House of Commons Hansard #185 of the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was project.

Topics

Opposition Motion—Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain Expansion ProjectBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:30 p.m.

Conservative

The Deputy Speaker Conservative Bruce Stanton

Order. The hon. member for Mégantic—L'Érable on a point of order.

Opposition Motion—Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain Expansion ProjectBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:30 p.m.

Conservative

Luc Berthold Conservative Mégantic—L'Érable, QC

Mr. Speaker, could we verify that my five-minute question and comment period is really up? I have only been able to answer one question. I believe that I have time remaining to respond to comments and give my colleagues the opportunity to ask questions about my speech.

Opposition Motion—Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain Expansion ProjectBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:30 p.m.

Conservative

The Deputy Speaker Conservative Bruce Stanton

There is a bit of confusion up at this end in terms of the clock.

Therefore, we will continue with questions and comments and the member for Mégantic—L'Érable has a further two and a half minutes. After that, we will ask the hon. parliamentary secretary to give his speech.

The hon. member for Nanaimo—Ladysmith can ask a question or make a comment.

Opposition Motion—Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain Expansion ProjectBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:30 p.m.

NDP

Sheila Malcolmson NDP Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC

Mr. Speaker, is my colleague on the Conservative bench not aware that the Kinder Morgan pipeline is entirely an export pipeline for 100% unrefined raw bitumen, that there is no energy security benefit for Canada whatsoever, that this is not going to be fuelling our vehicles, that this is not going to be heating our homes, and that this is entirely an export of jobs and energy potential that Canada will not benefit from?

Opposition Motion—Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain Expansion ProjectBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:30 p.m.

Conservative

Luc Berthold Conservative Mégantic—L'Érable, QC

Mr. Speaker, I have difficulty understanding how Canada would not benefit from a pipeline to export oil, when building the pipeline will generate jobs in the tens of millions. This pipeline will benefit Canada.

It is the Prime Minister's responsibility to go to British Columbia, explain things, and speak clearly to people. He does not have to invent reasons. If increasing oil output means jobs for Canadians, I believe we must maintain our support for this project.

Opposition Motion—Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain Expansion ProjectBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:30 p.m.

Conservative

Cathy McLeod Conservative Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC

Mr. Speaker, I heard very clearly that the Liberals are supporting this motion, but they suggest that there is politics behind it. Having the government approve the National Energy Board is one approval, but does he not believe that the message Parliament will send if it approves this motion is also a very important message? I think there are two processes here, and they are both very important.

Opposition Motion—Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain Expansion ProjectBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:35 p.m.

Conservative

Luc Berthold Conservative Mégantic—L'Érable, QC

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for that question. For Canadians to get on board, it is important to understand that, beyond the legislative or regulatory process, what counts is also the message that leaders send. Right now, the House can send a clear message that shows that we support the Kinder Morgan project because it will create jobs and benefit the economy and Canadians.

That is also why I am calling on the Prime Minister to do his duty and make his way over to British Columbia to explain to people why this project is important not only for western Canada's economy, but also for that of the entire country.

It is the Prime Minister's job to do that, and it is Parliament's job to sometimes adopt motions to support the Prime Minister's work. I am sure that, if the Prime Minister has a unanimous motion from all members of the House defending Kinder Morgan's project in British Columbia, it would make his job a lot easier. It is not every day that I try to help the Prime Minister do his job, but in this case we are prepared to do it.

Opposition Motion—Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain Expansion ProjectBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:35 p.m.

Conservative

The Deputy Speaker Conservative Bruce Stanton

I apologize again for the confusion.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources.

Opposition Motion—Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain Expansion ProjectBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:35 p.m.

Northumberland—Peterborough South Ontario

Liberal

Kim Rudd LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources

Mr. Speaker, as I was saying earlier, it is great to have the opposition's support on our approval of the Kinder Morgan pipeline. Everyone in this chamber recognizes that the past years have been difficult ones for Canada's oil and gas sector. The sharp drop in oil prices has taken a heavy toll on the men and women and their families who depend on the industry for their livelihoods, not just in Alberta or Saskatchewan or Newfoundland and Labrador but indeed right across the country.

As the minister has pointed out, for every job created in Alberta's oil patch, at least two more jobs are created across the country. Of course, the converse is also true. Every job lost in the oil patch ripples across the whole country, affecting not only the person losing the job but the family who depends on them. All of us understand that, just as we understand that we cannot move global commodity prices with a snap of our fingers, no matter how much we want to.

Our government believes we can strengthen Canada's ability to access new markets and compete in the global economy, all the while protecting the environment, working with indigenous communities, and creating well-paying jobs. That is what the decision to approve the Trans Mountain expansion project is all about.

I am not sure why the members opposite would think this would change with an election in British Columbia. After all, it was the right decision at the time, for all the reasons outlined in this motion, and it remains the right reason today. The fact is that the Trans Mountain expansion project does have social licence to proceed, despite the comments of a vocal minority. It is critical to the Canadian economy and would create thousands of jobs. It is under federal jurisdiction.

I am pleased to confirm, in no uncertain terms, that it does have the support of this government and of our Prime Minister. It has our support because the decision was made based on solid science and clear evidence. Its environmental impacts were carefully considered, its effect on communities was exhaustively canvassed, and its economic potential meticulously measured. We understood and heard the opposing views. However, at the end of the day, Canadians expect their government to decide, and in the best interests of the country as a whole, and that is exactly what we did.

Our approval was rooted in a balanced approach, one that ensures Canada's energy sector remains a source of well-paying, middle-class jobs as we also tackle climate change and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. That is the message of this decision: balance. Thinking only of the environment without any regard for economic growth strangles the vitality needed to sustain both. At the same time, considering only economic growth while ignoring environmental impacts would be like fixing a leaking roof by borrowing materials from the foundation. It may provide temporary progress, but it undermines long-term stability. That same sense of balance informed our decision to propose a moratorium on tanker traffic off the British Columbian coast and to make the most significant investment ever to protect our oceans and coastlines with the $1.5-billion oceans protection plan.

The Prime Minister's mandate letter to the Minister of Natural Resources is very clear on this balanced approach. It says, “Throughout Canada’s history, our prosperity has been built on our natural resources. It is a core responsibility of the federal government to help get our natural resources to market, but that is only possible if we achieve the required public trust”. That has been our approach since we took office, rebuilding trust and restoring faith after a decade of the previous government doing everything in its power to ignore valid questions and bulldoze through its constitutional obligations.

We have done that in a number of ways: by strengthening our environmental assessments and regulatory reviews, expanding public engagement and consultations with indigenous peoples, and ensuring local communities and indigenous peoples are true beneficiaries of resource development. It is the only way to make sure that the right resource projects, the sustainable resource projects, proceed, creating new jobs and opportunities for Canadians from coast to coast to coast and in every corner of this country.

It is an approach that has come to define our government, promoting cleaner economic growth by getting our environmental house in order and rallying Canadians behind us.

If I may, I would like to use my remaining time to talk about this new approach. It is the foundation upon which we have built our energy vision. Our efforts started as soon as we took office when the Prime Minister went to Paris with our provincial and territorial colleagues and Canada helped lead the way with a global agreement on climate change, a role we will continue to play because it is the right thing to do.

While in France we also helped to found Mission Innovation, the ambitious new global partnership aimed at driving clean energy research and development like never before. Then the Prime Minister again met with the provinces and territories to launch the pan-Canadian framework on clean growth and climate change. This framework has set us up on a clear path toward ensuring Canada is a global leader in the transition to a lower carbon economy.

We also continue to work on a Canadian energy strategy that, among other things, will protect Canada's energy security as we put a price on carbon pollution, redefine our relationship with indigenous people, and invest in new technologies to protect our coastlines through our oceans protection plan.

All of these measures are critical to the long-term future of Canada's energy sector, including the oil and gas industry. How? By making the industry more competitive in a world that increasingly values more sustainable practices. This was reflected in our government's first budget, which featured significant new investments in clean energy and new technology, including technologies that will reduce greenhouse gas emissions from the oil and gas sector. It continued with budget 2017 with billions of dollars invested to ensure that Canada leads in the clean growth economy of tomorrow.

Let me just add that no one understands the need for clean technology and innovation better than Canada's oil and gas sector. There would be no oil sands if it were not for the Canadian ingenuity that found a way to separate oil and sand. That innovative spirit continues today through Canada's Oil Sands Innovation Alliance. It is a formal partnership of 13 leading companies that have invested, to date, more than $1.3 billion to develop and share more than 935 distinct technologies and innovations.

For our part, we have proceeded with thoughtful, inclusive, and measured steps. For example, we began overhauling Canada's environmental processes earlier this year when we adopted an interim strategy for reviewing and assessing major resource projects already in the queue. We have now turned our attention to a more comprehensive review of Canada's environmental assessment and review processes, including a modernization of the National Energy Board. We need to ensure that Canadians have confidence in the approvals of these resource development projects.

We are taking a hard look at our institutions, our processes, and our regulations to make sure they deliver the best long-term results for the environment and for the economy, and while we have been protecting our environment, we have also been working hard to enhance Canada's business climate. We are improving our competitiveness at home and creating new opportunities abroad by attracting more investments, improving access to new markets, and increasing trade.

That is what is behind the decision to approve the Trans Mountain expansion project: creating jobs and prosperity through a stronger, cleaner, and more sustainable energy sector, one built for today and for tomorrow.

Opposition Motion—Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain Expansion ProjectBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:45 p.m.

Conservative

Martin Shields Conservative Bow River, AB

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the well-thought-out information my colleague presented.

One of the things I have always firmly believed in and a lot of the things that I have been involved with is using incentive to change rather than the disciplinary aspect, when wanting change to happen.

We talked about a carbon tax and where that money goes. As my colleague mentioned, the technology has changed things. My belief, as I have known the oil and gas industry for generations, is that when the is incentive there, rather than a tax, that industry is incredible at making changes toward the safe and clean environment that we all want.

I wonder she would comment on a more incentive-oriented approach rather than a disciplinary tax approach.

Opposition Motion—Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain Expansion ProjectBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:45 p.m.

Liberal

Kim Rudd Liberal Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON

Mr. Speaker, we have heard from industry across this country about the price on carbon pollution and the opportunities for innovation that it brings. As the member knows, all of the revenues from the price on carbon pollution will be provided to the provinces. It is revenue neutral to the federal government and the provinces can determine how to best use that tax resource. Whether it is to give other incentives to the oil and gas sector, whether it is to help with building new hospitals, roads, or whatever the case may be, that is a provincial decision.

I would say that after all of my meetings with the oil and gas sector, I agree it is an extremely innovative and determined industry. In the last number of years, we have seen some amazing innovations coming out of that sector across the country, and indeed, it supports the price on carbon pollution because it believes it has gotten it to where it is now.

Opposition Motion—Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain Expansion ProjectBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:45 p.m.

NDP

Jenny Kwan NDP Vancouver East, BC

Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary skipped over the reality that the Prime Minister, as opposition leader during the campaign, promised Canadians and British Columbians, more particularly, that there would be a new environmental assessment process for all projects, including Kinder Morgan. That did not happen.

The Prime Minister's hand-picked expert panel, which reported back just weeks ago, found that public confidence in the NEB is so eroded that it recommended it be completely replaced. The panel co-chair reported, “Everywhere we were there was this issue with confidence, transparency, independence, safety and security”. The Prime Minister said the process was broken, the ministerial review panel on Kinder Morgan said the process was broken, and the expert panel on the NEB said the process is broken.

How can the Liberals continue to stand behind a flawed review process? How could they approve this project? Why can they not keep their promise to Canadians and make sure we actually do it right?

Opposition Motion—Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain Expansion ProjectBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:45 p.m.

Liberal

Kim Rudd Liberal Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON

Mr. Speaker, during the review of the Kinder Morgan process, the minister announced five interim principles that would help guide that process and make it more robust than it had been before. There was a recommendation, because there were projects in the queue, to ensure that we were fair to all parties involved.

Further to that, as we know, the minister also appointed a special panel of very well-versed, responsible people who went up and down the Kinder Morgan pipeline route and engaged in an even more robust way with communities, indigenous peoples, and industry, and all of that informed the decision that we made when the Prime Minister announced in November the approval of the Kinder Morgan pipeline.

Opposition Motion—Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain Expansion ProjectBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:50 p.m.

Liberal

Randy Boissonnault Liberal Edmonton Centre, AB

Mr. Speaker, I will begin by thanking the hon. member for Northumberland—Peterborough South for splitting her time with me.

I also want to thank the hon. member for Chilliwack—Hope for his motion on the Trans Mountain expansion project. It is one that I am happy to support. After all, it is a ringing endorsement of our government's decision to approve a project that will bring jobs and opportunity to thousands of Canadians, certainty for investors, and protection for the environment.

What I find surprising is that the opposition thought that by proposing the motion, it could embarrass our government or split our ranks. On the contrary, it provides an opportunity to speak to the merits of the decision and the comprehensive and thoughtful process that produced it. Unlike members opposite, our government has demonstrated its support for the energy sector, not simply with fine words but with firm action.

In nearly 10 years in office, the previous government got exactly zero kilometres of pipeline built to tidewater. It talked a good game and made all the right noises, but it just did not do anything. The result was that our producers were stuck being price takers instead of price makers. They were forced to sell, essentially, to one customer. When new technology, such as fracking, opened up that customer's own energy reserves, reducing the need for Canadian energy, what happened? Our energy industry was left holding the bag. Its assets became essentially landlocked, the markets few, and the future grim. That was the legacy of the previous government.

Despite pleas to build the infrastructure necessary to reach tidewater and new global markets, our predecessors remained unable to act. Why? It was because they preferred to bully opponents rather than build bridges, they preferred to issue orders rather than engage in dialogue, and through their determination to downplay climate change, to ignore the overwhelming scientific evidence of climate scientists, they earned dinosaur awards abroad and isolated even potential allies here at home. Quite simply, they lost the confidence of Canadians.

Our government took a different approach. We began by seeing the provinces not as enemies to be confronted but as allies to be consulted, and as partners to be included when we went to Paris to negotiate the agreement on climate change.

We followed through on our commitment to fundamentally rebuild our relationship with indigenous people by restoring the nation-to-nation approach. This meant taking a meaningful approach to resource projects by doing our best to ensure that opportunities are spread widely and that the benefits are shared widely.

We also took action to restore the regulatory process by introducing interim principles that were clear, inclusive, and fair and by modernizing the National Energy Board to ensure that it has the resources and expertise it needs for the 21st century. We have invested in the clean technology and renewable energy sectors, which are sure to generate a great many jobs and opportunities in this century of clean energy.

Engaging with Canadians, reaching out to indigenous peoples, modernizing our regulatory system, and investing in clean technologies reassured Canadians that our government understood their concerns, that it shared the view of climate change as the great imperative of our times, and that it was prepared to marry economic growth and environmental protection.

All of this made it possible to approve the Trans Mountain expansion project and other projects critical to ensuring that the vastness of our energy resources would be matched by the vastness of the opportunities to sell them to the world.

The Trans Mountain expansion project will deliver real benefits to Canadians: a $7.4 billion investment for Alberta and British Columbia, and the creation of 15,000 new jobs during construction alone. Indigenous communities will benefit from jobs and business opportunities through the impact and benefit agreements they have signed with Kinder Morgan. For the first time in our history, indigenous peoples will remain engaged through monitoring the project over its lifespan.

This is what inclusive development looks like. It is what real progress looks like. It is what the future of resource development in this country looks like.

Our government’s commitment to this project’s environmental integrity is not limited to the 157 legally binding conditions imposed by the National Energy Board. We have also taken extraordinary steps to protect the most sensitive areas with a pipeline to the Pacific Ocean by making the largest investment to date to protect our oceans and coastlines, the $1.5 billion national oceans protection plan. We followed that up with a crude oil tanker moratorium along the north coast of British Columbia, specifically around the Dixon Entrance, Hecate Strait and Queen Charlotte Sound. These are significant measures and reflect how important we believe it is to preserve the environment that is so vital to us all.

While I am happy to support this motion and to discuss this particular project, what is more important is to see it as part of a wider plan, a plan for economic growth in the 21st century, a plan that builds the infrastructure to get our resources to global markets and to use the revenues to fund Canada's transition to cleaner forms of energy. It is a plan that understands that even as we make the transition to renewable sources of energy, we continue to drive innovation in the oil and gas sector and export Canadian breakthroughs around the world.

This is a process that is already under way, as the parliamentary secretary has said, through Canada's Oil Sands Innovation Alliance and a host of other initiatives.

That is why Alberta is legislating limits on oil sands greenhouse gas emissions, creating the conditions for innovation and demonstrating that a forward-thinking, energy-producing jurisdiction can also be a leader in combatting climate change. That is why virtually every province has agreed to put a price on carbon.

That is the way forward for Canada. That is our vision for the future: to use the coming decades to meet the rising global demand for oil and gas while funding the next generation of energy.

That is why projects such as the Trans Mountain expansion are so important and why our national oceans protection plan is crucial.

Today economic growth and environmental protection are not competing interests. They are vital components of a single engine of innovation.

When I was on the campaign trail, and since, when I have been knocking on doors in my riding, it has been clear from the comments I have received from residents of Edmonton Centre that they want to see us develop our oil and gas resources. They want to see us have markets that are more than just one client to the south. They want to see well-paying jobs in the energy sector from coast to coast to coast. They want to see that we are protecting our oceans, that we are protecting salmon stocks, and that we are protecting the planet for their children, their grandchildren, and all the generations yet to come. They want to see us as a government make sure that we keep the promise the Prime Minister made in the mandate letters to all the ministers that there is no more important relationship to this government than the one with indigenous peoples.

The example of the expansion of the Trans Mountain project is an example of collaboration. It is an example of a new triple E: the economy, the environment, and energy, all fused together.

Opposition members may have thought to do some mischief with this motion, but that would only be possible if our government did not believe in the decision we made in November. Unfortunately for them, we do. It would only be possible if we were not prepared to stand firm. Unfortunately for them, we are. It would only be possible if this government was not ready to argue the merits of this project. Unfortunately for them, we are.

We believed that the Trans Mountain expansion was in Canada’s best interest before the B.C. election, and we still do today.

We recognize and respect those who view things differently. Perhaps the opposition believed they could find a few on this side of the House.

Our government and I stand united, and we stand proudly behind the approval of this vital project, the Trans Mountain project. We are delighted that the members opposite do so too.

Opposition Motion—Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain Expansion ProjectBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:55 p.m.

Conservative

Cathy McLeod Conservative Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC

Mr. Speaker, the member for Edmonton Centre talked about there being mischief behind this. To be quite frank, this is not mischief. This is a very important debate we are having today.

The executive branch of government made a decision on the National Energy Board. As a member of Parliament, does the member not believe that the will of Parliament is important to express on this important issue? This is the opportunity before him. The executive branch made a decision. The will of Parliament is also important. Could he perhaps reflect on that?

Opposition Motion—Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain Expansion ProjectBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:55 p.m.

Liberal

Randy Boissonnault Liberal Edmonton Centre, AB

Mr. Speaker, at the time this decision was made, as a parliamentary secretary I was part of that extended executive branch of government. I fully supported the decision on Trans Mountain then, and I do so now.

As a parliamentarian, I think it is very important to stand up and talk about jobs, talk about the economy, talk about energy, and talk about the environment. It is important to work forward with indigenous peoples in contribution agreements that are not simply paper-based consultations. They are meaningful, they are going to see long-term jobs, and they are going to see shared stewardship and a co-management approach that makes sense in the 21st century.

Opposition Motion—Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain Expansion ProjectBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

4 p.m.

NDP

Sheila Malcolmson NDP Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC

Mr. Speaker, I want to discuss with the member opposite one of the promises made in the election campaign, which was to “ensure that decisions are based on science, facts, and evidence, and serve the public’s interest”.

The second was, “Use scientific evidence and the precautionary principle, and take into account climate change, when making decisions affecting fish stocks and ecosystem management.”

Being a coastal member of Parliament, my particular concern with this pipeline approval is that there has been no consensus on how bitumen, which is a raw, sticky, unrefined form of oil, would interact in a marine environment.

In January, in an interview on radio station CKNW, the transport minister said that this research has not been done. He said, “if certain products fall into the water...like bitumen...there is still quite a bit of research required to find out what happens when it gets into the water.... How it potentially disperses or sinks is very much related to a number of factors such as the sea state...the temperature of the water, the salinity...those are things where we need to do more research...and proper methods to recover”.

How did the government approve the pipeline without having that research done?

Opposition Motion—Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain Expansion ProjectBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

4 p.m.

Liberal

Randy Boissonnault Liberal Edmonton Centre, AB

Mr. Speaker, one of the first things our government did was unmuzzle federal government scientists. We committed to making sure that we had a robust census in this country and made sure that the long-form census went out to all Canadians.

As it pertains to this particular question, the decision on Trans Mountain pipeline was based on science and evidence and based on a robust environmental review and the great work of the National Energy Board. The $1.5 billion put toward the ocean protection plan will address the concerns of members on both sides of the House.

That is the kind of leadership Canadians expect from our government, and that is exactly the kind of leadership they have received.

Opposition Motion—Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain Expansion ProjectBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

4 p.m.

Conservative

Tom Kmiec Conservative Calgary Shepard, AB

Mr. Speaker, at the very beginning of his speech, the member said that the previous government did not approve any pipelines or see any pipelines built. I want to correct the record.

Being from Edmonton, the member should know that the Edmonton to Hardisty pipeline was approved by the NEB on April 19, 2014, and then built. It is 180 kilometres of pipeline.

The Bakken oil pipeline was approved on January 19, 2012. The Enbridge Bakken Pipeline Company built it. It is 123 kilometres long.

The Alameda to Cromer oil pipeline capacity expansion from Saskatchewan to Manitoba, which is also an Enbridge line, was approved in 2007, and is 60 kilometres.

The TMX Anchor Loop pipeline, connected to the current Trans Mountain project, is 158 kilometres of new pipeline that was expanded upon and was approved on June 21, 2006, by the NEB.

Here we have hundreds of kilometres of new pipeline that was approved and built by private companies. The member is obviously unaware of these important facts.

Opposition Motion—Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain Expansion ProjectBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

4 p.m.

Liberal

Randy Boissonnault Liberal Edmonton Centre, AB

Mr. Speaker, it may be impolitic to call the member opposite's understanding of geography into question, but none of those particular projects are tied to tidewater. If we look at the Hansard, my comments make clear that the last government made zero kilometres of pipeline to tidewater.

Let me share with members what we have done to create jobs in the natural resources sector since we have been in government: the Arnaud apatite mine, with 910 jobs; the Woodfibre LNG, with 700 jobs; the Black Point granite quarry, with 100 jobs; the Pacific North West LNG, with 4,800 jobs; the Nova Gas pipeline, with 3,000 jobs; Line 3 pipeline replacement, with 7,000 jobs; and 15,440 in this project. We are creating jobs and economic growth for Canadians.

Opposition Motion—Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain Expansion ProjectBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

4 p.m.

Conservative

Cathy McLeod Conservative Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC

Mr. Speaker, I would like to note that I will be sharing my time with the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan.

I am going to talk of the broad picture, in terms of the current state of oil in Canada, and the movement of oil. Then I will talk more specifically about Kinder Morgan and the motion we have in front of us today. By the way, it is an excellent motion, brought forward by our critic for natural resources.

As we know, on the east coast, we are importing oil from many different countries, which include Saudi Arabia, Nigeria, and others. The interesting thing is that the volume of oil being imported on the eastern coast is probably about 4,000 ships per year. On the west coast, we have 1,487 ships that are part of the movement of oil products. There is a big difference. We are importing a whole lot of oil on the east coast, and there is a lot less volume on the west coast. What is interesting about that fact is that, on the east coast, people do not seem to be very concerned about the oil tanker movement. We do not hear people saying stop the oil tankers from Saudi Arabia, but we hear great resistance to the pipeline that is proposed. In the west, we have relatively good support for the actual pipeline, but we have concerns about the very small volume compared to the east coast and to many other countries.

Of course, oil is more than just gas to heat our homes. There are many products that are important. There is jet fuel, gasoline, and diesel, but it goes into iPods, many plastics, some pesticides, food preservatives, and other things. Oil is not just about gasoline for our car or home heating, it is about many products that we use in day-to-day life.

This is why I thought it was an absurd comment that was made by the coalition Green leader in British Columbia. In Canada, we want to have good relationships among our provinces. We are one country and we are celebrating 150 years, and this was a very difficult comment to hear from the new coalition Green leader in British Columbia. He said, “For Mrs. Notley to tell B.C. that somehow...[choosing] the 20th century [is the way] for our future is not a good sign for her” and the Alberta economy. “Frankly, I think she should get with the program and embrace the 21st century as well.”

There might come a day when we will not need these products anymore, and I recognize that we are moving toward better jobs with renewables. However, does Mr. Weaver ever get in his car? He lives in Victoria, but he probably still has to heat his house in the winter, and I expect that he probably has an iPad in his home. It was a very insulting comment. It is very wrong. Like it or not, oil is still a part of our needs. To be frank, I would rather have Canadian products being used than importing them from all over the world as we do currently. That is something we need to think about.

The Kinder Morgan pipeline is 980 kilometres long. Approximately 350 kilometres, about a third of it, goes through the riding of Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, which I represent. I find it interesting to hear from the NDP member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley that the mayors are against this project, that the ones who are most affected do not want it to happen. The mayor of Vancouver and the mayor of Burnaby are not the ones who are most impacted by this decision. It is the mayors in the riding that I represent. It is the regional district, and the Squamish-Lillooet Regional District has given support to this project. Therefore, for the member to say they are the ones most impacted, when the vast majority of the pipeline is going to be through other communities, is wrong.

Not only does it have the support of the many mayors and regional district directors throughout the interior of British Columbia and Alberta, but the first nations communities have signed off on it also. There are 51 first nation communities that have signed community benefit agreements. Again, in my community, the first nations see there is tremendous opportunity and have signed off on the agreement.

It is interesting that the only thing we hear portrayed in terms of first nations is the lack of support from a few bands. I think they are the Tsleil-Waututh and Squamish first nations. However, we never hear about Simpcw or Tk'emlups or many in Whispering Pines, who have said that this is a good project and they support it. They see opportunities and would like to see it go through.

I moved to Kamloops in 1999. That pipeline has been in operation since 1953. There was an awareness that there was a tanker farm and perhaps a pipeline, but, to be frank, no one really paid much attention. We knew that there was a pipeline. There was no discomfort with the fact that there was a pipeline going through our community. We knew it had an important terminus, which probably kept the price of our gasoline at a reasonable level and supplied much of the interior of British Columbia.

The other thing we know is that trains go right along our fish-bearing rivers, our salmon-bearing rivers. We know that although train transportation is safe, it is not as safe as pipelines. The other key issue is that there is only so much capacity on our rail system, and they are taking up capacity with the transportation of oil. By sending all these barrels via train, we are taking away the opportunity to transport our grain and wood. We are going to be detrimentally impacting the whole supply chain within Canada. Therefore, the pipeline is incredibly important in terms of the supply chain. We have great support for Kinder Morgan, the 980 kilometres through Alberta and through the communities I represent.

Of course, in Burnaby and Vancouver, they are a little more reluctant about it. I hope the people of Vancouver and Burnaby will look at this as being many things. It is for the good of the country. Calgary, Alberta, is having tremendous problems. In the interior of British Columbia, the vast majority of people would prefer to see oil go through by pipeline rather than train, and they see that there are opportunities.

We are one country, and today we are having this debate. The federal government, through the National Energy Board, has approved the project. We have an uncertain situation in British Columbia as to whether the coalition government will be taking over. The parties have clearly stated they are reluctant to support this particular pipeline and will do everything they can to stop it. They need to listen, and I hope that the Parliament of Canada will send them a very strong message that this is important. This is the Parliament of Canada, and not only is it the executive branch, the legislative branch, but many communities and many first nations.

The motion is absolutely accurate. It has social licence that is critical to the Canadian economy and the creation of jobs. It is safe and environmentally sound, as recognized and accepted by the National Energy Board. It is under federal jurisdiction with respect to approval and regulation. It should be constructed with the continued support of the government, as demonstrated by the Prime Minister personally when announcing the approval of the project.

In conclusion, there will never be everyone who is happy about projects such as this. However, in this case, it is clearly in the best interests of Canada and many communities within Canada.

Opposition Motion—Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain Expansion ProjectBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

4:10 p.m.

Winnipeg North Manitoba

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, we have had a government that has been very proactive and sensitive to the needs of the project. We have had a great deal of consultation. This is a decision that was based on facts that have been provided and deemed in the best interests of Canada overall, both socially and economically. We also appreciate the motion that is being brought forward.

However, it is important for us to recognize that we need to work with stakeholders. For example, the Premier of Alberta is obviously very anxious to move forward on this and others across Canada. It is very much an issue that applies for all Canadians.

I wonder if the member would provide her thoughts on the importance of this to Canada as a whole, including British Columbia and all provinces?

Opposition Motion—Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain Expansion ProjectBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

4:15 p.m.

Conservative

Cathy McLeod Conservative Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC

Mr. Speaker, it is important. For example, with the downturn in the oil sands, there are businesses in the riding I represent that have also suffered a downturn because they supplied product to the oil sands. We hear about workers in the Maritimes who have lost their jobs. This is a critically important project. We still have an oil-based economy. We might be transitioning, but we still need oil. Canada needs to maximize its opportunity in this area, absolutely.

Opposition Motion—Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain Expansion ProjectBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

4:15 p.m.

NDP

Jenny Kwan NDP Vancouver East, BC

Mr. Speaker, the member talked about the support of indigenous peoples for the project but, as we know, there is mounting evidence in court challenges with respect to the Kinder Morgan expansion. In fact, there are some 17 challenges in the system right now.

I wonder if the member can comment on that in terms of the support of indigenous peoples?

Opposition Motion—Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain Expansion ProjectBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

4:15 p.m.

Conservative

Cathy McLeod Conservative Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC

Mr. Speaker, the pipeline goes from Alberta through the central area of British Columbia, and into the area of Vancouver. There are 51 first nation communities that have signed support and benefit agreements. The vast majority of first nations that are going to be directly impacted by the construction of this pipeline have said that they approve it. Obviously, we will never get to 100% consensus, but this is a very solid support level: 51 first nation communities all signing off who see the benefit.

Again, I would plead with the people from Vancouver and Burnaby to see that there is a need within British Columbia and Alberta, that there are opportunities throughout our country. This is in the best interests of the country, and perhaps they could rethink their reluctance to support this project and get on board.