Debates of May 21st, 2013

Natural Resources—Main Estimates, 2013-14

[The Assistant Deputy Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Order. The hon. member for Burnaby—New Westminster.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Chair, is the minister aware that the Go With Canada website stated that greenhouse gas emissions from the oil sands are falling in Canada, when in fact they are on the rise?

[Joe Oliver, Conservative, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Mr. Chair, our government is committed to protecting the environment with respect to climate change, air quality and water conservation. We are protecting Canadians. Our government delivered results for Canada.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Chair, is the minister aware that the Go With Canada website states that the changes made to the environmental impact assessment process improve environmental protection, when in fact they have resulted in the cancellation of nearly 3,000 environmental assessments?

[Joe Oliver, Conservative, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Mr. Chair, our government is committed to many aspects of environmental protection, from climate change and air quality to water conservation and protecting Canadians against harmful chemicals. We have produced results for Canadians.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, what were the criteria and studies used to determine that the department's advertising expenditures should increase by nearly 7,000%?

[Joe Oliver, Conservative, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Mr. Chair, I have already answered that question.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Chair, no, the minister did not answer the question.

I will continue anyway. Did department officials meet with representatives from the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers in March 2010 to agree on a communication strategy?

[Joe Oliver, Conservative, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Mr. Chair, natural resources create jobs and support economic growth in all regions of Canada. It is common practice for the government to use advertising and public awareness. We are discussing important things with companies, environmental groups and Canadians.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Chair, he did not answer the question. There were four meetings, according to the registry, that were held in March 2010. Therefore, how many times has the minister or senior officials met with the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers and was energy communications and advertising discussed at these meetings?

[Joe Oliver, Conservative, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Mr. Chair, we have consultations with a broad range of Canadians, industry and environmental groups and we discuss the critical issues regarding responsible resource development in our country. That is the way this minister and this ministry inform themselves about the issues that are of concern to the Canadian public. There is an enormous opportunity to develop our resources and we will do so responsibly.

[The Assistant Deputy Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

That brings us to the end of the first 15 minutes allocated. We will continue to the next 15 minutes that go to the Conservative Party.

The hon. Minister of Natural Resources.

[Joe Oliver, Conservative, Minister of Natural Resources]

Mr. Chair, I welcome this opportunity to discuss our government's commitment to responsible resource development. Canada's resource industries, energy, mining and forestry, are key drivers of the Canadian economy, accounting for $1.6 million jobs and almost 20% of our GDP. They generate $30 billion in taxes every year, revenues that help fund health care, education and public pensions. This is a pivotal time for Canada and the actions we take as a country will either set the course for future growth or consign us to watching opportunities pass us by.

Up to 600 major resource projects are under way or planned for the next decade, to the tune of approximately $650 billion. We are entering a development period comparable to the period during which our national railroads were built.

This truly contributes to building the country. Our government will not miss this wonderful opportunity. We are doing what is needed to ensure that Canada remains one of the most attractive sources of natural resources and investment destinations in the world.

Our government recognizes that climate change is a serious global threat and we support urgent action to mitigate its effects. Where we differ with the opposition parties is how to address this important issue.

The NDP seems to suggest that we should stop developing the oil sands and switch to renewable power. Such a policy is not economically feasible and would have dire consequences for our country's standard of living and security. According to the International Energy Agency, even under the most optimistic scenarios for the development of renewable energy, the world will have to rely on fossil fuels for 63% of its energy needs in 25 years. Globally, cutting off oil production would create severe, if not catastrophic, economic hardship, especially for the poorest nations that already suffer from an energy deficit. Indeed, 1.5 billion people are currently without electricity.

Our government believes we can generate economic growth, create jobs and assure prosperity for Canadians for generations to come, and we can do that while protecting the environment. Our plan is working. Without killing jobs or closing businesses, we are reducing emissions.

Ours is one of the first governments to grow the economy at the same time that we are reducing emissions. From 1995 to 2011, our economy grew by 8.4%, while emissions fell by 4.8%. Rather than strand our resources and relinquish our legacy, we have invested in research and development that makes resource development cleaner and greener. We have done that in coordination with our provincial partners, Canadian and international scientists and industry. We have provided incentives for consumers and businesses to enhance energy efficiency to make for a sustainable greener future.

The oil sands represent one one-thousand of global GHG emissions. Their development would not mean game over for the planet. We are continuing to reduce emissions, with a 26% reduction per barrel since 1990.

We estimate that we are halfway toward achieving our objective of reducing our greenhouse gas emissions by 17%. International statistics from the United States Energy Information Administration show that, between 2005 and 2011, Canada reduced its emissions by 11.4%, compared to 8.5% in the United States, 9.9% in Japan, and 7.9% in Europe.

Canada can be proud to be one of the only oil producing countries that have strong environmental protections.

The challenges facing Canada's energy resources are clear and urgent. The sole client for our oil and gas resources is the United States. In the short term, that has led to a drop in prices, which has meant a loss of some $20 billion in revenue for the Canadian economy. In the medium term, our pipeline capacity is becoming insufficient, which risks wasting our resources.

In the long term, the United States will develop its own vast shale gas and oil reserves. That is why Canada must strategically diversify its markets, which means building the infrastructure we need to transport our resources to the ocean so they can be shipped out.

To meet this challenge, our government is seeking new markets and, in principle, is supporting the construction of pipelines to the southwest and east. We have also modernized our regulatory approval process, strengthened our environmental reviews and increased consultations with aboriginal groups.

In contrast, we have from the NDP incoherence and contradiction and support for foreign commentators who claim our resources are a curse and that it would be game over for the climate if we developed our oil sands which represent one one-thousand of global emissions. From the Liberal leader, these attacks on Canada are greeted by deafening silence.

The plan of the New Democrats is as clear as mud. While they claim they support the development of the oil sands, all indications are to the contrary. They oppose Northern gateway before a review is complete. The NDP leader is also opposed to Kinder Morgan's Trans Mountain pipeline, saying that they cannot say “yes” to a project by Kinder Morgan. They opposed Keystone XL and flew to Washington to lobby against the approval of a project that would create hundreds of thousands of Canadian jobs.

The NDP claims to be in favour of a west-to-east pipeline, but now it is opposing the reversal of line 9B. The NDP said that we cannot reverse the flow of Enbridge's pipeline 9.

When he was speaking in English, the leader of the NDP said a west to east pipeline was:

—the type of pro-business common sense solution that not only creates jobs—it strengthens Canada’s energy security and will leave more to future generations than just debt.

This blatant contradiction, policy incoherence and opposing messages in different regions of the country undermines the vestiges of his credibility, while it does nothing to help our government sell its message to foreign countries. Similarly, it would be helpful for the Liberal Party to show some courage and start to support policies that advance the national interests.

Our government is taking action on climate change, while promoting Canada abroad and creating jobs and economic growth at home.

[David Anderson, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources and for the Canadian Wheat Board]

Mr. Chair, it is a great pleasure to be here tonight.

I thank the minister for the speech on the importance of resource development to Canada's economy and particularly on how we are proceeding while protecting the environment. He has made it crystal clear the very stark contrast of our approach versus the NDP, whose members, we would argue, have abandoned our Canadian workers with their anti-development rhetoric and anti-development stance.

I am fortunate to come from my home province of Saskatchewan where we have a very strong resource sector with oil, potash and uranium production. These jobs are crucial to the Saskatchewan economy, which has been incredibly strong over the last few years. They have been incredibly important to the national economy because we have been able to provide some of the stability that has gone toward carrying us through the crises of the last few years.

However, throughout my time as a member of Parliament, businesses, municipalities and people in my riding have told me that the development of our resources have been held hostage to an environmental review system that does not balance our needs.

Last year our government introduced important legislation in this regard called “responsible resource development”. Could the minister take a few minutes tonight to tell us in the House how this legislation balances the need to protect the environment, while also ensuring that we have a review system that is not cumbersome or inefficient?

[Joe Oliver, Conservative, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Mr. Chair, the parliamentary secretary's question is very important and relevant.

Responsible resource development is a critical piece of legislation that makes reviews more timely, reduces duplication, strengthens environmental protection and enhances aboriginal consultations. Prior to our plan, thousands of projects with little or no environmental effect were being reviewed and reviews would take far too long, which resulted in a weaker economy and less jobs for Canadians. We accomplished this improvement, while ensuring that the environment was protected.

Our government is focusing valuable resources on projects with the largest possible environmental impact, while increasing pipeline and tanker safety. Indeed, in the main estimates for the National Energy Board before this chamber right now there is new funding to hire more pipeline inspectors to increase our pipeline safety. While the opposition would like to mislead the Canadian public by saying that we cannot both protect the environment and create jobs, our government will take a balanced approach that ensures we do both.

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Mr. Chair, I thank the minister for the explanation on how important that legislation is to Canada.

I note that the NDP members have been very clear that they are opposed to resource development. They have been clear in the House that they stand against basically any type of resource development. However, one area of particular importance to me, especially being from Saskatchewan, is their notion, their theory, of Dutch disease.

The premier in my home province of Saskatchewan was very public about his disagreement with the leader of the NDP when he called resource jobs a disease. We are all familiar with his position on that. The leader of the NDP then called Premier Wall a messenger for the Prime Minister.

While completely lacking respect for the elected leader of Saskatchewan, more broadly it showed that the leader of the NDP had no understanding of how important this sector was to the Canadian economy. Particularly, he did not understand how important it was to the western Canadian economy.

Could the minister explain our position on the resource sector and whether he believes it is creating Dutch disease across Canada?

[Joe Oliver, Conservative, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Mr. Chair, the NDP has never been known for clear economic thinking. The Dutch disease theory has been debunked by economic history and by economists across Canada, including The Macdonald-Laurier Institute and the former governor of the Bank of Canada, Mark Carney.

The crux of the NDP's argument is the supposed impact on the manufacturing sector. Of course, if the NDP had spoken to the manufacturing sector, it might have heard that resource development actually helps Canada's manufacturing industry. Let us listen for a second to what the Canadian Manufacturers & Exporters had to say: “The fact is that all Canadians stand to benefit in very real ways from the wealth created by these developments”.

However, the biggest issue with the New Democrats' theory is the hundreds of thousands of jobs created by these developments, many of them union jobs. For example, Canada's Building Trades Unions, a union representing around 200,000 workers in our energy sector, says that the NDP would be very bad for workers and the entire Canadian economy.

I wonder when the leader of the NDP will finally admit to his erroneous economics, seek forgiveness, and support the hundreds of thousands of Canadians employed in our resource sector.

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Mr. Chair, the Liberals admitted that they failed to get the job done. The NDP has told us that it wants to bring in a $23-billion carbon tax. Perhaps the minister could take a few minutes to talk a bit about the accomplishments of our government since we came to power.

[Joe Oliver, Conservative, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Mr. Chair, there is not enough time to do all of that, but let me focus on a few matters.

Our government has created the largest freshwater protected area. We have expanded Canada's marine conservation area by over 10 times. We have increased pipeline inspections and audits. We have imposed new fines for companies that break environmental laws. We have strengthened tanker inspections. We require double hulls for large tankers. We have improved aids for navigation, including updated charts for shipping routes. We have invested in scientific research in marine pollution, and we have invested some $10 billion in green energy, in alternative energy, and in reducing the energy footprint of conventional and non-conventional energy expansion.

[Marc Garneau, Liberal, Westmount—Ville-Marie, QC]

Mr. Chair, I welcome the opportunity to speak on behalf of the Liberal Party and to ask the Minister of Natural Resources some questions this evening. My focus will be primarily on asking questions.

Being the Minister of Natural Resources is a challenging task. Not only does the minister have to oversee the development of Canada's natural resources, but because natural resources can have consequences when they are developed, he must also show that he has a keen understanding of the consequences that can occur if these resources are not developed in a sustainable manner.

I have to admit that in recent weeks, on his trips to the United States and Europe, he has certainly raised eyebrows with respect to the things he has said with regard to climate change, raising questions about whether he really understands the subject very clearly. I am going to be asking him some questions about that, but first I want to get back to a question my colleague from the NDP tried to ask him three times, unsuccessfully. It concerned the fact that there is on MERX a request for services for a contract of up to half a million dollars. If I may quote from it, it says that “NRCan will acquire the required media relations training for the Minister and senior NRCan officials”. It is understandable that my colleague got confused, because it does actually say “the Minister”.

I would like to ask the minister whether his intention is to avail himself of any of that half a million dollars to do some media training.

[Joe Oliver, Conservative, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Mr. Chair, this is an historic moment. It is the first time since I was appointed minister almost two years ago that a Liberal natural resources critic has risen to ask me a question in the House. Now that it has finally happened, I had hoped it would be a matter of some moment. Alas, my hopes are dashed. In fact, he is not off to an auspicious start.

The question was already asked. The question was answered. The fact is that I have not and I will not avail myself of that service.

[Marc Garneau, Liberal, Westmount—Ville-Marie, QC]

Mr. Chair, as an aside, it probably would not be a bad idea if the minister did avail himself of some of that training, but I digress.

Let me point out that the minister recently answered a letter written by 12 scientists, and I want to quote from it. In his answer, he said:

Domestically, we have taken action to reduce our GHG emissions and estimate that, as a result of collective action to date, we are already halfway towards closing the gap between the original projections for 2020 and where we need to be to meet our 17 per cent Copenhagen Accord target.

It is not the first time he has said it. He has said it many, many times, as has the Minister of the Environment. To begin with, what is the target, in megatonnes, for 2020 the government has set itself?

[Joe Oliver, Conservative, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Mr. Chair, it is 611 megatonnes.

[Marc Garneau, Liberal, Westmount—Ville-Marie, QC]

Mr. Chair, I thank the minister for that answer. The last time we had available figures for Canada's production of greenhouse gases was in 2011. It says so on the sites, and that number was 702 megatonnes. Now, if we are halfway toward our 2020 targets, we should be in the area of about 670 megatonnes at this time. That is how the math works out.

Does the minister know where we are now? I would like to understand that, because he and the Minister of the Environment have not stopped making claims that they are halfway to the target set for 2020, which is 17% under the 2005 target. How does the minister know that they are there, and can he tell us what the levels are now? It should be around 670, or less, if he is actually telling Canadians the right answer.

[Joe Oliver, Conservative, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Mr. Chair, our collective actions to date will bring us halfway toward closing the gap between what our emissions had originally been projected to be in 2020 and where we need to be to meet our Copenhagen target.