Debates of June 1st, 2017

Opposition Motion—Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain Expansion Project

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I know my colleague hails from British Columbia. I would like to ask her a question about this agreement that the B.C. Green Party and the B.C. NDP have reached, and get her thoughts on what she believes the government will actually do.

The agreement says, “immediately employ every tool available to the new government to stop the expansion of the Kinder Morgan pipeline, the seven-fold increase in tanker traffic on our coast, and the transportation of raw bitumen through our province..”.

My question for her is, based on her political knowledge and knowledge of what the government is capable of, which is very little, what does she expect it to actually do on the ground? We know it is going to vote a certain way. It is going to pretend that it cares, like it cared about energy east. What does she think the government will actually do, on the ground, to ensure that Kinder Morgan is built?

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Mr. Speaker, this project is clearly within federal jurisdiction. It is a project that has been deemed in the best interests of the country.

Again, I cannot speculate on what is going to happen in terms of the Green-NDP liaison, which I guess we would call a manifesto, for lack of a better word. There is obviously still a lot of process that needs to happen in British Columbia.

People talk about the volume of oil tanker movement. Contrast that to the east coast and many countries. We are not talking about enormous volume here. We are talking about an increase, but certainly a very reasonable, acceptable increase. Of course, the tankers of this day and age are much better designed. There are double hulled. There are many more safety mechanisms that have been put in place.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to speak on a subject that is particularly important in my own constituency of Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, the issues around pipeline construction.

I want to start with some context about how pipelines are built. Some members may know this already; some, unfortunately, may not. It is important that we start with an understanding of the context.

First, pipeline projects are proposed by the private sector. Already some people have made claims about the previous government not building pipelines to tidewater, and so forth. There needs to be an understanding that pipelines are proposed and then, if approved, built by the private sector, and it is up to the government to decide to approve or not approve pipelines for which there have been applications. That is one important point.

The second point is that after a project is proposed, there is a consultation process through the independent National Energy Board. The National Energy Board hears from different people in the community and from experts, considers the evidence, and weighs the facts of the situation. Then it comes forward with a recommendation to the government. Ultimately it is the cabinet's call, but in my view, it virtually always makes sense for the cabinet to approve projects that have been approved by the NEB. The NEB is, after all, the expert. It hears and weighs the evidence and then presents a recommendation.

Finally, it is important, as we think about how pipelines are built, to understand that these are clearly and squarely within federal jurisdiction. There was much discussion and public discourse about what particular provincial leaders and even mayors might think about pipelines. Of course, it is quite legitimate for these people to have opinions about where a pipeline should or should not go, and they are welcome to express that opinion, but we do not live in a country where different jurisdictions can decide what infrastructure goes into and out of their province. These are not countries; these are provinces governed by a Constitution that defines what is and is not in their jurisdictions. It is the federal government's responsibility to consider and rule on these applications, hopefully to listen to the NEB, and to do so in a way that reflects the best science and information.

That is the context through which we should view a discussion of the process of pipeline approval.

I am very proud to remind members that the previous Conservative government built four pipelines and approved a fifth. These were the applications that were brought from the private sector during the Conservatives' time in government. Of course, we were very supportive of other applications. We were very supportive of energy east and Trans Mountain, but obviously there is a process these projects have to go through. While we are supportive of pipelines, we are also supportive and respectful of that process.

Conservatives also, though, reformed the consultation process. We made the case, and I think we were right to do so, that the consultation process for any development project should not be unlimited. People with a particular political perspective who are never going to change their minds should not be able to do everything possible to drag out for years, even decades, good projects that should be discussed, considered, and ultimately decided upon. If the decision is not to proceed, okay; if the decision is to proceed, okay.

A consultation process should be reasonably time-limited, should leave those who have an interest in the process, who are affected, as well as experts, the opportunity to present information, but that process of deliberation should lead to a conclusion.

This was a problem we had in the past with certain projects in Canada. That process of deliberation was not designed to allow for a reasonably timely conclusion, so we made changes to ensure that there was a full consultation where experts and affected people were heard but that ultimately led to, on the positive or on the negative, a conclusion that would allow some degree of certainty for the project proponents as well as for the communities.

Conservatives built the Alberta Clipper energy project, which carries 450,000 barrels per day; the TransCanada Keystone, which carries 435,000 barrels per day; the Kinder Morgan anchor loop, which increased capacity by 40,000 barrels per day; and the Enbridge Line 9B reversal, which carries 300,000 barrels per day.

I am very proud of those accomplishments, and of course we approved the northern gateway project. That is the record of the previous Conservative government with respect to pipelines: respecting the process, respecting expertise, and recognizing the value of the energy sector and the need to move forward.

What happened when this new Liberal government took power? The Liberals made certain changes that are very clearly bad for independent processes and bad for the energy sector. For example, they emphasized that they would be willing to reject projects that had been approved through the National Energy Board. They would not provide the certainty that after independent expert review, they would approve projects that were, through that process, found to be in the best interests of Canada.

What is striking is that members in the Liberal Party frequently talk about listening to the science and about evidence-based decision-making, but they have actually been very clear that their decisions with respect to pipelines will not be constrained by the facts and the evidence. They specifically said that. They said they will not be limited by the decisions of an independent process, but that instead cabinet may well choose to reject projects that are demonstrably in the best interests of the country.

That is what they said with respect to projects such as energy east, which is currently going through the process, but they have already done that with respect to the northern gateway pipeline. This was a pipeline that went through the process. It was a pipeline that was approved by the NEB with conditions, and then approved by the previous Conservative government with conditions, and then the government decided that it could not go ahead.

The Liberals have also gone further. They have legislation coming forward now that would exclude tanker traffic in northern B.C. I am very clearly in favour of tankers, because that is how oil gets from place to place. People here in this House in some corners talk about tankers as if they are a terrible thing, and frankly, they are living a little bit outside reality if they think that we should live in a world without tankers.

Not only am I pro-tankers, but I am particularly in favour of Canadian tankers, because off the coast of B.C. there are tankers from other countries, tankers coming from Alaska, and there is every indication that we will see expanded development and expanded tanker traffic from Alaska, and if there is a spill, unfortunately, it is not as if the Canadian coast would be immune.

Instead of saying that we will not have any part of it and leaving the opportunities for energy development in the Asia-Pacific for other countries, let us instead encourage Canadian energy development while putting the necessary safety regulations in place to protect ourselves.

The government has taken steps that are of great concern to our energy sector, and now we are having a debate on the Trans Mountain pipeline, a pipeline that the government has uniquely decided to approve. It is important to note that this pipeline went through the same process as the northern gateway pipeline and that the government has made an arbitrary decision, based on its analysis of the politics of the day, to approve one pipeline and not the other.

Meanwhile, the politics of the day have changed. There is now a new provincial government in B.C.—I should not say that. There is a proposal for a coalition of a number of parties that did not get the largest number of seats in the election. That is what seems to be a possibility.

It is important that the government stand firm on Trans Mountain, of course, and government members have said they will, but it is also important that they develop some coherence in their approach to pipelines.

Our approach was coherent. It was based on evidence. It was based on listening to the NEB. It was based on a fair process that understood how pipelines were built. The government's approach is more arbitrary, which puts it in a much weaker position when it comes to defending pipelines across the board.

On the issue of pipelines in general, we believe it is important to address climate change, and to do so mainly through a discussion of consumption. That is how we reduce emissions: we reduce the amount of consumption. In the meantime, we have to use energy, and besides energy, we use manufactured petroleum products, which include things like election signs—even NDP election signs come from petroleum products—and we all fly in airplanes.

In the meantime, while we are still using energy resources, it makes no sense to try to limit the transportation of supply. Let us look for efficiencies that allow us to reduce demand, but supply and the transportation that facilitates supply are important while we are still using energy resources.

The government needs to do better in supporting vital energy transportation products that are important for our national economy.

[John Oliver, Liberal, Oakville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Kinder Morgan pipeline is a critical pipeline to tidewater. In ensuring that this pipeline progresses safely and properly, the government has made tremendous efforts. It has announced interim principles to govern decisions on major projects, it has appointed a ministerial panel to travel the proposed pipeline route to hear from concerned citizens and provide further opportunity for public comment, and it has committed to co-develop indigenous advisory and monitoring committees to provide ongoing environmental monitoring for the project. That is how to get by and that is how to get approval for this kind of project.

When I listened to the hon. member in his address, l have to ask how it was that the previous government did not have meaningful engagement with provinces on these kinds of topics. How did it let the relationship with indigenous communities get so bad over that 10-year period that it was not able to get any project to tidewater? I think it is because it did not have a proper process, which is what this government is putting in place.

Could the hon. member speak to why the previous government failed to maintain those relationships?

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it will not surprise the member for me to point out that the premise of his question is entirely correct. If he listened to my speech, he would have heard me explain the fact that pipeline projects are proposed and built by the private sector.

In our government, private sector proposals came before us, and we approved them. We approved and saw the building of four pipelines, and we approved a fifth, which was then killed by the current government, so it is a complete mischaracterization of reality, bordering on the kind used by the heritage minister in question period, to suggest that we failed when it came to this issue.

With respect to relationships with indigenous people, it is really unfortunate that members mischaracterize the perspectives on energy development that come from our indigenous communities. We recognize that there is a diversity of opinion on energy issues within indigenous communities. There are some that oppose certain developments; there are many, though, that support them and have been vocal in their support. It is unfortunate that the government does not seem to listen to indigenous communities that very strongly defend the energy sector and are able to show the significant benefits to their communities that come from energy development.

[Sheila Malcolmson, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Mr. Speaker, in September 122 first nations signed a declaration of opposition to the Kinder Morgan pipeline and many other pipelines. That number is high.

I am finding breathtaking the member's revisionist history around the National Energy Board process and his dedication to, as he stated it, “respecting the process”. Under the previous government, the Conservatives dismantled all kinds of environmental laws. They buried their attacks in budget bills. They targeted the Navigable Waters Protection Act, which triggered the indigenous Idle No More movement. They targeted the Environmental Assessment Act, the Fisheries Act, and the National Energy Board Act.

I was a participant in both the Enbridge process and the Kinder Morgan process. I promise they were entirely different processes. The Kinder Morgan process was a public hearing with no hearings. People were not allowed to say what was on their mind, and there was no cross-examination of evidence. Does the member now regret his party's role in creating the current legal challenges that face the Kinder Morgan pipeline approval?

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, where shall I start? The member started her question by talking about indigenous communities. Of course, I am not here to pretend that all indigenous people think one way or another. There is a great deal of diversity within indigenous communities about these issues. Many of them are opposed to certain or all projects, and many of them are very supportive of many projects and, in fact, are directly involved in benefiting from them.

The member mentioned a number of indigenous communities. I think the number was about 100 that had signed some particular document. We know that there are far more than that in terms of the overall number of indigenous communities in this country, and I would be curious to know, in terms of those that signed, what the proportions were in terms of direct involvement with the energy sector or being along the pipeline route. However, regardless, we know that indigenous people disagree with and debate these issues just as everybody else disagrees with and debates these issues, and we should not try to present as if they are sort of a monolith in terms of perspective.

In terms of processes for pipeline approvals, I will make absolutely no apologies for the fact that the Conservative government took important steps to streamline the processes. It had credible reviews that involved expert testimony, as well as evidence and testimony provided by those who were affected, but it took the position that activists should not be able to indefinitely filibuster important energy projects. People should be able to express their opinions, there should be debate and discussion, and ultimately that process should get to a conclusion, which allows—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Before we resume debate, it is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Vancouver East, Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship; the hon. member for Nanaimo—Ladysmith, Indigenous Affairs; and the hon. member for Mégantic—L'Érable, Government Appointments.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Vancouver East.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Nanaimo—Ladysmith.

I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak in the House today to this motion and to reaffirm my opposition to the Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain expansion project, on the record once again, and therefore my opposition to the motion before us today.

The motion mentions that it needs social licence to proceed. I must say I was incredibly disappointed to hear the Minister of Natural Resources suggest that somehow social licence was an outdated term, earlier this morning. Today, more than ever before, social licence is imperative for major initiatives, especially those that have significant impacts—and, I would argue in this instance, negative impacts—especially when we are talking about the environment and combatting climate change.

I am left with the assumption that the minister stated this because he is well aware that social licence for this project has not been obtained, so he would rather suggest it is not something that is needed. Sadly, this is just an extension of the Liberals backing away from their lofty election promises, hoping to break them without being noticed by Canadians.

The Liberal election platform states, “While governments grant permits for resource development, only communities can grant permission”. That was the definition of social licence then—before the election, of course—and now, after the election, not so much. In an effort to try to pull one over on Canadians, and particularly British Columbians, in the fall of 2016 a new, watered-down notion of social licence was stated. The new definition for social licence, according to the Liberal government, is about “ensuring public confidence in the decision-making for major resource projects”. Of course, the Liberals cannot even say that they have met the test of even this watered-down definition. Today, we learned that the government believes the term itself is actually outdated.

I have spoken to my constituents many times about this project, as I believe social licence is needed for a project like this. Their view was loud and clear: 78% of survey participants in my riding are against the pipeline expansion. It is an issue my office receives a significant amount of correspondence on, such as from Sarah, in my riding, who wrote that certainly economic prosperity is important in Canada, but not at the expense of our environment, wildlife, and the rights and resources of indigenous communities. She said taking such a gamble would be foolhardy, short-term thinking. Using basic risk analysis—what are the chances of something going wrong, and if something went wrong then how drastic would the impact be—reminds us of how serious the risks are in considering such a choice. She asked that we not approve this proposal.

This is not atypical but a common thread and a common theme of the messages that I get in Vancouver East from my constituents with respect to the Kinder Morgan expansion project.

The government said it has obtained the necessary social licence from Canada's first nation communities that would be impacted by this project. Can the government explain why there are currently numerous legal actions being taken by first nation communities to stop this pipeline? There are 17 court challenges, to be exact—so much for that promise of a renewed and strengthened nation-to-nation relationship.

The fact is that social licence simply has not been obtained, and no attempt to call the term outdated changes that.

With respect to the issue of the economy, which we have heard raised as well, the Simon Fraser University Centre for Public Policy Research found, on the Canadian economy issue, that 65% of the fiscal benefit would go to Kinder Morgan, 32% to Alberta, and—guess what—all of 2% to British Columbia.

The report found Kinder Morgan was also seriously understating the potential cost of a serious spill. While it was suggested that the most expensive diluted bitumen spill would be from $100 million to $300 million, the report pegged those costs more realistically in the $2 billion to $5 billion range. What is more, the science is simply not there to clean up a spill, if there should be one. The real issue is not whether there would be one, but when there would be one.

I must take exception to the second claim in this motion as well. What is critical for the Canadian economy and for the creation of jobs is to help move Canada towards a more sustainable economy, one that ensures the Canadian environment, such as B.C.'s beautiful coasts, are respected and preserved, one that tackles issues such as income inequality and precarious work.

The motion also points to the NEB's approval of the Kinder Morgan pipeline's environmental safety issue. As my colleagues have pointed out throughout the day, the NEB's process is fundamentally flawed, and its approval of this pipeline is yet another of a growing list of broken promises made by the Prime Minister to Canadians.

The Prime Minister's personal approval represented a betrayal to all Canadians who expect better from government, who expect decision-making based on science, genuine consultation with first nations communities, and respect and protection of our environment.

Do not just take my word on the NEB, but let us take the word of the Prime Minister's—not one, but two—hand-picked expert panels that confirmed that the public has fundamentally lost confidence in the NEB and that there is a crisis in confidence in the decisions being made.

For good measure, let us take the word of the Liberals' election platform, which was highly critical of the NEB, and where they promised to “make environmental assessments credible again”, and that they would “immediately review Canada's environmental assessment processes”. Finally on this, the words of the Prime Minister himself assured Canadians publicly on August 20, 2015, that the NEB overhaul would apply to Kinder Morgan, when he said "Yes. Yes. It applies to existing projects, existing pipelines as well.”

There was clear acknowledgement from this government that the NEB was flawed, the government's expert panels were clear that the NEB is not trusted by Canadians, and the Prime Minister provided clear assurance that an overhauled NEB would be the body that approved the Kinder Morgan pipeline. However, here were are with yet another broken promise.

We know there are serious environmental concerns should there be a spill from this pipeline, or as a result of the anticipated nearly sevenfold increase in tanker traffic. The results could be devastating for our environment and our coastal economy. The science is not there to properly clean up a diluted bitumen spill into the water. How can the government claim to be making evidence-based decisions with this serious question unanswered?

We know Canadians are seriously concerned about this project, and we know they have lost confidence in the ability of the NEB to make decisions for the greater public good. We also know that many first nations communities on the proposed pipeline route are staunchly opposed to this project. We know that, by pushing forward on this project under its current conditions, the Liberal government is breaking promises made to Canadians.

I, along with my NDP colleagues, both in this house and in the provincial legislature, will continue to oppose this project, and I will oppose this motion today.

[Kevin Sorenson, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, this morning I had the opportunity to speak on this.

I am thankful that my NDP colleague has gotten up. She has been very consistent. Let us make no mistake: the NDP have consistently voted against pipelines. The member talked to some degree about the safety concerns of a pipeline.

I live in a rural Alberta constituency, where three weeks ago I got a phone call that there had been a rail derailment in my riding, with 29 cars derailed and opened up. Immediately, I wondered what kind of a mess we were going to have just outside of Camrose in a little town called Bawlf. It ended up being grain, and so the cleanup was easy.

Would my NDP colleague not admit that pipelines are the safest way to move our oil, the safest way to move our energy, and that it is really is the only way? The rail lines that are moving it now are by far the largest concern.

Although the member may talk about safety, the issue is really not safety, is it, but that the NDP consistently votes against every bit of energy and fossil fuels?

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, there is something to be said about consistency. The NDP is truthful. We say what we say and we act on what we say, versus the Liberals who say something and then do the very opposite, such as the case with Kinder Morgan or the case with electoral reform. I could go on for days but I am limited by time, so I will stop there.

There are critical issues around safety. The member said the safest way to do it was by pipeline. There are other ways. One option would be to look at rail but there are issues in terms of risks as well. Hence the issue. I am not advocating for this to be done by rail.

On the question around safety, we need to make sure that we have the science behind it. On the pipelines, if and when there is a spill, we need to have the science to be able to clean it up. In this instance, we all know that there is no science to do that, and that is exactly my point.

[John Oliver, Liberal, Oakville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Trans Mountain expansion project would create 15,000 new jobs in construction, engineering, and spill prevention. It would get hard-working Canadians back to work and put food on the table for middle-class families across Canada.

For example, in my riding of Oakville is Local 793 of the International Union of Operating Engineers. This local operates the Operating Engineers Training Institute of Ontario, which trains crane operators and heavy equipment operators on exactly how to build pipelines and how to work the equipment that puts them in.

Why does the hon. member not have faith in the operating engineers of Canada to build a safe pipeline? What would she say to the families in my community that are getting trained and those across Canada that she would put out of work on these kinds of important projects?

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, what I do not have faith in is the Liberal government and its inability to do what it said it would. It said it would bring back a new environmental assessment process so that projects like this can go through the proper channels so that Canadians can have confidence around the approvals. The reality is that we do not have that today.

We do not know what the science is around dealing with a spill, and the member knows that too. I ask the government to show us the science, to show us the evidence. I urge the government to do what it said it would do during the campaign and make good on that promise. The Liberals promised Canadians that there would be a renewed environmental process and the Prime Minister said yes that new process would apply to existing projects. Here we are today. All of those promises are false. There is also another word that I could use, which I cannot say in the House, but it starts with the letter “L”.

The government needs to do better if it wants approval for projects like these. The Liberals need to gain the confidence of Canadians and it could start with them honouring what they said they would do.

[Sheila Malcolmson, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Mr. Speaker, today we are debating a motion brought forward by the Conservatives asking the government to renew its commitments to the Kinder Morgan pipeline. This is precipitated by what looks like we hope will be a New Democratic Party-Green Party co-operative government in British Columbia, which has released its co-operative agreement saying, “immediately employ every tool available to a new government to stop the expansion of the Kinder Morgan pipeline, the sevenfold increase of tanker traffic off our coast and the transportation of raw bitumen through our province.”

It is just for the public, I think, that we are debating this today because the Trudeau government has already given the green light for this project.

I am going to talk about the risks of bitumen spills for oil tankers—

[Robert Sopuck, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The member used a personal name in her speech and that is not according to the rules.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

The hon. member is correct. I would encourage the member for Nanaimo—Ladysmith to avoid the use of other hon. members' names, which she reflected in one of her phrases earlier. Perhaps she could avoid that in her future remarks.

We will continue on.

[Sheila Malcolmson, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am going to talk about the risk of bitumen spills from oil tankers on B.C.'s coast. I am going to talk about the fire risk at the Burnaby tank farm, the broken promises to respect first nations consent, the harm to Orca whales, and a long list of broken promises by the Liberal government in relation to the Kinder Morgan pipeline approval.

Some of those promises were:

...ensure that decisions are based on science, facts, and evidence, and serve the public’s interest....

We will use scientific evidence and the precautionary principle and take into account climate change when making decisions effecting fish stocks and ecosystem management.

[And we will] give coastal communities more say in managing the resources around them.

As a representative of a coastal community, along with my New Democrat colleagues, we represent the waters that a 2013 tanker safety review panel identified as one of the four areas of Canada with the highest probability of a large oil spill and one of the two areas in Canada with the highest potential impact of an oil spill. I want to talk about that risk and what the government's plans are to accommodate it.

A sevenfold increase in oil tanker traffic laden with bitumen means that inevitably there is an increase in risk. The impact of bitumen is something that we are still learning about as a country. It is an unrefined product. It is viscous, sticky, and it needs a diluent in order for it to flow through a pipeline, and the volatility of diluted bitumen was identified in the Kalamazoo spill in the United States several years ago as being extremely volatile and having a big human impact.

At Vancouver Island University in Nanaimo, only two days after the spill happened, oil spill expert Riki Ott was on the scene. She came to Vancouver Island University and spoke about some of those impacts. She said the diluents, containing benzene, toluene, and micro polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, began gassing off in the area, causing symptoms of nausea, dizziness, and headaches among the local population. This had a big impact on the first responders to that spill. She was also on the ground after the Exxon oil spill back in the 1980s, and she reported that the same impacts caused cancer, asthma, and hormone reproductive problems by jamming immune system and DNA functions. Again, this is an enormous risk to first responders when there is inevitably some form of a spill.

Vancouver's Tsleil-Waututh Nation and Tsawout First Nation commissioned a study in 2015 saying “collecting and removing oil from the sea surface is a challenging, time-sensitive, and often ineffective process”. Even in the calmest conditions it is very hard to control. Here we have both the human impact to people on the front line, and the environmental impact if we do have a spill in marine waters.

In 2013, Environment Canada said that spilled bitumen exposed to sediment in marine settings sinks and chemical dispersants sprayed on dilbit were not effective. In fact, they made the oil sink beneath the water, which made it even harder to recover. If we end up with tacky tar covering our seabed, our aquaculture leases, it would be a total mess for British Columbia, with impacts on the economy, tourism, and ecology. I do not understand how the government approved the sevenfold increase in oil tanker traffic if it did not know how it was going to clean up the marine environment, yet it approved the pipeline despite that lack of knowledge.

In 2011, when I was elected as the Islands Trust council chair, which is a local government in the Gulf Islands, we figured out that this was already a risk. We already had bitumen coming through the Salish Sea and the risk of the Kinder Morgan pipeline was really going to exacerbate that. We repeatedly wrote to the federal government and got no response. When there was finally late-breaking science that came to the National Energy Board, it refused to hear the evidence, so the pipeline was approved without any inquiry into that issue.

Another issue is the tank farm fire risk. The Burnaby Fire Department said the design of the tank farm for Kinder Morgan creates situations where firefighting is not possible, and there is a very real risk of inextinguishable multi-tank fire events.

My friend and constituent, Bob Bossin writes:

No-one wants a major tank farm...fire, including the oil companies. So everyone employs the best safety measures they can. And yet there are two or three disastrous oil depot (tank farm) fires every year. That is why, for decades, nowhere in the developed world has a facility like this been built in a city. Let alone on the side of a mountain in an earthquake zone, with a university above and thousands of homes below....

That is why tens of thousands of us on the coast, the people whose health and safety are at risk, are committed to protecting ourselves and our environment when our government refuses to.

I will move to broken promises to first nations. The government said it would recognize the relationship between indigenous people and the land, will respect their legal traditions and perspectives on environmental stewardship, yet over 50% of the pipeline and the tanker route involves first nations who are taking Kinder Morgan and the federal government to court.

In my riding, Stz'uminus leader, Chief John Elliott, said that as a nation and a community, for a short-term gain, it will be a lifetime impact to our ecosystem.

In the Snuneymuxw First Nation in my riding, former Chief Kwulasultun, also known as Doug White III, said, “this project puts at risk our way of life.” He also said the decision was “premised on a denial of aboriginal people’s rights and voice.”

We also had evidence from the Sechelt First Nation and from Raincoast Conservation Foundation at the National Energy Board that orca whales would be harmed by increased noise, decreasing their ability to communicate, acquire food, and to survive. That is from existing shipping noise, but exacerbated by the sevenfold increase in oil tanker traffic through the Salish Sea. Despite that evidence before the National Energy Board, the NEB approved the pipeline and specifically in its report acknowledged that adverse impacts would be extensive and unmitigable.

We also had evidence from Tsawwassen First Nation, which said it saw this as a serious assault both to the species at risk and also to their own way of life.

I will finish by saluting my friend and neighbour, Paige Harwood, who just two days ago was arrested at the Kinder Morgan site. This is a young person who is very discouraged by the Prime Minister's betrayal of his promise to renew the National Energy Board process before approving the Kinder Morgan pipeline.

For all these reasons, I will continue to support first nations and community opposition to the Kinder Morgan project. I will be voting against the Conservative motion that supports the Kinder Morgan pipeline. I will be standing up for the coast, and standing up for a renewable future and a sustainable coast.

[Robert Sopuck, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I started my environmental career in the 1970s and I remember the very first Earth Day. It is quite clear to me, regarding the NDP, that they are pure environmental phonies. They use the environment as a political tool to advance a left-wing agenda that otherwise they could not advance.

I find it quite hilarious that there are NDP members from Hamilton arguing strongly about the steel industry. They want the steel industry to grow to protect steelworkers. Pipelines are made of steel. What do they expect, empty pipelines made of steel? This is completely ridiculous.

At this point in time there are 2.5 million miles of pipelines in North America. That is a staggering number. They are 70 times safer, based on articles in Scientific American, than trucks or trains. To argue against pipelines is to argue against community safety.

I had the honour of working in the oil sands for a winter and I lived in a camp. There were senior couples there saving for a dignified retirement, young couples saving for their first home, and a father saving for his child's education. I lived with the workers in the oil sands and they are decent, honest, honourable, hard-working people. Why does the NDP hate working people so much?

[Sheila Malcolmson, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Mr. Speaker, that is a breathtakingly ridiculous question. I am standing up for my own riding, a coastal community, for which this project is all downside and no upside. I would argue for workers along the pipeline route that Kinder Morgan's testimony at the National Energy Board said this project is going to create 50 permanent jobs. It would not even promise not to use temporary foreign workers in the construction of the pipeline.

Just last month from Simon Fraser University, academic Tom Gunton released a new assessment of the Kinder Morgan project viability. He said recent forecasts say there is massive overcapacity to move oil in North America, and that “there are clearly viable options to Trans Mountain that have significantly lower environmental risk”. Therefore, “why would we risk B.C.’s coastline?” I could not agree more.

[John Oliver, Liberal, Oakville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this project would provide unprecedented access to global markets and generate significant direct economic benefits, including more than $4.5 billion in federal and provincial government revenues. As I mentioned earlier, it would benefit operating engineers across Canada.

Kinder Morgan, to proceed with this project, has to address 157 legally binding conditions, demonstrating that it can meet engineering, safety, emergency preparedness, and environmental protection conditions before construction can begin, and it has to apply for regulatory permits and authorizations from federal and provincial governments and continue consultations all the way along. There is very careful thought in how to build this pipeline safely.

Are there any conditions whatsoever that the hon. member, or her party, would ever support to get Canadian oil to tidewater?

[Sheila Malcolmson, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I question the premise of my colleague's question. Here is a headline from just yesterday, “Forget Any Economic Windfall from Kinder Morgan, Analyst Says”. The article says:

In a brief yet damning report David Hughes, a former federal government energy researcher, concluded that tripling the pipeline’s capacity won’t deliver an extra $73 billion in revenue over two decades as claimed by Kinder Morgan.

Again and again, we keep hearing this project is in the public interest. I do not understand how a multinational corporation, headquartered in Houston, Texas, unsafely transporting diluted tar to China, through my backyard on our beautiful coastline, is in Canada's national interest. It does not help our energy security. It does not give us jobs. It risks the marine jobs we already have.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my good colleague for her very well thought out and informed comments.

There seems to be a continuing argument about the issue of safety. Particularly, I would like to focus in on the risks with safety; that is, when there is a spill. The question is not if there would be a spill but when there would be a spill.

Is there science at this moment that can actually clean up the spill, and if not, what are the implications for all the other sectors of industry?

[Sheila Malcolmson, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we have had a number of studies done; for example, by the environment commissioner, federally, who said that the federal and provincial governments are not prepared for an oil spill, for the existing oil spill risks that we already have in our marine environment. We have had repeated evidence, both heard at the National Energy Board and refused by the National Energy Board, that said it is not clear at all that there is any proven response to how bitumen would interact with a marine environment. However, based on the Kalamazoo spill, a spill in Venezuela, and another spill in Texas, in the saltwater environment and freshwater environment, bitumen will sink. That is a huge problem. We have a lot of work to do to handle the risk we have already for B.C.'s coast, let alone with a sevenfold increase in traffic.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, before I begin, I will notify the House that I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Calgary Shepard.

I rise this afternoon in support of the motion that is before the House, brought forward by the Leader of the Opposition. Of course, that means I am standing in support of the Kinder Morgan pipeline going forward, to which Conservatives have committed. This is a very important piece of Canadian energy infrastructure that will create wealth and prosperity not only for the current generation but for generations to come. Building this pipeline would create tens of thousands of permanent well-paying jobs not just within the province of Alberta but in the entire country of Canada. In fact, no other industry offers such high-paying jobs for youth and young people, therefore allowing those in the rising generation to pay off their students debts, purchase their first homes, and really get ahead in life, which is excellent for them.

Kinder Morgan would also ensure that our natural resources would find their way to market in the most environmentally sustainable way possible, which I think all of us in the House would agree should be a priority going forward. Of course this is proven. Because of the government's own extensive and evidence-driven review process, we know that this is in fact the case. The government has everything it needs to get started on this vital project: the studies are complete, it has jurisdiction, and it has social licence. In fact, the Prime Minister himself has said that he supports this project, so when we advocate for it in the House today, it is with great backing.

It is not stated enough in the House that Canada is, in fact, a natural resource superpower, and we should be taking advantage of that as a country. For the entire existence of our nation, our ability to process and export our raw materials has defined us as a nation. People who travel anywhere around the world will find homes built with our lumber, wedding rings made with gold found in Canada, and diamonds that are taken from the north. This speaks volumes about the exports that come out of Canada. There is no reason why our natural resource called oil and gas should not be the same.

By twinning the existing Trans Mountain pipeline, we would finally be able to get our product directly to international markets. This would create more employment across the energy sector, especially for young Canadians. In this time that we call job churn for young workers, the energy sector actually provides thousands of Canadians their first well-paying jobs. Young people who are employed in the energy sector are able to buy their first homes more easily, pay down their debts sooner, and save for their futures a whole lot faster than if they were not provided this opportunity. Over the last decade, youth from all across Canada travelled west and spent at least some time in Alberta in order to save for these various things.

I recognize that Canadians do not just want a prosperous economy. They also want to make sure that the environment is protected. Pipelines make all the more sense when we consider environmental impact, because pipelines actually ensure that both of these objectives are met: our economy thrives and our environment is protected. Contrary to what the media or those on my left would like people to think, pipelines are actually nothing new. They have been in the ground for a long time and have been operational for decades. At the present time, thousands of Canadians actually live around pipelines and do not even know it, because the environment looks like it would if the pipelines were not in the ground. The reason people do not know is that pipelines are actually proven to be reliable, clean, and effective. As I stated already, the environment around them actually looks relatively normal. If we want to avoid costly and damaging spills, pipelines actually provide us with the best way forward for our country.

Study after study has shown that pipelines are the safest and most environmentally sustainable way to transport oil and gas and ensure it gets directly to international markets, which of course means we have to get it to tidewater. They are far safer than transport over rail or road, which are the only other alternatives at our disposal. Consider the number of derailments in environmentally sensitive areas in B.C. that take place or the national tragedy of Lac-Mégantic, which demonstrate the very real dangers of moving this product by rail.

In addition to this, these pipelines are also heavily scrutinized to ensure their safety to the environment. The National Energy Board's own extensive and robust report laid out 209 firm conditions for this Trans Mountain expansion for Kinder Morgan. Kinder Morgan must also do the same with the multitude of agreements that it has made with many communities and aboriginal groups along the line, which it has done.

What we need to note here is that there are many aboriginal groups. In fact I could argue that the majority are actually standing behind this pipeline. There are a few who are speaking out against it, but we have to keep in mind that it is only a few, a minority. With it being nearly impossible to get everyone on the same page, we have to choose what is best for Canadians as a whole and move forward with those who have shown their support and need this pipeline for their economic stability and well-being.

I do believe that Canada maintains some of the highest standards of environmental protection anywhere in the world, and this has been proven time and time again.

Canadians are proud that our oil and gas sector is ethical and environmentally safe, which cannot be said of the alternatives, Saudi Arabia or Venezuela. These alternatives have proven quite the opposite. Some have referred to their oil and gas as blood oil because of the regulations being actually so slim within these countries.

Let us be clear about the choice that is facing us, because the choice is not whether or not to build a pipeline, but the choice is actually to build a pipeline in Canada under the strictest environmental regulations in the world or to allow some corrupt third world oil company with no regulations or oversight at all to devastate their local environment as they extract and ship their oil overseas. These are the two choices before this House today, and I would argue that we do need to make sure we are supporting our own oil production, which has been done in an environmentally friendly and sustainable manner.

We know that if Canadian products do not reach international markets, China and other energy-dependent superpowers will get their oil from somewhere. This is why this debate is not really about the environment or saving the planet, but it is about politics. Therefore I call on the government to do what it said it would do, and that is to ensure this important upgrade of Canadian infrastructure happens.

I am glad to know that the Conservative Party is not alone in its support of this very important project moving forward. It would appear that the government has also seen the light and that it publicly supports this pipeline. I was encouraged by the words the Prime Minister delivered recently at a meeting in Rome. He said:

The decision we took on the Trans Mountain pipeline was based on facts and evidence on what is in the best interests of Canadians and, indeed, all of Canada.

I could not have said it better myself. The facts and the evidence have indeed not changed, and this includes the laws regarding federal and provincial jurisdiction.

Regardless of provincial politics in British Columbia, we are calling on the government to not lose its nerve, but to continue to support this important endeavour for the sake of our country.

Last, we trust the Liberals will commit fully to the social licence the many aboriginal communities have given them on this pipeline, and that they do not fail to deliver on the economic benefits that await.

I say this because I know that pipelines are not just a boost for Alberta but a victory for the Canadian economy as a whole. The supplies for the pipeline project include steel from Ontario, machinery from Ontario and Quebec, as well as parts, labour, and services from every province and territory across this great nation.

The reality is this. With the oceans of red ink the Liberal government is swimming in, the government really cannot afford any other alternative. We need to move forward with this project, yes, for our own sake to keep oil and gas here within our country because it will provide revenue for us. It will provide jobs, of course, for Canadian people, but it will also provide tax revenue for the government, which of course is much needed.

In conclusion, Canadians do in fact support the Kinder Morgan pipeline because it will provide well-paying jobs to young people who desperately need them. Exporting our oil is the ethical and environmentally sound thing to do, because our oil and gas sector produces this product in compliance with the toughest, most responsible environmental regulations possible.

The Liberals cannot afford to let this project fail, because it would leave our fragile economy in even worse shape than what we see today. The federal government has already approved this project. Today we are calling on government members to insist that it go through and that we move forward to construction.

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague from Lethbridge obviously has a lot of experience with the oil and gas industry. In terms of her experience with the safety of pipelines that run through southern Alberta, could she give us a sense as to how many pipelines transport Alberta bitumen, and how many times, that she knows of, there have been leaks? What were the measures taken to address those issues?