House of Commons Hansard #306 of the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was targets.
Alexandre Boulerice NDP Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC
Madam Speaker, 150,000 jobs are affected by the steel and aluminum industries. That is a considerable number of jobs. These workers have already endured months of threats from Donald Trump and they have had enough of being treated like a bargaining chip. Obviously, now is the time to work together to get through this crisis.
Does the government intend to announce a program to protect affected workers by offering them subsidies, loans, or loan guarantees, for example?
We want details.
Chrystia Freeland LiberalMinister of Foreign Affairs
Madam Speaker, I want to emphasize that these tariffs are completely unacceptable and that we will take strong action to defend our industry and our workers.
Canada will impose trade restrictions on American imports of up to $16.6 billion. That is a strong Canadian response that is 100% reciprocal to the U.S.'s very poor decision.
Jamie Schmale Conservative Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON
Madam Speaker, the Prime Minister flippantly equates energy east, the 15,000 jobs it would have created, and the $55 billion it would have injected into the Canadian economy to old news.
Atlantic Canadians do not think that creating good-paying jobs that keep families together and close to home is old news. The General Electric employees in Peterborough who lost their jobs when the Liberals killed energy east do not think unemployment is old news.
Could the Prime Minister explain to Canadians why he is picking winners and losers in the energy sector?
Kim Rudd LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources
Madam Speaker, I will once again say that this is an absurd comparison. Suggesting that political interference was somehow the answer lies at the heart of the Conservative Party's failure on pipelines. It is shocking that the Conservatives cannot tell the difference between a project that is facing provincial political interference and a project that a company withdrew based on its own market decision.
Had it not been withdrawn by the proponent, our government would have used the same process to evaluate the energy east pipeline that saw the Trans Mountain and Line 3 pipelines approved. Thousands of middle-class jobs are being created.
The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes
I will remind members that when somebody else has the floor they should be listening, and if they have questions they can get up to ask them.
The hon. member for Sarnia—Lambton.
Marilyn Gladu Conservative Sarnia—Lambton, ON
Madam Speaker, the Liberals nationalized the Kinder Morgan pipeline project using billions of taxpayer dollars, even though NDP protestors are still blocking access to construction sites and the B.C. government still wants to kill the project. For energy east, the Liberals did not put any taxpayer dollars on the table, just roadblocks that no other project, including Trans Mountain, had to meet. As a result, energy east was killed.
Why are the Liberals picking winners and losers in our energy sector?
Kim Rudd LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources
Madam Speaker, I am proud to say that all the east coast MPs on this side of the House work very hard to ensure that they have all the information and provide that information back to their constituents.
As I said a moment ago, had the energy east proposal not been withdrawn by the proponent, our government would have used the exact same process that saw both the Trans Mountain expansion and the Line 3 pipeline approved. Both of those projects are creating good middle-class jobs for Canadians and growing the economy while protecting the environment.
Pat Kelly Conservative Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB
Madam Speaker, when the Liberals took office, there were four viable private sector pipelines, and now there are none. Crushing regulations, a tanker ban, anti-energy rhetoric, a carbon tax, and an unwillingness to assert the rule of law have chased the private sector out of Canada to other energy-producing places, such as Texas and Kazakhstan.
With a track record of failure like this, how can the Liberals possibly rebuild investor confidence in the Canadian energy industry?
Kim Rudd LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources
Madam Speaker, we will take no lessons from the Conservatives on how to promote energy in this country.
What we are doing is investing to protect thousands of jobs in Alberta, British Columbia, and across the country. During 10 years, the Conservatives' rigid ideology failed to build pipelines to markets other than the United States, and it failed Canadian workers. When the Prime Minister went to Fort McMurray and met energy sector workers, he told them the government has their back.
This is an investment in hard-working Canadians. The Conservatives might think it is too risky to bet on Canadians, but we do not.
Blake Richards Conservative Banff—Airdrie, AB
Madam Speaker, I would remind the Liberals that when they took office there were four viable private sector pipelines, and now there are none, plus taxpayers are on the hook for $4.5 billion.
The Liberals are so committed to wasting taxpayers' money that they did this even though Kinder Morgan did not ask for a single cent, and we are still not an inch closer to getting a pipeline built. The private sector has left. It is not interested in investing in our energy sector any longer. The Liberals are the ones who have driven it out.
How do they think anyone actually believes they are capable of getting a pipeline built?
Kim Rudd LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources
Madam Speaker, we are taking a balanced approach to grow the economy and create jobs. The Harper Conservatives just could not get the balance right.
Let us listen to what people are saying.
Katie Bays, an analyst with Height Securities in Washington, said, “We think obviously this is very constructive...for Canada and clearly for Canadian producers in particular because it creates a lot of regulatory certainty over the time that the Trans Mountain expansion can get done.”
Alberta Premier Rachel Notley calls this “a major step forward for all Canadians.”
Mayor Nenshi said, “While it is a shame that the British Columbia government's antics have led to this, I'm very pleased that the federal government has taken this step to get this vital pipeline built”.
Shannon Stubbs Conservative Lakeland, AB
Madam Speaker, Kinder Morgan wanted to invest $7.4 billion in Canada to build the Trans Mountain expansion. The Liberals had to enforce federal jurisdiction and give certainty. They did not. Instead, the Prime Minister gave Kinder Morgan $4.5 billion to walk away, and he emboldened anti-energy activists to keep fighting the expansion.
The Canadian Energy Pipeline Association said, “We do not believe that this outcome will instill investor confidence in Canada.” The Prime Minister failed Canadians. When will he start to champion private investment in Canadian energy?
Kim Rudd LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources
Madam Speaker, I have an excellent quote as well. The Suncor CEO said, “I don't think...I've [ever] had a higher degree of confidence that these lines are going to be built.”
The Conservatives continue to focus on ownership, and we will continue to focus on workers. Our approach is nothing new. Even in Conservative circles, the great Progressive Conservatives like Peter Lougheed understood that public investment in our natural resources is important to help the industry grow and support Canadians.
The Conservatives, however, will continue the ideological ways that failed Canadian energy workers for 10 years.
Shannon Stubbs Conservative Lakeland, AB
Madam Speaker, there are about 825,000 kilometres of pipeline in Canada, with zero tax dollars needed. Under the Conservatives, nearly 8,000 kilometres of pipeline was built, with zero tax dollars needed. The reality is that the Prime Minister killed nearly 8,000 kilometres of pipeline already, with hundreds of billions of private dollars gone. Now he has bought 1,100 kilometres of pipeline that was paid for and built with private dollars 60 years ago, and $4.5 billion tax dollars will build pipelines in the U.S., without paying for an inch of new pipeline in Canada.
Does the Prime Minister really believe that forcing taxpayers to cover his failures is a success?
Kim Rudd LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources
Madam Speaker, the Conservatives had 10 years to build a new pipeline to ship Canada's resources to new markets. They 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 that party on how to champion resource projects.
Sheila Malcolmson NDP Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC
Madam Speaker, since the Liberals announced they are buying Kinder Morgan's old pipeline, my phone has not stopped ringing. British Columbians are telling me they feel betrayed by the government and dismayed that the Liberal priorities are so stuck in the past. They are angry that the Prime Minister has given a Texas pipeline company a massive bailout by putting all the financial and environmental risks on Canadians. This is about the future of our country and the future of our planet.
What kind of climate leader buys bitumen pipelines?
Catherine McKenna LiberalMinister of Environment and Climate Change
Madam Speaker, we have always said that a strong environment and a clean economy go together. We have a climate plan. We are following through on that climate plan, and the investment in the twinning of the Trans Mountain pipeline fits within that climate plan. Why? Because the NDP government in Alberta has taken serious action on climate change. It has put a price on pollution, and it is phasing out coal. It has also put the first-ever hard cap on emissions in the oil sands. That is how this fits in our climate plan. Of course, we are doing more. We are making investments in—
Anne Minh-Thu Quach NDP Salaberry—Suroît, QC
Madam Speaker, indigenous children in Canada are living in third-world conditions. There are indigenous communities where children get sick because they do not have access to clean drinking water, but helping those children is not really on the government's list of priorities. It is in the national interest to use Canadians' money to buy a leaky old pipe for $4.5 billion.
Is that really the national interest?
Has the KM pipeline become the PM's pipeline?
Is that the Liberals' vision for society?
Don Rusnak LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indigenous Services
Madam Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition recently said that the Conservatives have done a great job in the past. However, they have ignored Jordan's principle, which was passed by Parliament in 2007, and refused calls for a national inquiry. We are focusing on forging a relationship based on a recognition of rights respecting co-operation and partnership. We will let our record stand.
Dane Lloyd Conservative Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB
Madam Speaker, the Minister of Finance announced that Canada would be purchasing a pipeline for $4.5 billion. Like many Canadians, I was shocked, because for months we heard from Kinder Morgan that it only wanted the government to stand up for the rule of law and end the delays. The Liberals have failed to win the confidence of Kinder Morgan. Now Canadians are on the hook for billions of dollars to construct Trans Mountain.
Under the Conservatives, investors had confidence to build northern gateway, energy east, and the Trans Mountain pipelines. When will the Liberals start standing up for energy investment, instead of making taxpayers pay for their failure?
Kim Rudd LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources
Madam Speaker, I will once again remind the official opposition that the northern gateway pipeline was thrown out by the courts for insufficient consultation with indigenous peoples and communities.
The Trans Mountain expansion project is in the national interest. It means thousands of jobs to strengthen and grow the middle class. The Conservatives had 10 years to build pipelines to new export markets, and they could not get it done. They believe we have to make a choice between the environment and the economy. We do not. This is a country where it is possible to do both at the same time, and that is exactly what we are doing.
David Yurdiga Conservative Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB
Madam Speaker, when the Liberals took office there were four viable private sector pipelines. Now there are none. The private sector has left, taking over $100 billion in investments with it. The Liberals' mismanagement has driven it out, and now taxpayers have become the owners of a 60-year-old pipeline.
With the announcement, the Prime Minister indicated he wanted construction to begin immediately. I have a simple question: What progress has been made on construction over the course of the last three days?
Kim Rudd LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources
Madam Speaker, this is about getting our resources to new markets so that we are not sending 98% of our oil exports only to the U.S.
Let us talk about the pipelines that have been approved, many of them in Alberta: expanded export capacity for the Alberta Clipper, the Nova Gas pipeline, the Line 3 replacement project, the Trans Mountain expansion, and Keystone XL. I could go on and on. This is about creating thousands of good middle-class jobs for Canadians, while protecting the environment.
Sylvie Boucher Conservative Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île dOrléans—Charlevoix, QC
Madam Speaker, we are a few days away from the opening of the G7 meetings and many questions about public safety remain unanswered.
Yesterday we learned that special constables have not received any training to contain the anticipated demonstrations and that the customs officers that will be on duty during the summit will be unarmed, which happens only when there is zero risk.
Can the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness assure us that law enforcement agencies will be adequately deployed during the G7?