Debates of Feb. 12th, 2018

Opposition Motion—Trans Mountain Expansion Project

[Jamie Schmale, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thought that after my speech my friend and I would agree on more than one point. Therefore, I will help to convince him a little further.

If we look at what is happening in the United States, the energy industry is booming. I mentioned the investment by ExxonMobil, a $50-billion investment over five years. That is unheard of. We are sending foreign investment to other countries to work on expanding the industry. We are noting that the oil and gas sector is needed to continue the growth of our economy, to continue investments in our social programs.

We have some of the highest, world-renowned and environmentally strong regulations in this country. We should be proud of that. We should be using this as an example to expand our industries, like the industry wants to do, and promote that as in the national interest. To date, we have yet to see leadership from the Prime Minister to do that.

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

Madam Speaker, because coastal communities in B.C. were very concerned about the effects of bitumen once it hits the oceans and marine environment, in 2011, as Islands Trust Council chair, I started writing letters to then prime minister Stephen Harper asking what the science was, how he was going to respond, if he had studied what would happen when this heavy bitumen hit the marine environment, and whether it would stay suspended long enough for the skimmers and oil spill response teams to be able to act. There was no answer from the Conservatives. Then prime minister Stephen Harper eroded the National Energy Board process so much that by the time the Kinder Morgan pipeline was reviewed, there was no public testimony and no cross-examination of evidence allowed. When the Royal Society of Canada and others wanted to bring evidence on bitumen in the marine environment, it was blocked based on the fact that it would be prejudicial to Kinder Morgan. Then the new Liberal Prime Minister embraced both the failure to regulate bitumen and the flawed National Energy Board review. The way I see it, Premier Horgan is now filling that gap by saying he is going to regulate and study what happens to bitumen in the marine environment.

To my Conservative friend, do you feel any regret for having undermined science and the regulatory process so much that we are here today?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

I want to remind the member she is to address the question through the Chair and not to the individual member.

The hon. member for Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock.

[Jamie Schmale, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON]

Madam Speaker, I disagree with what my friend said. I find it quite interesting that we can do years and years of consultations, spend millions of dollars, speak to thousands of people on this issue, whether they be scientists, indigenous communities or experts in the industry, and it is still not enough.

We were told that the introduction of a carbon tax would give a social licence for such things as a pipeline. We have yet to see one built. The northern gateway was cancelled because of increased regulations and red tape, including the tanker ban. The government said that if we gave it the carbon tax, it would get these pipelines built. That has not happened. That is a scam. It is a tax increase on everyone. It has increased the cost of living for everyone, making life unaffordable, yet we still have no pipeline.

I would go back to the hon. member with a question. What would be enough? What would it take to allow this pipeline to move forward? Increasing regulations and red tape delaying the project are not an answer.

[Jim Carr, Liberal, Minister of Natural Resources]

Madam Speaker, it is with disappointment that I join this debate.

Canadians look to their national Parliament for steady leadership and aspirational thinking. They look to us to unite our country and build our nation. Instead, they have seen too many examples of something quite different today. They see a motion seemingly designed to provoke anger and inflame anxiety, members who prefer to point fingers and sow division. At times, I have even wondered if the main purpose of this debate is to fan regional tensions and reopen historical grievances. We are better than that.

The world has reached a turning point. Climate change represents our generation's greatest challenge, and investing in a low-carbon future is the new norm.

Canada is uniquely positioned to rise to this occasion and to be a global leader, thanks to the resources of our country and the resourcefulness of our people. This is our government's vision for Canada in this clean growth century. It is a vision that brings all Canadians together under common cause, and one that includes using this time of transition to Canada's advantage, building the infrastructure we need to get our resources to global markets, and using the revenues they generate to invest in that future. That is what we are doing.

This is why our government is working with officials in Alberta and British Columbia to get a resolution on TMX. Prime Minister to premiers, ministers to ministers, and senior officials in each government, everyone working in good faith and without an artificial deadline, which is why the motion before us is misguided.

To suggest that the Trans Mountain expansion pipeline is not of the utmost importance to our government is the height of folly, and it flies in the face of the facts. The Prime Minister has been very clear about our government's position. As he said in Edmonton earlier this month, “That pipeline is going to get built”. He then added, “We need this pipeline and we’re going to move forward with it responsibly”. Nothing could be more certain, which means there is no need for a motion to tell our government to use all of the tools available to it, and certainly no reason for deadlines or ultimatums.

Interprovincial pipelines are the responsibility of the federal government, and a responsibility that our government takes seriously, respects, and will defend. When making decisions on interprovincial pipeline projects, it is our duty to act in the national interest, which is exactly what we did in approving the Trans Mountain expansion pipeline.

There is an indigenous proverb that says, “We do not inherit this land from our ancestors. We borrow it from our children.” This perspective has inspired our government throughout its first two years in office. It is the reason we believe the economy and the environment must go hand in hand, and it was the motivation behind the launch of Generation Energy, the largest national discussion about energy in Canadian history.

I want to take a moment to remind the House what happened during Generation Energy, because, years from now, Canadians may very well look back and say that Generation Energy was a turning point, that it marked our emergence as a global leader in the transition to a low-carbon economy. We invited Canadians to imagine Canada's energy future, and they responded, joining the conversation by the hundreds of thousands, with hundreds more descending on my home city of Winnipeg for a two-day discussion on Generation Energy last fall. Let us reflect on that fact for a moment.

The people who came to Winnipeg for Generation Energy came from every corner of our country and from around the world. They came from Norway, France, Mexico, and the United States. They came from every sector of the energy industry: oil and gas, wind, solar, nuclear, electricity. Respected indigenous leaders, business leaders, community leaders, youth leaders, they were all there. It was only the Conservative Party that chose to send no one. People who may never have spoken to each other before were in the same room, challenging each other and themselves.

Suddenly, the questions became even more pressing, questions such as “What happens now?” and “What if our individual choices could add to transformational change?” Generation Energy tapped into something unexpected and unstoppable. Our government is building these ideas into a Canadian energy strategy, working with the provinces and territories to expand what they have already done: leveraging the fossil fuel resources we have today to deliver clean energy solutions for tomorrow; planning our energy future to align with a global transition to a low-carbon economy; leaning on shared priorities such as energy efficient, clean technologies, and green infrastructure; and linking those provinces that have an abundance of clean electricity with those trying to get there.

We do not share the views of those who would simply pump as much oil as we can as fast as we can, nor do we agree with those who say that we should leave all the oil in the ground and never build a single pipeline. Both sides miss the point that we can and must grow the economy while protecting our environment for future generations. How do we do both? One certainly does not take the approach of the Harper government, which was to ignore indigenous rights, climate change, and the environment in the name of economic development at any cost. One does it by fully respecting indigenous rights, climate change, and the environment as essential components of economic development.

To the hon. member and her party opposite, I offer a stroll down memory lane. This is an important point. The moment Harper decided to use all tools available in the sole name of pipelines was the moment he lost the trust of Canadians. To refresh our memories, the member opposite's government was focused on exempting pipelines from environmental assessments, treating environmentalists as terrorists, removing the ability for environmental groups to speak out, stripping the ability of Canadians to participate in project reviews, and using taxpayers' money to investigate any organization that cared about the environment, and eliminating decades' worth of legislation in one fell swoop. Harper truly did use all the tools he could find to dismantle anything standing in the way of rapid and unchecked resource development. What the Harper government never understood was that ignoring something does not mean it will go away.

When our government was elected by Canadians, we knew public trust was gone. We rolled up our sleeves to fix the mess the Harper government left behind. First, we launched a new interim approach to environmental assessments in Canada. Within weeks of taking office, we launched a different approach to major project reviews that put indigenous rights, science, environmental protection, and transparent and open public consultation front and centre. The Harper government removed all these things in the name of jamming things through. It did not work. We put these principles back, maintaining certainty for investors, expanding public consultation, enhancing indigenous engagement, and including greenhouse gas emissions in our project assessments.

Second, we acted on climate change. We ensured the Paris Agreement on climate change was ambitious. The House, including the members opposite, supported that agreement. We signed it, ratified it, and launched the pan-Canadian framework on clean growth and climate change, which included Alberta's hard cap on oil sands emissions. This was the first climate change plan in the history of the country that was developed hand in hand with provinces and territories, as well as with first nations, Métis, and Inuit. For the first time in the history of this country, we launched a federal plan to put a price on carbon pollution. For the record, we are nearly 30 years behind countries such as Norway in pricing carbon pollution, and it seems to be doing okay.

Third, we acted on oceans protection. We launched the single largest investment in Canada's oceans in this country's history, $1.5 billion. It is the largest investment in the Canadian Coast Guard in a generation. We looked to the world's leading ocean protectors, Alaska and Norway, and we said that we should match or beat them, and we have. Once implemented, Canada will have the best oceans protection measures in the entire world. Canada has oil, gas, and fuel being shipped through, from, or to all three of our coasts, and we have had this for over 60 years. With this comes great responsibility to protect our oceans.

Let us be clear, these three things would have happened, pipeline or no pipeline. However, these three crucial plans had to be implemented because the Harper government eliminated climate change action and oceans protections in its own efforts to use all tools humanly possible in the name of pipelines.

Fourth, we approved three pipelines, the Trans Mountain expansion, Line 3, and Nova Gas, and denied one, the northern gateway pipeline. All those decisions were made based on the national interest, sound science and evidence, full public consultation, and upholding the rights of the indigenous peoples. Most importantly, all of these decisions took into account everything we had done before: a new method of doing environmental assessments, ensuring these projects fit within Canada's climate change action plan, making sure we have the world's safest and strongest oceans protections plan, and ensuring indigenous rights were held up.

Regarding the northern gateway pipeline, the vast majority of indigenous communities were opposed to the project. The Harper government's insufficient consultations and complete lack of scientific considerations or public engagement meant that it completely missed the fact that the Great Bear Rainforest was no place for a pipeline. The Federal Court of Appeal, in its judgment that quashed northern gateway, was not critical of the proponent or the regulator but of the Harper government.

On the Trans Mountain expansion project, the majority of indigenous communities were in support. Today, 42 have impact benefit agreements, while six exercised their rights in court.

Through re-establishing transparent and open public consultations, a process the Harper government had dismantled, we heard from thousands of Canadians who told us we have a responsibility to get our resources to market, to take action to protect the environment, and to create good-paying, middle-class jobs.

We launched a special ministerial panel of distinguished Canadians. They were appointed to travel up and down the length of the proposed pipeline route, ensuring indigenous peoples and local communities were thoroughly heard. For the first time, we made the record of those decisions public on the Internet for all Canadians to see.

We also carefully considered the findings of the National Energy Board. For the first time, the Government of Canada co-developed, with first nations and Métis leaders, the indigenous advisory and monitoring committee for both Line 3 and the TMX. We are investing $64.7 million over five years in these communities, which are essential to ensure the companies live up to their promises and fully engage rights holders throughout the entire life of the projects.

We understand that our decision on the bill to expand the Trans Mountain network is not unanimous, but we are determined to work with the provinces and with indigenous peoples to keep Canada's energy infrastructure safe and secure, all while showing environmental leadership.

The project represents a $7.4 billion investment and thousands of good, middle-class jobs, a project that stands to benefit Canadians across the country, just as the existing pipeline has done since 1953, creating new access for Canadian oil to global markets and world prices.

This access and the stable reaction of government is crucial to investor confidence. This is particularly important in a time of discounted and low oil prices. The expansion of market access will feed economic growth. Those billions of dollars of investment will trickle down into public investment in schools, roads, highways, and my personal favourite, even the symphony orchestra.

There is a community cost to blocking this project. Government revenues support all Canadians, and they support investment in the transition to the low-carbon economy, all of which combine to make this a very important project to the entire country. The TMX expansion approval also came with 157 binding conditions, 98 of which relate to pre-construction requirements.

Just as important, the pipeline is required to be consistent with Canada's climate plan to 2030, as the project must operate within Alberta's 100 megatonne cap. As I described before, we are implementing the most ambitious oceans protection plan in our country's history, with the single largest investment to protect our waters, coastlines, and marine life.

Canada needed this plan with or without an expanded pipeline, because our oceans protection had eroded under the Harper government.

We understand that one of the biggest concerns on everyone's mind is the potential oil spill. We share that concern, which is why we have developed a plan that puts in place every safeguard against a spill happening in the first place.

Through the oceans protection plan, the Canadian Coast Guard now has more people, more authority, and more equipment to do its vital and necessary work. For the first time, two large tow vessels will be on call on the B.C. coast. Several Coast Guard vessels will be equipped with specialized toe kits to improve capacity to respond quickly. Primary environmental response teams, composed of specially trained personnel, will further strengthen the Coast Guard's existing on-scene operations.

We also reopened the Kitsilano Coast Guard station with new rescue boats and specialized pollution response capabilities, and there is a targeted action plan to promote recovery of the southern resident killer whale population.

Last week we introduced legislation, Bill C-69, that would restore the protections the country lost under the Harper government and would serve as a permanent fix in the way that Canada would assess and review major resource projects.

Bill C-69 is the culmination of more than a year and half of extensive consultations and thoughtful deliberations. It is informed by a comprehensive review that we launched just seven months into our mandate. The review also included modernizing the National Energy Board, protecting our fish, and preserving our waterways. We appointed expert panels, enlisted parliamentarians, released a discussion paper, and at every step of the way consulted Canadians, listening more than we spoke.

What emerged from these efforts were the same messages that we heard through Generation Energy, which is that Canadians are engaged. They are well informed. They know the economy and the environment can, and must, go hand in hand. They agree that Canada works best when Canadians work together. Those are the hallmarks of our legislation, a new and inclusive approach to protect the environment and build a stronger economy, creating good jobs and a sustainable future. It is an approach based on restoring public trust; renewing Canada's relationship with indigenous peoples; collaborating with the provinces and territories; protecting our environment, fish, and waterways; encouraging more investments in Canada's natural resources sectors; and better rules to build a better Canada.

Our approach is the exact opposite of the motion before us today, a motion that seeks to divide our country and pits the environment against the economy, province against province, and region against region. There is simply no need for a motion today that attempts to manufacture a crisis where one does not exist or that insinuates we return to the approach of the Harper Government.

All British Columbia has tangibly done at this point is to signal its intention to consult with the people of its province. That is its right. It is the right of every province to do that. However, we have clearly said that the federal government holds authority over the TMX pipeline, and we will. We will not entertain non-jurisdictional delays intended to stall or stop the project. That is simply not an option.

If that is the goal of any province, we will take the necessary action to ensure that federally-approved resource projects proceed. Until then, we will continue to work with all provinces and territories, and indigenous peoples, as we did on the Pan-Canadian Framework on Clean Growth and Climate Change. By driving innovation, improving environmental performance, restoring public confidence, and advancing indigenous partnerships, we can create the prosperity we all want, while protecting the planet we cherish.

The motion before us today ignores all of this. It proposes a sledge-hammer solution where one is not required. There are better options, options that speak to the generosity of our nation, options that reflect our faith in Canada, and appeal to the better nature of all Canadians. That is what I will be supporting today

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Madam Speaker, I listened attentively to the minister's intervention and, again, it was all flowery rhetoric. The Liberals govern by saying yes, but in truth they actually govern with a no. Every act they take leads to less investment in our communities. It has been estimated that just in one week, because of the price differential Albertans, Saskatchewan, and British Columbia are experiencing, one school and one hospital are being built in America and are not being built in Canada, all because the Liberals will not do anything about it. The minister talked about borrowing the land and environment from future generations. Absolutely the Liberals are borrowing huge, vast sums of money to finance their deficit spending and then not replacing it with investments.

On the TMX, the Trans Mountain expansion application was put in on December 16, 2013. We are five years and the line is still not built. I blame the government for doing this. I blame the government's delays, talking a good game, but not doing anything. Another generation, the greatest generation, was able to almost fight World War II and win it and we are still waiting for a pipeline to be built, all because of the current government.

What does the minister have to say to my constituents about the government's absolute failure to get energy infrastructure in the national interest built in Canada?

[Jim Carr, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, I would say to the hon. member's constituents that the Government of Canada believes we strike a balance between energy infrastructure development to job creation and environmental stewardship. We believe we have struck that balance through the approval of very important pipelines. The point should not be lost that it is very important to Canada to expand its export markets, that 99% of our exports in oil and gas go to one country, the United States. That is not good for our country, which is why, for a variety of other reasons, we think TMX is in Canada's interest.

It is true in other sectors of the economy. We know that 99% of our exports of softwood lumber from Quebec go to one country, the United States. Therefore, I think the hon. member's constituents would feel that the Government of Canada recognizes the importance of expanding in those markets, creating good jobs, and also of doing it in a way that is sustainable in the long term.

[Kennedy Stewart, NDP, Burnaby South, BC]

Madam Speaker, the minister said, irresponsibly, to a group of business leaders that he would use military defence and police forces to push this pipeline through. Will he stand in the House today and say that he will never do this, that it would never be considered, that he would not use the army and the police forces against British Columbians in their own communities, on the reserves, and in their municipalities? I would like him to stand today and say that is not an option on the table.

[Jim Carr, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, I am glad to respond to that. I am both confused and disappointed as to why the hon. member continues to bring that up since I have apologized and said I had misspoken. Within a few days of having said it, I realized it would invoke images that were not healthy to the debate, and I apologized to indigenous leaders. I will say again, as I have said many times over many months, that I apologized and misspoke.

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

Madam Speaker, the minister's discussion really goes to the heart of where Liberals stand on this. It is about a balance. It is about respecting the fact that, yes, the oil and gas sector represents about 2% of Canada's GDP. At the same time, renewable energies and clean tech represent about 3% of our GDP. Therefore, there is a real need to take a balanced approach to this.

As we can see and as we have heard numerous times in the House, the previous government put all its eggs in one basket. It put them all in oil and gas and yet was not able to deliver a single pipeline to tidewater.

Could the minister expand on the fact that the economy and the environment must go hand in hand and must be looked at together to be genuinely successful and fruitful in our economy within the country?

[Jim Carr, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, I would like to remind everyone that it was the entrepreneurship and the power of innovation in Alberta that led to unlocking this great resource in the first place. Literally trillions of dollars of investment internationally are looking for a place to land and we want that investment to land in Canada. We have belief that research and development, innovation, and entrepreneurship, especially in Alberta, will help lead the way. Many leaders in the oil and gas sector in Canada believe that, understand that, and about it, that It is all part of the balanced approach that seeks to put Canada on the leading edge of this transformation, not only here but internationally.

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

Madam Speaker, the minister indicated that this motion was creating a crisis where a crisis did not exist. I would challenge him to come to my riding and listen to the crisis that has been going on for a number of years because of not being able to get product to tidewater. It is a huge issue. It is creating significant job losses. It is creating angst in families. I know individuals who have taken their lives because of the crisis they were going through. Families that used to donate to charities now are recipients of those charities.

We are living with the inaction of the government. It started weeks after the Liberal government took power of October 2015, when it put the tanker moratorium on the west coast. What about the east coast? Is its environment that much less important? It does not make any sense.

What is the plan of the minister to ensure our product gets to market, besides Trans Mountain? What other plans are in place? This thing—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

Sorry, I do have to allow for questions. As I said, if members can keep their preambles short if they want to ask a question, please do so.

The hon. Minister of Natural Resources.

[Jim Carr, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, we also approved the Enbridge Line 3 replacement. We are also supportive of Keystone XL. We have said to Canadians, both through our actions and through debates in the House, that we understand the importance of developing further our oil and gas sector, including the expansion of export markets. Therefore, I agree with the member.

Also, we have never depreciated the impact of low commodity prices on families, particularly families in Alberta. This is why the Government of Canada has done many things to work with other governments, to work with the private sector, and to work with communities to do everything we can to ensure we get through this difficult moment.

There are signs that the Alberta economy is responding. We can look at job creation over the last number of months. If we look at what Canadians are choosing to do when they move from province to province, they are still moving to Alberta. They have hope in Alberta's future, in a future that will very much involve oil and gas and energy.

The member will also know that in our environmental assessment legislation, there is the guarantee that the headquarters of the energy regulator be in Calgary where it belongs.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Madam Speaker, the member for Kingston and the Islands talked about bringing a balanced approach to this whole issue. The problem is that in our relationship with the climate, we have had a profoundly unbalanced approach for the last several centuries. I would like to know the minister's climate math. With the projections for global warming going on, I want to know how he can square the circle by approving a 20th century project in the 21st century when all evidence points to the contrary, that we need to take a fundamentally different approach for future generations?

[Jim Carr, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, is the member suggesting that we draw not another single barrel of oil? Is that a responsible position for any member of the Canadian Parliament to take? I do not think so. That is certainly not what we are hearing from Canadians.

If he is suggesting that there be a responsible approach, the Alberta 100 megatonne cap is sensible and within that cap, resource projects will be approved and developed. I would also remind him that if many of these resources do not move by pipeline, they will move and they will move by rail. I do not know whether he is suggesting that is a better transportation option for the energy industry in Canada.

[Kennedy Stewart, NDP, Burnaby South, BC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the Conservatives for putting this motion forward, because this is a debate that we are not having in the House of Commons. Nothing proves the theory of the Ottawa bubble more than our discussions about the Trans Mountain pipeline. We hear rhetoric, basically concerns about a line on a map, that does not look at the communities that are affected, so I invite the House to think about this project from the ground up rather than from Ottawa down.

This proposed project is 980 kilometres of new pipeline, much of which would go along another route, although the company has tried to disguise this and calls it “twinning”. It is new pipeline that would cross under the Fraser River and is a completely new route through Burnaby. This is a new pipeline. It carries bitumen, not for local use but for export, and the export is mostly to the United States. China has said over and over again that it cannot process this product. The only refineries that can handle this are in Texas.

The current TMX pipeline exports about 25% of what comes down the pipe. Where does it go? It all goes to California. There is so much rhetoric that is hard to counter because the pipeline companies and their consortiums put out false information.

There is something that trumps flashy commercials on television, and that is our Constitution that is also the law of our land. In British Columbia, although it seems beyond notice here, almost all of the territory in British Columbia is unceded. There are no treaties in British Columbia, so that makes negotiations with first nations very different. Although we hear lots of rhetoric about how many first nations have been consulted and how many have agreements, it only takes one nation to stop this pipeline.

This pipeline goes through about 80 different territories, and there are overlapping claims, but not all nations and people within the territories have signed off on this pipeline, not by a long shot. This pipeline also goes through first nations reserves. These are the last places for many first nations territories that were almost obliterated by colonialism, so there is a lot of anger and a sense of betrayal. When this pipeline was first built in the 1950s, first nations people could not vote or hire lawyers. The reason the pipeline was put through reserves in the first place was because it was the easiest place to put it. We can imagine having a pipeline put through our backyards without being able to hire a lawyer or participate in the process to get it built. There is a lot of residual anger over this, and I feel it is warranted.

The existing pipeline that goes through first nations reserves and territories, as well as many municipalities, has leaked a great deal. On the company's own website, we can see that 40,000 barrels have already leaked out of the existing pipeline. There was a very big spill in my community in 2007, and all along the route, if anyone would care to look, which no one usually does. This pipeline has already leaked. Therefore, we know the new pipeline will also leak, as they do all over the place. There is concern. These are not a bunch of hippies saying they do not want a pipeline; these people are concerned about their community.

I see how this project is going to go. In 2014, there were thousands of people on Burnaby Mountain when Kinder Morgan went into a conservation area without permission. These people placed their bodies in such a way as to prevent any future work. There were 125 people arrested. Gary Mason, from The Globe and Mail, likes to call these people professional protesters, but it shows that he is also out of touch. I was on the mountain. I went there 10 times. I crossed police lines to make sure that people were safe.

The people crossing the lines were local property owners, school teachers, university professors, hairdressers, regular people. The debate here has tried to taint normal people, people with property rights. In other cases, I am sure the Conservatives would fight for them, but, in this case, they seem keen to ram this project through. I am pleading with the House to look at it from the perspective of the people in the communities through which this pipeline would pass and to not believe what the companies are telling them.

The day after I was elected in 2011, I was called by Kinder Morgan. I have met with the company four times. I told them that I did not think the pipeline would ever get built. They walked me through the plan. I also said not only would the pipeline not get built, they would have to clean up the existing pipeline which leaks so much.

The current buzz in the media is the fight between Alberta and British Columbia, or really between Canada and British Columbia. British Columbia has said it is going to study the effects of bitumen, and well it should. I spoke to the environment minister. He is very well aware of the Royal Society of Canada report from 2014, which has many questions about the properties of bitumen. The natural resources minister has been wheeling out one scientist who has non peer-reviewed research that says it floats in certain conditions, but this is the Royal Society, which I think had about 30 prominent scientists on its panel. This is not a science-driven approach to pipeline building, because they are ignoring the Royal Society report.

There are many things wrong with how this pipeline has been approved and what people in the House are saying will occur if it is built.

The Province of British Columbia is right to conduct these studies and hearings, and it is right to protect its constitutional jurisdiction. That is what all provincial governments should do. However, I am afraid of the rhetoric in the House and in the media.

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for New Westminster—Burnaby.

I am very concerned about something that no one in the House is talking about. That is what I saw in 2014 on Burnaby Mountain. I have evidence that I would be happy to table in the House, polling information and other information. People who are opposed to this pipeline do not believe in the process anymore. They have written their petitions. They have sent their letters. They have marched in their protests. They say that no one is protecting their interests. Where does this take us? It takes us to a very familiar route in British Columbia, which is civil disobedience. This makes me very nervous. It keeps me up at night. I think it is not being looked at seriously in the House of Commons.

We have a lot of rhetoric from this side, and that is why I asked the minister if he is prepared to back up his previous statement and say he is prepared to use the defence forces and police forces in order to push the pipeline through British Columbia. I plead with him, I plead with the government, not to consider this.

Since being elected in 2011, I have talked to all sides. I have talked to CAPP, Kinder Morgan, all pipeline companies, provincial ministers, both Liberal and New Democrats. I feel that this part of the debate is being left aside and we are in a bit of a denial as to what would occur. What does it look like when we put a new pipeline, carrying 600,000 barrels a day over 980 kilometres, through communities that do not want it?

The minister, I think flippantly, boastfully, and with arrogance, said at a meeting that he would be prepared to use defence and police forces in order to push this through. However, we should think about what that would look like. We have reserve land where they do not want the pipeline. If we put bulldozers in, we are putting the workers in danger.

The minister said that we will use the military to make sure the pipeline gets built. It is irresponsible. No one here is talking about that, and they need to. A core part of this debate has to be about section 2 of the Emergencies Act and whether either side of the House is purporting that we use that. This is probably one of the most serious decisions we have to make in this Parliament.

I thank the Conservatives for bringing the motion forward, even though I do not agree with it and I will be voting against it. However, we need to have this debate, and the government has to make its intentions clear.

[Jamie Schmale, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank my friend for the speech. There were parts that I agreed with. Most of it I disagreed with, like he does on our position, but I appreciate the debate that we are allowed to have today.

There are a couple of areas I would like to question the member on. The government imposed a carbon tax on the provinces and territories, and its logic was that this begins a social licence to get projects such as a pipeline approved. Now, the fact that we are seeing projects like energy east, the northern gateway and, more and more, delays with this project, would the member be on our side that the carbon tax is a scam, a wealth confiscation and redistribution, a new tax that is making life unaffordable?

Also, to the hundreds if not thousands of workers who supply material to the pipeline that is being built, what does he have to say to those constituents, who have their livelihoods on the line?

[Kennedy Stewart, NDP, Burnaby South, BC]

Madam Speaker, perhaps the member missed my point. We have to get beyond rhetoric. We have to see what is happening on the ground. There is a call for mass civil disobedience starting on March 10 in my community. This is real. This is well advertised. This is coming.

We have to get beyond rhetoric. We have to get out of the Ottawa bubble and see what this means to communities.

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Services and Procurement]

Madam Speaker, listening to New Democrats on pipelines is second only to listening to New Democrats on trade; it is hard to figure out their position.

My question to the member is simple. New Democratic Premier Rachel Notley of Alberta, who has a revolutionary taxation regime for fighting climate change, is fighting tooth and nail to get this pipeline approved. The New Democratic government of British Columbia is putting significant obstacles in the path of a legitimate federally approved pipeline.

I think I understand that member's position, but what is the position of the New Democratic Party of Canada with respect to the Kinder Morgan pipeline?

[Kennedy Stewart, NDP, Burnaby South, BC]

Madam Speaker, sitting in this place makes one want to weep at times.

I just said there is plan for massive civil disobedience in my community on March 10. That member stated a bunch of rhetorical talking points because he is scared to answer the question of whether he is prepared to use military force to stop this.

What is this place for? It is bizarre that we are not talking about the core part of this debate. It is very discouraging.

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

Madam Speaker, before coming here as an elected member from British Columbia's coast, I was an elected member of the local government. I heard a lot of concern about oil tanker traffic with respect to the Kinder Morgan pipeline. I heard about how it would jeopardize existing jobs, our wild salmon industry, and tourism. Much money is generated on the basis of a pristine environment, and that is partly why we have had to stand up and oppose oil tanker traffic from Kinder Morgan.

I would like to hear my colleague's comments on the purported jobs that Kinder Morgan said would accrue to British Columbia from construction and pipeline operations, because to us it looks all downside, no upside.

[Kennedy Stewart, NDP, Burnaby South, BC]

Madam Speaker, the company's web page is incredibly informative when it comes to describing this project. The web page says there will be 90 new jobs after this pipeline is built, 50 in British Columbia. One could open a White Spot restaurant and have more jobs in B.C.

I agree that the impact from this project would be different on Alberta, but, for British Columbia, the province I have been elected to represent and where my constituents are clearly saying there would be no benefits for them, it is my job to stand up in the House and say that. When the minister threatens to use the military against them, I also have to stand up and defend them from that.

Members on that side of the House are being unrealistic. They are not conscious of what will be coming if they try to force this pipeline through.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to commend my colleague from Burnaby South for his sterling work in listening to his constituents and learning about the issues surrounding the Kinder Morgan pipeline.

August 20, 2015, was the genesis of the motion we are seeing today. I support the fact that it was brought forward. We are going to oppose this motion for reasons my colleague from Burnaby South spelled out.

On August 20, 2015, the Prime Minister came to British Columbia, and in front of a crowd in Esquimalt, said very clearly that Kinder Morgan would not be approved unless the entire process was redone. That was a solemn commitment he made to British Columbians on August 20, 2015, a few weeks prior to the election date, and that is the genesis of the problem we have before us today.

The Liberals and the Prime Minister have taken Mr. Harper's incredible gutting of environmental regulations and the NEB process and are making that discredited process, a process that does not involve Canadians, does not involve British Columbians, their own. In other words, the Prime Minister promised to redo the whole process and put in place something that would actually mean legitimate consultation with British Columbians, but he did the exact opposite. It is absolutely shameful.

The Liberals have compounded this, as my colleague for Burnaby South just mentioned, by threatening military action in British Columbia. We have an illegitimate process, one the Liberals promised to change. They did not change it. Instead, they approved the pipeline, which the Prime Minister said very clearly they would not. On top of that, they threatened British Columbians. It is because of that badly broken, gutted promise made solemnly to British Columbians, just a few weeks prior to the election date, that so many British Columbians have come out in opposition to the Kinder Morgan pipeline. We have first nations that have come out in opposition. The City of Burnaby, which I and my colleague from Burnaby South represent, has come out strongly opposed, as have municipalities throughout the coastal region.

Why have they come out in opposition? It is not just that the process is illegitimate, that Mr. Harper's Conservative government gutted the whole process and made it illegitimate in anyone's eyes, and that the Liberals promised to do one thing and are doing the exact opposite. It is also because of the impact on the coast, which could be catastrophic.

I grew up in New Westminster, and I am proud of growing up in the Lower Mainland. Four generations of my family have lived in that area. My grandfather came from Norway and fished on the coast for a number of years.

The fishing and tourism industries have a profound impact on our economy in British Columbia. We are talking about impacts the Liberals have never investigated or looked at, an illegitimate process, and the potential loss of billions of dollars if there is just one spill. That is why so many communities have come out in opposition to this project. It is why so many communities have said that, ultimately, without a legitimate process, this is simply something that has no credibility.

My colleague for Burnaby South talked about the impact on the Fraser River. I would like to mention the Brunette River area, where I walk my dogs every morning. It is an area that could be profoundly impacted by the new route that is being pushed through. There were no consultations. The City of New Westminster was not able to come forward with its concerns. This is habitat that has been restored through decades of work by people who are involved in the Sapperton Fish and Game Club and other community organizations. They restored the habitat, and now we have Kinder Morgan, with the approval of the Liberal government, putting at risk the Brunette River as well. These are profound risks that have not been investigated through a legitimate process.

I should mention, being one of the few people in this House of Commons who has been ankle deep in oil, having worked in the Shellburn oil refinery and the Burnaby tank farm, that I know how serious the environmental impacts can be. I know how difficult it is to clean up even a small spill. I can say with some assurance that the incredible irresponsibility with which the Liberals have approached this whole process, not just by betraying British Columbians by breaking their promise but by refusing to put in place any sort of public consultation process, is something that has alienated many British Columbians.

My colleague referenced the Royal Society report. The Royal Society report is something that every single Liberal MP, not just those from British Columbia, should be reading, because it speaks repeatedly to the fact that we do not know the impact on the Salish Sea or the B.C. coast of a spill of bitumen. We have no idea. The Royal Society repeatedly requests that high priority, urgent research be done in all these areas, because we simply do not know. The pipeline the Prime Minister wants to push through is something that could have profound impacts on the coast, and scientific evidence shows that the Liberal government and the Prime Minister have simply not done their homework.

I was in this House when the Harper government gutted the environmental rules. I spoke to the budget for 14 hours, because there was so much to glean because of the impact on fish habitat and on environmental legislation right across the country.

It never would have occurred to me, or to most British Columbians, that the Liberals, having promised to address the concerns raised by Canadians from coast to coast to coast about the gutting of those environmental regulations, would refuse to do that.

This is no small issue, because when we talk about the impacts of just one spill, we are talking about impacts that could last for a generation. David Schindler, who is the foremost authority on water policy and water in Canada, recently wrote about the impacts of the Exxon Valdez. One generation later, the impacts are still being felt. The fishery has not come back in Alaska. The coast continues to be polluted by that spill. David Schindler is someone who has profound scientific renown, yet the Liberals, just as they have thrown aside the scientific evidence from the Royal Society, have thrown aside the scientific evidence from David Schindler. We know that the Exxon Valdez had a profound impact and continues to have a profound impact. The Kalamazoo River spill continues to have a profound impact on habitat, after the spending of a billion dollars.

We have a Prime Minister who came to Nanaimo a couple of weeks ago and said that there would be no coastal protection unless British Columbians promptly ignored all that evidence and promptly agreed with the Liberals on building the pipeline. That is unacceptable. That is why there is so much reaction in British Columbia. There is the illegitimate process, there are the broken promises of the Liberals, and there are the threats that unless the pipeline is agreed to, there will be no coastal protection and no environmental policies to combat climate change.

That is childish rhetoric that comes from the government. It is childish rhetoric that is improper for a national government. We need a national government that will actually show leadership on climate change and put in place the kinds of policies and process that consults British Columbians and Canadians. That is something Jagmeet Singh will bring to Ottawa when he is elected in 2019.

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

Madam Speaker, one of the things that is great about pipelines is that they bring petroleum products to the world. Petroleum products make all our lives better. I do not think any one of us got here today without these petroleum products. We need petroleum products to ensure that we can live the lifestyle we have.

The Trans Mountain pipeline would allow petroleum products to make it to parts of the world where people are living in energy poverty and where they do not necessarily have the luxury we live in. This would allow us to get something out to the rest of the world.

It seems that my NDP colleagues are standing in the way of feeding the world, essentially, when it comes to petroleum products. To some degree, I understand that. What is interesting about this is that even though I and my NDP colleagues seem to disagree, fundamentally, on this issue, we seem to agree that the Liberal governments are doing a terrible job.

Would my colleague agree with that?