Debates of Feb. 1st, 2018

British Home Child Day

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Pursuant to Standing Order 93, the recorded division stands deferred until Wednesday, February 7, 2018, immediately before the time provided for private members' business.

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

Natural Resources

[Kevin Waugh, Conservative, Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK]

Mr. Speaker, back on October 6, 2017, I asked the minister a question. TransCanada was forced to abandon energy east after the Liberal government changed the rules halfway through the game. Foreign oil won and Canadians lost. How much did we lose? We lost billions of dollars. We know we lost at least $56 billion that could have gone from western Canada to the Maritimes, and specifically, New Brunswick.

The prospects for energy workers in Canada have been grim. I am going to talk about New Brunswick. The Liberal government holds all 32 seats in the Maritimes, yet it does not want its people out there working. It does not want to accept oil from western Canada.

In early October of 2017, in the face of government regulatory uncertainty, TransCanada decided to pull the plug on its proposed $15.7 billion energy east pipeline. Unfortunately, the cancelled energy project is just one of many under the Liberal government day in and day out. Needless to say, we have an argument right now in this country between the provinces of Alberta and B.C.

Will the Prime Minister tonight, in Edmonton, stand up and defend western Canadian oil? We are looking for a response tonight from the Prime Minister, as he went from Winnipeg last night to Edmonton. We want to see his answer to the Alberta oilfield workers, many of whom are unemployed, even though the price of oil today is around $66 to $67 and could go to $80. That is the world price. Unfortunately, we are not getting the world price. We are still down in the twenties.

One of the central challenges faced by Canadian energy producers is the development means for the product in western Canada to help provinces like Quebec and the Maritimes. There is Asia and Europe. We need this pipeline to get our product to tidewater. As we know, that did not happen in 2017. It is a big challenge. We are seeing companies move out of this country.

Just two days ago in Calgary, Brent Conway of Trinidad Drilling said that he cannot get federal and provincial governments together to support them. Three days ago, Trinidad Drilling, which is out of Calgary, moved two of its rigs from Alberta to Texas. One could say, “Well, who really cares.” However, Mr. Conway said he was doubtful they would ever return. He said that the U.S. has changed its tax policy and is open for business, but in Canada they continue to hit roadblocks day in and day out. CEO Karl Rudd of Akita Drilling has done the same thing. He has moved rigs from Alberta to the United States. Building pipelines and starting to export oil is what the United States is all about. CIBC capital market researchers expect Canadian oil and activity to be very depressed this year in Canada.

I want to know what the Liberal government is going to do to stand up for pipelines in this country and western Canadian oil.

[Alaina Lockhart, Liberal, Fundy Royal, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Saskatoon—Grasswood for his question and also for acknowledging that Atlantic Canada does exist. It must be the 32 loud voices of the Atlantic MPs that has brought this back to reality for the Conservatives.

Canadians know how important the energy sector is to our economy and our country. It is a major source of employment and investment, and it produces significant revenues for governments at all levels. In 2016, the oil and gas industry directly employed almost 400,000 Canadians and contributed approximately $100 billion to our nominal GDP. It also produced billions of dollars in government revenues, revenues that pay for our hospitals, schools, new bridges and safer roads, and for the social programs that make us who we are.

No country would ever think about leaving the reserves that we are fortunate enough to have in the ground, no country would turn its back on the jobs and opportunities that it represents, and no country would put all of its oil and gas exports in a single American basket. That is why we launched a comprehensive review of Canada's environmental and regulatory systems. We know the energy sector's future depends on project reviews that are more predictable and timely without compromising on public consultation, indigenous reconciliation, and environmental protections, but we also moved quickly to introduce a set of interim principles to review major projects already in the queue.

What has been the result? Our government has approved a number of major resource projects, including the Trans Mountain expansion and Line 3 replacement pipelines. These new pipelines will diversify our markets, are being built with improved environmental safety and relationships with our indigenous partners, and will create thousands of good middle-class jobs. These approvals were the right decision then, and they are the right decision now.

I want to be very clear on that. Those two pipelines were approved because they are in the national interest. They were approved based on solid science, an assessment of the upstream GHG emissions, and meaningful consultations with indigenous peoples. What is more, we would have had the same approach with energy east and no one wanted that to happen any more than my New Brunswick colleagues and I.

Contrary to what the member opposite says, there was no changing of the rules midway through. In fact, just the opposite is true. We implemented our interim principles in January 2016, three months before TransCanada resubmitted its plans for energy east. I cannot speak for TransCanada, but I think it is reasonable to infer that it looked at our interim approach and decided that it could work with it. Why else would it have proceeded with its submission?

As the Minister of Natural Resources has said numerous times, nothing has changed from our perspective. Why did TransCanada choose to abandon the energy east project? Again, I cannot speak for the company, but I know what one of our country's leading experts said. Andrew Leach is an associate professor at the Alberta School of Business and claims the main culprit in energy east's demise was the re-emergence of TransCanada's Keystone XL project south of the border. In fact, Professor Leach called Keystone XL “an 800,000-barrel-a-day express line to refining centres in the United States” and that it “presented a more attractive option for shippers than Energy East”. In short, Professor Leach concluded that TransCanada made a business decision, and that is its right.

[Kevin Waugh, Conservative, Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the National Energy Board announced a tougher review process that would take into account indirect greenhouse gas contributions, among other factors.

Since the member is from New Brunswick, she would know this. TransCanada planned to hire 3,716 people locally to help with the construction of this project and 97 would be retained to operate it once it was complete. Saint John Mayor Don Darling was looking to energy east as a source of momentum to get the economy going. He presides over a declining city in a declining province and had been counting on energy east to help them turn the corner.

How does she feel about the mayor of Saint John, Don Darling, being quoted as saying that it was a catastrophe to not get these 3,716 jobs in an area of the country that we all know needs employment?

[Alaina Lockhart, Liberal, Fundy Royal, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to be clear. We did not change the rules midstream.

The National Energy Board, an independent federal regulator, chose to expand the scope of its regulatory review on energy east, but we made it clear to the company that we, as the Government of Canada, would ultimately use the same process that resulted in the approval of the TMX and Line 3 replacement pipelines. We even offered to the NEB to conduct the upstream and downstream GHG assessments to avoid any costs to the proponent. Nothing has changed, nor was anything going to change, no matter what the member opposite claims. The facts are clear on this.

The Environment

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is with regret that I must continue to raise concerns about the lack of action to protect our iconic species, the woodland caribou.

On October 6, I put a question to the minister about what she was intending to do to finally take action for the recovery of the woodland caribou in Canada, particularly in my province of Alberta.

In November, a petition was filed by two environmental organizations, the Alberta Wilderness Association, a longstanding conservation group in Alberta and the David Suzuki Foundation, along with the Cold Lake First Nation. The petition called on the government to exercise its powers under the Species at Risk Act, because of the dire strait of five herds in northern Alberta: the Cold Lake herd, the Richardson herd, the Red Earth herd, the West Side Athabasca herd, and the East Side Athabasca herd.

We know the federal government has been stalling on taking action, saying it has given the provinces the opportunity to come back with a recovery plan, and what they will do to protect the herds. The problem is that thus far from Alberta, we have simply received a list of potential strategies. Those who are concerned about the plight of these iconic species have given the government until April to get that range plan from Alberta, but in the meantime, these are rapidly depleting herds.

The recovery strategy itself sets a target of no more than 35% of habitat disturbed for each population of caribou, and to give them a 60% chance to be self-sustaining. Yet, for these five herds, there is already 72% to 88% of their habitat disturbed, and the herds continue to decline rapidly.

I am calling upon the government. Is it ready to move forward, finally step up to the plate, and exercise the powers that only it holds under the Endangered Species Act, and under the Biodiversity Convention that Canada has enacted as law. It is only within the power of the Government of Canada to make sure that the biodiversity is protected. Over and over again, we have Canadians expressing their concerns that this iconic species is disappearing. We have a specific case here.

If Alberta and the other provinces do not come up with a credible plan to generally protect this species, and not simply put it in a zoo, will the government tell us today that it is willing to step in immediately, and as the petitioners are asking implement some emergency orders?

[Serge Cormier, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Edmonton Strathcona for her interest in this matter.

Our government is deeply committed to conserving Canada’s biodiversity and to maintaining and improving our species at risk protection and recovery.

As everyone knows, the boreal caribou is a priority for this government. We are committed to effectively upholding our legal obligations under the Species at Risk Act and ensuring compliance with all federal laws.

In July 2017, the federal government released a proposed action plan for the boreal caribou. The action plan sets out the federal government’s plan to work with partners and stakeholders to support the recovery and protection of the boreal caribou. That plan includes actions and investments to further research and science to support recovery; recovering and protecting caribou through conservation agreements with other governments and regulations on federal lands; and reporting our progress to Canadians.

The provinces and territories also have a great responsibility to manage land, natural resources, and wildlife, and protect species at risk that live within their jurisdiction. The 2012 recovery strategy for boreal caribou, which was produced by federal, provincial, and territorial governments, recognized that the vast majority of critical habitat is on provincial and territorial land. The recovery strategy therefore included a five-year deadline for provinces and territories to provide the federal government with protection plans on a range-by-range basis for boreal caribou.

In October 2017, we also published a five-year progress report on the boreal caribou, which gave an overview of the progress made in achieving the objectives of the recovery strategy and reported on the status of the caribou populations and the disturbance to their habitat. As of October 2017, every province and territory was still working on developing their range-by-range protection plan.

The department will perform an official analysis of the measures that the provinces and territories have taken to protect critical habitat for woodland caribou, as well as any gaps in critical habitat protection, and will report to Canadians in April 2018. If the April report shows that the provinces and territories are failing to implement adequate protection measures, federal legislation requires our government to recommend that federal protection be applied to non-federal lands. We are currently in discussions with several provinces and territories regarding conservation agreements that could expedite and support their efforts to complete their range plans, in close consultation with indigenous groups and key stakeholders.

Among other things, we are also working on creating a multilateral forum to incorporate new knowledge and scientific data into woodland caribou conservation and recovery efforts. The national boreal caribou knowledge consortium will give the government, indigenous peoples, stakeholders, and scientists a forum where they can share information and lessons learned on a regular basis.

Ultimately, the success of the efforts to restore the caribou population and ensure its long-term prosperity depends on the willingness of all parties to work together to find innovative scientific solutions.

Our government believes we must seize the opportunity to restore the woodland caribou population and promote the prosperous and sustainable use of Canada's natural resources.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am deeply troubled. I am hearing a consistent theme from the Liberal government that this is mostly the responsibility of the provinces and territories. I remind them that there is a very famous Supreme Court of Canada decision, the Friends of the Oldman River Society, that clearly says the federal and provincial governments share responsibility and jurisdiction over the environment.

Clearly, the Species at Risk Act is under the mandate of the federal government.

The answer is not more consultation and more science. This has been going on for decades. We have a deep problem and the government needs to recognize it. We have already had one previous federal environment minister chastised by the Federal Court for the fact that, when he made his decision on whether or not there was a proper recovery strategy for these caribou, he had failed to consider the treaty rights of first nations.

In this case, we have the Cold Lake First Nations relying for its survival in winter specifically on these herds, and these herds already only—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

The parliamentary secretary.

[Serge Cormier, Liberal, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I again thank my colleague.

As I stated in my previous reply, we recognize that the woodland caribou population has declined in the past two years primarily because of human activity. Our government is very concerned about the state of this caribou population in Canada and the impact of its decline on indigenous peoples and all Canadians. That is exactly why we are stepping up our efforts to address the situation.

Canadians expect us to work with the provinces and territories to find ways to protect this species while continuing to support the sustainable use of our natural resources. I will repeat that this is a very important species for our government. We will continue to work with all our partners to re-establish this species as quickly as possible.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted.

Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 6:31 p.m.)