Debates of Oct. 18th, 2018

Trans Mountain Pipeline Project Act

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank all of my Conservative colleagues for proving that we are the only champions of responsible energy development on Canada's long-standing track record as a world-leading environmentally and socially responsible producer of oil and gas.

I would like to thank them on behalf of thousands of Canadians in every single corner of the country whose livelihoods depend on Canada's responsible energy development and the amazing incredible role that Canada could play in the world to provide responsible energy for the world's growing oil and gas demand long into the future. That is our vision for Canada as an energy producer and for the benefit of all Canadians.

The Liberals did not have to spend $4.5 billion of Canadian taxpayer dollars to give to Kinder Morgan to go and build pipelines in the United States and consider selling and divesting completely from Canada.

All Kinder Morgan needed, and never asked for, was certainty that once it completed one of the longest and most rigorous environmental reviews with the highest standards in the world on all counts, received approval and met the 157 conditions applied, that it would simply be able to proceed with construction of the Trans Mountain expansion.

For nearly two years the Liberals have failed and their actions just do not match their empty words. They failed to give certainty to Kinder Morgan that the legal provincial and municipal challenges, delays and ongoing roadblocks, which were deliberate tools to try to get Kinder Morgan to abandon the pipeline, would be removed.

For two years Kinder Morgan did everything it could to try to proceed with building the expansion that the Liberals themselves had approved and that we supported.

The Liberals denied three requests for unanimous consent to pass the bill in the House of Commons expeditiously before the spring, before Kinder Morgan's deadline that the Liberals had known about for months. They failed to take action then to provide Kinder Morgan that certainty before it was forced to abandon it.

Earlier my Liberal colleagues suggested it is too late but as my colleagues have expressed here, even if the pipeline can get built there are still future and ongoing threats, like restricting the volume of the expansion that other levels of government and activists can bring to the pipeline.

That is exactly why Bill S-245 is needed now just as much as it ever was to ensure that if the pipeline does actually get built, there will be no further impediments to its construction, operations and ongoing maintenance.

The Liberals failed to deliver a law to assert federal jurisdiction that the Prime Minister himself promised this past spring, around the same time that the Liberals defended spending Canadians' tax dollars on a protest position that was explicitly to stop the Trans Mountain expansion. That is why nobody believes what they say.

The court ruled that the Liberals failed to follow their own plan to consult indigenous people on the Trans Mountain expansion. For more than a month they failed to take any action to fix that failure and their ultimate announcement was just a consultation on how to consult.

The Liberals failed to listen to premiers and legal experts and appeal the court ruling to request a stay of appeal so construction could proceed while the Supreme Court deliberated.

The Liberals failed to introduce emergency legislation to affirm Transport Canada's holistic review of tanker traffic and marine vessels in the area in the case of the Trans Mountain expansion, instead kicking the can down the road for six months with no certainty what would happen after that process. That is why my colleague said their tactic is to rag the puck.

The Liberals continue to fail by still no longer being able to provide concrete timelines for a start date for construction and completion of the Trans Mountain expansion. That lack of a timeline has caused massive uncertainty and stress for the thousands of workers who have been left in limbo after losing those jobs that they were counting on.

It is a pattern. The Liberals killed the northern gateway pipeline instead of allowing more consultation. They killed energy east by political interference, changing the rules, adding red tape and forcing TransCanada to abandon the pipeline. Today the reality is that the Trans Mountain expansion remains stalled and the consequences of their failures have been staggering: more than $100 billion in energy projects cancelled; hundreds of thousands of Canadians out of jobs; more investment losses than any time in more than seven decades; future money for all levels of government lost; lost opportunities for indigenous Canadians and communities in every corner of the country; and deep divisions between Canadians being pitted against each other because of these Liberal failures.

They are about to make it even worse by ramming Bill C-69 through the Senate and failing to listen to experts who have said that legislation will guarantee no new pipeline will ever be proposed or built in Canada again.

What tremendous damage that will cause to our country's international reputation as a safe, fair, predictable place to do business and create jobs. The Liberals should be ashamed of themselves. They should support this proposed legislation to give certainty so that the pipeline could go ahead. I hope it is clear why nobody should believe any of their empty words about supporting the energy sector. Their agenda to shut it down is clear.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Pursuant to Standing Order 93, the recorded division stands deferred until Wednesday, October 24, immediately before the time provided for Private Members' Business.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

Infrastructure

[Erin Weir, Independent, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, in June, I asked whether the federal government would prioritize the use of Canadian-made steel in infrastructure projects, such as the Trans Mountain expansion, as well as the new Champlain Bridge in Montreal, particularly given the imposition of U.S. tariffs on Canadian steel exports. If we are unable to sell our steel south of the border, it is all the more reason to ensure that we are able to use it in federal infrastructure in our own country. This question is still very much relevant because, of course, we still have American tariffs on Canadian steel exports, even after this USMCA agreement to renew the former NAFTA.

In addition to reiterating that question, I want to raise some other issues regarding the potential benefits to Canadian workers of federal infrastructure spending.

The first thing I want to raise has to do with the Trans Mountain expansion. Kinder Morgan had contracted to do most of the construction with the Christian Labour Association of Canada, which is a very employer friendly organization. It was recently kicked out of the International Trade Union Confederation, and now that Trans Mountain is a public project, I wonder if consideration might be given to reissuing those contracts to more legitimate trade unions that would properly represent their employees and, indeed, bargain for better wages and working conditions.

The second issue I want to raise is that this government was elected on the promise of introducing a modernized fair wages policy, after the former Conservative government had eliminated the federal fair wages legislation. What this really means is that when the federal government builds infrastructure, the construction contracts should require some sort of minimum level of wages for different trades, wages that are better than the prevailing provincial minimum wage. One way the federal government could ensure quite concretely that its infrastructure investment benefits Canadian workers to a greater extent would be to keep its promise to reintroduce some sort of federal fair wages legislation. It is one of the first things I asked about at committee after I was elected, and we are still waiting for the government to make good on that promise.

The third topic I would like to raise would be the notion of community benefit agreements that the Government of Canada could attach to its infrastructure spending. The House passed Bill C-344, a private member's bill, to enable community benefit agreements. I believe that bill is before the Senate, and so it is not law yet. On the other hand, there really is nothing stopping the federal government from choosing to negotiate community benefit agreements when it lets these infrastructure contracts. I believe that would be another way it could ensure that its infrastructure investments are tied to local job and training opportunities, as well as other types of economic and social benefits for the regions where these infrastructure investments are occurring.

I would be very interested to hear from the government whether it will take up any of these suggestions to ensure that its infrastructure spending makes the maximum possible contribution to our Canadian economy.

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Infrastructure and Communities]

Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by saying that Canada is a strong proponent of the rules-based international trading system, which ensures the predictability of global trade. As you and all the members of this chamber know, we will always defend Canadian workers and Canadian interests against protectionist actions. Nowhere was that more evident than in our negotiations of the renegotiation of NAFTA, what is now called the USMCA, an important agreement in principle, which we hope to have ratified in this chamber and in the other jurisdictions, the United States and Mexico. This agreement will preserve access for Canadian consumers to the largest economy and largest market in the world.

We have secured no tariffs with respect to the auto sector. I know that is very important in the province of Ontario. We have ensured that we would preserve chapter 19, which is an important dispute resolution mechanism for our country. Finally, I would point out that we worked very hard to reduce duties at the border, which would ensure that Canadian consumers have access to that market without having to pay as much duty as before. These are just some of the net benefits which are flowing from the USMCA.

I would also point out, in direct response to my friend's question, that at each and every critical juncture of this negotiation we had brought to the table representatives from the labour community, from Unifor and the Canadian Labour Congress, and we believe that having a strong labour community is intrinsically connected to ensuring that people are paid a fair wage. He also pointed out, quite rightly, that we are in the midst of enshrining a community benefits agreement framework so that as proponents come forward with projects to strengthen our communities in the context of infrastructure, be it in transit, roads or cultural community centres, there will be a direct benefit to the community as a result of the employment opportunities that are driven by the fruition of those projects.

In the context of the question that my friend had asked previously, I would point out that one example of our commitment in this region, in Ontario, is the Canada-Michigan crossing agreement, which stipulates that only iron and steel that is produced in either the United States or Canada will be used in the construction of the Gordie Howe International Bridge.

Even in markets that are not subject to international trade agreements, we encourage the use of Canadian steel in public markets through the Canadian content policy and the industrial and technological benefits policy.

The new Champlain Bridge in Montreal demonstrates our commitment to investing in safe, secure and sustainable infrastructure that will meet the current and future needs of users. With an estimated $20 billion in Canada-United States trade, and as many as 50 million vehicles flowing over the existing bridge every year, the Champlain Bridge corridor is crucial for both local commuters and businesses moving their goods back and forth across the border. Our priority is to deliver a safe, top-quality, toll-free, new Champlain Bridge that is responsible and respectful toward the taxpayer. This federal infrastructure investment is ensuring a modern and sustainable crossing that will improve the quality of life of Canadians for the next 125 years by creating thousands of well-paying jobs that are helping to grow the middle class.

To select a private partner for this project, we followed a rigorous, open, fair and transparent procurement process.

The procurement process respected all of Canada's obligations under international trade agreements.

However, roughly three-quarters of the subcontractors and suppliers for this project are Canadian. That includes Canam, which is building the steel superstructure for the approaches of the new bridge.

The Government of Canada is committed to ensuring our projects are built safely, sustainably, and with the durability to last generations and protect the economic interests of all Canadians.

[Erin Weir, Independent, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary began his remarks by emphasizing the government's commitment to a rules-based trading system. I certainly appreciate some of the positive accomplishments in the USMCA. However, the fact remains that even with that deal negotiated, we still have American tariffs on Canadian steel and aluminum exports. Therefore, the rules-based trading system is not being respected and I guess the question is how we will respond to that. Will we just accept it or will we use federal procurement policy to ensure that in the face of these trade barriers we can at least use Canadian steel in our own infrastructure?

The parliamentary secretary talked a fair bit about the new Champlain Bridge in Montreal. The last time I asked about it, less than 20% of the steel for that project was being manufactured in Canada. Therefore, I think there are opportunities to use some of the steel that we cannot sell south of the border in federal infrastructure right here in Canada.

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in direct response to my friend's comments about the ongoing steel and aluminum tariffs, the Prime Minister and the Minister for Global Affairs have been absolutely consistent and firm in our position.

These tariffs are unacceptable. They are inconceivable. It is an absolute fallacy that Canadian steel could pose any kind of a national security threat to our friends in the United States and we will continue to work with our friends south of the border to see that those tariffs are removed. That will, of course, be very much connected to the USMCA as a means of creating opportunity, trade, commerce and wealth, which is driving record job growth under this government. There have been over 600,000 jobs created since we have taken the reins of this government, with record low unemployment.

We believe in good trade with our partners. We believe in having labour at the market and that is why my friend and his constituents can be confident in the work that is being done on this side of the House.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 6:40 p.m.)