Yes, salmon, the fish.
Evidence of meeting #15 for Natural Resources in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was sir.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Evidence of meeting #15 for Natural Resources in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was sir.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:15 p.m.
Founder and Chairman, Fort St. John for LNG
I have met with the office of Catherine McKenna—
4:15 p.m.
Liberal
4:15 p.m.
Voices
Oh, oh!
4:15 p.m.
Founder and Chairman, Fort St. John for LNG
The office of Catherine McKenna and the others I talked cited the salmon. The biggest thing now is the 24/7 daylight. For the construction of the LNG plant, Petronas wants 24/7 daylight because they will be working 24 hours a day, and this would interfere with the spawning of the salmon. Other things have been addressed. There will not be dredging under.... The natural gas from the mainland going.... It's just the salmon.
4:15 p.m.
Liberal
TJ Harvey Liberal Tobique—Mactaquac, NB
I'm cognizant of the commitments we've made for our GHG emissions and our long-term climate goals. I recognize, as the NEB pointed out last week, going forward, our natural gas production as well as our oil production is still going to rise over the coming years regardless of what the long-term outcome is. I'm very cognizant of our long-term commitments to honour those goals. If these natural gas projects go forward, is there a way to find a balance that could help us honour our commitment goals for greenhouse gas emissions?
4:20 p.m.
Founder and Chairman, Fort St. John for LNG
Yes, sir.
Production of LNG will increase our greenhouse gases, undoubtedly. Everyone knows that. I am hoping that the Canadian government will look at greenhouse gases on a global scale and not just in Canada. We can easily offset whatever increase in greenhouse gases. Here in Canada, I would say we're going to have a difficult time meeting our commitment unless we factor in the greenhouse gases that we will save overseas wherever our natural gas, our LNG, will be used.
June 6th, 2016 / 4:20 p.m.
Conservative
Shannon Stubbs Conservative Lakeland, AB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I want to echo the comments of my colleagues, and thank you for being here. I found your testimony to be quite moving and inspiring. You're the kind of person who makes me proud to be Canadian, and I probably speak for all the people around the table on that front.
I also want to congratulate you on your grassroots initiative to make Canadians and politicians aware of how these important resource projects will impact your local community and B.C. and how they can benefit all of Canada. There are many similarities between Fort St. John and the experiences of the people in the riding that I represent, Lakeland, which is in northern Alberta.
The northern part of my riding is just 200 kilometres south of Fort McMurray, so the vast majority of the people in my constituency work in the oil sands or in heavy oil or in conventional oil and gas right across my riding. They're struggling with the same experience where barely over a year and a half ago you couldn't find enough people to fill the jobs that were available and now many of the people in many of the communities are struggling in serious ways they've never struggled before. Thank you for being a voice on these issues that are important to the whole country.
I want to ask you your view on what the federal government's role may be in championing our resource development in Canada, particularly when it comes to the approval process. I think people in all parties and all levels of government, just like Canadians, absolutely want to see a balance in environmental stewardship, with economic growth and industrial development, given all the incredible benefits in jobs that responsible natural resource development provides.
I was in B.C. in mid-March and some LNG proponents, as well as some other natural resources developers, were talking about, for example, the Pacific NorthWest LNG project, which has been in the approval process for more than three years, and has been delayed by the government yet again. You might be familiar with the interim measures the federal government has announced, which include measures that are already done and have been for years in the approval of energy projects like public and community and first nations consultation, which you've alluded to.
I was a little surprised to learn both through testimony from proponents and also from the regulator that this will be an add-on process at the end of the already independent, expert-based, and scientifically thorough assessment and including all that consultation, which will already be done by the NEB before it then goes into this political decision-making process.
I wonder if you have any comments on the impact of these kinds of projects on communities and on people when these sorts of delays are caused by government.
4:20 p.m.
Founder and Chairman, Fort St. John for LNG
Unfortunately, these delays have human costs for people like me losing jobs in Fort St. John, losing their businesses, losing homes and their vehicles, being separated from their family because they have to go elsewhere to look for a job while their family is in Fort St. John.
The approval process here in Canada is getting longer and longer. If we compare that with the approval process in the U.S., the Louisiana LNG plant only took a little over a year to get approval, whereas they said the Pacific LNG plant would only take a year, and it has taken more than three years. It was supposed to have been decided on last March 22, but again it was delayed.
As I said, these delays have human costs on the citizens and on the economy of Canada.
4:25 p.m.
Conservative
Shannon Stubbs Conservative Lakeland, AB
Thank you.
I want to refer to your points about Canada's role in the world and that the global demand for energy will continue to grow and that the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions is a global challenge, not just a Canadian challenge, nor is it just Canadian caused. I wonder if you have any comments on the way in which LNG projects can contribute to Canada's carbon competitiveness as well as making a global contribution to the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. I wonder whether or not you feel as if the federal government stands up for Canada and for Canada's resource development, and for all the good work and the benefits to people the resource sector provides to the whole country and to the world.
4:25 p.m.
Founder and Chairman, Fort St. John for LNG
Well, first of all, I feel that the Canadian government is doing its best to preserve natural resources and make them contribute to the economy. However, more could be done. I feel that the approval process should be hastened. It's costing economically. It is also costing Canada in its overall economy.
4:25 p.m.
Liberal
4:25 p.m.
Liberal
Michael McLeod Liberal Northwest Territories, NT
Thank you.
Thank you to Mr. Yu for his presentation.
4:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal James Maloney
I'm sorry. Before you continue, I'll let you know that we have to wrap this up in about three minutes, because we have to start the next one at 4:30.
4:25 p.m.
Liberal
Michael McLeod Liberal Northwest Territories, NT
Okay, thank you.
I listened with interest as you talked about the environmental concerns raised, and about the well-funded environmentalist as something you're going to have to deal with, but in fact, the process has been delayed because the information has not been provided. That's a little different and it's a little bit not correct for you to say that it's a long drawn-out process, that we shouldn't have it. If a project is going to move forward, then all the information should be brought forward. It should be analyzed and then approved. In this case, there has been additional information requested, with a three-month extension added on because they need more detail on a suspension bridge and a pier. It concerns me that you want to give the impression that you want to rush headlong without really studying the impact it would have on salmon and on the environment.
I want to ask a couple of questions, though. I want to know who is financing your organization. Is that something for which you raise money personally? Do you have companies behind you? Are you registered anywhere? Are you registered, in fact, as a lobbyist here?
4:25 p.m.
Founder and Chairman, Fort St. John for LNG
In terms of how our organization is funded, sir, we use GoFundMe on the Internet. We are basically growing from that. It's very public. It's all there. We are not lobbying. We are just notifying the federal government of the job market in our area, sir.
In terms of the approval process, I was just surprised, because in February the CEAA said there was no significant impact on the salmon. That's what they said. Then suddenly it was the salmon again.
4:25 p.m.
Founder and Chairman, Fort St. John for LNG
No, no. I got curious. It was only on my trip here that it was clarified, sir, that the issue was the salmon again.
I am very thankful I came here, because my friends were asking what was happening, and I was able to clarify that for them. I'm glad that, according to the CEAA, science will prevail, which we agree upon 100%—not politics, sir, but science.
4:25 p.m.
Liberal
Michael McLeod Liberal Northwest Territories, NT
Thank you. I'm glad you clarified that. I think we're all agreed that there's a real need to stimulate the economy.