Debates of Sept. 24th, 2018

Natural Resources

[Linda Lapointe, Liberal, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, let me set the record straight. For my constituents from Rivière-des-Mille-Îles watching me this evening, I can say that currently 99% of the oil and gas that we produce goes to the United States and they buy our products at a discount. We absolutely must open other markets and that will happen by doubling the capacity of the Trans Mountain pipeline.

My colleague said that we have to be innovative. We are finding innovative ways to make oil sands development even greener. We are working with 13 companies that are the largest producers. We will get there because the economy and the environment go hand in hand.

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer—Mountain View, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it seems that the Liberals always have to suggest that no pipelines were built. However, right in the report, in section 3, it talks about export capacity. It talks about the number of proposed pipelines from the Alberta oil sands to export markets that have sought approval in the past years. Witnesses indicated Line 9 and the initial Keystone pipeline. These went through. A number were built over the last 10 years. I doubt if my saying so is going to change the talking points for the rest of the evening.

One pipeline I would like to talk about is the Kinder Morgan pipeline and the fact that both the member and I are now shareholders in that pipeline. It was purchased for $4.5 billion. Kinder Morgan took the extra $2 billion, or whatever it was, and is now going to be building pipelines in Texas that are going to be in competition with us. It will get its oil to markets around the world, and we cannot get our oil to markets around the world.

Does the member feel that this investment was that good a deal?

[Linda Lapointe, Liberal, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague. He and I worked together at the Standing Committee on International Trade, where we met with a number of stakeholders from Alberta and elsewhere. It was always a pleasure to work together.

With respect to the member's remarks, I will again refer to the Prime Minister's mandate letter about exploring other markets, which will help workers and all of the businesses in the natural resources sector. Everything must be done in consideration of the fact that the environment and economic development go together. That is very important. Canada needs to develop other markets.

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

Mr. Speaker, one of the things I like to point out often when we are discussing energy projects is the fact that when the Liberal government came to power, there were several major energy projects on the table. Energy east was on the table. We had northern gateway on the table. We had Trans Mountain and Petronas LNG. We had a big Shell heavy oil project on the Peace River.

All of these projects were sitting on the docket waiting for approval, or in some cases, had been approved. Since the Liberal government has come to power, all these projects, except for the Trans Mountain project, have been abandoned.

I wonder what the member opposite has to say about the fact that her government continues to say that Trans Mountain is at the top of its list, but the list has nothing else left. The list has only one project.

[Linda Lapointe, Liberal, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is kind of tempting to point out that the previous government was in power for 10 years but did not build a single one. It did not develop other markets. We are developing one. It is important to open up other sectors and get better prices for our natural resources so we can create middle-class jobs. As I said, the economy and the environment go hand in hand.

[Brigitte Sansoucy, NDP, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, before I became an MP, I was a municipal councillor and chaired an environmental advisory committee for six years. In Saint-Hyacinthe, we gave serious consideration to the possibility of allowing shale gas development on our land. I realized then that the people I represented were very concerned about the environment, and the same is true in my role as member of Parliament. My constituents believe that we must look at renewable energy if we want to open new markets.

In Saint-Hyacinthe we decided on biomethanation, which involves turning organic matter into biogas. We are talking about new markets, but the pipeline will transport this resource only to California. There are no other buyers. This is what my colleagues from British Columbia told me.

Here is what I do not understand. We do not hear enough about transitioning to renewable energy in our talks on new markets. Gas and oil are not renewable. These resources will run out in several decades. We need to start preparing now.

I do not understand why we are talking about new markets, but we do not hear more about renewable energy. I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on this.

[Linda Lapointe, Liberal, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's question.

Indeed, we must invest in research and development. Earlier, I mentioned an innovation alliance that is working on almost completely eliminating the CO₂ emissions produced by oil and gas development in Alberta.

My colleague comes from Quebec, like me, and every Quebecker remembers what happened in Lac-Mégantic. We must find safe ways to transport our natural resources and open new markets, and now is the time to do it. We must also continue to invest in research and development to find green energy solutions, but for the time being, we need these resources.

[Yasmin Ratansi, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like my colleague to give a brief background as to how Bill C-69 would make environmental assessment more transparent? That is where everyone's questions are coming from and everyone worries about these things. Could she give a little highlight on that?

[Linda Lapointe, Liberal, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague.

Bill C-69 will make environmental and energy rules more transparent. This will allow us to make projections. We will accomplish all of this, and this bill will allow us to go further.

I will repeat, because I want my colleagues opposite to understand. The environment and the economy go hand in hand. We must create jobs for the middle class. By working with first nations in Alberta, we will be able to keep the economy going.

[Jim Eglinski, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Red Deer—Mountain View.

I rise in the House to speak to the natural resources committee's report on the future of Canada's oil and gas sector.

Oil and gas is very important to my riding of Yellowhead, a large region west of Edmonton that goes into the Rocky Mountains. Within my riding, there have been many discussions and comments regarding the Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain pipeline, because it is of great importance to us. Most people do not realize that over one-third of the Trans Mountain pipeline, more than 300 kilometres of pipe, runs through the heart of Yellowhead. It plays a significant role in the economy of our region.

The constituents in my riding and Alberta rarely complain. We are hard-working people, and we have a diversified economy throughout the province. Beside oil and gas, Yellowhead has coal mining, agriculture, forestry and tourism. As I said, people do not complain much, and we are hard-working people, but we saw a lot of large protests dealing with the carbon tax, and I have heard from many constituents who have concerns about recent things that are happening with the Trans Mountain pipeline.

Just on the outskirts of my town of Edson, we have a massive area covered with pipe that is waiting to go into the ground. I know that I cannot use props here, but I would like my colleagues to imagine taking all of the property from the green lawn in front of the Supreme Court and justice department buildings to the Confederation building, the West Block, the building we are in, and the East Block all the way over to the Chateau Laurier, and imagine all of that land stacked with 24-inch pipe, four high. That is what we have on the outskirts of Edson. There are thousands of kilometres of pipe just waiting to be put into the ground. Then imagine on the side a line of picker trucks just sitting there waiting to load the pipe to take it to its destination. All of this has been sitting for quite a while corroding, wasting money, space and jobs.

Members can also imagine that when an announcement was made this summer when 290 kilometres of preliminary work was beginning, with the ground being flagged and cleared in preparation to lay pipeline, that people in my community celebrated. They had tailgate parties and barbeques. They were so happy to see themselves going back to work. People were excited to move into the area, buy new homes or vehicles and finally get back to a good, solid work base. Then we were absolutely devastated to learn that the Federal Court of Appeal had overturned the federal government's approval of the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion, including because the Liberals had failed to engage in meaningful consultations with first nations. After all the rule changes the Liberals had made and everything else, they had failed.

I heard from realtors who lost house sales and an automobile dealership who lost vehicle sales. Investment in the region immediately halted. Oil and gas development in Yellowhead is important, and I cannot stress enough the significant impact that the Liberal government's failure has had on our region.

Why have the Liberals failed? I think this report defines a pretty good outline as to why.

In February 2016, the Standing Committee on Natural Resources undertook a study on the future of Canada's oil and gas, mining and nuclear sectors. Since the Liberal government dominates committees, the resulting report failed to adequately represent the testimony presented by the witnesses unless it favoured the government's strategies or ideas. In other words, the government cherry-picked the information that would back up its own agenda instead of representing the full testimony of witnesses.

The Liberals refused to realize the reality of the situation we are facing. For example, the report as presented included testimony in favour of the carbon tax, but failed to provide the testimony that spoke about the adverse effects a carbon tax would have on industry and consumers across Canada.

One witness stated:

...unless it's aligned with trading partners, the price of carbon can cause a lack of competitiveness. This should be of concern to people concerned about the climate as well as people concerned about the economy, because if you're simply moving business to other jurisdictions, you're not actually reducing overall carbon emissions.

The ideal would be carbon pricing that's North American or even worldwide, which would prevent those kinds of....

We need everybody to buy into the scheme if we are doing it or not encourage anybody because people will just buy the oil and gas in third world countries, which are clearly a lot worse than we are here in Alberta or Canada.

Recommendation 5 of the report completely disregards this reality and encourages the carbon tax program in Canada, which will make us uncompetitive and continue to chase investment out of Canada.

By the way, under the Liberal government, foreign investment has plunged to the lowest it has been in eight years. Other witnesses' testimony conveniently left out of the report stated, “Canada contributes less than 2% of the world's greenhouse gas emissions.” If we refer to China, it is about 28% and the United States is about 15% of greenhouse gas emissions.

The Liberal government's narrative against Canada's natural resource development has been predicated on the assumption that the current regulatory framework is broken and it needs to be changed to restore public confidence and the trust of Canadians, yet the government refuses to recognize that we contribute less than 2% of global emissions and that Canada's standards are the best in the world. That is not just a talking point. That is backed up by reports from many of the witnesses that gave testimony which was left out of the report.

As one witness stated, “Canada also has world-leading environmental regulations. Of the top oil reserve holders, only Canada is covered by world-class, stringent environmental regulations and oversight.”

Companies have worked under our environment framework for years with success. As stated by another witness:

...over the past 10 years, under NEB auspices, several pipelines have been built. Certainly the Line 9 pipeline was approved under the NEB process. The Access pipeline and the initial Keystone pipeline were built. There is a list of pipelines that went through the regulatory process under the NEB, that went through consultation, that went through environmental review, and that were built.

My point is that we had a strong process in place that was reliable, effective, and held the trust of Canadians, so why is investment declining? It is declining because the Liberal government has created regulatory uncertainty in its new assessment process for natural resources infrastructure projects.

For comparison, the original Trans Mountain pipeline was proposed in March 1951. Construction began in February 1952 and it was flowing oil in 1953. That is less than a year to move through that process. In 2004, Kinder Morgan began the process to add a second pipeline running parallel to the first. In 2008, the project was approved and completed. That is only four years to move through the process. Then in 2013, Kinder Morgan began the application process for the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion and now, five years later, we are back to the consultation phase, thanks to the Liberals' mismanagement of the energy file.

Why would other companies want to invest in a country where it takes five-plus years to go through the process, and even then there is no guarantee that the pipeline will be built?

It is unfortunate that the Liberals have cancelled and held up Canadian pipelines. Stopping pipelines in Canada does not speed up the development of alternatives to oil and it does not slow down the growing oil demand in emerging economies.

As stated by another witness in the study, “Transportation infrastructure is required to meet these growing energy needs, and pipelines remain the safest and most efficient and the lowest greenhouse gas-intensive way of moving energy over long distances.”

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask my colleague, who is my neighbour in Yellowhead, about the other impacts of our lack of pipeline access, namely, the knock-on impacts on other industries. For example, my family are grain farmers and a lot of grain farmers in my riding have been unable to move product because CN and CP are moving so much crude by rail that our other industries are really suffering.

I would also ask my colleague about when we look over a list of all the different oil prices across the world, it is only Canadian oil, western Canada select oil, which is half the price of all the other oil products in the world. How much money is Canada leaving on the table? I hope he can shed some light on that.

[Jim Eglinski, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Mr. Speaker, in response to my hon. friend, my neighbour to the east, I would like to deal with the first part of his question, regarding railways.

The CN and CP rails go through my riding of Yellowhead and through his riding of Sturgeon River—Parkland. Both of these rails come from the west coast and go all the way through to eastern Canada. They are our major railroad hubs in Canada. They haul coal from the coal mines to our west. They haul grain from our region. They haul gravel from the sides of the mountains. They haul timber products from the forest companies. They haul newsprint.

I am constantly getting calls from different companies throughout our area that they are not getting trains from the railroad companies because the railroad companies are tied up moving crude oil in railcars. We cannot get vital products to the west coast of Canada and to eastern Canada, products going from west to east, because the tracks are tied up by oil cars. Coming through, it is a single-lane track and it doubles in my area. Constantly, we are seeing railroad crossings blocked anywhere from 15 minutes to two to three hours with trains waiting for other trains to go by just because of the heavy traffic use.

I cannot quite remember what the second part of the question was but I have run out of time anyway.

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

Mr. Speaker, at the very end of his speech, the member touched on the fact that the Trans Mountain pipeline was first built in the early 1950s, before I was even born.

One thing I have heard is that the route that was chosen preferentially went through Indian reserves because it was easy to get permission. In fact, first nations people in this country did not even get the vote until 1960.

I am just wondering if the member would comment on that, on how the world has changed in the intervening years that both he and I have been alive, and how different the world is now. Perhaps he could comment on why people in Canada demand that we look at the impacts these projects have on the environment, look to the future for our grandchildren and their grandchildren, and respect the rights of indigenous peoples. It has been shown in case after case before the Supreme Court that they have these rights and that we have to respect them. That is the world today. It is not the world of 1951 or 1953.

[Jim Eglinski, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Mr. Speaker, when we built this particular pipeline that was proposed in 1951, constructed in 1952, and running in 1953, there was consultation with the aboriginal groups, the Treaty Six group from Alberta. I know there was consultation throughout Alberta. Maybe there was not as much as we do today, because we know a lot more today than we did in 1951.

However, in 1951, Canada had a national energy board or regulatory board. The Province of Alberta also had one. It went through the standards that were applicable for those days and met those standards. Today we have different standards. Maybe 20 years from today we will have different standards than what we have today.

The company building the pipeline in those days met the guidelines of the government of the day, provincially and federally, and they met with aboriginal people, because I have spoken to elders on numerous occasions and they remember the discussions.

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer—Mountain View, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to speak this evening and to add my voice in support of Canada's oil and gas sector.

The report that we are discussing covered economic drivers, such as oil and gas prices, production costs, export capacity, future demand, investment and competition. The arguments that various witnesses presented dealt with the ways in which we could foster investment and trade opportunities, promote a new era of indigenous engagement and public trust, deal with a price on carbon, invest in technological innovation and establish the right policy framework. The concern that I have about this report, as was agreed upon by the majority on committee, was that on so many fronts, the conclusions did not address the true realities that exist in the industry today.

The unanimous motion to undertake the study on the future of Canada's oil and gas sector, with a focus on innovation, sustainable solutions and economic opportunities, presented an excellent forum to showcase to the world our first-class oil and gas sector. As I read through the report, what became obvious was that it seemed to be an apology piece for a natural resource sector rather than a chance to explain why Canada's resource development should be encouraged and promoted throughout the world.

At the time of the project, energy east, as well as Kinder Morgan, were being recognized as the final pipeline opportunities to have oil exports added to the four major pipelines that the Conservative government had previously overseen. These pipelines have become even more significant after the arbitrary cancellation of the previously approved northern gateway project.

The report also looked at pricing and production costs, which, of course, are indeed considerations that any company must keep in mind when determining where their investment dollars would go. It is too simplistic to say that investors are shying away from Alberta because of those economic factors, unless, of course, one factors in the uncertainty caused by the ever-burdensome red tape for the industry; the assault on all Canadian small businesses, particularly those that supply the oil and gas sector; a bizarre approach to international trade, which makes investors nervous; and the made-in-Canada disaster program that forces a non-competitive carbon tax on all Canadians that has no equal with our global competitors. The Liberal mistruths about Conservative pipeline management were at least exposed during the study, but once that was on the table, the report reverted back to an anti-oil spin to justify the foot-dragging that has been the hallmark of the Liberal government.

There was an acknowledgement that we needed to get moving on LNG pipeline projects, but the reality is that the same global investors that are agitating against our oil pipelines will use their network to stop LNG projects as well. After all, if Canadian resources produced under the strongest environmental standards in the world could ever get to market, who would need or want products from other countries?

In the report, the Canadian Chamber of Commerce warned that certain environmental policies, namely, carbon pricing, could undermine Canada's competitiveness unless it is aligned with trading partners. Its conclusion was that a price on carbon would cause a lack of competitiveness. There was an expression of concern regarding the greenhouse gas emissions levels of oil sands operations and how that might hinder Canada's ability to reduce domestic greenhouse gas emissions as addressed in the report. The irony associated with that discussion has always been the degree to which those calculations and the actual contribution to overall global emissions are portrayed.

In a November 27, 2014, Financial Post report, an energy adviser to some of the world's most developed economies, Fatih Birol, presented his concerns not only about the security of world energy sources but also the impact of fossil fuels on the climate.

What he said was that of all the issues that exist, he would never spend any time worrying about the level of carbon emissions from Canada's oil sands. He was frank about saying that oil sands CO2 emission from the oil sands is extremely low.

When speaking of the expected global requirement, Mr. Birol, chief economist of the Paris-based International Energy Agency, said that the IEA forecasts that in the next 25 years oil sands production in Canada will increase by more than three million barrels per day, “but the emissions of this additional production is equal to only 23 hours of emissions of China—not even one day.” Now, Mr. Birol also did not think a carbon tax was a particularly useful way of managing emissions. However, the sad part is that this carbon pricing scheme remains a major talking point in the report and is punishing one of our most important drivers of Canada's economy.

One cannot help but comment on the frustration industry has had with respect to the pipeline fiasco. The Prime Minister falsely claimed that the energy east project had been cancelled because of market and volume considerations. The major nail in the coffin was the government's intrusion into the pipeline approval process. It would seem as though the Liberals have used the cover of this report as a rationale to launch its disastrous Bill C-69.

In a recent Bloomberg report, former TransCanada CEO Hal Kvisle stated that in assessing the environmental impact in Canada's energy regulations this was “an absolutely devastating piece of legislation.” Mr. Kvisle also said that he did not think any competent pipeline company would submit an application if Bill C-69 came into force.

The key point is that any government needs to review projects early on and quickly send a signal to both the community and the pipeline proponent as to whether or not the Government of Canada supports the project. If pipeline companies are worried about Canadian projects going forward, then one should not be surprised that other investors around the world are no longer looking to Canada as a reliable investment. The sad part of this is that it does not mean oil and gas will not be sold around the world. It will be supplied from countries that truly have much less concern about the environment than we do. This carbon “slippage”, as it is called, will not help the global environment but it will continue to hamstring our economy.

The dissenting opinion presented by Conservative committee members addressed many of the points I have spoken about this evening, so let me put into the record the recommendations we presented.

We strongly encourage the Government of Canada to establish and make publically available strict, clear criteria and a fixed timeline for their assessment and consultation processes for major projects. The timely approval of new energy infrastructure projects would not only reduce Canada's reliance on foreign oil, but would also allow responsible, world-renowned and respected Canadian oil and gas to reach broader international markets.

We strongly encourage the Government of Canada to show confidence in our national regulators by allowing them to make evidence-based decisions independent of government politicization and unnecessary, duplicative interim principles.

We strongly encourage the Government of Canada to publicly and unequivocally support strategic energy infrastructure approved by the national regulators after extensive and thorough evidence-based processes to ensure Canada's competitiveness in the global energy market.

We strongly encourage the Government of Canada to recognize and to promote Canada's world-leading regulatory framework and environmental standards and stewardship by instilling rather than eroding public confidence in our national regulators and Canada's energy developers.

We strongly encourage the government not to impose any additional tax or regulation on the oil and gas sector or the Canadian consumer that our continental trading partners and competitors do not have. This includes measuring the upstream greenhouse emissions from pipelines, as laid out in the five interim principles, given pipelines do not contribute to these emissions in any material way and upstream emissions fall under provincial jurisdiction. Any national carbon pricing initiatives should undergo a thorough economic assessment to ensure balance between economic growth and environmental stewardship and responsibility.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend and I have the privilege of representing the third largest city in Alberta, the city of Red Deer and the surrounding rural areas, otherwise affectionately known as “central Alberta”. It is the hub in Alberta of oil and gas support services, including pipeline companies and rig companies that drill precision wells right there. There is an EVRAZ plant there making steel tubing for the industry, the Blindman Industrial Park and the Edgar Industrial Park. Everything is all set up there to be a service sector for the oil and gas industry.

The policies that have been implemented since the election in 2015 have caused such a chill in the investment environment in the oil and gas sector that employment has plummeted in central Alberta to levels we have not seen since Pierre Elliott Trudeau was the prime minister of Canada.

Could my colleague validate what I have been saying but has been falling on deaf ears, that the energy policies of the government are every bit as bad as the former national energy program?

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer—Mountain View, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to work with my colleague from Red Deer—Lacombe. I know how committed he is to making sure that those involved in the oil and gas industry in central Alberta have an opportunity to get back to work and do the things they are experts at.

To one of the points the member mentioned, I had an opportunity when I was on the international trade committee to speak to some investors in Singapore and Malaysia. They knew of investment opportunities in Canada and Alberta, but had looked at what was taking place in the country at the time, just a year or so ago, and said they could not tell their investors this was where they should be putting their dollars. That is the major concern we have.

We are at the stage where people say that they can put their money into Kazakhstan or other areas, because there is no certainty with any kind of a project here. That is the critical part. That is what the people in our municipalities are saying. That is why they are so frustrated, because they have work to do, as well as our provincial counterparts, to try to get projects up and running and allow things to happen. It is extremely frustrating to know that because of the actions taken in the last few years, we have lost the competitive advantage that we were so proud of as Canadians.

[Ken McDonald, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague keeps referring to investment uncertainty in Canada when it comes to natural resources, especially the oil sector. If there is that much uncertainty, why has offshore oil in Newfoundland and Labrador seen unprecedented bids by companies that have never before been involved in exploration there, but are now investing millions and millions of dollars in bidding on parcels of land to do exploration. How does he square that circle?

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer—Mountain View, AB]

Mr. Speaker, basically the member should be aware that he does not have to run a pipeline through British Columbia to get oil and gas to tidewater. The other aspect is that we do have refining opportunities in the Maritimes. This is a great opportunity for them. They do not see us being handcuffed in the same manner.

It does not seem that many people are giving western Canada much of a break, but I can assure the member that the next time I talk to some investors, I would make sure that those people in the Maritimes have an opportunity to advance and supply the world with their oil.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I spent a number of years on the natural resources committee in the previous parliament and parliaments before that. I will go back to a 2014 report published by this committee that talked about the cross-Canada benefits of the oil and gas sectors and contrast that with the 2016 report issued by the Liberal-dominated committee.

What have we seen since 2015? The Financial Post states that “The shrinking investment underscores how the energy slump is lingering in a Canadian economy that last year also began to face the additional headwind of growing U.S. protectionism,” and that foreign direct investment in Canada is plummeting to its lowest level in eight years. This is from the Financial Post, published here in Canada. Most of that foreign direct investment is fleeing the energy sector. Are a couple of projects here and there going ahead? Yes. However, I note that over $90 billion worth in projects has fled the capital market in Alberta and western Canada alone.

Why is this so important? When Alberta's economy is strong, Canada's economy is strong. Right now Alberta is suffering under the misguided policies of an NDP premier who has just recently understood, after reality collided with ideology, the anti-energy sentiment the NDP usually fosters in the House. The federal and provincial NDP are actually exactly the same party, such that members of one are members of the other. That said, this collision of reality and ideology had led the premier of Alberta to walk away from the Prime Minister's climate change plan. An NDP premier who was in lockstep with the carbon tax and the entire plan the current government has in place is walking away.

As a matter of fact, the people of Ontario recently voted largely in favour of the ideas put forward by the now-premier Doug Ford, who campaigned against the carbon tax. The Liberals would say that this is because Canadians do not understand the carbon tax. However, Doug Ford won in Ontario because Canadians do understand the carbon tax. They understand exactly what it is going to cost them and their families. They understand what it is going to cost with respect to everything in their lives.

Why is this so? If we look at any of the reports released by the natural resources committee, a number of expert witnesses therein have noted that oil and gas is as important in our daily lives as everything that we may take for granted, such as food and shelter. Members today walk to the House of Commons without knowing the number of underground gas, oil and energy pipelines they may have walked over. Every one of the 338 members of Parliament came here on a plane or train, or in an automobile. How would they have gotten here otherwise, unless they were riding wooden bicycles whittled with a bone knife? They are using fossil fuels. Everything good in our lives and that sets our economy apart from economies that struggle rests on our ability to use fossil fuels in our lives for the cause of good.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

Is there something funny about what I am saying? I do not know why this is so funny. People in my province are desperate. They are looking for jobs and opportunities. We have so many problems right now in central Alberta as a result of the current energy policies, which I guess is a source of humour to my colleagues across the way, one of whom is from Newfoundland and ought to understand the value of the energy sector. However, I will not digress.

Fossil fuels are so ingrained in every aspect of our lives, and when we say that a carbon tax is a tax on everything, it is absolutely true. Take a look around this room. Nothing in this room could be brought to us today without the use of fossil fuels. The wood would have to be harvested by fossil-fuel-powered equipment in the forestry sector. It would be cut in a sawmill and then refined and finished in a shop that relied heavily on electricity or other fossil fuels. The stone would not be quarried by hand. This would be done by heavy equipment. The food on the table out there came from a farm or was shipped here from another country. I am pretty sure that the pineapple on the plate in the government's lobby did not come from Newfoundland and Labrador or Alberta. It likely came from Hawaii.

How did it get here? It got here on an airplane. It was not a solar-powered one. It got here on an airplane or a ship that was powered by fossil fuels. Everything we have, the medical advancements and all the technology we have, is because we have cheap, reliable, affordable fossil fuels. It is absolutely critical that we do not get disconnected from that.

Should we be as energy efficient as possible? Absolutely. If the government was proposing energy efficient ideas, I would support them on a one-off basis if they had merit and were sustainable.

I do not know why in this country we have to hate oil and gas in order to like solar power and wind power and all these other things. Energy, and the taxes and the benefits it provides to our economy, pays for schools, infrastructure, health care and medicine. If our economy was doing so well, it would not be nearly impossible to balance a budget. However, the government seems to be either ideologically opposed to, or is actually misleading Canadians about, the economic success it has. It should be very easy to balance a budget in a good economy.

Notwithstanding that, let us have a short history lesson, because the government likes to basically blame everyone before it for everything it is failing at right now.

The Prime Minister inherited a balanced budget and three tidewater applications from one mandate of a Conservative government that had a majority in this House. I chaired the subcommittee on finance for Bill C-38. The industry had asked us to streamline and harmonize all the environmental regulations, which resulted in the pipeline applications the government across the way has botched so badly. The Parliamentary Budget Officer has said that a balanced budget is gone until 2045, 2050, or 2055.

We had three tidewater pipeline projects in the hopper. We did not inherit any of those from a previous Liberal government. None of those were applied for during the five years we were a minority parliament, because, of course, the Liberal Party, the NDP and the Bloc Québécois would block basically any legislative attempts we had in the House to harmonize or streamline the regulatory process and bring certainty so that the investment sector would actually want to do this. We had four and a half years. Bill C-38 was passed, and the three pipelines were applied for.

The government of the day inherited three tidewater pipeline applications. Each one of them, if we look at the total kilometres, would add up to about 7,000 kilometres of tidewater pipelines. The Prime Minister of today has presided over the demise of energy east, which was over 4,000 kilometres of pipeline to tidewater, and northern gateway, which was 1,100 kilometres of pipeline to tidewater. Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain is hanging on by a thread. It is not because Kinder Morgan wants to build it. It would like to flee this marketplace as well. Therefore, the government of the day now has to use taxpayer dollars to rescue the only project, for political reasons. It has nothing to do with science. It has nothing to do with technology or the capabilities and competencies of the energy sector. The energy sector knows how to build pipelines. It is the only one that actually does. I have a lot more faith in Kinder Morgan building the pipeline than the Government of Canada building the pipeline, because it knows how to do it. It has been doing it for 60 or 70 years through British Columbia without major incident.

Here is where we are today. We are sitting at a crossroads in this country, where we have the third-largest reserves of oil in the world and we cannot get our pipelines to tidewater. Some members over there are saying that the oil that goes through the Kinder Morgan pipeline already ends up in the United States. That is actually quite true. All the gas exported from Canada, 100%, goes to the United States. According to this report, 97% of the oil in the export market from Canada goes to the United States. That is because Vancouver is a shallow port, and large tankers will not come in to the port, which is why northern gateway was so important. It went to a deepwater port a little further north on the coast of British Columba, where a supertanker or any large vessel could actually go in and fill up the ship. That was the one that was going to diversify the market. Saudi, Nigerian and Venezuelan oil comes in by the boatload along the Atlantic coast, which I guess does not deserve the same protection with a tanker ban as the west coast.

Why? Why would our friends in Newfoundland and Labrador and Atlantic Canada not want to use oil that was sourced in Canada?

I have been here for a long time. I noticed who was on the plane going back and forth to Alberta when times were good, when there was certainty in the industry. It was people from Quebec. The planes that stopped in Ottawa to pick me up and take me back to Alberta came from Halifax, came from St. John's, Newfoundland. They were full of people wearing Shell Albian jackets, Pearl oil sands project jackets, Firebag project jackets. These people were providing for their families. They could have just stayed home if they wanted to and worked at thousands of jobs that would have been created at the other end of the pipeline.

It is not just the pipeline. It is not just the jobs in the creation of the pipeline. It is jobs at each end. It is jobs in Alberta, Saskatchewan, northern B.C. It is jobs for western Canadians. It is jobs in Atlantic Canada, processing, refining, upgrading, shipping and exporting Canadian products rather than watching the ships roll in from kingdoms like Saudi Arabia. The current Liberal government does not even have a relationship with Saudi Arabia anymore, even though we are still buying its oil, as well as oil from other despots and dictators who do not have anywhere close to the same environmental and human rights standards that Canada has.

The NDP, the Bloc, the Green Party and the Liberals all want to argue about how important environmental regulations are, and I would agree. I am an outdoorsman. I want clean water. I want clean air. I want clean land. I want to fish in a clean river. I want to hunt for moose where it is nice and I can trust that there is no environmental pollution.

I live in Alberta. I am not worried about any of those things. The air that I breathe is clean. The rivers that flow through my community are clear and blue. The land and resources in Alberta are wonderful.

I do not understand. Who are we comparing ourselves to when it comes to our environmental regulations? What is the problem? Could somebody point out to me the last major oil spill that we were not able to handle or clean up? Where is the problem, or is it actually a problem?

It is all about money. It is not about the environment. The carbon tax is not about the environment either. It is just about money. It is all a wealth transfer. It is all about people who want to be part of the process because they want the money, and that is fine. Let us just call it what it is.

Here is where we are. We are at the crossroads right now. We cannot say that Canada is a laggard when it comes to environmental stewardship or human rights, because no other oil-producing and exporting country in the world is better than we are. We are probably on par with Norway and the United States. There might be a few pluses and minuses in a few categories but we are on par with those guys. We are well ahead of Saudi Arabia.

The Liberal government cannot even keep our borders secure. There is no line-up of people from Canada fleeing to Iran or Iraq, both oil-producing countries in the Middle East. Could it be because Canada actually has it right and that all of the problems that we have here are manufactured political problems?

I have been to downtown Vancouver, where I have seen people driving cars. I have been to downtown Montreal, where I have seen people driving cars. I have been to downtown Toronto, where I have seen people driving cars. Why do we want to make that more expensive? Why do we want to make the cost of shipping goods to and from these people more expensive? Why do we want to make travel for Canadians to a warm climate in the wintertime more expensive?

Energy is the lifeblood of everything that is good in this country. I will go back to that point one more time.

All of the things that we have in our life that are good right now are brought to us by the advancement of fossil fuels. Until we refined kerosene several hundred years ago, we were burning wood and coal, which was messy and dirty. We were using basically 80% to 90% of all of the crops that we grew just to feed our horses and our cows. Now 3% of the population can grow the world's food, because of fossil fuels.

Now we have opportunities to be researchers, lawyers, musicians, artists. We do not have to worry about where our next meal is coming from. We do not have to worry about subsistence living here in Canada, because we have fossil fuels.

Today, the leader of my party, the Conservative Party of Canada, said that after the next election, when he became the prime minister of Canada, he would exercise the powers available to the government to do nation-building projects. That does not mean we will run roughshod over everyone. It just means we cannot have these stalemates go on for ever, because it drives investment out of our economy.

Should first nations be involved? Absolutely. Should we do everything we can to ensure, from an environmental perspective, that we can mitigate almost all the risks? Of course. No one will argue about that.

Why can the government not get this pipeline built? Let us take a look.

The Northern gateway project was approved. It had 209 conditions. Enbridge was moving ahead with it. It had spent about $1.5 billion of shareholders' money on that project to get it built. Over 30 of the 42 first nations along the route publicly supported it. Two were publicly opposed. The remaining 10 or so would not declare publicly whether they would support it or not.

Enbridge had the task then, through the National Energy Board, to go and resolve those 209 conditions set out by the board. It was on its way to do it. As a private sector company, it needed to get the buy-in from the first nations along the route. It had already been tested through our Constitution, through our courts. All of that process could be played out. The government did not need to get involved in that. That was Enbridge's job, and it was doing it.

Then the election happened and the pipeline was killed. It was a political decision, because the science and technical expertise at the National Energy Board said that pipeline was perfectly valid to go ahead. With 30 of 42 first nations publicly supporting it, or 75% of the first nations publicly supporting it along the route, I guess that was not enough. I am not sure we will ever get consensus on anything, which I think suits the Liberal Party just fine.

Anyway, the project is killed, the tanker ban is in place and there is no new investment coming for northern British Columbia at all, zero. The folks in northern British Columbia want the pipeline built. They want those jobs.

Energy east was another pipeline. One of the first things that happened after the government was elected in 2015 was it changed the regulatory review process by adding a six month and a three month process on to energy east and Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain pipelines, kicking the can down the road. According to the government of the day, it needed to do this because it would ensure these projects would have the social license, whatever that is, to get the pipeline built.

Then when it looked like Trans Canada was actually going to proceed and get Energy east built, the mayor of Montreal at the time, Denis Coderre, who was a former Liberal cabinet minister and member of Parliament in the House, said that he did not want the pipeline there. I did not realize that mayors of towns were responsible for telling the National Energy Board what to do, but apparently the Prime Minister of Canada today listens to them, rather than the technical experts at the National Energy Board.

It does not matter that pipelines are already going all the way through the community. People who have natural gas in their houses have a pipeline right to their houses. However, I digress.

Trans Canada was trying to get that pipeline built and what happened? The government said “It looks like we're going to have a success here. Let's put some more regulatory obstacles in by putting upstream and downstream emission standards on a pipeline”. Guess what. Trans Canada shelved the project. Why would it not^ Why would it expose more of its shareholders' money to that risk? Just like Enbridge had to walk away from, I am guessing, over a billion dollars worth of investment, Trans Canada did the same thing. It shelved the project.

That was two out of three gone. Now we have one pipeline left and it stands alone. All the social justice warriors, all the environmental activists and everyone could focus on this one pipeline. Guess what. All they did was get in front of the right judge and they got the ruling. The government could not even follow its own rules to build a pipeline that it had to buy from the private sector. That money is now going to projects elsewhere to compete against us. It now wants to sell this pipeline that it cannot build to a future investor. The Liberals are in charge. There is no doubt about it.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member said it was all about the money, and of course it always has been. That is why Saudi Arabia is building all its new electric power plants using solar instead of burning oil, because it is cheaper. It is why a lot of people want to buy electric cars, because they are cheaper to run and cheaper to fuel.

The member talked about all the jobs that would be created at the other end of the energy east pipeline. During this study when we had Irving in front of us to talk about the possibility of building refineries in New Brunswick at the end of that pipeline, the question was asked as to when that would be built. The witness said maybe in 10 years, maybe never, that it was all about the money, it is all about their investment and right now they are doing very fine, thanks, putting oil the other way.

The other thing is that in NAFTA we have a proportionality clause that requires us to send oil to the United States.

I wonder if the member could comment on those complications.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

Mr. Speaker, there is nothing complicated about understanding that Saudi Arabia is sunny and very warm—we might even call it a hot desert climate—in which case the peak time of use for electricity is during the day for air conditioning. Guess when the sun is shining: during the day. If my hon. colleague wants to only heat his home in Canada with the power of a solar panel on his roof, during the winter at night when the furnace cuts in, I wish him the best of luck with that.

Saudi Arabia's reality is not our reality, so the comparisons do not matter. The Saudis do not hate their own oil in order to promote solar panels. They are going to use the investments that they have from their oil to help them use solar panels. This is the conundrum that we have here in Canada. For some reason, we are self-loathing in this country about one of the wealthiest resources that we could possibly have that pays for a quality of life that is second to none in the world. It is just ridiculous.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?