Debates of April 16th, 2018

Trans Mountain Expansion Project

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member and I both come from British Columbia. We both remember what happened in 1993 when over 1,000 people were arrested in Clayoquot Sound for civil disobedience, standing up for the environment, standing up when companies wanted to do industrial development and they did not have social licence from the communities. He knows very well what that looks like. British Columbians will stand up for what is important to them.

In October 2017, with respect to energy east, the Prime Minister said, “We don’t get far – we never have gotten far – by pitting one region against another, or one group against another. We succeed when we work together, as Canadians.”

However, today we hear the ministers' attacks on the B.C. premier, acting like he is alone against this pipeline. We know that is not true. My colleague knows that is not true, that hundreds of thousands of British Columbians are standing strong with the Premier of British Columbia. He is doing his job in defending British Columbia.

Will the member stand by and watch British Columbians get arrested for standing up for the coast of British Columbia? Does the member support that?

[Randeep Sarai, Liberal, Surrey Centre, BC]

Mr. Speaker, when it comes to social licence, this government has sought and received the approval from the province. That was the previous government. Now there is a new government. However, the province even imposed its own restrictions and conditions on it, which were accepted by Kinder Morgan. We have also accepted them.

Thirty-plus indigenous communities along the route have signed beneficial agreements with Kinder Morgan, and 40-plus, including with Alberta. Labour groups across the province have endorsed this project. The B.C. Supreme Court has stated that the actions of many of those protesters are illegal and that they must stop.

Formal and safe protesting is always welcome. People have every right to express their opinion. However, when companies or individuals go through all the legal challenges, we must abide by those decisions as we are a law-abiding nation.

The Premier of British Columbia should reconsider his actions and comments so he does not escalate this situation. He should take these actions and suggestions to a normal process, which means dealing with either the government or a court of law. Neither of those actions is by enticing protesters. The mayor of Burnaby has said that he would not support police costs for enforcing the order. Those are not the actions of a government at any level.

[Gordie Hogg, Liberal, South Surrey—White Rock, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to this emergency debate this evening. I welcome the Speaker's decision to allow it to occur as this is a very important moment for our country, indeed a pivotal moment.

I was pleased to hear my colleague from Cariboo—Prince George speak. He reminded me that it was perhaps about a year ago that I was sitting in the legislature in Victoria. We were having similar discussions with respect to moving forward with this pipeline. I am pleased we made the decision to support it, and I am pleased to continue to support it today.

As someone who has lived on the ocean all of my life, I will focus my brief remarks on the role the Canadian Coast Guard plays in protecting our environment, while highlighting the number of important investments our government has made, and will continue to make, to protect our oceans.

These investments to our coastal communities are important, not just in British Columbia but on our other two coasts as well, regardless of whether the construction of a pipeline was in motion. This is still ever important.

I cannot, however, avoid the context of tonight's debate. We have an important decision to make as to whether we will do something in the national interest or avoid this decision because there are at least two competing views on what we should do.

We can construct the pipelines safely while protecting our environment, including our marine environment.

Again, flashing back to my time in Victoria, I remember when I was the minister of children and families. As well, I was the minister for health promotion. My wife and I were foster parents. I chaired a committee working with seniors. I was always fighting for more dollars for the provision of those social programs that were so crucial to the operation and sense of community and livelihood within our communities.

Moreover, constructing this pipeline and the revenue generated from that will help in so many ways in our province and indeed right across Canada. We can do so knowing that protecting our environment, creating jobs, and diversifying our energy sources are not incompatible.

Those who oppose the pipelines, as is their right, should not deny the fact that the government has invested significantly in meaningful action to protect oceans and respond to any improbable oil spills.

Let me give just one example, and there are many.

The President of the Treasury Board, on behalf of the Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard, the member for Beauséjour, invested $80 million in new science funding. These investments will support new partnerships with universities and industry to improve our knowledge and to develop new technologies that will help mitigate and prevent marine incidents, such as oil spills.

Specifically, $46 million were announced for research programs to leverage collaboration among the world's very best researchers, $10 million to go toward research that will bring together the brightest minds from around the globe to collaborate with world-class Canadian researchers. Together, they will enhance our collective understanding of how oil spills behave, how best to clean and contain them, and how best to minimize their environmental impacts.

Further, the government is investing $16.8 million to support oil spill research to specifically focus on how oil breaks down, how oil behaves in various ocean conditions, including cold water.

The government will also invest $17.7 million toward enhancing ocean models of winds, waves, and currents, so emergency responders can accurately track spills and predict their path. The goal in enhancing ocean modelling is to support safe marine navigation and help prevent spills from happening in the first place.

These investments total $80 million and are part of a much larger, comprehensive strategy under the umbrella of Canada's oceans protection plan. The oceans protection plan is a $1.5 billion plan that will ensure our coasts are protected in a way that ensures environmental sustainability, safe and responsible commercial use, and includes significant collaboration with indigenous communities.

Under the oceans protection plan, the government has opened new Coast Guard search and rescue stations to increase our capacity to respond to on-water emergencies. We are committed to working in partnership with indigenous communities to further expand our search and rescue capacity.

Further, we are protecting and restoring important marine ecosystems now, through the $75 million coastal restoration fund, and we are strengthening partnerships and launching co-management practices with indigenous communities.

This leads me to highlight facts related to the Trans Mountain project.

The protection of our environment and the preservation of fish and fish habitat are top priorities, led by Fisheries and Oceans Canada. These principles guide our decision-making process when authorizing major projects.

Members will recall that within weeks of taking office, the government approved the Trans Mountain project, subject to legally binding conditions. For its part, as part of the legally binding conditions for the pipeline approval, Fisheries and Oceans was one of many departments engaged in the approval process. Fisheries and Oceans was duty-bound to assess potential risks and harm associated with this project, and to do so before issuing a Fisheries Act authorization.

On September 8, 2017, the minister issued a Fisheries Act authorization for expansion of the Westridge Marine Terminal, which is a component of the larger TMX project. This followed a very rigorous and thorough review of the proponent's application and consultation with 33 potentially affected indigenous groups.

As part of the authorization, the proponent will be required, on an ongoing basis during construction, to adhere to conditions to reduce and mitigate harm to fish and fish habitat. The conditions of the authorization include measures to avoid or reduce serious harm to fish, to offset potential losses in fisheries productivity, and to monitor the effectiveness of mitigation actions.

Others will speak on other measures our government has taken to ensure that the TMX project is done right. To do nothing seems to me not to be an option. The government has made it clear that the development of the pipeline is very important to this country and to our provinces. We believe we have the duty to ensure that it is completed. We also have a constitutional duty to ensure that the national interest is met. Most of all, we have a duty to ensure that this project is done in a way that protects our environments, including our marine environments. I believe that we have met those obligations.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first I want to pay my respects to the new member for South Surrey—White Rock. He was elected a few months ago, even though we worked so hard not to see him here in the House of Commons.

On a more serious note, we have known for 10 months that there is a major problem with this project. A new government came into power in British Columbia and it vehemently opposes the project. For 10 months, his Prime Minister, our Prime Minister, did nothing. We have known for 10 months that there is a major problem with this project. How is it, then, that we find ourselves facing this national crisis, which is completely unacceptable for Canada?

[Gordie Hogg, Liberal, South Surrey—White Rock, BC]

Mr. Speaker, first, I will point out the obvious. There was a change of government in British Columbia that occurred last May. With that change in government, there was a change in the direction that was taken. I think this adequately explains what has occurred with respect to British Columbia.

I was in Victoria about three weeks ago, where I met with a number of members and had discussions with them. Certainly, on both sides of the House there are some who are frustrated with the lack of movement, and some on the other side of the House are frustrated with the actions that are being taken and the potential they have, and are therefore requesting a review from the court system.

In terms of the actions that have occurred in the House, I know that there has been an attempt to come to some type of consensus. I respect the fact that it has taken a period of time to work toward that, and we are now at a time when we have to take decisive action and move forward. I do not have all the answers as to why it has taken so long, but I do know that this is a pivotal time in the operation of this country, a pivotal time for British Columbia and Alberta, and we have a responsibility to take action to support them.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my friend from Victoria's former provincial government, under the northern gateway pipeline project, that tried to abdicate the province's responsibility to do an environmental assessment. The reason I know this is because the Christy Clark government got sued all the way to Supreme Court and lost. The court said that it had obligations and responsibilities to the people of British Columbia to fulfill its constitutional obligations.

My friend has now moved his way up to the federal scene. It used to be that B.C. Liberals were considered to be Conservatives, but now B.C. Liberals are maybe federal Liberals. We can understand why people in British Columbia are sometimes confused as to what a Liberal is actually is. Maybe the two have merged. There is a pipeline going back and forth between the two in British Columbia at least.

My friend was in the cabinet of the government that tried to move away from its responsibility to consult with first nations, to do an environmental assessment, and were sued all the way to our highest court in the land and forced into action, at which time the Christy Clark government said that it approved it too. That was her environmental assessment of northern gateway. It did not pass muster then and that project failed.

We have such a similar circumstance here now. The only difference is we have a B.C. government that is interested in performing its constitutional responsibility and is asking the federal government to work with it to clarify each of our roles and responsibilities when it comes to energy transportation.

From his experience, would he encourage his new Liberal leader to learn from the mistakes of the past and refer to the court properly so we can have the clarity that so many people from both side of the House talk about, yet so many are unwilling to do what it takes to make that clarity come to reality?

[Gordie Hogg, Liberal, South Surrey—White Rock, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for reminding me of my history, going through good and bad parts of that history.

Certainly, the actions being taken by the government and the Prime Minister now are the type of actions you are referencing. The actions taken with respect to bringing together the Premiers of Alberta and British Columbia yesterday are an effort to bring together a type of coalition with an understanding and action to allow them to maximize their positions with respect to those.

We do not want somebody to be a giant loser in this, but we want everybody to have actions that give them a responsible way of dealing with something and getting this pipeline passed. I am hopeful that was exactly what took place yesterday. Hopefully we will see it operationalized over the next few days.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

I want to remind hon. members to put their questions and comments through the Speaker and not directly. I am sure when the hon. member mentioned “you” he was not referencing the Speaker. He was referencing the hon. member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Durham.

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to divide my time tonight with my good friend and colleague, the hon. member for Louis-Saint-Laurent. Tonight we appear to be the central Canadian connection here in a debate that many Canadians believe is exclusive to Alberta and British Columbia, but I am here tonight, as a proud Ontario MP who has had the honour of serving and working across the country, to say that debates like this are critical to the future of our country. Pipelines are as much in the national interest of my constituents in Ontario as they are in Lakeland and Peace River, or in British Columbia, or in Louis-Saint-Laurent.

I would remind people in my riding all the time, when we are looking at regulatory reviews like the line 9 reversal and other things accomplished under the government of Stephen Harper, that the present government has to bend over backwards to hide the fact that many pipeline projects were approved under the previous government. All were reviewed appropriately, but the last government recognized and was proud to stand in the House and proud to stand on any street corner in the country and say that resource development is in Canada's national interest. The Liberal government will not do that.

Here we have a Conservative caucus from across the country. I, with my time representing Durham, and my friend from Louis-Saint-Laurent will remind people that the jobs in Ontario are due to the success and wealth of Canada as a resource country, and getting our products to market through pipelines allows us the best world price, the best royalties, and the best economic activity possible. We need to remind Ontarians of that.

I am proud that my dad worked for General Motors when I was a kid. Ontario is still known for vehicle manufacturing and auto parts. In the last decade, there have been more jobs created in Ontario as a result of the resource economy in Alberta than through automobile assembly. When I tell that to auto workers in my area or retired GM workers, they are astounded, because they do not hear that enough. As parliamentarians, it is our duty to remind Canadians that when we say something is in the national interest, it is in their interest, at their kitchen table in southern Ontario, just as much as it is around a very concerned kitchen table in Edmonton or Calgary.

These debates are important. What troubles me to no end about the Liberal government is a Minister of Natural Resources heckling my colleague from Peace Country when he was talking about personal stories. The minister from Edmonton is laughing now. We are here to tell those stories, to talk about the concerns. I have spoken to the Edmonton chamber, and it is worried.

Canada is not open for business under the present Prime Minister. We are closed for business. Capital is fleeing Canada, not because we are the safest, most prosperous, and most well-educated and well-trained country in the world, but because of the uncertainty caused by the Prime Minister from day one.

On his first trip abroad to sell Canada at Davos, the Prime Minister said that we are not just resources now; we are resourceful. He mocked the entire resource industry by suggesting that. Maybe the Prime Minister should learn a bit about steam-assisted gravity drainage, or slant drilling, or shale deposit exploration and extraction, or minimizing water usage in the resource industry in Alberta. The innovation in our resource economy has been astounding, yet on his first trip to Davos, the Prime Minister just wiped it away: “We are resourceful now. We do not need resources.” Certainly, the government's plan for pipelines means we are not going to sell our resources.

Let me tell the House how much the Liberal Party has changed. My friend from Skeena—Bulkley Valley raised the issue that the Prime Minister got elected by pretending to be a New Democrat when he was in British Columbia, and then pretending to be a Liberal when he was in Ontario or Quebec. Now it is coming home to roost. He has to pick a side. He has to defend Trans Mountain as being in our national interest, which it is. The B.C. premier has no mandate. He lost the last election in popular vote and seat count.

He is being held hostage by a couple of radical Green MLAs to cause a constitutional crisis. That is what he is allowing to happen. It is terrible, and we have heard virtual silence from the Prime Minister of Canada.

Let us see how much the Liberal Party has changed. One of the most raucous debates in this chamber took place in May 1956, when the Right Hon. C.D. Howe stood up and said this about pipelines, “The building of the trans-Canada pipe line is a great national project, comparable in importance and magnitude to the building of the St. Lawrence seaway.” He went on to say, “The action proposed today is another declaration of independence by Canada..”. That was when they were rushing through a pipeline debate.

This Prime Minister has been avoiding selling pipelines and resources to Canadians and around the world. This Prime Minister waited for a constitutional crisis before he had meetings and started speaking about it being in the national interest. Why is it a crisis? Because he has already dropped the ball.

A few years ago, former Liberal premier Frank McKenna said this about energy east: “The Energy East project represents one of those rare opportunities to bring all provinces and regions of this country together to support a project that will benefit us all, and that is truly in the national interest.”

Well, certainly that aspirational national interest language by a prominent former Liberal politician was quashed when the actions of the current government led TransCanada to cancel the energy east pipeline. Previous to that, this Prime Minister had already cancelled the northern gateway pipeline that had been reviewed. What did some Canadians say about that? Chief Elmer Derrick, Dale Swampy, and Elmer Ghostkeeper, three first nation leaders, said that they were very disappointed from the unilateral cancellation of northern gateway. That was a $2-billion opportunity for first nations in British Columbia that was cancelled because of a unilateral anti-resource decision by this Prime Minister.

We now have Bill C-69. We have a track record in two and a half years of saying not just to the global capital markets that Canada is closed, but we have had the Prime Minister and members of his own caucus say that we need to prepare for closing down our resources. We need to move beyond it. Tonight, they heckled when they heard about the concern that causes at a lot of kitchen tables around our country.

Why I am so passionate as an Ontario MP is that my first job before going to college was inspecting TransCanada pipelines, the pipeline inspection crew between Belleville and Ottawa. I have seen the economic activity first-hand. I have also seen the manufacturing industry during the global recession when oil prices were still high. Contracts for the oil sands and exploration in Saskatchewan and Manitoba was the lifeline for manufacturing. It kept us afloat. That is the national interest.

The fact that we have to bring an emergency debate and the Prime Minister had to have a stopover meeting between his global jet-setting to bring a few premiers together means he has let this crisis happen. He has cancelled northern gateway, and through his actions he has cancelled energy east. The one pipeline he thought he could let go is sliding off the table, with Kinder Morgan now suggesting all this uncertainty is leading them to question their investment. They are in Hail Mary pass mode when they suggest that they will buy the line or pay for part of it. That desperation is not needed.

For a change, I would like the Prime Minister to go to Davos and talk about the importance of our resource industry. I would like him to showcase the innovation brought by these men and women who work in our oil patch, the pipeline industry, and the jobs that supply it. It is sad that we have to bring an emergency debate to remind the Liberals that jobs in the resource industry from coast to coast are in all Canadians' national interest.

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Surrey—Newton, BC]

Madam Speaker, I was carefully listening to the speech by the hon. member from Durham as he was questioning the Prime Minister's leadership. From listening to my constituents, the Prime Minister stands tall in defence of Canada's national interests from coast to coast to coast, and also by creating jobs and investing $1.5 billion in an oceans protection plan.

As far as I understand, during the 10 years of the hon. member's government, the Conservatives did not build a single centimetre of pipeline to coastal waters to take our resources to Asia. They also did nothing to protect our coastal communities and the oceans. I would like to hear his comments, and I am certain that he will agree on that.

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am certain I will not agree. I have yet to hear the Prime Minister of Canada defend or stand up for the jobs in our resource sector. In fact, we have all heard quotes from the Prime Minister over the course of his time in that leadership position, or as an MP, mocking it or suggesting we need to move past it. My friend from Skeena—Bulkley Valley and some of the NDP members have reminded members of the House that during the election the Prime Minister said different things on Vancouver Island than what he might say in Calgary. It is not in the national interest when the Prime Minister changes his promises and tone.

Let us go even further. I have talked about the failure of the Liberal government with respect to energy east and northern gateway, and the risk to Trans Mountain. Let us not forget Keystone. Remember that when President Obama was in office, we heard a lot about the bromance between our Prime Minister and Mr. Obama, the “dudeplomacy”, which is the Prime Minister's term, I am sad to say. President Obama cancelled Keystone, which was not based on any science, and the Prime Minister basically nodded along with it. Then the Prime Minister of Canada introduced a carbon tax, making our entire economy uncompetitive, versus Michigan, which is a few hours away from the plants in Ontario that compete against Michigan's plants. Obama praised Trudeau's carbon tax, but certainly did not follow him.

The Prime Minister of Canada has been played by the Americans. Thank goodness a change in office led to the resurgence of Keystone, because this Prime Minister was certainly allowing that to die too. That is three pipelines down and one on the edge. It is time for that member to start standing up.

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

Madam Speaker, this debate takes place in a kind of history-free zone. Hearing from the Conservatives, one would swear that getting bitumen to tidewater had been the campaign of generations. One member may have forgotten the timing. Kinder Morgan was not proposed until 2013.

I want to ask my hon. colleague from Durham about when he campaigned in 2011 as a Conservative, on the promise of Stephen Harper that there would be no pipeline to the B.C. coast, because the Conservatives opposed sending bitumen to any country where the refineries operate at environmental standards that are lower than Canada's. We have a lot of revisionist history going on. That was the promise of the Conservatives in 2011. When did it become a massive imperative that we send a product of low value, which is very expensive to produce, to refineries in other countries instead of refining it here?

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Madam Speaker, the only revisionist history is coming from my friend from the Green Party, who is usually much more up to date on things. I was not elected in 2011. I know she knows that. I was elected in a by-election in 2012. Nevertheless, I quoted Keystone XL, which I am sure the member opposed because it is in some way tangentially connected with the resource economy.

We have supported all lines that will allow for Canadian resources. This is just as much a resource of someone in Saanich—Gulf Islands as it is of someone who lives where it is extracted. It is the largest single contributor to our public health system. All I am asking is for the government to stand up for it a bit. I quoted in my speech the debates from 1956. I would refer the member to those comments. This is an important debate in the national interest. The Conservatives have brought it here, and we will continue to fight for these jobs.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Madam Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise as a Quebecker and a Canadian to take part in this emergency debate, which the member for Lakeland got off to a good start.

We are debating an urgent matter of national interest. We are facing an economic, financial, energy, and constitutional crisis because of the current government's poor decisions. Yes, I have previously risen in the House to endorse Canadian oil, and I will continue to do so because I am proud of Canadian oil. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for everyone in the House, and especially not for our Prime Minister. I said “our Prime Minister” because in the event of a national crisis such as the one facing our country, the Prime Minister must act on behalf of all Canadians. It is his duty to tackle this issue head-on and to firmly defend the pipeline. Unfortunately, he does not believe in Canadian oil and does not like it, any more than he likes this industry's workers.

Not so long ago, on January 12, 2017, at a town hall meeting in Calgary, the Prime Minister had this to say about Alberta oil:

“We need to phase them out.”

The person who thinks we should be phasing out Canadian oil is the one who is supposed to be promoting the project. That is our current Prime Minister. When he goes to British Columbia, Alberta, and all around the world to talk about Canadian oil, does he have any credibility? No. That is what got us into this mess. The running back is carrying a basketball down the field instead of a football. He is not a fan of Canadian oil. Well, that is too bad, because he is the Prime Minister.

The Trans Mountain project is a good project. It balances the environment and the economy and ensures Canada's prosperity. Let us not forget that it is the safest, cheapest, and greenest way to transport oil from one place to another. We are talking about Albertan oil from the oil sands, one of our country's greatest resources. However, if this great resource is trapped in our country, then it cannot be used for the benefit of all Canadians. That is why we have to sell it overseas.

We are very pleased that Keystone XL can move forward. We would have liked energy east to move forward. The Trans Mountain project could give us access to the Pacific coast. This project has been in the works for a while; it would bring $7.4 billion in economic spinoffs and put 15,000 Canadians to work for many years. It is profitable for us, but, most importantly, it has the support and backing of the first nations. The pipeline passes through 43 indigenous nations, and they are all in agreement. Not only do they agree, but they are also partners in the project. They are partners in prosperity. We must commend this initiative. We must support the first nations. However, what is the government doing? It says that Alberta oil must be phased out. This is why the project is not moving forward.

It started off well. On January 11, 2017, the premier of British Columbia at the time, Christy Clark, expressed her support for this project. Unfortunately, another government was elected, and this minority government joined forces with radical Green Party members. They are currently holding a project hostage that represents billions of dollars for Canadians and could be very profitable for 43 indigenous nations in Alberta and British Columbia.

We have known for 10 months that there was sand in the gears—no pun intended. We knew that there was water in the gas, an expression that suits this debate quite well. The new government, which was taken hostage by Green Party extremists, is sidelining the project. What did the Prime Minister, who does not believe in Canadian oil, do in the meantime? He said that the project had to move forward, that everything would be fine, and that the Liberals believed in it. We asked for emergency debates, among other things. We were told that everything would be fine and that the project would get done. However, here we are today, in the face of a major constitutional and economic crisis that is the direct result of the Prime Minister's inaction over the past 10 months. This is unacceptable.

Unfortunately, this is consistent with the Prime Minister's sorry track record. What did the Prime Minister do? First, he said no to the northern gateway project. He adopted policies that killed energy east and now he is jeopardizing the Trans Mountain pipeline. There is no guarantee it will go forward. As they say in baseball, “three strikes and you're out”. The problem is that he will not be out but will remain in office for another 18 months. Until then Canada will suffer as a result of his bad economic and business decisions.

This problem speaks to other realities, such as the constitutional battle that is being waged. Of course, we recognize that the provinces have a say. In fact, British Columbia said yes in January 2017 and things got under way. However, now another government has decided to do things differently. We also realize that, ultimately, it is up to the federal government to decide whether the project will go forward. We respect the provincial authorities, but the provincial authorities must also respect the fact that the federal government is the one that decides whether this type of project will be carried out.

Must I remind my fellow Quebeckers and all Canadians that harnessing the full potential of our natural resources allows our country to use an equalization regime? That means that the provinces that develop the full potential of their natural resources help the other provinces that are not doing so, that do not have the means to do so, that do not want to do so, or that do not have the natural resources to do so. As a result, provinces like mine receive a lot of equalization payments, too many equalization payments. Perhaps one day, we will be proud enough to do away with that, but for now, we are receiving such payments. If we want to continue to receive equalization payments, we must continue to develop our natural resources to their full potential. The Trans Mountain project will allow Alberta to develop its full potential and bring billions of dollars in foreign money to Canada, money that can be redistributed to other provinces.

In Quebec, there are people who believe in oil, who believe in pipelines, who know that pipelines are the best way to transport oil. They are the cleanest, most cost-effective, most environmentally responsible, and above all safest way to transport oil. As proof, there are 2,000 kilometres of pipelines criss-crossing Quebec. There are nine pipelines running under the St. Lawrence. Just over seven years ago, Quebec built a pipeline from Lévis to Montreal, a distance of exactly 243 kilometres. Exactly 689 property owners gave their consent, support, and collaboration for the project to proceed. The pipeline was built and has been working fine since 2012. It has been operating for nearly six years now, and things are going smoothly. We have never had reports of a catastrophe of any kind. Have we had complaints from the nearly 700 owners of the properties on which the pipeline runs? Have we heard any whining from them? Have we seen them mount illegal protests? No, because everything is going swimmingly. This goes to show that Canada has what it takes to do big things. Quebec has what it takes to do big things. Sadly, due to the overly strict new regulations adopted by this government, the energy east project was called off, because the proponent was fed up with this government piling rule upon rule. That project would have created a lot of wealth in Quebec, a lot of wealth in Canada, and a lot of wealth in New Brunswick.

Now more than ever, the government needs to start acting in the national interest of all Canadians. The problem is that the guy carrying the ball is not a believer. A Prime Minister who says “we need to phase it out” about Alberta oil may not be the best person to sell Canadians on it, never mind convince British Columbians and their government that it is in all Canadians' best interest. The Trans Mountain project must go ahead.

[Amarjeet Sohi, Liberal, Minister of Infrastructure and Communities]

Madam Speaker, our government cares deeply for Alberta, Alberta families, and Alberta workers. We are working hard to build the Trans Mountain extension. Could the member tell the House how many pipelines the Harper government built to take our resources to international markets?

I hope the hon. member from Alberta will show some respect and listen to the question. When she is not listening, she is showing disrespect to Alberta workers and Alberta's industry.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

It's happening. He's mansplaining.

[Amarjeet Sohi, Liberal, Edmonton Mill Woods, AB]

I hope she will stop heckling, Madam Speaker. I would respect that.

My question for the hon. member is this. How many pipelines did the Harper government build to tidewaters?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I would remind members that when somebody has the floor, they are to be respectful to that person and allow the person to speak. Then, if those people have questions and comments, when there is time for questions and comments, they can feel free to stand and attempt to be recognized.

The hon. member for Louis-Saint-Laurent.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to answer the question from my colleague, the hon. minister.

First, we approved four projects. Having said that, we have to emphasize the fact that we did respect the rules and the law. This is why we took every step necessary to accept those projects. If we had said yes and started the construction, you, all Canadians, and the world would have said that we did not respect the rules, we did not respect the law, and we did not listen to the people. We did it correctly.

The current government was the lucky one to put in all those projects. What are the results today? Nothing. Nothing has been built. When Keystone was rejected by Obama, with a big smile, the Prime Minister said that the Liberals were sad but they understood. We heard the Prime Minister say no to northern gateway. We saw the Liberal Prime Minister impose new rules and energy east was killed. Now we have a tragic situation with Trans Mountain. What is the government doing? Nothing.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I would remind the member for Louis-Saint-Laurent to address the Chair, not the other members.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Madam Speaker, I always enjoy hearing from my colleague and friend from Louis—Saint—Laurent, whether we agree or not.

He talked about getting the full potential of jobs. Like him, I care a lot about jobs, not just in my riding but in Alberta and across the country.

I went to the oil sands with a CEO from one of the large oil companies. We talked about building more refineries in Alberta and processing more of our oil in Alberta. I asked him how much of that oil could make us more energy sufficient and create more energy security in Canada. We live in a global economy, in a global situation where there is a lot of insecurity. He said 50%, if there was a refinery of the oil that it produced the raw bitumen that could be processed and turned into gasoline and other products and sold within Canada and domestic markets.

Now the government is now talking about investing in the Trans Mountain pipeline, a pipeline that is shipping jobs to China, with low environmental standards and low labour costs to process that material. Does the member support investing in keeping processing jobs in Canada instead of shipping jobs out of the country?

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Madam Speaker, my province, Quebec, has two refineries. If energy east had worked, those two refineries could have taken Canadian oil and helped keep our economy moving, instead of us having to buy foreign oil for $10 billion. Better still, there is a business in my riding called CO2 Solutions that has been working with Natural Resources Canada for the past 15 years or so to improve the energy costs, the environmental costs, of producing oil in the oil sands. I remember because, when I was a journalist, I covered the story with Stéphane Dion, who was the environment minister at the time. So, yes, I believe in the Canadian jobs that could have been created at the two refineries and with CO2 Solutions, which is in my riding.

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Madam Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to participate in this emergency debate. I will be splitting my time this evening with my friend and colleague, the member for Surrey—Newton.

The Trans Mountain expansion pipeline represents a crucial test of this country's ability to get infrastructure built that is in Canada's national interest. Watching the Prime Minister's leadership on this file over the past number of months has no doubt reassured Canadians from coast to coast to coast that their country is in good hands. The Prime Minister has said repeatedly, with quiet but firm determination, that the TMX pipeline will be built, and it will. Why? It is because our government has appropriately determined that this $7.4 billion project is in Canada's national interest. It will create thousands of construction jobs and countless more spinoff jobs in every part of the country. It will ensure Canadian access to global oil markets and world prices. It will open new economic opportunities for the 43 indigenous communities that have signed on to more than $300 million in benefit agreements along the pipeline's route. It will generate as much as $3.3 billion in new government revenue over 20 years of operation. That would be new tax dollars to help pay for our hospitals and schools, to build new roads and safer bridges, and to help fund Canada's transition to a low-carbon economy. Those are just some of the reasons the Prime Minister has promised that this pipeline is going to be built, and in a responsible way.

Interprovincial pipelines are the responsibility of the federal government, and when making decisions on interprovincial pipeline projects, it is the Government of Canada's duty to act in the national interest. That is exactly what happened with the Trans Mountain expansion pipeline.

As a member from the province of Ontario, tonight's debate is not some esoteric disconnect that I am involved with or wanted to discuss. It is something that is very near and dear to me. I grew up in the riding of Skeena—Bulkley Valley, in Prince Rupert, British Columbia, a riding situated on the northwest coast underneath the Alaska panhandle, a riding that is beautiful, with mountain scenery, which sometimes I miss.

I am very proud that our government has put in place a $1.5 billion oceans protection plan so that up and down the B.C. coast, whether it is on the Sunshine Coast, in the Lower Mainland, or up in Prince Rupert, our oceans will be protected.

My parents and my family have resettled in the riding, in North Burnaby, where the current TMX pipeline runs and where the Chevron refinery sits, approximately two kilometres away from where my parents enjoy their retirement, just down from Burnaby Mountain. It is something that is very important to me. It is very important that we get this right, and we are getting this right.

I sat on Scotiabank's bond desk for 10 years, and I covered the oil and gas sector, the midstream sector. For 10 years, I saw the large differential in prices for our Canadian product, our Alberta oil. It was at a much larger discount than what one could get for what was called WTI or Brent. This discount is costing our economy billions of dollars. There are schools that could be built and hospitals that could be funded. We are working to close this gap, and one way we are doing it is by building a pipeline to tidewater to diversify our markets. We need to. It is the right thing to do for our economy. It is the right thing to do for the literally hundreds of thousands of middle-class families and middle-class workers that will benefit from this project.

During the Conservatives' time in government, for 10 years, they did not build a pipeline to tidewater. That is a fact. I am sorry to have to tell them that, but it is a truth about their government. They failed. Let us put it straight. That differential has cost the economy billions of dollars, whether it was provincial revenues, municipal revenues, or federal revenues.

I was proud of the Prime Minister, on April 15, when he commented on why this pipeline is in our national interest. He mentioned the aluminum workers in Alma, Quebec. He mentioned the aerospace workers in Montreal. He mentioned the auto factory workers down in Windsor. He mentioned the forestry workers up in my old hometown of Prince Rupert, British Columbia.

We will stand as a government, today and tomorrow and for years to come, for middle-class Canadians who want to work hard, save, and build a better future for their families. That is what this debate is about this evening. We stand and say that we will build this pipeline. We will get it done.

Let us not forget the people who will actually be building the pipe: the pipefitters, the tinsmiths, the millwrights.Those are the folks we work hard for here every day, day in and day out. Those are folks whom we have come to Ottawa to represent.

I worked on Bay Street and Wall Street, but my roots are on Main Street. They are on those streets in Prince Rupert, British Columbia, where half the population was indigenous and the rest of us were new Canadians. Whether we were born there or not, we all came from somewhere else, except for our indigenous brothers and sisters. We have many indigenous groups that have joined us to build this pipeline. We will work with them and we will continue to consult, unlike the other side, who failed to consult. It was proven in the courts.

I think it is worth reviewing that process in order to remind Canadians that the decision to approve this project was taken very seriously. It was only green-lighted after careful review, extensive consultations, and thoughtful deliberation based on sound science and Canada's best interests. I would like to highlight some of that this evening.

First, Canadians know that as our government was developing a permanent fix to the way major resource projects are reviewed, we implemented an interim approach to address projects that were then in the queue, such as TMX. That interim approach was based on five guiding principles, such as expanding public consultations, enhancing indigenous engagement, and assessing upstream greenhouse gas emissions associated with the projects.

As part of this, our government appointed a special ministerial panel of distinguished Canadians who travelled the length of the proposed pipeline route, ensuring indigenous peoples and local communities were thoroughly canvassed and heard. Our government made those discussions public on the Internet for all Canadians to see.

In the end, we accepted the National Energy Board's recommendations, including 157 conditions as part of our wider approval of the project and our larger plan for clean growth. We are also investing approximately $65 million over five years to co-develop an indigenous advisory and environmental monitoring committee for the life cycle of this pipeline, as well as the Line 3 pipeline. This is a Canadian first for any energy infrastructure project in our country. We are doing it right and we are going to get it right.

We have also developed a targeted action plan to promote recovery of the southern resident killer whale population. These are the kinds of specific measures we should expect for a project of this magnitude, but we should not look at TMX in isolation. We also need to consider how the pipeline fits within our government's overall vision for Canada in this clean-growth century.

For example, we have signed the Paris Agreement on climate change. We have worked with the provinces and territories and consulted with indigenous peoples to develop the pan-Canadian framework on clean growth and climate change, a plan that lays out Canada's clear path to a clean low-carbon economy.

At the same time, our government is putting a price on carbon; accelerating the phase-out of coal, which will benefit our environment, lower asthma incidents, and save lives; promoting energy efficiency; regulating methane emissions; creating a low-carbon fuel standard; and making generational investments in clean technology, renewable energy, and green infrastructure.

The TMX pipeline fits within all of this and will support our government's efforts to make Canada a leader in the transition to a low-carbon economy. For example, the TMX pipeline is consistent with Canada's climate plan to 2030. Its GHG emissions are well within Alberta's 100 megatonne cap on the oil sands. It is complemented by the most ambitious oceans protection plan in our country's history, a $1.5-billion investment to protect our waters, coastline, and marine life for literally generations and generations to come.

The oceans protection plan builds on and maximizes every possible safeguard against an oil spill happening in the first place with measures that include air surveillance, double-hulled tankers, and double pilotage. Transport Canada has been leading the way on this with its creation of an expert panel a few years ago to guide government actions on spill responses.

The new oceans protection plan reflects this and includes the largest investment in the Canadian Coast Guard in years, strengthening its eyes and ears to ensure better communication with vessels and making navigation safer by putting more enforcement officers on the coast and adding new radar sites in strategic locations.

Should something happen, there will be more primary environmental response teams to bolster the Coast Guard's capacity, including several Coast Guard vessels equipped with specialized tow kits that will improve its ability to respond quickly.

Amid all of this, we are enforcing the polluter pays principle. This is a world-class approach that meets or exceeds the gold standard set by places such as Alaska and Norway.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I am sure the member will have a chance to finish up anything he wanted to add during questions and comments.

Questions and comments, the member for Edmonton—Wetaskiwin.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Wetaskiwin, AB]

Madam Speaker, I listened with interest to my hon. colleague's speech. As with almost all of the Liberal speakers today, he seemed to mix up consultation with action. They seem to use those phrases interchangeably. The reality is that there is no action whatsoever.

Perhaps he misspoke, but based on the government's record, I do not think so. He said they will stand by as a government. That is exactly what the Liberals are doing. They are standing by as a government.

The Liberals inherited a situation in which northern gateway had been approved before they came to power and energy east was well on its way. What did they do? They cancelled northern gateway and they changed the rules to make it impossible for energy east to move forward.

My question for the hon. member is this: Why should anyone believe they will actually take action this time?