Debates of April 16th, 2018

Trans Mountain Expansion Project

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from Alberta. He and I have worked considerably on the cause of autism in raising awareness of it in my riding.

To directly answer his comments, the first thing we had to do was rebuild confidence in the institutions, something the Conservatives eroded under 10 years of their rule. They eroded the confidence in approvals for getting pipelines done, so we had to balance the economy and the environment to work hand in hand. That was one of the first things we did. We put in an interim set of guiding principles.

Yes, we approved TMX, and yes, it will be built, and yes, we will bring bitumen to tidewater. We will export it. We will reduce that differential, ensuring we get the world price, not the discount, which is costing us literally a billion or a billion and a half dollars a month in forgone revenues and taxes, depending on who we look at in terms of research.

We will get that done as a government because we have listened, we have consulted, and we have put in place a set of measures that bring confidence to the process, something the other side failed to do in 10 years.

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

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the Orwellian logic from the Liberals when they say we have to fight climate change by building pipelines and expanding oil production. However, I want to drill down on the economics, because that was what the member was really talking about.

Last month it was reported in the National Observer that the Louisiana offshore oil port was completed and the very first very large crude carrier, carrying two million tonnes of crude oil, was bound for China. The only vessel that can make it into Vancouver Harbour is an Aframax, which can only carry a maximum of 550,000 barrels of oil. Given the new dynamics that are happening and the fact that 99% of Kinder Morgan's crude exports go to the United States, I was wondering if the member could comment on where these markets are in Asia if the Americans have already beaten us to it.

Furthermore, why are we investing money in a diluted bitumen exporting pipeline when all of the economics make sense for us be to investing in value added? We are shipping jobs. We see it in British Columbia with the export of raw logs. We export the raw product and we inherit all of the finished goods.

The same is happening with this same kind of mentality, and shame on the Liberals for following this same disastrous economic course. I would like to hear the member's comments on that.

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

Madam Speaker, what we need to do is first remove the bottlenecks in the system, which is impacting the price. That is causing the discount.

Second, any person concerned for the environment would know we want to take oil from rail to pipe because pipe is safer than rail for the environment, for everything. It is a proven fact. The NDP should be supporting that, and it should be supporting the literally tens and hundreds of thousands of workers who will be building this and saving this.

With regard to prices for products, when we remove the bottleneck, we will see the price go up. That is what we are doing. In terms of who is using oil, there are four sectors in North America called PADD 1, 2, 3, and 4. We need to displace foreign imports of oil into Canada with our own refined product, and we are on the way to doing that as well.

In Alberta, there is the North West Sturgeon Refinery, which the Alberta government has invested in, along with private partnerships. I was there in January, at the Alberta's Industrial Heartland conference. It is an amazing thing to do, an amazing thing to see, and an amazing thing tour. Members should see it, because that value added is actually happening.

Along with that, the capacity to do that is constrained. It takes many years to bring on a refinery. It is not just a couple of years, but a long time. In the interim we must develop the resources we are blessed with, whether forestry jobs—and I do not see anyone against forestry—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Unfortunately, the time is up, and I need to go to another speaker.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Surrey—Newton.

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

Madam Speaker, Surrey is the fastest growing municipality in Canada. Almost 1,000 people move to Surrey every month. We have to create jobs for them. We have to provide infrastructure, hospitals, schools, bridges, and roads, and we need resources and money to build them.

Many good things happen in Surrey—Newton. This weekend, Sikhs are celebrating Khalsa Day. Last year we had over 400,000 Canadians come to Surrey—Newton to celebrate the birth of Khalsa. We will be having a Sikh nagar kirtan and a Sikh parade this weekend, on Saturday. I invite all members to join us in the celebration. I wish everyone celebrating a very happy Khalsa Day and a very happy Vaisakhi.

Tonight's debate is not just about whether we support this pipeline. This government has clearly said that, yes, this pipeline will be built. Tonight's debate is about much more than that. It is about whether we support Canadian workers, whether we support getting our resources to market, and whether we support the rule of law in this country.

On this side of the House, we know how important it is to get our natural resources to market and to diversify beyond the United States so that we get the best value for our products and for Canadian workers.

Canada has benefited from diverse export markets. Thousands of jobs, families, and communities benefit from the trade we do every day. The Port of Metro Vancouver currently supports more than $200 billion in trade with over 120 countries around the world. We need to open more doors, not close them. They will also benefit when we build this pipeline and get our resources to market.

We also understand that as we grow our economy, we need to take action to protect our environment. Our track record and the decisions we have made are proof of that. When our government approved the Trans Mountain pipeline, we did it as part of our larger plan for Canada's economy, environment, and future. Our decision was based on the best science, wide consultations, and Canada's national interest.

The review was comprehensive and detailed in the history of building pipelines in Canada. It was based on our five guiding principles, which focused on greater indigenous consultations, wide public participation, putting a priority on science and traditional knowledge, consideration of climate impacts, and assurance that no resource project would go back to the beginning so that the investment community would have the fullest confidence.

Scientists from across the country covered every aspect of this pipeline, from pipeline safety to the effect on wildlife, air quality, and environmental emergencies. While we conducted a scientific review to the highest possible standard, we also made the single largest investment to protect Canada's oceans with the $1.5-billion oceans protection plan.

This plan strengthens our response to a possible spill with a better equipped Canadian Coast Guard, improved navigational safety, and continuing scientific research. It adopts new technologies to make sure that, in the unlikely scenario that there is a spill, we will have the best technologies available to us to respond.

We understand that to get a pipeline built in the 21st century, we need balance. We need to understand that the environment and the economy go hand in hand. The members on the opposite side do not understand this because they have never had a major pipeline built. The fact is that Canada is rich in resources, and we have a long history of getting those goods to market to create jobs, sustain families, and grow this economy. Just as our history is linked to natural resources, so too is our future. Oil and gas is a key part of that. This is the success that we enjoy when we open markets for our resources. When we close them, we do not just put the economy at risk, we put the livelihood of Canadian workers, their families, and their communities at risk too.

Without this pipeline, 99% of our oil will continue to be exported to the United States, and we will have no choice but to continue to receive less money for our oil. This directly takes billions of dollars out of our economy, money that could go to support the construction of schools, hospitals, and roads across this country. It has been estimated that only having the U.S. as a market for our oil has cost our economy $117 billion over the last seven years. There are so many challenges we could tackle and opportunities we could seize if we had this money.

The recently elected provincial government in British Columbia ran a campaign last year where it talked about much-needed investment in building schools and a hospital in Surrey, but the question is on where the money for that comes from. The money comes from our natural resources, whether forestry, mining, or oil This is the foundation of our economy and we must support it, not only for economic reasons, but because if the choice is not to support these industries then we risk the future growth of our communities. In British Columbia, over 33 first nations have signed benefit agreements with Kinder Morgan because it will bring new opportunities, more jobs, and better supports for their neighbouring communities. We cannot choose here to deny them of those benefits.

In closing, I want to proudly say that we approve this pipeline and we will get this pipeline built. We have approved this pipeline with the best possible science, which has accounted for every scenario, from construction to transport. We brought together and informed Canadians through wide consultations, and we made historic investments so that we have the best tools. We did this because this pipeline is in the national interest, because of Canadians who depend on these jobs and our economy that must grow.

Over the past couple of days, when our Prime Minister took the leadership to bring the premiers from Alberta and British Columbia into one room, I have received many calls appreciating the role and the strong leadership that this Prime Minister and member for Papineau has played compared to the previous Conservative government.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

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

Madam Speaker, members on the other side are laughing. They should be laughing, because they are in support of building this pipeline. In fact, their leader was not able to build a single millimetre of pipeline to the coastal waters, and that is a laughingstock in my riding. They themselves are a laughingstock in this House of Commons of the people.

I appreciate being given an opportunity to share these words on behalf of my constituents.

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

Madam Speaker, I welcome the speech from my colleague from Surrey, even if I almost totally disagree with it.

How can we pay any respect and take the Prime Minister seriously? Would the member explain to us how we can take the Prime Minister seriously when 14 months ago when talking about the Canadian oil sands, the Prime Minister said, “We need to phase them out”? How can we take him seriously when today he fights for the Trans Mountain pipeline?

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

Madam Speaker, the hon. member's question gives me the opportunity to make it clear how we can take the Prime Minister seriously. I take him seriously. I ran on his platform. I had the opportunity to sit with him and share a seat in the House of Commons in my previous term in Parliament. I have seen him up close. I have seen how he brings communities together. I have seen how he wants to bring Canada together to form a stronger Canada.

Building this pipeline proves that the Prime Minister stands tall and strong with respect Canadian unity and in bringing communities together, bringing provinces together, and working for Canadian workers and for the Canadian environment.

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

Madam Speaker, I personally think the member opposite's trust is misplaced. The commitments that were made by the Prime Minister in the election campaign were extremely clear: no mega projects without a social licence; first nations consent; and a new review for the Kinder Morgan pipeline, which was not done. Those are all broken promises.

I want to talk specifically about the Salish Sea located in my riding between Vancouver and Vancouver Island. It was identified by the tanker safety expert panel in 2003, which was a Transport Canada study. It said that the waters around the southern tip of Vancouver Island were one of four areas in Canada with the highest probability of a large oil spill. The south coast of BC, including Vancouver Island, was one of two areas in Canada with the highest potential impact from a spill.

A report done by the Royal Society of Canada identified that there was insufficient research on how to respond to bitumen if spilled into the marine environment. The report said the “potential long-term damage to the environment, waterfowl and furbearing animals is greater. Cleanup of heavy oils and bitumens is extremely difficult for both marine and inland spills because of their specific gravity, viscosity, flash point properties and high asphaltene content.”

In 2013, the Harper government said that it was going to conduct scientific research on bitumen in the marine environment. Then there was the much lauded oceans protection plan in November 2016. The Liberal government announced it would conduct research to better understand how different petroleum products behaved in Canada's marine environment. None of this work has been done. The response times remain unchanged. The research is still not done.

How can that British Columbia member continue to support this pipeline knowing the threat that it poses to our shared waters?

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

Madam Speaker, as I mentioned earlier, our Prime Minister put $1.5 billion into the oceans protection plan, which is a landmark in Canadian history. I agree with the hon. member that the previous government did not spend a single cent on an oceans protection plan. The oceans protection plan is all about protecting our coastal waters.

When I was in the previous Parliament, experts explained to us that the new double-hull tankers were safe and able to transport our resources.

I am certain the NDP members would be able to support this pipeline but they are stuck in-between. In one province, they want their associate NDP government to proceed but on the other hand, the other government is trying to stall. Those members are stuck in a very difficult situation, but the oceans protection plan is the best plan ever.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to be able to participate in this important debate about pipelines. I will be sharing my time with the excellent member for Calgary Midnapore, who I know will have a lot to say with respect to her riding as well.

This is a subject on which Conservatives have been relentless in this Parliament. I want to salute the work of my colleague and neighbour from Lakeland, our shadow minister for natural resources, who is leading the charge tonight and always, as well as the members for Chilliwack—Hope and for Portage—Lisgar who served in the role of shadow minister for natural resources earlier in this Parliament.

In addition to this emergency debate, we have moved and forced votes on two opposition motions which specifically dealt with the subject of pipelines. The first one dealt with energy east and said the following:

That, given this time of economic uncertainty, the House: (a) recognize the importance of the energy sector to the Canadian economy and support its development in an environmentally sustainable way; (b) agree that pipelines are the safest way to transport oil; (c) acknowledge the desire for the Energy East pipeline expressed by the provincial governments of Alberta, Saskatchewan, Ontario, and New Brunswick; and (d) express its support for the Energy East pipeline currently under consideration.

That was an opposition motion put forward by the Conservatives, and I was pleased to join every single one of my Conservative colleagues in supporting that motion. However, 100% of members of other parties, including every single member of the government, opposed that motion, including Liberal members from Alberta who had just claimed that they would fight for pipelines, but when it counted, they stood up and voted against energy east.

More recently, we put forward another motion. We thought we would give them another chance. Here is what we said:

That, given the Trans Mountain expansion project is in the national interest, will create jobs and provide provinces with access to global markets, the House call on the Prime Minister to prioritize the construction of the federally-approved Trans Mountain Expansion Project by taking immediate action, using all tools available; to establish certainty for the project, and to mitigate damage from the current interprovincial trade dispute, tabling his plan in the House no later than noon on Thursday, February 15, 2018.

What a statement of confidence in the pipeline process that would have been from this House of Commons. Again, every single Conservative voted in favour of this motion, but every Liberal and every New Democrat opposed that proposal. They had a chance to vote for action on Trans Mountain. Every single one of them voted against.

We have not only had pro-pipeline proposals debated in this House, but Bill C-48 was the government bill to make the export of our energy resources from northern B.C. impossible. That is further blocking the northern gateway pipeline. Every single Conservative voted against Bill C-48, but every single Liberal and New Democrat voted in favour. As much as a few members tonight want to wrap themselves in bitumen, something as simple and fundamental as their voting record paints a different picture.

All of the Liberals voted against energy east, in favour of blocking the northern gateway, and against a motion to force action on Trans Mountain. All the MPs across the way should not tell us what they believe. They should cast their votes and then we will know what they believe.

The member for Edmonton Centre recently said in this place, “Never let the truth get in the way of a good story.” Clearly, he never does.

If the government is sincere about pipelines, then it should start voting for them. Our commitment to pipelines did not just start in this Parliament. The Stephen Harper government oversaw the building of Trans Mountain's Keystone pipeline, of Enbridge's Alberta Clipper, of Kinder Morgan's Anchor Loop pipeline, and of Enbridge's Line 9 reversal. We also approved the construction of the northern gateway pipeline.

Now let us be clear. Up until now at least, it has not been the government building pipelines. It has been up to the government, partially through the NEB, to review applications approving or rejecting them, and to establish the conditions that allow them and other commercial activity to succeed. When they were in government, the Conservatives approved every single pipeline that came forward. We established the conditions in which the private sector put forward proposals and we approved those proposals after appropriate review, but we also made sure that that review was appropriate and it was not just a review process that simply bogged these things down in sort of eternal consultations.

Some critics wish that more pipelines had been built, but they have a hard time demonstrating how we could have built pipelines that were never proposed. If the infrastructure minister and others who are making this point are available to pose the question, I ask them to say how they propose we would build pipelines that had not been proposed.

Again, Conservatives approved every single pipeline proposal that came forward. We built four. We approved a fifth. We ensured that every project that was proposed succeeded. I am very proud of that record.

Conservatives have voted for pipelines. We have approved pipelines. We established the conditions under which pipelines were built. We got it done.

What about the Liberal government? It killed one pipeline, the northern gateway pipeline, directly. It killed the energy east pipeline indirectly by piling conditions on it that were designed to make it fail. Let us be very clear. These were conditions that were built to fail. They were put in place and left in place and were clearly designed to make future pipeline construction impossible.

At the same time, for political reasons, the government wants to try to have its cake and eat it, too. It wants to oppose pipelines but to be seen as supporting them at the same time, at least in some political markets.

The government approved the expansion of the existing Trans Mountain pipeline on the basis of interim principles. However, it is clear that the government has a dangerous agenda when it comes to pipelines, and that is to stop as many as possible. If this pipeline is built, it wants to make sure that it is the last one. If the government refuses to take the steps necessary to allow the pipeline to proceed on its own and resorts to either letting it die or nationalizing it, the government will have created conditions in which it will be very hard to imagine this type of critical, nation-building infrastructure being built in the future. That is the Liberal government policy.

Whoever would invest in an industry where projects were blocked by lawless protestors, in some cases lawless protestors who are members of Parliament, and some national governments block them outside of their jurisdiction and then projects are ultimately nationalized? Do these sound like the kinds of conditions that you, Madam Speaker, as a private sector investor, would find attractive?

We need to establish attractive conditions for those investments, which the government is not doing. The government must establish conditions in which vital projects, and not just this one, can be built with private dollars. It should defend all pipelines. It should vote for them. It should make the clear and obvious case for them, which is that pipelines transport vital energy resources efficiently and with a lower energy impact than the alternatives.

The government should stop talking out of both sides of its mouth. It should stop voting against pipelines, and it should start proceeding.

I would like to make a separate point, as well, about energy policy. That is that the crisis we face at this point is the result of a failed strategy by the government and by some other governments. Again, perhaps it is a strategy that is failing by design. The strategy invites us to look at energy policy as if it were some sort of hostage situation. If energy-producing jurisdictions make concessions, the argument goes, they will be able to move forward with energy development. Just pay the carbon tax, and that will buy the necessary goodwill to get progress on pipelines. Just a little more carbon tax, a little more sacrifice, and then John Horgan and Denis Coderre will release the hostages and support pipeline construction.

One does not need a Nobel Prize, even a fake one, to know that this strategy has failed. We do not want to negotiate with hostage takers anymore. The carbon tax is unaffordable to many Albertans and to people across this country. The federal government is trying to impose it even beyond its jurisdiction. Subnational governments are showing a lack of respect for the constitutional division of powers by trying to stop pipelines, and our national government is showing a lack of respect for the constitutional division of powers by trying to impose the carbon tax.

Objectively, it has not worked. It has not delivered social licence, that nebulous and immeasurable thing. The carbon tax has delivered poverty and misery. It has not delivered social licence, and it has not delivered a pipeline.

The bizarre thing about the government is that its rhetoric actually plays the hostage scenario both ways. It tells those on the right and in the centre that they have to accept the carbon tax to get a pipeline, then it tells those on the left that they have to accept the pipeline to get a carbon tax. If it is going to play this out, then it at least has to decide which is the hostage and which is the ransom.

This is all obviously ridiculous. We should build pipelines because they are in the national interest. We should oppose the carbon tax because it is not. The two are not linked in anyone's mind but the government's, as the current crisis demonstrates.

Our history shows us, right back to John A. Macdonald, that nation-building infrastructure is vital for our success, that every country needs the ability to access and engage in commerce with others. The government does not understand the importance of vital nation-building infrastructure. It is building walls instead of pipelines between provinces. That has to stop.

Under Sir John A. Macdonald, it took a Conservative to build nation-building infrastructure. It may well take a Conservative government again before we can finally build the nation-building infrastructure that will allow our energy sector to succeed.

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

Madam Speaker, I noticed that the member was talking about Liberals not voting for this or that. I brought up the recent memory of the 22 hours of voting that the Conservatives forced on us. What they did was to oppose every single one of them, whether it was investing money in infrastructure in Alberta or British Columbia, supporting seniors across this nation, supporting veterans, health care, education, or economic prosperity. They voted against every part of the legislation. Today, they are trying to teach us a lesson.

On the other hand, being a land surveyor and professional engineer, I understand that building pipelines will create opportunities. I am thankful that the member is going to support building this pipeline, but his government should not mislead anyone. That government did not build a single millimetre of pipeline.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member said that we did not build any pipelines. We built four pipelines and approved a fifth. More to the point, we approved every pipeline application that came forward. I would like to ask the member if he can name a project that we rejected or a pipeline we did not build, because the reality is that we built every one that came forward.

The member says that he recognizes that pipelines create opportunities. He should have voted for them. He asked about the budget vote. We opposed the budget. We opposed a budget that imposed new taxes on Canadians and has no plan to balance the budget. This is the only finance minister in the country who does not have a date in mind for when he could balance the balance.

If the member wants to know why we were up late voting, maybe he should ask his House leader or the Prime Minister. They refused to agree to our legitimate expectation that the national security adviser come to Parliament and give members of Parliament the same briefing he gave to the media. What happened after putting the House through this extended process of the vote was that during the break week, they backed down and we were given the briefing. Conservatives were able to succeed nonetheless. If the member wants to know why they voted for so long to block this from happening when it happened anyways, well, he can discuss that with his House leader.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague for talking about jobs in Alberta and jobs in general. We hear a lot about the need to ship resources to market. What it looks like where I live is that raw log exports have gone up tenfold in 10 years. In British Columbia, we have the highest crime and poverty rates now. That is what it looks like.

The Liberal government removed the tariff so we could build infrastructure to build ferries in Canada that brought in $118 million a year. They removed that, and now we are building ferries in Poland.

When we look at oil and gas, Norway has a trillion dollars in their prosperity fund. Alberta has $11 billion. We have been irresponsible. We have been buying into this idea that we need to cream our resources and ship them out of our country in the name of jobs. It is not working. It is time for it to change.

This proposal, this pipeline, is built on the premise that we are going to create jobs. Instead, it is shipping jobs out of here. There is nothing tied to putting money aside for future generations. There is nothing tied to creating value added and refineries here in Canada. There is nothing tied to protecting the environment. This whole pipeline idea is a failure, and it is not in the name of jobs.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, I have two quick points in response. First of all, I support the member's idea that we should put resource revenue aside for the future. That was Peter Lougheed's vision. Very clearly, it is not one shared by Rachel Notley, if we look at the deficit figures at present in Alberta.

Now, the member spoke about raw materials, and this is a very important though maybe technical point. However, the reality is that pipelines can transport a range of different kinds of materials. That is why I say build the pipeline. I think there is a case to be made for letting the market decide what products are shipped.

The fact is that with a pipeline that is constructed, there is as much opportunity to transport raw materials as there is to transport refined and upgraded materials. However, we need to be able to transport them one way or the other. Alberta is not itself able to consume all the energy it produces, either as raw or final product, which is why we need the capacity to transport it. That is a fairly fundamental point.

Again, we can debate whether we should be exporting raw material, but that is secondary to the question of whether we should be constructing pipelines. We have to move—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I'm sorry but the time is up.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Calgary Midnapore.

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Madam Speaker, there is a former president of the United States of America whose very telling quote is appropriate for this evening and for this debate. That president was Franklin D. Roosevelt, who said that in politics, nothing happens by accident, and if it happens, one can bet it was planned that way. I think we can see that there were no accidents here, that this terrible incident was the result of the Prime Minister playing politics and refusing to show leadership which resulted in devastating effects.

I am going to talk about these different devastating effects. Those would include missed opportunities, fleeing investments, as well as personal tragedy which I have seen close and up front in my riding of Calgary Midnapore with the people there.

We certainly heard a lot about missed opportunities today. They are too numerous to count, but we will review some of them again.

Petronas LNG, the Malaysian corporation, a $36-billion project evaporated into thin air as a result of not going forward with this project.

Keystone XL is especially dear to my heart. As the former deputy consul general for Dallas, Texas, I spent a lot of my time on the Keystone XL pipeline file. This was in 2010-13, when Obama was in office. It was a pipe dream at that time where it was complete futility that this would possibly happen. However, a new administration has brought forward the possibility of Keystone XL again. It has recently been resurrected and it has the possibility to carry 830,000 barrels of oil a day. It is an $8-billion project, on which again we have seen no action as a result of playing political games and poor leadership by the Prime Minister and the Liberal government.

We have heard about energy east ad nauseam, a $15.7-billion project that many say rests squarely on the National Energy Board's decision to consider direct and indirect greenhouse gas emissions. Again, this is another situation of the Liberal government playing political games and the Prime Minister showing a complete lack of leadership.

Finally, the northern gateway was a project that would have provided close to 4,000 jobs and will never come to pass. It is absolutely tragic. I am certainly not exaggerating when I talk about missed opportunities in terms of the delay, the indecision, and the lack of leadership with the Prime Minister and the Liberal government.

I will talk now about fleeing investment because we certainly have seen investments from Canada absolutely exit in droves. For example, we have seen in Calgary a complete decline in investor confidence in a way we have not seen before. I cannot remember the last time we saw this lack of investor confidence in Canada and specifically in Alberta in the natural resources sector.

Companies come to mind such as Royal Dutch Shell. Shell was one of the backbones of the natural resources sector in Calgary. I remember very fondly in 1988, people sporting Shell's Olympic jackets at that time. There was Norway Statoil as well and the list goes on: Marathon Oil, ConocoPhillips, Apache, Harvest. The list is endless. These are all investors that have left Canada and their return will not happen overnight. This is something that will take years to build for their return. This is an absolute tragedy.

I would like to share a story about an event I was at on Wednesday night in Calgary. It was put on by the U.S. consulate. We were very fortunate that Ambassador Craft from our good friend to the south, our closest friend and ally, was there. It was a very lovely event.

The subject of the event was very disturbing to me as an elected official for Alberta and Canada. This event was specifically in regard to Canadian investors looking for the opportunity to invest in the United States of America. This is just another example of the opportunity that exists externally for corporations should they not wish to invest their dollars here, which is a result of this poor environment, the political game playing, and lack of leadership from the Prime Minister and the Liberal government.

The fleeing investment is very tragic indeed. However, the most tragic thing of all is the personal tragedy, the personal situations that have arisen as a result of the political game playing and the lack of leadership from the Prime Minister and the government. We have seen incredible unemployment levels in Alberta and Calgary. There are 40,000 fewer jobs now than at pre-recession levels, with 29,800 of those jobs being directly attributed to the oil and gas sector. That is an absolutely astounding number. I met many of these people face to face when I went door knocking last year in the by-election in Calgary Midnapore. There are so many tragic stories out there.

In fact, I would like to share one that was in the National Post on April 12 of this past week about Erik Nyman, who could very possibly be one of my constituents. It says:

Erik Nyman, an out-of-work journeyman electrician, was a general foreman in his mid-20s at a thermal oilsands project when he was laid off in December 2015.

Since then, he’s gone back to school at Mount Royal University in Calgary to upgrade his skills—obtaining a project management certification and doing courses toward a Blue Seal apprenticeship certification—worked with career coaches and placement agencies, and lost count of how many custom-tailored résumés he’s sent out.

“I’ve been hitting everything that I think I’m qualified for,” he said, but fears that he’s up against candidates with far more experience for the same entry-level positions.

Nyman said he is be willing to work for free in exchange for experience, but it’s a difficult subject to broach with an employer, especially when he’s still hoping—above all else—to get a full-time job and a paycheque.

“Depression has hit really hard,” he said, adding he’s now taking anti-depressants. He said he is trying to stay positive for himself and for his 13-month-old son, and his friends have been a source of support.

Erik really could be one of my many constituents in Calgary Midnapore facing this very sad situation.

In addition, we are seeing a decline in the younger workforce as well. U of C engineering school, one of the top engineering schools in the country with a proud history of post-graduation employment, has seen its post-graduation employment rate decrease to 43% in 2016 from 87% in 2014. That is a rate drop of more than 50%. It very sad at a time when we need to be giving our youth hope for the future.

Calgary's vacancy rates have also been affected dramatically like this. There are secondary and tertiary effects in regard to this. It is the worst of any major Canadian city, having hit 27.4%, which is the highest level in over 30 years, as a result of the lack of leadership from the Liberal government and the Prime Minister. That means 1.1 million square metres of empty downtown space, which is almost 700 hockey rinks, accounting for 40% of the empty downtown office spaces across Canada's 10 largest cities.

I could go on about business owners trying to find efficiencies and hang onto employees as they struggle with these new realities as a result of this lack of leadership.

Make no mistake, none of this happened by accident. It was the political game playing and lack of leadership by the Liberal government and the Prime Minister.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague and friend from the status of women committee.

In budget 2012, in an omnibus budget bill, the Conservatives deeply undermined and weakened the role of the National Energy Board, which was done with the hope that it might facilitate pipeline approvals. In fact, I was able to participate from my home on Gabriola Island, where we were concerned about pipeline impacts.

In the northern gateway review, people came to a hearing. They could give their testimony. They could hear each other. However, when it came to the Kinder Morgan review process, which was after the National Energy Board review had been significantly altered by the Harper amendments, there was no cross-examination of evidence. Anybody who had advice for the National Energy Board could only file it in written form. It was called a public hearing, but there was actually no hearing. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency tried to intervene but was barred as an intervenor. The National Energy Board ruled that the late-breaking evidence that bitumen sinks in a marine environment be barred from the hearing, from the process, based on its being prejudicial to Kinder Morgan. Of course, now we have all these court cases charging that the process was inadequate.

I would like to know my colleague's view, looking back on it, about whether the Conservative amendments to the National Energy Board process, effectively gutting it, might have contributed to these delays.

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Madam Speaker, I would argue that it is the current Liberal government that has taken away the power of the National Energy Board and rendered it almost impotent, by changing the board's composition but, more important, by creating barriers for project approval with everything from gender considerations to unreasonable considerations that cannot be met. It is the Liberal government that has done the damage to the National Energy Board, and not our previous Conservative government. In fact, in addition to the ministerial veto, the Liberals have rendered it to the point that perhaps no project may ever be built again, and that is significant.

It was not our actions as the former Conservative government. It is the actions of the Liberal government that have weakened and decreased the power of the National Energy Board.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Madam Speaker, the Liberals imposed a carbon tax on every Canadian in every community across the country. They said it would buy a social licence to get pipelines built. I wonder what the member hears from her constituents in Calgary and from Albertans across the province about that concept and what they think about the carbon tax.

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Madam Speaker, certainly the constituents of Calgary Midnapore have been clear. They do not want a carbon tax.

As well, I was very proud to sit on the environment committee last week, when we had testimony from both CAPP and CEPA. During that testimony, I asked specifically whether the implementation of a carbon tax would reduce emissions. I wanted a straight answer, yes or no. The witnesses were not able to indicate that implementing a carbon tax would provide any reduction in emissions.

Constituents of Calgary Midnapore do not want this carbon tax, and the testimony, as I learned in the environment committee last week, shows that the very objective of the carbon tax does not serve the purpose for which it was intended.

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to be in the House today to speak to this very important issue.

I have to say I have been here all night, and the parliamentary theatrics that have been going on are quite impressive from the opposite side of the floor.

However, I do want to be very clear. This is an issue that is about our country, about our nation, that is looking at taking the next step, enhancing and elevating doing business to the next level and sending a strong message internationally that Canada is in fact open for business.

The TMX project is of vital strategic interest to Canada, and it will be built. Our government has initiated formal financial discussions with Kinder Morgan, the result of which will be to remove uncertainty overhanging this particular project. We are also actively pursuing legislation, the actions that will assert and reinforce the federal jurisdiction in this matter, which we know we clearly have. Hundreds of thousands of hard-working Canadians depend on this project being built. Protecting our environment and growing our economy are not opposing values. On the contrary, each makes the other possible.

I want to give those members on the opposite side of the floor a bit of a history lesson in comparison to what I have heard today. The member for Durham mentioned that the government was in comparison to a Hail Mary pass. Let me just say this: I think on the opposite side of the floor it is the opposition that is throwing the Hail Mary.

Some will recall that the Harper government refused to officially endorse the northern gateway pipeline project until the National Energy Board's joint review panel had a chance to finish its review. The Hail Mary came when the party, attempting to shore up its western vote, asked this government to endorse the project before the experts had a chance to review it. This government was very clear in the process, being both accountable as well as responsible and, most importantly, respectful.

We consulted, for example, with the indigenous community. Our government was and continues to be committed to renewing the relationship with indigenous peoples based on the recognition of rights, respect, co-operation, and, equally as important, partnership. We are committed to reconciliation and will work in partnership to address the issues of importance to indigenous communities.

On the TMX expansion, Canada has in fact completed the deepest consultations with rights holders ever on a major project in this country. To date, 43 first nations have negotiated benefit agreements with this project, and 33 of those are in British Columbia. We have listened, and we will continue to listen.

Once again, in contrast, the Conservative Party had 10 years to build a pipeline to ship Canada's resources to new global markets. It built zero. The Conservatives had 10 years to consult indigenous and local communities. They ignored them. The Conservatives had 10 years to rally the country around the need for new pipeline capacity to end the discount on landlocked Canadian crude. They did not. The Conservatives had 10 years to address environmental concerns. They failed. We will take no lessons from the Conservatives.

The economic benefits to this nation will be compounded on the strengths that we have already established throughout many years: thousands of new jobs during construction, hundreds of permanent jobs per year during operation, $4.5 billion in government revenues to reinvest in priorities such as hospitals and roads, clean-energy initiatives, and innovation technology, which I will get back to in a second.

Strategic access to new global markets unlocks the value of Canada's natural resources. This $7.4-billion project has significant economic benefits, including providing an expected $4.5 billion in government revenues. It will create thousands of new jobs in Alberta and B.C. during construction, not to mention the supply chain that exists from coast to coast to coast. Indigenous peoples will also benefit from jobs and business opportunities as a result of over $300 million in mutual benefit agreements signed with the proponent.

The project will expand access to Canada's export market access for oil markets in Washington State, northeast Asia, Japan, China, South Korea, and Taiwan, and secondary markets in the United States, such as California, Hawaii, and Alaska. It will also help address an emergency bottleneck in Canada's pipeline network, which might otherwise drive producers to greater reliance on transportation by rail.

As I mentioned earlier, community consultations consisted of 44 public meetings in 11 communities on pipeline routing, more than 35,000 questionnaire submissions, more than 20,000 email submissions, and 1,600 participants in the review process.

In May 2016, the Minister of Natural Resources named a three-member ministerial panel for the proposed project. The ministerial panel heard the views of Canadians, local communities, and indigenous groups along the proposed pipeline and shipping route, who may not have been considered as part of the review in the past.

Some people would ask, as the member for Niagara Centre, what interest I would have in this. The interest is from coast to coast to coast, with respect to Niagara being an international trade corridor; the Great Lakes; the ability to contribute as a region and as a riding to the integration of distributional logistics; ensuring we become an enabler for the nation to perform a greater and higher degree of transportation, thus placing our great nation on a higher level globally when it comes to the economy. There is our supply chain, Oskam Steel, Thurston Machine, Barber Hymac, JTL Machine, ITT, all contributing to the sector, from Ontario, from Niagara.

This government has been deliberate in putting forward an overall strategy for jobs and the economy. The oceans protection plan, the trade corridor strategy, the ports modernization plan, the infrastructure plan, science and innovation, international relations, all of which this government has been participating in over the course of the past two years. They are all in step with Canada's new economy and ensuring that this project aligns with the other efforts this government has been working on for the past two years to create jobs, to create the economy, to create health, to create wealth, and to ensure that our product, our GDP, as well as the relationships we are accruing over time throughout our global economy are healthy. This project, supported by this government moving forward sooner rather than later, is one that we as a nation will be truly proud of well down the road for the future generations, to once again ensure that the economy of Canada extends to the economy of the global markets that we are inevitably going to partner with.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

It being midnight, I declare the motion carried. Accordingly, the House stands adjourned until later this day at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 12 a.m.)