Debates of Nov. 28th, 2018

Canada's Oil and Gas Sector

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Exactly. Mr. Speaker, they did not buy it for a minute, because actions speak louder than words. The actions of the current government have shown over and over again that it is the one that created this pipeline differential crisis by not doing the things to ensure that our product could get to market. Albertans will not stand for it. Calgarians will not stand for it.

I am going to mention some quotes from stakeholders. This first one is very dear to me. It is from Nancy Southern, the CEO of ATCO. I am very proud to be on the Trilateral Commission with Nancy Southern. The ATCO AGM is run like clockwork. These incredible corporations in Calgary have rich histories and have solid ways of doing things. They are very gracious. They will go with the flow, so to speak, until they absolutely possibly no longer can. It was at this AGM, where I was so fortunate to be present, that Nancy Southern spoke these words: “How heartbreaking it is to see our wonderful resource-laden province so constrained by regulatory policy and politics of various dispositions.”

We could have heard a pin drop in that room, because everyone knew that Ms. Southern was speaking the truth. Thank goodness she was speaking the truth. She was not alone in the truth that she was speaking.

Despite the fact of who created this price differential crisis, and it was the Liberal government, it does not have to be this way. That is my message to Calgarians and Albertans: It does not have to be this way. There is another way.

What will a Conservative government do in 2019 when we come to power? We will repeal the Liberal carbon tax. We will repeal Bill C-69, the anti-pipeline bill. We will end the ban on shipping traffic on the north coast of British Columbia. We will enact legislation that will clarify the roles of proponents and governments that are involved in consultations. We will ensure that standing is given only to those with expertise or who are directly impacted by the project in order to end foreign-funded interference in regulatory hearings. We will provide certainty to investors on approval timelines and schedules. We will use the federal declaratory power to declare a major project for the general advantage of Canada under section 92.10 of the Constitution Act, 1867, where we deem it necessary for future projects.

I am saying that it does not have to be this way.

Here is the best news of all. Young people are getting the message. Yesterday, I had the absolute pleasure, along with our deputy leader, the member of Parliament for Milton, as well as our natural resources shadow minister, the member of Parliament for Lakeland, to meet with an incredible organization, a group of young people called the Young Pipeliners Association of Canada. I hope that Molly, Sarah, Jon and Tran are listening to this because we were listening to them yesterday. We want them to know that we hear them. We understand that they value this industry, that they understand and value the history of this industry, that they value their jobs, and that they value this sector as the future not just for Calgary, not just for Alberta, but for all of Canada. I hope the government will join these young people, and our party, the official opposition, the Conservative Party of Canada, in supporting this industry, in destroying Bill C-69, and in taking responsibility for this price differential crisis, because the Liberals created it.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I brought this up in a previous question and I think it bears repeating, because I would like to hear the answer from the member across the way.

The reality of the situation is that Stephen Harper was horrible at building pipelines, not because he did not want to do it, but because at the same time he was touting that we were going to be the new energy sector that was going to be a new superpower, he was undercutting the process by continually attacking environmentalists, attacking the fight on climate change, and essentially in the process, putting a target on the back of the oil sector. That is why he was unable to accomplish getting oil to new markets.

The facts are the facts. In 2006 when Stephen Harper came into power, 99% of the oil that we exported went to the United States. That did not change by 2015 when he left. Therefore, can the member at least acknowledge that just a bit of the responsibility bears on the previous government?

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I think a big part of being a parliamentarian is taking responsibility. That stands not only with us as parliamentarians but with governments as well. I, for one, am sick and tired of the Liberal government attempting to blame its incompetence and inaction on the previous administration, which is simply not the case.

What I will take responsibility for, for the previous government, is 1.3 million jobs. That is what I will take responsibility for as a member of the party that was the previous government.

What the Liberal government can take responsibility for is the designed and orchestrated phase-out of the oil sands, destroying jobs across the country, and the attempt to kill, murder, an industry.

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, just last night on As It Happens, CBC Radio host Susan Bonner asked a question of Dan Halyk, CEO of Total Energy Services in Calgary. For the first time in 22 years, this company is shutting down field locations.

She asked him about the glut and the fact that there is no way to move the product because of the lack of pipelines in the country. This was his response, and I would appreciate a perspective from our member on this side of the floor who just shared very good comments.

He said:

First of all, we foresaw a rise in production, particularly in oil, five years ago, but expectations were that reasonable rules which are in place for construction and development of infrastructure pipelines are in place, and I think every fair-minded, reasonable, balanced person expected pipelines to get built. I don't think anyone would have foreseen the extreme difficulties we have in this country in constructing that infrastructure.

Industry invested in good faith on the premise that reasonableness would prevail. That certainty is not what's happening, and the end result is production, particularly in the case of larger projects which take years to develop, have now come on-stream. What hasn't progressed is construction of infrastructure. That is a huge problem. It is not an industry problem in the sense that industry was ready, willing and able to invest and proceed. It's been the political side that has failed.

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for those excellent insights. I would respond by saying that the world is hungry for ethical oil, oil that is extracted to the highest environmental standards. This is a demand that is not going away and that will only, in fact, increase.

What the government has done in not providing the mechanisms for these projects to be approved and to get these products to market, which the world is asking for, is a complete disservice to Canadians.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, there was one part of the member's speech with which I completely agreed, and that is that the experience of the Kinder Morgan pipeline is the worst horror movie anyone could imagine, and it just keeps getting worse.

I want to put in her mind this notion, because I followed the process carefully. I was an intervenor. Every single step that led to the Federal Court of Appeal quashing that permit was virtually in concrete before the election. The NEB process was set up under Bill C-38 rules, and the process was moving in that direction. The advice from the NEB panel would not have been different if Stephen Harper had still been prime minister, and I doubt that the cabinet under Harper would have done anything different than what the cabinet under the current Prime Minister did, which was ignore the flaws and approve the pipeline.

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I genuinely believe, in my heart of hearts, that everything might have been in place, but the reality is that there are no shovels in the ground. There is no sight of any shovels in the ground. It was a failure in the consultation process.

Once again, it is complete incompetence on the part of the government. I fail to believe that our government, based upon, as I mentioned, our successful track record of the four pipelines I indicated, would not have been successful in that venture. I feel that strongly.

[Leona Alleslev, Conservative, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am very humbled to be able to participate in this incredibly serious emergency debate on the oil and gas industry in Canada and the crisis situation facing Albertans. This is a serious issue for Albertans, and they are starting to despair.

There are 29 Conservative members of Parliament in the House of Commons, and all of them would have loved to have had the opportunity to speak to this important issue tonight. However, we only had six spots, and I was privileged enough to be granted one of them.

For those who may not know, I am not an Alberta member of Parliament. I come from Ontario, from Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, which is just north of Toronto. Like probably many other Canadians, I did not fully understand and appreciate the extent, the seriousness, the severity and the contribution of the oil and gas industry not only in Alberta but in Canada as a whole. Then I had the opportunity to go to Calgary.

The member for Calgary Nose Hill, the member for Lakeland, the member for Foothills, and many of the other Alberta members of Parliament took the time to explain to me just how significant and serious this is. I want to thank the Conservative members of Parliament, and I want to thank their constituents, for giving me the opportunity to communicate to them the very important message that I am going to do everything I can to ensure that those in Canada, like me, who do not understand how important Alberta is to Canada, understand. I hope I also can communicate the important message to Albertans that we understand how much they matter to Canada, because if Alberta is in crisis, Canada is in crisis. It is time for us to unite and build a nation, because this is one country, one Canada.

Times are tough, and Alberta is in crisis, yet in the economic update, we heard from the finance minister that the economy is growing, everything is rosy, we have nothing to be concerned about and the Liberal government can take credit for everything that is great. There are certainly no problems that need addressing or to be fixed.

Do not be fooled. We can agree to disagree, but even if we look at the statistics the finance minister is providing us, they are lag indicators. He is looking at data in the past. He is not actually looking at where we are today and therefore at what that means for the future.

If we look at Alberta as the initial indicator, it is the beginning of what will happen to the rest of the country. Alberta has lost over 100,000 jobs, and it has lost over $100 billion in investment.

Why does the oil and gas industry matter? For many years, it has been the economic engine and has driven much of the growth the country has enjoyed. It has the third-largest oil reserves. It is the fourth-largest oil exporter, and it is Canada's second-largest export. It is the number one contributor to private investment in the Canadian economy, and it contributes over 11% to the overall Canadian economy. That is nothing to sneeze at. That is significant.

That incredible economic engine is now stalled. Why is that? It is not about corporations making informed economic decisions that were out of the control or the purview of the government. It is because of policy and regulatory decisions the government has chosen to make, and in some instances, has chosen not to make.

The regulatory burdens that have been placed on the approval process to get pipelines built are incredibly complicated and unclear, and the goal posts keep changing. They are overwhelmingly complex and therefore are driving those corporations outside of this country, because like other industries, Canada is competing with other jurisdictions to bring that business to Canada. If our regulatory and policy environment is so difficult to understand, they are going to choose other jurisdictions where they can get those things built.

What does that mean? It means that we cannot get our incredible oil and gas to market. We cannot build pipelines to tidewater to get them to foreign lands abroad, and we cannot get them south. We cannot get them to market, and unfortunately, the longer we wait, the more those other suppliers of oil and gas in the world we are competing with will fill the void. We will lose that window and never get it back.

We are also losing massive amounts of capital investment that we need not only for today but for growth and a continued economic engine into the future. We are also talking about energy security, because we need to have our country able to look after itself. We have enough energy reserves. We need to have energy independence, because it gives us energy security as well as economic security and to a certain extent, in these uncertain times in the world, defence security.

That is why the oil and gas industry matters in Alberta, but why does it also matter to Canada? We are not only losing the revenue from the oil and gas industry, but one job in oil creates seven manufacturing jobs. We have all kinds of businesses in the financial markets and the stock market that come from oil and gas; $3.9 billion in Ontario alone was provided from oil and gas purchases, and 12% of jobs in the oil and gas industry can be created in Ontario. That would generate $153 billion that will contribute to oil and gas in the Ontario economy from 2017-27 if we can get some of these pipelines built. That would contribute $12.6 billion in taxes in Ontario, which would go a long way for all kinds of services in Ontario that are highly needed. By not being able to leverage that potential, not only is Alberta suffering but Ontario is suffering, as are other parts of the country that would benefit.

The Prime Minister was in Calgary last week, and he talked to Albertans and said that he feels their pain. He also said that this is a complicated matter and there is no simple or easy answer, yet to simply say that he feels their pain is really not enough. Ultimately, he is the Prime Minister. The job of being Prime Minister is probably to solve the complicated and difficult challenges facing the nation. We are looking to the Prime Minister to do what needs to be done. He needs to lead the country, and he needs to solve difficult problems, and he needs to make sure these things get done.

In closing, I would also like to make sure that we speak to Albertans. Do not despair, because there are many of us in the House of Commons who understand just what a crisis this is. We are uniting with Albertans, and we are not going to stop until we are able to build the nation that we need to be with these pipelines, because we are looking at one country, one Canada.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Mr. Speaker, like my hon. colleague, I am a Quebecker. I come from a different region, but I also care very much about the people of Alberta.

I listened very carefully to a lot of the speeches tonight, and I am a little perturbed that so much of it was focused on blaming one side or the other for things that happened instead of looking at solutions.

I have heard a couple of solutions from my Conservative colleagues. They have talked about how horrible Bill C-48 is and how horrible Bill C-69 is, yet the hon. member voted in favour of both bills at all stages. How does she reconcile the opinions she has expressed tonight with her current verbiage?

[Leona Alleslev, Conservative, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, obviously what my hon. colleague is referring to is when I was actually a member of Parliament as a Liberal, and I did not fully appreciate just how devastating Bill C-48 and Bill C-69 were, not only to Alberta but to the entire country. Therefore, I am very grateful to colleagues on this side of the House who have given me the opportunity to understand the complexity and why those were bad bills. I have no problem reconciling it, because I did not know what I knew then, and I am doing my very best to know what I know now and make amends.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague seemed to lay a lot of the blame for none of these pipelines getting built on the doorstep of environmental impact processes and regulations that are too difficult for these pipelines to pass. I know that she has the unique view here in the House from both sides. Does she not realize that these difficult processes that these pipelines are going through are the rather weak processes that the Conservatives dreamed up in the previous Parliament?

We have different views on this, but Bill C-69 has not passed yet. It is still in the Senate. I do not think it would change things much, despite what we hear from the Conservatives. However, what these pipelines have gone through in terms of assessment processes are the flawed processes that—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

The hon. member for Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill.

[Leona Alleslev, Conservative, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, essentially what they have done is two things. They have frozen the existing processes to ensure that nothing happens and they have created an incredible breadth of uncertainty around what the processes are going to be in the future. Therefore, we cannot expect industry to wait around to see what it is going to be in the future, and spend that time and money knowing that certain processes have been frozen in place.

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

Mr. Speaker, on Monday night we debated in an emergency debate about the 2,500 people laid off in Oshawa. I appreciated the member's speech then, and I appreciate it again tonight.

There is nothing that would shut down investment in Alberta and investment in Canada like Bill C-69, according to a whole list of gas and oil people. It would shut down investment in jobs. Money would be leaving our province and country, and one report said it would be $100 billion, but what I have is $85 billion. We are seeing jobs leave, 100,000 in Alberta and a carbon tax coming in. There is the purchase of a pipeline that leaves those who would invest in the sector asking why they would invest, because the government is just going to take over, or the government is going to make it impossible for them to take the oil to tidewater. The government also banned shipping traffic on the west coast.

Maybe the member could fill us in a little more about the policy she talked about that is hindering job creation in this country.

[Leona Alleslev, Conservative, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think it would be unfair of me to even try to compete with that excellent, broad-spectrum list of all the things. I think the punchline really is that anyone wanting to invest here is having a really difficult time understanding exactly where the goalposts are, what they are going to have to demonstrate, what they are going to be held to, and what kind of timeline they can expect.

It does not matter what we are talking about, the complexity or uncertainty, no one knows when they come to invest in Canada what they can expect, and that is driving them to other jurisdictions where the information is clear and they know that they can get stuff done.

[Kent Hehr, Liberal, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Kingston and the Islands.

It is a great honour and privilege to speak tonight in this emergency debate on the crisis that has emerged in the Canadian oil and gas sector.

People in my riding, people in Calgary, kids I went to school with, kids I grew up with, are all having a difficult time right now. I know that. I have family members who work in the oil and gas industry. My sister Kristie Smith works for TransCanada pipelines. Her husband Bob works for the Pembina Pipeline. This is personal. We understand that it is a difficult time.

I was with the Prime Minister last week in Calgary, where we met with oil and gas executives. There is no clear path forward they say. Both have differing ideas on what we should do. What they did say, and it is what our government is delivering on, is that we are going to ensure that we get access to new markets. We remain committed to building the Trans Mountain pipeline project in the right way.

We also delivered something else in the fall economic statement. We delivered what those people who work in that industry are asking for, the capital cost allowance structure, which will allow us to build more projects more effectively and more efficiently.

We have heard a lot of rhetoric in tonight's debate from the members opposite. I understand that they are concerned about the people of Calgary and Alberta and the like, but nevertheless, they seem to have forgotten how we got here.

Just pick a date at random, let us say, 2006. Let us go back to 2006 when the Harper government was elected. That government immediately said, with sound and fury, that it was going to build an energy superpower here in Canada. Conservative members at that time, all the men and women, put all their thought processes, all their workings together, and worked day and night, I assume, to try to create this. That is what they said they would do. Yet here we are.

When we took power in 2015 after they had been in power for a decade, not one inch of pipeline had been built to new energy markets. What we are dealing with right now is the fact that there is a differential, and that differential is caused by our having one customer, the United States. When the Conservatives came to power, 99% of our oil went to the United States. At the end of their decade in power, that number was the same.

Here we are today. This government has invested $4.5 billion in the Trans Mountain pipeline. We will build this in the right way. It shows our commitment to the people I represent in my riding of Calgary Centre and our commitment to the people of Alberta. When Alberta is successful, Canada is successful.

Not only could the Conservatives not get pipelines built, in their wisdom, or lack thereof, they also said in 2012 that they were going to design a system that would get all of these energy projects built. They said they were going to put all the king's horses and all the king's men, all of us, in a room together to figure out how to build these energy projects super fast, super quickly, with no problems. Yet here we are.

The Conservatives managed in this process to basically cause themselves to be where we are today. Here we are with their process in place, which essentially ended the northern gateway pipeline and essentially left us here where we are at with the Trans Mountain pipeline, where we followed their process.

Here they are saying that we should do nothing more, that we should not endeavour to try to do better, that we should endeavour to try to set up a process that actually allows for good projects to get built, with one project, one review, to allow people to go through this and get some certainty to it. They want to somehow go back to yesterday when clearly the process they laid down did not work. They have to admit that.

In no uncertain terms can they deny the fact that the process they put in place in 2012 was an utter failure, clearly. I hear none of that here tonight, that the process they worked night and day on to create this superpower that they said they were going to do, has led to nothing but failure. That is where we are today, with a differential a mile wide that has been caused by the failure of the former Conservative government, one, to build pipelines, and two, to have a process that actually allowed people to be heard. Here is where we are.

The Federal Court has said we have a constitutional duty to ensure we are consulting meaningfully with our indigenous people, that we are moving forward in an environmentally friendly fashion that ensures what we said in the 2015 election campaign, which is that the economy and the environment are two sides of the same coin. In this day and age, we have to move forward with that because that is what Canadians expect and that is what Canadians are demanding.

We have to also learn to look at some of the successes our government has had in terms of actually building a sense of understanding among the people of Canada around the Trans Mountain pipeline. When we came to power, the Conservative government had so alienated the indigenous population, alienated the people concerned about the environment, alienated a whole swath of Canadians who simply did not believe them when it came to the environment or consultation. That support for the Trans Mountain pipeline languished around 40%. That was the amount of public opinion support for this energy project.

Because we understand that the environment and the economy are two sides of the same coin, we have now seen people get behind this, understanding that here is a government who understands it is a balance and understands that energy projects to be built in the 21st century have to do these necessary things. It is a government that understands the importance of leaving a better environment going forward. It is a government that understands the importance of our consultations with our indigenous communities.

We also have to understand that our government has moved forward on many approvals too since we came to power. The NGL pipeline, the Enbridge Line 3 pipeline and Towerbirch are all projects that are going to lead to a lessening of the differential. Our government remains committed to those. We understand that this is important for us to deliver on, not only for the people of Alberta but for all Canadians.

As I said, when Alberta is successful, Canada is successful. After a decade of failure by the Harper Conservatives, we will continue to move forward on the Trans Mountain pipeline. All the energy executives we have talked to said that is the most important thing. They said that they need pipeline access. We are moving forward on that project in the right way. We will continue to do better on our indigenous consultations and our environmental stewardship because in the 21st century, that is the only way forward. The Conservatives just did not understand that then, and it appears that they do not understand that now.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the member do I thought the impossible, which was defend three years of failures that the Liberal government is responsible for. What the Liberals have been good at is defending the jobs of Liberal insiders whose sole goal is to shut down the oil sands and cost hundreds of thousands of energy workers their jobs all across the country, not just in Alberta.

I am going to actually name these Liberal elitist insiders. The principal secretary to the Prime Minister, Gerald Butts, is a known supporter of the tar sands campaign. The chief of staff to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change, Marlo Raynolds, the former executive director of the Pembina Institute, is a known supporter of the tar sands campaign. The senior policy adviser on energy and environment, Sarah Goodman, the former VP of Tides Canada, is a known supporter of the tar sands campaign. Zoë Caron, a past president of Sierra Club Canada and a former official with the World Wildlife Fund, is a known supporter of the tar sands campaign.

Why is the member so good at defending the jobs of Liberal insiders but is not great at defending the jobs of Alberta energy workers?

[Kent Hehr, Liberal, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, with the deepest of respect to the hon. member, I think he may have lost track of his senses during that long list that he must have got from The Rebel Media. How can he even say that? Our government is so committed to the people of Alberta that we invested $4.5 billion in a pipeline. We know that it is in the national interest to move that project forward in the right way. For him to say that is just nonsensical.

I would ask the member to revisit the evidence as to what we did and how we are going to go forward.

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the speech from the member for Calgary Centre. I cannot believe how he can actually stand behind the Prime Minister, who has failed this country so badly with regard to Canada's energy resources and Alberta's energy resources, in particular.

We have heard speeches from across the country from hon. members this evening. I will speak as a member from B.C. about the impact it has had out there. There are manufacturers and machine shop people who work in B.C. in my area, who had been working out in the energy sector in Alberta. Now, they cannot.

The member for Calgary Centre talked about the new capital cost allowance structure. That sounds great on paper. The fact is that they have scared away business investment so badly from this country that nobody is going to take that offer. They are not going to spend money on equipment in this sector unless we get rid of the government and put a government in place that is going to put energy resources at the forefront again.

How can the member defend that?

[Kent Hehr, Liberal, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the decade of failure by the Harper Conservatives to move forward one inch of pipeline toward new markets gives me confidence in what we are doing. We are investing in Trans Mountain to ensure that pipeline goes forward in the right way and that it will ensure access to new markets. I think that is evidence of our commitment to moving a nation forward.

We remain committed to Alberta. We remain committed to understanding how important a role it has played in the development of Canada. This will continue to move that project forward.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I come from a community that is quite concerned about the environment. I get a lot of questions about pipelines and what is going on with the oceans protection plan and what we are doing in terms of environmental assessments and approvals and, also, looking at how we are working with indigenous peoples. I noticed on social media that the minister is out in British Columbia working with the Métis Association of British Columbia right now.

Could the member comment on the process that we are using, in terms of environmental and indigenous consultations?

[Kent Hehr, Liberal, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that in the 21st century we have to move forward with indigenous consultation and environmental protection. We saw clearly much of the failure in the Harper Conservative era with their disregard for both of those approaches. That is where we are, stalled project after stalled project after stalled project.

Essentially, we are in this bind here because of the 10 years of a Conservative government not understanding the real important work that has to be done. That is why our government is committed to ocean protection and putting a price on pollution. One thing they forget is putting a price on pollution. The oil companies in Alberta, such as Cenovus, Suncor and many others, called for us to put on that price because they know that the world wants to see this in their energy—

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise in the House tonight to speak on this very important issue. I want to thank my colleagues in the Conservative Party for initiating this discussion.

A lot of people have been affected in Alberta by the downturn in oil prices. It is very important to remember that at the heart of this, people are suffering economically in ways that will affect all aspects of their lives. It is incumbent upon us and the government to do whatever we can to ensure that they can rebound in the most timely and expeditious way possible.

I must admit that when I heard the proposal for this debate earlier this evening, I thought it was going to be an opportunity to have a good, wholesome discussion about what some of the possible solutions are. As usual in this place, it did not exactly turn out like that. There seems to be a lot of finger pointing. I will admit that I took part in that myself, but the reality of the situation is that there is a lot of blame to go round and I do not think it is entirely fair to blame one party or the other party, one government or the other government.

The member for Lakeland who started the debate mentioned that this has been a crisis for three years and that the entire crisis is the responsibility of this particular government. That just does not make any sense, because three years ago the government was literally swearing in its cabinet and getting going. To try to blame it for everything that has happened over the last three years is just not practical and does not make sense. The reality of the situation, which I already brought up tonight, is that when Stephen Harper government came to power in 2006, we exported 99% of Canadian oil to the States. He had a prime opportunity when oil prices were at a great selling price to start diversifying the market, but he took the lazy approach and did not do that.

Yes, we ran into some problems in 2008 that would have made it more challenging, but despite the rhetoric about what the Conservatives did, the four pipelines that were built and their government's approval of this or that, if we fast forward to 2015, we were still in the exact same position, with 99% of our oil still going to the States. That is the fundamental problem, the fact that we are not getting our oil to any other markets. Therefore, to try to blame this squarely on the last three years is disingenuous at best, and an outright falsehood of reality at worst.

Let us talk about why it was so difficult for Stephen Harper to get it done. I believe Stephen Harper wanted to build pipelines, but he was unable to do so because while he was touting that Canada would an economic superpower with its oil industry, he was simultaneously undercutting the environmentalist movements, the global climate initiatives and, in essence, painting a target on the back of the oil industry in Canada. That is what he was doing. As a result, there were injunctions and legal manoeuvres throughout the entire process that made it very difficult for him to do that.

I believe that Stephen Harper and the previous government had the right intentions, but they set the playing field in such a way that it made virtually impossible for them to do that. That is why this government is taking a different approach, an approach that respects the processes and the various players and opinions that formulate how we will go about approving projects and getting them done. In that, the single most important issue is that we diversify the market to ensure that oil can go to other parts of the world so that we will not run into a problem like this again in the future.

I will read a quote from a Maclean's article from January 5, 2015 to back up what I said. It states:

Instead of convincing critics Canada could be trusted to develop a carbon-intensive resource in a sustainable fashion, Ottawa instead boasted about Canada’s 'emerging energy superpower' status, lashed out at environmentalists and thumbed its nose at international climate change efforts, painting a target on the industry’s back in the process.

It is also worth noting that 65,000 jobs were actually lost when oil prices started to decline under Stephen Harper, if we can be honest and forthright about the facts. It is also interesting that the previous government had such a poor record on pipelines and on the environment and climate change. The Conservatives were great at neither. Harper fought global efforts to deal with climate change and pulled out of the Kyoto accord.

When I talk about what we can do differently and the opportunities we have, let us talk about some of the stuff that we have been able to do and action we have been able to take after 10 years of Conservative inaction. We have supported the Keystone XL pipeline. On the Trans Mountain expansion project, we are moving forward in the right way, through meaningful consultations. We have also approved the Line 3 replacement project, the LNG Canada project and the Nova Gas pipeline. There are a number of examples where we are moving forward in the right process in order to make meaningful decisions without creating massive controversy that makes it literally impossible.

The reality, and what the Conservatives are going to need to understand at some point or another, is that one cannot bombastically attack everything that contributes to a process that is going to make these projects a reality. That is what they did for 10 years.

I also want to take a moment to talk about the bigger macroeconomic project here. We have a situation where not only is so much of Alberta's economy dependent on oil that is going into the States, but so much of Alberta's economy is dependent on oil. If we can also diversity the economy in terms of where the jobs are located and where industry is, we can also further insulate ourselves against other potential threats that might emerge to one particular sector of the economy. It is very simple. I think everyone can understand the notion of not putting all of our eggs in one basket. It is the same idea.

That is why, to Alberta's credit, it is actually doing some pretty impressive things when it comes to promoting the renewable energy sector. If we look at the statistics, we will see that Alberta is actually doubling and tripling the jobs in the renewable and clean tech sector. That is a really smart move, because it is diversifying its economy. Albertans are getting well-paying jobs that are going to be the jobs of the future and they are setting up an environment where the economy can be diverse and not just dependent on one particular sector or another.

Let us talk about what Alberta has committed to. It has committed to having 30% of its electricity come from renewable sources, such as wind, hydro and solar by 2030. This has a promising new potential for employment growth of 30% to 50% in this particular sector. Again, we know these are extremely well-paying jobs, and when we can diversify a market, we can further insulate it.

I see my time is running out. I have enjoyed the discussion tonight. I have learned a lot in terms of the various different positions on this, but I genuinely think that in order to advance any particular industry, we are going to have to take a balanced approach. The reality of the situation is that for 10 years, the Conservatives did not take a balanced approach. They tried to bully their way through a particular industry imposing things that were not going to happen because there was too much opposition. At the end of the day, what we are seeing is an approach that will work, one that brings all the players together to have a meaningful process and meaningful deliberation so we can create projects that will genuinely benefit Alberta and the country as a whole.

[Jim Eglinski, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I listened attentively to my colleague across the way complaining about all the problems the Conservative Party had trying to bring pipelines to the different coasts. The Liberals have been in government for three years. They changed the regulations. They talk about transparency and their ability to negotiate. What happened with Trans Mountain when it went to the Supreme Court? It was turned down. The court said they did not do a proper job. That is the Liberal government. For the last three years they have been working on that project, so perhaps I would ask the member, what happened with them?

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, when we look at individual projects like the one the member is referring to and the decision by the court, the reality of the situation is that we respected the court's decision on it. The court said that we needed to go back and follow a process to ensure all parties were consulted, and that is exactly what we said we would do. It is exactly what we are doing. We are respecting that process.

At least I am willing to stand here and say that there is responsibility to go around the entire chamber. As the member for Lakeland did in the introduction to this debate, to say that this is only a problem that has existed for the last three years, and that this government has been here for exactly three years therefore this problem is solely on its shoulders, is ludicrous. These problems do not develop instantly overnight. It was the 10 years of inaction.