Debates of Jan. 28th, 2016

Opposition Motion—Energy East Pipeline Project

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be on my feet again. It seems to be happening quite a lot as a representative from Alberta to have to protect the interests of the people of my province from the transgressions of the current Liberal government. I am happy to split my time with the hon. member for Durham, giving me about 10 minutes on this.

I am not going to take the normal tack that has been taken by some of my colleagues here today. I was a member of the natural resources committee for a number of years in the last Parliament. I am very proud to talk about these issues as they pertain to my province.

One of the most interesting witnesses we ever had in front of the natural resources committee was a professor. His name was Pierre Desrochers, University of Toronto. He came with quite an unorthodox deck that he gave to us at that meeting. He gave a very historical, appreciated, and informative recap of the value that fossil fuels have played in the earth's development.

Just imagine going back a couple hundred years, what life must have been like. We do not talk about these things here, but the average lifespan for somebody in the 1800s was about 30 years of age. The average man was about 5.5 feet tall, about 145 pounds. They often died from things like disease or working so hard, subsistence living.

There was no quality of life, other than just basically working from sun up to sun down to provide for the necessities of life. We did not have advanced scholars; we did not have advanced medical facilities; we did not have teachers or doctors; we did not have any of these kinds of professions, because we were basically just eking out a living.

What did that do to our environment? The Liberals are opposed to these pipelines because they are claiming that this is bad for the environment. What was it like for the environment when people were living a subsistence living? People would basically try to grow food or earn a living off every square inch of the earth's surface that they could. That meant all sorts of marginal land, along the edges of cliffs, lakeshores, and oceans. It would all be used to try to grow food.

Forests would be cut down. Vast tracts of forest were cut down to burn wood for fuel, for cooking, or heating, or whatever else was necessary at that time.

He gave us some maps. If we go back and take a look at what these things looked like, there was less forest in 1920 in the United States than there is today. Actually because of the advancement of fossil fuels and the use of fossil fuels for things like transportation and heating, we live a much cleaner, much healthier, much more environmentally sustainable life than we could have ever imagined. We now live well into our 80s. Our size, our nourishment, the amount of technology from fossil fuels, has grown, including the fuel that goes into the input of agriculture. This is not just the input of driving the tractor, but the actual inputs like the creation of fertilizer that we can apply to our crops to grow far more food than we ever had.

That is not the biggest thing. The biggest thing is the advancement in transportation, Mr. Desrochers said. People used to only be able to eat food that could be grown within their local communities. While that sounds like a romantic idea, and there are lots of people pushing that agenda from all corners of this House at certain times, the reality is that if there was a bad crop or a bad year on the farm when people were living a subsistence living, they were in danger of dying.

This was not all that long ago. Imagine what it was like 200 years ago to move a ton of grain 50 kilometres when all they had was a couple of horses. Imagine how much grain would be needed to feed that horse just to move that grain.

In the late 1800s, I believe it was 1898, in New York City, regional municipal planners got together for their first-ever meeting. The issue of the day was not about where they would build sewer lines or pipelines or water lines or anything like that, it was what they were going to do with horse manure. That was their transportation mode.

Enter fossil fuels. We have coal now that we can burn in ships. We are not relying on the trade winds or sailing ships to trade. We can move food anywhere we want in the world, anytime we want. When one region of the world has a drought, another region of the world has tremendous crop successes. We see this now. We take it for granted. We have forgotten how this actually happens. Now we can transfer food from Australia to Southeast Asia. We can transfer food from North America to China. We can transfer food from Africa to Europe, or from Europe to Africa for that matter, in the form of aid.

Where would the planet be right now if we could not actually airlift or move food quickly, by ship or cargo planes or whatever the case might be, with the technological advances of the petrochemical industry?

I do not know if anybody has been in a cockpit of an airplane lately, but it is not made out of wood. Where would we be without the advancements in fossil fuels?

These are the things that we have so much taken for granted and forgotten, as we have these debates about what is a social licence. I know where I can apply for my driver's licence. I know where I can apply for my fishing licence. If I am lucky, I might even be able to get a marriage licence. However, I do not know anywhere we can apply for a social licence. This is just a manufactured term, trying to create an agenda on one side of the issue to stop something that makes complete sense; to stop the industry and to stop things that improve our quality of life.

God forbid that we did not have fossil fuels in our lives. Where would we be? What would we be able to do? Nothing. There would not be politicians in this room debating it, because we would be out scratching a living off rocks.

I do not know of any other fuel or any other technology right now that allows us to do long-range transportation. Is there anything else that we could put in an airplane to make it fly? Are they going to put a battery-operated commercial airline in the air and get on it and go over the Pacific? I am not doing that. I am pretty happy with that airplane burning carbon fuels to get me across the ocean. That is absolutely fantastic. That is a modern advancement.

Did members know that the air quality in Toronto 100 years ago was worse than the air quality in Beijing today? Most Canadians do not know that. It is true. What were they burning 100 years ago to heat their homes in Toronto? It was some of the dirtier carbon of the day. They were burning wood and coal.

These are the things, as we have advanced through our society, burning garbage or whatever waste they could, that we have advanced from over time. Right now China is going through the same thing. This is just industrial revolution all over again. It is just happening at different times in different countries around the world. China will advance. Certain countries are so advanced over Canada. Here we are in Canada, one of the most technologically advanced countries in the world, and other countries that are still in or just coming out of third world status have better communications systems than we do. They got to skip the whole part where we dug our lines and buried them in the ground. They went right to radio telecommunications and satellite communications in their country, on cellphones not made out of wood.

I have nothing against wood. I have nothing against our other natural resources. I even prefer wooden hockey sticks, but that is a different issue altogether.

My point is that fossil fuels have done more to make us wealthier and healthier. The wealthier we are, the healthier we are. In a country where people are living under the poverty line, where the per capita GDP is less than $5,000 per year, are those people living as long as we are? Are they as healthy as we are? Can they afford the same quality of food as we can afford? Absolutely not.

The fossil fuel sector creates wealth. Wealth creates health. Not only do we live longer because we can have better food and all the other things that go along with that, but we have freed up a massive amount of our population to move to our urban areas to pursue education, to study, and to create a powerful centre of innovation and technology so we can have advancements. We can solve our problems with technological improvements.

We do not need to politicize something that is so uncontroversial. Saying they want to go through their day without fossil fuels is like saying they can get by without eating bread. It does not make any sense. They would never say that. Why would they say they could get through their day without using a bit of carbon or using some fossil fuels from time to time?

Those happiest about the advancement of fossil fuels were the whales. Let me explain. Prior to the invention or refinement of kerosene, the major source of oil in the world was whale oil. I am listening to the Liberal Party blubber on and on about these environmental issues when the advancement of the fossil fuel industry actually probably saved the whales on the planet. I thank Shell. I thank Nexon. I thank all those companies for the great environmental work that they do.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is wonderful when we have the opportunity to be entertained in this chamber. I have to say that I was very entertained by some of the things the member said.

I have a question that relates to what the hon. member said with respect to the air quality in Toronto 100 years ago versus the air quality today in Beijing. The hon. member made the statement that the air quality in Toronto 100 years ago was worse than the air quality today in Beijing. I wonder what scientific studies were done 100 years ago on the air quality in Toronto that the hon. member is actually relying on. Could he perhaps furnish me with a copy of the scientific proof and studies? It would be interesting to see.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

Mr. Speaker, let me catch the hon. member up. I have had the privilege and pleasure of not only working in the oil and gas sector, but I have also had the privilege and honour of getting an education, three of them, as a matter of fact. The biggest education I have ever had is becoming a member of Parliament, talking to common sense folk who vote Conservative in Alberta.

He wants to go back and take a look at studies that have been done. I just referred to one by a professor from Toronto, who appeared before the natural resources committee. All the information I presented here is in the paper coming right out of the committee report. The study was done in 2014, in the spring. He is free to go to the committee for information and read it for his own edification. He might even become so enlightened that he will jump ship and come over here with the common sense people in the House.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we have strayed a bit from the text of the motion and covered a few different areas. I would like to comment on two of the items that the member mentioned.

First, he was going on and on about the health benefits of our oil infrastructure, and I certainly agree that the technological advances of the oil industry have certainly made some amazing things happen, but I would like him to comment on the incredible costs our society is now burdened with. My riding of Cowichan—Malahat—Langford is now seeing record droughts during the summers. It is directly linked to climate change, which is directly linked to the burning of fossil fuels. That has a health effect on people in my community.

Second, I think we need to be very careful when we talk about social licence. His comments are straying dangerously close to a paternalistic attitude that got the previous government into quite a lot of trouble.

I would like the hon. member to talk about social licence and offer his comments to the many first nations in Canada who have stood up against this review process. I would like him to clarify what his comments mean to them.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

Mr. Speaker, here we go, fomenting more division across the country with comments and questions like this. It is really unfortunate that my hon. colleague would actually go down this path.

Social licence is simply about putting a political lens on it. That is just politically correct jargon that people are using these days. If he wants to use the words “social licence”, he can go ahead and use the words “social licence”. I am going to stick to science and the technology that the National Energy Board and other engineers and technologists actually have to make sure that pipelines are built. I am an environmentalist, too. I love the environment. I love fishing, I love hunting. I am a farm boy from Lacombe, Alberta. I do not want a dirty environment any more than anyone else does, but I understand the value of the energy sector and building a pipeline from Alberta to the east coast of Canada, the west coast of Canada, or to the Gulf of Mexico. It is good for Alberta, which is good for Canada.

If the hon. member ever wants to doubt me, he can simply go back and look at the various financial documents that have been tabled in budgets in the House for years and years, and he will see who are the net contributors to and net recipients from the civil program called equalization. I am a proud Albertan and happy to be a net contributor, to the point of $4,000 per capita by the average Albertan over the last 10 years. Per year, Albertans pay more into the confederation than we receive back in benefits in Alberta.

Not only that, but people enjoyed the best quality of life in Alberta because of the energy sector. We had a government, even though it was Conservative, that spent more on things like health care, education, and roads per capita than any other government before. I will not apologize for the fact that Canada is blessed with abundant natural resources. Some of them are non-renewable. Let us use them. It improves the quality of our lives.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is always an honour for me to rise in the House to speak on any important matter of debate, and this is such an important matter. Ironically, we are a few months away from the 60th anniversary of a similar debate on pipelines that rocked the House at the time and led to an election and a change in government.

Ironically at the time, it was the Liberal Party that was advocating for a pipeline to be built across Canada and it was Prime Minister Diefenbaker who was looking at options on whether it could go through the United States or how that government would proceed. However, I think everyone involved knew the importance of that project to Canada and its economy. It was the way it was being implemented in the nation's interest.

We are back here today because my hon. colleague, the natural resources critic of the official opposition, brought this debate to the House. In debates like this I also think of a quote that a mentor of mine once related to me. I have not been able to find the attribution, but one of my political mentors when I was living in Nova Scotia was the late Henry David MacKeen, who was very close to Robert Stanfield, the leader of the official opposition and Conservative leader in Ottawa. Stanfield once said that it is far easier to unite one part of Canada against another part of Canada than it is to unite all of Canada. Sadly, we are having this debate today because our new Prime Minister seems to have forgotten that point and the role of the nation's leader in guiding our economy.

The Prime Minister speaks regularly about diversity, which I like him doing. Diversity is our strength, but diversity is more than just our peoples. It is our geography and our economy. Those three things are linked, because it is the geography of regions, whether it is Atlantic Canada with our fishery or western Canada with our resources, that the people of those regions and all of Canada benefit from the economy involved. That is the diversity of our country, the second largest in the world. That needs to be the focus of the Prime Minister of Canada, not pitting one region or industry or sector against another, because by doing that we are dividing Canadians.

Our economy is diverse. We sometimes hear voices in the media suggesting that we are only an oil and gas exporter, that that is all the previous government focused on. People who say that have no clear understanding of our economy. The resource economy is very important to Canada, but it represents about 8% of our GDP and not all of it concentrated in a few provinces. Petrolia, Ontario was where oil was first produced in Canada. It is no longer produced there, but almost $1 billion in manufacturing jobs in southern Ontario are attributable to the resource sector in western Canada. There are as many manufacturing jobs in southern Ontario attributable to the resource sector as to auto assembly. The success of that region and part of our economy benefits all.

Canada receives $17 billion through all levels of government as a result of the resource industry. This diversity is what has helped us weather the global recession of 2008-09 better than any of our main allies. It was that economy that helped as Ontario, Quebec, and other provinces' economies slowed. Now the Canadian way would be to embrace the diversity of that economy, and as resource prices are depressed, hopefully other aspects of our economy from high-tech, to manufacturing, to agriculture, to fisheries, can help take up some of the slack. That is what a family does. That is what a confederation does. We cannot pit one industry or one sector of our economy against the other, because that pits Canadians against each other.

The resource industry is much more than just the trees, the minerals, or the oil and gas. We have innovated in this sector probably better than any other country. From exploration, to extraction, to processing, these are high-tech knowledge-based jobs that help us also mitigate environmental damage. Millions of dollars is being spent on that.

For a number of years I had the pleasure of working in Toronto in the so-called Bay Street area. The Toronto Stock Exchange and Bay Street would not exist in the form they do today were it not for our resource sector. In fact, our exchange remains one of the best places to raise capital for mining exploration in the world. That is what put us on the map.

There are a lot of Liberal MPs from Toronto. If we were to look at the office towers in Toronto, those jobs would not be there if we were not a global centre for mining finance. The capital markets and banks that have fed off of that for generations have now placed us as one of the best and strongest G7 economies in the world. There are jobs in every part of this country and resources coming to all levels of government because of the resource sector. To demonize that sector or pit it against another is an abdication of leadership.

In the last year, both before and after his election, the Prime Minister made comments that make it appear to many that he plays favourites among the sectors. Because sectors, geography and our people are so closely linked, picking favourites pits one part of the country against another. We saw this when he said that parts of Ontario need to move past their manufacturing heritage. The auto industry in Canada grew up from Oshawa, a part of which I have the honour of representing. There are still thousands of jobs in the auto assembly and auto parts industries in my area and tens of thousands in southern Ontario that we cannot move past. The Prime Minister should be asking how we can secure and expand these employment opportunities. Not every community across the country can pop up a BlackBerry or an OpenText or a Hootsuite. Those are tremendous innovators. However, one should not pick those innovators over our resource sector, not as the Prime Minister.

In case the Prime Minister does not know, we are resourceful now. However, he said in Davos that resources were in our past, as if the Canadian innovations in the in situ work in mining, oil, and gas were not an example of resourcefulness, as if mitigating the water use in the oil sands was not resourceful, and as if raising capital for mining operations or exploration around the world was not resourceful or meaningful. The role of the Prime Minister should not be to pick favourites. He should be a champion for all.

I worry about the tone he is setting, even in his early days as the Prime Minister of Canada, which is one that other levels of government are following. The mayor of Montreal, his former parliamentary colleague, appears to think that it is okay, when he knows full well the opportunity that energy east holds for New Brunswick and western Canada, and that the National Energy Board is seized with that matter to ensure that energy east is in the national interest, alongside environmental, aboriginal, and community concerns, which, writ large, have developed into the concept of social licence. The Prime Minister has set a tone that is allowing division to start in our country.

The Prime Minister of Canada should not be a traffic cop for other levels of government but a dispassionate referee, when there are tens of thousands of jobs on the line and we, 60 years later in the House, are having another debate on pipelines and how they are in our nation's interest.

I will end with a quote from 2014 with respect to energy east by Frank McKenna, a tremendous Canadian and prominent Liberal leader, who said:

Our country has always had its regional differences, and the Energy East pipeline is not going to change that by itself. That said, following the National Energy Board’s due diligence and further input from various parties (including First Nations and environmental organizations), I would hope that one thing becomes abundantly clear. The Energy East project represents one of those rare opportunities to bring all provinces and regions of this country together to support a project that will benefit us all, and that is truly in the national interest.

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member went beyond the establishment of a plan, which is something I am sure many members across have advocated for with respect to this project. I agree that the outcome with respect to the economy can be recognized and realized, as the member has outlined in his comments.

However, does the member not believe that looking through a lens of a triple bottom line process, including economic, social and economy, the dialogue we should have with members across the country, working together to make a plan, can come to fruition? Does the member not think that should be taken into consideration as part of the overall plan before the country moves forward with such a project?

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

Mr. Speaker, that is exactly what the National Energy Board does through the prisms he discussed.

The concept of social licence has grown out of Canada's robust regulatory regime, which in its early days dealt with property rights and environmental concerns. However, in the last generation, the last 25 years, with decisions of the Supreme Court of Canada, like Delgamuukw and others, it has involved consultations. All of those things together become social licence. The concept actually comes from a regulatory process, and it is the right of the government to enhance and build upon it if it wants.

However, my concern is the Prime Minister's abdication of leadership in the national interest. He is not a traffic cop between mayors. He has to tell Canadians why energy east is so important.

I would put it in the context of the member for Niagara Centre if over a century ago there was such nimbyism or parochialism around the Welland Canal. It was an important route that travelled through a lot of towns and boroughs to allow commerce in the region and was of national interest at that time. I am sure the member would agree that it is a boon to his riding. This is even bigger. For a province like New Brunswick, which is struggling, it is critical for its future.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have a lot of respect for my hon. colleague. I served on the trade committee with him, and I thank him for his measured speeches.

However, in listening to the speeches of his colleagues from the Conservative Party, they have been uniquely confusing. They talk about the need to have pan-Canadian co-operation and to not be divisive. Yet all I hear, speaker after speaker in his caucus, is the most inflammatory, divisive language being used, bringing up how one province supports another, and constantly putting wedges between the provinces. I do not think Canadians are going to fall for that rhetoric, that this motion is intended to be a bit of a wedge issue.

I actually find myself in agreement with almost all of this motion. In parts (a), (b) and (c): recognizing the importance of the energy sector, of course; agreeing that pipelines are the safest way to transport oil, which I think is a fact; and acknowledging the desire of the energy east pipeline by various governments, which is also true. My issue is with the conclusion, which is asking the House to “express its support for the Energy East pipeline currently under consideration”.

I have a problem with that last part. According to the member's speech, he believes in having the NEB do a proper regulatory review process and respecting that. However, the energy east pipeline has not gone through that process. What the member is doing is asking members of the House to prejudge that process and express support for a proposal that has not been evaluated.

How can the member square that circle to us? How can he ask the House to support a proposal, and also ask members of the House to put our support behind a credible environmental impact assessment process and respect the results of it when he wants us to prejudge its results?

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

Mr. Speaker, my friend and I have worked on trade together. He has worked on moving the NDP into somewhat more modestly of accepting trade, and I applaud him for that.

On the wedges the member talked about, it is not this motion today. The motion today is brought because of comments by the Prime Minister, and then days later by the mayor of Montreal. As I said, I am concerned that the Prime Minister has set that tone, suggesting that the resource economy is not as important as other parts of our economy. As I said, diversity of our economy is our strength and it has helped us. That is why we are bringing this debate.

The Prime Minister needs to lead the national interest. He needs to have faith in the NEB and has the right to enhance it, but should he champion projects done responsibly and reviewed when he knows they are in the nation's interest, and when he knows that provinces like New Brunswick are struggling and knows we are importing oil to those refineries. This screams national interest, which is why I used Frank McKenna's example.

[Kim Rudd, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Surrey—Newton today.

I am proud to add my voice to this important debate because there are few issues facing our country today that are more pressing than growing our economy while we protect our environment. Both are critical to our overarching promise to strengthen the middle class and to help those working hard to join it.

All of us understand that our nation's prosperity has been built on our natural resources. It goes without saying that a core responsibility of the federal government is to help get our natural resources to market. This equal balance of priorities is something Canadians have not seen for 10 years by their federal government. However, that is only possible if we earn the required public trust by addressing environmental, indigenous peoples, and local concerns. This is key to improving and protecting economic opportunity and security for Canadians on contentious issues like pipeline approvals.

We need to ensure that our resource sector remains a source of jobs, prosperity and opportunity within the context of a world that increasingly values sustainable practices and low carbon processes. As Prime Minister Trudeau noted recently in answering a journalist's question, a less aggressive--

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

Order, please. I would remind the member that when you are speaking in the House to refer to the person by his or her riding, or by his or her title.

[Kim Rudd, Liberal, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

As the Prime Minister noted recently in answering a journalist's question, a less aggressive approach on environmental responsibility in the past led to a ramping up of rhetoric against Canadian oil and against Canadian energy. This is the Conservative legacy for the energy industry.

If we do not convince Canadians and people the world over that we take the environment seriously, it will remain difficult, if not impossible, to get our resources to world markets.

It does not have to be this way, as the ministers of Natural Resources Canada and Environment and Climate Change Canada underlined yesterday in our interim approach to assessing and reviewing major resources projects. The five interim principles they announced would enable energy and pipeline companies to demonstrate that their projects were in the public interest and deserving of the approval of Canadians. This open and collaborative approach is about real change and prosperity for the energy industry.

The steps we are taking would also help to regain the public's confidence that we can achieve prosperity and protect the environment without compromising either one.

We have pledged to Canadians that we would set a higher bar for openness and transparency, to shine more light on government to ensure it remains focused on the people it serves. We will deliver. In the same way, we will be transparent and work collaboratively with other sectors, including the energy industry, to provide proponents with the clarity and certainty they need to plan and implement projects.

In short, in addressing national projects like energy pipelines, we will behave in a positive and productive way that contributes to the economy, a secure environment, to bringing people together, and to creating a better future for the generations that follow us.

Our plan for pipelines is not based on pipe dreams, and it does not involve unnecessary meddling in the marketplace. Our government recognizes it has a fundamental role to play in opening up markets abroad for Canadian resources and to help create responsible and sustainable ways to get those resources to those markets. The best way we can do that is to create fair and transparent processes so industry can create economic growth and protect the environment to sustain the high quality of life of Canadians.

Does that mean we are willing to maintain the status quo, as the opposition motion recommends we do? Clearly not. We need to put an end to the mistrust and suspicion that currently surrounds discussions about pipelines in our country by those playing politics and putting ideology over industry and the public's interest. When the Conservatives shut down real dialogue for over a decade, it is understandable that trust is lost, and trust is a vital resource for effective government. We will protect the public trust.

Let me be clear. No proponent with a pipeline project already undergoing an environmental review will have to go back to the starting line. Rather, project proponents and their investors will have greater clarity about timelines and certainly about what is expected of them in reaching a final decision, thanks to these reasonable and balanced changes.

This government trusts the ingenuity of energy producers and shippers to come up with sustainable solutions. The energy sector has decades of experience in fact in developing technological innovations to extract the value of these resources. We acknowledge the industry continues to lead in reducing its environmental footprint. By devoting more brain power and ingenuity to resource extraction and shipping, the energy industry can and will be more environmentally sustainable.

However, even this progress toward sustainability will not satisfy the concerns of Canadians without the assurance that the regulatory review process is robust. That is why we have announced five interim principles that will support the energy sector's drive to sustainably develop energy resources and ship them responsibly to tidewater.

We will show Canadians, and the world community, that we are making decisions about project approvals based on science, facts, and evidence. We are taking into account the views of all Canadians and respecting the rights of indigenous peoples. We are determined to better understand and minimize environmental impacts. We will ensure that resource development decisions and actions are central to our government's commitment on climate change.

Protecting the environment and growing the economy are not incompatible goals. A clean environment and a strong economy go hand in hand.

I am confident that by working in partnership with all parties with a stake in responsible pipeline development we will demonstrate that Canada is a global leader in sustainable energy and shipment.

We will restore the public trust. Public trust is essential to public backing of these projects.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague for her comments and congratulate her on, I think, her first speech as parliamentary secretary.

We have heard a number of comments from the Liberal side, and we have asked questions and gotten some answers.

Given that the Liberals have committed to more free votes, to not dictating what their members should do or say or how they should vote, I wonder, first, if the parliamentary secretary would tell me if the government will be supporting this motion, and second, if it will allow a free vote so that the members from the government side who would like to support this motion would be allowed to support it.

Will they be supporting this motion?

[Kim Rudd, Liberal, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for her question and her compliment.

We, as a government, and in our platform, clearly spoke to this issue of sustainable development and our work toward gaining the public trust. We also, as a government, clearly spoke about the ability of MPs within our government to have a say in what our government is putting out in our platform as well as in bills before this House.

We will continue to move forward on our work with our indigenous communities, communities in general, and stakeholders to make sure that Canadians have confidence in the process we have put forward, and we will see the results of that in the future.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her speech and comments. I am pleased to be part of this debate.

I would mainly like to ask her about the last element of the Conservatives' motion, which clearly supports the energy east project without even taking into consideration the results of an environmental assessment and a clear process to monitor the pipeline projects.

What does she think about the fact that the Conservatives have decided to support a project even before the assessment process has been completed?

[Kim Rudd, Liberal, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we have clearly said that Canadians have to have trust in our process. We are adamant that we will not provide any kind of interference in this process.

We completely disagree with the motion in terms of making a predetermination of an outcome before this project has even had hearings or gone through the process. We are not going to interfere, and we will wait for the outcome of this process before having anything further to say.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, we all know how important this issue is to Canadians. It is important that the Government of Canada get it right, and I believe that we do have it right.

I am asking the parliamentary secretary to comment on just how Canada's economy and the concerns with regard to the environment are two of the most important issues for Canadians as they look to the future. They want a government that cares about the environment. They want a government that is going to be there to ensure that we get our natural resources to tidewaters, and so forth. Both issues are important, and what Canadians are looking for is a government that is going to do what is right for Canada as a whole.

Maybe she would provide some further comment on the importance of making sure that we get it right.

[Kim Rudd, Liberal, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we have said that we will not be rushed. Canadians do not want us to be rushed. Canadians do want us to get it right.

We recognize that the resource sector contributes 20% of GDP in this country. It is an extremely important part of our efforts in growing the economy, so we cannot do it at the expense of our environment, something that will be with us for a very long time, we hope.

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Surrey—Newton, BC]

Mr. Speaker, first, I congratulate the nominees who sit in this chair, and I am sure the constituents of Nipissing—Timiskaming are very proud of the hard and diligent work you do, not only for your constituents but for Canadians.

I am proud to stand today to speak about our government's economic agenda.

This is a difficult period for the Canadian economy. China has slowed down dramatically, and commodity prices have dropped globally. The Bank of Canada has adjusted its economic forecast and has cut interest rates twice over the last 12 months. Now, more than ever, is the time for our government to look toward long-term growth, growth that will provide good jobs for Canada's middle class, the lifeblood of our economy. This is why we introduced Bill C-2, which provides a middle-class tax cut to support Canadian families.

My constituents of Surrey—Newton are happy to finally have a government that believes that they too deserve tax relief. The Liberal middle-class tax cut will lift $3 billion in tax burden from the backs of middle-class income earners.

Bill C-2 will reduce the middle-income tax rate from 22% to 20.5%. It will also reduce the contribution limit on tax free savings accounts from $10,000 to $5,500. This will benefit about nine million Canadians, which accomplishes two important objectives. First, it will restore fairness to the tax system by treating middle-income earners on par with the highest earning bracket and corporate Canada, which received the majority of tax relief from the previous government.

Just as important, this is a middle-class tax cut that is designed to stimulate the economy. The Bank of Montreal's chief economist, Doug Porter, has stated that this tax cut will encourage an increase in consumer spending and might compel middle-class earners to work more, because they will be able to keep more of their paycheques in their pockets.

History has shown that a middle-class tax cut has one of the highest returns on investment for a government, because it spurs growth by encouraging spending in the local economy. This is why, in Surrey—Newton and across Canada, small businesses are also supportive of this measure. It means that they will see a direct positive impact.

However, this is not the only way this government is putting money back into the pockets of families. The new Canada child benefit creates a simpler, more generous, and tax-free infusion for families with children.

Investment does not stop there. We will also invest in cities, the economic engines that are critical to the success of our national economy. In Surrey Newton, we see the strain that is caused by rapid growth. The city of Surrey continues to welcome over 1,000 new residents per month, and we need to continue to improve our municipal services to accommodate this growth.

This Liberal government has committed to investing $125 billion over the next 10 years to upgrade public infrastructure and public transit. The newly proposed LRT line in Surrey is absolutely essential for strong public transit long into the future. Within the next 30 years, Surrey will emerge as the largest city in British Columbia, and easily accessible public transit is critical to that evolution.

Our government understands that investing in Canada's economy must be balanced, but it also means that we will never give up on working to get our natural resources to international markets. Our Prime Minister and this government will never forget that 1.8 million jobs are directly and indirectly attached to natural resources across Canada.

This government looks far into the future of Canada's economy and plans for long-term sustainability and growth. This will be accomplished in a number of specific ways: by ensuring that environmental sustainability is at the heart of Canada's resource sector, which will make Canadian resources globally attractive; by working with the provinces and territories to ensure that under-represented groups are represented in a new skills and labour strategy; by supporting growing firms in attracting talent and investment while still incorporating innovation in their operations; and by enhancing the Canada pension plan co-operatively with our provincial and territorial partners to ensure that all Canadians have access to a secure retirement. I cannot emphasize how important this kind of approach is to the future success of all Canadians.

In Surrey, we had the pleasure of being one of the six cities to host the hon. Minister of Finance during the pre-budget consultation tour. The minister was able to hear a wide range of perspectives from one of the most dynamic communities in Canada, and one of the key messages was this: Canada can no longer place all of its eggs in one basket. We must look for balance. We must invest in the middle class, in cities, and in different industries, and we must take the long view for our future generations.

These are the same messages we are hearing from Canadians from coast to coast to coast. We have reached nearly 150,000 Canadians in these pre-budget consultations, through technology and through in-person meetings. This is the largest participation in pre-budget consultations in Canadian history. We are proud of this inclusive approach, which will come to define everything our government does over the next four years. This is a government for all provinces, all territories, all cities, all financial profiles, all races, and all backgrounds. We are committed to listening to each and every perspective and opinion. This is why our mandate to grow the economy sustainably, responsibly, fairly, and with a long-term vision was supported in Surrey—Newton and across Canada. We will continue to show respect for every single Canadian voice as we work towards presenting our budget in the coming months.

I am proud to say that balance is back in Ottawa.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the member on his election. I was a bit taken aback by his comments about how reducing the TFSA was a boon for the middle class. Of the people who maxed out their TFSA contributions, 73.4% earned incomes of $80,000 and less. How does taking that away from people in the middle class actually help them?

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Surrey—Newton, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member and congratulate him on his election as well.

As I mentioned in my speech, our Prime Minister made a promise in our election platform that this is the party and this is the government that is going to help the middle class. Every policy that is coming in is helping it. Bringing in Bill C-2, as I said earlier, reducing income tax from 22.5% to 20.5%, would help middle-class families. Bringing in a Canada child benefit would help the families who need the most. These are the types of policies we need, and these are the types of policies our government is going to deliver in the coming months and years.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

Before we move to questions and comments, I will remind the hon. member for Dufferin—Caledon that there is a process. If he stands up, he will be recognized, and he can ask a question or make a comment then.

The hon. member for Sherbrooke.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague on his election. My question has to do with yesterday's announcement of a kind of interim system or some half measures for projects currently under review by the National Energy Board.

We were told that the government would now consider the greenhouse gas emissions that would result from these pipeline projects. This would include not only emissions resulting from the project itself, but also upstream emissions produced during the extraction and production of what is sent through the pipeline.

Since we learned yesterday that cabinet would determine the acceptable level of greenhouse gas emissions for approving projects, could I have more details on the quantity and level of emissions that will be deemed acceptable?

This announcement seemed half-baked, and I get the impression that we will have more questions than there are answers. I hope to get more information on what emission levels cabinet will deem acceptable in order to move forward with pipeline projects, and especially the two projects under review by the National Energy Board.

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Surrey—Newton, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member talked about the announcement that was made yesterday by the minister, along with the parliamentary secretary. The main thing is that, when we move forward, we have to have a balanced approach. We cannot sacrifice the environment for the cost of the economy. We have to create an economy that is sustainable, creating new opportunities for every Canadian as much as possible, but at the same time, we have to make sure that we are able to consult with the provinces and territories.

We are not a government that wants to pit one province against another, one community against another, or one city against another. We are a government that wants to have a comprehensive approach, to bring all Canadians together, and to bring in a plan that works for future generations.