Debates of Jan. 28th, 2016

Opposition Motion—Energy East Pipeline Project

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Order. Before I continue, I want to remind the members that out of respect when someone has the floor, someone I have already recognized, that person should have the respect of the House. I would appreciate if the noise could be toned down on this side of the House. When the member spoke a while ago, he had that respect and I would assume that you are going to extend that as well.

The hon. member for Cariboo—Prince George can respond to the question from his colleague from Timmins—James Bay.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I appreciate the comments from my hon. colleague. I have been waiting for a chance to have this comment today. Earlier his colleague from New Westminster—Burnaby waxed on about provincial colleagues in Alberta, about how great they are doing. It was maybe a little Freudian slip, but I heard it talked about as “ground baking new policies”. I think he is right because with the NDP provincial government's scorched earth policies on economic development we are sure seeing that as we move forward.

We have had an incredible amount of spirited debate here today. The biggest part I would like to leave, which we have heard over and over again, is the government does not have a plan with the exception of putting on layers and layers of more red tape that is going to diminish Canada's opportunity to take advantage of economic benefits to get our product to tidewaters and to other countries. We need a focused government and we have not seen it yet.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan, SK]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to stand today for the first time in this new Parliament to speak on what I consider to be an extremely important issue, but let me first talk about being here, for the first time in 11 years, as a member of a new riding. I now proudly represent the good people of Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan. For the previous 11 years, I was the member for a riding called Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, but that consistency was eliminated during the recent boundary review. Now I have a brand new riding, which I am extremely proud to represent, and I thank the voters of that riding for their confidence in me and for re-electing me for my fifth term in this place.

I want to say a few things off the top about the debate we are having today. First and foremost, I honestly cannot understand why members of the government have stated that they will be opposing this motion today. I thought for a moment that they would at least have the ability to vote freely on this. I thought for a moment that perhaps some of the members from regions in Canada that are solidly in support of energy east, like New Brunswick, would be able to stand in the House and vote freely, according to the wishes of their constituents. That, at least, is what the Prime Minister had promised during the election campaign. Apparently, saying one thing then means doing another thing today.

The Prime Minister responded to a question during question period, saying that the Liberal government will be opposing the opposition day motion today. He did not reference the fact that he would allow his members to vote freely. He arbitrarily said that his government will oppose. That is his prerogative. I suppose he can change his mind about allowing free votes. I suppose he can change his mind about allowing his members to represent the views of their constituents. I suppose he can do whatever he wants, because Liberals have a majority in this place. However, what I do not understand is how Liberal members can come to the conclusion that the motion before the House today is something that they cannot support.

Let me explain, if I can, in a little more detail, by reading some of the elements of the Conservative opposition motion and then what the Minister of Natural Resources said earlier today during his speech on the motion.

The opposition motion states, “That,...the House: (a) recognize the importance of the energy sector to the Canadian economy and support its development in an environmentally sustainable way”.

What the Minister of Natural Resources said today in his opening address was, “Our government does recognize the importance of the energy sector in Canada and to the Canadian economy, and we wholeheartedly support its development in an environmentally sustainable way”. That is word for word what is contained in the opposition motion. The Minister of Natural Resources agreed word for word with what the motion contains.

Now the Prime Minister is saying that Liberals oppose the motion. One has to ask why. I can only assume it is for some political reasons. I cannot understand what they may be, since the government continues to say that it wants a fresh start. It wants to represent all Canadians' views. It wants to consult with Canadians and represent their views to the best of its ability. Yet when the Minister of Natural Resources said word for word that he agrees with the opposition day motion, how in the world can the Prime Minister then say that the Liberals would oppose the very motion presented today for debate?

I can understand all political parties wanting to intuitively and automatically oppose any initiative posed by an opposing political force. I know that when the Conservatives were in government, and we were for 10 years, the majority of times we opposed opposition day motions, but on occasion, we agreed with opposition motions if we believed and agreed with the content of the motion. For the Prime Minister, basically out of hand, to say that his party will reject today's opposition motion is something I just cannot fathom, because as we have heard here today, we are not just talking about energy east. We are talking about the energy sector. We are talking about what that sector and individual projects like energy east can do to benefit our economy.

We have heard from many eloquent speakers today relating to energy east, in particular, and the economic benefits that would accrue to Canada. We have heard about the jobs that would be created. My colleagues from la belle province have talked about 3,000 jobs that would be created in Quebec alone.

We know that provinces like Saskatchewan, Alberta, Ontario, and New Brunswick are wholly supportive of this project because they know the economic impact and benefits that would accrue to their provinces. They know that jobs would be created across Canada because of this project.

We know that the economic benefits stem far beyond merely job creation in the energy sector. The benefits from energy east would support the manufacturing sector. It would support the construction industry. It would support a host of other industries in this province, and then indirect, ancillary benefits would support all of us, all of the social programs that we in Canada seem to take for granted, through tax revenues raised by this project.

This $1.5 billion privately funded project would bring untold tax revenues to Canada, which the government would then be able to use to support some of the initiatives, some of the health care initiatives and social programs, that we take for granted and depend upon.

It is beyond my level of comprehension to understand why the government today would oppose a motion that is merely stating the obvious, that we as a Parliament should be supporting projects in the energy sector, like energy east, if they can be proven to be environmentally sustainable.

All that the Prime Minister would have to say, even though he states he does not want to cheerlead or to pick winners and losers, to prove that the government truly supports the energy sector would be to stand up and say, “I support energy east if it can demonstrate unequivocally that it can be developed in an environmentally sustainable way. If that can be proven, then I will support energy east because of the benefits it would bring to this country.”

Did he do that? No. The Prime Minister simply stated, again, that we have to be responsible. I would suggest that responsibility takes many forms, and one of them is leadership, by showing the Canadian people that he respects all of the workers in the energy sector, understands the benefits that the energy sector can bring to this country, and appreciates the fact that this country, right now, is looking for ways to stimulate the economy that has hit hard times.

We have heard time and time again from speakers, both from the opposition side and some vague references from the government side, about the hardships being foisted upon provinces like Alberta and Saskatchewan. Provinces like Alberta and Saskatchewan, who have proven time and time again that they want to be willing partners in Confederation and year after year after year that they are willing to contribute vast amounts of money, billions of dollars, to the Canadian economy through equalization programs, want to be heard. They want to be appreciated.

They simply want the new Prime Minister of this country to understand the fact that the project being debated today, energy east, is good for Canada. We all agree that it has to be developed in an environmentally secure and sustainable way.

However, to deny the very existence of the energy sector and its importance to the Canadian economy is shameful. I call upon the government to reverse its position and to please think about and support today's opposition motion, which is good for Canada.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I cannot even begin to tell the House how much respect I have for my colleague. I have known him for quite some time. I sat on that side of the House for the entire tenure of the Conservative government.

To my surprise, I heard him say that there should be a free vote within the House, and to my surprise, the member referred to the tyrannical majority government. I swear there is a small indentation on this floor where my rear end landed, because I jumped and fell right out of chair. When the member started to talk and lecture us about freeing up the votes within the House, I thought, honest to goodness, this is something that was not done in the past 8 to 10 years, which is the responsible way to look at a project of this magnitude stretching across this country.

We know the benefits. Newfoundland and Labrador is not directly affected by this, but we know the benefits of this industry and now the turmoil created by the situation in the oil and gas sector.

Could my hon. colleague talk very briefly to us about what is the responsible way, because we never saw it in those years of Conservative government?

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the comments made by my friend and my colleague across the way. I would want to point out, however, his comments were factually incorrect. If members want to go back to check the record, which I have stated in this House on many occasions, with all the private members' bills in the 10 years that we were in government, our government, at that time, supported the government position 77% of the time. In other words, about 25%-plus of our members would vote against the government's private members' bills or government-sponsored private members' bills.

Contrast that with the voting record of both the Liberal Party and the NDP. The Liberal Party voted 93% of the time in favour of Liberal Party private members' bills. The NDP, 99% of time, voted in favour of one of its own private members' bills. In other words, they were whipped; we were allowed to vote freely.

However, the point that I was making here is merely to reflect the fact that during the election campaign the Liberal leader at the time, now Prime Minister, stated, without equivocation, he wanted to do things differently. They government wants to take votes differently in this new place, this new configuration. He is the one who said he would allow his members to vote freely. Clearly, saying one thing on the campaign trail does not reflect the reality in today's Parliament.

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Mr. Speaker, earlier, a member of the Conservative caucus told the House that 2016 was the year of the monkey. Truer words have never been spoken. A little earlier, another member of the Conservative caucus was monkeying around when he claimed that the fossil fuel industry had saved whales from extinction. Unbelievable.

When I heard that, I had to wonder what the residents of the Lower St. Lawrence and the north shore would think. They were threatened by a port that was almost built in Cacouna and would have jeopardized the whale habitat.

I also have to wonder what other marine mammals my Conservative colleague thinks were saved by the oil industry. The polar bear?

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I find it passing strange the member would make reference to the St. Lawrence, the environment, and beluga whales.

What I would point out to be quite a contradiction, and this stems from the government side, is how the mayor of Montreal thinks it would be environmentally proper to dump eight million litres of raw sewage into the St. Lawrence and, yet, oppose the energy east pipeline because, he says, it may not be environmentally sustainable. There seems to be a bit of contradiction in terms.

What we have stated, in essence, is that any energy project, any pipeline project, has to be proven, has to be demonstrated empirically, scientifically, and above reproach, that it is environmentally sustainable. Then, and only then, would we agree to approve and support such a project. That is the proper approach to be taking.

We want pipelines. We know it is the safest and most secure way to transport oil in this country. It is far better than rail, as the member would know, with the tragedy in Lac-Mégantic. It is far better than tankers, far better than truck transport. Therefore, we want to ensure that not only does the transportation adhere to safety regulations, but it complies with a strong regulatory review process that we have established in this country.

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for North Vancouver.

I appreciate the opportunity to offer a few words with respect to the motion by the hon. member for Portage—Lisgar. If I may, I would like to focus my remarks today on consultations and engagement with indigenous people.

When any project presents either a challenge or opportunity for an indigenous community, meaningful consultation is crucial. Aboriginal and treaty rights are affirmed in section 35 of the Constitution. The government needs to ensure that, moving forward, we uphold the honour of the crown and that proposed projects make good policy sense for indigenous peoples and all Canadians. As the hon. members know, there are many projects representing potential new investments that are either planned or under way in Canada, and many are located in or near indigenous communities or on traditional territories. These projects have the potential to create important new opportunities for indigenous communities.

Today, over 30,000 indigenous people work in energy, mining, and forestry jobs throughout Canada, this great country. That makes the natural resources sector a leading private sector employer of indigenous Canadians. What is more, the indigenous population is young and growing at a time when there will be an increasing number of opportunities in these sectors over the coming years. Yet we know the strong leadership in indigenous communities is also an integral part of responsibly developing Canada's natural resources, as more indigenous leaders take a proactive role in determining how their communities engage in resource development. We know that properly consulting those communities and leaders is paramount to ensuring that we get things right.

We also know that we need to do things differently. Yesterday, we heard the government deliver on a key promise to do just that. As the Minister of Natural Resources noted, the Government of Canada has taken an important first step to restoring the public's trust and faith in the way Canada reviews and assesses major resource projects. I am pleased to highlight today that the first step includes enhanced collaborations and consultations with indigenous populations, respecting their rights and interests. This is an important point. The Prime Minister has said that no relationship is as important to him as the one with indigenous peoples. This government has been very clear: It will begin to renew that relationship based on the recognition of rights, respect, collaboration, and partnership.

Yesterday's announcement also made our intentions clear. The government takes our consultation obligations very seriously. The Prime Minister has also said how “critically important it is for First Nations to be full partners at those tables where shared decisions about the future of our country are made, from resource development to environmental stewardship”. As we all know, consulting indigenous groups is already mandatory where a proposed activity may have an adverse impact on potential or established aboriginal and treaty rights. With this new development, the government is confirming our commitment to work even more closely with indigenous groups, building on the relationship that provides the foundation for proper and full consultation.

As the Minister of Environment and Climate Change and the Minister of Natural Resources noted yesterday, the government will respect the rights and interests of indigenous peoples while responsibly supporting our natural resources sector, and it will make decisions based on science and evidence, including traditional knowledge from indigenous peoples. Hundreds of first nations, Métis nations, and Inuit groups may be impacted by projects like pipelines, and yesterday's announcement confirmed that this government is absolutely committed to seeking their views and input.

As announced, a process for those consultations will be developed and funding will be available for these groups to participate in those consultations. Currently, consultations with these groups are already integrated into environmental assessments, but it is clear that more must be done. Improvements to Canada's whole-of-government approach are needed to undertake these consultations and fulfill our legal duty to consult.

I would like to take a moment to shed further light on some of the steps being taken with respect to consultation with indigenous peoples. What is different after yesterday's announcement is threefold.

First, the government will take immediate steps to improve awareness of the environmental assessment process within indigenous communities through education and training programs.

Second, the government will promote early community engagement by proponents on upcoming project environmental assessments.

Third, it will enhance indigenous capacity to actively participate in project environmental assessments through improved participant funding, better integration of traditional knowledge, and the building of technical capacities within indigenous organizations.

Further, the government will meet with indigenous groups to determine the ways they would like to be engaged in the broader review.

The Government of Canada looks forward to providing further details on these steps over the coming weeks and months.

I firmly believe that working together is the best way to achieve our shared goal of healthier, more prosperous, self-sufficient indigenous communities. Indeed, it is the only way toward the nation-to-nation relationship that has been promised.

The Government of Canada is listening to indigenous groups and is renewing the relationship to advance reconciliation. When any project, energy or otherwise, may impact indigenous peoples, the government looks forward to continuing to work with all partners on shared solutions that can deliver positive results for those communities, not only for their benefit today but for future generations.

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to go back to something one of my colleagues talked about, which was the importance of MPs being able to represent their interests on a wide range of issues. I see this motion as one that is truly not partisan; it is something that we could support. Even members of the same party but from different regions of the country could support it, because it really is a motion of general support for our natural resources, particularly gas and oil.

I will read a quote, and then I will say who it is attributed to. It states:

Let me be very clear on Energy East…[I am] pro-pipeline…and pro-Energy East.

I am going to be an advocate for Saint John, I am going to move forward whatever is best for our riding.

That was said by the new Liberal member of Parliament for Saint John—Rothesay. That is a very powerful statement made by that new member of Parliament.

I am wondering if my colleague, who is also a new member of Parliament, can speak to how disappointed that Liberal member's constituents will be when he votes against energy east and against this motion.

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the most important point we must come up with at this time is to have a robust consultation process through the National Energy Board. That consultation process was obviously broken during the last 10 years of Conservative rule. We need to consult with our indigenous partners and with industry and business to move forward. We need to have a robust review of all major projects that are currently outlined. We need to make sure that all communities are heard.

This is something that may be new to my opposition neighbours next door, but it is not new to us. We must consult with aboriginal Canadians and all Canadians who work in this sector. We know how important the resource sector is to Canada. We understand that we need to reduce the differential between WTI and WCS, and we are working hard to attribute that. However, we need a robust NEB process, and that is what we are putting in place.

[Dan Vandal, Liberal, Saint Boniface—Saint Vital, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I know how hard the hon. member has worked in the last few months to be elected on October 19. I am wondering if he could share with us how important it is to him and to his constituents to achieve the right balance between the energy sector and the environment. How important is that to his constituents?

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we live in a time when we cannot de-link the environment and the economy. They are part and parcel of a partnership, and they must move forward on a sustainable basis.

We need to have a serious conversation, and our government is having that conversation. That was one of the reasons we won on October 19. Canadians were tired of a government that ignored the environment, that ignored the challenge of climate change and greenhouse gas emissions. Our government promised to move forward on that, and we are, with COP 21, with the announcement yesterday. That is what we are moving forward with so that Canadians know and understand fully that we have an environmental regulatory review process they can have faith in, that when these projects are evaluated there is no political interference, that these projects are evaluated for their merits, and that the various groups of stakeholders are consulted properly, fully, and thoroughly.

[Michel Boudrias, Bloc, Terrebonne, QC]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday in the House, people singled out Quebec, specifically the stance taken by the mayor of Montreal and the municipalities surrounding the Montreal suburbs.

In my riding, Terrebonne, there is a pipeline that has been in place since the 1970s. In my community, this is unacceptable. I want to make that very clear here. In my riding, neither the people nor their elected leaders want it. The shortest, most economical route is to the west as far as I can tell, but we know that the agreement between Alberta and British Columbia failed. Now it will have to go east.

It might be a good idea to take another look at where the product is going and to consider exporting it via the shortest route. That is my proposal.

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to repeat that we are going to put in place a robust consultation process and regulatory environmental process for this pipeline and the other pipelines we commented on yesterday in our release. We will put in a place a process where all Canadians can rest assured and have faith in the process we will undertake in the coming months. It will be thorough and full, and all stakeholders will have an opportunity to participate in the process.

It is imperative that Canadians understand that we are working with them not against them, and we will continue to do so. It is imperative that our resource sector has a voice, that it is brought to the table so its concerns are listened to as well.

Canada is a resource-dependent entity; 30% of our business investment over the last few years has come from the oil and gas sector. That is recognized. What the oil and gas sector needs now is a partner in the federal government that it knows will have a regulatory review process that is fair and balanced and links the economy and environment together, so all provinces and Canadians can move together. We will consult with aboriginal Canadians, so that they are full and active partners in these projects as we move forward.

[Jonathan Wilkinson, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change]

Mr. Speaker, the government understands well that natural resources and natural resource projects play a vital role in our economy. They are important contributors to job creation and economic prosperity for Canadians. This government understands that responsible resource development is crucial for our future. This government further understands that a clean environment and a strong economy go hand in hand and our future well-being demands that we have both. This government supports the development and export of resources in ways that bolster the economy, protect the environment, and bring Canadians together to create a better future.

As a government, we are committed to rebuilding the trust of Canadians in our environmental assessment processes. As the experiences of the past 10 years should tell us, this is the only way to get resources to market responsibly in the 21st century.

We need a robust environmental assessment regime in order to attain our goals. One of this government's major priorities is thus to review and improve Canada's environmental processes. Our government's goal, which we intend to achieve through a robust and comprehensive review of existing environmental assessment processes, is to establish an environmental assessment regime that enables decisions to be based on evidence, takes into account the views and concerns of Canadians, and respects the rights and the interests of indigenous peoples.

We are committed to designing this new environmental assessment regime through robust consultations with the public, indigenous peoples, governments, and industry. We are presently developing the details of these consultations. The government intends to outline its approach in the coming months.

Our government also understands the pressing need to provide clear guidance to project proponents, such as the TMX and energy east pipelines, and to the Canadian public regarding projects that are already undergoing an environmental assessment or that will soon start an environmental assessment under current processes.

Yesterday, the Minister of Environment and Climate Change and the Minister of Natural Resources announced the government's interim approach to assessing ongoing projects. Key principles comprising this interim approach are: no project proponent will be asked to return to the starting line; project reviews will continue within the current legislative framework and in accordance with treaty provisions; decisions will be based on science, traditional knowledge of indigenous peoples, and other relevant evidence. Further, the views of the public and affected communities will be sought and considered; indigenous peoples will be meaningfully consulted and, where appropriate, impacts on their rights and interests will be accommodated; and direct and upstream greenhouse gas emissions linked to the projects under review will be assessed. This stands in very stark contrast to the current environmental assessment regime that we have in place.

In addition to rebuilding Canadians' confidence in our environmental assessment processes, this government's domestic and international commitments to sustainable economic development are part and parcel of its strategy for combatting climate change. Our strategy regarding climate change involves establishing national emissions reduction targets while providing flexibility for the provinces and territories to design policies to assist in meeting these commitments, including carbon pricing.

While a comprehensive strategy to address climate change will have a number of elements, one key area of focus will be fostering the development of a robust clean tech sector in Canada. This includes a focus on renewable forms of energy generation but also clearly involves working with our natural resources sector to reduce its carbon intensity. Clean tech is highly relevant to Canada's resource industries in terms of improving efficiency and enhancing the marketability of such products to global customers. Our government's efforts in the clean tech space will be a critical part of our approach to combatting climate change and will form a key part of our economic strategy for the resource sector and the broader energy sector.

I have spent the last 20 years as an executive on the front lines of the clean tech industry. Clean tech offers tremendous potential in entrepreneurship, innovation, and economic growth. Our government's commitments to invest in this critical sector will contribute to lowering our greenhouse gas emissions, create middle-class jobs, and place Canada as a clean technology leader around the world.

As we speak, the Minister of Environment and Climate Change is meeting with her provincial counterparts to make progress toward a pan-Canadian framework that embraces the opportunities that a lower carbon economy will provide.

Canada's natural resources are, indeed, a crucial part of our economy. However, in the modern world major energy projects, such as pipelines, will succeed in gaining the necessary public confidence only if we can demonstrate to Canadians that this can be done in an environmentally responsible way. We have a plan that will enable us to restore the confidence of Canadians, a plan to restore the primacy of science and evidence-based decision-making in the evaluation of major projects, including pipelines; a plan to increase and significantly improve the government's engagement with communities, and consultation with indigenous peoples; a plan that will enable us to bring our goods to market in a modern, responsible way.

In short, we are committed to rebuilding the confidence in the integrity of environmental assessment processes in Canada. I am proud to say that Environment and Climate Change Canada, in conjunction with Natural Resources Canada, is taking important steps to ensure that resources are developed responsibly and in a manner that will enable us to restore the confidence of Canadians.

I look forward to working with my colleagues from all parties represented in the chamber to make substantive progress on these important files.

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Mr. Speaker, on some of the issues the member was talking about, Conservatives want to get to the same destination but just see a different way of doing it.

As I said earlier regarding the motion that has been presented, this is something that the government can support. It can support it and it would send a signal. We have talked a lot about Alberta, but I want to talk a bit about New Brunswick. I want to ask my colleague if he would comment on the impact there. The government is saying that it would, in principle, support energy east. Obviously, it would have to go through all the environmental processes and it would have to be approved, just like any other piece of infrastructure would have to be approved, but if the government could say that, it would send such a strong signal.

For example, in New Brunswick right now there is an 8.9% unemployment rate, which is obviously higher than the national average. The other part of this issue is that currently it is Saudi oil that is going to New Brunswick. Would it not be better to have Canadian oil? Talking about responsible oil and gas development, that is happening in Canada, not Saudi Arabia. If we look at GHGs downstream or upstream, look at how responsibly Canada does it.

The Liberals should be able to indicate their support, or at least be able to have a free vote. If the Prime Minister does not want to support it, that would be his choice, but Liberals should be able to have a free vote.

[Jonathan Wilkinson, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

Mr. Speaker, there was an election fought about four months ago in which this was a critical issue. Canadians said very clearly that they want a process that is built and founded on science, that they want communities to be involved in the process, and that they want indigenous peoples to be respected and consulted in the context of the process. There is a reason why Liberals are sitting on this side of the House and the hon. member is sitting on the other.

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

Mr. Speaker, those who represent resource-based regions have certainly seen the huge downturn in the commodity cycle. We are seeing layoffs and mine closures. There are people who travel to work in the gas fields and we want to make sure that we have an economy that makes sense, that is balanced the issues of the environment. The previous government's support to maintain that balance was certainly out of whack.

I want to ask my hon. colleague about the following. One of the concerns I am hearing from the people I work with in the mineral sector is that they want good, clear environmental policies so that they can build trust in first nation communities and develop, but they also want to know if the government will maintain the mineral exploration tax credit, which is so important for maintaining prospecting and finding the next generation of mines, because aging mines are closing now.

Can we get a balance between good, clear environmental direction, but also maintain the support that we need for the resource economy in our regions?

[Jonathan Wilkinson, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the support for getting the balance right between resource development and environmental sustainability. There are lots of commonalities in that approach. What we saw yesterday was the first step, but only a first step. We would would welcome the input of all members of the House on the more robust environmental assessment process that we will be establishing generally.

The government believes strongly in ensuring the strong economic base that we have, whether it is energy or minerals, and that it continues. I cannot provide an answer at this stage with respect to the specific tax credit, but I am confident that in the budget we will see elements that will ensure the strength of the resource economy going forward.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I think it is great to have in the caucus a person with such experience in the clean energy sector, because it is very important in our platform.

I am sure that the member and environmentalists certainly support the money we are dedicating to green technologies, to the organizational support for organizations that support innovation in green technologies, and to the resource extractors in improving their green technologies.

I think people understand that, but a lot of people may not realize, as the member does, the huge economic benefits some countries have gained from this, which can be gained in this green sector. Maybe he could talk further about that.

[Jonathan Wilkinson, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

Mr. Speaker, there is a reason why most of the advanced economies, including China, have focused an enormous amount of energy on the development of plans for the clean tech sector. If we look at the growth of various industries around the world, clean tech has grown at about 10% a year for over 15 years, and it is expected to grow at least that fast for the next 50 years.

If we think about the fastest growing areas, such as solar and wind, China is now the largest consumer of clean energy technology in the world, but it is also now the largest producer.

I think that other countries have actually recognized that there are enormous potential benefits for the first adopters and developers, and Canada needs to be part of that. It needs an end-to-end strategy around clean tech that is going to enable us to meet our carbon commitments but also to develop a strong and robust economy in the future.

[Robert Sopuck, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Calgary Signal Hill.

I am very proud to speak in favour of the motion to support the energy east pipeline. I am also very proud of the environmental record of the Conservatives when we were in government.

Let me give hon. members some numbers, because too often numbers are forgotten. Members on the other side speak with passion and emotion, but never with numbers. Under our watch, there was a 9.5% decrease in per capita C02 emissions. There was a significant decline in sulphur dioxide, significant declines in nitrogen dioxide, and a very significant decline in the concentrations of volatile organic compounds.

In 2010 the United Nations said Canada had the second best water quality ranking among selected industrialized countries. All our protected areas increased by 95%, and our government designated over 135,000 square kilometres of new protected areas since 2006, the largest increase in history. There was the Sydney tar ponds cleanup; Hamilton Harbour remediation; Lake Simcoe cleanup; the habitat stewardship program; Great Lakes cleanup; the recreational fisheries partnership program; and 800,000 new hectares of habitat conserved under the natural areas conservation program. In my own jurisdiction, significant improvements were made to Lake Winnipeg with our Lake Winnipeg cleanup program,

Our government had a tremendous environmental track record, one that I am very proud of, but I am very frightened of the way the new government is operating in terms of the environment.

It is very shameful that the Liberals and the NDP have literally declared war on Canada's natural resource industries and the people and communities who depend on those industries. It is shameful, and I have the honour to represent communities and people who are supported by the natural resources industries.

Natural resources account for about 20% of the Canadian economy, and the health of these industries affects all of us. Look at the recent decline in the stock market. Look at the recent decline in the value of pension funds. Much of the stock market and most of Canada's pension plans are supported by the natural resource industries, those same industries that the Liberals and the NDP actually want to kill.

Energy is Canada's most valuable export, and in addition to creating hundreds and thousands of jobs, these energy exports fuel social programs, support transfer payments, and contribute very strongly to Canada's balance of payments.

Although natural resources are important to all people in Canada, as I said, they are especially important to rural communities, the kind I represent, where most resource harvesting and extraction is done. In fact, I could even go so far as to say the Liberals and the NDP have declared war on small-town Canada.

When a natural resources company closes down, as recently happened with the potash mine in Sussex, New Brunswick, the affected community itself literally closes down. The Minister of Natural Resources and the House leader were there to watch this, crying crocodile tears for that community, but as a person who lived in a community where a paper mill closed down, I know these are literally life and death events.

Pipelines are critical to the energy industry, and it is critical that Canada gets our crude oil to tidewater. As many people know, there is a two-price system for oil in the world, and since Canada has no pipeline access to salt water, we are essentially a captive supplier to the United States, where we receive the lower West Texas price, as opposed to the higher Brent price.

The difference was very significant four or five years ago when oil prices were very high, and from the figures I saw, we lost about $20 billion per year because we could not access the higher Brent price. This is why the energy east project is so important. That is why I am so proud to support this particular motion. Not only will this diversify our oil markets and get us higher prices, but it will generate over 14,000 jobs in the nine-year construction phase, much needed jobs, many of them in economically depressed areas. We are talking about 2,3000 construction jobs in New Brunswick alone, which is reeling from the loss of the potash mine, as I described. Western producers, eastern refiners, and all levels of government would benefit from this.

Furthermore, this would replace imported Saudi oil, which is currently being refined in New Brunswick, with Canadian crude oil instead. Who in their right mind could be against that? If that is not enough, most of this pipeline is already in place, and all that we are talking about over most of the length is a substitution of gas with oil. Who in their right mind could be against that?

It must be noted that pipelines are the safest mode of oil transportation, with 99.999% of oil shipped through federally regulated pipelines arriving at its destination without incident.

What goes into building a pipeline? When I was fresh out of graduate school with my fisheries degree, my first job was in the Mackenzie Valley, way back in the 1970s, with the first proposed Mackenzie Valley pipeline. I had the honour of serving the entire pipeline route, along with engineers, wildlife biologists, ecologists, and land use specialists. I will never forget flying in a helicopter over the proposed pipeline route, dropping in at various streams, sampling the streams for fish and benthic invertebrates, looking at the quality of the habitat for spawning, over-wintering, and so on. The wildlife biologist did the same thing for wildlife, and the engineers looked at the capability of the land to support a pipeline, the depth of the hydrology of the stream to ensure that the pipeline would be buried deep enough and so on and so forth.

This was some 40-odd years ago, if not more. Even then, Canada was a world leader in the construction of pipelines. What was interesting is that back in the 1990s, when the price of gas went back up again, the environmental process of the day required that all of that be repeated all over again. Nothing had changed up there, but another 10-year process was put in place to do all the same surveys that we did in the 1970s, and again, ultimately, that particular pipeline was not built because the price of gas declined.

I want to talk about the environmental process. Much of what the Liberals are talking about putting in place will actually be of no benefit to the environment itself. At the briefing yesterday, I asked the staff to quantify any environmental effects that the process we had put in place had. I wanted numbers and measurements of the real environment. The staff people could not do a thing. All we are doing is talking about a process here; we are not talking about the environment itself.

The problem with these processes that the Liberals are going to put in is that delay of a single pipeline project that could improve market access could cost up to $70 million per day, not to mention the foregone benefits of property taxes, jobs, and social benefits.

I also asked the officials yesterday if there were any intent to do an economic impact analysis of the proposed process, and what I heard was basically crickets. There will be no analysis of the cost of these delays, but we do know that every day's delay costs the Canadian economy about $70 million.

One of the things that it is important to realize is that the energy business is a people business. People work in the energy industry to put their kids through school, to buy homes, and now with the energy industry in decline, these people are really suffering.

Again, going back to the environmental process that the government announced yesterday, these changes are not improvements. They are all about interference. In fact, this charade should really be called “five steps to get to no”. Under this particular process, we can easily see that after all is said and done, the answer will clearly be no. Again, Canada's oil will stay in the ground, and many of the members on the Liberal and NDP sides want Canada's oil to stay in the ground, regardless of the human cost.

I had the honour of working in the oil sands in the winter of 2009-10. I worked at a camp doing environmental assessments. I got to know a lot of the energy workers from all across Canada who worked at the camp, including moms and dads wanting to put their kids through school or to put a down payment on a house, or a young person wanting to pay their university education, or seniors working to ensure that they would have a dignified retirement.

This is the cost of what the Liberals are proposing. This is what will really happen. I find their lack of concern for the working people in this country truly appalling. It is quite clear that the only party that cares about working Canadians is the Conservative Party of Canada.

That is why I call upon all members of the House to support this vitally important project. It will contribute to nation building, provide much-needed jobs and economic benefits, and guarantee it will be done in an environmentally sound manner. This motion must be supported.

[Jim Carr, Liberal, Minister of Natural Resources]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome my fellow Manitoban's contribution to the debate. I also respect the considerable experience he has in the sector and the way he has observed the energy sector grow in Canada over many years.

However, when we were in New Brunswick and had to be a part of a very serious announcement that affected hundreds of people because of the closure of a potash mine, these were not crocodile tears. No political party in this chamber has a monopoly on compassion. These were people who were suffering from commodity prices, and they were suffering through job losses. We take that seriously. Therefore, I want to assure the member that our interest in these people, and the consequences these job losses have on families, are real.

I would like to ask the member for his experience in helping us sort out the way forward in modernizing the National Energy Board. I would ask him sincerely for his best advice on how we can take advantage of the experience of the regulatory history in Canada to make the future better than it is now. Does he have one suggestion, or perhaps two, on how we could make the regulatory process in Canada more responsive to the Canadian people?

[Robert Sopuck, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

Mr. Speaker, in response to his first point about New Brunswick, all I can say is that talk is cheap. These are real consequences. I will accept that the minister's intentions are good. However, good intentions are not enough. It is all about policy, process, programs, and the signals they send in the street to encourage them to grow and develop. The wrong policies, the wrong programs, and excess delays due to lengthened environmental processes result in the closure of towns and projects that are not built.

In terms of fixing the National Energy Board process, quite frankly, all environmental processes should focus on the environment. The members opposite are implying that somehow the environment was degraded under our term. I have proven with my numbers from Environment Canada that the environment improved mathematically on our watch. Environmental processes should focus on the environment.