Debates of June 1st, 2017

Intergovernmental Relations

[Marc Garneau, Liberal, Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, as the Prime Minister clearly stated this morning, we have no intention of reopening the constitutional debate. Our position has not changed, and the Prime Minister was very clear.

Our priority is to grow Canada's economy and Quebec's economy and create jobs for the middle class and those working hard to join it. That is the mandate that Quebeckers and Canadians have given us. We take this mandate very seriously.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, there is no respect for Quebec's jurisdiction, as evidenced by Bill C-29. There is no respect for our needs, as evidenced by the health transfers. There is no respect for our land, as evidenced by energy east. There is even no respect for our laws, as evidenced by the infrastructure bank. There is never any respect for what we want.

When will this Prime Minister apologize to Quebeckers for his total lack of respect towards Quebec?

[Marc Garneau, Liberal, Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, our federal government is very proud of its relationship with the province of Quebec. We are working with the province of Quebec for the interests of Quebeckers and Canadians.

Our efforts on health, the environment, and many other files clearly show that we are working in a spirit of collaboration and mutual respect.

As I said, Quebeckers are very pleased to know that we are focusing on the economy and job creation.

Presence in Gallery

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

I would like to draw to the attention of hon. members to the presence in the gallery of His Excellency, Mr. Salifou Diallo, President of the National Assembly of Burkina Faso.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear!

Oral Questions

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Grande Prairie—Mackenzie, AB]

Mr. Speaker, earlier in question period, the government House leader invited MPs to direct people to the government appointments website to get information about the application for the Ethics Commissioner. I went there in anticipation of finding that. I saw that no such application or job was posted there.

I am wondering if she intended to mislead the House, or if in fact she wanted to stand to withdraw the comments, or if she intended instead to direct people to liberal.ca.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

I do not see the member rising.

The hon. member for Beloeil—Chambly is rising on a point of order.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I know you have the responsibility, and we humbly respect that, to judge the admissibility of questions. I would, however, submit to you, if I may, that in light of the current situation with the security staff on the Hill and the employer responsibility that is held by the RCMP, which is under the responsibility of the Minister of Public Safety, I would ask that you reconsider the admissibility of the question.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

I would also ask that the Liberals not heckle me as I talk about the security guards in the House of Commons and the work they are doing.

I would humbly submit, while respecting your decision, that you may reconsider it and that the member for Saskatoon West may be allowed to re-pose the question.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

I thank the hon. member for Beloeil—Chambly for raising this question. First of all, I thank him for asking people not to heckle when someone is raising a point of order or at any other time. That is appreciated.

Second, if you check the legislation that created the Parliamentary Protective Service, you will find that it is an independent agency, which reports to both Speakers. It is also under the RCMP in terms of the daily operations, but it is an independent operation and therefore not within the responsibility of the Government of Canada.

Now I believe the hon. opposition House leader has the usual Thursday question.

Business of the House

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

Mr. Speaker, today I have a couple of questions regarding the upcoming business of the House for the government House leader. First of all, could the government House leader outline the business of the House for the remainder of this week as well as her government's priorities between now and the end of the sitting in June?

Informing the opposition of the government's priorities prior to the summer adjournment is the custom in this place, so it would be particularly helpful as we are moving forward and seek to do the good work that Canadians elected us to do during extended hours.

Also, it is our understanding that the government House leader intends to table a motion to change the Standing Orders. I think the government knows full well our position and the NDP's position on this, that we remain strongly opposed to making any changes. That being said, could the government House leader advise us if she still plans on proposing a motion to change the Standing Orders, and if so, can she assure the House that she will not use the same types of procedural tactics to shut down debate on this motion before the summer recess?

Last, I have one more question regarding the upcoming business. Could the government House leader confirm the accuracy of rumours that the Prime Minister intends to prorogue in the next few weeks? Could she confirm whether that is accurate?

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Order. I encourage members who are carrying on conversations to do so in the lobby. I apologize to the hon. opposition House leader for the noise that took place during her comments.

I would ask members to help me out by saying “Shhh”. Thank you very much, colleagues.

The hon. government House leader.

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister of Small Business and Tourism]

Mr. Speaker, this afternoon, we will continue debate on the Conservative's opposition motion. This evening, we will proceed with Bill C-45, the cannabis act, at second reading.

Tomorrow morning, we will commence report stage of Bill C-44, the budget. In the afternoon, we will return to Bill C-45.

Our hope for Monday and Tuesday is to send Bill C-45 to committee, and also to deal with report stage of Bill C-44. Other bills for next week include the Senate amendments to Bill C-6, the Citizenship Act; and Bill S-3, provided the bill is passed by the Senate.

Should time permit, we would also like some debate on Bill C-49, transportation modernization; and Bill C-24, to amend the Salaries Act.

We have had a conversation among House leaders. I look forward to continuing those conversations, and I will do my best to report to this House the information that I have, and we will do our best to work well together so that all members can do the good work that we are sent here to do.

The House resumed consideration of the motion.

Opposition Motion—Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain Expansion Project

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

The hon. member for Peace River—Westlock has three minutes remaining in his speech.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I was speaking on the topic of social licence, given the current motion that we are debating from our hon. leader. I would like to perhaps go over that motion once again. I will just read it once more:

That the House agree that the Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain Expansion Project: (a) has social license to proceed; (b) is critical to the Canadian economy and the creation of thousands of jobs; (c) is safe and environmentally sound, as recognized and accepted by the National Energy Board; (d) is under federal jurisdiction with respect to approval and regulation; and (e) should be constructed with the continued support of the federal government, as demonstrated by the Prime Minister personally announcing the approval of the project.

Some 500 of the 630 first nations across our great nation of Canada are open to pipelines and petroleum product development. This means that first nation communities across the country are divided on the issues of pipeline development and energy resource development and things like this. Therefore, I would say that we need to be able to treat first nations the same way we treat all other Canadians and to have the diverse opinions that we have about petroleum product development. Given this particular project, the Trans Mountain pipeline project, the vast majority of first nations along the route are totally excited about the fact that this pipeline is going to be built. Therefore, we would appreciate it if the Prime Minister would go to B.C. and sit down with the people in Burnaby and have a chat with them to champion this pipeline, to make the case for the social licence that this pipeline has in order for it to be built.

We look forward to the Prime Minister's championing of this. We acknowledge that he has approved the pipeline; we know that was a hurdle in and of itself. We continue to raise concerns about the process by which it was approved, but we recognize that it is approved and the very fact that repeatedly members of the government stand up and acknowledge the fact that they have approved this pipeline. They brag about the fact that they have approved the pipeline. Now the imperative is for this pipeline to be built. We look forward to what the government will do in the future. We know that the market conditions are perhaps a bit downtrodden, and that is why we in Alberta are looking forward to having this pipeline built and bringing these life-saving petroleum products to the world.

[James Maloney, Liberal, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this motion is a request by the Conservatives to get the Government of Canada to approve the Kinder Morgan pipeline. We have already done that. This opposition motion is trying to remind us that we should be supporting the oil and gas sector and employees in the province of Alberta. We do that. It is less surprising that the Conservatives put politics over principle, but what is surprising is that they are putting politics over pipelines. How does the member think that pitting members against one another helps us achieve our common goal?

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Mr. Speaker, to the member's point, the issue with pipelines in general was social licence. We did not come up with that issue. That was brought up by the government, that fact that pipelines need to have social licence.

The government said that this pipeline had social licence, and therefore it approved the pipeline. Now it is incumbent upon the government to dispel the opposition to this pipeline, to ensure that all the actors involved understand that this pipeline has social licence, and to ensure that in the interests of Canada this pipeline gets built.

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

Mr. Speaker, there is a range of things I would like to ask my colleague from Alberta.

Maybe I will focus in on the issue of confidence—and I would suggest it is overconfidence—that my friends on both the Conservative and Liberal sides have with respect to the National Energy Board itself.

The government brought an expert panel together to review what is going on with the National Energy Board, which has had its problems. Let us admit the obvious. The energy east pipeline hearings had to be shut down. The Kinder Morgan hearings had to be suspended. Both were because of conflicts of interest. People who were being placed on the National Energy Board to review the pipeline had previously worked for the pipeline companies themselves. That is called a captured regulator, where the regulator becomes too close, too forgiving, and approving of those it seeks to regulate. It does not work.

In that expert panel's report, it said that the National Energy Board faces a crisis of confidence. It went on later to say that, for a generation to come, Canadians have lost faith in the National Energy Board.

When Conservatives and Liberals agree on their terminology of social licence, that somehow the public is on board, one would have to question how they define it. There are 17 lawsuits out against this decision. The mayors in the regions most impacted by this pipeline are unanimous in their opposition. The first nations that the member talks about are misrepresented. I deal with many of them. When someone signs an agreement to discuss, it is not an agreement to the project itself. That is what has been misconstrued continuously.

I have a very simple question. We cannot rely on the NEB process. The current Prime Minister promised British Columbians and Canadians that he would review the pipeline under a valid process. He himself admitted that the one that had been put in place by Mr. Harper was inefficient, ineffective, and did not build the public confidence needed to have social licence.

The process is the same one that Harper had. This Prime Minister used it as well. Under all that review, there was no evidence put forward that a diluted bitumen spill could actually be cleaned up. Does my friend have any evidence to offer the people of Alberta, British Columbia, or anywhere in Canada that when a spill of diluted bitumen happens, in salt or fresh water, it can actually be cleaned up?

My Conservative colleagues want me to hurry, because they actually know the answer. It is no.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Mr. Speaker, in my limited lifespan, I have travelled to other parts of the world. Everybody I met from other parts of world congratulates Canada on being one of the cleanest countries in the world. That is to our great honour.

The NEB process that has been in place has championed our ability to have a world-class regulatory framework. In fact, most jurisdictions around the world look to Alberta specifically for how to manage their oil sands development or petroleum product development.

We have nothing to fear here. In fact, I would ask the hon. member who is questioning me to have a conversation with the premier of Alberta. Even she understands that there is social licence for this pipeline and that this pipeline needs to be built in order to get petroleum products to tidewater.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his fine speech that, although interrupted by a question period, was excellent. I had the pleasure of visiting my colleague’s riding this spring, when there was still a bit of snow. I saw for the first time the scale of oil development in western Canada, and as a Quebecker, I was impressed. We cannot imagine it, living in a small rural Quebec community. When travelling around these huge tracts of lands, on every block, we see pump jacks, which are making Canada the prosperous country it is today.

Today we are speaking on the motion by my colleague from Chilliwack—Hope, which reads as follows:

That the House agree that the Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain Expansion Project: (a) has social license to proceed; (b) is critical to the Canadian economy and the creation of thousands of jobs; (c) is safe and environmentally sound, as recognized and accepted by the National Energy Board; (d) is under federal jurisdiction with respect to approval and regulation; and (e) should be constructed with the continued support of the federal government, as demonstrated by the Prime Minister personally announcing the approval of the project.

I wanted to talk about this motion because it is an important debate. In fact, I want to thank my colleague for this initiative which will allow us to have a debate. However, even though the House of Commons sitting hours have been extended, I feel that many of my colleagues would have wished to discuss it further. Unfortunately, motion No. 14 on the extension of sitting hours will not enable us to continue discussion on this opposition motion.

I know that my NDP colleagues also have an opposition motion to present next week, and their time will be cut short, too. Nevertheless, extending the sitting hours is a unique opportunity for Canadians to hear what the official opposition and the NDP think on the issues that matter most to them.

The record now corrected, I would like to speak a little bit about the reasons why went in this particular direction. Obviously, the results from the last election in British Columbia have certain people worried, people who firmly believe in this project. Namely, they are worried about the coalition that has been formed by the New Democratic Party and the Green Party. This leads us to wonder if the Liberal government's commitment to the project is sincere.

Important projects such as these always face a certain amount of opposition by people or environmentalists, obviously, and this happens for all kinds of reasons. These projects still have a purpose, however. We sometimes have to try to convince people to get on board, but it is not always possible. There are many similar examples of this in Quebec. Some would say the Kinder Morgan project is one of them.

What role should leaders play when it comes time to create acceptance for and defend a project that is important to the economy and which might impact local communities? It is up to the leader to roll up his sleeves and start selling his project. In this case, the leader is the Prime Minister of Canada and he approved the Kinder Morgan project. It is up to him to head west and sell his project, to explain to people who still oppose it today why it needs to be completed for the welfare of all Canadians, including Quebeckers.

Unfortunately, the Prime Minister seems to talks about Kinder Morgan everywhere but in British Columbia, the very place where the leader's message needs to be heard. That is where the leader needs to go to underscore the project's importance and it is the only place where the Prime Minister of Canada refuses to talk about it. Maybe he does not want to upset his voter base. I do not know. Far be it from me to impugn the Prime Minister's motives, but I am appalled at his refusal to go British Columbia.

Energy resources are important for the economy not only of western Canada, but of the country as a whole.

According to Natural Resources Canada, with a production of 3.8 million barrels of crude oil a day in 2014, Canada is a major supplier of safe and reliable crude oil for all international markets.

Canada also has one of the largest oil reserves in the world, after Saudi Arabia and Venezuela. Canada has 171 billion barrels of proven oil reserves, including 166 billion in the oil sands. That is important for jobs in Canada. Kinder Morgan's Trans Mountain project could create up to 15,000 jobs for Canadians.

Again according to Natural Resources Canada, the oil and gas industry directly employs over 700,000 Canadians, which represents nearly 4% of jobs in the country.

Of course, we just went through a difficult period because of the downturn in global oil prices. The industry has obviously been greatly affected by that. Over the past few weeks and months, we have heard our colleagues from oil-producing provinces calling on the government to help the sector weather this difficult crisis.

During my trip to Alberta, I saw many unused construction trailers. From what I was told, that is not normal. Usually, these trailers should be on site making work for Canadians from every province.

I know many people from my riding who went to work in Alberta. Unfortunately, that is not what is happening right now. We need projects like Kinder Morgan's Trans Mountain project to help the oil industry weather the crisis.

Despite technological advances, there is still a high demand for petroleum products. Of course, we can seek to reduce our use of oil and work to develop new sources of energy, but in the meantime, oil is there. Oil exists. I do not know very many of my colleagues who do not use a single drop of oil in a day. Why? Because oil is absolutely everywhere.

Canada therefore needs to have trade opportunities for those products and needs to ship them to ports so that they can be exported to other continents, particularly Asia.

I will now turn to another important reason why I believe we must support the industry: safe transportation of petroleum products.

As the member for Mégantic—L'Érable, I am deeply concerned about transportation of oil by rail. The government has amended the rules and is going to change the kind of tank cars being used, but in the meantime, a lot of oil is still being transported by rail all across Canada. Pipelines are one of the safest ways to transport oil.

According to Natural Resources Canada, pipelines are are a safe, reliable and environmentally friendly way of transporting oil and gas. On average each year, 99% of the oil transported on federally regulated pipelines moves safely. That is one of my concerns, and I feel we should give these considerations some thought before we say no. That is why I encourage the government to vote in favour of this motion.

In Quebec, a lot of us are thinking that the Liberal government is trying to hide itself behind the Rocky Mountains instead of facing people in B.C. and explaining to them why the Kinder Morgan pipeline is important for our economy.

I am not afraid to support this project and the motion of my colleague, the member for Chilliwack—Hope. For the people of Quebec, pipelines are safe and are good for our economy, not only for Canada but for Quebec.

In closing, the Prime Minister has expressed support for Kinder Morgan's Trans Mountain project several times. He did so in Calgary, in Houston in the United States, and in Italy, and I think he should continue to support it. Now, the Prime Minister needs to make a similar show of support in British Columbia. This is an urgent matter.

I encourage all of my colleagues to support the member for Chilliwack—Hope's motion.

[Randy Boissonnault, Liberal, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague opposite for supporting this project.

If the National Energy Board ever approved the energy east project, would my hon. colleague be in favour of those pipelines, considering how safe they are and the fact that we could then finally ship petroleum products across the country both safely and efficiently?

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his very relevant question. The Conservative Party has just come through an excellent leadership race.

The new Leader of the Opposition brought forward a proposal for ensuring that Quebeckers and Canadians always know where the gas they put in their vehicles comes from. At each and every pump, Canadians would know where it comes from. Right now, Quebeckers would see that their petroleum does not come from Canada, but rather from other countries. This is one way of making Quebeckers and Canadians understand the situation, and they could contribute to the economy of their own country. Indeed, I am sure they would choose to fill up at places that sell petroleum from their own country.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to inform you that I am splitting my time with my hon. colleague, the member for Edmonton Centre.

Let me begin by thanking the hon. member from Chilliwack—Hope for this motion endorsing our government's decision to approve the Trans Mountain expansion—