Debates of June 18th, 2019

Motion That Debate Be Not Further Adjourned

[Marc Garneau, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Westmount, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. We certainly did think and reflect carefully on this bill for quite some time. As members know, when the bill went to the other place, the Conservative-led Senate committee tried to kill this bill. We could talk about that for a very long time.

I would like to thank the independent senators on the Senate committee and all the senators who voted to keep this bill alive, because it was one of our campaign promises in 2015. Some senators came back to us with a very thoughtful amendment in an attempt to seek a compromise. We accept a large part of the amendment, which we will send back to the Senate. We hope it will accept it. The main point is that we agree to the proposal for a parliamentary review of the bill five years after it is adopted.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Madam Speaker, I support the bill, but I am absolutely boggled by the hypocrisy shown by the Liberals. They say that they are trying to protect the north coast, but the announcement that was made just an hour ago would absolutely destroy the south coast of British Columbia by increasing tanker traffic through the Trans Mountain boondoggle. We basically get a ship a day going through very narrow passages. The likelihood of a spill within a very short period is absolute. That threatens thousands of jobs in the fisheries and in tourism in southern British Columbia.

We have a government that on the one hand is invoking closure, saying it will protect a part of the coast, while actively working to destroy the rest of the coast. It does not even make financial sense. They want to pour in $17 billion of taxpayer money into something that, ultimately, for British Columbia, will mean 60 full-time permanent jobs once the construction phase is finished.

The question is very simple. Why are they destroying the southern coast?

[Marc Garneau, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Westmount, QC]

Madam Speaker, I do not accept the premise of the question. As we all know, my dear colleagues in the NDP have never understood the fact that we take an approach that is balanced between moving forward with the economy, but also taking a very responsible attitude with respect to the environment.

Having said that, I want to thank NDP members who, in May 2018, voted in favour of the moratorium of Bill C-48. I want to also point out one particular member, the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley, who has been absolutely fantastic with respect to mobilizing all the support necessary for us to pass this bill. I thank him for that.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Madam Speaker, Bill C-48 is a direct attack on Canada's economy. It will tie up or prevent tanker traffic from travelling in northern B.C.

The problem with this is the hypocrisy at the core, which is this. Venezuelan oil is accepted in Quebec and Saudi Arabian oil is accepted on the east coast. Both of these countries have very few, if any, environmental regulations. Both of these countries treat their citizens with absolute disrespect. Human rights barely, if at all, exist within these countries.

Meanwhile, within our own country, we have a government that wants to tie up the responsible development of the oil industry, thus harming our overall economy and our place on the world stage. Why the hypocrisy?

[Marc Garneau, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Westmount, QC]

Madam Speaker, may I correct a couple of things there? According to a 2018 analysis by the National Bank, 44% of Quebec's oil is sourced from western Canada, with another 37% from the United States. Only 19% comes from overseas, with the largest chunk, 11%, coming from Algeria not from Saudi Arabia. In light of these facts, would the opposition member like to take this opportunity to thank Quebeckers for helping sustain the oil patch in the west through this difficult period caused by a drop in world prices of crude oil?

[Robert-Falcon Ouellette, Liberal, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, I was just reading about the new agreement or what the government just approved. It was allowing the extra earnings from the TMX to fund clean energy transition. This is about striking a balance, and this bill here is about ensuring that there is a balance. I know that there are people there who have—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

Order. The hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby will come to order. If he has other questions or comments, he should wait until I ask for those.

The hon. member for Winnipeg Centre.

[Robert-Falcon Ouellette, Liberal, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, I wish the member for New Westminster—Burnaby could be a bit more polite as I try to offer my thoughts.

Balance is truly something that we need to have. We had this opportunity to hear the minister speak a bit about that balance and how we have to ensure that indigenous peoples also have the opportunity to get jobs and provide for their families and to be part owners of this, having equity and then using those funds to transition to a cleaner and better economy. Striking that balance for each and every Canadian is important.

[Marc Garneau, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Westmount, QC]

Madam Speaker, my colleague really has hit the centre of the bull's eye by talking about the fact that, yes, we are stewards of the environment but we also are very concerned about trying to address economic issues and economic opportunities for first nations. That is essentially the approach that we as a party have taken from the beginning. It is not an either/or issue, where we forget about the environment, like the Conservatives, or in the case of the New Democrats, where we forget about the economy. We have actually, in our opinion, hit the sweet spot by trying to address both.

[Pierre Nantel, NDP, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Madam Speaker, as part of this exchange, I would like to hear the Liberal government explain why it believes that tripling oil sands production will not triple pollution. It could have decided to support Alberta's economy, which I understand, by requiring the increased production to be offset by a decrease in emissions per barrel. However, there is no mention of that. This is an election ploy designed to obfuscate. The government is talking out of both sides of its mouth. I will ask a very straightforward question.

How can the Liberal government believe that tripling production will not triple pollution?

[Marc Garneau, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Westmount, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am tempted to ask my colleague how he gets from Saint-Hubert to Ottawa every week. On foot? No, I doubt he walks all that way.

[Pierre Nantel, NDP, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

That has nothing to do with it. I come here in an electric car.

[Marc Garneau, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Westmount, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would really appreciate it if the member could be quiet for once. Unfortunately—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

I would like to say to the minister that I am capable of determining when someone is out of order. The member recognized that he was not acting appropriately and gave the minister a chance to continue with his answer. I am giving the minister the opportunity to continue so we can move on to another question.

[Marc Garneau, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Westmount, QC]

I apologize, Madam Speaker.

The problem with my colleague is that the only thing that matters to him is the environment. In his eyes, the economy does not count. He talked about campaign speeches. The wealth that flows from our energy sector allows us to build hospitals and schools in Quebec, but he does not talk about that. We are striking a balance between the economy and the environment.

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Madam Speaker, the government's environmental plan is all show and no go. Yesterday, we saw a climate emergency declaration that is all show and no go. That is on top of the fact that today the Liberals brought in a pipeline approval that is all show and absolutely no go. Now, we are dealing with Bill C-48, which is all show and no go. That is on top of the foundation of the Liberals' climate plan, which is a tax plan and not a climate change plan; again, it is all show and no go. Does the minister realize how much of a joke Canadians realize his environmental program actually is?

[Marc Garneau, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Westmount, QC]

Madam Speaker, talking about all show and no go, I think we are at day 420, waiting for the environmental climate change plan that is going to come from the Conservatives. Hopefully, it will come tomorrow. Tomorrow we will find out how they will magically take care of everything with absolutely no impact on anybody. That is the thing I am waiting to hear tomorrow.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am a bit disappointed in the meaningless answer the minister gave to the question from my colleague from Longueuil—Saint-Hubert. He said that we need to build Trans Mountain and triple the pipeline's capacity to export our crude oil because my colleague drives to Ottawa in a car. What a pointless thing to say.

What does the fact that my colleague drives to Ottawa have to do with exporting crude oil from the oil sands, which we buy back as refined oil to fuel our gas-powered cars?

Can he explain his twisted logic?

[Marc Garneau, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Westmount, QC]

Madam Speaker, what I meant was that some people can be naive or hypocritical when it comes to energy. It is important to recognize that we need to look after the environment and the economy at the same time.

Tens of thousands of people rely on the energy sector, and this sector contributes to our country's wealth, allowing us to build schools and hospitals in Quebec. That is the reality, but those who are constantly criticizing energy development never recognize that.

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Hope, BC]

Madam Speaker, when the government cancelled the northern gateway pipeline project and brought in the tanker ban, the Liberals tore $2 billion in equity away from the Aboriginal Equity Partners, $2 billion for aboriginal communities in northern B.C. where there is not much economic development. When we asked Liberals about it, they said they did not even consult them before they brought this in.

There is another project, the Eagle Spirit pipeline, completely indigenous owned, that has been shut down by Bill C-48 and the northern tanker ban. The Nisga'a Nation has expressed interest in having a port for a future pipeline, and the government has shut it down.

Why has the government shut down and torn away so much economic opportunity from indigenous Canadians in northern British Columbia?

[Marc Garneau, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Westmount, QC]

Madam Speaker, I disagree with that characterization of the situation, because there are still plenty of opportunities.

Let me talk about the example of the massive LNG project out of Kitimat. That will provide opportunities for first nations and others along the northern coast. I would also add, again, because people seem to be focused only on the persistent oils, that this is not a ban on non-persistent oils. I would recommend that my colleague check the schedule in Bill C-48 to find out which products are banned. He will also realize that certain products are not banned and can be exported by tanker from the north coast.

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Madam Speaker, the environment is the NDP's priority. We do not have a top priority. We have just one priority.

What the NDP knows, but the Liberals are slow to understand, is that in order to balance the economy and the environment, we also need to transform the economy. If we truly want to talk about a transition, we will eventually have to stop investing in fossil fuels and invest elsewhere.

Does the minister agree that it is time to transform the economy so that we can meet our environmental targets?

[Marc Garneau, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Westmount, QC]

Madam Speaker, that is what we are doing.

Today, when the Prime Minister announced our support for TMX, he also said that all net revenue from this project will be invested in a fund to support the clean energy transition. This is a tangible example. Once everything is in place, we will be looking at hundreds of thousands of dollars a year.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

Madam Speaker, I would suggest that the minister's reference to the products on the schedule confirms what we know about the Liberals' willingness and desire to phase out the oil sands.

The second amendment put forward by the other place to Bill C-48 would have added a new section to the end of the bill. Even though it was not very substantive, at least it was a tip of the hat to the regions that would be most affected by the bill. However, the Liberals gutted this amendment.

Could the minister explain to the House why the rules and regulations that govern the loading and off-loading of oil on Canada's east coast are not good enough for the loading and off-loading of oil on Canada's west coast? Will you simply admit that the bill—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

I have to allow for another question. Also, the hon. member knows that she needs to address her questions and comments to the Chair.

The hon. Minister of Transport.