Debates of Jan. 28th, 2016

Opposition Motion—Energy East Pipeline Project

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Madam Speaker, I welcome my colleague from Lakeland to the House. I know parts of her riding well. My wife is from Red Deer nearby.

My question is with respect to criticism that used to come from Conservatives, when it came to pipelines, that the processes that were being undertaken to review them in public hearings and whatnot was to predetermine the outcomes. Conservatives would lather themselves up into quite a state of frenzy when anyone suggested a criticism of a pipeline that was in the process of being evaluated. They had not yet come to a determination. The science had not been studied. The public had not been consulted.

Therefore, my only confusion with the Conservatives' motion here today is that there is a certain level of hypocrisy in the sense that they are seeking that the Parliament of Canada prejudge the outcome of a pipeline, for a very large natural resource sector, with risks and benefits, yet have not heard much in the way of testimony, science, or anything that would come close to rational debate.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Madam Speaker, we are asking the federal Liberal government to recognize the importance of the energy east pipeline for its potential in enhancing our domestic energy security and access to diverse international markets. There is not a conflict for any member in the House to say boldly that this is a step we need to take for the long-term sustainability and future of our country.

My job is to represent the people of Lakeland. They are suffering, and they are struggling. For decades they have contributed so much to all of Canada in so many ways. The Liberal government giving support to the energy east pipeline and to this motion would show constituents in Lakeland that it cares.

[Bev Shipley, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Lakeland for a great presentation. It is interesting that the Liberal government at this stage is looking at not supporting our Canadian economy and not supporting jobs in Canada but is wanting to ship those jobs to countries like Saudi Arabia, Nigeria, and Venezuela, which do not have energy assessments anything like Canada's. They are nothing like Canada's.

I am wondering what her constituents say about supporting foreign investment and turning their heads against Canadian investment, when we have such strong environmental support here?

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Madam Speaker, my constituents have always valued their role in providing prosperity and support for all of Canada, and they would like to continue to do so.

We know that Canada's regulatory system in energy development is world renowned. We should fight for this project, for Canadian jobs, and for Canadian products. The instability is not helped by the Prime Minister saying that our country is moving away from resource development or by the government constantly reinforcing a lack of confidence. That causes instability and unpredictability in the investment business, which is what causes lost jobs.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for sharing her speaking time with me. I am also pleased to share it with her.

The project we are talking about today, the energy east pipeline project, is a good project for Quebec, Alberta, British Columbia, all 10 Canadian provinces. It is a good project for Canada and the government must support it.

We think it is good for Quebec's economy because construction of this pipeline will create 3,000 jobs. We know that employment is precarious in Quebec these days. If we can have such a strong investment and provide employment for 3,000 people at the construction stage, that is added value.

The same goes for economic spinoffs. For Quebec alone, the spinoffs from the work and construction are $1 billion. I am sorry, but we cannot afford to turn up our noses at $1 billion in economic spinoffs and 3,000 jobs.

What is more, once this is all in place, royalties will be paid to the municipalities, the RCMs, and the local communities, which could grow the investments and economic spinoffs in their own communities.

Since the beginning of this debate, we have been given the impression that this project is just about oil. However, oil is not just used to produce the gasoline we use in our vehicles. Oil is also one of the cornerstones of the petrochemical industry. If we could use props in the House, I would show members hundreds of objects we use on a daily basis that are oil-based.

In Quebec, the petrochemical industry accounts for 70,000 jobs and includes two refineries that get their oil delivered from abroad by ship. The choice is therefore obvious. Do we want our refineries to continue using foreign oil or do we want them to use Canadian oil? Do we want to continue sending millions and even billions of dollars abroad when we could be buying our own oil and investing that money in our own economy? The opportunity is there.

Let me be very clear. I am not saying that we need to do everything independently and close our borders. Nevertheless, when it comes down to whether to seize the opportunity to create jobs for Canadians across the country for the common good and buy Canadian oil in order to invest in the Canadian economy or to buy foreign oil and have the money go elsewhere, the answer is obvious.

I mentioned the 70,000 jobs in the petrochemical industry. The greater Quebec City area is home to IPL, a company that sells plastic products throughout the world. Plastic is a petrochemical product. The government needs to look beyond the end of its nose and see that this oil could help our Canadian companies. We need to stop seeing the oil produced in Alberta in such a negative light.

Pipelines are the safest and most environmentally friendly way to transport oil. This government boasts about caring about the environment more than anyone else. It is time to prove it by supporting this project, which is good for the economy and the environment.

The same goes for safety. The statistics are quite striking. In the past five years, the pipeline safety record has been 99.999%. I wish I had done that well when I was in school, but that was not the case. Why show disdain for an industry, facilities, and infrastructure that are so good and have performed so well? On the contrary, we should be proud of this industry and support it.

If we do not, the oil will be transported by 1,530 rail cars or trucks a day. I do not think that is what Quebeckers want. Once the pipeline has been built, it will not bother too many people.

My friends in the government keep repeating that we did nothing for 10 years, but that is not true. Four pipelines were built in Canada in recent years under the Conservative government. That is part of the equation.

Were there any tragic events? Were there any catastrophes? Has the environment completely deteriorated as a result? No. We are capable of doing things right in Canada. I have faith in the Canadian companies that will build this. It is good for Canada, good for Quebec, and good for the economy. We must support this project.

We are concerned about the fact that provinces like British Columbia, and particularly Saskatchewan, Newfoundland and Labrador, and Alberta, are suffering as a result of plummeting world oil prices. We are all aware. I am Canadian and proud of it. When my fellow Canadians are suffering, I try to give them a hand up. I am also doing this for somewhat selfish reasons. Quebec sees economic spinoffs from the development of the oil sands. Some 191 companies in Quebec have contracts in the oil sands sector. Yes, I am proud to be a Quebecker and to stand up for Quebec's economy, because I know that there are about 200 companies working in this sector.

More specifically, an environmental company in my riding, CO₂ Solutions, has been working directly with the Alberta oil sands sector for about a decade, helping it reduce its impact on the environment. I am very familiar with that company; I visited it during the election campaign. On top of that, in another life, I was a journalist and I did a story on that company. This might interest my friends in cabinet. Who did I make this visit with? It was with the current Minister of Foreign Affairs, who was once the environment minister. If you talk to him, he would be happy to tell you that there is an excellent company in the riding of Louis-Saint-Laurent that is working hard to help make the oil sands more environmentally friendly. Shall I remind the House that during the 10 years under the Conservative government, greenhouse gas emissions linked to the oil sands sector dropped by 30%?

We are calling on the Prime Minister to show greater leadership. He is the member for Papineau, and therefore a Quebec MP from Montreal, and what he said in Davos two weeks ago about our natural resources sector was not worthy of a head of state.

We would like the Prime Minister to champion this project because it is good for Canada's economy. We think that when one is a head of state, one's primary responsibilities include maintaining and creating wealth, creating jobs, and moving forward with projects that drive the economy. That is what we want the Prime Minister to do.

True, there have been some problems with this project. We support the project, but, unfortunately, we do find fault with the company. It did not do its homework. It came to Quebec with a pile of documents in English only, which, as you can imagine, did not go over well. That is not the right way to do things. Refusing to answer perfectly sensible and relevant questions from mayors, municipalities, and RCMs and acting all high and mighty is not the right way to do things.

A lot of mayors took the company to task for that, including the mayor of my hometown, Quebec City. He had every right to do that, and I was pleased when the company vice-president, Louis Bergeron, talked to an audience of about 200 business people yesterday during a debate on energy. He acknowledged that they did have some homework to do. He recognized that they needed to get back on track and be much more proactive and attentive to Quebeckers' needs. I was pleased to hear that, and I was pleased to hear that the company will change its tone and engage in dialogue. That is good because this project must not be derailed because of problems with how it was presented. On the contrary, we need to be able to do a proper assessment of all aspects of the project.

It is a great honour for me to support this project. It is good for the Canadian economy. It is good foremost for the Quebec economy, with 3,000 jobs in Quebec and $1 billion in investments. More than that, in Quebec we have two refineries that are buying offshore oil. They are paying in Canadian money to go offshore when they cannot have access to Canadian petroleum.

This is good for the economy, it is good for Quebec, and it is good for Canada.

We sincerely hope that the government will support this motion, support Canadian industry and enable all Canadians to benefit from what is a good project.

[Joël Lightbound, Liberal, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague opposite for his speech.

This is an important file for me, especially since the pipeline passes quite close to the Cap-Rouge water intake, which supplies the Sainte-Foy water treatment plant that is located in my riding, and thus supplies water to many of my constituents.

Does the member not believe that we should have the most rigorous and robust environmental assessments to ensure that this project does not harm the environment? Furthermore, we know that when his party was in power it removed 98% of waterways from the Navigation Protection Act, which reduced applications for environmental assessments for these types of projects. There are 900,000 lakes in Quebec; only 97 are protected by the Conservative legislation that was enacted when his party was in power.

I would like to ask the hon. member for Louis-Saint-Laurent if he believes that truly rigorous environmental assessments should be carried out before proceeding with a project such as this one.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Madam Speaker, one should not preclude the other.

It is obvious that environmental measures that are just as rigorous as our safety measures must be put forward. These rigorous measures have resulted in a 99.999% safety record, which is very impressive. That is what I would call a great safety and environmental record.

I would like to remind my colleague that not so long ago and not far from my riding, because we are close to the south shore, 243 kilometres of pipeline were built. Were there any problems? Did we have any difficulties? Has there been an environmental disaster? No.

We are capable of getting things right. We have proven it, and we will prove it with this project.

[Karine Trudel, NDP, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.

Over the past decade, the Conservatives dismantled legislation that protected our air, land, and waterways. In budget 2012, the Conservatives significantly weakened the role of the National Energy Board in terms of assessing pipeline projects. Today, we are suffering the consequences.

Why should Canadians give any credibility to or trust the Conservatives when it comes to pipelines?

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member may not have been paying attention to what I was saying earlier. I would remind her that under our government, four major pipeline projects were built, planned, completed, and shown to be successful.

Yes, we are capable of building successful pipelines in Canada. Yes, we are capable of doing so in an environmentally friendly and safe way. Need I remind this House that we demonstrated 99.999% efficiency? I am sorry, but that is not bad at all.

If we can do it, then so can the current government. If the government is capable of being as good as our government was, then Canada is on the right track.

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Madam Speaker, that was a passionate discussion of nation-building from one of our great new members from the province of Quebec. He laid out the benefits of some of these resource opportunities by energy east for the entire country.

Coming from the Quebec City region, he reminds me how nation-building projects like the St. Lawrence Seaway went through many communities and impacted the environment, communities, coastal villages, and so forth, but had a tremendous impact on such a nation-building exercise.

I would like the member to review for the House how, with the proper consultations that we have in Canada, this project will not just bring jobs and opportunities to western Canada, or importantly to New Brunswick, but also to the Quebec City region, to Quebec, and indeed to all of Canada.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Madam Speaker, the point is that just for the construction of that we are talking about 3,000 jobs and a $1 billion investment into the province of Quebec. This is good for Quebec and it is good for the economy. More than that, we are talking about getting Canadian oil to two major refineries in Quebec, in Montreal and Lévis. Therefore, instead of buying offshore petroleum and sending Canadian money offshore, we can keep our money for our people, for Canada and for Quebec. This is good for the economy.

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Madam Speaker, first of all, I would like to say that I will be sharing my time with the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley.

Since this is the first opportunity I have had to address the House other than in question period, I would like to take a moment to thank the voters in Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques for putting their trust in me for the second time. It is a privilege for me to represent them in the House. There is a lot of work to be done.

When the last session of Parliament ended, I was the official opposition critic for energy and natural resources. Obviously, the issue of pipelines, and energy east in particular, was very important. It was a major concern for me. This issue generated a lot of debate across the country, but particularly in Quebec. I took the issue very seriously because it affects me directly as an MP. The route proposed for the pipeline then and now goes through Témiscouata in my riding to get to New Brunswick. I had the opportunity to speak to many residents, mayors, and regional elected officials regarding their completely legitimate concerns about the project.

As the NDP's energy and natural resources critic, I undertook a consultation. I held some information sessions in my riding, across the Lower St. Lawrence, the region I represent, and across Quebec. It is important to note that every resident from a given municipality was invited to come hear about the project and to learn about different aspects of it. For example, the economic aspect is important and is often underestimated. In Quebec, we often forget that the natural resource, gas, and oil industry is important not only to the west, but also to Quebec. This was an opportunity to inform people who had an interest in the pipeline about the economic spinoffs of the project, not just in terms of investments, but also in terms of jobs. My consultations were as neutral as possible, to give residents the facts about the various studies that have been conducted on this topic, including a study carried out by the Conference Board of Canada and the Deloitte report. The consultation also included other studies from organizations that did not necessary support the project. I presented all of this, and I shared my comments as an economist.

We also had a legal component in order to inform the public about the nature of the National Energy Board and how it works. Again, this is a little-known organization in Quebec because we are not used to having transboundary pipeline projects that come under the responsibility of the NEB. There was a lawyer on hand to talk about the process in an informative way.

Finally, we discussed some important environmental aspects that are the main cause for concern when it comes to energy east, as they are for any pipeline project we discuss in Quebec. This is about the potential impact on landowners, more specifically farmers who might end up with a pipeline traversing their fields. This is about the repercussions for the waterways and the watersheds. We shared the information as objectively as possible with residents of the municipalities where we had the chance the speak. Some of those municipalities were in my riding and in the Lower St. Lawrence. In fact, there were eight in all. I was able to speak to people in the municipalities that, under the current plan, would be crossed by the pipeline. People in Yamachiche, Lanoraie, Saint-Augustin-de-Desmaures, Terrebonne, and Saint-Bruno-de-Montarville had concerns and they wanted to hear about these issues.

As I said, these are legitimate concerns and they have to be part of the public debate. My problem with the motion is that it asks us to take a position and support the project before it ever undergoes a process of assessment and legitimate consultations whose objectives would include providing important information to the government so that it can make an informed decision.

That is why, this morning, my colleague and our House leader, the member for Burnaby North—Seymour, tried to amend the Conservative motion to include an element stating that the House should express its view that pipeline reviews must be credible, thorough, open, and free from political interference. The reason why this is so important is that one of the primary obstacles to this project in particular and others across the country is the lack of credibility; people do not trust the process or the National Energy Board.

It is extremely difficult to get support for a project and allow it to move forward without social licence and the knowledge that the people who will be affected by such a major piece of infrastructure are okay with it. Much of the blame lies with the Conservatives because they watered the process down and dismantled it to the point that people lack confidence in the National Energy Board and the process.

As for the consultation process, the Conservative government limited the consultation period to 15 months. For such an important project that runs from Alberta to New Brunswick and crosses thousands of waterways, the ramifications are absolutely endless, and yet a single body was asked to examine the entire issue in just 15 months before making a recommendation to the government. That is extremely problematic.

Another thing that is problematic is the restrictions imposed by the previous government, once again, on identifying people who can come forward and express their concerns or their opinion about this project to the National Energy Board, or NEB. In the case of the energy east project, when the NEB opened its doors and invited people to register for hearings, nearly 3,000 requests were received, but over 90% of them were rejected. For a consultation process that is supposed to be transparent and open to all Canadians, the fact that 90% of those who applied will not be able to submit a brief or even appear before the NEB is extremely problematic with respect to social licence.

It is the same problem with environmental assessments. Who was responsible for environmental assessments before the Conservative government made changes in the last Parliament? It was Environment Canada in co-operation with the provincial environment departments involved in the project.

Today, the National Energy Board is required to consult all of the people affected by such a long pipeline and conduct the environmental assessment. After speaking with many stakeholders, not only in my region, but also in the rest of Quebec and Canada, I can say that people have major doubts about whether the National Energy Board is competent and credible enough to work on the environmental assessment of these projects specifically. There was a reason why these two processes were separate. Each process required a different type of expertise. Now, the same organization is responsible for analyzing the entire file.

Obviously, I will not go back over what we learned yesterday about the report of the commissioner of the environment and sustainable development, who raised serious questions about the National Energy Board's ability to ensure that the conditions it imposes on such projects are met.

I could go on about that for a long time. I am very familiar with the topic. I will let my colleague have the chance to speak, but I would like to say that, as an economist, I fully understand the economic importance of this project. I understand that it is important not only for Alberta and the western provinces, but also for Quebec and the entire country. However, although it is important to look at the economic aspects of a major project such as this, if we want to gain Canadians' trust, we also need to consider the environmental and legal aspects. Unfortunately, they have not really been discussed in this debate.

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Gatineau, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his speech. As an MP from Quebec, like me, he has likely seen many situations where members have engaged in political pandering by calling national unity into question. That is what the Conservatives seem to be doing by bringing up the national energy policy and national unity in this debate.

To those of us on this side of the House, the Conservatives seem to be using this motion to get Parliament to approve this pipeline project today. It sometimes seems as though the NDP will never support this project, no matter what process we put in place. We know that there is unemployment in Alberta, and we are looking to make investments to help this.

I appreciate the constructive comments from my hon. colleague about the process.

Could he assure us that his party will support this project with us, if we manage to have the energy east pipeline project approved?

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am going to ignore the attempt to impute motives that is implicit in the question.

The NDP looks at the merits of any infrastructure project to be approved by the federal government. We look at the arguments for and against before taking a position.

The role of the National Energy Board should be to provide pertinent information and the expertise that is rarely available in the House, even in the government. In that sense, the process is extremely important. As I was saying, when considering the arguments for and against, we must look at the economic, legal and environmental aspects.

I have a good understanding of the situation, as I generally follow what is happening in the country, including the unfortunate economic situation in Alberta. I am very proud to be of the same political stripe as the current government in Alberta, which is working very hard to fix the problems created by previous governments.

It inherited an extremely difficult situation and has shown a willingness not only to create jobs, but also to promote the sustainable development of natural resources while bearing in mind the need to fight climate change.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for sharing his comments and his perspective.

Does he, therefore, favour the regulatory application approval and enforcement process in the Middle East, Africa, and Asia over Canada's? If he does support the government's intended application of GHG emissions in the regulatory process for pipelines—although there are no specifics around that, and pipelines do not emit greenhouse gases—does he also intend to urge the government to do an evidence-based comparative analysis on the other methods of transporting petroleum products? For example, what is involved in importing foreign oil through tankers, and what is involved in terms of rail and trucks?

We believe in reducing regulation and red tape on all businesses in all sectors, because that stimulates the economy and provides jobs. However, I wonder, if there is really a concern about choosing the very best option based on the concerns he has outlined, will he also urge the government to consider those other things, so we can be assured the best option is being picked?

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Madam Speaker, there was some bias in the question. First, I hope the member is not hinting that we should set the bar as low as possible for environmental protection and the assessment of risks and benefits, two vital components of such projects.

Second, in regard to the list of countries the member mentioned, we often forget that much of the oil we have comes from the North Sea, for example, and that never makes the list of countries or elements suggested by that party.

As for the different means of transport, I would direct her to the report on this very subject by the Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications, which I carefully read in 2013. The report is very helpful for understanding the problems associated with the transport of oil and other dangerous substances.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my dear colleague from Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques.

I would like to thank my colleague for sharing his time with me.

I would also like to take a moment to thank the voters of Skeena—Bulkley Valley, in the northwest part of beautiful British Columbia, for sending me back to this place. It is always a humbling and honouring experience to stand in the House of Commons on behalf of the people of northwestern British Columbia. People who have spent any time there have found it to be a beautiful place. The people are diverse and proudly Canadian.

I am pleased to have the opportunity to enter into this debate today, because we know first-hand in British Columbia, perhaps more than many Canadians, just how bad the process for evaluating such energy projects has become in Canada. We were ground zero for the discussions surrounding the controversial northern gateway pipeline project that is still being proposed. We call it the zombie project because, no matter how many times it gets defeated by opposition from first nations, environmental groups, businesses, and successive reports from the provincial government, it still walks around with some unnatural energy and manages to stay alive.

This project has exposed to us how bad governing can become. The previous Conservative government decided it was going to attempt in its own awkward and unintelligent way to try to so-call “reform” the energy system in Canada and did so by gutting just about every environmental and fisheries law we had, in order to ram through pipelines all across this country, under the former prime minister's aspirations. It leaves one with some doubts about the sincerity or the abilities of the previous government, because the very definition of insanity is to do the same thing over and over again and expect different results.

What that government attempted to do with us in northern British Columbia was to bully and pressure and undermine the very basic civic duties that we all share as Canadians, which is to speak, represent our concerns, and raise our voices in any publicly held process.

We saw from letters issued by the previous prime minister's office in the midst of the process that anyone who had any questions, any people who dared to have concerns about a massive raw bitumen pipeline traversing 1,100 rivers and streams over two mountain ranges, as well as supertankers in Kitimat sailing out to China, were called enemies of the state and foreign-funded radicals. Anyone who had the audacity to raise concerns about such a proposal was called by the Conservative prime minister's office an enemy of the state or a foreign-funded radical. I am not even paraphrasing. Those were the government's actual words.

Lo and behold, that same government actually accused some of its own supporters of the same thing. People up in the north who like to hunt and fish were also raising concerns about what a potential bitumen spill would look like in the mighty rivers of northwestern British Columbia. They were concerned about what impact such a spill would have on the fishing industry off the north coast, which has sustained us for thousands of years.

The Conservative government growled and said we were either with it or against it. We either stood with the pipelines or we stood against Canada, the government said. How did that work for that party? Not so well, not just in the merits of the projects it proposed, but it did not work out so well for them electorally. The growling, bullying, and cajoling did not work out for that government.

Once more, in today's motion, the Conservatives have taken the same “with us or against us” stand. We have sought to amend the motion by adding the very controversial words that the House of Commons express its view that pipeline reviews must be credible, thorough, open, and free from political interference. My goodness, who would want to stand against such a motion as that?

The breadth and depth of ignorance around what Canadians believe about energy projects being held by the Conservative Party knows no bounds. The Conservatives shot down our amendment to today's motion because they clearly do not want a credible, thorough, and open review, free from political interference. They want to cast judgment on what will happen with energy east before it even hits the hearing stage. They want to say whether this thing is good or bad. They want to tell Canadians how it is and how it ought to be, and then they have the audacity to stand in the House, as some of my Conservative colleagues have done today, and say we have to get behind these things because otherwise the jobs will go overseas. They are talking about a raw bitumen export project, which the Alberta Chamber of Commerce has studied, and it said that when we add no value to these things, we are exporting three times as many jobs as we would be creating here in Canada.

Why would an opposition party choose its opposition day to talk about something so hypocritical as to affect the process around pipelines? After 10 disastrous years, it was unable to convince even its own allies that the process it manipulated and conjured up was anything close to fair and reasonable. Canadians rejected the Conservatives' way of doing things and rejected their pipelines. Thus, they have no pipelines that go to tidewater. Not a single kilometre of pipeline was built to take the product to tidewater. Now we have oil at $30, give or take. We have an economic crisis in Alberta and Saskatchewan that is affecting other parts of the region, and rather than standing up with anything approaching the intelligible or comprehensive, we have the Conservatives growling again, saying we are either with them or against them and, if we are not with them, they are going to send out fundraising letters this afternoon and try to make money off something that is playing politics with pipelines.

We also know from the northern gateway experience that the prime minister of the day changed the process midstream. We were halfway through the reviews when the prime minister deigned to tell us how it was actually going to be. The Conservatives somehow made what was a bad process into a worse process and, now that these new pipeline proposals are approaching, they have made it even worse still because at present there are closing arguments taking place in Burnaby, British Columbia, over the somewhat controversial TransCanada pipeline heading into the Lower Mainland, and Canadians are not allowed to cross-examine the oil company. They are not allowed to test the evidence that the companies bring forward, because how dare we make such an affront in Canada as to dare to question any of the company's evidence or practices?

We know from past experiences that it is good to hold up good company practices, but verification is a lot better than trust. “Just trust me” is what happened in Kalamazoo, where millions of litres of diluted bitumen spilled into the Kalamazoo River. Five years later, $1.3 billion has been spent trying to clean up the river. They had to physically dredge up the bottom to try to recover the oil, which they were unable to do. Therefore, we know that it is better to verify than to simply trust.

Now we have this motion in front of us. We have a former Conservative government that was the worst friend the oil and gas sector ever knew, because what did it sow in the hearts and minds of the Canadian public? It was mistrust, conflict, and misapprehension about any of these proposals. Meanwhile, it tried to bully a president. How did that work out for the former prime minister? I guess he would be right in saying it was a no-brainer. It was quite correct to stand in New York and essentially call the president stupid. That always works out well with cross-border relations with the United States. Then the Conservatives were shocked when President Obama rejected it, if not for the insult then for the lack of merits for the project itself. We do need a credible, thorough, and open process, free from political interference.

Just yesterday, the environment minister and the natural resources minister were out attempting to put a bit of a band-aid over a bad process. We have a few questions that remain.

Finally, we are going to say the words “climate change” when talking about oil pipelines. That is revolutionary. It is a new day. It is shocking that we are able to put those two things together. However, we do not yet know how the process will actually unfold. How much will climate matter when making the decisions in cabinet? That was a choice actually made by the former prime minister. He took the decision for all of these resource projects out of the hands of the independent and quasi-judicial National Energy Board and put them in cabinet. I remember the day when we asked the Conservatives why they would do such a thing. The former prime minister said they wanted to take politics out of the process, to take the decision away from the National Energy Board and put it into the hands of politicians because that would take politics out of the process. I will say this for my Conservative colleagues: they are able to be ironic and hilarious with a straight face.

It is remarkable to see the audacity and hypocrisy of the motion put forward today; as if attempting to help the people who are suffering from an energy downturn in Alberta and Saskatchewan is to play politics with the issue; as if to help those families struggling to make ends meet right now is to suggest it is somehow against their interests to diversify our economy, green our economy, and help modify the ups and downs, the booms and busts; against the interests of the people of the great province of Alberta, or Saskatchewan, or anywhere else across the country.

We need to look at our pipelines with the best available science and the most open and broad public consultation possible.

Canadians do not take well to bullying or insults. They expect to be brought into the conversation, conversations that affect them, conversations that they know best how to determine the outcome.

[Kyle Peterson, Liberal, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the member for what I think is actually a wonderful assessment of the Conservative record of hypocrisy and audacity, and their relationship with the oil sector. I thank the hon. member for pointing that out.

He spoke about needing a credible, thorough and open process, free from political interference. We could not agree more. That is what will be delivered in the process we spoke about yesterday.

Will the hon. member support the process that we will put in place? It meets all the criteria discussed in his speech.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Madam Speaker, I suppose I left the press conference and briefing yesterday with a few more questions than answers with respect to what would happen next.

For example, the new plan of the Liberals is to add four months on to the process of studying the trans mountain project in Vancouver. The problem is that all the evidence the Liberals will look at was gathered under the old prime minister's regime and way of doing things, in which the company was able to put forward its plan without anybody being able to scrutinize it. If the evidence is in a sense tainted or not fully described and articulated, then the government remains unable to properly understand its effects.

Also, and this is important, while climate change impacts are now being considered, the government is unable to tell us how and to what level they are being considered. Is it 1% of the equation? Is it 50% of the equation? Is there a target that companies have to meet in their total emissions?

Those things matter a lot, not just to the proponents who are trying to build these projects and get them passed, but they matter a great deal to citizens who are concerned with this issue, who voted for that change on October 19. If climate is to matter, it is not enough to say it matters. What is really important is to say how much it matters, and to be fully transparent and public about that.

Canadians are owed answers to both of those fundamental questions.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Madam Speaker, my colleague's speech was rather dramatic. People watching at home would be forgiven if they thought maybe they were watching the sci-fi network and not CPAC.

I listened to his comments about upgrading. Across the way, infrastructure will fix everything. On one side we also hear upgrading is everything.

The NDP in B.C., which I know is a place the members bow down to and pray to every day, appointed a gentleman to its climate review board who discussed upgrading. He actually ridiculed it, saying we needed a $35 difference between the price of bitumen and the end product to make it worthwhile to cover the cost before we even got into staffing at refineries, etc.

Would the member kindly explain the economics of how we can add $35, get $65 from a final product that is only trading $30, $35 right now on the international market?

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Madam Speaker, I did not totally understand the reference to bowing down and praying to British Columbia, but I greatly love the place. If my friend from Edmonton has not been there, he should certainly come by. British Columbia is beautiful. I do not know if it is worthy of praying to necessarily, but it is certainly a remarkable place.

I suppose the question for my friend is this. There was this radical premier in his province one time who suggested that adding value to the natural gas that was coming out of Alberta back in the seventies, as somewhat of an ancient industry, was incredibly important and in fact went so far, that raging socialist, to suggest that exporting of that natural gas in its raw form be banned outright.

Premier Lougheed has been lauded for many things. Being a left-wing socialist was not one of them. One of the things he believed in was that building up to capacity to add value to the great wealth and natural endowments that we had as a country should be the centrepiece of any government, right or left, because these resources, particularly the non-renewable ones, only came once.

It seems to me as if we are simply willing to be energy and price takers at all times and hope that the world comes around once in a while to buy our product, rather than be innovative price leaders in many of our natural resources sectors, which would be a very good thing not just for Edmonton West and Alberta, but the entire country.

A little more courage, a little more energy into this debate I think would help Canadians understand that this is not science fiction. This is what countries that export natural resources to their best benefit have always been interested in. Our country used to be as well until his government took over and we lost half a million manufacturing jobs just while it was in office. What a record to run on when talking about jobs in Canada.

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

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my colleague for Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan.

I rise today to speak to an issue that is of significant importance to our national, provincial, and municipal economies.

We have heard spirited debate here today. My hon. colleague for Skeena—Bulkley Valley brought a tear to my eye as he waxed eloquently about a region that I am very familiar with as my riding is adjacent to it.

In these times of economic uncertainty, it is imperative that we recognize the importance of our energy and resource sector, something the government seems to have failed to do.

Canada is a country dependent on resource development, and our economy is predicated on the trading of the commodities we produce. The comments made by the Prime Minister about Canadians being known for their resourcefulness rather than the resources is, in short, ignorant and out of touch with realities faced by Canadians living in today's uncertain global economy. Canadians are facing unemployment as a result of the downturn in oil prices. They are struggling to put food on the table as a result of the skyrocketing cost of living.

My hon. colleague for Chilliwack—Hope spoke today on the emotional comments from his riding about families who feared they would lose their home, or who worried how they would put food on their plates, or who were affected more and more by the sinking loonie.

With all of that being said, I am not surprised the Liberal Party refuses to put forward a clear position on the energy east pipeline. Liberals would rather brainstorm ways to build bigger bureaucracies and add red tape to resource projects until Canada's once reputable investor climate is all but destroyed. In fact, by the sounds of it, our new Prime Minister has taken a page from his father's playbook.

I am sure I do not need to remind the House that last year was the worst year for employment losses since the global recession, and after the introduction of the national energy program, which was coincidentally introduced by the former Prime Minister Trudeau. Alberta lost 45,000 jobs in 1982.

However, facts are facts, and the Liberals can only avoid reality for so long. Canada holds the third largest oil reserves in the world, but a lack of energy transport infrastructure means that the eastern part of our country is dependent on foreign crude imports to meet 86% of our daily needs.

Surprisingly, the Liberals trumpet transit as creating jobs. Surely they do not mean that they are going to use high speed transit to move our commodities to tidewater. This makes no sense.

The Canadian oil and gas sector is experiencing increased capacity and it is crucial that this sector have access to new and diverse markets through the energy east pipeline. In fact, energy east is projected to create over 14,000 jobs during the nine year construction phase alone. These are much needed jobs, particularly in Canadian regions hit hard by job losses and economic downturn.

The creation of the energy east pipeline would benefit western producers, eastern refineries, all levels of government, and everyday Canadians. It would mean more dollars staying in our country. Energy east would bolster our country's trade balance and strengthen the Canadian energy industry, which employs over half a million people and generates more than $20 billion in taxes for all levels of government. Energy east would provide for the creation of highly paid, skilled manufacturing jobs and economic opportunities, not just in the west but across the country. Now this makes sense.

The Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers projected that Canada would lose 100,000 jobs both directly and indirectly due to the low price of oil. I have a quote from Conrad Winkler, president and chief executive officer of EVRAZ North America, a leading producer of engineered steel products for rail, energy, and industrial end markets. He says:

Pipeline project benefits do not recognize regions or stop at oil field borders. They generate huge benefits for Ontario and Quebec as well — because they provide jobs, property and income taxes, construction activity and community development.

The energy east pipeline will not just have huge benefits for Ontario and Quebec, but it will have significant impact on my riding. If people take a walk downtown in the streets of Prince George, Quesnel or Williams Lake, they will see Alberta licence plates of families that live in our riding and commute to high-paying jobs, or used to commute to high-paying jobs in the oil and gas sector.

We cannot help but have an acquaintance, friend, or loved one who has been impacted negatively or lost his or her job due to the downturn in oil prices. Just this week WestJet airlines announced that it would be cancelling direct flights between Calgary and Prince George, Terrace, Brandon, Manitoba, Penticton, Kamloops, Abbotsford, and Nanaimo. There were 88 flights alone in and out of Calgary. That is a huge blow for small communities in my riding. A daily round trip domestic service into an airport in a community roughly the size of Prince George generates $2.5 million in value-added GDP and $5.8 million in economic output.

Business follows access follows transportation.

The government's arrogance toward the hard-working Canadians employed by the oil and natural resource sector is unprecedented. When I and three of my colleagues were at home in my riding last week attending the B.C. premier's natural resource forum, the largest of its kind in Canada, it was noticed that not one member of the Liberal government was in attendance. In fact, the Minister of Natural Resources declined. He had other things to do.

That silence was heard. That absence was seen. We heard from over 900 leading industry professionals, provincial and municipal representatives, and indigenous leaders. The new-found confidence the government talks about is not there. I am not sure who the Liberals are talking to.

The Prime Minister has refused to state support for pipelines in principle, suggesting that it is not his duty to act as a cheerleader for projects. Is it not the Prime Minister's job to act as a cheerleader for Canada and Canadians? Instead of going to the communities hardest hit by the downturn in our nation's economy, his first trip after being elected was to Paris to hobnob and perfect his selfie. He took pictures with movie stars, while the hard-working communities across Canada, those who are less fortunate, worried about their uncertain times.

The Minister of International Trade has made comments that it is not her job to promote trade.

The forecast for 2016 is looking exceptionally grim. While the Alberta labour market continues to weaken, the Liberal government remains silent. Employment in the natural resources sector, the manufacturing sector, and the food sector continues to steadily decline. Canadians deserve an action plan that will create jobs and growth and that will ensure hey can provide for their families. The sooner the Liberal government figures out whose job it is to represent Canadians, the sooner we can move toward building an economy that will serve our children's future.

I will once again reiterate for my colleagues across the floor that while they may want us to be known for our resourcefulness, never forget that our nation is dependent on resource development and our economy is predicated on the trade of the commodities we produce. I stand before them and ask again. Who is going to stand up for Canadians in ridings such as my riding of Cariboo—Prince George?

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

Madam Speaker, my colleague spoke about the importance of the pipeline project.

Unfortunately, while he is talking about the importance, his party is making this an issue of national unity. Does he understand that this undermines the project? While he is talking, his party is pitting one province against another. Does he understand that this also undermines the project?

The Conservative government's attitude will not create a single job in Alberta, Quebec, or anywhere in Canada. Does my colleague understand that?

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

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member opposite for his spirited question and answer, the fire of a volley across the way. I want him to rest assured that our party is not looking to divide our country. Our party is looking to make sure that the government's focus is on all of Canada, not only just the energy projects, but the softwood lumber projects, the resource development that is vital to the communities such as my riding of Cariboo—Prince George, and to open their eyes and come into the communities. I have asked the Minister of Natural Resources to please come and visit my riding. I will open the doors for the Liberals to visit my riding to see what matters most for friends and families, and those families who are struggling to figure out how they are going to put food on their plate.

My challenge with the government is that Liberals have lost sight and are overwhelmed with patting themselves on the back. I challenge them to come to our ridings, our small community, and hear first-hand the comments.

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

Madam Speaker, I listened with some shock and surprise to my colleague. I come from a resource-based economy. My family worked in the mines. We understand. I never met anyone in Timmins who said let us build our economy by dumping the dirt into the river systems. They want a clean economy. I hear the hon. member want to jerry-rig a review system of the pipelines and then attack the Prime Minister. I have no love for the present Prime Minister, but he went to Paris. Why was he in Paris? It was to deal with the international environmental climate conference. This is something the Conservatives' prime minister refused to do. It made Canada an outlier because they believe to talk about greenhouse gas and about the environment is somehow anti-jobs.

I want to tell the member it was that attitude for 10 straight years that put them in this pickle now that the rest of the country said no more until we have a credible, coherent, clean, and transparent system to prove that it will be environmentally safe. The Conservatives failed and they continue to fail. Until they start talking about the issue of climate change with any credibility, they are going to remain a marginal party.