Debates of April 16th, 2018

Trans Mountain Expansion Project

[Randy Boissonnault, Liberal, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I respect the hon. member's interest in this file and his comments on my oratorical skills. I can tell him that poetry and great language is also backed up by action and results on this side of the House.

I am not going to take any timeline requirements from a government that spent 10 years and got no projects to pipeline. The other side knew exactly what it was doing, and it made sure it pitted people against each other. Our government knows how to create consensus. We will get this project built in the right time.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

Order. Before the member for Port Moody—Coquitlam asks his question, I just want to remind hon. members this is an emergency debate. It does not mean that parliamentary rules go out the window.

The hon. member for Port Moody—Coquitlam.

[Fin Donnelly, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Edmonton Centre spoke about the importance of the Salish Sea, among many other things. The Kinder Morgan project would cause a sevenfold increase in oil tanker traffic through the southern resident killer whale's critical habitat in the Salish Sea. Regardless of oil spill risks, noise alone from the rise in tanker traffic almost guarantees the extinction of this already endangered population.

Would the member agree that although the federal Liberals claim to be committed to protecting the environment, slowing climate change, and making evidence-based decisions, approving the pipeline and tanker project is a direct contradiction of those promises?

[Randy Boissonnault, Liberal, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his passion on this issue. It is important to note that we are not claiming to make sure that endangered species are protected and we are not claiming to propose in the future some hypothetical oceans protection plan. We put $1.5 billion on the table. We have put the best scientific research at hand. We have done more consultations than any other government in the history of Canada on this energy issue. Precisely the reason we want to engage with the British Columbia government as it is extending and expanding its own tankers for LNG is to make sure all species are protected and to make sure jobs are created for Canadians from coast to coast to coast.

[Kent Hehr, Liberal, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, before my question I would just like to say that I stand with the people of Humboldt, the players and the coaches and the trainers.

Some of the comments I've heard tonight appear to be similar to many speeches I heard from my New Democrat friends when I was in Alberta. Those speeches are different now that they are in government. Some of the realities were posed by my good friend from Edmonton Centre, who made the speech about being reasonable. I believe he referred in his speech to running a country that sees energy and the environment as two sides of the same coin.

As well, on the opposite side, my Conservative friends did not seem to understand the Prime Minister when he said, “The Trans Mountain expansion is of vital strategic interest to Canada—it will be built” and put the full faith and credit of our government behind it.

Could he comment on seeing those two sides and how this appears to be a reasonable way forward, as he said in his speech?

[Randy Boissonnault, Liberal, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from Calgary Centre. We did not quite hear the remarks on the microphone, but I thank him for his comments and heartfelt thoughts to the families and friends of the fallen in Humboldt. I want to say to my colleague that we will be holding a memorial tomorrow in Edmonton Centre for the families and friends of the lost Broncos.

On the issue at hand, we know that in a modern economy, the environment and energy have to go together. We are leading the way and we are demonstrating that. When we listen to people, bring indigenous communities together, make sure proponents are actually providing contribution agreements that are going to have long-paying, long-time jobs where communities all along the line have a stake, when we invest $1.5 billion in leading science not only to boost the Coast Guard but to make sure we have rapid response for anything that should take place, and when we are dealing with one of the safest modes of transportation for a key fuel not only for our economy but for economies around the world, that is good science, that is good governance, and that is exactly what Canadians expect of us.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to note that I will be sharing my time with the member for Cariboo—Prince George.

I am glad to have the opportunity to stand up on this emergency debate. I am not glad that we have to have it, but I am glad to have the opportunity to speak on such an important issue, an issue that is critically important to people in my riding.

It was shortly after I was elected in 2008 that I first remember being briefed on the plans of Kinder Morgan in terms of its expansion. I have been elected now for almost 10 years. Over those 10 years, and not just since the Liberal government came into place but eight years previously, I have watched the extraordinary efforts of the National Energy Board, the federal government, and the company itself as it went up and down the pipeline to every single community in its consultation process. It has been tireless in working with these communities.

Tonight we are hearing a lot in terms of indigenous rights and titles, and I would like to focus a lot of my comments in that particular area.

It was about two years ago that I went on one of our national TV shows. The person ahead of me, who was a band member, said that this pipeline would never be built and that his band was against it absolutely. He left, and there was a little bit of time before I was to talk. I asked the person hosting the show why they were only bringing on the few communities that were dead set against the project and telling the national audience what a difficult project it was going to be and that it would not be supported. Why were they not talking to the people in my riding?

I never did get a good answer. I was willing to put forward names of communities that were working towards resolution, but never, certainly two years ago, did I see any effort put into educating Canadians about the communities that were very interested. However, we certainly had significant coverage of the communities that were opposed.

I can understand why many Canadians would think that there has not been consultation and that rights and titles are not being respected, because that is what they see in the media and in the paper, so what I am hoping to do tonight is give voice to those communities who are the title and rights holders.

This is not the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs. These are not people far afield who have decided that they do not want this project to go through. These are the people who are the title and rights holders of the territory that this pipeline is going to pass through.

I have a relationship with many of these people and I reached out to them tonight through social media, which is a great resource in terms of private messaging. I asked if they would mind if I shared some of their thoughts and some of the public and private posts. Each one said, “Please do.”

I will start with a first nation councillor, Don Matthew, who retweeted an article the other day saying that communities deserve consultation. He agreed absolutely, and that they have been given that.

One-third of the pipeline will go through his community's traditional territory. They have had meeting after meeting, and this community took it to a vote. He said that there was not 100% consensus, but 85% of the community that will have one-third of the pipeline go through it voted to accept and endorse the pipeline as well as the agreement that came with it. He said that his community was a member of the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs, but that it is not the decision-maker on this particular issue. This is their community, and they are the title and rights holders.

The next community I will talk about is Whispering Pines. Again, it is a significant area that the pipeline goes through, and this is what Chief LeBourdais had to say. Again, I do not presume to say things; what I am going to say in the House is on behalf of the people, in their quotes.

This is from an interview he had today with the media. He said, “We put a lot time and energy into negotiating this agreement. You know, we wanted Kinder Morgan to respect our jurisdiction. We wanted the federal government to respect our jurisdiction, and they did.”

He went on to say, “When the feds came and said 'we are here to help', we said 'no, thank you.' We asked them to leave, and invited Kinder Morgan in. It wasn't just us; there were 11 communities along the pipe. For the first five years, we met with Kinder Morgan trying to figure out the rights entitled to the pipeline. When our lawyers couldn't agree on who owns the right of way, we decided to negotiate some mutually beneficial agreements.”

He talked about the environment. He said that these were difficult conversations. He said, “At one meeting, Ian said, 'What do you want?' We were frustrated. We kicked our lawyers out of the room, and he said, 'What do you want?' I said, 'I want you to respect my jurisdiction. I want you to invest in my community, but most above all, I want you to keep the oil in the damn pipe.' The answer from Kinder Morgan was, 'That is what I want: to respect your jurisdiction, help invest in the community, and keep the oil in the pipe.”

From that place, they went on to negotiate an agreement. They met a number of times. Again the communities said yes, they supported this particular agreement.

He said, “It's fascinating for us to watch these people who weren't there in the beginning talk about our agreement and our jurisdiction. It kind of annoys us.” For people who sit here and presume to talk to the title and rights holders about what has been negotiated and the fact that they have not been consulted, he said that is incredibly disrespectful and annoying.

If they did not have the pipeline go through, he said, “It will be the same old, same old: same pipe, same jurisdiction; no jurisdiction, no benefits, no economic benefits, no fiscal benefits, and no increase in tax benefits. What we looked for personally on my side and what I wanted in the agreement was the economic benefits, jobs. I wanted to put my youth and my middle class, my working class guys on the pipe, and get them out of Alberta and North Dakota where they are working.”

He went on to have some significant conversation around the additional environmental protections that they thought were very important and that Kinder Morgan agreed to, again working directly with the title and rights holders. He said, “When people ask how we can support the pipeline, I ask, 'Did you get gas today?' When they say yes, I say, 'Then you have to support it also.'”

That particular interview went on for about 10 minutes, but it was significant. For anyone who is wondering what has been happening on the ground for the last number of years, it was not the government not doing its job, not the company not doing its job, not the communities not doing their job. There was hard work put into coming up with agreements that were going to benefit everyone.

The Peters First Nation said that it has lived with the pipeline for over 40 years seated at the base of their mountain above their homes, and went on to talk about the pipeline and its being the safest way to transport. We all know right now there is only so much capacity on our rail lines. The more we transport oil by rail, the less we have in terms of capacity for getting our lumber and wheat products to market. Not only is a pipeline safer, but it is freeing up capacity to keep our supply chain going that is going to keep our country solid and moving forward.

People have talked about Chief Ernie Crey, and he is saying that the cancellation costs hundreds of millions of dollars in benefits, training, employment, and business opportunities. We have here the communities along the pipeline most impacted saying that these are good things. They worked hard to get to a place where they believe this can be done in a way that will benefit their people, in a way that is going to be environmentally productive.

The final thing I would say is that one chief was asked about the meeting that happened, and he said, “Well, we looked upon it a little bit disappointed because we expected some kind of resolution. That is what leaders are supposed to do, right?” On that note, we should all look at ourselves as leaders and create some sort of resolution because that is what we are here for and it is what we are supposed to do.

[Fin Donnelly, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague from Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo is the Conservative indigenous affairs critic, and she—

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

Shadow minister.

[Fin Donnelly, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, she is the shadow minister, not the critic. There we go.

The member used many quotes from indigenous people in her speech. I wanted to bring in another quote, one by Chief Bob Chamberlin, vice-president of the Union of BC Indian Chiefs, who said in a tweet that the government's ocean protection plan cannot make bitumen float, that a bitumen spill on coastal waters will sink. He said that the ocean protection plan cannot retrieve what is on the ocean bottom. He said that out of sight out of mind is not good enough for fish habitat protection.

What does the member say to Chief Bob Chamberlin?

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the NDP members are absolutely incredible. When it is energy east, they say that a pipeline cannot be built because it is going to be terrible for our environment, but they ignore those ships going down the St. Lawrence from Saudi Arabia and Venezuela. Now they are not complaining about the pipeline, but all of a sudden there is an issue with the oceans protection plan. They simply do not want oil extracted, period. That is their problem. They say no to everything. They are giving up opportunities for these communities to be self-sufficient. There have been negotiations that they have approved and they want to move forward.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am reminded of something I was asked to say by one of my constituents, the Honourable Pat Carney. She used to be the federal minister of energy. She asked me to please mention that there is no oceans protection plan, that there seems to be an oceans protection wish list. She would like to see a plan.

I hope my hon. colleague from Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo will not mind if I correct something that came up in an earlier part of the debate, which is the idea that bitumen moving by train represents a threat. Solid bitumen moving by rail can neither spill nor catch fire. It does not represent a threat.

I respect the work of my friend from Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo. However, I wanted to put on the record as well that there is a very strongly worded letter that was sent to the Prime Minister and Premier Horgan from Tsartlip First Nation, which is within the boundaries of my riding. I respect Tsartlip First Nation enormously on a nation-to-nation basis. They have a specific set of treaties members may have heard of from southern Vancouver Island called the Douglas treaties. They have not been consulted at all, and the shipping lanes for the tankers loaded with dilbit go right through their treaty-protected territory.

I wonder if my hon. colleague has any comments.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to note that if there is transport by train, if they are concerned about bitumen in the ocean they need to also be concerned about bitumen in the rivers, which is much more likely when there is transport by train than transport by pipeline. We actually want to prevent these. However, here we are fighting the NDP and the Green, both in the province of British Columbia and throughout Canada. They fight against the pipeline when it is going to go to refineries, but they do not worry about all those tankers going down the St. Lawrence. We have not heard a peep about those. Now there is not a peep about the pipeline; it is all about the ocean.

I do not think it really matters what it is, they are simply going to argue against it because they do not want oil extracted from the oil sands for the benefit of all Canadians.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we are here today for one reason and one reason only, and that is we are in a crisis, a crisis of confidence. We have investors who, whether they are foreign or domestic, lack the confidence in Canada as a place to invest, as their confidence in the government to create an environment for them to invest in and protect their investment has gone sideways.

It has gone that way because if the Prime Minister's contradictory messages or comments, policies, and inaction on core projects. This has absolutely rocked the investor community. As a matter of fact, at the COFI conference which I was at just last week, as was the Minister of Transport, we heard very soundly from economists who stood on the stage and said that investor confidence in Canada is at an all-time low.

Investment is flowing out of Canada at record levels, levels that have not been seen in over 70 years. Why is that? As mentioned, it is due to legislation such as Bill C-69, Bill C-49, a tanker moratorium, and the Prime Minister killing energy east at the eleventh hour by introducing new rules. Let us not forget northern gateway, a project that was approved. It was a project that underwent rigorous environmental standards and testing, a project that had indigenous equity partners. As the Prime Minister and the government came to power, the rug was pulled out from underneath the project.

I remind this House that it was just over a year ago when the Prime Minister said that he was phasing out the oil sands. I will also remind my colleagues that one of the very first statements the Prime Minister made on the world stage after gaining power was that Canada will become known more for its resourcefulness than its resources. That is shocking.

On Trans Mountain, the reason we are here tonight, the Prime Minister has failed to deliver a clear action plan from the very beginning. Truthfully, I do not believe for a moment he ever wanted this project to go forward. He will stall while saying those words with his hand on his heart, that he and his cabinet are seized with this project and that it is their intention to have it go through. We have seen a few ministers today and over the last couple of weeks state that this project will go through, yet it has taken over a year for them to even come to the province of British Columbia, my beautiful province, to actually say those same strong words. Where have the 18 MPs from B.C. been? They have been silent on this issue.

I will go as far as saying that I put the blame squarely on the shoulders of the Prime Minister and his 18 Liberal MPs from the province of British Columbia for the situation we are currently in provincially. They failed to stand up for the Trans Mountain pipeline. That was a major issue in the provincial election last summer when the NDP and the Green Party campaigned that this project will never go through under their watch. The B.C. Liberals were fighting it out and doing their very best to try to win back our province. What we saw was essentially a deadlock. Then there was a coalition with the NDP and the Green Party. Premier Horgan might be in a little trouble because if he supports the pipeline, what will happen to his majority? He is going to have a bit of an issue in terms of how he can hang on to power.

Domestic and foreign investors looking at Canada and British Columbia as places to invest are comparing the ease of doing business and returns on capital that can be achieved here with those in other jurisdictions around the world.

We have to remember that investors have choices. What we do as a government or as a parliament, or what the Liberals do as government, can have a significant impact on investor confidence. That is what we are seeing currently. Under the current government, investors in Canada have been besieged by significant federal and provincial tax increases, which taken with the recent substantial tax reductions in the United States and the ever-increasing protectionist government, as well as the opportunities they are seeing south of the border, underscores that Canada's small, open trade-exposed economy is no longer competitive.

Economists are speaking out. Dave McKay, president and CEO of RBC, raised a concern about investment capital leaving Canada in real time, noting that a significant exodus of capital from Canada to the United States is well under way and that we should be worried.

These comments have been echoed by John Manley, president and CEO of the Business Council of Canada, who stated recently that real issues of competitiveness are absent from the federal government's thinking, noting that Canada is, “always in this difficult competition to attract investment and to retain investment — and it's not be taken lightly because investment can move quickly.”

We even have the Suncor president and CEO Steve Williams saying that his company, Canada's largest integrated oil firm, will not embark on new major projects in our country because of the burdensome regulations and uncompetitive tax rates.

Finally, late last year, the TransCanada Corporation, after spending over a billion dollars, cancelled its proposed $17-billion energy east pipeline project out of frustration with the government and the project approval process.

These and other examples across the country demonstrate that policy-makers have a definite impact on our economy. That is what we are seeing with Justin Trudeau's failure to get this job done and creating burdensome regulations on investors. We must always remember that investors have choices.

I want to touch on the indigenous partners aspect, because this has been brought up time and time again. I will relate it to a story in my own riding, the Mount Polley disaster, which I have brought up before. There are no two ways about it, it was a disaster. However, the proponent, the company, and our indigenous first nations partners within our riding, as well as our communities, banded together and got the job done with respect to mitigating the disaster.

We had protesters out there day in and day out. When a card check was done on those people, it was shocking to find that most of the protesters were not from our region, and some of them were not even from Canada. However, they were there making sure that Canadian businesses had every roadblock put in front of them. There is a lot to be said in the media about how our indigenous partners and indigenous communities are tired of being pawns for environmental groups, of being trucked out in the media and being used as pawns in this. Our indigenous communities only want an opportunity to be self-sufficient and to be partners in these programs. In the Trans Mountain pipeline, over 43 indigenous communities are equity partners in this project.

In the seconds that I have left, I want to read this. It states, “A Conference Board of Canada report has determined the combined government revenue impact for construction in the first 20 years of expanded operations is $46.7 billion, including federal and provincial taxes...for public services such as health care and education.”

It also notes that B.C. alone would receive $5.7 billion, Alberta would receive $19.4 billion, and the rest of Canada would share $21.6 billion because of this project.

If there is a project that has national interest, this is the one. Unfortunately, through delay tactics and confusing comments, the Prime Minister has shaken investor confidence, and that is unacceptable.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

Before I go to questions and comments, I realize it is late and we are all tired, but I want to remind the hon. members to refer to each other by their riding or their title and not their names.

[Randy Boissonnault, Liberal, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his comments, and I am thrilled that he is here in such robust health, even if his comments may not make me very happy. On the full emphasis of his words, I have to disagree in terms of the Prime Minister's and our government's leadership on this file.

Beyond the bluff and bluster, I have one question for the hon. member. How many pipelines to tidewater did his government get built, not approved? How many pipelines to tidewater did the last Conservative government get built?

[An hon. member]

The same number as the Liberals.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

I want to remind the hon. members that they do not have to coach each other from across the floor. They can go over and talk quietly, whisper.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Mr. Speaker, he is a typical Liberal, just deflect, point fingers, and blame others.

The truth is that we approved four pipelines, and as soon as this group came in, they vetoed one that would have gotten the pipeline to tidewater. It was probably one of the most vital projects that Canada has seen to this date. Now we have Trans Mountain.

I guess the same could be asked of the Liberals. How many pipelines have they gotten to tidewater? Right now, it is zero.

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

Mr. Speaker, I respect the member's work, especially the work in his riding. I know he had a great private member's bill on people with PTSD that I was proud to support.

I have a big riding like his in the interior of British Columbia. Yesterday I was driving back from the other side, and it is about a six-hour drive. Of course, I had to stop for gas. I do not have to stop for gas very often, because I drive a hybrid. I am waiting for the day when the government puts in enough charging stations so I can buy an electric car.

I stopped for gas, and I went in to pay. The woman there said she recognized me as the MP. She said that she wanted to ask the government, the House of Commons, why the government is saying it is going to bail out Kinder Morgan when it should be investing that money in Canada building refineries, so that we could have jobs in Canada on an ongoing basis. It would free up the space in a lot of the pipelines.

Would the member comment on that? If we had the same amount of investment in refineries and other projects, it would create more jobs and have much more benefit for Canadians than this pipeline.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my hon. colleague's question. It was very respectful.

I take a little exception to our NDP colleagues. It always seems that it is the Conservatives who are standing up for jobs. We know that the NDP enjoy a very strong labour support, but sadly that labour support has been very quiet on this project and this issue.

To answer my hon. colleague's question, I believe, and our Conservative colleagues believe, that the Prime Minister bailing out Kinder Morgan on this sets a dangerous precedent. There could be other projects that will come along, and we have a Prime Minister who is very clearly used to paying his way out of trouble. We have seen it time and again, and we are seeing it right now. It sets a dangerous precedent.

We need to get that project done. I think that if the Prime Minister had shown some leadership right from the start on this issue, some strong words backed up by strong action, the bank of Canadians would not have to be bailing out this project.

[Randeep Sarai, Liberal, Surrey Centre, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member of Parliament for South Surrey—White Rock.

Anyone who has ever spent time at a busy port like the Port of Vancouver knows how vital marine shipping is to our country's economy. The marine sector is critical to the national economy. The marine shipping industry contributes about $3 billion annually to Canada's gross domestic product.

The economic impact of commercial shipping, however, is much higher. It is estimated at around $30 billion, according to a recent study by the Council of Canadian Academies. This is because marine shipping plays a key role in facilitating international trade. Canada's domestic fleet and foreign vessels transport roughly $200 billion in international trade in goods each year, and marine trade provides some 250,000 direct and indirect jobs to Canadians all across the country.

There is no question that many of the goods and services that underpin the high quality of life of Canadians have either arrived or departed on ship. They may be consumer goods manufactured overseas that are off-loaded at container terminals, or domestic agricultural products harvested from the Prairies that are exported through Canada's extensive network of ports.

This government clearly understands and appreciates the importance of marine shipping.

As British Columbians will also tell us, what they truly love about living on Canada's Pacific coast is its extraordinary beauty and breathtaking landscapes. The abundance of nature's bounty is a cornerstone of their quality of life. Preserving and protecting this natural heritage is important, not only to local residents but to all Canadians.

Our oceans and coasts are vital to the Canadian experience and our well-being. In addition to enabling the export and import of goods to and from foreign markets, our coasts support traditional indigenous and coastal communities' livelihoods. They are the habitat for abundant Canadian fisheries and a wide variety of sea life. They are a magnet that attracts tourists from every corner of the globe, which is another important part of our economy.

That is why the Government of Canada recognizes that we need a safe and secure transportation system for a healthy and competitive economy. As a trading nation, marine transportation is fundamental to Canada's economic well-being. This is why the government has taken a fact and evidence-based approach in the decision to approve the Trans Mountain expansion, and to work with indigenous peoples and coastal communities to implement the $1.5 billion oceans protection plan.

We have put in place a world-leading marine safety and shipping regime for the transportation of petroleum and other products in order to protect our oceans. These include federal regimes with robust compensation and liability systems that continue to be advanced and improved to minimize impacts on Canadians, ensure they are protected from costs and damages, and that the environment is protected. National Energy Board requirements for TMX are adding even more protections beyond those already in place.

Developing and exporting our resources to benefit all Canadians can be done, will be done, and must be done, using the toughest laws and most stringent safety requirements.

We are further enhancing safety through the oceans protection plan, and doing so in consultation with indigenous communities. The federal government has made unprecedented investments in response capability, the Coast Guard, and protection of whales and other marine life. The OPP is a robust national plan designed to implement a world-leading marine safety system and protect our oceans and coastlines from the potential impacts of marine shipping to ensure the health of our oceans for generations to come.

The Government of Canada believes that Canadians want and deserve a strong economy and a clean environment. It is taking direct and results-driven action to make this vision a reality. Through the oceans protection plan, we are focusing on action, collaboration, and science.

OPP projects are on track to deliver real results to Canadians. In addition to improving marine safety and protecting marine ecosystems through the oceans protection plan, the government is building meaningful partnerships with indigenous people and working with coastal communities, municipalities, provinces, territories, and stakeholders to better co-manage Canada's three oceans.

We are providing additional funding in science and research to improve knowledge and technologies that will prevent and mitigate marine incidents such as oil spills.

We are deploying two large, heavy-tow tugs in British Columbia, improving incident management toward seamless response by implementing the incident command system and driving inclusive and innovative regional and area spill response planning in the Salish Sea and in northern British Columbia.

We are implementing the incident command system and enhancing emergency coordination centres across the government in order to bolster our response capabilities.

These measures will improve the coordination of response actions of departments and agencies when dealing with an incident by using a common response system.

We have identified coastal restoration as a key priority to addressing marine biodiversity loss and threats to aquatic ecosystems and are supporting projects that address restoration priorities and contribute to restoration plans.

We are providing funding that will help reduce barriers to marine training for under-represented groups such as women, northerners, Inuit, and indigenous peoples. Greater access to training will support them in joining the marine labour force.

Once again, I would like to remind members that the oceans protection plan will help create economic opportunities for Canadians today, including jobs for middle-class Canadians, while protecting our waters and our ecosystems for generations to come.

We know that British Columbia is consulting with its citizens on enhancements to the spill management system, and while our government has already consulted extensively, we look forward to working with the province to close gaps in the provincial prevention and response systems and explore how, within its own jurisdiction, the province can enhance efforts to protect our waters and coastal communities.

As we continue to implement the great work that is being done under the oceans protection plan, we look forward to working with every province and territory, including British Columbia and Alberta, to build a stronger future for Canadians. We are protecting Canadians and our coasts. Our requirements on Kinder Morgan tankers are more stringent than for tankers entering Washington State because we have a made in Canada regime in place.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister definitely has a credibility issue when he talks about pipelines. He said in the past that he wanted to phase out the oil sands. Then he says this pipeline will definitely get built. When put together, the Prime Minister has no credibility. We know he has no credibility on a number of other issues as well.

When it came to the recent Jaspal Atwal case, four different stories were going around. Would the member please clear this up. Did he invite Jaspal Atwal to the party?

[Randeep Sarai, Liberal, Surrey Centre, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member's question has no relevance, so I will answer on the credibility of the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister committed to making a science-based assessment to every decision the government made. We have reinstated that. We have a National Energy Board that has twice approved this project. Our Prime Minister stands by that decision. Our Prime Minister has invested heavily in our coastal waters, protected marine coastal environments in the north, put a moratorium on oil and crude tanker traffic there, and decided which pipeline, based on science and evidence, was the safest to do. He has stood by that to the very end and to this day.

There are no constitutional roadblocks along this way. This is a war between two NDP governments that are fighting between two provinces. As far as the approval process is concerned, our government has stood fast in support of Kinder Morgan, along with managing the environment and ensuring that it is safe and secure.