House of Commons Hansard #215 of the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was east.

Topics

Transport, Infrastructure and CommunitiesCommittees of the House

4:55 p.m.

Conservative

Blake Richards Conservative Banff—Airdrie, AB

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member's lecture. I would like to say that it was informative, but I really cannot say that. I hope she satisfied her own need to provide a lecture to the House.

In some odd, convoluted way, I suppose she has a point in saying that the energy east pipeline itself would not have allowed us to serve energy needs. Of course not. However, the refinery that was being proposed would have. Unfortunately, that is the kind of thing we see dead as the result of this decision.

Yes, it was a business decision, but it was a decision based on the endless changes to the regulatory process, which were designed by the government, and I do not exaggerate in saying this, to try to prevent our oil and gas from getting to market. That is what they were designed to do. I thank the member for the opportunity to highlight that once again. I thank the member for the opportunity to highlight just how wrong she is. I thank the member for the opportunity to remind the government how wrong it is in trying to kill our energy industry and in making sure that the thousands of Albertans and Canadians who are out of work remain so, for continuing to inflict harm on our local economies and local communities as a result, and for the damage that then does to the environment as a result of our far more environmentally friendly oil.

I would challenge the member who asked the question to stand up and indicate if she believes that our oil is not more environmentally friendly than it is in places like Saudi Arabia and others. That is a question she should be answering. It is a question the government should be answering, because I cannot understand why it would want to see that oil being produced, rather than ours, to feed the world's energy needs and help the environment in the process.

Transport, Infrastructure and CommunitiesCommittees of the House

4:55 p.m.

Conservative

Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB

Mr. Speaker, it really is a pleasure for me to rise today in our House of Commons to speak in defence of Canada's energy sector, a sector that is very important to me personally and very important to my constituency. It is our energy sector that brought my grandfather to Alberta. He was there during the first national energy program. Unfortunately, now we are living through what looks very much like the second iteration of the national energy program. I will speak to that a little bit later on.

The energy sector is deeply important to me as well as to my constituency. My constituency is called Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, but it covers Canada's industrial heartland. It is a hub of energy-related manufacturing.

It is interesting to hear some members, such as the leader of the Green Party, suggest that somehow we have to make a choice between upgrading energy-related manufacturing and pipelines, when, in fact, people in the energy sector in my region say that we can and we should look for opportunities to do more of both. We need those pipelines to export, regardless of whether we are exporting final product or an earlier-stage product. There are opportunities, as well, to develop our upgrading and refining capacity, certainly. We see those opportunities being developed in my constituency, directly in our industrial heartland.

It is the policies of the government, such as its carbon tax, its attack on small business, and the general uncertainty around the regulatory environment, that are killing not only the transportation section of the energy sector, not only the extractive sector, but also the value-added and upgrading section of the energy sector.

There was an American journalist named Michael Kinsley who once quipped that a gaffe is when a politician tells the truth. I think this is an interesting quote. That might be rephrased a little to say that a gaffe is when politicians say what they actually think.

When we look at some of the comments that have been made by ministers and by the Prime Minister about the energy sector or various other issues, oftentimes some of these one-off comments are dismissed as gaffes or mistakes, or we are told, “Don't worry, the tweet was deleted; he offered a clarification”, or whatever the case may be.

However, when we start to see a pattern when comments are made, it is worth reflecting on this Kinsley quote. These are gaffes in the sense that these are cases when people are actually letting the curtain slip and are showing what their real agenda is with respect to our energy sector.

For example, we have, in this House, the Minister of Democratic Institutions, who, ironically perhaps, sits right beside the Minister of Natural Resources. She tweeted, in 2012, “It's time to landlock Alberta's tar sands.”

That is pretty offensive language, but this came from someone who is now a minister in this government, saying, “It's time to landlock Alberta's tar sands.” The clarification was issued. The tweet was deleted. However, now this person is sitting in cabinet, and it makes people wonder what her views are with respect to Alberta's energy sector. Actually, we do not really have to wonder, because she has told us what her views are with respect to the energy sector.

We had the Prime Minister say, more recently, that it is time to phase out Canada's oil sands. He made a comment once that he thinks Canada does not do well when we have people from my part of the country in key leadership positions.

These kinds of comments that are very derogatory towards Alberta, and in particular suggest an opposition to energy development and a desire to landlock our energy resources, are sometimes characterized as mistakes or gaffes. However, I think, actually, that they are quite revealing. They are gaffes in the sense that there are moments when the curtain slips and the Prime Minister and members of his cabinet actually say things they really, truly believe.

What was the agenda the minister in question had in mind when she said, “landlock Alberta's tar sands”? Of course, we say oil sands, but that is the quote.

We had two new pipeline projects within Canada, and there were other pipeline expansion projects. There was the pipeline through the United States, the Keystone XL, but two new pipeline projects to tidewater were proposed within Canada, one going west and one going east. At the time of the last election, the pipeline going west, the northern gateway pipeline, had been approved. The pipeline going east, energy east, was in process. If they were trying to do what the minister said she wanted to do, which is landlock our energy resources, I guess they would have to come up with a way of killing these two pipeline projects. The Liberals have done it. Today, one of those projects has been killed directly; one has been killed indirectly.

We have a tweet from a minister in 2012 that the objective is to “landlock Alberta's tar sands”, and here we are five years later. The Liberals are in government and she is cabinet, and it has happened. We had a gaffe where the agenda was revealed, and now the agenda has come to fruition. Unfortunately, the Liberals have taken steps to landlock our energy resources. We have seen this, and it is hard to deny that this is happening.

I want to highlight a number of other examples where the Prime Minister made comments that were perhaps explained away or qualified, or referred to as a slip of the tongue or a gaffe at the time, but revealed something fundamental about the way in which he sees the world. He said in an interview during the election that, in his view, many small businesses are ways for wealthy Canadians to avoid paying taxes. That is what the Prime Minister said. I do not know how many people took that comment seriously. However, with the punitive measures that have since been proposed toward small business, it looks like the Prime Minister believes we should go after and punish small businesses because they are a way for wealthy people to avoid paying taxes. That seems to be the Prime Minister's view. He expressed that view in an interview with Peter Mansbridge during the last election, and now he is undertaking punitive measures against those businesses.

He also said that he admires China's basic dictatorship, and he has gone on to pursue policies with respect to China that concern many Canadians. He has gone on to govern this country in a particularly autocratic way, trying at every possible turn to limit the input of the opposition members. We had two opposition speakers in the traditional period allowed for this debate before Liberals shut it down. We are only now able to have further conversations about this legislation because of a motion we are putting forward on an aspect of the committee's study, and travel related to that committee's study.

In each of these cases, where these gaffes or comments from the Prime Minister or from ministers were portrayed as a mistake, they revealed something quite fundamental to what appears to be the world view of the Prime Minister and members of the government.

Again, a comment was made by a minister saying that they wanted to landlock Alberta's energy resources, and effectively they have killed the two new pipeline projects proposed to tidewater within Canada. The bill that is being considered in terms of committee study at the moment is Bill C-48, which deals with tanker export from northern British Columbia. As soon as the government took office, Liberals instituted a ban on energy oil export from northern B.C. They have killed the northern gateway pipeline, and now they are formalizing this through legislation, which they are calling the oil tanker moratorium act.

Let us be quite clear, though, about what this legislation would and would not do. Once we lay it out, it will be quite obvious to members that this is only about killing off energy exports in the west. It is not fundamentally about tankers, because tankers take oil in and out of the country, and between different jurisdictions along our coast. There are oil tankers that come into the St. Lawrence. There are oil tankers that bring oil in and export oil off Canada's east coast. Certainly, if there were ever a spill from an Alaskan oil tanker carrying American oil, it would not discriminate. It would not somehow fail to touch the Canadian coast, and yet what the government is proposing would only deal with oil produced in Canada, and the ability to export it out of northern British Columbia specifically.

I would take the view that we should do everything possible to ensure good safety standards and to do away with any risks of a negative environmental impact, but ultimately recognize that by taking a leadership role and setting those standards and then benefiting from them economically through the export of Canadian oil, we really achieve a win-win situation. If the alternative is the export of other countries' oil, the non-development of our energy resources and, potentially, a greater environmental risk insofar as we are missing an opportunity for setting standards for our own oil exports, that alternative policy pursued by the current government is a lose-lose situation. It is a loss for the economy certainly, but also a loss for the environment.

At least we have to give the Liberals credit for acting directly in the case of the northern gateway pipeline. They did not seek to hide it. They said they were going to kill it and they killed it, and they are bringing in legislation that would formalize that. At least they were up front and direct. That is not much of a defence of it. It is the wrong policy. It is bad for jobs. It would kill opportunity in B.C., Alberta, and throughout the rest of the country because we are economically interconnected, but we can say that at least they have been direct about it

They have not been so direct with the energy east pipeline. Many people in the Maritimes voted Liberal, hoping that they would see the energy east pipeline come to fruition, and many members of the Atlantic caucus would have said they were supportive of energy east. Meanwhile, we had other members—and here I refer especially to the tweet by the member for Burlington, the Minister of Democratic Institutions—talking about wanting to land-lock Alberta's energy resources. We had other members with this agenda, the Prime Minister's agenda, of phasing out the oil sands. However, because of how popular energy east was, not just in Alberta but also in Atlantic Canada and many places in-between, they realized they could not kill it directly but would have to pursue some other strategy for achieving their objectives one at a time, which they were actually quite frank about before they deleted the tweet I mentioned.

Consequently, the Liberals introduced all kinds of regulatory hurdles and additional regulatory uncertainty and they tried to build in the idea that a project should be evaluated on prospective down-stream emissions. It would not just be the direct emissions from the use of that particular piece of infrastructure, but the prospective emissions that would eventually derive from it. This is a standard that notably is not applied anywhere else. We do not force aircraft manufacturers to be accountable for the subsequent likely greenhouse gas emissions associated with the use of their aircraft in the future. We do not do this for cars. We do not do this in any kind of manufacturing. We look at the environmental footprint of the manufacturing process, but we do not say that the manufacturers have to be accountable for all of the subsequent downstream emissions. This was a unique, unusual standard, and ultimately turned out to be an impossible one for energy east.

The government's response to the understandable decision of the company, in this case not to proceed with energy east, is to say that it is a business decision. For one thing, it points to oil prices. Companies understand that oil prices go up and down. No company decides to build a pipeline based on the price of oil on Monday, saying the price is good so let us build that pipeline. If it is down on Tuesday, it does not know. Companies are smart and sophisticated enough to realize that oil prices go up and down over time. They have to consider the overall situation, the overall environment, the probability of getting to a yes, and being able to proceed. It is not just about what the price of oil happens to be on Monday. That is a rather ridiculous suggestion from the Minister of Natural Resources.

Then the Liberals say it is a business decision, that Sisyphus just could not push the stone all the way, that it was too heavy for him. The task was set up in a way that success was likely impossible. There certainly was no credible certainty around it. We need a government that actually is looking for ways to get to a yes, to ensure the proper consultation happens, but not set up sort of a Sisyphean task, as in one that cannot be realized. It is clear from the debate in the House that is what is envisioned by the opponents of energy development. They do not want to say that they are opposed to energy east, but they want to kill it directly by coming up with all of these ambiguous, unclear criteria that make success impossible.

It is particularly clear from the exchange I just had with the member for Beloeil—Chambly what social licence is. He said that we had to get to social licence in order to get these things done. I then asked him what social licence would look like, because it surely could not be unanimity. We are never going to get unanimity on any question. People are not even unanimous in the belief that Elvis has died. We are not going to get unanimity on any question.

Transport, Infrastructure and CommunitiesCommittees of the House

5:10 p.m.

NDP

Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC

“The King” lives.

Transport, Infrastructure and CommunitiesCommittees of the House

5:10 p.m.

Conservative

Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB

Some members of the NDP caucus seem to think Elvis is still alive, Mr. Speaker. I did not think even they were that far out, but we will see. I know they were joking.

In all seriousness, we are never going to get unanimity on any question. Therefore, I posed this question. What did social licence mean? He said that it was not about unanimity but about respect, that people had to feel respected. Sorry, in any event, when having a controversial debate about a development project, some people are still going to be frustrated at the end of it, because they will feel like they did not get their way and they might characterize not getting their way in any number of ways. They might even characterize it as not feeling respected.

However, at the end of the day, many Canadians are very supportive of these projects. Many first nations communities are very supportive of these projects. I thought it was helpful that my colleague from Chilliwack—Hope gave voice to some of the indigenous communities that were supportive of energy development. Too often some politicians in the House suggest that indigenous communities are always against these projects when, in fact, many indigenous Canadians are not only in favour of development but are directly involved in benefiting from energy development. If this nebulous standard is created and never defined, it will always provide the means to justify indirectly killing these projects.

To sum up, a minister of the crown, before she was a minister of the crown, said that she wanted to landlock Alberta's tar sands. Now the government is pursuing policies that have realized that objective. It has directly killed the northern gateway pipeline and indirectly killed energy east. Maybe this was a gaffe by that minister, but only in the sense that a gaffe is when a politician actually reveals his or her real opinions.

Transport, Infrastructure and CommunitiesCommittees of the House

5:15 p.m.

NDP

Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC

Mr. Speaker, long live “the King”.

As the representative from northwestern British Columbia, I would suggest that the preponderance of risk associated with a pipeline like northern gateway was weighed and felt by my constituents, who have embraced and engaged with the issue far longer than anyone in the House, with far more on the line and far more knowledge than most anyone in this place.

The member talks about social licence. I would also speak to constitutional issues that were presented by the previous government, when in the middle of the process it retroactively changed the process, stripping the National Energy Board of its powers to make the final decision. That decision was then going to be arbitrated by the cabinet. The prime minister at the time, Harper, said they wanted to make the decision non-political. I do not know what makes a decision more political than having politicians have the final say.

In the community of Kitimat, which Conservatives have long argued would benefit the most as the terminus of the potential pipeline, the community held a plebiscite on this particular initiative. In a free vote, its citizens voted against supporting the project, not to mention the other first nations broadly across British Columbia who passed resolution after resolution to that effect in the different democratic forums that first nations people have. Indeed, the Union of British Columbia Municipalities passed resolution after resolution. These are the municipal leaders of British Columbia. My point is that if a previous government had tried to get to yes, had tried to make favourable conditions for resource development, and my region is resource rich and has long relied on resource development for our benefit going back thousands of years, doing it responsibly and democratically is an inherent measure of success.

I would suggest that the comedy and travesty of errors by the company and then the government side in not properly balancing the interests of the people I represent versus some of the interests that were closer to the government and the oil industry at the time led to the inevitable conclusion of turning people away from the project in my part of the world. They made a simple assessment of it. I think the member could agree with this. Most of the people we represent, when looking at proposals, large or small, look at the risk versus the benefit to their families, to themselves, and to their larger community. He would have to take into account in some measure all of those groups I mentioned that looked at the proposal with all of the information available, that looked at the process being used, and the eventual sham that was shown to be the review process, wherein basic issues such as whether bitumen sinks or floats was not even determined and we were not even allowed to question, and realize that the risks far outweighed the benefits.

The tanker moratorium discussed in Parliament for 40 years now can finally come about simply because we have an opportunity to do something that reflects back the interests of Canadians broadly speaking. He should support it if he wants to get to that yes, and represent all Canadians' interests.

Transport, Infrastructure and CommunitiesCommittees of the House

5:20 p.m.

Conservative

Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB

Mr. Speaker, I have to say that my friend from Skeena—Bulkley Valley is very eloquent but I also have to say that there is some sleight of hand in the way the question was phrased that I think misses a number of key aspects of this.

Obviously we do not believe that a municipal plebiscite in one affected community should be the veto. Even to say that there should be unanimity in every community in the area of the pipeline, especially larger pipeline projects, would not be a practical standard. There is an approach that engages communities so they get feedback and allows for a determination to be made one way or the other in a timely manner.

The member spoke about his concern that a decision be made by cabinet as opposed to the National Energy Board. He may remember, and he did not mention this in his question, that the northern gateway project was approved by the National Energy Board with conditions and was then approved by cabinet also subject to those conditions.

In terms of this discussion of the risk benefit analysis, we have to consider the relative risk associated with different means of transporting energy resources. Say for example that the alternative to pipelines is just not to drive our cars or heat our homes anymore. That is not particularly realistic. If the alternative is rail, we all know that pipelines are safer as they involve less risk to the environment.

The member did not address social licence at any point in his discussion. I do not think we will hear any member from any of the other parties address what they are talking about when they refer to social licence. What does that mean? What is the standard that they want to achieve?

We need to have a process through which a project is proposed, debated, input is provided, a decision is made in a timely manner, and then we proceed with that decision. In reality, we had a project that was approved by the NEB and approved by cabinet but was killed as a result of an arbitrary decision of the government. The government said it is okay to have some tankers in some places but no Canadian tankers in this particular place. That was an arbitrary decision. It was anti-development. It clearly seems to advance a hidden agenda, maybe a not-so-hidden agenda, of the government, of phasing out our energy resources, of landlocking our energy resources.

Transport, Infrastructure and CommunitiesCommittees of the House

5:20 p.m.

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB

Mr. Speaker, that was the second speaker in the last half hour who has tried to give a false reality. Maybe in the Conservative collective mind they think the Liberals do not want to develop energy in Alberta. All one needs to do is compare what the current Prime Minister and this Liberal government has been able to do in two years with what Stephen Harper did as prime minister in 10 years. If we were to factor in things such as infrastructure and other programs to enrich Canada's middle class and those aspiring to be a part of it, we would find that our government is tremendously supportive and I would argue more so than Stephen Harper's government.

Would the member across the way not acknowledge that we already have a process and that process has led to approvals that have generated thousands of jobs in the energy industry, something the former prime minister was unable to do? Pipelines have been approved.

What we are talking about today is whether or not a standing committee would consider going outside of Ottawa. I am wondering if the member could comment on whether or not that issue in itself has even been brought up at standing committee.

Transport, Infrastructure and CommunitiesCommittees of the House

5:25 p.m.

Conservative

Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB

Mr. Speaker, I commend my friend from Winnipeg North. He has a difficult job defending the government on most days, today particularly, so I commend him to his difficult task here.

The reality is, and I think the Liberals at some point will need to correct their talking points, there were four pipelines that were not just approved but built under the previous Conservative government. They are transporting 1.25 million more barrels of oil a day through pipelines that were built under the previous Conservative government. I am fairly proud of that record.

The Liberals have succeeded in killing the northern gateway pipeline project directly and killing the energy east pipeline project indirectly. That is the record. For the member to protest and say that they are supportive of development in the energy sector is again really a sleight of hand where they say they are supportive some of the time even though sometimes the curtain slips and they admit they are not, such as comments the Prime Minister and the Minister of Democratic Institutions and others have made. Most of the time they profess to be supportive, and yet they put all these roadblocks that make it impossible to get there. They impose new punitive taxes on our sector and they introduce measures that make getting to a yes virtually impossible, even when there is very strong community support.

The member needs to recognize that and needs to start being a little more honest in terms of what the agenda is and what the effect of their policies is.

Transport, Infrastructure and CommunitiesCommittees of the House

5:25 p.m.

Conservative

Stephanie Kusie Conservative Calgary Midnapore, AB

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to participate in this debate today on behalf of the official opposition. I think it is extremely important that further study be conducted on Bill C-48, the oil tanker moratorium act. Further study would also be consistent with the government's claims that they encourage wide consultation with Canadians across the country to share their ideas on how we can work together to create a stronger marine safety system and better protect our coasts.

I do want to stress the fact that this legislation is of great national importance. Bill C-48 is an act respecting the regulation of vessels that transport crude oil or persistent oil from ports or marine installations located along British Columbia's north coast. It is important to recognize that this legislation will have an impact not solely on local communities, but also nationally and certainly in my home riding of Calgary Midnapore. As a result, Canadians should have the opportunity to present their concerns, and having the transport committee engage in hearings is one way to make sure that happens.

Further to that, I want to refer back to comments my colleague from Lakeland made in her speech on Bill C-48. As she pointed out, following the general election in 2015, the Prime Minister sent a mandate letter to the Minister of Natural Resources, directing him to ensure that, "decisions are based on science, facts, and evidence, and serve the public's interest".

However, just over three weeks later, on November 13, 2015, mandate letters from the Prime Minister to at least three ministers directed them to work together to formalize a moratorium on crude oil tankers off British Columbia's north coast. As my colleague questioned, “One wonders quite reasonably how it could at all be possible that there was sufficient time in 25 days to ground this directive on the results of comprehensive assessments of existing environmental and safety records, standards, outcomes, and gaps; a comparative analysis of marine traffic rules, enforcement, and track records on all Canadian coasts and internationally; and thorough local, regional, and national economic impact studies.”

The answer is that there just was not time. Clearly, there was not time to consult with stakeholders such as first nations, local communities, industry, and experts. With today's motion, we are here asking for those steps to be taken.

I want to read a portion of an email of many emails I received last week.

A Calgary writer states that the Prime Minister has introduced Bill C-48, the oil tanker moratorium act, “...to ban oil tankers off B.C.'s northwest coast to Parliament over the objections of coastal and inland first nations. Tankers off Canada's east coast importing 759,000 barrels a day of foreign crude are apparently okay with the government and the Prime Minister, as are another 400 tankers per year through Vancouver's busy inner and outer harbours, under the Second Narrows bridges, under the Lions Gate bridge, past Stanley Park, through the Gulf Islands and narrow Haro Strait, and down the length of the Salish Sea past the provincial capital of Victoria and through the Strait of Juan de Fuca. This is all apparently okay with the Prime Minister, but not for tankers off Prince Rupert, the safest and best port on Canada's west coast!”

This bill is, of course, not really about transport standards, marine traffic, or protecting the safety and ecology of B.C.'s northern shore. It is a poorly disguised move by the Liberals to further limit Canadian oil development and transportation, and not the only instance that we have seen of this lately with the cancellation of energy east. In complete contradiction to his claims of wanting to consult Canadians, this is just one more example of the Prime Minister's own explicit goal to phase out the oil sands.

Once again, I am going to reiterate the comments made by my colleague from Lakeland earlier this month.

As she pointed out, “the unbiased, non-partisan Library of Parliament's legislative summary states explicitly that the debate around the tanker moratorium stems from the Conservative-approved northern gateway pipeline project”. This project would have had oil transported from Bruderheim, Alberta to Kitimat, B.C. After forming government, the Liberals told the National Energy Board to cancel the project. Now, by putting in place a ban on tanker ships in this region, the Liberals will permanently prevent any other opportunities for pipelines to transport world-leading Canadian oil to the Prince Rupert and Kitimat areas. As a result, Canada will not be able to expand our customer base by taking advantage of the rapidly growing Asia-Pacific region.

As I stated at the start of my speech, Bill C-48 is not a piece of minor legislation. It will negatively impact all of Canada with future consequences for the hundreds of thousands of Canadians employed in the energy sector across the country. Energy is the biggest private sector investor in Canada's economy and oil and gas is Canada's second biggest export with 97% imported by the United States. My colleague outlined some of the direct benefits Canadian oil and gas provides across the country including 670,000 direct and indirect jobs in this country. Deliberately limiting export capacity potential and thereby putting a ceiling on production would be detrimental to the livelihoods of Canadians everywhere and certainly in my riding of Calgary Midnapore, and, as we heard from the previous speaker, Alberta as a whole

As global oil demand continues to increase in the years and decades ahead, reaching tidewater in all directions for Canada's oil and gas should be a pressing priority for the Liberals. It makes no sense to delay, hinder, or equivocate on this point from an economic, environmental, or moral perspective in the global context.

The Liberals claim they are concerned about the environment, however, similar to the small business tax suggestions, their actions prove the opposite. By taking Canada out of the equation in terms of oil, the Liberals are allowing oil- and gas-producing countries, whose standards, enforcement, and outcomes are inferior to ours, to prevail. Additionally, they are opening up the market to corrupt regimes with abysmal environmental and human rights records, where energy development benefits only a select few. The government does not seem to realize that in Canada, energy development benefits every community with jobs and with revenue for multiple levels of government.

Between 2000 and 2014, for example, on a net basis Alberta's individual and corporate taxpayers shipped an estimated $200 billion-plus to the federal government and a major source of that revenue was from oil and gas. This money helps ensure that all Canadians have access to similar benefits and programs. To paraphrase, oil and gas revenue in Canada pays for benefits and programs for all Canadians. It is important that the members across the way hear that message. In case they want to open themselves up to even more factual evidence, a 2014 WorleyParsons study compared Alberta's environmental and regulatory systems with similarly sized oil- and gas-producing jurisdictions around the world, and found that Alberta was among the best. My province of Alberta was near the top of the list for the most stringent environmental laws and at the top for the availability of public information about the environmental performance of the oil and gas industry.

The study confirmed that Alberta is unmatched on the compliance and enforcement scale. Unfortunately, the Liberals' decisions are largely politically based, rather than being based on science, evidence, or consultations, or reaching conclusions in service of the broad national public interest.

I am again going to paraphrase my colleague, the official opposition shadow critic for natural resources, as she also pointed out in her speech that the result of the constant Liberal and leftist barrage of attacks on Canadian regulators and energy developers along with their changes to rules with new red tape and added costs is that energy investment in Canada has dropped dramatically.

Since the Liberals were elected, the policy uncertainty and additional hurdles during an already challenging time for prices, costs, and competitiveness have caused the biggest two-year decline in Canadian oil and gas investment...since 1947. This year alone, there is a projected 47% drop in oil and gas capital from 2016 levels.

She went on to say that one-sixth of total energy workers in Canada had lost their jobs since the Liberals formed government.

This number is reflected in the vacancy rates out of Calgary this morning. The resulting lost investment is equivalent to the loss of about 75% of Canada's auto manufacturing and nearly the entire aerospace industry. The current government continues to make ideological decisions which hurt Canada's economy.

My Conservative colleagues and I know this tanker ban is not in the best interest of all Canadians. Nor is it necessary. Tankers have safely and regularly transported crude oil from Canada's west coast since the 1930s. There have not been any tanker navigational issues or incidents in about 50 years in the port of Vancouver. Instead of putting forward regulations to allow for the safe passage of all vessels through Canadian waters, the bill deliberately and specifically targets one industry. It is really all about Liberal politicking.

Another fact I would like the Liberal members to acknowledge is that conventional oil and gas, oil sands, and pipeline companies are among the largest private sector investors in alternative energy technologies, like wind and solar, in Canada. When one sector thrives so does the other.

We on this side of the House value the responsible development of natural resources in all sectors in all provinces to benefit all of Canada. We therefore request further input from Canadians on Bill C-48.

Transport, Infrastructure and CommunitiesCommittees of the House

5:40 p.m.

Liberal

Larry Bagnell Liberal Yukon, YT

Mr. Speaker, I was delighted to hear the Conservative member mention the Conservatives' support for science and evidence. I would like the member to refer to the specific science and evidence reports she referred to in her speech.

Transport, Infrastructure and CommunitiesCommittees of the House

5:40 p.m.

Conservative

Stephanie Kusie Conservative Calgary Midnapore, AB

Mr. Speaker, I did make mention specifically the WorleyParsons study that took place. That is a very important consideration. It is a 2014 study that compared Alberta's environmental and regulatory systems with similarly sized oil and gas producing jurisdictions around the world. I would ask the member across the aisle to look at that one to start.

WorleyParsons is a global firm, I think a very well-respected firm, a firm that certainly would not have just placed out information into the public. It would not want to risk its corporate credibility, or spread information for the fear that it would not be respected. This would be a very good start in looking at environmental standards and considering this as a benchmark, perhaps to look at other studies potentially.

Transport, Infrastructure and CommunitiesCommittees of the House

5:40 p.m.

Green

Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC

Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend from Calgary Midnapore should know that when pointing out that oil has been transited on the west coast of British Columbia without incident, it is important to note that from 1972 until very recently, there was a moratorium, a ban on the movement of oil in large-scale tankers that applied to the very coast that this bill will now legislate. The moratorium was honoured by provincial and federal governments over that whole period.

I also want to note that the terms “oil”, “crude oil”, and “bitumen” are being used interchangeably in this debate, which I am afraid leads to some assumptions that are incorrect. For instance, a previous Conservative speaker, my friend from Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, claimed that everyone knows that pipelines are safer than trains. If bitumen is being transported, the opposite is true. It is quite correct that no one should transport Bakken shale, the material that blew up in Lac-Mégantic, by train. I do not know how safe Bakken shale is by pipeline either. It is a violently combustible, unstable material, based on fracking for oil.

However, bitumen, by train, can be transported as a solid. Virtually nothing can go wrong in moving bitumen by rail. If it falls off the track and to a great depth below, crashing open in a valley or in a river, it would be a solid blob and could be removed by a backhoe. It could not have blown up. It is not Bakken shale.

In the case of moving bitumen by pipelines, the process inherently makes a safe substance unsafe. They have to stir in about one-third of a material called diluent, which is basically fossil fuel condensate, itself toxic, and makes bitumen mixed with diluent a substance that cannot be cleaned up.

Thus, it is completely backwards to claim that moving bitumen by pipelines is safer. It is the opposite.

Transport, Infrastructure and CommunitiesCommittees of the House

5:45 p.m.

Conservative

Stephanie Kusie Conservative Calgary Midnapore, AB

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments from the hon. member, but no incidents means no incidents.

We could look to history and to regulation for a number of situations where there have been bans or moratoriums, and there were no incidents. That does not necessarily mean no A, therefore no B. That is illogical. Sometimes B can mean A, or C can mean A. It is incorrect logic. The reality is that there were no incidents during that time.

I appreciate the alternative methods as proposed by the hon. member for transporting different forms of energy. Of course, oil and gas is very dear to me as the member of Parliament for Calgary Midnapore, as is the energy sector. I am very encouraged by the new technologies that are becoming available for the potentially safer transport of energy, for example, the pucks that are being examined at present.

This is very exciting information and potential possibilities for the future for the energy sector, and therefore for Calgary, for Alberta, and for Canada. I certainly do not think that we can neglect evaluating all different types of transport for different energy sources.

In conclusion, I simply do not buy that because there was a moratorium it means that there were no incidents. As I said, moratoriums take place all the time, bans take place all the time, and this does not conclude that there—

Transport, Infrastructure and CommunitiesCommittees of the House

5:45 p.m.

Conservative

The Deputy Speaker Conservative Bruce Stanton

Questions and comments, the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport.

Transport, Infrastructure and CommunitiesCommittees of the House

5:45 p.m.

Kanata—Carleton Ontario

Liberal

Karen McCrimmon LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport

Mr. Speaker, when the issue that was outlined in M-103 was brought up at the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, could the hon. member tell us the response of the committee?

Transport, Infrastructure and CommunitiesCommittees of the House

5:45 p.m.

Conservative

The Deputy Speaker Conservative Bruce Stanton

I see the hon. member for Calgary Midnapore on her feet. I appreciate that I have just taken over presiding here at 5:30. I am not so sure that the question is relevant to the matter before the House. If the member for Calgary Midnapore wishes to respond, we will certainly let her go ahead and will not rule the question out of order.

I ask hon. members to keep their questions and comments either relevant to the question in front of the House, or, as an exception, if a member in the course of their remarks or their speech raises an issue, then members are certainly welcome to pose questions or comments relating to what they have heard members say. I am not so sure that this one is relevant to the motion before the House.

The hon. member for Calgary Midnapore.

Transport, Infrastructure and CommunitiesCommittees of the House

5:45 p.m.

Conservative

Stephanie Kusie Conservative Calgary Midnapore, AB

Mr. Speaker, I think it is out of order. I would like to talk about all sorts of different things right now that are really important to my riding of Calgary Midnapore. I would like to talk about where the government has caused a lot of trouble for us, which includes the small business tax, potentially moving the National Energy Board out of the city, and energy east. I would like to talk about unicorns and lollipops. However, I am not going to, as they are not relevant. I do not think Motion No. 103 is relevant to this conversation at all.

Transport, Infrastructure and CommunitiesCommittees of the House

5:45 p.m.

Conservative

Kelly McCauley Conservative Edmonton West, AB

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her wonderful speech and for her comments comparing Alberta oil to some of the oil we bring in from offshore.

I want to bring up a few facts. Researchers from California's low-carbon fuel standard have commented that compared to Alberta oil, the dirtiest oil in North America comes from the U.S. Angola is well known for its oil spills from its offshore oil drilling. The dirtiest oil in the entire world for environmental standards, again according to the California low-carbon standard, is Nigeria, from which we also bring in oil to the east coast. The two major export terminals for Venezuela's state-run company, PDVSA, are so filthy from oil spills and other problems that its ships are not allowed into a lot of countries because there is so much oil on the tankers, yet we bring Venezuelan oil to the east coast. In Saudi Arabia, oil spills are threatening the Gulf, and it has actually infilled 40% of the Persian Gulf side to accommodate its oil exports.

I wonder if my colleague from Calgary Midnapore can comment on the hypocrisy of stopping Alberta oil getting to the east coast but allowing oil from such environmentally unfriendly countries into Canada.

Transport, Infrastructure and CommunitiesCommittees of the House

5:50 p.m.

Conservative

Stephanie Kusie Conservative Calgary Midnapore, AB

Mr. Speaker, I would say that I, as the member of Parliament for Calgary Midnapore, in addition to my constituents, find it very insulting and disturbing on two levels.

First, we have an excellent supply of rich energy sources. We are an energy-rich province. We are an energy-rich nation. Why should we be going to other nations for different energy sources when we have such an abundant supply here? As a country, we really should be harvesting it and using it to the best of our ability and as our capacity requires it. That is the first level.

Second, we make a point of being a democratic country, a country that respects human rights, a country that wants to promote prosperity, and a country that wants to promote justice, yet we do not abide by this when choosing our products and imports. It is absolutely hypocritical not only with respect to our choices as a national consumer but as a government. What hypocrisy from the Liberal government to purport to stand for democracy and human rights when, by allowing imports from these troubled nations, with these records, it permits their products into our nation for consumption by all of our citizens, thereby making them all potentially complicit.

Transport, Infrastructure and CommunitiesCommittees of the House

5:50 p.m.

Conservative

Jim Eglinski Conservative Yellowhead, AB

Mr. Speaker, I am very glad to be up here tonight to speak about the crude oil tanker moratorium on B.C.'s west coast. I was asked a little while ago if I would speak on Bill C-48, and I jumped at it and said that I would like to speak about Bill C-48 and the moratorium on the tankers.

This moratorium act would not be protecting the west coast. Let us face it. It would not be protecting Canadians and would not be helping our aboriginal neighbours. If we really look at what this is all about, it is about the Prime Minister making a promise during the last election that he would stop shipment of oil from Canada and would put a moratorium on tankers on the west coast. He did a mandate letter and told his Minister of Transport to make sure to get policy out there. Thirty days later, he has come out with Bill C-48 that would stop the movement of tankers along the west coast. Who suffers? All Canadians. What we need is more debate and more consultation, especially with the aboriginal community because they have already told us that.

I want to go back a long time. I was a young lad of about five years of age, and I was staying with my grandparents as my parents were living in Edmonton. I stayed with my grandparents out on a farm in northern Alberta in a community called Two Hills. I loved being out in the field with my grandfather. I worshipped my grandfather.

I was out there running around in the field and my grandfather was working, discing I believe, if my memory is correct. He hit a big rock and it jammed between the discs, and he stopped. I was just a little five-year-old but I ran over to help, and I watched as my grandfather struggled to pull that rock from between the discs. Anybody who has been in the farming community knows what discs are. They get pretty sharp because they are turning in the ground all the time.

As he yanked on it, the rock came out, and his hand hit the disc on the other side and he put a big slash on the side of his hand. The blood gushed out. I hope nobody is queasy out here. I said, “Grandpa, look what happened.” He reached down, grabbed the fresh black earth, and he pressed it into the wound on his hand. I looked at him and said to him that he could not do that because it was dirty. He stopped what he was doing, looked at me, sat on the hitch of the tractor, called me over there, and he put me on his knee. He reached down. The bleeding had stopped. He pulled the earth and said that there was nothing more pure than Mother Earth.

Then he proceeded to tell me that the earth gave him the food that we ate. He proceeded to tell me that the jack pine at the end of the farm was where we got the lumber to build his house and barn. He told me about using common sense and only working the crop for a certain portion. He told me about selective logging that morning when I was five years old. I remember him telling me about living off the land, and the land giving him a product that he could sell to buy tobacco, because he always had a cigarette in his mouth. He received money from the grain he sold from the land. He said that the earth was energy and it gave us an opportunity to live and prosper. I always remembered that, and I love nature. I know I am kind of rambling on here. However, at that time, as a five-year-old, he told me to love nature and I have loved nature ever since.

I was very fortunate at the last election that my party assigned me to the environment and sustainable development committee, and I was given the opportunity to learn a lot more about this great country of ours. I learned about the need to protect spaces across Canada and about the Aichi agreement: 17% of our land mass by 2020 and 10% of our sea coastal waters by 2020. I do not think that they are obtainable, but they are realistic and we need to work and strive toward that.

I hear a lot from the government about science based, that we need to rely on the scientists to tell us what to do in our great country. In the Ukrainian language we call our grandfather “gido”. My gido was a very smart man. He knew everything that he needed to know to survive. He put it in very simple language, so I will quite often step aside from listening to the academics and go to the people on the land. Some of the smartest people on the land who I know of are our aboriginal neighbours. Many times, I have gone to different powwows and listened to the people living on the land, Petitot landing and Taylor landing, for example. These are very wise people. They have worked the land. Trappers are other people who know the land. They have spent 40 or 50 years on it. They know about the environment.

We have aboriginal equity partners in the pipeline project that was to go across northern B.C. to take oil products from Alberta to Saskatchewan and parts of B.C. They are suffering because of the government's policy to stop the pipeline. The government could not stop it because it met all of the environmental rules and regulations of the National Energy Board. The only way it could do that was to come out with a moratorium to stop any ships from going in there to pick up the oil. The aboriginal people will tell us they were not properly consulted.

I believe some may have read this before. It is not just the B.C. coast. According to the Assembly of First Nations chief, Perry Bellegarde, 500 of the 630 first nations across Canada are open to pipelines and petroleum development on their lands. Going back to the aboriginal equity partnership, a specific example was 31 first nations were equity partners and held 30% of the financial position in the northern gateway pipeline project. This was before it was cancelled due to the fact that there was no use having a pipeline if the ships could not get to the pipelines to ship the worldly products.

Communities like Prince Rupert, Terrace, Kitimat, and Smithers have struggled over the years with hard economic times. They have had a hard time prospering, like other parts of Canada, especially Alberta, Saskatchewan, and the northeastern part of B.C.

They have seen a decline in forestry. Why? Was there a decline in the market? No, there was a decline because of the pine beetle destroying a great portion of B.C.'s pine forests. Those pine beetles wandered into Jasper National Park and Banff National Park. If people drive through the park, which is not part of my riding, they will see a great portion of the park is brown now. There are no more green trees. The pine beetles have devastated them. What is worse is the pine beetles got mad at the park and left. They are now moving into the pine forests of Alberta. In fact, the latest statistics to come out show that from last year to this year, the amount of trees being affected in Alberta is tenfold.

The communities are struggling. The northern gateway pipeline would have been good for those communities. It would have been great for their economy and it would have helped the aboriginal communities grow and prosper in the future, to give their youth new goals, ideas, and places to go. It would have helped in education. They lost billions because of the moratorium on ships. If they do not have the ships, there is no use having a pipeline to the coast.

My riding is called the Yellowhead. Oil and gas is very important to my riding. It is very important to me and to my family. My son-in-law has a small company that works directly in the oil patch. It is kind of related to fracking and other types of ventures. He employs close to 100 people. He makes a very good living from the oil patch, and the 100 people working for him make a very good living from it.

The proceeds of the oil patch, whether in Alberta or Saskatchewan or northern British Columbia, bring a tremendous amount of revenue to this great country of ours, Canada. A lot of that revenue is spent here in the central part of Canada.

The Yellowhead is known as a major transportation corridor. Highway 16 runs right through the centre of my riding from the east to the west. In fact, the Yellowhead Highway is known across Canada as a major transportation corridor. It goes from Prince Rupert to Winnipeg. I have travelled it from the west to the east and from the east to the west many times, and the pipeline was to follow a great portion of that highway through British Columbia. Northern gateway would have been beneficial to all Canadians if it had been built, but it was not built, because the moratorium on shipping on the west coast would not allow ships to go to a port that could have had a pipeline to it.

I have also been to communities such as Prince Rupert, Terrace, Kitimat, Bella Bella, Bella Coola, Queen Charlottes, Masset, and Stewart. I have been to every one of those communities personally. I have been very fortunate in my working career to have lived on the west coast. I have partied and lived with the aboriginal communities on the west coast and throughout the interior of British Columbia. I have sailed from Mexico to Alaska on the west coast. I love the beauty of the west coast of Canada and the United States. I have been to the Hecate Strait, Queen Charlotte Sound, the Dixon Entrance. I am a pilot. I have flown from Mexico to Alaska. I have landed on many of the pristine coastal beaches of British Columbia. It is one of the most beautiful places in the world, and I have been so fortunate in life to have had the opportunity to travel to many of the inlets and beaches to meet many of the local people.

One thing I have learned from my travels is that, yes, we need to protect our coastal waters. It does not matter whether they are on the west coast of British Columbia or the east coast of Canada or the Arctic. We need to protect them.

As I said, I have been fortunate. I have also travelled extensively on the east coast and in the Arctic. I cherish the beauty of all of Canada and recognize that we need to protect all parts of Canada, but I also realize that Canada is country with an abundant supply of many different types of energy. Whether coal, oil or gas, our natural tree products, mining, aluminum etc., this country from coast to coast to coast is abundant in natural resources. These natural resources have been instrumental in making Canada one of the world's most economically viable countries and one of the best countries to live, bar none.

When I meet young people in my riding of Yellowhead, I ask, “You have won the lottery?” They say, “What do you mean?” I say, “You were born in Alberta. We have an abundance in Alberta. We have an abundance of oil and gas energy. We have an abundance of coal. We have an abundance of agriculture. We have an abundance of forestry, and we are a tourist location for worldwide travellers.” I tell them that there are so many different fields and occupations in Alberta that they could enter and prosper in. However, that is very true of a lot of our provinces. Any member from any riding here can probably stand and brag about the quality of his or her specific riding, but it would all end up with Yellowhead being the greatest riding in Canada. I have said that a few times, though it might require a bit of debate.

The west coast of British Columbia is beautiful, breathtaking, but so is the east coast of Canada, the Maritimes. They are all breathtaking and beautiful. The Arctic is breathtaking and beautiful.

Bill C-48 would put a moratorium on shipping oil on the west coast of Canada. We ship oil to many other destinations. We are probably one of the few countries in the world that would not require any importing of oil to this great country of ours, because we can produce enough in house, and that is exactly what we should be doing. When we have a large, diversified country like Canada that stretches thousands of miles from coast to coast to coast, it makes one wonder why we have to import as much oil as we do.

I was astounded when I looked at a graph recently from Canada's statistics in long form. That is why it took a little while to get it here, because it is a lot to read. I was astounded to see the amount of oil we bring into this great country of ours.

This is the daily number of barrels we bring in, and these are 2016 statistics: Saudi Arabia, 86,741 barrels; Norway, 41,858 barrels; United Kingdom, 9861 barrels; Colombia, 5,314 barrels; Kazakhstan, 19,200 barrels; Algeria, almost 85,000 barrels; Nigeria, about 74,000 barrels; Ivory Coast, around 12,500 barrels; and the United States 265,000. That is what we import into Canada on our east coast. The ships come from the southern United States across the ocean into the St. Lawrence, on the east coast of Newfoundland and Labrador in our beautiful maritime provinces. How can we do that? It is unsafe. According to the Liberal government, it is not safe to have tankers on the west coast, but it is safe to bring in $12.7 billion a year of oil on the east coast. Why is it safer on the east coast than it is on the west coast? I cannot fathom that logic.

Many years ago, a former prime minister, by the name of Trudeau, left Alberta. He was on a train, and I think he put his finger out to check the wind. Now we have his son who is Prime Minister, and it would almost appear that there is another testing of the wind. I hate to say that someone out there does not want to see Alberta, Saskatchewan, or even B.C. prosper from our natural resources of oil and gas. That is a shame.

Since 1985, ships have been sailing up and down the west coast of British Columbia. They have been sailing under a mutual understanding agreement to stay off the west coast shore at least 100 kilometres.

I have studied that route because, as a police officer, I also patrolled the west coast. I was stationed there for a number of years. If we look at the average, it is probably closer to 150 kilometres off of the west coast of British Columbia. It is under a mutual understanding and agreement. There have been no problems since the start of that agreement, and I see no need why we need a moratorium today to stop shipping on the west coast of British Columbia.

Transport, Infrastructure and CommunitiesCommittees of the House

6:10 p.m.

Liberal

Larry Bagnell Liberal Yukon, YT

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his passionate speech. We have a lot in common. He talked about the beauty of the Arctic, the beaches, the sea, and the parks. We have a lot of common ground there. However, I have a few questions.

He said there would be no problem as long as ships are 100 kilometres off of the west coast, but I am wondering how he plans to get the oil from shore through the first 100 kilometres.

My second question is related to science. Two Conservative members have said that they support science, and that is great. I would ask him to refer to any reports related to the tankers that he is talking about with regard to science.

The member also mentioned that aboriginal people would not be helped by this, and I am wondering why so many indigenous people had a problem with this particular project.

As well, the member talked about the beauty of the beaches. I know his riding is farther than mine and where the Exxon Valdez ran aground, but I know that for decades there was pollution on those beautiful beaches. He should remember that the Exxon Valdez went on safer waters, more like the east coast than the dangerous currents in waters around islands where this would occur.

Finally, I loved the story about his grandfather and the farm. In fact, I learned something from that, and it was great. I appreciate him telling that story. However, one can also farm in the sea. His grandfather talked about the purity of the earth, and the purity of the water and the sea provides a lot of good farming of indigenous species. Why would he want to risk that with potential pollution from something like the Exxon Valdez?

Transport, Infrastructure and CommunitiesCommittees of the House

6:15 p.m.

Conservative

Jim Eglinski Conservative Yellowhead, AB

Mr. Speaker, there were a lot of questions so, if I miss any, I would ask the member to pipe in and tell me which ones I missed.

First, I do not think we should be worried about going the 100 kilometres or 150 kilometres. I do not believe there should be a moratorium on shipping on the west coast. I believe that Canada has one of the strictest set of guidelines for shipping, which has been proven. There have been very few incidents of major tanker mishaps in Canada. However, I will be the first to say that accidents do happen.

We want to put a moratorium on the west coast of British Columbia but stop at the top end of the Dixon Entrance. It does not make any sense. It is a line on the ocean. On that side of the line, the United States can ship; on this side of the line, there can be no shipping because it is in Canada. It does not make any sense. Stewart is way up an inlet. Halfway up the inlet, there cannot be shipping by tanker. In the other half of the inlet, shipping can be by tanker. It does not make common sense. It is as simple as that.

We need to look at safety, and if the safety rules are not strong enough, then we should make them strong enough. If the ships are not safe enough, then we should make them safe enough. We can do that. However, to close one specific area off because of somebody's illogical idea and a promise in an election, very similar to making marijuana legal, it does not make a lot of sense.

I have missed some of the other points because I got carried away, but, if asked again, I will answer them.

Transport, Infrastructure and CommunitiesCommittees of the House

6:15 p.m.

NDP

Fin Donnelly NDP Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague mentioned not needing a moratorium on the west coast but he also mentioned that mistakes do happen. I am wondering how the member can square that.

I want to specifically reference one mistake that happened in Bella Bella last year involving the Nathan E. Stewart. It was a relatively small spill of 110,000 litres of diesel fuel into the waters off Bella Bella. It took almost one month because of bad weather before anyone could get to the Nathan E. Stewart and address the fuel that was coming out. This affected the local nation's shellfish fishery and the marine environment. This was a relatively small spill compared to the kinds of spills that happen in the Gulf of Mexico or any other spills into the ocean.

Could the member comment on the impact of this spill on local business and the local economy? Can he imagine what a large spill of bitumen would do to the local economy?

Transport, Infrastructure and CommunitiesCommittees of the House

6:15 p.m.

Conservative

Jim Eglinski Conservative Yellowhead, AB

Mr. Speaker, I do not think we are talking about bitumen with respect to that spill. Let us take a look at the coastal community of Bella Bella. How does diesel fuel get to Bella Bella? It has to be brought there by boat. Bella Coola now has a road but I remember a time long ago when there was no road and everything was delivered by ship.

Let us take a look at the diesel fuel going to Masset, Queen Charlotte City.

We are always going to need to transport some type of fuel to coastal communities, whether they be on the west coast, the Arctic, or the east coast. None of us wants to see any mishaps, but they may happen. Do we shut down all of our economies, all of our communities because something may happen? This world was developed. This country of ours prospered. Our provinces grew. All of this happened because people ventured out and did things and modernized. We do not stop progress.

Transport, Infrastructure and CommunitiesCommittees of the House

6:20 p.m.

Conservative

Kelly McCauley Conservative Edmonton West, AB

Mr. Speaker, Yellowhead is truly the most beautiful part of Canada outside of Edmonton West.

I received a text a couple of days ago from a friend of mine who was flying in through Calgary. He was excited to comment that the Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development was on the same plane. I thought the minister had to be making a supercluster announcement, that Alberta may finally get some help from the government, but unfortunately we heard that the Alberta supercluster application, which is the clean resource innovation network made up of think tanks, universities, the provincial government, oil and gas bodies, and a consortium, was shut down. Odd. I am not sure why the minister would fly to Calgary to tell that city that it was not getting money.

The bid by the resource innovation network focused on technology for reducing water usage, reclaiming developed land, monitoring and reducing methane emissions, and researching low-emission end-uses for carbon, everything the government talks about, such as helping the environment and growing the economy, and yet the government shut it down. The minister commented that it was shut down because of an overlap between the supercluster for agriculture and mining and construction. Apparently, agriculture superclusters are going to overlap so therefore we do not need research into clean energy in Alberta.

I am wondering if my colleague from Yellowhead could comment on this snub by the Liberal government, yet another snub of Alberta.