Natural Resources Committee on May 30th, 2019

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Shannon Stubbs]

I would like to bring this meeting to order and recognize Mr. Whalen.

[Nick Whalen, Liberal, St. John's East, NL]

Thank you, Ms. Stubbs.

In light of your motion, consideration of which was postponed on Tuesday, April 30, 2019, and which I understand you would like to debate now, I move for unanimous consent that David de Burgh Graham be appointed as acting chair of the committee for the duration of the consideration of Ms. Stubbs' motion only.

Do we have unanimous consent?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Acting Chair (Mr. David de Burgh Graham (Laurentides—Labelle, Lib.)), Liberal, David Graham]

On the discussion, Ms. Stubbs.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Thank you, Chair.

I appreciate the opportunity to be able to revisit this motion today. To remind everybody of the subject that we're talking about, I'll read the motion that I moved on April 30:

That, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the Committee immediately invite the Minister of Natural Resources to appear before the committee on June 20, 2019, for no less than a full meeting, to advise the Committee of the government's plan to build the Trans Mountain Expansion; and that this meeting be televised.

I hope that this motion will receive support from all members of this natural resources committee. I want to make the case for why it's important and why I'm confident that we'll have the minister here to explain to Canadians exactly what the next steps will be after the June 18 decision.

Of course, the Trans Mountain expansion was already approved by the independent expert National Energy Board and then by the current Liberal government three years ago, and was recently recommended for approval a second time by the independent expert regulator. However, not a single inch of the Trans Mountain expansion has actually been built to date.

The majority of British Columbians, Albertans, Canadians and also indigenous communities directly impacted by the Trans Mountain expansion support it. However, the issue around the Trans Mountain expansion has become about more than just the pipeline itself, and even more than about the long-term sustainability of Canada's world-class oil and gas sector, which is, of course, the biggest Canadian export and the biggest private-sector investor in the Canadian economy. This is especially given the almost unprecedented flight of capital from the Canadian energy sector in the last three years, and the news again this week that yet another oil and gas operator in Canada has been bought out and will be leaving the country.

It's really about confidence in Canada, about the ability to build big projects and to ensure that major investment can be retained in Canada, and that when big projects are approved in the national interest, they can then go ahead and be built.

I want to make the case to all of my colleagues here that on June 18, Canadians expect, and I'm confident, that the Liberals will again approve the Trans Mountain expansion in the best interests of all of Canada.

However, I think at the same time that the Liberals must also present a concrete plan on how and when the Trans Mountain expansion will be built. I think it's the least that the Liberals owe Canadians, since they've spent $4.5 billion in tax dollars on the existing pipeline and said that would ensure the expansion would be built immediately.

I hope that the natural resources minister will join us to answer outstanding questions, like what will the Liberals do in response to immediate court challenges from anti-energy activists that will be launched as soon as the Trans Mountain expansion is approved again? What will the cost be to taxpayers? How will that litigation take place? How exactly will the Liberals exert federal jurisdiction to prevent construction from being obstructed or delayed by say, weaponizing bylaws and permits by other levels of government or other measures that other levels of government might take? When will construction start? When will it be completed? When will the Trans Mountain expansion be in service? What will be the total cost to taxpayers? What's the plan for ongoing operation and ownership of the Trans Mountain expansion? Will there be a private sector proponent? Will taxpayers be expected to provide a backstop for the costs?

There has been an ongoing discussion, started about a year ago and more recently, about potential split ownership between an investment fund and perhaps an indigenous-owned organization. I think we all know that there are at least four organizations seeking indigenous purchase and ownership of the Trans Mountain expansion right now. I hope that the Liberals will be able to answer how that will work.

If that is a possibility, will there be transparent and regular reporting to Canadians about both the progress of construction and also the total costs incurred? Will there be dividends paid to Canadians if the ownership of the Trans Mountain expansion is transferred and purchased by somebody else, since of course every single Canadian now owns the pipeline because of the Liberal's $4.5-billion expenditure?

I think those are, at the very least, a number of the issues that need to be addressed immediately after June 18, when we all hope and are confident that the Trans Mountain expansion will be approved by the Liberals once again.

That's why I hope all members will support the natural resources minister's coming to committee on June 20 to let all Canadians know those answers.

[The Acting Chair (Mr. David de Burgh Graham), Liberal, David Graham]

Thank you, Ms. Stubbs.

Mr. Schmale.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair. It's good to see you there.

I had quite a bit to say, actually, but I do get the impression that there might be a positive response on the other side, so I will just support what Shannon Stubbs has said. I do agree with everything she has said. Hopefully, we can get some progress on this and, hopefully, the Liberals will support this motion and Canadians will be able to get a view of what the government's plan is to build that Trans Mountain expansion.

[The Acting Chair (Mr. David de Burgh Graham), Liberal, David Graham]

Mr. Whalen.

[Nick Whalen, Liberal, St. John's East, NL]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

While I, obviously, take some issue with a lot of the axioms that underpin Ms. Stubbs' motion, the motion itself is largely fine.

I do want to reassure her that in a similar context, when investors had pulled out of the Hibernia oil field development back in the eighties and nineties, Canada came in and invested, and it turned out to be one of the best investments, from a return-on-capital perspective, that the Government of Canada ever made. Those investments now are, under the Atlantic Accord, paid back to Newfoundland and Labrador on an ongoing basis for the life of the field. Ultimately, I would like to see, at some point, a situation where British Columbians and Albertans get to benefit from this what I hope will be an excellent investment.

I also take some issue with the concerns about foreign direct investment because, of course, Canada's been a world leader in that now during our tenure in government.

Missing from her statement, of course, was Tsleil-Waututh Nation et al. v. Attorney General of Canada et al—the citation for that at the Federal Court of Appeal is 2018 FCA 153—which makes it pretty clear where the problems lie and whose process failed and had the injunction that required Canada to step in to save Albertans and this project.

We would be delighted to have the minister come to speak to all these matters and be able to give Canadians confidence that this was the right decision.

In fact, Ms. Stubbs has said June 20, 2019. I would propose to amend that slightly because it may be possible to do it earlier, and we would actually like to make it clear that it will happen as soon as possible following the announcement on the decision.

If she would accept that friendly amendment that he appear before the committee as soon as possible following the announcement of the decision by the Government of Canada on TMX....

[The Acting Chair (Mr. David de Burgh Graham), Liberal, David Graham]

Ms. Stubbs, is that a friendly amendment?

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

I think it would be at little...to just say “on or before” June 20 since the decision is supposed to be rendered on June 18.

[The Acting Chair (Mr. David de Burgh Graham), Liberal, David Graham]

Mr. Whalen.

[Nick Whalen, Liberal, St. John's East, NL]

Is it on June 18, 19, 20 or 21? I have no idea. I can't tell you what day it's going to be.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

The decision by the Liberal cabinet is supposed to be made on June 18.

[Nick Whalen, Liberal, St. John's East, NL]

Even if the decision is made on that date, I don't know what date it's going to be announced, so I wouldn't be prepared to commit to that. What I'm saying is as soon as possible after the announcement. I also want to make sure that it's televised, so if there's some requirement that all the television feeds are not available to us on June 20, we have June 21 so that this can be televised.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

The original decision—

[Nick Whalen, Liberal, St. John's East, NL]

We ran into that issue at the Liaison Committee earlier today where other committees complained about the fact that television broadcasting facilities had been given to other committees. I'm not sure what's going to happen on June 20 in that regard. I do want to make sure that it's televised and that it happens as soon after as possible.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

I think it is important that we leave June 20 as the outside date since the Liberal cabinet was supposed to make the decision for approval on May 22 after the NEB's second recommendation for approval of the Trans Mountain expansion in the national interest. The Liberal cabinet requested the extension for the decision, delaying it by a month with even more uncertainty. The decision is supposed to be made on June 18, so “as soon as possible” would be after June 18, but before June 20.

[The Acting Chair (Mr. David de Burgh Graham), Liberal, David Graham]

Is somebody looking for the floor?

[Nick Whalen, Liberal, St. John's East, NL]

I'm happy to have the question called on the amendment, and then we can have it on the motion as well.

Do you need me to read out my amendment again?

[The Acting Chair (Mr. David de Burgh Graham), Liberal, David Graham]

Do you have any comments on the amendment, or are you ready to vote on the amendment? Do you want me to read the amendment?

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

Can you say it again?

[Nick Whalen, Liberal, St. John's East, NL]

Rather than saying “on June 20, 2019”, it would say “as soon as possible following the announcement of the decision on TMX by the Government of Canada”.

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

I would be more comfortable saying “no later than” somewhere in there.

[Kent Hehr, Liberal, Calgary Centre, AB]

We don't know when that is.