Debates of Sept. 24th, 2018

Accessible Canada Act

[Robert Gordon Kitchen, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the legislation does talk about getting involved and how we structure things. The thing the legislation does not talk about is what those standards and regulations would be. That is what Canadians asked for. When the average Canadian with a disability heard about this legislation, they asked, “What's in it for me?” This legislation basically identifies how we set up a CEO, a commissioner, a committee to study this, but it does not say what that would do to help improve their lives.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

The hon. member for Souris—Moose Mountain will be pleased with the fact that he has three minutes left for questions and comments when the House next gets back to debate on the question that is before the House.

The House resumed from September 20 consideration of the motion that Bill C-71, An Act to amend certain Acts and Regulations in relation to firearms be read the third time and passed.

Firearms Act

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

It being 6:30 p.m., pursuant to order made on Thursday, September 20, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at third reading stage of Bill C-71.

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #886

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

I declare the motion carried.

(Bill read the third time and passed)

The House resumed from May 30 consideration of the motion.

Natural Resources

[Paul Lefebvre, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources, Lib.]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be speaking in today's debate in my new role as Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources.

I am honoured by the trust that the Prime Minister has put in me. I am well aware that I have been entrusted with a critical portfolio. The member for Northumberland—Peterborough South set the bar very high.

I have learned some valuable lessons in my years representing the people of Sudbury. Thanks to them, I have a better understanding of the importance of natural resource development, the importance of doing things right, and the importance of making sure that everyone wins, including proponents, local communities and indigenous peoples, in the spirit of creating jobs while protecting the environment. The House committee came to the same conclusion two years ago in its report entitled “The Future of Canada's Oil and Gas Sector: Innovation, Sustainable Solutions and Economic Opportunities”.

I have always suspected that some people were a bit slow to grasp the importance of harmonizing environmental protection and economic prosperity. All the same, it is astonishing that we are only now debating a report that was released by the House of Commons Standing Committee on Natural Resources a full two years ago.

I want to take a moment to refresh the memories of those who may have forgotten what that report said and remind them of what our government has achieved.

The committee explored the future of Canada's oil and gas sectors by focusing on innovation, sustainable solutions and economic opportunities. After holding seven days of meetings and hearing from 33 witnesses, the committee produced its report, which contained a number of recommendations. Among other things, the report recommended that our government continue to support the viability and competitiveness of Canada's oil and gas sectors, foster investment and trade opportunities, promote a new era of indigenous engagement and public trust, establish a carbon pricing system, invest in technological innovation and establish the right policy framework.

Our government approved that report and we are responding to each of its recommendations.

Through Natural Resources Canada, we are investing in research and the demonstration of innovative technologies, including those aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

Two specific initiatives are worth noting: first, the $50-million oil and gas clean tech program, which is helping to reduce the sector's greenhouse gas emissions; and second, the $25-million clean energy innovation program, which seeks to reduce emissions in a number of areas, including methane and volatile organic compounds in the oil and gas industry. Future work will focus on enhancing the environmental and economic performance by significantly reducing methane emissions.

Through mission innovation, our government has committed to doubling our investment in energy technology research and development. More broadly, NRCan is working with Canada's Oil Sands Innovation Alliance and other partners to maximize the innovative potential for the oil and gas sector.

As I mentioned, the committee report also calls on the government to rebuild public trust in resource development. Our government has done just that, including by restoring many lost environmental protections and introducing modern safeguards to the Fisheries Act and the Navigation Protection Act.

We announced a $1.5-billion oceans protection plan, the largest investment in Canada's coasts and oceans in our history.

We have introduced Bill C-69, the most comprehensive overhaul of the environmental review process in a generation.

The Prime Minister has said many times that no relationship is more important to our government than the one with indigenous peoples. In particular, we recognize that consultation with indigenous communities affected by resource projects is critical to renewing a nation-to-nation relationship. That is why, with respect to the Trans Mountain expansion project, we extended the timeline to allow for deeper, more meaningful engagement.

When concerns were expressed, we responded by committing nearly $65 million to establish an indigenous advisory and monitoring committee that would oversee environmental aspects through the entire life of that project. This was unprecedented. As Chief Ernie Crey of the Cheam First Nation said, “Indigenous people won't be on the outside looking in. We'll be at the table and on site to protect our lands and water.”

That said, we know that when it comes to indigenous engagement, a higher bar must still be met. Our government will be announcing how we intend to meet that bar in the coming days.

Finally, the committee recommended that we establish the right policy framework to ensure a competitive oil and gas industry. We agree, which is why we are continuing to work towards a Canadian energy strategy together with our indigenous, provincial and territorial colleagues. It is why, through the Vancouver declaration, Canada's first ministers committed to working on carbon sinks and other measures under the pan-Canadian framework on clean growth and climate change.

That is why we have done what 42 other countries and 25 subnational jurisdictions have done: put a price on pollution. It is something the United Nations has called a necessary and effective measure to tackle the climate change challenge.

Taken together, our actions constitute an unprecedented level of support for the oil and gas industry, all while demonstrating that economic development and environmental prosperity can indeed go hand in hand.

The opposition issued a dissenting report and I will address it directly.

The report calls, among other things, for clear timelines for assessments. I suggest that members opposite read Bill C-69, which provides predictable timelines and clear expectations. This would allow proponents to better plan and engage earlier, leading to stronger proposals and greater certainty. The opposition's report also recommends that we encourage our national regulators to “make evidence-based decisions independent of government politicization”.

This concern for evidence-based decision-making is a welcome change of pace in Canada.

I can guarantee my opposition colleagues that we truly value science, facts and evidence. I am also pleased to mention that the dissenting report calls on the government “to publicly and unequivocally support strategic energy infrastructure approved by the national regulators”. Of course, that is exactly what we did by approving the Line 3 replacement project.

Finally, the report calls on the government to promote Canada's regulatory framework by instilling “public confidence in our national regulators”. We agree, which is why we built on the work of the National Energy Board to create a modern, world-class regulatory body for the 21st century, an organization that has the independence and accountability needed to oversee a solid, safe and viable energy sector, an organization that includes new public engagement and indigenous reconciliation processes, all while ensuring that good projects get the green light.

I will conclude by saying that I am always happy to talk about everything our government is doing for the oil and gas industry. We know that it is a vital contributor to our economy and an important part of our future. The fact is that the recommendations in this report are already being implemented. Our government will continue to look forward, towards a very bright future for our oil and gas industry and towards the prosperity it will help ensure for all Canadians.

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

Mr. Speaker, I know the parliamentary secretary really dove in off the deep end with this new file and he is working hard, which is good to see.

I want to go back to when this report was tabled a couple of years ago just before the ministerial panel went out to talk about Trans Mountain in British Columbia and Alberta and before this added consultation was carried out. I point out recommendation 3 of the report, which says:

The Committee recommends that the Government of Canada work to encourage the early engagement of indigenous peoples in resource development decisions, in full compliance with existing treaty and indigenous rights to land and resources. Furthermore, the Committee recommends that the government ensure that consultation processes consider the multidimensional impacts of resource development projects on indigenous peoples, including issues concerning education, health, economic development, infrastructure and the environment.

After this report was written in the spring of 2016, and then tabled as soon as we came back in September, the government sent out bureaucrats to consult with indigenous people, and they did none of this. They simply took down notes of the concerns of indigenous communities and claimed that they had no power to change the National Energy Board's recommendations regarding the conditions on the pipeline.

I wonder if the member could comment on that and, of course, since this was found by the Federal Court of Appeal to be completely inadequate consultations, why the government did not listen to this, why it did not do adequate consultation and whether it will in the future.

[Paul Lefebvre]

Mr. Speaker, when it comes to consulting with our first nations across the country with respect to important projects, it is clear that the Federal Court of Appeal decision has indicated that, on the one hand, we have done more consulting with first nations than ever before, but at the same time more can be done with respect to making sure that when accommodations can be made, they should be made.

I can tell my colleague that as we review the Federal Court of Appeal decision, we know that we cannot use the same process that has been used in the past by the Conservative government, and that we need to do better. That is what the Federal Court of Appeal has told us. That is why we are now in discussions with the first nations communities that would be affected by this pipeline as to how we can really move forward on a nation-to-nation basis. Rather than tell them that these are the rules of engagement, we want to hear from them on how we can have that dialogue together on a nation-to-nation basis, not just a direct basis. That is new. That has never really happened before in Canada. This is what we are embarking upon. That is basically what the Federal Court of Appeal has told us.

We respect the court's decisions, as opposed to other parties in this House. We will make sure that we get it right. We will take the time to get it right to make sure that we are going in the right direction.

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

Mr. Speaker, the people in my riding and the people who live in Alberta do not have time for this guy to say that he has got it right. The Liberals got it wrong, so wrong, and there is evidence everywhere we look in the energy sector in Alberta. There are more socio-economic crises in Alberta than I have ever seen. I have never seen so many problems, whether it is in downtown Red Deer, Calgary or Edmonton. There is rural crime. Our entire economy is in shambles. Of Alberta's workforce, 11% work directly in the oil and gas sector. Direct foreign investment in this country since 2015 has plummeted to half of what it was prior to the last election. Virtually all of it is in the oil and gas or energy sectors. These are critical numbers that need to be paid attention to.

While we in this House would all agree that we want the buy-in and support of first nations, nobody in this House would argue that we want to rape, pillage and plunder our environment. Coming from a province that has built tens if not hundreds of thousands of kilometres of pipelines, I know that this is the smartest and most sensible way to diversify our market access for a product that generates more wealth than any other sector of our Canadian economy.

This report unfortunately is simply a whitewash of the philosophy of the current government and does not accurately reflect it. Why on earth would the Liberals kill the goose that is laying the golden egg like they are doing right now?

[Paul Lefebvre]

Mr. Speaker, at the end of the day, we are making sure that we proceed in the right way, as the Federal Court of Appeal has instructed us to do.

What the Conservatives have proposed today is to ignore the Federal Court of Appeal decision, to basically legislate around it, ignore the consultations with first nations, ignore the environmental concerns that were raised by the Federal Court of Appeal, and do what they had done in the past, which was to dictate with a heavy hand how we can bring our resources to new markets. The Conservatives did not build one pipeline to new markets in 10 years. They never got it right. They ignored the environment. They ignored the first nations.

We are going to follow the decision of the Federal Court of Appeal. We respect the courts. We will make sure we engage meaningfully with first nations and that we are protecting the environment at the same time.

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

Mr. Speaker, with respect to the discussions that were just presented, just reading through the footnotes we recognize that it was in early 2016 that these discussions took place. Recognizing that this report is two years old, there is a lot that has changed in the last two years. We thought we would be working with the U.S. and that carbon taxes would be in place. Keystone had not been approved. These are the kinds of things that are taking place. It is as though the member believes that this is a snapshot of today. What we are talking about is what set the stage for all of the discussions and the concerns, and especially the disastrous Bill C-69 that is being presented. I wonder if the member can bring us back to the mindset there was two years ago, and why some of these thoughts need to be updated.

[Paul Lefebvre]

Mr. Speaker, the member talked about what has changed in the past years. Actually, in Canada there are over 500,000 new full-time jobs that have been created, however, I recognize that in Alberta the sector is not as active as it was in the past. At the same time, the price of oil went from $100 a barrel to $30 a barrel. I know the Conservatives would like us to be the ones that changed this because we are Liberals, but that is not how the economy works. That is not how the markets work.

We need to have new markets. We need to diversify where our resources are being sold. Under the Conservatives, we had one client and that was the United States and 99% of the oil produced in this country was being sent to the United States and then sold back to us. At the end of the day, we were losing billions of dollars. Both parties agree that we need to do something. The opposition members just want to ram it through. We want to get it right because on future projects we want to make sure that there is a reliable system, that we can be respectful of our indigenous communities and at the same time respect the environment and make sure that we get it right.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to my colleague. I would first like to congratulate him on his appointment.

I would like my colleague to correct the record with respect to the Trans Mountain pipeline. At this time, 99% of our resources are exported to the United States. That is a little-known fact. We definitely need to open up new markets. I wonder if my colleague could explain this to the people in my riding.

It is also important to emphasize that the environment and the economy go together. I would like him to talk about how we are delivering on the promises made to first nations. Lastly, I wonder if he could talk about the jobs that will be created here in Canada thanks to the pipeline project.

[Paul Lefebvre]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question, and would also like to congratulate her on her new appointment.

Clearly, our natural resources are an extremely important economic engine for Canada. Canadians must know that, with respect to our energy resources, 99% of oil is sold directly to the United States. They dictate the price.

At the same time, it is a very important economic issue that impacts middle-class jobs. Moreover, it is a sector that employs many of this region's indigenous people. It is an economic issue for first nations and for the general population. There will be major economic benefits.

The Conservatives' approach consists of issuing gag orders and forcing the issue. The New Democrats' approach is to do nothing and to leave natural resources in the ground starting with oil and gas, and then lumber and minerals. We do not know what their plan is because they do not have one.

We want to ensure that we strike a balance between the economy and environmental protection. We want Canada to regain its position and to become one of the world's leading energy producers once again.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to rise this evening to speak to the motion to concur in the second report of the Standing Committee on Natural Resources, a report on the future of and innovation in Canada's oil and gas sector. I will not comment on the arcane procedures and strategies in this place that see us debating a committee report a full two years after it was tabled in the House, but I am pleased to be able to take it off the shelf, dust it off and see what is in there, especially in light of more recent events.

The New Democrats submitted a supplementary opinion on the report when it was tabled, so I will be referencing that when I discuss some of our concerns. Our first concern was with the scope of the study and the subsequent report. We had hoped that there would have been a good discussion on the opportunities in other parts of the energy sector, a discussion about innovation, job opportunities, investments and particularly the emerging renewable energy industry. Renewable energy offers significant opportunities for the creation of good jobs in every community across Canada and much of what is happening there is the very definition of “innovation”, but, unfortunately, that topic was not included in the study.

During the study, committee members heard a lot about innovation in the oil and gas industry and some of it was truly encouraging. We heard from Canada's Oil Sands Innovation Alliance, COSIA. In the model that COSIA put forward, a group of private companies put aside the usual proprietary nature of research and information to create a true alliance in which all members have access to successful innovations that could result in oil extraction methods that are both more economical and better for the environment. That is really exciting to witness. Unfortunately, we heard that many of these innovations would only be implemented in new projects, projects that are waiting for higher oil prices before they will proceed. I truly hope that the COSIA model will be extended to other industry sectors because of the way it amplifies innovation through quick adoption throughout the sector.

I would also like to echo the sentiments of Gil McGowan, the president of the Alberta Federation of Labour, in that we have to be more than hewers of wood and drawers of water, that we need to develop value-added industries within the oil and gas and other resource sectors. He testified, “we should prioritize value-added development, because these kinds of investments not only create jobs directly in upgrading, refining, and petrochemicals but also create other jobs.” I would add that these investments create jobs that are not as subject to the volatility of global oil prices and create products that will be needed during our transition to a low-carbon economy.

We not only need to be innovative in how we extract and use resources, we need to be innovative in how we regulate the extraction of those resources. I think everyone here would agree that we now have a complete lack of public confidence in our energy regulation process. Nanos Research has published data showing that only 2% of Canadians think we are doing a good job in that regard.

Professor Monica Gattinger of the University of Ottawa testified before committee about her positive energy program, a research group dedicated to studying ways to depolarize the public debate around the oil and gas sector, particularly with regard to pipelines. The supplementary report states:

We believe it is essential that the lack of public confidence in the current environmental assessment process be addressed by permanent, meaningful changes to the National Energy Board process as soon as possible. New Democrats believe that the proposed interim measures introduced by the government are inadequate to address the results of a decade of Conservative dismantling of our environmental protection regime. We share the concern expressed by witness Professor Monica Gattinger that if the process goes ahead without the existing gaps being meaningfully addressed, the end result will further erode public confidence in the entire assessment regime.

The supplementary report goes on to say:

We are disappointed that the majority report fails to recommend a speedy review of the NEB process as this had been a clear electoral commitment of the new government. We are disappointed that the newly announced review panel process contains no timeline for actual legislative changes leaving the Conservatives inadequate process in place and creating uncertainty for all stakeholders. We recommend that the government move faster to make the necessary permanent changes to the NEB assessment process to restore public confidence and ensure that it is fair, neutral, science based and designed to meaningfully engage communities.

Where are we now? Shortly after this report was tabled in the House, the government granted permission for the Trans Mountain expansion pipeline to proceed, and a few weeks ago, the Federal Court of Appeal quashed those approvals. The court cited two significant failures: the government failed to consider the environmental impact of the project on coastal marine environment, and the consultations with first nations were completely inadequate. The government officials who met with first nations groups were mere note-takers who mistakenly believed that neither they nor cabinet had the authority to change the findings of the National Energy Board in the consultation process.

What did they think consultation was about? If they thought it was about noting the concerns of first nations and telling the first nations they had no power to change anything with regard to the pipeline, that is not consultation. Consultation is listening and then acting on concerns, trying to make accommodations.

Here is what our first supplementary report had to say about first nations consultation:

The Government must also act quickly to honour its obligations to a Nation to Nation relationship with Indigenous peoples including proper consultation and accommodation on all energy projects and the protection of Indigenous rights. During testimony, industry representatives were clear about the importance of fixing the consultation process sooner rather than later. The Government of Canada, as representative of the Crown, is responsible for these duties and while proponents of projects should be a part of this process, we believe these responsibilities should not be devolved to proponents to fulfill, as was too often the case under the former Conservative government. The Government must take a much larger, hands-on role in creating the environment in which meaningful consultation can take place.

The supplementary report goes on to support Bill C-262, which would ensure that federal legislation is consistent with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. This bill was brought forward by our colleague in the NDP caucus, the member for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou. While we are happy to report that Bill C-262 has passed through the House of Commons, we were disappointed to see that its spirit was not included in Bill C-69, legislation that would implement changes to environmental assessment and energy regulation in Canada.

Here we are two years after this report was tabled. The NDP was criticized back then for its call to redo the Trans Mountain expansion process under a proper system. Critics said it would take too long, maybe another year or two. Here we are two years later back at square one. The decision of the Federal Court of Appeal is a reminder that we have to put in the effort at the start. There are no shortcuts.

I mentioned Nanos Research earlier that noted the pitifully poor state of Canadians' confidence in our energy regulation system, but it did point out there was a way forward. The polling data demonstrated that if the Canadian government could show it was consulting properly with indigenous communities by asking local communities about these decisions and developing a meaningful consultation process, Canadians would have more confidence in the procedure. There is a way forward.

I just want to read out some of the testimony from a witness representing the Indigenous Health Alliance who criticized the National Energy Board in particular for not engaging indigenous peoples early enough in its regulatory approval processes. He recommended the following measures to improve indigenous community engagement, which come right out of the main body of the report we are discussing tonight:

Early engagement of indigenous communities in the NEB process—by involving indigenous communities in “the problems, solutions and implementation strategies of any resource development project at the earliest reasonable opportunity”;

Acknowledging the multidimensional nature of resource development issues—by recognizing that resource development projects involve broader considerations related to education, health, economic development, the environment, etc. He stated that a consultation process that does not acknowledge and address these issues clearly will ultimately fail to address the real problems;

Including community leadership, namely elders, in the decisionmaking process—by recognizing elders as a stakeholder group that should be directly involved in setting the project agenda;

Acknowledging that indigenous peoples are reasonable and pragmatic about resource development—they are likely to support approval processes that respect their community-based needs;

Involving communication and consultation experts—ones that could accurately interpret and convey community concerns to governments and project developers; and

Recognizing indigenous peoples as a “third level of government” in Canada—which is how they are functionally recognized by the court system.

We have significant natural resources in Canada and they have always been central to our country's wealth. However, we must ensure that these shared resources are managed in the best interests of all Canadians, with a focus on protecting the environment, ensuring meaningful consultation with affected communities and indigenous peoples and maximizing economic benefits.

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

Mr. Speaker, one of the things mentioned, and I know this is a concern for the NDP, had to do with Kinder Morgan and the issues associated with that. The fact is that both he and I are now shareholders in this project. The $4.5 billion that was spent on a $2.5 billion project and the fact that the extra $2 billion are now available for Kinder Morgan to build pipelines that are now competition to us has raised some of the concerns.

My concern as a Conservative and as someone from Alberta is how we will get our natural resources to tidewater. That is a critical part of it. Perhaps some people in the NDP do not see it exactly the same way, but nevertheless that is an opportunity for us to ensure our citizens have the things they need.

Could the member talk about the issue of the competition we have created in the U.S., with our own money?

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

Mr. Speaker, this is another one of those things that brings Conservatives and the NDP together, the sale of Trans Mountain by Kinder Morgan to the people of Canada. Who knew we wanted to be shareholders in a pipeline.

I could talk all night about this, but I will try to be brief.

First, what has this accomplished? What did we get for our $4.5 billion? We got past the May 31 deadline. However, with the factors that Kinder Morgan was concerned about, it was ready to walk away from this project, or so we were led to believe. However, none of those were fixed by spending $4.5 billion. We ended up with an old leaky pipeline.

With respect to the competition, now we have the government owning a pipeline and trying to get permission for the pipeline. There is a big conflict of interest there. How can the government assure the first nations groups that have concerns about this that they will get a fair hearing? The government says that it owns the pipeline, that it will get the project done and, by the way, that it will consult with first nations groups. There are real conflict of interest issues there.

From my point of view, the other issues are around subsidies to fossil fuel industries. Canada signed on, through the G7 and G20, with a promise to eliminate fossil fuel subsidies over the next few years. Now we have bought a pipeline.

I was in Argentina with the then-minister of natural resources at a G20 meeting. The whole theme of the meeting was the grand transition to a low-carbon future. The minister had to get up and, in his little three-minute spiel on where Canada was, say that we bought a pipeline and try to explain why this was not a subsidy to the oil and gas industry, especially when we paid $4.5 billion, as the member pointed out, for a project that was worth, at best, $2 billion.

There is a lot of very problematic parts to this purchase of the pipeline. A lot people who talk to me about it want to know what we could have done better with $4.5 billion that would have made Canada ready for the future of the energy industry and a low-carbon future.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to my colleague.

When we have natural resources such as oil and natural gas, we have to work very hard at being innovative when it comes to the environment. What does my colleague suggest we do to open other markets and sell our natural resources elsewhere at a better price? Currently 99% of these resources go directly to the United States because we have no other solutions.

My colleague says that pipelines are not safe. Does he believe that it would be better to use trucks or the railways? In Quebec, everyone remembers the train accident in Lac-Mégantic. We are going to double the pipeline and it will be safe. It will be a new pipeline.

I would like my colleague's thoughts on that.

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

Mr. Speaker, with regard to the issue of getting a better price for our resources, we hear this all the time from the government, from the Conservatives and from industry that we need this pipeline to tidewater to get a better price. That pipeline has been at tidewater since before I was born, in 1953. Very little beyond a token test amount has ever been shipped to any other place than the United States. Why is that? Because we get the best price from the United States.

There was a great article in an Alberta oil magazine, which might be called “Alberta oil”, on why California was the place we should be selling our oil. That is where the refineries are built for our type of oil. It is where refineries are getting short of oil from other sources such as Mexico, Alaska and California. We would get a very good price there compared with any price we might get in Asia.

We only have to look at the price Mexico gets for its oil. It is the same heavy, somewhat dirty oil we have, and it sells its oil at a discount because people around the world, the markets, do not really want that kind of oil. Therefore, it is sold to California.

We have to regard that argument as somewhat specious and realize that selling oil to the United States is not a bad thing. We are required to sell oil to the United States through our NAFTA agreement and the proportionality clause. That is something which should be taken away from this discussion.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague, who is also from British Columbia, for his work within our party as the natural resources critic. We already have a pipeline to tidewater, and 99% of the exports from the Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain pipeline go to California. I have yet to see credible evidence of all these buyers who are lining up to buy our oil when it is all going to California at this moment. I do not think a threefold increase is going to change that.

Climate change is arguably the issue of the 21st century. How we react to it, how we chart a course is going to define how life on this earth is going to follow through. We can either be reactive and have the force changed upon us or we can chart a course forward that is bold and visionary. I have yet to see a credible argument from the government side or from the Conservatives on how building this pipeline and its ensuing emission increases is going to help us meet our goal.

Ultimately, what this argument is about is the production of energy. I would like to hear what we can do to help the workers in Alberta take advantage of where the 21st century economy is going to be, use those skills like pipefitting, welding and heavy duty construction, and ensure they are well prepared for where Canada needs to be in the latter half of the 21st century.

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

Mr. Speaker, again, I would like to mention something I heard at the G20 energy meetings in Argentina from the U.K. minister who pointed out, in three great points, what the U.K. had been doing to make this transition.

The first one was around legislated targets, legislated climate action targets. The Liberals have chosen targets that are the same as the Conservatives. We think they are inadequate and they will not even meet them because they did not legislate those targets.

The second one was putting money where its mouth was and really making bold investments in the new energy technology. We just spent $4.5 billion buying a pipeline. We could have spent $4.5 billion in clean energy. We could have put $2 billion into electric vehicle infrastructure and in incentives across the country to change the way we would do transportation and invest in building retrofits. However, we chose not to. All of those would create great jobs.

I get lobbied all the time by the Canadian Home Builders Association, saying it could have great high-paying jobs if building retrofits were brought back.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak this evening. I will be speaking in English so please forgive me if I make a few mistakes.

The great philosopher Yogi Berra once said, “It's like déjà vu all over again.” He could have been talking about this debate, because it seems we are just going around in circles here, with many of us saying the same thing in different ways.

Our government has already endorsed the House committee's report on the future of Canada's oil and gas sector. Why? It is because the committee was right when it concluded that the future of the industry is tied to innovation, sustainable solutions and new economic opportunities. Who would disagree with that?

However, the critics in the House say, “Yes, but what about the upstream greenhouse gas emissions? Why are we including them in the review of oil and gas projects? What about the uncertainty facing the industry with respect to environmental assessments? What about recognizing that Canada has a world-leading regulatory regime and an internationally renowned track record? What about the United States' transformation from being our main customer to our biggest competitor?”

On each count we say, that is what we have been addressing over the course of our mandate. We have been addressing existing problems and tackling the challenges that continue to emerge. One key way we have been doing that is by bringing forward legislation, Bill C-69, to make environmental assessments and regulatory reviews timelier, more transparent and more predictable. We get it. Investment certainty is critical to the energy sector's future, and Bill C-69 would provide that, with better rules for a better Canada.

However, again, the critics argue, “Yes, but why are you singling out the oil and gas industry by including upstream greenhouse gas emissions for pipeline projects?” We are not. It is just the opposite. Everything we have been doing, from Bill C-69 to the pan-Canadian framework on clean growth and climate change, is aimed at strengthening Canada's economy and creating jobs for the low-carbon future. That includes our oil and gas industry and all the other resource sectors that are the backbone of the Canadian economy.

Here is a fact that is not widely known. Natural resources account for 47% of Canada's merchandise exports. That is almost half our total merchandise exports. There is no getting around it. Our natural resource industries are not just the historic foundation of our economy, they are helping to drive our future prosperity, and in a world increasingly looking for sustainably produced products, Canada is unmatched. We have a huge natural advantage, and our government is determined to build on that competitive edge by making sure that Canada can take on the world in this clean-growth century and win.

However, again, the critics argue, “That is all well and good, but you have to realize that our oil and gas industry is now competing with the United States. You have to do something about that.” Again, we say that they are right, and we are doing something about it. It is right there in the Prime Minister's mandate letter to the Minister of Natural Resources. The Prime Minister asked the minister to identify opportunities to support workers and businesses in the natural resource sectors that are seeking to export their goods to global markets.

The Trans Mountain expansion project is part of that, part of our plan to diversify markets, improve environmental safety and create thousands of good middle-class jobs, including jobs in indigenous communities. That is why the Minister of Natural Resources just announced the first step in our efforts to make sure that any expansion of the Trans Mountain pipeline proceeds in the right way. When 99% of Canada's oil exports are destined for the United States, it just makes sense for us to seek other buyers for our resources. The problem is that there was not a single pipeline built to tidewater in the decade before we formed government. We have to address that, and we are.

Before anyone watching thinks we are doing all of this alone, let me make this clear. Canada's oil and gas industry is working hard investing in innovation, improving its environmental performance, building new partnerships and creating new opportunities. The oil sands are a great example. They are one huge innovation project. Nobody figured out how to get oil out of sand until Canadians created the technology, and that ingenuity continues today through Canada's Oil Sands Innovation Alliance. It is a partnership of Canada's thirteen largest producers, all of them working together to ensure the industry's sensible growth and to accelerate its environmental performance. To date, those 13 companies have invested more than $1.3 billion to develop more than a thousand distinct new technologies and innovations, such as using the latest in artificial intelligence to pinpoint where to inject steam, and how much, to maximize the return of oil, or developing technology that could reduce CO₂ emissions from the steam generation process to almost zero within five years.

Our government is working with them, supporting their efforts through our CanmetEnergy lab in Devon, Alberta, through our oil and gas clean-tech program and through our clean energy innovation program. We do that because our job is to make sure that Canada is developing its resources in the most environmentally responsible ways possible and using them in the most sustainable ways possible. That is exactly what we are doing. We are investing, for example, in the latest carbon capture technologies and are supporting centres of excellence in Alberta and B.C. and coming up with innovative ways to turn carbon dioxide into commercial products, everything from concrete and plastic to fish food and even toothpaste. Members may have recently read about the promising pilot project just north of Vancouver, where they are actually grabbing carbon dioxide out of the air and turning it into a replacement for gasoline.

The bottom line is that the low-carbon economy is not just the challenge of our generation, it is the opportunity of a lifetime. We are seizing this opportunity and making Canada a global leader.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would just like to comment briefly on one of the recommendations of this report. I would like to bring this back to the report, because that is what we are talking about here. Recommendation number four is that:

the Government of Canada address the broader issue of public trust in the energy sector, by fostering more transparency and public engagement in resource development decisions, and recognizing Canada’s strong environmental regulations and the work of the national regulators.

After this report was written, in the spring of 2016, the government, when it was assessing the Trans Mountain expansion project, sent out a ministerial panel on a whirlwind tour through British Columbia. There was very little lead time to let people know where the panel was going to be and when. The members did not write anything down at all at these meetings. There was no record kept of what was said. However, at the end of the day, the minister and the panel put out a report, and one of the questions it asked was just that, on climate action. The report said that the government must answer this question before making its decision on the Trans Mountain expansion: how does the government square building this pipeline and expanding oil sands production in Canada with our Paris commitments to lower our carbon emissions across Canada?

All the experts across this country would say that we are not going to meet those inadequate targets the way things are, let alone if production expands. I just wondered if the member could comment on that.