bill is bad for investor confidence in Canada, it is bad for the energy sector, it is bad for the economy, and it is bad for the country as a whole. On top of ideologically driven political decisions, it would not establish timelines for certainty either, despite Liberal claims. There are multiple ways either ministers or the commissioner could stop and extend the process as long as they wanted, as many times as they wanted.
This bill would not harm only Canadian oil and gas. The Prospectors & Developers Association of Canada said, “the Canadian mineral industry faces fierce global competition for investment. In fact, Canada is starting to fall behind its competitors in a number of areas, indicating its decline in attractiveness as a destination for mineral investment.”
That is a major problem for Canada too, as Australia and South Africa compete directly as destinations of choice for mineral investment, exploration, and mining. Like oil and gas, Canadian mining is a world leader on all measures. The sector is the biggest employer of indigenous people. It is often the only opportunity for jobs in remote and northern regions. Any additional hurdles or costs will tip the scale in favour of other countries.
The Liberals' decisions have provoked even former Liberal MP and premier of Quebec Jean Charest to say, “Canada is a country that can't get its big projects done. That's the impression that is out there in the world right now”.
Although the Liberals should put Canada first, they jeopardize Canada's ability to compete, forcing Canada into a position where natural resources development, the main driver of middle-class jobs and Canada's high standard of living, is at serious risk.
The Liberals should champion Canada's expertise, innovation, and regulatory know-how. They should be proud of Canada's track record instead of constantly attacking Canada's regulatory reputation and imposing policies and laws like Bill C-69, which would damage the future of Canada's responsible natural resources development and put very real limits on Canada's whole economy and opportunities for future generations.