Debates of Feb. 25th, 2020

Cancellation of Teck Frontier Mine Project

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

No. Give her more time.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Madam Speaker, what is ridiculous is that that member would stand in this House and try to pretend that multi-billion dollar companies making multi-billion dollar, high-risk, capital-intensive, long-term investments actually base their decision on the spot price of oil on a daily basis. I mean how ridiculous. Are these guys actually serious? In this country this is the most—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

The hon. member for Jonquière.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, in her speech, my colleague began by saying that oil was the future of Canada. To me, that future seems bleak. At times I got the impression that she was talking about oil the way we might talk about water, air or agriculture. There is something essential in life and that is the ecosystem we live in. The energy transition happening today makes fossil fuels no longer—

[An hon. member]

Did you walk here?

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Can you be quiet, please?

Madam Speaker, I get the impression that Alberta's big problem is that it put all its eggs in one basket, namely, oil.

Albertans have never given a thought to economic diversification. Today they are still asking that we—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

My colleague needs to calm down, take it easy.

[An hon. member]

It is the Speaker's job.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Yes, and it is not an MP's job.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

I ask members to allow the hon. member to ask his question.

I would ask hon. members on both sides of the House to be respectful. We must allow the hon. member to ask his question, but I would also ask him to be respectful.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, may I finish?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

Yes, go ahead.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, would my colleague agree that the problem is that there is no economic diversification in Alberta?

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Madam Speaker, that is one of the great myths spun by the left both inside and outside Alberta. If one would actually look at the facts on diversity across the workforce, one would see that Alberta has long been the province with the third most diversified economy in the country. That is what happens when you have pro-business policies in a legal framework.

Here is my concern. First of all, I am glad the member has realized that oil and gas is a natural resource. I agree with him. Here is the fact. The energy sector is the sector that is regulated the most by all three levels of government in this country.

When these lefty Liberal politicians try to say that the issue is market conditions and business decisions, it shows they have no understanding at all about it. They do not understand that legal policy and political, fiscal and regulatory frameworks are what set the potential market conditions to attract or, in our case, drive businesses out of Canada. This is all for the United States to leave us in the dust, and for the dirtiest energy producers in the world to keep skyrocketing to meet global demand? It is ridiculous.

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

Madam Speaker, the House has only been sitting again for two weeks and this is the second emergency debate that we have had. I do not think I have seen that in my 11 years of being here. We have had two emergency debates on two perhaps similar issues, but they are also different. What is happening to our country when we are at such a crisis point that we have had to have this kind of debate week after week?

So far the government has managed, in terms of the oil industry alone, to drive $150 billion out of the country. I want to talk about this project specifically, and then I am going to get into a bit of the context for the decision that was made.

Frontier mine was a proposed oil sands mine located between Fort McMurray and Fort Chipewyan in northeast Alberta. The process for this application started nine years ago in 2011, so it has been nine long years and $1 billion spent. It was projected to create 7,000 jobs during construction and another 2,500 during operations. Building the project would have required a $20.6-billion investment, and it would have contributed $70 billion in federal, provincial and municipal taxes over 41 years of production.

We hear about pharmacare programs and dental programs. If the government keeps driving businesses out of this country, we are not going to be able to afford anything.

This project had first nations support. The company had signed agreements with the 14 indigenous groups who live near it, and the latest agreement was made just last weekend before the decision was to be made.

Let me talk about the emissions. In its report on Teck Frontier, the review panel wrote the following:

The project is expected to have emissions that are equivalent to or lower than oil produced in some other jurisdictions. Not permitting oil production from the Frontier project may result in exporting emissions to other jurisdictions with higher emission intensity than the project and increase overall global greenhouse gas emissions on a per barrel basis.

The joint panel review acknowledged that there would be some environmental impacts. I have been to the oil sands and I have seen the amazing remediation work that has been done in that area. The panel recommended that the project move forward.

This is the panel's statement:

There are credible forecasts that indicate increasing hydrocarbon use globally over the next several decades. Evidence was not provided which demonstrated that oil produced—or not produced—in Canada would reduce domestic or global consumption or the associated carbon emissions.

These are two really important features. What the panel was essentially saying is we are going to continue to need oil and this would be produced in an environmentally reasonable way. The company committed to improving their process.

In November 2011, we had an application. In July 2019 we had a review panel that recommended the approval and then, to be quite frank, the cabinet sat on this for many months with the decision actually being due this week.

On Sunday night many MPs from the west, and I was one of them, got off the plane and heard the news. The immediate thing one does is look at what has happened in those four or five hours of being in the air. It was a stunning outcome to see that Teck had withdrawn its application.

I want to give the House some context for the decision. The government loves to say it was the company that made the decision but let us put this decision in context.

In 2017 the Prime Minister said we need to phase out the oil sands. Whoever thought that he meant to phase them out within a year or 24 months? No one thought that, but obviously that is what he is intending to do.

I would like to contrast this with the Alberta premier, who acknowledged the need for transition, but he said that he hoped that last barrel in the transition period would come from a stable, reliable democracy with some of the highest environmental human rights and labour standards on the earth. He wanted that to be Alberta.

Obviously, the Liberals do not want it to be Alberta. They want it to be Saudi Arabia. While we still need oil, we all recognize the need for transition. However, the government wants to remove that from Canada but not from anywhere else.

What we have next is a caucus revolt. I am going to give the House some quotes.

The MP for Scarborough—Guildwood was quoted as saying Liberal caucus members were “darn close” to unanimous in their opposition to the Teck mine. He guessed that the Prime Minister would not go against the views of caucus.

The MP for Beaches—East York said:

If we are truly committed to net zero by 2050, and to the science, and to the world, and to our future and tackling climate change, there is no explanation sitting here today as to how this project fits within that commitment. So should it proceed as it stands? I think it's a pretty easy no.

He said that the government was listening to caucus MPs voicing opposition. He also said, “They are incredibly serious about consultation with caucus and taking our concerns to heart.”

The MP for Pontiac weighed in and said that we have to meet those standards. He went on to say, “My constituents demand that we meet those, and our grandchildren demand that we meet those.”

The MP for Toronto—Danforth told the Toronto Star that she is concerned about the damaging impacts of the project on wildlife and old growth forest and that she questions whether the project would compromise the government's net-zero pledge. She also said that from everything she has read about the Teck Frontier project she does not think it should go ahead.

The MP for Kingston and the Islands actually paid money to boost a petition against the oil sands.

What we see is the majority of Liberal caucus members, as they themselves report, being against this particular project. Then we hear that the Liberals are preparing an aid package for Alberta in case this project does not go ahead.

As members are aware, there has been an incredibly weak and poor handling of the Coastal GasLink project, which has created issues across the country. The government is not managing to deal with it, so I think it feared having to make another decision that might have gone against the activists. Again, I have to say that the government continues to fail to recognize that if we do not produce the oil it is going to be produced elsewhere.

With the current government, the Prime Minister saw the writing on the wall. It is very clear he did not want to make a decision. What I have learned in this business is that things do not happen by magic. It was absolutely no coincidence when all of a sudden there was a decision not to go ahead with that project and that it was going to be withdrawn. We all would love to have been a fly on the wall for the conversation between the Prime Minister and the CEO of the company before that decision was made. There is no coincidence in this kind of business.

The Prime Minister says that he does not direct the RCMP. However, is it not interesting how the RCMP took no action on the current blockades until he said that those blockades had to come down. Is it not interesting that he does not want to make a decision about this particular project and all of a sudden a decision is made for him.

From the SNC-Lavalin affair, we all remember the statements about the Prime Minister being in “that kind of mood”. In this case, he has a crisis on his hands. It is happening throughout the country and he has dealt with it poorly. He also has an important project that he does not want to make a decision on. He has a caucus revolt and then, by coincidence, the company decides to withdraw its application.

This is a shame. It has certainly worried us incredibly on our side of the House. It is certainly not fair that Alberta is hurt and penalized and that we continue to look at Saudi Arabia and other places to import our resources from. It is wrong and the government should be ashamed.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

There is a lot of interest in the subject, so please restrict your questions to very precise ones so we can have as many questions as possible.

The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change.

[Peter Schiefke, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for the passion she showed. This is obviously a very important issue for her, her constituents, all Albertans and all Canadians.

I am hoping that tonight in this emergency debate we can have constructive dialogue and talk about how we can specifically respond to the letter put forward by Don Lindsay, the CEO of Teck, and his call for greater balance between protecting the environment and having a greater framework with regard to climate change that would allow for projects like this to move forward.

I am wondering if my hon. colleague could perhaps share with this House what she is proposing and what the Conservative Party of Canada is proposing. Perhaps she can share some discussions she has had with the Conservatives in Alberta with regard to taking action on climate change to ensure we can develop these resources in a way that allows us to meet our Paris climate targets and allows us to create jobs, as the hon. member mentioned.

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

Madam Speaker, perhaps that was a puzzling aspect of the letter that was written, because it is the framework that the government has put in place. It is the goalpost that the company agreed to meet. It was the Premier of Alberta who made significant commitments in terms of where he was willing to go, what he was willing to do to make sure the project happened. What really has to worry us, by suggesting that Canada has an unstable framework, is looking at where else oil is produced in the world. I would suggest that our framework and our emissions are some of the best in the world.

For those who suggest that we can do better, we absolutely can. However, this project had gone the mile and the premier had gone the mile. Clearly it did not matter what mile they ran, the caucus over there wanted to say no.

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

Madam Speaker, I commend the member on her speech.

However, I have to wonder about the fact that Canada imports oil from Saudi Arabia. Canada produces so much oil that, in addition to meeting Canadian demand for oil, it is our biggest export. We are the fourth-largest producer in the world.

The message sent by Teck Resources, a private company, is that the market has dried up and it is time to begin diversifying our economy. Alberta needs to diversify its economy.

Why not do it now? This is the perfect opportunity.

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

Madam Speaker, no company goes through nine years of process and tens of billions of dollars and then, four days before a decision is due, decides to pull the plug on the business plan. Obviously people are in it for the long haul.

Yes, we do need to change in terms of our environmental process. We do need a transition, but why are members of the Bloc, the NDP and the Liberals not willing to say “Canada, we stand proudly behind you and we will be the last barrel of oil that gets extracted”?

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

Madam Speaker, Teck is a huge employer in my riding. The Trail smelter is one of the biggest smelters in the world and I meet with Teck on a regular basis, every year or more than that. For the last five years, I have been hearing from Teck about the Trail operation, about its coal operations in southeast B.C. and about the oil sands projects it has on the go. It has always prefaced the discussion about the oil sands project by saying that the price of oil is paramount and it just does not see a way forward at this time.

Don Lindsay's letter mentions that it is difficult to get investments from various institutions because they want to see how this project fits in with the climate action. Those are the things that are driving this, and it is not the spot price of oil. The price of oil was predicted not to go above $60 or $70 for the next 20 years.

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

Madam Speaker, the company did not pull out four days before a decision was to be made because of the price of oil. The company had looked at the price and was in there. It wrote a letter to say why it pulled out. I did not see anywhere within that letter the price of oil. However, we do know all the circumstances and the context that surrounded its decision, which I outlined in my speech.

The decision around the price of oil and whether a company is to move forward is a business decision for it. What we are responsible for is to make decisions in a timely way based on the science of the project. The government sat on its hands and was unwilling to do this. As I said, I would have loved to be a fly on the wall for that telephone call between the CEO and the Prime Minister.

[Jonathan Wilkinson, Liberal, Minister of Environment and Climate Change]

Madam Speaker, Canada's economy, among the 10 most prosperous in the world, was built in part by the wealth provided by our natural resources. Our resource sector provides tens of thousands of well-paying middle-class jobs to hard-working Canadians from coast to coast to coast.

At the same time, we know that the global fight against climate change to protect our natural environment and biodiversity are among the most pressing issues we face as human beings. Climate change is the existential threat of our age. It calls for effective, lasting action and clear-eyed, pragmatic policies that will measurably reduce Canada's greenhouse gas emissions over the years to come.

Canadians are increasingly recognizing the magnitude of the climate crisis.

Going forward, thoughtful Canadians understand that economic progress will need to take place within the frame of environmental sustainability. Certainly, in the case of the oil and gas sector, the investment community is telling all of us that future growth and prosperity will require reductions in our carbon emissions and overall environmental footprint.

The latest scientific report from the IPCC indicates that human activities have already caused 1° of global warming above pre-industrial levels. If global emissions continue to rise at their current rate, the world could see a 3° rise in warming by 2100.

The implications of this are very real. On average, Canada is warming twice as fast as the rest of the world. A warmer climate will intensify weather extremes, result in sea level rises and reduce the amount of snow, ice and fresh water. Heatwaves will increase and contribute to droughts and wildfires.

It is no wonder that youth around the world are fed up with our generation not acting on the science we have before us and question whether they see a future in which they can contemplate having children of their own.

In the 2019 election, Canadians overwhelmingly voted for parties that offered ambitious climate plans.

The international community has also been coalescing around the issue, with 77 countries now committed to achieving net-zero by 2050. Our election platform reflected those concerns. During the campaign, we committed to two key climate policies: exceeding our target of 30% below 2005 levels by 2030, and achieving net-zero emissions by 2050.

We have made a lot of progress since 2015. For the first time since then, our greenhouse gas emissions are dropping.

Early in our first mandate we developed the pan-Canadian framework on clean growth and climate change, the first real climate plan this country has ever had. It contains over 50 different measures, from phasing out coal, to major investments in public transit and electric vehicle infrastructure, to energy efficiency for buildings and industries.

We invested over $3 billion to scale up clean technology and put in place a national price on pollution, because there can be no credible plan to fight pollution if polluting is free.

In jurisdictions where the federal pricing system is in place, revenues are returned directly to the people, making 80% of families better off.

Perhaps the most important impact is the opportunity that a price on pollution creates for innovation. It prompts businesses to deploy their engineers and entrepreneurs to find solutions to reduce pollution.

Despite identifying over 200 megatonnes in emissions reductions through the framework, we need to identify an additional 77 megatonnes of emissions reductions just to hit our current 2030 target.

Meeting our 2030 target in itself will be a challenge, but it is a challenge Canada is ready to take on.

Developing a plan aligned with science to achieve net-zero by 2050 will be even harder given our vast geography, northern climate and reliance on a resource economy. What is exciting though is the conversation it allows us to have with provinces, companies and others about pathways for achieving our goal.

Achieving our climate goals requires cross-partisan leadership from every region of the country. We need a national consensus, a real team effort.

The enemy is climate change. It should not be each other.

That national consensus must include Canada's oil and gas sector. It must include provinces and territories. It must include our energy companies, exporters and explorers, and their employees. It must include the millions of Canadians who heat their homes and drive their cars with carbon-based fuels. It must include all of us.

Let me be clear: The Government of Canada remains committed to furthering Canada's natural resource sector to create good middle-class jobs. We recognize that, in the modern world, a strong economy and a clean environment must go hand in hand.

Some say these goals are irreconcilable. I disagree. In my conversations with resource sector leaders and western political leaders, I hear more and more about the importance of Canada to build its brand as the cleanest supplier of resources to remain competitive as the world transitions to a net-zero future. I agree with them.

In a statement issued yesterday, the Calgary Chamber of Commerce stated clearly that:

In order for our [provinces] and our country to thrive, we can and we must be able to lead in natural resource development and solve climate change through innovation. Canadian businesses know this, and the global marketplace is demanding it, yet the rhetoric by political leaders is severely hindering any future progress.

Hard-working families are paying the price.

In its letter to me, Teck also calls on us to develop a framework that reconciles economic development and environmental protection as the only path forward. The letter recognizes that Canada is “uniquely positioned”, with its abundant resources, to be that provider of “climate-smart resources” to global markets.

Canadians have the innovative spirit and know-how to provide the world with the most environmentally and socially responsible resources, and that is what we must strive for.

Canadian energy companies are among the most innovative in the world, and they can lead the way. A number of oil and gas companies, including Shell, Cenovus, CNRL and MEG Energy, have already committed to net-zero, as have companies in other sectors, such as Microsoft.

Achieving net-zero will require an economic and an environmental transformation and the mobilization of significant amounts of private capital. The Government of Canada is committed to working with Alberta, Saskatchewan and the resource sector, to ensure that the best projects get built so that we can create jobs and ensure clean, sustainable growth.

The best projects are those that have the lowest pollution per unit of production, develop a path to net-zero emissions and minimize impacts on biodiversity and the natural environment. In 2020, these conditions are increasingly non-negotiable. Leading money managers and investors like BlackRock are making sustainability and climate risk tenets of their investment strategy. They are pulling their money out of environmentally risky ventures and diverting to sustainable projects.

We are very concerned that times are tough in the resource sector and in Alberta due to market conditions. Let there be no mistake, our government stands with workers in Alberta, and with resource sector workers across the country. That is why we are moving forward with the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion. This project is delivering nearly 3,000 jobs for Albertans today and will peak at 5,500 in the near term, which is important for Alberta and thus for all Canadians.

We also understand, and I believe most Albertans understand, that it is time Canadians had a much deeper and more thorough conversation about how we keep our energy sector competitive in a world moving to net-zero emissions by 2050. This is how we will protect well-paying resource jobs and create opportunities for the future.

The status quo no longer works. Consumers and the investment community are demanding change, and so are industry leaders, and that change must accelerate.

No one has a step-by-step guide to net zero. We must engage Canadians and experts to create credible pathways.

Certainly, a key component will be a focus on clean technology.

Hoping for technology to save us from the hard policy choices required to reduce emissions is not a climate plan. However, a thoughtful approach to clean tech must be a key part of an effective strategy to get to net-zero, and in particular to help us decarbonize key sectors of our economy. In the oil and gas sector, for example, exciting work is going on, not just on carbon capture, but on developing ways to extract energy value from natural resources without carbon pollution.

Canada needs to be the cleanest source of resources as we transition to a low-carbon future, and current projects need to also focus on continuous improvement. Partnering with industry on the development and commercialization of clean-tech solutions will create enormous opportunities to expand exports and jobs.

With sound investments, Canada can be a leader in clean technology. In fact, we already are.

Already, global markets for clean-tech and low-carbon goods and services generate trillions in revenue, and clean tech employs over 180,000 people here in Canada. Beyond taking action domestically, we believe that Canada must also work with like-minded countries to lead internationally.

The enormity of the work ahead requires that people from all backgrounds and all political affiliations pull in the same direction to ensure we can leave a healthy and sustainable world for our children.

Climate change should not be a partisan issue; it is a science issue. We all have a role to play in de-partisanizing climate. A generation ago Canadians were deeply divided about free trade, yet today we have a national consensus on the desirability of free trade in North America and with our international partners. That national consensus offers us a model and an example to follow.

I invite my colleagues from across the House to work with us to tackle the greatest challenges of our time.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his very well read speech. It was certainly one of the best read speeches from the PMO I have heard in a long time.

I have a very simple question. I understand his comments on climate change, but I wonder how the government justifies every day oil being brought into the country from some of the worst human rights abusers in the world, such as Saudi Arabia, Nigeria or Algeria.

In fact, in a Library report, Statistics Canada, reported that in 2018 the government oversaw a quarter of a million barrels of oil brought in from Syria. I know that sounds unbelievable, but this is straight from Statistics Canada. I have asked repeatedly and the people there have confirmed that these numbers are right.

How does the government prioritize money for butchers like al-Assad over regular, everyday workers in Alberta?